Sin and Trespass Offerings: October 2020
Table of Contents
Theme
There are four sacrifices which may be classed as sin offerings, in which the bodies of the animals in question were burned without the camp: the sin offering for the sin of a priest (Lev. 4:1-12), the sin offering for a sin of the whole congregation (Lev. 4:13-21), the red heifer (Num. 19), and the sacrifice on the great day of atonement (Lev. 16).
There was a difference between the sacrifice of the great day of atonement and the sin offerings for a priest’s sin and for the whole congregation. In the sacrifice of the great day of atonement, the blood was carried within the veil, for this was the foundation of all other sacrifices — of all relationship between God and Israel—and enabled God to dwell among them so as to receive the others. Its efficacy lasted throughout the year, and for us it is forever, as the Apostle reasons in the Hebrews. On it was based all the intercourse between God and the people. Hence the blood of it was sprinkled on the mercy seat, to be forever before the eyes of Him, for whom that mercy seat was to be His throne of both grace and righteousness. The perfect acceptance of Christ in His work was preserved in the burning of the fat on the altar of burnt offering. He had been made sin indeed, but also He knew no sin, and His offering in His most inmost thoughts and nature was, in the trial of God’s judgment, perfectly agreeable.
J. N. Darby
The Sin Offering
In a previous issue of The Christian, we have considered the sweet savor offerings. Now we come to what we might call the obligatory offerings — those that were not voluntary, as were the sweet savor offerings, but rather mandatory. In this category we have both the sin and trespass offerings, although the trespass offering was, in one sense, a subdivision of the sin offering. Thus every trespass offering was a sin offering, although every sin offering was not a trespass offering. While the sweet savor offerings occupy us with the excellency of the sacrifice, and thus speak of worship, the sin offering occupies us with meeting the claims of God’s holy nature and the putting away of sin. But we must remember that all these distinctions of the various offerings coalesce in Christ, for in Him it is all one offering. However, in breaking down the work of Christ (in type) in these different offerings, the Spirit of God enables us to understand and value more the details of that supreme sacrifice — Christ Himself.
An important distinction between the voluntary offerings (and particularly the burnt offering) and the sin offering should be mentioned right away, for it is crucial to the understanding of the two categories. In the voluntary offerings, when the offerer laid his hand on the head of the animal, all the excellency of the offering was transferred to the offerer. This typifies to us the precious truth that not only is the believer today cleansed from his sins, but he is also seen as “in Christ.” He stands before God in all the perfection of Christ Himself.
However, when the offerer laid his hand on the head of the sin offering, the transfer went in the other direction: All the sins of the offerer were transferred to the offering. Thus the animal, in type, took the sin of the offerer upon itself, and in its sacrifice the offerer was cleansed from that sin.
Three Types of Sin Offering
There were really three different types of sin offering — the sin and trespass offering, the great day of atonement, and the red heifer. We will not dwell on the type of the red heifer, as this typifies to us restoration to communion rather than the absolute putting away of sin. For a fuller discussion of the red heifer and the subject of repentance and restoration, the reader may refer back to the January 2007 issue of The Christian.
The Day of Atonement
Considering the great day of atonement, again, we will not go into detail here in this article, as it is not, strictly speaking, one of the offerings that is before us in this issue. However, it may suffice to say that there is a difference between the great day of atonement and the sin and trespass offerings. The day of atonement was done yearly and was the basis on which God could go on with His people Israel. As such, it was the basis for every other offering, for on the day of atonement, a foundation was laid for God’s relationship with His chosen people. A bullock was first offered for the priest, for he too was a sinner and needed forgiveness. But then, for the people, there were two goats. One was sacrificed as a sin offering, speaking to us of propitiation — meeting the claims of God’s holy nature. The other was taken into the wilderness and released, and it speaks to us of substitution. The live goat was to “bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:22). Thus were the sins of the children of Israel put away before the Lord.
Sins of Ignorance
But now we have the sin offering — an offering which was necessary from time to time, when sins of ignorance were committed. Likewise, the trespass offering was instituted where a known command had been violated and where specific offenses are mentioned. It was because of the people’s standing before God, on the ground of the day of atonement, that these other sin offerings could be accepted. Thus the sin and trespass offerings took on more of the character of restoration, rather than the absolute putting away of sin. Needless to say, all these sacrifices were done because “the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest” (Heb. 9:8).
We further notice with the sin offering that no provision was made for presumptuous sin, that is, willful disobedience. Forgiveness was only for sins of ignorance. In this we realize that “the law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7:19), for surely we needed forgiveness for presumptuous sins, as well as sins of ignorance. Four different categories of the sin offering are given to us, depending on who had sinned.
Four Categories
In the first two categories, we have the sin of “the priest that is anointed” and a sin that involved the whole congregation. In such types of sin, the communion of the whole congregation would be interrupted, and in both these cases a bullock — a large offering—was necessary. Several details are worthy of note.
First of all, the blood in both cases must be sprinkled seven times “before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary” (Lev. 4:6,17). “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). Sprinkled seven times, the blood speaks of the perfection of the work of Christ in the sight of God.
Second, some of the blood must be put upon the “horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord” (Lev. 4:7,18). The altar of incense spoke of worship, and the blood there preserves the basis of worship, which was interrupted by the sin of a priest or the whole congregation.
Third, the blood of the bullock was poured out at “the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation” (Lev. 4:7,18), speaking of individual approach to God. It was at this altar that the people could approach as individuals, and thus individual conscience was satisfied.
Finally, the whole bullock was taken outside the camp and burned there. This was necessary, for sin can never be, in itself, a sweet savor to God. That which typified our blessed Lord being “made sin” for us must be taken outside the camp and burned there. So also we read in Hebrews 13:11-12: “The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate.”
The Connection of the Sin Offering and Burnt Offering
Yet in the sin offering, the Spirit of God shows us in three ways how the burnt offering and the sin offering are one. First of all, they were both killed in the same place — at the door of the tabernacle, near the altar of burnt offering (Lev. 6:25). Second, the fat of the sin offering was to be burned on the altar, “for a sweet savor unto the Lord” (Lev. 4:31). Third, the ashes of the burnt offering and the sin offering were mingled with one another, as both were eventually put in the same place outside the camp, “where the ashes are poured out” (Lev. 4:12; Lev. 6:9-11). It is in this verse alone (Lev. 4:31) that the words “for a sweet savor” are used with a sin offering, for at the cross of Christ there was not only the putting away of sin, but also glory and honor brought to God through the perfect obedience of that One who bore our sins. This brought out a sweet savor and shows us that the offering is all one — centered in Christ.
For the Ruler – For the People
There are two other sin offerings mentioned — that offered when a ruler sinned and, finally, when one of the common people sinned. In neither of these was the communion of the whole congregation interrupted, so the blood was placed, not on the horns of the altar of incense, but rather on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. As we have already noted, it was to this altar that the people came, and it was here that they could see the blood on the horns of the altar, showing that the sacrifice had been made. They could not have seen it, if the blood had been on the horns of the altar of incense inside the first veil.
Also, we notice in these latter two sin offerings that the offerer himself must kill the animal, thus showing that he was to be fully and completely identified with his offering. It must be personal; he must both lay his hand on its head and then kill it.
We see too that while the offering for a ruler must be a male, the one for one of the common people was female, showing us that the greater energy was needed for a ruler, in keeping with the greater responsibility in his sin.
Allowance for Poverty
Finally, and most precious, we see in the sin of the common people how that God made allowance for poverty. He might bring a female goat, but perhaps he could afford only a lamb; that was acceptable. In the case of a sin offering for a trespass, the allowance for poverty went even further, to turtledoves or pigeons, or perhaps only a small amount of fine flour.
The estimate and value of the work of Christ varies considerably from one believer to another. Some have a large understanding of that work, while others have a very simple and limited view of it. God makes provision for this, and He illustrates it by material poverty in the Old Testament; in the New Testament some may be spiritually poor. But God’s eye rests on Christ, and it is God’s estimate of that work that is important. Thus in the New Testament there are only a few verses that connect our faith and belief with the work of Christ, while there are a great many that connect faith with the Person of Christ. The work of Christ is important, for an understanding of His work gives greater peace and rest to the soul and a richer appreciation of all that He has done for us. But if Christ only is appropriated by a believer, with very little understanding of His work, God accepts that, for in having Christ Himself, the believer has all the value of His work before God.
In dealing with the sin offering, we have, for the sake of space, had to go over some details rather lightly. We regret this, but trust that a reference to some of these details may stimulate us to look into them further, and thus to appreciate more the value of that One of whom it could be said, “Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10).
W. J. Prost
The Law of the Sin Offering
“Jehovah spake to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This [is] the law of the sin offering” (Lev. 6:24). “In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, the sin offering shall be slaughtered before Jehovah: it [is] most holy. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it; it shall be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. Whatsoever toucheth the flesh thereof shall be holy; and if there be sprinkled of the blood thereof on a garment, that whereon it was sprinkled thou shalt wash in a holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it was sodden shall be broken; and if it was sodden in a copper vessel it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it [is] most holy. And no sin offering whereof blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy [place] shall be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire” (Lev. 6:25-30, trans. by WK).
No slight even in appearance could be tolerated in the sin offering. Undoubtedly it had a character as remote as possible from the burnt offering, as the burnt offering was to impart acceptance, while the sin offering dealt with positive sin. But the sin offering must be slaughtered before Jehovah in the place where the burnt offering was slaughtered. So indeed Christ alone was the adequate fulfillment of both in His death on the cross.
He Was Made Sin for Us
God’s grace alone gave Him — one with the Father and His dearest object throughout eternity. On earth too He became flesh, yet He was the Holy One of God. But never was holiness so proven as when God made Him sin for us, who knew no sin. Always absolutely separate to God from all evils and doing nothing but the things which pleased His Father, on the cross He gave Himself up without reserve to God and His glory, to suffer the judgment of sin, cost what it might. It cost Him everything, even what was the most extreme horror to Him who, being His beloved Son, became His righteous Servant, the true and faithful Witness. What was it for Him, abandoned by disciples, rejected by Israel, crucified by Gentiles, to cry, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” The only answer is, “He was made sin for us.”
The Priest Ate It
“The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it.” The offering points to none other than Christ, and in His eating the sin offering is meant His identification with him for whom the offering was presented. If holiness was conspicuous in the victim and righteousness in the judgment executed, what grace was in Christ, thus making the offerer’s sin His own! The offering priest’s eating the sin offering is realized in Christ, but it is as alive again — in resurrection, as here it was directed to be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting.
But verse 29 lets us into a truth far larger than verse 26, though not to be compared for its depth. “Every male among the priests shall eat thereof”; it was not confined to the offering priest. All the priestly males were to eat of it. Those who have access to God are called to identify themselves with a brother’s sin; as Christ does preeminently, so they are to follow—strong in the grace that is in Him, confessing another’s sin as their own. Here also it will be observed that we have the repetition of “it is most holy.” How important this is! Many a male among the priests might on the one hand forget to eat, as did Eleazar and Ithamar (Lev. 10:16-18); others more profane still might grievously transgress in their eating, like Eli’s sons (1 Sam. 2:12-17), so that men abhorred the offering of Jehovah. Indeed “it is most holy” and to be eaten only in a holy place.
The Whole Congregation
Verse 30 draws the line between these ordinary sin offerings, where the priests thus partook of them, and the more solemn cases wherein the victim was burned in a clean place without the camp, the blood being carried into the sanctuary for propitiation. So it was, if either the anointed priest sinned or the whole congregation, as in the earlier cases of Leviticus 4. In neither did the priests eat, for in both of these, communion for all was interrupted and must be restored. And the contrast is yet more marked in the day of atonement, when the foundation was laid for all, priests and people, during the year. All fasted, none ate, on that day. There was another exception, characteristic of the wilderness and therefore only given in Numbers 19, that of the red heifer. It was wholly burned without the camp, and the ashes were kept as a purification for sin. It has its own distinctive traits, full of instruction spiritually for us of heavenly calling as exposed to the defilement of the desert world through which we pass to the rest of God.
When therefore it was a question of propitiating blood brought into the sanctuary, there was no eating on the part of the priests. The victim was burned without the camp. How brightly and on both its sides was this fulfilled in Christ, glorified within, crucified without! Our place is with Him in both respects. Where it was the restoration of an individual, the priests were called to eat of the sin offering, as we now sympathize in loving intercession.
W. Kelly (adapted)
Eating the Sin Offering in a Holy Place
Leviticus 6:24-30
In Leviticus 4, there were two ways in which a sin offering was offered:
1. In the case of the sin offering for a priest or the whole congregation, the blood of the animal was carried into the holy place and sprinkled before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary. Of the blood, some was sprinkled seven times before the Lord, some was put on the horns of the altar of incense, and the rest was poured out at the bottom of the brazen altar. The bodies of these animals were carried outside the camp and burned after certain parts were taken off and burned on the brazen altar.
2. In the case of a ruler or one of the common people, the blood was put on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and all the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar. In the law of the offering in the above-mentioned scripture, another detail is mentioned that was important. It was to be killed in the place where the burnt offering was killed and then the priest who offered it was to eat it in a holy place — in the court. Later it is mentioned that all the males among the priests had to eat of it.
In the first case (with the priest or the whole congregation), the matter was more serious in that the fellowship with God’s people as a whole was interrupted. In the priest it was because he was the people’s link with God.
The Priest Bore the Iniquity
It is particularly the second case on which we wish to meditate just now. In this case the offering had to be eaten by the priest in a holy place — the court of the tabernacle. In Leviticus 10:17, Moses asks the sons of Aaron, “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?” The priest was not the one guilty of the sin before God, but by eating of the offering he made the whole matter his own and thus bore the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. It was only through this priestly activity that atonement could be made. “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Psa. 51:17).
When there is failure in another, it is easy to see what we think is the sin or difficulty and wash our hands of the matter, thinking in that way that we are not guilty. But if we profess relationship with God, our responsibility goes further. To eat something makes it our very own—it becomes part of us. When we, in spirit, eat the sin offering in the holy place, we fully identify with the sin, and in the holy presence of God we realize what it cost our Lord Jesus to make atonement for that sin. It is not isolating ourselves, but identifying in this way with the guilty.
Daniel Identified With the Guilty
Daniel, in spirit, even though not a priest, did this in identifying with his guilty people. There was no self-justification there, only justifying God and confession of “my sin and the sin of my people Israel” (Dan. 9:20). It was accompanied with real affliction of soul as indicated by fasting, sackcloth and ashes. Surely this must accompany such priestly activity: not feigned sorrow, but real sorrow produced by measuring in the holy presence of God what this has meant to our Savior on Calvary. Fasting is the attitude of denying ourselves. Sackcloth was the sign of inward mourning. Ashes speak of judgment that has been consummated.
The Spirit of the Lord Jesus
Our blessed Lord Jesus Christ carried with Him the same spirit. As the Son of God He was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. Yet, when opening His public ministry, He came to John the Baptist to be baptized with the baptism of repentance. John, recognizing in Jesus the holy, spotless Lamb of God, forbade Him. But Jesus answered, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). In this way He identified with those guilty people who had repented. What beauty of moral perfection in our Lord Jesus we contemplate here! How much do we correspond in spirit to this? Then, when He was on that awful cross making atonement, He so fully took our sins that He called them His own (Psa. 69:5). Only thus could atonement be made.
We need to clarify that any priestly activity in which we may be occupied is not for atonement. That work has been done once for all by our Lord Jesus on the cross. But in spirit we need to know what it means to identify with one that is guilty and eat the sin offering in full recognition of the holiness of God. If there were more of such priestly activity alone before God, would there not be less of the confusion, shame and division that has come among His redeemed who are responsible for His testimony here below?
R. Thonney
Burning and Eating the Sacrifices
There was a twofold character in the offerings which has its counterpart for us in Christ, and this is brought out in Hebrews 13:7-19. This twofold character must be distinguished, and yet maintained together, or there will be feebleness in the children of God and much want of enjoyment. The first and most fundamental point was that in the offerings there was that which was consumed. Being identified with the sin of man, it was either consumed under the wrath of God, as in the sin offering, or it went up as a sweet savor, as, for example, in the burnt offering. But besides this, there was another character that entered into the sacrifices; in many cases men partook of them. In the meat offering and peace offering, such was the fact, and even in the sin offering the priest had a portion.
This is what is referred to here in Hebrews 13. These Jewish Christians were in great danger of forgetting their privileges. They had abandoned everything that they had once revered as the religion given them by God. The grandeur, the magnificence, the glory of the Levitical institutions — all was left behind. God was not now thundering from heaven, for He had wrought with infinitely greater moral glory. He had sent His Son from heaven: Pardon and peace had been brought, with joy and liberty in the Holy Spirit, but all this was unseen, except by faith.
Faithfulness in a Time of Falling Away
It is one thing to enter into the comfort of the truth when all is bright and fresh, and another thing to hold it fast in time of reproach, shame and derision, and accompanied by the falling away of some. When the first joy is somewhat lessened, the heart naturally returns to what it had once rested on. There is always this danger for us, that when evil is felt, the blessing is not so present to the soul. Who is there among us that has long known Christ and known His ways, that has not felt this snare?
And what is the divine remedy? It is just that which the Holy Spirit here uses: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). We must not sever this verse from the succeeding one: “Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.” The Holy Spirit would guard these Jewish believers against that which, compared with our own proper Christian blessings, is mere trash — such as earthly priesthood, holy places, offerings and tithes. These things, after all, were but novelties compared with Jesus.
Jesus Christ the Same
Looked at historically, Christianity might seem a new thing. Christ had been but recently manifested, but who was He? And from whence had He come? He was “the firstborn of every creature” — the Creator! “All things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist” (Col. 1:15-17). He was the One whom God intended to manifest from all eternity. And here we see Him in His complete Person — “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” Through Him God could bless, and God would have us occupied with Him.
Earlier in the chapter we are told to remember them that had the rule over us — to follow their faith, even if they themselves were gone. But these all pass out of the scene, while “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” This is the only thing that abides, and establishes too. Christ was the substance: All else was shadow. Therefore, He goes on to say, “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle” (vs. 10), for the “tabernacle” was used to express the Jewish system. If others have the husk, we are feeding on the kernel. Everything had passed away in Christ. In Philippians also, the Apostle could speak contemptuously of circumcision in contrast with having Christ, even though circumcision was of God. To be occupied with it, now that Christ was come, was to be outside, to be of “the circumcision.”
To Eat the Sacrifices
To eat the sacrifice was not merely the burning of the offering, but the partaking of it. We have got Christ Himself and our sins put away, for sin — root and branch—have been dealt with by God. There is not now one question unsettled for us who believe. In the Jewish system, God and the offerer had their portions in the sacrifices, and now we may say that God has His own portion in the same Christ on whom we feed. The entrance into this exceedingly blessed thought is one of the things in which the children of God greatly fail — that we are seated by God Himself at the same table where He has His own joy and portion. Of course, there is that in which we cannot share. In the burnt offering all went up to God. The sweet fragrance of all that Christ was goes up to Him. We must remember that God has His infinite joy in Christ, and not only for what He is in Himself, but for that which He has done for my sins. When we think of this, all of self is absorbed and must sink before it. The old nature we have still, but it is in us to be crushed. We have to treat it all, its likings and dislikings, as a hateful thing. But the new life needs sustaining; it grows by feeding. As in natural life, the mere possession of riches will not sustain life; the life has to be nourished. So in spiritual life, it is not only true that Christ is my life in the presence of God, but I must make Christ my own for my food—eating of Him day by day (John 6:57). He is in very deed given to us, to be turned by faith into nourishment for us. And the sweet thing is that we are entitled thus to think of Christ, given by God to be this food for us. It is not only that Christ is God’s, but He is ours too: Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
J. N. Darby (adapted)
The Trespass Offering
“Then I restored that which I took not away” (Psalm 69:4).
The trespass offering (Leviticus 5-6) is sometimes looked upon as a sort of secondary sin offering, but there are features about it that give it a character entirely its own. In the sin offering we learn the guilt of sin, but the trespass offering teaches us the injury that sin has done; the sinner not only suffers himself, but his sin causes others to suffer. Three directions are indicated in which sin operates; in the holy things of the Lord (Lev. 5:15); against the commandments of the Lord (Lev. 5:17); against the Lord in an offence against one’s neighbors (Lev. 6:2).
Against God’s Holiness
To get a right view of these different aspects of sin we must go back to the start of man’s history. When Adam sinned God was the first to suffer, for Adam committed a trespass and sin in the holy things of the Lord. God had formed man in His own image and likeness, but Satan planned to spoil it all and to injure God. He succeeded, and God lost the best of His creation — the crown of all His work. Adam’s sin was a stab at the very heart of God, for God was the first to suffer.
Against the Commandments
Adam’s sin was also against the commandments of the Lord. His act of disobedience was rebellion, and a challenge to God’s supremacy. Sin would dethrone Almighty God if it could, for sin is not only a stab at God’s heart but an attempt on His throne. God’s nature is love, but His character is light; both His nature and His character were challenged by Adam’s sin, and are still challenged by all the sin of his race.
Trespass Against Neighbor
How quickly sin advanced to trespass against man’s neighbor, which is counted as a trespass against the Lord! As soon as there was a man to sin against, the trespass was done, and by brother against brother. In the murder of Abel, Cain trespassed in that “which was delivered him to keep,” and he had “taken away by violence” his brother’s life.
The next thing to notice is that the trespasser was not left to estimate the extent of the injury his trespass had done. Moses, who represented God, had to measure it after the shekel of the sanctuary (Lev. 5:13). How readily we set up our own standard, or compare ourselves with others and excuse ourselves! It is only in God’s presence that we learn the exceeding sinfulness of sin in its challenge to God and the injury it does to others, and not till then do we realize the need of a great atoning sacrifice.
A Ram Without Blemish
While the offerings for sin were graded, ranging from a young bullock to a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, there was only one offering that could adequately meet the trespass — a ram without blemish. The first time a ram comes into the divine picture is in Genesis 22, where one caught by its horns in a thicket died instead of Isaac. That gives the thought of substitution, but who could be an adequate substitute for sinful men? There is only one answer to that — the Son of Man. In the greatness of His love He has taken this place.
The ram also signifies strength and determination. It typifies the Lord as coming forth from heaven saying, “Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:9). Nothing could divert Him from that will. But further the ram would indicate full growth and maturity. There was no immaturity or lack of knowledge in the Lord. He came in the full knowledge of God’s estimate of sin, and the demands that eternal justice must make upon the One who stood as substitute for the transgressor.
Restitution of the Fifth Part
We come now to that part of the type which must fill every one of God’s children with joy, as it will fill heaven with everlasting praise. Restitution had to be made for every trespass and a fifth part added thereto. The injured party had to be recompensed by far more than he had lost. Certainly no sinner could do this, but the One who brings it to pass is the One who made atonement for the sin. It is the voice of Jesus that says in the Psalm 69:4, “Then I restored that which I took not away.” Consider the injury done to God, when the Lord had to say, “They have both seen and hated both Me and My Father” (John 15:24). Could such deep-rooted enmity be removed, and the enemies reconciled? The answer is, “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son,” and we read now of “them that love God” (Romans 5:10; 8:28). Thus, has God Himself been enriched and will be glorified for ever, for the very trespass gave the Son of God the opportunity of bearing the judgment, and of adding infinite glory to God, against whom the trespass was committed.
When all this had been done, the trespass against the commandments of the Lord has been met, and the fifth part added thereto. The result is that we who once were “not subject to the law of God” (Rom. 8:7) now find that we “delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22). We are spoken of as “obedient children,” and it is wonderful how often willing obedience to God is spoken of in the epistles. It is well for us to be in continual exercise of heart that we may not fail in this, lest we be found holding back from God that which Jesus died to secure in us for Him.
Trespass Against Our Neighbor
Finally, as to the trespass against our neighbor. “When we were in the flesh” we influenced others by our words and actions, and lived in the spirit of Cain, saying, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” We lived to please ourselves, often to the hurt of others. In the type, a man might trespass against his neighbor by lying to him, but what must be the answer to that in us now? “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another” (Eph 4:25). A man might trespass against his neighbor in denying that a thing was delivered him to keep, as Cain denied his responsibility for Abel. The answer to that in us is, “the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Cor. 12:25).
In this way has God triumphed and does triumph as we, to whom the very life of Christ has been imparted, manifest that life in practical living. “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him” (Col. 3:12-17). What glory to God there is in such a life!
J. T. Mawson (adapted)
The Trespass Offering
The trespass offering (we find the details of it in Leviticus 5; 6:1-7; 7:1-10) is a compulsory, not voluntary, offering and can be rightly considered as a subdivision of the sin offering. Nevertheless, there are some distinguishable features belonging to the trespass offering that make it distinct and differentiate it from the sin offering. Knowing that the Word of God is never redundant, I shall try to explain some of the distinctive features of this offering, hopefully with some spiritual benefit to all of us. The sin offering has already been well explained in detail, so in connection with it I will only point out here that nothing can maintain in our hearts the right feeling of what sin is and what the holiness of God is than a real understanding of the meaning of the sin offering. We need to understand what took place at Calvary, when our Lord and Savior was made sin for us, bore our sins in His body on the tree and made full expiation for each and all of them.
The Government of God—The Holiness of God
When considering the sin offering, we see that specific acts are not mentioned, inasmuch as the main thought in that offering is the condemnation of that which is totally abhorrent to the holiness of God, and man is shown to be a sinner, as to his nature. But with the trespass offering specific offenses are enumerated, and man is regarded as a transgressor, as to his acts. This brings out a double effect of the sin and throws additional light on the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering. First, because of our sin, we have not been able to reach the standard set by God: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), and this aspect is set forth in the sin offering. Second, because of the same sin, we not only failed to reach the standard of God, but we continued to alienate ourselves from Him more and more: “You, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works” (Col. 1:21); this aspect we find in the trespass offering. On the one hand, sin is a grave affront to God’s holiness, and, on the other hand, it is also a trespass, when committed against a known command. We can say that every trespass is a sin, but not every sin is a trespass. The trespass offering is thus connected with the government of God, rather than with God’s holiness.
Three Categories of Transgressions
As we can clearly see, reading through Leviticus 5-6, there are three major categories of transgressions presented: transgressions against the Lord (Lev. 5:1-13), transgressions against the Lord’s holy things (Lev. 5:14-19), and transgressions against one’s neighbor (Lev. 6:1-7). In all three cases, even when human claims were fully met, forgiveness and atonement could be obtained only through the death of a victim, “for without the shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). God Himself, by His Word, sets the standard for the judgment of sin, and this is a very important truth that we should never forget. We also notice the fact that ignorance in committing a trespass could not be pleaded as an excuse. We are all aware that the precursors of ignorance are, in most cases, negligence, spiritual laziness or indifference to God’s requirements.
Restitution
In some of the cases, there was also restitution involved in the trespass offering. Thus, restitution had to be made and the fifth part added. Not only was atonement made, but grace came in to enable one to make full reparation; what was due to God or one’s neighbor was fully rendered, and with a fifth part added. Moreover, not only was the one forgiven, who trespassed against God’s things or against his neighbor, but the one whose rights had been infringed was now richer than before. For example, even if, sadly, I have injured a brother in any way, I will both be restored and make restoration in full by bringing, so to say, the trespass offering according to the Lord’s valuation. Humbling myself and acknowledging my fault, whatever that might have been, may not only restore my relationship with the wronged one, but the display of grace that worked in my heart will also bring joy and spiritual benefit to the wronged one. Wonderful work of divine grace, which always rises above our sin!
But, most important, we have here a beautiful feature of Christ’s work on the cross: He restored more to God than the wrong of man’s sin took away, as we read in Psalm 69:4: “Then I restored that which I took not away.” We had robbed God of what was due to Him. The Lord Jesus, by becoming our trespass offering, made restitution to God for all the wrong we had done, and He added the fifth part. When His heart was broken by reproach, He committed His cause to Him that judges righteously and paid our debt in full. He also added the fifth part, and that is because His work on the cross has an infinite value, which not only made provision for the sins of all who would ever believe in Him, but fully glorified God for all eternity. The Lord Jesus Christ was able to carry out the will of God perfectly, so that God was glorified and man brought into blessing. As H. A. Ironside wrote: “The grace of God has been magnified in the great trespass offering of the cross in a way it never could have been known if sin had never come in at all.”
We see therefore that the trespass offering presents several important and distinctive lessons to us, unfolding a precious dimension of the work of Christ on the cross. Surely, appreciation of the fragrant perfections of His Person and work presented by it, as well as by the other offerings in Leviticus, arises as a sweet savor unto our God and Father.
Practical Teaching
Allow me here one further remark. Sometimes we hear Christians speaking of “practical truth.” The fact is that ALL truth involves that which is practical. There is not a single truth in the divine revelation that God did not intend to produce, here and now, a practical effect in the lives of His own. I mention this because the many types given in the Old Testament, in general, and the offerings from the book of Leviticus, in particular, seem to be rather obscure and difficult to understand and, consequently, of little, if any, interest to the vast majority of Christians. But God gave us all these various offerings in order that we may have a deeper and better grasp of the unique work of our Lord Jesus on the cross. That work is so vast, so blessed and so comprehensive that it took several types in the Book of Leviticus for it to be properly presented to us. May God give us the grace to consider prayerfully all of them and in this way to have a growing apprehension of the glory and blessedness of both the Person and the work of our Lord on the cross, so that we may value Him more and have an increased desire to please Him in our walk and conduct here.
E. Datcu
The Due Spirit of Discipline
“Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee” (Deut. 8:5). This blessed word holds good at all times and under all circumstances, whether the discipline is individually or corporately applied. It applies on New Testament ground, whether in 1 Corinthians 5 or Hebrews 12. Our Father never departs from this principle, never uses the rod, save under the prompting of perfect love. Holiness is the end and love the motive. Moreover, true discipline is but one of the forms of the activity of true love. It is good to keep this in mind. Correctness of judgment and tenderness of heart should be blended in us, as they are in our God. All that is right must be learned from His ways, and ourselves in subjection, so that we may not neutralize that which is of Him by the addition of that which is our own. Even “neutralize” is not an adequate expression, for positive harm may be produced by doing right things in a wrong way.
The Manner of Discipline
The manner in which discipline is to be exercised in the assembly is plainly laid down in 1 Corinthians 5, but we must place ourselves behind the scene to see the spirit that suits such an act. Not until we come to 2 Corinthians 2 do we learn what it cost the Apostle to write 1 Corinthians 5, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Not until the saints were themselves broken under the sorrow could he make them understand how much he himself had suffered. It is not merely a question of the Corinthians humbling themselves for the gross evil immediately connected with them. There is a deeper and wider truth — that those who are right should teach the wrong ones their proper place by taking that place themselves. Paul — the right one — is the first to enter into the sorrow, with a broken heart, that he might draw the Corinthians where he was, and that they might, in their turn, draw the guilty one into the same. Paul interacted with the Corinthian saints; it was for them to act toward the offender himself, in order that their grief, more than anything else, might teach his conscience and win his heart back to the Lord. It can never be only an act of putting away, although there must be that, as due to the holiness of the Lord, but in that act is involved a question of eating the sin offering in the holy place, confessing the sin in self-judgment, and ever keeping in view the ultimate restoration of the soul. If we sever 2 Corinthians 2 and 7 from 1 Corinthians 5, a great deal of mischief will arise. Saints will form themselves into a court of justice, to pass sentences right and left, without the consciousness that each sentence strikes back upon them and brings them into the punishment. These are the words of the Apostle, as to what he felt at the time when he wrote the first epistle: “Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you, with many tears” (2 Cor. 2:4). This is the record of the effect produced upon the saints by the spirit of his letter: “Behold, this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you; yea, what clearing of yourselves; yea, what indignation; yea, what fear; yea, what vehement desire; yea, what zeal; yea, what revenge!” (2 Cor. 7:11). The only way to a godly clearing of ourselves is by godly sorrow.
Carefulness
This is an unchangeable principle with God. When Israel had crossed the Jordan and seen in the fall of Jericho how Jehovah dealt with the enemy, they came afterwards to Ai, where they were broken down. They, like the Corinthians later, had lacked “carefulness,” and by their indifference to evil within, room was left for Achan to lay hold of the accursed thing. Notice that it does not say, “Achan,” but, “the children of Israel committed a trespass.” All were involved in the deed, and the people were judged before the guilty one himself. This was not easily accepted nor entered into, even by Joshua. Sad indeed were his words on the occasion: “Would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!” (Josh. 7:7). We do not like the principle of discipline that strikes the many even before the guilty one is reached.
Right in His Own Eyes
Also at the end of Judges, “there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). This is a principle which leads to fearful wrong. A molten image in the house of Micah and, worse yet, the connivance of a Levite with idol worship were sad enough. However, it was not until the downright evil of apostasy, the sin of Sodom, and that which brought the flood upon the earth (Gen. 6:12) had been confronted that the moral sense of Israel was roused. Then they “gathered together as one man ... unto the Lord in Mizpeh” (Judg. 20:1). And now that Jehovah has gotten them together once more, He must carry out the principle of old — strike the many before the few, at the cost of 40,000 of their own. Only then did they learn their connection with the iniquity of Benjamin, for “all the people went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord” (Judg. 20:26). Only after this painful but necessary ordeal could God side with them and fit them to deal in righteousness with “Benjamin, my brother.”
Christians on the wilderness side of Jordan cannot see nor acknowledge this principle; they are not in the place where it is carried out. But when we stand on Ephesian truth, whether or not the church has been faithful to its calling, we must keep in mind that God will act with us according to what He is and also to what we ought to be.
Bible Treasury, Vol. 12 (adapted)
Forgiveness for the Priest
With reference to the sin offering, in one case it is remarkable that forgiveness is not stated. In what circumstances is this? The priest that is anointed. Can there be anything more striking? The great point was both to provide adequately for one like Aaron, and to set forth Christ without dishonor to the spiritual mind. Now inasmuch as Christ had nothing to be forgiven, we can understand that this should be left out. Yet as Christ made Himself responsible for our sins in this sense He could not be forgiven, but must go through the judgment of God for the sins He undertook to bear. Thus in a twofold way the absence of the mention of forgiveness in this instance only seems most notable. In His own person He had of course no sin to be atoned for or forgiven; whereas, becoming responsible for us, He must bear all and could not be forgiven. He must suffer for sins, the just for the unjust. Thus the Spirit of God has united the fullest guard of the glory of Christ and the fullest comfort for the soul that believes, so that we may know our sins put away by a true atonement for them and ourselves forgiven. Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Bible Treasury, Vol. 8
Abel's Offering
“Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” In what did its excellency consist?
Abel’s offering was entirely different in principle, and suited to the character and relationship, in which man then stood before God. The offering of the firstlings of his flock, and the fat thereof, owned the need of blood-shedding, as a propitiation for his sin. He had faith in that which could atone for sin, and by which he a sinner could meet God in truth, and be accepted for the sake of his offering. Thus he secured glory to God, and free blessing to himself, a sinner; for surely Abel was such, as was his brother Cain. His pastoral occupation, as “a keeper of sheep,” did not make his moral state better than that of Cain, as a tiller of the ground. In the sight of God there was no difference; they both were sinners. Abel owned it in the offering which he brought to the LORD, Cain in effect denied his sin, and the holy demands of a sin-hating God, but withal a God Who would accept a sin offering, as He did at the hand of Abel.
Abel brought no fruit which his own hands had produced; no weary labour, no toil of his, had resulted in the offering which he brought to the LORD. It was a victim, whose life must be taken for his sin. “For without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” It is shown from the beginning.
Bible Treasury, Vol. 18
The Offering for Those in Poverty
When we consider the trespass offering, we find that the case of a man too poor to present an animal as the offering which his sin demanded is provided for. His offering was taken from the kingdom of birds. One of these was dealt with in a way resembling a burnt offering — the other was a sin offering. Thus poverty deprived the sin offering of half its emphasis. Its firm, decided character was gone. Yet deeper poverty still was provided for. Ten ephahs of flour — merely plain flour without even oil — were presented before the altar. In this sin offering most remarkable absences are noticeable. Life which had been in the blood was not there; the hand could not be laid upon the victim, and therefore no transference of sin was possible. The lofty character of the offering in its relation to God, as symbolized in the offerings of the high priest and the people collectively, could not, of course, enter into this offering: Hence the threefold utterance of the blood was unheard, and the voice from the horns of the altar was silent. The figures of the offering being made sin and of its consumption with the fire outside the camp were absent. In a word, the great characteristics of the sin offering were not to be found. It was an offering rather than a sacrifice.
As a Meal Offering
All that was offered was flour, but God stooped down and received it. However, God did inflexibly require a sin offering. Now, into this sin offering, which met the claim of God, the priest placed his hand and took out his handful. This he burned upon the burnt offering as it lay upon the blood-sprinkled altar; the offering was accepted, and the man received forgiveness.
Perhaps there is no aspect of Christ’s offering up of Himself to God, regarding which man’s thought has generated spiritually poorer views, than that of His sacrifice for sin. The greatness of His sacrifice for sin in bringing glory to the throne and majesty of God is clouded. The might of His work in putting away sin by the sacrifice of Himself and His appearing for us in the presence of God as High Priest in heaven are often hardly traceable. And because the glory of Christ’s work Godward is so poorly laid hold of, the effects of His work manward are so little rejoiced in. As the sin offering, He “suffered without the gate” and was “made sin for us.” The fullest measure that the types of sacrifice for sin portray was all realized in Himself when He was forsaken of God. As the sin offering, He “bare our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24), so that they are gone, and we are “made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21).
H. F. Witherby
The Fifth Part Added
In the trespass offering, we learn that “trespass” is connected with a case wherein God is dishonored, even though it may be a mere man who was defrauded. Nor is it sufficient that a sacrifice be offered to God, but the wrong done to man was to be repaid, and that not only in full, but according to the estimation of the value by the priest, one-fifth more was to be added to the amount of recompense.
Now if we turn to Psalm 69, we have the Lord Himself prophetically speaking, “Then I restored that which I took not away” (vs. 4). This is another aspect of the sin offering. The trespass offering takes account of damage that accrues to one through another’s sin. And if we consider how sin dishonored God, the reproach cast upon Him by man’s sin, we see how the Lord not only suffered in the sinner’s stead on the cross for his sins, but He glorified God in all the reproach and dishonor brought to Him by sin. The Lord Jesus Christ not only answered to God for man’s sins, but He brought glory and honor to God, so that (speaking reverently) God’s nature has been glorified. The fifth part has been added thereto, so that God is richer than if sin had never intruded on His fair creation. At the cross of Christ we see how God’s holiness — intrinsic holiness — His righteousness, His grace, His love, and all His attributes meet. Truly He has been glorified!
“Iniquity” was often connected with sin in relation to the “holy things.” Our Great High Priest bears the iniquity of our holy things (Ex. 28:38). How much of self and of pride and fleshly satisfaction often enter into our worship, which should be in spirit and in truth! Therefore, we need the gracious office of our Great High Priest, which we have, according to Heb. 10:21.
Paul Wilson
The Blood of Sprinkling
When first to Jesus’ cross I came,
My heart o’erwhelmed with sin and shame,
Conscious of guilt, and full of fear,
Yet, drawn by love, I ventured near;
And pardon found, and peace with God,
In Jesus’ rich, atoning blood.
My sin is gone; my fears are o’er;
I shun God’s presence now no more:
With childlike faith I seek His face,
The God of all abounding grace:
Sprinkled before the throne of God,
I see that rich, atoning blood.
Before my God, my Priest appears —
My Advocate the Father hears;
That blood is e’er before His eyes,
And day and night for mercy cries;
It speaks, it ever speaks to God,
The voice of that atoning blood.
By faith that voice I also hear;
It answers doubt; it stills each fear:
The accuser strives in vain to move
The wrath of Him whose name is love:
Each charge against the elect of God
Is silenced by the atoning blood.
Here I can rest without a fear;
By this to God I now draw near;
By this I triumph over sin,
For this has made and keeps me clean;
And when I reach the throne of God,
I still will sing the atoning blood.
J. G. Deck