THE SIN OFFERING
Lev 4:1-35
BOTH in the burnt offering and in the peace offering, Israel was
taught, as we are, that all consecration and all fellowship with God
must begin with, and ever depends upon, atonement made for sin. But
this was not the dominant thought in either of these offerings;
neither did the atonement, as made in these, have reference to
particular acts of sin. For such, these offerings were never
prescribed. They remind us therefore of the necessity of atonement,
not so much for what we do or fail to do, as for what we are.
But the sin even of true believers, whether then or now, is more
than sin of nature. The true Israelite was liable to be overtaken in
some overt act of sin; and for all such cases was ordained, in this
section of the law, {Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-13} the sin offering; an
offering which should bring out into sole and peculiar prominence
the thought revealed in other sacrifices more imperfectly, that in
order to pardon of sin, there must be expiation. There was indeed a
limitation to the application of this offering; for if a man, in
those days, sinned wilfully, presumptuously, stubbornly, or, as the
phrase is, "with a high hand," there was no provision made in the
law for his restoration to covenant standing. "He that despised
Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses"; he was
"cut off from his people." But for sins of a lesser grade, such as
resulted not from a spirit of wilful rebellion against God, but were
mitigated in their guilt by various reasons, especially ignorance,
rashness, or inadvertence, God made provision, in a typical way, for
their removal by means of the atonement of the sin and the guilt
offerings. By means of these, accompanied also with full restitution
of the wrong done, when such restitution was possible, the guilty
one might be restored in those days to his place as an accepted
citizen of the kingdom of God.
No part of the Levitical law is more full of deep, heart-searching
truth than the law of the sin offering. First of all, it is of
consequence to observe that the sins for which this chief atoning
sacrifice was appointed, were, for the most part, sins of ignorance.
For so runs the general statement with which this section opens (Lev
4:2): "If anyone shall sin unwittingly, in any of the things which
the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any of them."
And to these are afterwards added sins committed through rashness,
the result rather of heat and hastiness of spirit than of deliberate
purpose of sin; as, for instance, in Lev 5:4 : "Whatsoever it be
that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him."
Besides these, in the same section (Lev 5:1-4), as also in all the
cases mentioned under the guilt offering, and the special instance
of a wrong done to a slave girl, {Lev 19:20-21} a number of
additional offences are mentioned which all seem to have their
special palliation, not indeed in the ignorance of the sinner, but
in the nature of the acts themselves, as admitting of reparation.
For all such it was also ordained that the offender should bring a
sin (or a guilt) offering, and that by this, atonement being made
for him, his sin might be forgiven.
All this must have brought before Israel, and is meant to bring
before us, the absolute equity of God in dealing with His creatures.
We think often of His stern justice in that He so unfailingly takes
note of every sin. But here we may learn also to observe His equity
in that He notes no less carefully every circumstance that may
palliate our sin. We thankfully recognise in these words the spirit
of Him of whom it was said {Heb 5:2, marg.} that in the days of His
flesh He could "reasonably bear with the ignorant"; and who said
concerning those who know not their Master’s will and do it not, {Luk
12:48} that their "stripes" shall be "few"; and who, again, with
equal justice and mercy, said of His disciples’ fault in Gethsemane,
{Mat 26:41} "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
We do well to note this. For in these days we hear it often charged
against the holy religion of Christ, that it represents God as
essentially and horribly unjust in consigning all unbelievers to one
and the same unvarying punishment, the eternal lake of fire; and as
thus making no difference between those who have sinned against the
utmost light and knowledge, wilfully and inexcusably, and those who
may have sinned through ignorance, or weakness of the flesh. To such
charges as these we have simply to answer that neither in the Old
Testament nor in the New is God so revealed. We may come back to
this book of Leviticus, and declare that even in those days when law
reigned, and grace and love were less clearly revealed than now, God
made a difference, a great difference, between some sins and others;
He visited, no doubt, wilful and defiant sin with condign
punishment; but, on the other hand, no less justly than mercifully,
He considered also every circumstance which could lessen guilt, and
ordained a gracious provision for expiation and forgiveness. The God
revealed in Leviticus, like the God revealed in the Gospel, the God
"with whom we have to do," is then no hard and unreasonable tyrant,
but a most just and equitable King. He is no less the Most Just,
that He is the Most Holy; but, rather, because He is most holy, is
He therefore most just. And because God is such a God, in the New
Testament also it is plainly said that ignorance, as it extenuates
guilt, shall also ensure mitigation of penalty; and in the Old
Testament, that while he who sins presumptuously and with a high
hand against God, shall "die without mercy under two or three
witnesses," on the other hand, he who sins unwittingly, or in some
sudden rash impulse, doing that of which he afterward truly repents;
or who, again, has sinned, if knowingly, still in such a way as
admits of some adequate reparation of the wrong, -all these things
shall be judged palliation of his guilt; and if he confess his sin,
and make all possible reparation for it, then, if he present a sin
or a guilt offering, atonement may therewith be made, and the sinner
be forgiven.
This then is the first thing which the law concerning the sin
offering brings before us: it calls our attention to the fact that
the heavenly King and Judge of men is righteous in all His ways, and
therefore will ever make all the allowance that strict justice and
righteousness demand, for whatever may in any way palliate our
guilt.
But none the less for this do we need also to heed another intensely
practical truth which the law of the sin offering brings before us:
namely, that while ignorance or other circumstances may palliate
guilt, they do not and cannot nullify it. We may have sinned without
a suspicion that we were sinning, but here we are taught that there
can be no pardon without a sin offering. We may have sinned through
weakness or sudden passion, but still sin is sin, and we must have a
sin offering before we can be forgiven.
We may observe, in passing, the bearing of this teaching of the law
on the question so much discussed in our day, as to the
responsibility of the heathen for the sins which they commit through
ignorance. In so far as their ignorance is not wilful and avoidable,
it doubtless greatly diminishes their guilt; and the Lord Himself
has said of such that their stripes shall be few. And yet more than
this He does not say. Except we are prepared to cast aside the
teaching alike of Leviticus and the Gospels, it is certain that
their ignorance does not cancel their guilt. That the ignorance of
anyone concerning moral law can secure his exemption from the
obligation to suffer for his sin, is not only against the teaching
of all Scripture, but is also contradicted by all that we can see
about us of God’s government of the world. For when does God ever
suspend the operation of physical laws, because the man who violates
them does not know that he is breaking them? And so also, will we
but open our eyes, we may see that it is with moral law. The
heathen, for example, are ignorant of many moral laws; but do they
therefore escape the terrible consequences of their law breaking,
even in this present life, where we can see for ourselves how God is
dealing with them? And is there any reason to think it will be
different in the life hereafter?
Does it seem harsh that men should be punished even for sins of
ignorance, and pardon be impossible, even for these, without
atonement? It would not seem so, would men but think more deeply.
For beyond all question, the ignorance of men as to the fundamental
law of God, to love Him with all the heart, and our neighbour as
ourselves, which is the sum of all law, has its reason, not in any
lack of light, but in the evil heart of man, who everywhere and
always, until he is regenerated, loves self more than he loves God.
The words of Christ {Joh 3:20} apply: "He that doeth evil cometh not
to the light"; not even to the light of nature.
And yet, one who should look only at this chapter might rejoin to
this, that the Israelite was only obliged to bring a sin offering,
when afterward he came to the knowledge of his sin as sin; but, in
case he never came to that knowledge, was not then his sin passed by
without an atoning sacrifice? To this question, the ordinance which
we find in chapter 16 is the decisive answer. For therein it was
provided that once every year a very solemn sin offering should be
offered by the high priest, for all the multitudinous sins of
Israel, which were not atoned for in the special sin offerings of
each day. Hence it is strictly true that no sin in Israel was ever
passed over without either penalty or shedding of blood. And so the
law keeps it ever before us that our unconsciousness of sinning does
not alter the fact of sin, or the fact of guilt, nor remove the
obligation to suffer because of sin; and that even the sin of which
we are quite ignorant, interrupts man’s peace with God and harmony
with him. Thus the best of us must take as our own the words of the
Apostle Paul: {1Co 4:4, R.V} "I know nothing against myself; yet am
I not hereby justified; He that judgeth me is the Lord."
Nor does the testimony of this law end here. We are by it taught
that the guilt of sins unrecognised as sins at the time of their
committal, cannot be cancelled merely by penitent confession when
they become known. Confession must indeed, be made, according to the
law, as one condition of pardon, but, besides this, the guilty man
must bring his sin offering.
What truths can be more momentous and vital than these! Can anyone
say, in the light of such a revelation, that all in this ancient law
of the sin offering is now obsolete, and of no concern to us? For
how many there are who are resting all their hopes for the future on
the fact that they have sinned, if at all, then ignorantly; or that
they have meant to do right; or that they have confessed the sin
when it was known, and have been very sorry. And yet, if this law
teach anything, it teaches that this is a fatal mistake, and that
such hopes rest on a foundation of sand. If we would be forgiven, we
must indeed confess our sin and we must repent; but this is not
enough. We must have a sin offering; we must make use of the great
sin offering which that of Leviticus typified; we must tell our
compassionate High Priest how in ignorance, or in the rashness of
some unholy, overmastering impulse, we sinned, and commit our case
to Him, that He may apply the precious blood in our behalf with God.
It is a third impressive fact, that after we include all the cases
for which the sin offering was provided, there still remain many
sins for the forgiveness of which no provision was made. It was
ordered elsewhere, for instance {Num 35:31-33} that no satisfaction
should be taken for the life of a murderer. He might confess and
bewail his sin, and be never so sorry, but there was no help for
him; he must die the death. So was it also with blasphemy; so with
adultery, and with many other crimes. This exclusion of so many
cases from the merciful provision of the typical offering had a
meaning. It was intended, not only to emphasise to the conscience
the aggravated wickedness of such crimes, but also to develop in
Israel the sense of need for a more adequate provision, a better
sacrifice than any the Levitical law could offer; blood which should
cleanse, not merely in a ceremonial and sacramental way, but really
and effectively; and not only from some sins, but from all sins.
The law of the sin offering is introduced by phraseology different
from that which is used in the case of the preceding offerings. In
the case of each of these, the language used implies that the
Israelites were familiar with the offering before its incorporation
into the Levitical sacrificial system. The sin offering, on the
other hand, is introduced as a new thing. And such, indeed, it was.
While, as we have seen, each of the offerings before ordered had
been known and used, both by the Shemitic and the other nations,
since long before the days of Moses, before this time there is no
mention anywhere, in Scripture or out of it, of a sacrifice
corresponding to the sin or the guilt offering. The significance of
this fact is apparent so soon as we observe what was the distinctive
conception of the sin offering, as contrasted with the other
offerings. Without question, it was the idea of expiation of guilt
by the sacrifice of a substituted victim. This idea, as we have
seen, was indeed not absent from the other bloody offerings; but in
those its place was secondary and subordinate. In the ritual of the
sin offering, on the contrary, this idea was brought out into almost
solitary prominence; -sin pardoned on the ground of expiation made
through the presentation to God of the blood of an innocent victim.
The introduction of this new sacrifice, then, marked the fact that
the spiritual training of man, of Israel in particular, herewith
entered on a new stadium; which was to be distinguished by the
development, in a degree to that time without a precedent, of the
sense of sin and of guilt, and the need therefore of atonement in
order to pardon. This need had not indeed been unfelt before; but
never in any ritual had it received so full expression. Not only is
the idea of expiation by the shedding of blood almost the only
thought represented in the ritual of the offering, but in the order
afterward prescribed for the different sacrifices, the sin offering,
in all cases where others were offered, must go before them all;
before the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering. So
again, this new law insists upon expiation even for those sins which
have the utmost possible palliation and excuse, in that at the time
of their committal the sinner knew them not as sins; and thus
teaches that even these so fatally interrupt fellowship with the
holy God, that only such expiation can restore the broken harmony.
What a revelation was this law, of the way in which God regards sin
and of the extremity, in consequence, of the sinner’s need!
Most instructive, too, were the circumstances under which this new
offering, with such a special purpose, embodying such a revelation
of the extent of human guilt and responsibility, was first ordained.
For its appointment followed quickly upon the tremendous revelation
of the consuming holiness of God upon Mount Sinai. It was in the
light of the holy mount, quaking and flaming with fire, that the eye
of Moses was opened to receive from God this revelation of His will,
and he was moved by the Holy Ghost to appoint for Israel, in the
name of Jehovah, an offering which should differ from all other
offerings in this-that it should hold forth to Israel, in solitary
and unprecedented prominence, this one thought, that "without
shedding of blood there is no remission of sin," not even of sins
which are not known as sins at the time of their committal.
Our own generation, and even the Church of today, greatly needs to
consider the significance of this fact. The spirit of our age is
much more inclined to magnify the greatness and majesty of man, than
the infinite greatness and holy majesty of God. Hence many talk
lightly of atonement, and cannot admit its necessity to the pardon
of sin. But can we doubt, with this narrative before us, that if men
saw God more clearly as He is, there would be less talk of this
kind? When Moses saw God on Mount Sinai, he came down to ordain a
sin offering even for sins of ignorance! And nothing is more
certain, as a fact of human experience in all ages, than this, that
the more clearly men have perceived the unapproachable holiness and
righteousness of God, the more clearly they have seen that expiation
of our sins, even of our sins of ignorance, by atoning blood, is the
most necessary and fundamental of all conditions, if we will have
pardon of sin and peace with a Holy God.
Man is indeed slow to learn this lesson of the sin offering. It is
quite too humbling and abasing to our natural, self-satisfied pride,
to be readily received. This is strikingly illustrated by the fact
that it is not until late in Israel’s history that the sin offering
is mentioned in the sacred record: while even from that first
mention till the Exile, it is mentioned only rarely. This fact is
indeed often in our day held up as evidence that the sin offering
was not of Mosaic origin, but a priestly invention of much later
days. But the fact is quite as well accounted for by the spiritual
obtuseness of Israel. The whole narrative shows that they were a
people hard of heart and slow to learn the solemn lessons of Sinai;
slow to apprehend the holiness of God, and the profound spiritual
truth set forth in the institution of the sin offering. And yet it
was not wholly unobserved, nor did every individual fail to learn
its lessons. Nowhere in heathen literature do we find such a
profound conviction of sin, such a sense of responsibility even for
sins of ignorance, as in some of the earliest Psalms, and the
earlier prophets. The self-excusing which so often marks the heathen
confessions, finds no place in the confessions of those Old
Testament believers, brought up under the moral training of that
Sinaitic law which had the sin offering as its supreme expression on
this subject. "Search me, O God, and try my heart; and see if there
be in me any wicked way"; {Psa 139:23-24} "Cleanse Thou me from
secret sins."; {Psa 19:12} "Against Thee only have I sinned, and
done this evil in Thy sight". {Psa 51:4} Such words as these, with
many other like prayers and confessions, bear witness to the
deepening sense of sin, till at the last the sin offering teaches,
as its own chief lesson, its own inadequacy for the removal of
guilt, in those words of the prophetic, {Psa 40:6} from the man who
mourned iniquities more than the hairs of his head: "Sin offering
Thou hast not required."
But, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are to regard David
in these words, speaking by the Holy Ghost, as typifying Christ; for
we thus Heb 10:5-10 : "When He cometh into the world He saith,
Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not, but a body didst Thou
prepare for Me; in whole burnt offerings and sin offerings Thou
hadst no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the
book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God."
Which words are then expounded thus: "Saying above, Sacrifices and
offerings, and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou
wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered
according to the law); then hath He said, Lo, I am come to do Thy
will. He taketh away the first that He may establish the second. By
which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all."
And so, as the deepest lesson of the sin offering, we are taught to
see in it a type and prophecy of Christ, as the true and one
eternally effectual sin offering for the sins of His people; who,
Himself at once High Priest and Victim, offering Himself for us,
perfects us forever, as the old sin offering could not, giving us
therefore "boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of
Jesus." May we all have grace by faith to receive and learn this
deepest lesson of this ordinance, and thus in the law of the sin
offering discover Him who in His person and work became the
Fulfiller of this law.
GRADED RESPONSIBILITY
Lev 4:3; Lev 4:13-14; Lev 4:22-23; Lev 4:27-28
"If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the
people; then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a
young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering And
if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, and the thing be hid
from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any of the things
which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty; when
the sin wherein they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall
offer a young bullock for a sin offering, and bring it before the
tent of meeting When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any one
of all the things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be
done. and is guilty; if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made
known to him, he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without
blemish And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in
doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be
done, and be guilty; if this sin, which he hath sinned, be made
known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a female
without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned."
The law concerning the sin offering is given in four sections, of
which the last, again, is divided into two parts, separated by the
division of the chapter. These four sections respectively treat
of-first, the law of the sin offering for the "anointed priest" (Lev
4:3-12); secondly, the law for the offering for the whole
congregation (Lev 4:13-21); thirdly, that for a ruler (Lev 4:22-26);
and lastly, the law for an offering made by a private person, one of
"the common people". {Lev 4:27-35; Lev 5:1-16} In this last section
we have, first, the general law, {Lev 4:27-35} and then are added
{Lev 5:1-16} special prescriptions having reference to various
circumstances under which a sin offering should be offered by one of
the people. Under this last head are mentioned first, as requiring a
sin offering, in addition to sins of ignorance or inadvertence,
which only were mentioned in the preceding chapter, also sins due to
rashness or weakness (Lev 4:1-4): and then are appointed, in the
second place, certain variations in the material of the offering,
allowed out of regard to the various ability of different offerers
(Lev 4:5-16).
In the law as given in chapter 4, it is to be observed that the
selection of the victim prescribed is determined by the position of
the persons who might have occasion to present the offering.
For the whole congregation, the victim must be a bullock, the most
valuable of all; for the high priest, as the highest religious
official of the nation, and appointed also to represent them before
God, it must also be a bullock. For the civil ruler, the offering
must be a he-goat-an offering of a value less than that of the
victim ordered for the high priest, but greater than that of those
which were prescribed for the common people. For these, a variety of
offerings were appointed, according to their several ability. If
possible, it must be a female goat or lamb, or, if the worshipper
could not bring that, then two turtledoves, or two young pigeons. If
too poor to bring even this small offering, then it was appointed
that, as a substitute for the bloody, offering, he might bring an
offering of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, to be burnt
upon the altar.
Evidently, then, the choice of the victim was determined by two
considerations: first, the rank of the person who sinned, and,
secondly, his ability. As regards the former point, the law as to
the victim for the sin offering was this: the higher the theocratic
rank of the sinning person might be, the more costly offering he
must bring. No one can well miss of perceiving the meaning of this.
The guilt of any sin in God’s sight is proportioned to the rank and
station of the offender. What truth could be of more practical and
personal concern to all than this?
In applying this principle, the law of the sin offering teaches,
first, that the guilt of any sin is the heaviest, when it is
committed by one who is placed in a position of religious authority.
For this graded law is headed by the case of the sin of the anointed
priest, that is, the high priest, the highest functionary in the
nation.
We read (Lev 4:3): "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring
guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin which he hath
committed, a young bullock without blemish, unto the Lord, for a sin
offering."
That is, the high priest, although a single individual, if he sin,
must bring as large and valuable an offering as is required from the
whole congregation. For this law there are two evident reasons. The
first is found in the fact that in Israel the high priest
represented before God the entire nation. When he sinned it was as
if the whole nation sinned in him. So it is said that by his sin he
"brings guilt on the people"-a very weighty matter. And this
suggests a second reason for the costly offering that was required
from him. The consequences of the sin of one in such a high position
of religious authority must, in the nature of the case, be much more
serious and far-reaching than in the case of any other person.
And here we have another lesson as pertinent to our time as to those
days. As the high priest, so, in modern time, the bishop, minister,
or elder, is ordained as an officer in matters of religion, to act
for and with men in the things of God. For the proper administration
of this high trust, how indispensable that such a one shall take
heed to maintain unbroken fellowship with God! Any shortcoming here
is sure to impair by so much the spiritual value of his own
ministrations for the people to whom he ministers. And this evil
consequence of any unfaithfulness of his is the more certain to
follow, because, of all the members of the community, his example
has the widest and most effective influence; in whatever that
example be bad or defective, it is sure to do mischief in exact
proportion to his exalted station. If then such a one sin, the case
is very grave, and his guilt proportionately heavy.
This very momentous fact is brought before us in an impressive way
in the New Testament, where, in the epistles to the Seven Churches
of Asia {Revelation 2,3} it is "the angel of the church," the
presiding officer of the church in each city, who is held
responsible for the spiritual state of those committed to his
charge. No wonder that the Apostle James wrote: {Jam 3:1} "Be not
many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier
judgment." Well may every true-hearted minister of Christ’s Church
tremble, as here in the law of the sin offering he reads how the sin
of the officer of religion may bring guilt, not only on himself, but
also "on the whole people"! Well may he cry out with the Apostle
Paul: {2Co 2:16} "Who is sufficient for these things?" and, like
him, beseech those to whom he ministers, "Brethren, pray for us!"
With the sin of the high priest is ranked that of the congregation,
or the collective nation. It is written (Lev 4:13-14): "If the whole
congregation of Israel shall err, and the thing be hid from the eyes
of the assembly, and they have done any one of the things which the
Lord hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty, then the
assembly shall offer a young bullock for a sin offering."
Thus Israel was taught by this law, as we are, that responsibility
attaches not only to each individual person, but also to
associations of individuals in their corporate character, as
nations, communities, and-we may add-all Societies and Corporations,
whether secular or religious. Let us emphasise it to our own
consciences, as another of the fundamental lessons of this law:
there is individual sin; there is also such a thing as a sin by "the
whole congregation." In other words, God holds nations,
communities-in a word, all associations and combinations of men for
whatever purpose, no less under obligation in their corporate
capacity to keep His law than as individuals, and will count them
guilty if they break it, even through ignorance.
Never has a generation needed this reminder more than our own. The
political and social principles which, since the French Revolution
in the end of the last century, have been, year by year, more and
more generally accepted among the nations of Christendom, are
everywhere tending to the avowed or practical denial of this most
important truth. It is a maxim ever more and more extensively
accepted as almost axiomatic in our modern democratic communities,
that religion is wholly a concern of the individual; and that a
nation or community, as such, should make no distinction between
various religions as false or true, but maintain an absolute
neutrality, even between Christianity and idolatry, or theism and
atheism. It should take little thought to see that this modern maxim
stands in direct opposition to the principle assumed in this law of
the sin offering; namely, that a community or nation is as truly and
directly responsible to God as the individual in the nation. But
this corporate responsibility the spirit of the age squarely denies.
Not that all, indeed, in our modern so-called Christian nations have
come to this. But no one will deny that this is the mind of the
vanguard of nineteenth century liberalism in religion and politics.
Many of our political leaders in all lands make no secret of their
views on the subject. A purely secular state is everywhere held up,
and that with great plausibility and persuasiveness, as the ideal of
political government; the goal to the attainment of which all good
citizens should unite their efforts. And, indeed, in some parts of
Christendom the complete attainment of this evil ideal seems not far
away.
It is not strange, indeed, to see atheists, agnostics, and others
who deny the Christian faith, maintaining this position; but when we
hear men who call themselves Christians-in many cases, even
Christian ministers-advocating, in one form or another, governmental
neutrality in religion as the only right basis of government, one
may well be amazed. For Christians are supposed to accept the Holy
Scriptures as the law of faith and of morals, private and public;
and where in all the Scripture will anyone find such an attitude of
any nation or people mentioned, but to be condemned and threatened
with the judgment of God?
Will anyone venture to say that this teaching of the law of the sin
offering was only intended, like the offering itself, for the old
Hebrews? Is it not rather the constant and most emphatic teaching of
the whole Scriptures, that God dealt with all the ancient Gentile
nations on the same principle? The history which records the
overthrow of those old nations and empires does so, even
professedly, for the express purpose of calling the attention of men
in all ages to this principle, that God deals with all nations as
under obligations to recognise Himself as King of nations, and
submit in all things to His authority. So it was in the case of
Moab, of Ammon, of Nineveh, and Babylon; in regard to each of which
we are told, in so many words, that it was because they refused to
recognise this principle of national responsibility to the one true
God, which was brought before Israel in this part of the law of the
sin offering, that the Divine judgment came upon them in their utter
national overthrow. How awfully plain, again, is the language of the
second Psalm on this same subject, where it is precisely this
national repudiation of the supreme authority of God and of His
Christ, so increasingly common in our day, which is named as the
ground of the derisive judgment of God, and is made the occasion of
exhorting all nations, not merely to belief in God, but also to the
obedient recognition of His only-begotten Son, the Messiah, as the
only possible means of escaping the future kindling of His wrath.
No graver sign of our times could perhaps be named than just this
universal tendency in Christendom, in one way or another, to
repudiate that corporate responsibility to God which is assumed as
the basis of this part of the law of the sin offering. There can be
no worse omen for the future of an individual than the denial of his
obligations to God and to His Son, our Saviour; and there can be no
worse sign for the future of Christendom, or of any nation in
Christendom, than the partial or entire denial of national
obligation to God and to His Christ. What it shall mean in the end,
what is the future toward which these popular modern principles are
conducting the nations, is revealed in Scripture with startling
clearness, in the warning that the world is yet to see one who shall
be in a peculiar and eminent sense "the Antichrist"; {1Jn 2:18} who
shall deny both the Father and Son, and be "the Lawless One," and
the "Man of Sin," in that He shall "set Himself forth as God"; {2Th
2:3-8} to whom authority will be given "over every tribe, and
people, and tongue, and nation." {Rev 13:7}
The nation, then, as such, is held responsible to God! So stands the
law. And, therefore, in Israel, if the nation should sin, it was
ordained that they also, like the high priest, should bring a
bullock for a sin offering, the most costly victim that was ever
prescribed. This was so ordained, no doubt, in part because of
Israel’s own priestly station as a "kingdom of priests and a holy
nation," exalted to a position of peculiar dignity and privilege
before God, that they might mediate the blessings of redemption to
all nations. It was because of this fact that, if they sinned, their
guilt was peculiarly heavy.
The principle, however, is of present day application. Privilege is
the measure of responsibility, no less now than then, for nations as
well as for individuals. Thus national sin, on the part of the
British or American nation, or indeed with any of the so-called
Christian nations, is certainly judged by God to be a much more evil
thing than the same sin if committed, for example, by the Chinese or
Turkish nation, who have had no such degree of Gospel light and
knowledge.
And the law in this case evidently also implies that sin is
aggravated in proportion to its universality. It is bad, for
example, if in a community one man commit adultery, forsaking his
own wife; but it argues a condition of things far worse when the
violation of the marriage relation becomes common; when the question
can actually be held open for discussion whether marriage, as a
permanent union between one man and one woman, be not "a failure,"
as debated not long ago in a leading London paper; and when, as in
many of the United States of America and other countries of modern
Christendom, laws are enacted for the express purpose of legalising
the violation of Christ’s law of marriage, and thus shielding
adulterers and adulteresses from the condign punishment their crime
deserves. It is bad, again, when individuals in a State teach
doctrines subversive of morality; but it evidently argues a far
deeper depravation of morals when a whole community unite in
accepting, endowing, and upholding such in their work.
Next in order comes the case of the civil ruler. For him it was
ordered: "When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any of the
things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is
guilty: if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him, he
shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish" (Lev
4:22). Thus, the ruler was to bring a victim of less value than the
high priest or the collective congregation; but it must still be of
more value than that of a private person; for his responsibility, if
less than that of the officer of religion, is distinctly greater
than that of a man in private life.
And here is a lesson for modern politicians, no less than for rulers
of the olden time in Israel. While there are many in our Parliaments
and like governing bodies in Christendom who cast their every vote
with the fear of God before their eyes, yet, if there be any truth
in the general opinion of men upon this subject, there are many in
such places who, in their voting, have before their eyes the fear of
party more than the fear of God; and who, when a question comes
before them, first of all consider, not what would the law of
absolute righteousness, the law of God, require, but how will a
vote, one way or the other, in this matter, be likely to affect
their party? Such certainly need to be emphatically reminded of this
part of the law of the sin offering, which held the civil ruler
specially responsible to God for the execution of his trust. For so
it is still; God has not abdicated His throne in favour of the
people, nor will He waive His crown rights out of deference to the
political necessities of a party.
Nor is it only those who sin in this particular way who need the
reminder of their personal responsibility to God. All need it who
either are or may be called to places of greater or less
governmental responsibility; and it is those who are the most worthy
of such trust who will be the first to acknowledge their need of
this warning. For in all times those who have been lifted to
positions of political power have been under peculiar temptation to
forget God, and become reckless of their obligation to Him as His
ministers. But under the conditions of modern life, in many
countries of Christendom, this is true as perhaps never before. For
now it has come to pass that, in most modern communities, those who
make and execute laws hold their tenure of office at the pleasure of
a motley army of voters, Protestants and Romanists, Jews, atheists,
and what not, a large part of whom care not the least for the will
of God in civil government, as revealed in Holy Scripture. Under
such conditions, the place of the civil ruler becomes one of such
special trial and temptation that we do well to remember in our
intercessions, with peculiar sympathy, all who in such positions are
seeking to serve supremely, not their party, but their God, and so
best serve their country. It is no wonder that the temptation too
often to many becomes overpowering, to silence conscience with
plausible sophistries, and to use their office to carry out in
legislation, instead of the will of God, the will of the people, or
rather, of that particular party which put them in power.
Yet the great principle affirmed in this law of the sin offering
stands, and will stand forever, and to it all will do well to take
heed; namely, that God will hold the civil ruler responsible, and
more heavily responsible than any private person, for any sin he may
commit, and especially for any violation of law in any matter
committed to his trust. And there is abundant reason for this. For
the powers that be are ordained of God, and in His providence are
placed in authority; not as the modern notion is, for the purpose of
executing the will of their constituents, whatever that will may be,
but rather the unchangeable will of the Most Holy God, the Ruler of
all nations, so far as revealed, concerning the civil and social
relations of men. Nor must it be forgotten that this eminent
responsibility attaches to them, not only in their official acts,
but in all their acts as individuals. No distinction is made as to
the sin for which the ruler must bring his sin offering, whether
public and official, or private and personal. Of whatsoever kind the
sin may be, if committed by a ruler, God holds him specially
responsible, as being a ruler; and reckons the guilt of that sin,
even if a private offence, to be heavier than if it had been
committed by one of the common people. And this, for the evident
reason that, as in the case of the high priest, his exalted position
gives his example double influence and effect. Thus, in all ages and
all lands, a corrupt king or nobility have made a corrupt court; and
a corrupt court or corrupt legislators are sure to demoralise all
the lower ranks of society. But however it may be under the
governments of men, under the equitable government of the Most Holy
God, high station can give no immunity to sin. And in the day to
come, when the Great Assize is set, there will be many who in this
world stood high in authority, who will learn, in the tremendous
decisions of that day, if not before, that a just God reckoned the
guilt of their sins and crimes in exact proportion to their rank and
station.
Last of all, in this chapter, comes the law of the sin offering for
one of the common people, of which the first part is given Lev
4:27-35. The victim which is appointed for those who are best able
to give, a female goat, is yet of less value than those ordered in
the cases before given; for the responsibility and guilt in the case
of such is less. The first prescription for a sin offering by one of
the common people is introduced by these words: -" If any one of the
common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of thethings which the
Lord hath commanded not to be done, and be guilty; if his sin, which
he hath sinned, be made known to him, then he shall bring for his
oblation a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath
sinned" (Lev 4:27-28).
In case of his inability to bring so much as this, offerings of
lesser value are authorised in the section following, {Lev 5:5-13}
to which we shall attend hereafter.
Meanwhile it is suggestive to observe that this part of the law is
expanded more fully than any other part of the law of the sin
offering. We are hereby reminded that if none are so high as to he
above the reach of the judgment of God, but are held in that
proportion strictly responsible for their sin; so, on the other
hand, none are of station so low that their sins shall therefore be
overlooked. The common people, in all lands, are the great majority
of the population; but no one is to imagine that, because he is a
single individual, of no importance in a multitude, he shall
therefore, if he sin, escape the Divine eye, as it were, in a crowd.
Not so. We may be of the very lowest social station; the provision
in Lev 5:11 regards the case of such as might be so poor as that
they could not even buy two doves. Men may judge the doings of such
poor folk of little or no consequence; but not so God. With Him is
no respect of persons, either of rich or poor. From all alike, from
the anointed high priest, who ministers in the Holy of Holies, down
to the common people, and among these, again, from the highest down
to the very lowest, poorest, and meanest in rank, is demanded, even
for a sin of ignorance, a sin offering for atonement.
What a solemn lesson we have herein concerning the character of God!
His omniscience, which not only notes the sin of those who are in
some conspicuous position, but also each individual sin of the
lowest of the people! His absolute equity, exactly and accurately
grading responsibility for sin committed, in each case, according to
the rank and influence of him who commits it! His infinite holiness,
which cannot pass by without expiation even the transient act or
word of rash hands or lips, not even the sin not known as sin by the
sinner; a holiness which, in a word, unchangeably and unalterably
requires from every human being, nothing less than absolute moral
perfection like His own!
|