THE GUILT OFFERING
Lev 5:14; Lev 6:7; Lev 7:1-7
As in the English version, so also in the Hebrew, the special
class of sins for which the guilt offering is prescribed, is denoted
by a distinct and specific word. That word, like the English
"trespass," its equivalent, always has reference to an invasion of
the rights of others, especially in respect of property or service.
It is used, for instance, of the sin of Achan (Jos 7:1), who had
appropriated spoil from Jericho, which God had commanded to be set
apart for Himself. Thus, also, the neglect of God’s service, and
especially the worship of idols, is often described by this same
word, as in 2Ch 28:22; 2Ch 29:6, and many other places. The reason
is evident; for idolatry involved a withholding from God of those
tithes and other offerings which He claimed from Israel, and thus
became, as it were, an invasion of the Divine rights of property.
The same word is even applied to the sin of adultery, {Num 5:12; Num
5:27} apparently from the same point of view, inasmuch as the woman
is regarded as belonging to her husband, who has therefore in her
certain sacred rights, of which adultery is an invasion. Thus, while
every "trespass" is a sin, yet every sin is not a "trespass." There
are, evidently, many sins of which this is not a characteristic
feature. But the sins for which the guilt offering is prescribed are
in every case sins which may, at least, be specially regarded under
this particular point of view, to wit, as trespasses on the rights
of God or man in respect of ownership; and this gives us the
fundamental thought which distinguishes the guilt offering from all
others, namely, that for any invasion of the rights of another in
regard to property, not only must expiation be made, in that it is a
sin, but also satisfaction, and, so far as possible, plenary
reparation of the wrong, in that the sin is also trespass.
From this it is evident that, as contrasted with the burnt offering,
which preeminently symbolised full consecration of the person, and
the peace offering, which symbolised fellowship with God, as based
upon reconciliation by sacrifice; the guilt offering takes its
place, in a general sense, with the sin offering, as, like that,
specially designed to effect the reinstatement of an offender in
covenant relation with God. Thus, like the latter, and unlike the
former offerings, it was only prescribed with reference to specific
instances of failure to fulfil some particular obligation toward God
or man. So also, as the express condition of an acceptable offering,
the formal confession of such sin was particularly enjoined. And,
finally, unlike the burnt offering, which was wholly consumed upon
the altar, or the peace offering, of the flesh of which, with
certain reservations, the worshipper himself partook, in the case of
the guilt offering, as in the sin offering, the fat parts only were
burnt on the altar, and the remainder of the victim fell to the
priests, to be eaten by them alone in a holy place, as a thing "most
holy." The law is given in the following words: {Lev 7:3-7} "He
shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the fat tail, and the fat
that covereth the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is
on them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver, with
the kidneys, shall he take away: and the priest shall burn them upon
the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is a guilt
offering. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall
be eaten in a holy place: it is most holy. As is the sin offering,
so is the guilt offering: there is one law for them: the priest that
maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it."
But while, in a general way, the guilt offering was evidently
intended, like the sin offering, to signify the removal of sin from
the conscience through sacrifice, and thus may be regarded as a
variety of the sin offering, yet the ritual presents some striking
variations from that of the latter. These are all explicable from
this consideration, that whereas the sin offering represented the
idea of atonement by sacrifice, regarded as an expiation of guilt,
the guilt offering represented atonement under the aspect of a
satisfaction and reparation for the wrong committed. Hence, because
the idea of expiation here fell somewhat into the background, in
order to give the greater prominence to that of reparation and
satisfaction, the application of the blood is only made, as in the
burnt offering and the peace offering, by sprinkling "on the altar
(of burnt offering) round about". {Lev 7:1} Hence, again, we find
that the guilt offering always had reference to the sin of the
individual, and never to the congregation; because it was scarcely
possible that every individual in the whole congregation should be
guilty in such instances as those for which the guilt offering is
prescribed.
Again, we have another contrast in the restriction imposed upon the
choice of the victim for the sacrifice. In the sin offering, as we
have seen, it was ordained that the offering should be varied
according to the theocratic rank of the offender, to emphasise
thereby to the conscience gradations of guilt, as thus determined;
also, it was permitted that the offering might be varied in value
according to the ability of the offerer, in order that it might thus
be signified in symbol that it was the gracious will of God that
nothing in the personal condition of the sinner should exclude
anyone from the merciful provision of the expiatory sacrifice. But
it was no less important that another aspect of the matter should be
held forth, namely, that God is no respecter of persons; and that,
whatever be the condition of the offender, the obligation to plenary
satisfaction and reparation for trespass committed, cannot be
modified in any way by the circumstances of the offender. The man
who, for example, has defrauded his neighbour, whether of a small
sum or of a large estate, abides his debtor before God, under all
conceivable conditions, until restitution is made. The obligation of
full payment rests upon every debtor, be he poor or rich, until the
last farthing is discharged. Hence, the sacrificial victim of the
guilt offering is the same, whether for the poor man or the rich
man, "a ram of the flock."
It was "a ram of the flock," because, as contrasted with the ewe or
the lamb, or the dove and the pigeon, it was a valuable offering.
And yet it is not a bullock, the most valuable offering known to the
law, because that might be hopelessly out of the reach of many a
poor man. The idea of value must be represented, and yet not so
represented as to exclude a large part of the people from the
provisions of the guilt offering. The ram must be "without blemish,"
that naught may detract from its value, as a symbol of full
satisfaction for the wrong done.
But most distinctive of all the requisitions touching the victim is
this, that, unlike all other victims for other offerings, the ram of
the guilt offering must in each case be definitely appraised by the
priest. The phrase is, {Lev 5:15} that it must be "according to thy
estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary."
This expression evidently requires, first, that the offerer’s own
estimate of the value of the victim shall not be taken, but that of
the priest, as representing God in this transaction; and, secondly,
that its value shall in no case fall below a certain standard; for
the plural expression, "by shekels," implies that the value of the
ram shall not be less than two shekels. And the shekel must be of
full weight; the standard of valuation must be God’s, and not man’s,
"the shekel of the sanctuary."
Still more to emphasise the distinctive thought of this sacrifice,
that full satisfaction and reparation for all offences is with God
the universal and unalterable condition of forgiveness, it was
further ordered that in all cases where the trespass was of such a
character as made this possible, that which had been unjustly taken
or kept back, whether from God or man, should be restored in full;
and not only this, but inasmuch as by this misappropriation of what
was not his own, the offender had for the time deprived another of
the use and enjoyment of that which belonged to him, he must add to
that of which he had defrauded him "the fifth part more," a double
tithe. Thus the guilty person was not allowed to have gained even
any temporary advantage from the use for a while of that which he
now restored; for "the fifth part more" would presumably quite
overbalance all conceivable advantage or enjoyment which he might
have had from his fraud. How admirable in all this the exact justice
of God! How perfectly adapted was the guilt offering, in all these
particulars, to educate the conscience, and to preclude any possible
wrong inferences from the allowance which was made, for other
reasons, for the poor man, in the expiatory offerings for sin!
The arrangement of the law of the guilt offering is very simple. It
is divided into two sections, the first of which {Lev 5:14-19} deals
with cases of trespass "in the holy things of the Lord," things
which, by the law or by an act of consecration, were regarded as
belonging in a special sense to Jehovah; the second section, on the
other hand, {Lev 6:1-7} deals with cases of trespass on the property
rights of man.
The first of these, again, consists of two parts. Lev 5:14-16 give
the law of the guilt offering as applied to cases in which a man,
through inadvertence or unwittingly, trespasses in the holy things
of the Lord, but in such manner that the nature and extent of the
trespass can afterward be definitely known and valued; Lev 5:17-19
deal with cases where there has been trespass such as to burden the
conscience, and yet such as, for whatsoever reason, cannot be
precisely measured.
By "the holy things of the Lord" are intended such things as, either
by universal ordinance or by voluntary consecration, were regarded
as belonging to Jehovah, and in a special sense His property. Thus,
under this head would come the case of the man who, for instance,
should unwittingly eat the flesh of the firstling of his cattle, or
the flesh of the sin offering, or the shew bread; or should use his
tithe, or any part of it, for himself. Even though he did this
unwittingly, yet it none the less disturbed the man’s relation to
God; and therefore, when known, in order to his reinstatement in
fellowship with God, it was necessary that he should make full
restitution with a fifth part added, and besides this, sacrifice a
ram, duly appraised, as a guilt offering. In that the sacrifice was
prescribed over and above the restitution, the worshipper was
reminded that, in view of the infinite majesty and holiness of God,
it lies not in the power of any creature to nullify the wrong
God-ward, even by fullest restitution. For trespass is not only
trespass, but is also sin; an offence not only against the rights of
Jehovah as Owner, but also an affront to Him as Supreme King and
Lawgiver.
And yet, because the worshipper must not be allowed to lose sight of
the fact that sin is of the nature of a debt, a victim was ordered
which should especially bring to mind this aspect of the matter. For
not only among the Hebrews, but among the Arabs, the Romans and
other ancient peoples, sheep, and especially rams, were very
commonly used as a medium of payment in case of debt, and especially
in paying tribute.
Thus we read, {2Ki 3:4} that Mesha, king of Moab, rendered unto the
king of Israel "a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand
rams, with the wool," in payment of tribute; and, at a later day,
Isaiah {Isa 16:1, R.V} delivers to Moab the mandate of Jehovah:
"Send ye the lambs for the ruler of the land unto the mount of the
daughter of Zion."
And so the ram having been brought and presented by the guilty
person, with confession of his fault, it was slain by the priest,
like the sin offering. The blood, however, was not applied to the
horns of the altar of burnt offering, still less brought into the
Holy Place, as in the case of the sin offering; but {Lev 7:2} was to
be sprinkled "upon the altar round about," as in the burnt offering.
The reason of this difference in the application of the blood, as
above remarked, lies in this, that, as in the burnt offering, the
idea of sacrifice as symbolising expiation takes a place secondary
and subordinate to another thought; in this case, the conception of
sacrifice as representing satisfaction for trespass.
The next section (Lev 5:17-19) does not expressly mention sins of
trespass; for which reason some have thought that it was essentially
a repetition of the law of the sin offering. But that it is not to
be so regarded is plain from the fact that the victim is still the
same as for the guilt offering, and from the explicit statement (Lev
5:19) that this "is a guilt offering." The inference is natural that
the prescription still has reference to "trespass in the holy things
of the Lord"; and the class of cases intended is probably indicated
by the phrase, "though he knew it not." In the former section, the
law provided for cases in which though the trespass had been done
unwittingly, yet the offender afterward came to know of the trespass
in its precise extent, so as to give an exact basis for the
restitution ordered in such cases. But it is quite supposable that
there might be cases in which, although the offender was aware that
there had been a probable trespass, such as to burden his
conscience, he yet knew not just how much it was. The ordinance is
only in so far modified as such a case would make necessary; where
there was no exact knowledge of the amount of trespass, obviously
there the law of restitution with the added fifth could not be
applied. Yet, none the less, the man is guilty; he "bears his
iniquity," that is, he is liable to the penalty of his fault; and in
order to the reestablishment of his covenant relation with God, the
ram must be offered as a guilt offering.
It is suggestive to observe the emphasis which is laid upon the
necessity of the guilt offering, even in such cases. Three times,
reference is explicitly made to this fact of ignorance, as not
affecting the requirement of the guilt offering: (Lev 5:17) "Though
he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity"; and
again (Lev 5:18), with special explicitness, "The priest shall make
atonement for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly
and knew it not"; and yet again (Lev 5:19), "It is a guilt offering:
he is certainly guilty before the Lord." The repetition is an urgent
reminder that in this case, as in all others, we are never to forget
that however our ignorance of a trespass at the time, or even lack
of definite knowledge regarding its nature and extent, may affect
the degree of our guilt, it cannot affect the fact of our guilt, and
the consequent necessity for satisfaction in order to acceptance
with God.
The second section of the law of the guilt offering {Lev 6:1-7}
deals with trespasses against man, as also, like trespasses against
Jehovah, requiring, in order to forgiveness from God, full
restitution with the added fifth, and the offering of the ram as a
guilt offering. Five cases are named (Lev 6:2-3), no doubt as being
common, typical examples of sins of this character.
The first case is trespass upon a neighbour’s rights in "a matter of
deposit"; where a man has entrusted something to another to keep,
and he has either sold it or unlawfully used it as if it were his
own. The second case takes in all fraud in a "bargain," as when, for
example, a man sells goods, or a piece of land, representing them to
be better than they really are, or asking a price larger than he
knows an article to be really worth. The third instance is called
"robbery"; by which we are to understand any act or process, even
though it should be under colour of legal forms, by means of which a
man may manage unjustly to get possession of the property of his
neighbour, without giving him due equivalent therefore. The fourth
instance is called "oppression" of his neighbour. The English word
contains the same image as the Hebrew word, which is used, for
instance, of the unnecessary retention of the wages of the employe
by the employer; {Lev 19:13} it may be applied to all cases in which
a man takes advantage of another’s circumstances to extort from him
any thing or any service to which he has no right, or to force upon
him something which it is to the poor man’s disadvantage to take.
The last example of offences to which the law of the guilt offering
applied, is the case in which a man finds something and then denies
it to the rightful owner. The reference to false swearing which
follows, as appears from Lev 6:5, refers not merely to lying and
perjury concerning this last-named case, but equally to all cases in
which a man may lie or swear falsely to the pecuniary damage of his
neighbour. It is mentioned not merely as aggravating such sin, but
because in swearing touching any matter, a man appeals to God as
witness to the truth of his words; so that by swearing in these
cases he represents God as a party to his falsehood and injustice.
In all these cases, the prescription is the same as in analogous
offences in the holy things of Jehovah. First of all, the guilty man
must confess the wrong which he has done, {Num 5:7} then restitution
must be made of all of which he has defrauded his neighbour,
together with one-fifth additional. But while this may set him right
with man, it has not yet set him right with God. He must bring his
guilt offering unto Jehovah (Lev 6:6-7); "a ram without blemish out
of the flock, according to the priest’s estimation, for a guilt
offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make atonement for
him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven: concerning whatsoever
he doeth so as to be guilty thereby."
And this completes the law of the guilt offering. It was thus
prescribed for sins which involve a defrauding or injuring of
another in respect to material things, whether God or man, whether
knowingly or unwittingly. The law was one and unalterable for all;
the condition of pardon was plenary restitution for the wrong done,
and the offering of a costly sacrifice, appraised as such by the
priest, the earthly representative of God, in the shekel of the
sanctuary, "a ram without blemish out of the flock."
There are lessons from this ordinance, so plain that, even in the
dim light of those ancient days, the Israelite might discern and
understand them. And they are lessons which, because man and his
ways are the same as then, and God the same as then, are no less
pertinent to all of us today.
Thus we are taught by this law that God claims from man, and
especially from His own people, certain rights of property, of which
He will not allow Himself to be defrauded, even through man’s
forgetfulness or inadvertence. In a later day Israel was sternly
reminded of this in the burning words of Jehovah by the prophet
Malachi: {Mal 3:8-9} "Will a man rob God? yet ye rob me. But ye say,
Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed
with the curse: for ye rob me, even this whole nation." Nor has God
relaxed His claim in the present dispensation. For the Apostle Paul
charges the Corinthian Christians. {2Co 8:7} in the name of the
Lord, with regard to their gifts, that as they abounded in other
graces, so they should "abound in this grace also." And this is the
first lesson brought before us in the law of the guilt offering. God
claims His tithe, His first fruit, and the fulfilment of all vows.
It was a lesson for that time; it is no less a lesson for our time.
And the guilt offering further reminds us that as God has rights, so
man also has rights, and that Jehovah, as the King and Judge of men,
will exact the satisfaction of those rights, and will pass over no
injury done by man to his neighbour in material things, nor forgive
it unto any man, except upon condition of the most ample material
restitution to the injured party.
Then, yet again, if the sin offering called especially for faith in
an expiatory sacrifice as the condition of the Divine forgiveness,
the guilt offering as specifically called also for repentance, as a
condition of pardon, no less essential. Its unambiguous message to
every Israelite was the same as that of John the Baptist at a later
day: {Mat 3:8-9} "Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance: and think
not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father."
The reminder is as much needed now as in the days of Moses. How
specific and practical the selection of the particular instances
mentioned as cases for the application of the inexorable law of the
guilt offering! Let us note them again, for they are not cases
peculiar to Israel or to the fifteenth century before Christ. "If
anyone deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit"; as,
e.g., in the case of moneys entrusted to a bank or railway company,
or other corporation; for there is no hint that the law did not
apply except to individuals, or that a man might be released from
these stringent obligations of righteousness whenever in some such
evil business he was associated with others; the guilt offering must
be forthcoming, with the amplest restitution, or there is no pardon.
Then false dealing in a "bargain" is named, as involving the same
requirement; as when a man prides himself on driving "a good
bargain," by getting something unfairly for less than its value,
taking advantage of his neighbour’s straits; or by selling something
for more than its value, taking advantage of his neighbour’s
ignorance, or his necessity. Then is mentioned "robbery"; by which
word is covered not merely that which goes by the name in polite
circles, but all cases in which a man takes advantage of his
neighbour’s distress or helplessness, perhaps by means of some
technicality of law, to "strip" him, as the Hebrew word is, of his
property of any kind. And next is specified the man who may "have
oppressed his neighbour," especially a man or woman who serves him,
as the usage of the word suggests; grinding thus the face of the
poor; paying, for instance, less for labour than the law of
righteousness and love demands, because the poor man must have work
or starve with his house. What sweeping specifications! And all such
in all lands and all ages, are solemnly reminded in the law of the
guilt offering that in these their sharp practices they have to
reckon not with man merely, but with God; and that it is utterly
vain for a man to hope for the forgiveness of sin from God, offering
or no offering, so long as he has in his pocket his neighbour’s
money. For all such, full restoration with the added fifth,
according to the law of the theocratic kingdom, was the unalterable
condition of the Divine forgiveness; and we shall find that this law
of the theocratic kingdom will also be the law applied in the
adjudications of the great white throne.
Furthermore, in that it was particularly enjoined that in the
estimation of the value of the guilt offering, not the shekel of the
people, often of light weight, but the full weight shekel of the
sanctuary was to be held the invariable standard; we, who are so apt
to ease things to our consciences by applying to our conduct the
principles of judgment current among men, are plainly taught that if
we will have our trespasses forgiven, the reparation and restitution
which we make must be measured, not by the standard of men, but by
that of God, which is absolute righteousness.
Yet again, in that in the case of all such trespasses on the rights
of God or man it was ordained that the offering, unlike other
sacrifices intended to teach other lessons, should be one and the
same, whether the offender were rich or poor; we are taught that the
extent of our moral obligations or the conditions of their equitable
discharge are not determined by a regard to our present ability to
make them good. Debt is debt by whomsoever owed. If a man have
appropriated a hundred pounds of another man’s money, the moral
obligation of that debt cannot be abrogated by a bankrupt law,
allowing him to compromise at ten shillings in the pound. The law of
man may indeed release him from liability to prosecution, but no law
can discharge such a man from the unalterable obligation to pay
penny for penny, farthing for farthing. There is no bankrupt law in
the kingdom of God. This, too, is evidently a lesson quite as much
needed by Gentiles and nominal Christians in the nineteenth century
after Christ, as by Hebrews in the fifteenth century before Christ.
But the spiritual teaching of the guilt offering is not yet
exhausted. For, like all the other offerings, it pointed to Christ.
He is "the end of the law unto righteousness," {Rom 10:4} as regards
the guilt offering, as in all else. As the burnt offering prefigured
Christ the heavenly Victim, in one aspect, and the peace offering,
Christ in another aspect, so the guilt offering presents to our
adoring contemplation yet another view of His sacrificial work.
While, as our burnt offering, He became our righteousness in full
self-consecration; as our peace offering, our life; as our sin
offering, the expiation for our sins; so, as our guilt offering, He
made satisfaction and plenary reparation in our behalf to the God on
whose inalienable rights in us, by our sins we had trespassed
without measure.
Nor is this an over refinement of exposition. For in Isa 53:10,
whereboth the Authorised and the Revised Versions read, "shall make
his soul an offering for sin, " the margin of the latter rightly
calls attention to the fact that in the Hebrew the word here used is
the very same which through all this Levitical law is rendered
"guilt offering." And so we are expressly told by this evangelic
prophet, that the Holy Servant of Jehovah, the suffering Messiah, in
this His sacrificial work should make His soul "a guilt offering."
He became Himself the complete and exhaustive realisation of all
that in sacrifice which was set forth in the Levitical guilt
offering.
A declaration this is which holds forth both the sin for which
Christ atoned, and the Sacrifice itself, in a very distinct and
peculiar light. In that Christ’s sacrifice was thus a guilt offering
in the sense of the law, we are taught that, in one aspect, our sins
are regarded by God, and should therefore be regarded by us, as
debts which are due from us to God. This is, indeed, by no means the
only aspect in which sin should be regarded; it is, for example,
rebellion, high treason, a deadly affront to the Supreme Majesty,
which must be expiated with the blood of the sin offering. But our
sins are also of the nature of debts. That is, God has claims on us
for service which we have never met; claims for a portion of our
substance which we have often withheld, or given grudgingly,
trespassing thus in "the holy things of the Lord." Just as the
servant who is set to do his master’s work, if, instead, he take
that time to do his own work, is debtor to the full value of the
service of which his master is thus defrauded, so stands the case
between the sinner and God. Just as with the agent who fails to make
due returns to his principal on the moneys committed to him for
investment, using them instead for himself, so stands the case
between God and the sinner who has used his talents, not for the
Lord, but for himself, or has kept them laid up, unused, in a
napkin. Thus, in the New Testament, as the correlate of this
representation of Christ as a guilt offering; we find sin again and
again set forth as a debt which is owed from man to God. So, in the
Lord’s prayer we are taught to pray, "Forgive us our debts; so,
twice the Lord Himself in His parables" {Mat 18:23-35 Luk 7:41-42}
set forth the relation of the sinner to God as that of the debtor to
the creditor; and concerning those on whom the tower of Siloam fell,
asks, {Luk 13:4} "Think ye that they were sinners (Greek ‘debtors,’)
above all that dwelt in Jerusalem?" Indeed so imbedded is this
thought in the conscience of man that it has been crystallised in
our word "ought," which is but the old preterite of "owe"; as in
Tyndale’s New Testament, where we read, {Luk 7:41} "there was a
certain lender, which ought him five hundred pence." What a
startling conception is this, which forms the background to the
great "guilt offering"! Man a debtor to God! a debtor for service
each day due, but no day ever fully and perfectly rendered! in
gratitude for gifts, too often quite forgotten, oftener only paid in
scanty part! We are often burdened and troubled greatly about our
debts to men; shall we not be concerned about the enormous and ever
accumulating debt to God! Or is He an easy creditor, who is
indifferent whether these debts of ours be met or not? So think
multitudes; but this is not the representation of Scripture, either
in the Old or the New Testament. For in the law it was required,
that if a man, guilty of any of these offences for the forgiveness
of which the guilt offering was prescribed, failed to confess and
bring the offering, and make the restitution with the added fifth,
as commanded by the law, he should be brought before the judges, and
the full penalty of law exacted, on the principle of "an eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth!" And in the New Testament, one of those
solemn parables of the two debtors closes with the awful words
concerning one of them who was "delivered to the tormentors," that
he should not come out of prison till he had "paid the uttermost
farthing." Not a hint is there in Holy Scripture, of forgiveness of
our debts to God, except upon the one condition of full restitution
made to Him to whom the debt is due, and therewith the sacrificial
blood of a guilt offering. But Christ is our Guilt offering.
He is our Guilt offering, in that He Himself did that, really and
fully, with respect to all our debts as sinful men to God, which the
guilt offering of Leviticus symbolised, but accomplished not. His
soul He made a guilt offering for our trespasses! Isaiah’s words
imply that He should make full restitution for all that of which we,
as sinners, defraud God. He did this by that perfect and
incomparable service of lowly obedience such as we should render,
but have never rendered; in which He has made full satisfaction to
God for all our innumerable debts. He has made such satisfaction,
not by a convenient legal fiction, or in a rhetorical figure, or as
judged by any human standard. Even as the ram of the guilt offering
was appraised according to "the shekel of the sanctuary," so upon
our Lord, at the beginning of that life of sacrificial service, was
solemnly passed the Divine verdict that with this antitypical Victim
of the Guilt offering, God Himself was "well pleased". {Mat 3:17}
Not only so. For we cannot forget that according to the law, not
only the full restitution must be made, but the fifth must be added
thereto. So with our Lord. For who will not confess that Christ not
only did all that we should have done, but, in the ineffable depth
of His self-humiliation and obedience unto death, even the death of
the cross, paid therewith the added fifth of the law. Said a Jewish
Rabbi to the writer, "I have never been able to finish reading in
the Gospel the story of the Jesus of Nazareth; for it too soon
brings the tears to my eyes!" So affecting even to Jewish unbelief
was this unparalleled spectacle, the adorable Son of God making
Himself a guilt offering, and paying, in the incomparable perfection
of His holy obedience, the added fifth in our behalf! Thus has
Christ "magnified this law" of the guilt offering, and "made it
honourable," even as He did all law. {Isa 42:21}
And, as is intimated, by the formal valuation of the sacrificial
ram, in the type, even the death of Christ as the guilt offering, in
one aspect is to be regarded as the consummating act of service in
the payment of debts Godward. Just as the sin offering represented
His death in its passive aspect, as meeting the demands of justice
against the sinner as a rebel under sentence of death, by dying in
his stead, so, on the other hand, the guilt offering represents that
same sacrificial death, rather in another aspect, no less clearly
set forth in the New Testament; namely, the supreme act of obedience
to the will of God, whereby He discharged "to the uttermost
farthing," even with the added fifth of the law, all the
transcendent debt of service due from man to God.
This representation of Christ’s work has in all ages been an
offence, "the offence of the cross." All the more need we to insist
upon it, and never to forget, or let others forget, that Christ is
expressly declared in the Word of God to have been "a guilt
offering," in the Levitical sense of that term; that, therefore, to
speak of His death as effecting our salvation merely through its
moral influence, is to contradict and nullify the Word of God. Well
may we set this word in Isa 53:10, concerning the Servant of
Jehovah, against all modern Unitarian theology, and against all
Socinianising teaching; all that would maintain any view of Christ’s
death which excludes or ignores the divinely revealed fact that it
was in its essential nature a guilt offering; and, because a guilt
offering, therefore of the nature of the payment of a debt in behalf
of those for whom He suffered.
Most blessed truth this, for all who can receive it! Christ, the Son
of God, our Guilt offering! Like the poor Israelite, who had
defrauded God of that which was His due, so must we do; coming
before God, confessing that wherein we have wronged Him, and
bringing forth fruit meet for repentance, we must bring and plead
Christ in the glory of His person, in all the perfection of His holy
obedience, as our Guilt offering. And therewith the ancient promise
to the penitent Israelite becomes ours, {Lev 6:7} "The priest shall
make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven;
concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby."
THE CONTINUAL BURNT
OFFERING
Lev 6:8-13
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his
sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: the burnt
offering shall be on the hearth, upon the altar all night unto the
morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereon.
And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen
breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes
whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and
he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his
garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes
without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the altar
shall be kept burning thereon, it shall not go out; and the priest
shall burn wood on it every morning: and he shall lay the burnt
offering in order upon it, and shall burn thereon the fat of the
peace offerings. Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar
continually; it shall not go out."
Lev 6:8-13 we have a "law of the burnt offering" specially addressed
to "Aaron and his sons," and designed to secure that the fire of the
burnt offering should be continually ascending unto God. In chapter
1 we have the law regarding burnt offerings brought by the
individual Israelite. But besides these it was ordered, Exo
29:38-46, that every morning and evening the priest should offer a
lamb as a burnt offering for the whole people, -an offering which
primarily symbolised the constant renewal of Israel’s consecration
as "a kingdom of priests" unto the Lord. It is to this, the daily
burnt offering, that this supplementary law of chapter 6 refers. All
the regulations are intended to provide for the uninterrupted
maintenance of this sacrificial fire: first, by the regular removal
of the ashes which would else cover and smother the fire; and,
secondly, by the supply of fuel. The removal of the ashes from the
fire is a priestly function; hence it was ordained that the priest
for this service put on his robes of office, "his linen garment and
his linen breeches," and then take up the ashes from the altar, and
lay them by the side of the altar. But as from time to time it would
be necessary to remove them from this place quite without the tent,
it was ordered that he should carry them forth "without the camp
unto a clean place," that the sanctity of all connected with
Jehovah’s worship might never be lost sight of; though, as it was
forbidden to wear the priestly garments except within the tent of
meeting, the priest, when this service was performed, must "put on
other garments," his ordinary, unofficial robes. The ashes being
thus removed from the altar each morning, then the wood was put on,
and the parts of the lamb laid in order upon it to be perfectly
consumed. And whenever during the day anyone might bring a peace
offering unto the Lord, on this ever-burning fire the priest was to
place also the fat, the richest part, of the offering, and with it
also the various individual burnt offerings and meal offerings of
each day. And thus it was arranged by the law that, all day long,
and all night long, the smoke of the burnt offering should be
continually ascending unto the Lord.
The significance of this can hardly be missed. By this supplemental
law which thus provided for "a continual burnt offering" to the
Lord, it was first of all signified to Israel, and to us, that the
consecration which the Lord so desires and requires from His people
is not occasional, but continuous. As the priest, representing the
nation, morning by morning cleared away the ashes which had else
covered the flame and caused it to burn dull, and both morning by
morning and evening by evening, laid a new victim on the altar, so
will God have us do. Our self-consecration is not to be occasional,
but continual and habitual. Each morning we should imitate the
priest of old, in putting away all that might dull the flame of our
devotion, and, morning by morning, when we arise, and evening by
evening, when we retire, by a solemn act of self-consecration give
ourselves anew unto the Lord. So shall the word in substance, thrice
repeated, be fulfilled in us in its deepest, truest sense: "The fire
shall be kept burning on the altar continually: it shall not go out"
(Lev 6:9, Lev 6:12-13).
But we must not forget that in this part of the law, as in all else,
we are pointed to Christ. This ordinance of the continual burnt
offering reminds us that Christ, as our burnt offering, continually
offers Himself to God in self-consecration in our behalf. Very
significant it is that the burnt offering stands in contrast in this
respect with the sin offering. We never read of a continual sin
offering; even the great annual sin offering of the day of
atonement, which, like the daily burnt offering, had reference to
the nation at large, was soon finished, and once for all. And it was
so with reason; for in the nature of the case, our Lord’s offering
of Himself for sin as an expiatory sacrifice was not and could not
be a continuous act. But with His presentation of Himself unto God
in full consecration of His person as our Burnt offering, it is
different. Throughout the days of His humiliation this self offering
of Himself to God continued; nor, indeed, can we say that it has yet
ceased, or ever can cease. For still, as the High Priest of the
heavenly sanctuary, He continually offers Himself as our Burnt
offering in constantly renewed and constantly continued devotement
of Himself to the Father to do His will.
In this ordinance of the daily burnt offering, ever ascending in the
fire that never went out, the idea of the burnt sacrifice reaches
its fullest expression, the type its most perfect development. And
thus the law of the burnt offering leaves us in the presence of this
holy vision: the greater than Aaron, in the heavenly place as our
great Representative and Mediator, morning by morning, evening by
evening, offering Himself unto the Father in the full
self-devotement of His risen life unto God, as our "continual burnt
offering." In this, let us rejoice and be at peace.
THE DAILY MEAL OFFERING
Lev 6:14-23
"And this is the law of the meal offering: the sons of Aaron
shall offer it before the Lord, before the altar. And he shall take
up therefrom his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering and
of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meal
offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, as
the memorial thereof, unto the Lord. And that which is left thereof
shall Aaron and his sons eat: it shall be eaten without leaven in a
holy place: in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.
It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it as their portion
of My offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as the sin offering,
and as the guilt offering. Every male among the children of Aaron
shall eat of it, as a due forever throughout your generations, from
the offerings of the Lord made by fire: whosoever toucheth them
shall be holy. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This is the
oblation of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the
Lord in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of
fine flour for a meal offering perpetually, half of it in the
morning, and half thereof in the evening. On a baking pan it shall
be made with oil; when it is soaked, thou shalt bring it in: in
baken pieces shalt thou offer the meal offering for a sweet savour
unto the Lord. And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead
from among his sons shall offer it: by a statute forever it shall be
wholly burnt unto the Lord. And every meal offering of the priest
shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten."
As there were not only the burnt offerings of the individual
Israelite, but also a daily burnt offering, morning and evening,
presented by the priest as the representative of the collective
nation, so also with the meal offering. The law concerning this
daily meal offering is given in Lev 6:19-23. The amount in this case
was prescribed, being apparently the amount regarded as a day’s
portion of food-"the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour," half of
which was to be offered in the morning and half in the evening, made
on a baking pan with oil, "for a sweet savour unto the Lord." Unlike
the meal offering of the individual, it is said, "by a statute
forever, it shall be wholly burnt unto the Lord Every meal offering
of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten." This
single variation from the ordinance of chapter 4 is simply an
application of the principle which governs all the sacrifices except
the peace offering, that he who offered any sacrifice could never
himself eat of it; and as the priest in this case was the offerer,
the symbolism required that he should himself have nothing of the
offering, as being wholly given by him to the Lord. And this meal
offering was to be presented, not merely, as some have inferred from
Lev 6:20, on the day of the anointing of the high priest, but, as is
expressly said, "perpetually."
The typical meaning of the meal offering, and, in particular, of
this daily meal offering, which, as we learn from Exodus 30, was
offered with the daily burnt offering, is very clear. Every meal
offering pointed to Christ in His consecration of all His works to
the Father. And as the daily burnt offering presented by Aaron and
his sons typified our heavenly High Priest as offering His person in
daily consecration unto God in our behalf, so, in the daily meal
offering, wholly burnt upon the altar, we see Him in like manner
offering unto God in perfect consecration, day by day, perpetually,
all His works for our acceptance. To the believer, often sorely
oppressed with the sense of the imperfection of his own consecration
of his daily works, in that because of this the Father is not
glorified by him as He should be, how exceedingly comforting this
view of Christy For that which, at the best, we do so imperfectly
and interruptedly, He does in our behalf perfectly, and with
never-failing constancy; thus at once perfectly glorifying the
Father, and also, through the virtue of the boundless merit of this
consecration, constantly procuring for us daily grace unto the life
eternal.
|