Leviticus · Chapter 4

V. 1. The Lord spake unto Moses-The laws contained in the three first chapters, seem to have been delivered to Moses at one time. Here begin the laws of another day, which God delivered from between the Cherubim.

Verse 1. The Lord spake unto Moses — The laws contained in the first three chapters, seem to have been delivered to Moses at one time. Here begin the laws of another day, which God delivered from between the cherubim.

ORDINARY SINS OF INADVERTENCE, 1, 2.

2. If a soul shall sin — It is a noteworthy fact that throughout this entire description of sacrifices Jehovah makes provision not for bodies, nor for men, but for souls. He would thus early direct the attention of the Hebrews away from the visible form to the immaterial and spiritual person which it enshrines. Through ignorance — The Hebrew word b’shaggah — in error — occurs here for the first time in the Bible. In the Authorized Version it is translated by the word ignorance twelve times, by unawares four times, once by unwittingly, and twice by error. It occurs only in Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and Ecclesiastes. Furst prefers to render it by the adverb inadvertently. Up to this time Jehovah had overlooked the sins of his people which arose from lack of knowledge and imperfection of judgment. But that every mouth may be stopped and all may be guilty before him, he pronounces sentence of condemnation upon them for their unconscious deviations from his law. There can be no high attainments in holiness until the cry is extorted, Who can understand his inadvertencies? Cleanse thou me from unknown errors. Psalm 19:12. He who is satisfied so long as his conscience does not condemn him, needs to be taught that the decisions of an approving conscience, involving, as they may, erroneous intellectual judgments, are not a safe ground of justification to him who has access to the written revelation of God’s will. Hence says St. Paul, (1 Corinthians 4:4,) as rendered by Alford, “For I am conscious to myself of no delinquency, but I am not hereby justified.” Compare Hebrews 5:2, 3; 9:7. Against any… commandments — The Hebrew is not against but from — in deviation from. As the law is made up of prohibitions and precepts, it may be broken by doing a forbidden act, which is a sin of commission, and by failing to perform a required deed, which is called a sin of omission. In other words the law may be transgressed, or stepped over, and it may be swerved from. The sin of in-advertence is most frequently committed in the latter way, though there are also involuntary sins of commission. Such are distinctly referred to in the latter part of the verse.

V. 2. If a soul sin-This must necessarily be understood of more than common daily infirmities; for if every such sin had required an offering, it had not been possible either for most sinners to bear such a charge, or for the altar to receive so many sacrifices, or for the priests to manage so infinite a work. And for ordinary sins, they were ceremonially expiated by the daily offering, and by that on the great day of atonement, Leviticus 16:30. Through ignorance-Or, error, either not knowing his act to be sinful, as appears by comparing Leviticus 4:13,14, or not considering it, but falling into sin thro’ the power of some sudden passion or temptation, as the Hebrew word signifies, Psalm 119:67. Things which ought not to be done-The words may be rendered, in or about every, or any of the commandments of the Lord which should not be done; or, which concern things that should not be done, namely, in any negative commands. (And there is great reason why a sacrifice should be more necessary for these, than for other sins, because affirmative precepts do not so strictly and constantly bind men as the negative do.) Then he shall offer according to his quality, which is here to be understood out of the following verses.

Verse 2. If a soul shall sin through ignorance] That is, if any man shall do what God has forbidden, or leave undone what God has commanded, through ignorance of the law relative to these points; as soon as the transgression or omission comes to his knowledge, he shall offer the sacrifice here prescribed, and shall not suppose that his ignorance is an excuse for his sin. He who, when his iniquity comes to his knowledge, refuses to offer such a sacrifice, sins obstinately and wilfully, and to him there remains no other sacrifice for sin-no other mode by which he can be reconciled to God, but he has a certain fearful looking for of judgment-which shall devour such adversaries; and this seems the case to which the apostle alludes, Hebrews 10:26, &c., in the words above quoted. There have been a great number of subtle questions started on this subject, both by Jews and Christians, but the above I believe to be the sense and spirit of the law.

Verse 2. If a soul sin through ignorance — The next kind of sacrifices appointed were for the expiation of particular sins, and are therefore called sin-offerings. The first sort of these were for sins of ignorance. These must necessarily be understood of such as exceeded common daily infirmities; for if every such sin had required an offering, it had not been possible either for most sinners to bear such a charge, or for the altar to receive so many sacrifices, or for the priests to manage so laborious a work. And for ordinary sins, they were ceremonially expiated by the daily offering, and by that on the great day of atonement, Leviticus 16:30. Through ignorance — Or error, either not knowing his act to be sinful, as appears by comparing verses 13, 14, or not considering it, but falling into sin through the power of some sudden temptation, as the Hebrew word signifies, Psalm 119:67. In short, the doing any thing expressly forbidden, whether heedlessly or by surprise, was a sin of ignorance; and that whether committed by the high-priest, by the whole body of the community, by their rulers, or by any one of the people. In order, it seems, 1st, To excite the Israelites to greater diligence in the study of their laws and religion, a sin-offering was imposed by way of fine upon those who sinned through ignorance or inadvertence. And, 2d, The sin-offering was required in these cases to show them that to disobey God in any instance, or in any respect whatever to neglect or fall short of their duty, would expose them to the divine wrath, unless an atonement was made for them. It is observable that the apostle calls such sins the errors of the people, (Hebrews 5:2,) distinguishing them from wilful transgressions. They were confined to things of a ritual nature, or to such particular cases wherein the plea of ignorance could be admitted. For as to notorious violations of the moral law, ignorance could be no excuse, because these were known by the light of reason, and therefore could not be reckoned sins of ignorance, but presumptuous sins; and for them no expiatory sacrifice was admitted, Numbers 15:30.

Verse 2. Sin through ignorance. Ignorance is itself a crime, for all men ought to know the scriptures; or in doubtful cases, they should ask advice. Error and negligence are therefore without excuse.

ORDINARY SINS OF INADVERTENCE, 1, 2.

2. If a soul shall sin — It is a noteworthy fact that throughout this entire description of sacrifices Jehovah makes provision not for bodies, nor for men, but for souls. He would thus early direct the attention of the Hebrews away from the visible form to the immaterial and spiritual person which it enshrines. Through ignorance — The Hebrew word b’shaggah — in error — occurs here for the first time in the Bible. In the Authorized Version it is translated by the word ignorance twelve times, by unawares four times, once by unwittingly, and twice by error. It occurs only in Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and Ecclesiastes. Furst prefers to render it by the adverb inadvertently. Up to this time Jehovah had overlooked the sins of his people which arose from lack of knowledge and imperfection of judgment. But that every mouth may be stopped and all may be guilty before him, he pronounces sentence of condemnation upon them for their unconscious deviations from his law. There can be no high attainments in holiness until the cry is extorted, Who can understand his inadvertencies? Cleanse thou me from unknown errors. Psalm 19:12. He who is satisfied so long as his conscience does not condemn him, needs to be taught that the decisions of an approving conscience, involving, as they may, erroneous intellectual judgments, are not a safe ground of justification to him who has access to the written revelation of God’s will. Hence says St. Paul, (1 Corinthians 4:4,) as rendered by Alford, “For I am conscious to myself of no delinquency, but I am not hereby justified.” Compare Hebrews 5:2, 3; 9:7. Against any… commandments — The Hebrew is not against but from — in deviation from. As the law is made up of prohibitions and precepts, it may be broken by doing a forbidden act, which is a sin of commission, and by failing to perform a required deed, which is called a sin of omission. In other words the law may be transgressed, or stepped over, and it may be swerved from. The sin of in-advertence is most frequently committed in the latter way, though there are also involuntary sins of commission. Such are distinctly referred to in the latter part of the verse.

V. 3. If the priest-That is, the high-priest, who only was anointed after the first time. His anointing is mentioned, because he was not compleat high-priest ‘till he was anointed. Do sin-Either in doctrine or practice, which it is here supposed he may do. And this is noted as a character of imperfection in the priesthood of the law, whereby the Israelites were directed to expect another and better high-priest, even one who is holy, harmless, and separate from sinners, Hebrews 7:26. According to the sin of the people-In the same manner as any of the people do; which implies that God expected more circumspection from him, than from the people. But the words may be rendered, to the sin or guilt of the people, which may be mentioned as an aggrevation of his sin, that by it he commonly brings sin, and guilt, and punishment upon the people, who are infected or scandalized by his example. A young bullock-The same sacrifice which was offered for all the people, to shew how much his sin was aggravated by his quality. Sin-offering-Heb. sin, which word is oft taken in that sense.

Verse 3. If the priest that is anointed] Meaning, most probably, the high priest. According to the sin of the people; for although he had greater advantages than the people could have, in being more conversant with the law of God, and his lips should understand and preserve knowledge, yet it was possible even for him, in that time in which the word of God had not been fully revealed, to transgress through ignorance; and his transgression might have the very worst tendency, because the people might be thereby led into sin. Hence several critics understand this passage in this way, and translate it thus: If the anointed priest shall lead the people to sin; or, literally, if the anointed priest shall sin to the sin of the people; that is, so as to cause the people to transgress, the shepherd going astray, and the sheep following after him.

Verse 3. If the priest — The high-priest, who only was anointed. His anointing is mentioned, because he was not complete high-priest till he was anointed. Do sin — Either in doctrine or practice, which it is here supposed he might do. And this is noted as a character of imperfection in the priesthood of the law, Whereby the Israelites were directed to expect another and better high-priest, even one who is “holy, harmless, and separate from sinners,” Hebrews 7:26. According to the sin of the people — In the same manner as any of the people do; which implies that God expected more circumspection from him than from the people. But the words may be rendered, to the sin or guilt of the people, which may be mentioned as an aggravation of his sin, that by it he commonly brings sin, and guilt, and punishment upon the people, who are infected or scandalized by his example. A young bullock — The same sacrifice which was offered for all the people, to show how much his sin was aggravated by his quality. Sin-offering — Hebrew, sin, which word is often taken in that sense.

Ver. 3. If the priest do sin. The LXX read the highpriest; and the Vulgate version adds, making the people to be delinquents, their sins tending to seduce them. The jewish highpriest we see was not infallible, much less is the Roman pontiff. The sins of men high in office in the sanctuary are doubly conspicuous, and doubly heinous.

SIN OF A PRIEST, 3-12.

3. The priest — The term priest in the original signifies a performer of the offices of worship. In the English it is derived from presbyter, referring more to the order than to the duties. That is anointed — The anointing at the consecration of the Aaronic priest symbolized his setting apart to a sacred office, and prefigured the inward unction of the Holy Ghost, which, after Jesus was glorified, should be poured upon all perfect believers in Christ, making them “kings and priests unto God.” Revelation 1:6. The original is the word messiah, adumbrating the only Priest who mediates between the believer and the Father in the Gospel dispensation. The high priest is here intended, because he had the anointing in a pre-eminent sense. Leviticus 16:32; note on 6:22; Psalm 133:2. The anointing oil was composed of pure myrrh, sweet cinnamon, calamus, cassia, and olive oil, (Exodus 30:23,) emblematic of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. St. Chrysostom never opened his “golden mouth” for a more terse and truthful sentence than this: “The Law was the Gospel in anticipation; the Gospel is the Law in fulfilment.” Do sin — The radical notion of sin, in both the Hebrew and Greek mind, is that of missing the mark. The priest “taken from among men is compassed with infirmities,” and is so liable to miss the mark by any involuntary unsteadiness of aim that he is regarded as a presumptive sinner, (Leviticus 8:14,) and provision is made for the expiation of his offences before he can acceptably officiate at the altar in behalf of others, who, like himself, are unwittingly “out of the way.” According to the sin of the people — Rather, to the fault of the people, so that they incur guilt. If the high priest sins, the propitiation which he attempts to make is null and void, and the people are left in a state of guilt exposed to the penalty of the law. Hence provision is made to secure an atonement for the atoner. At no point does the superiority of our great High Priest to the frail and sinning head of the Levitical hierarchy shine forth with greater brightness. He is not obliged to present an offering first for himself and then for us. “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Without blemish — See note on Leviticus 1:3. Sin offering — The Hebrew chattath signifies sin, sinner, sacrifice for sin, repentance, or punishment. This explains 2 Corinthians 5:21. The idea of rendering satisfaction for the transgression of the law lies on the very surface of the sin offering. The blood of the bullock is the life. The life of the animal must be substituted for the forfeited life of the sinner. See Introduction, (6.)

V. 4. On the head-To testify both his acknowledgment of his sin, and faith in God’s promise for the expiation of his sins through Christ, whom that sacrifice typified. Kill the bullock-By one of the priests, whom he should cause to do it.

Verse 4. Lay his hand upon the bullock’s head] See Clarke note on “Leviticus 1:4”.

Verse 4. On the head — To testify both his acknowledgment of his sin, and faith in God’s promise for the expiation of his sins through Christ, whom that sacrifice typified.

4. Shall lay his hand… and kill — Since the priest is also the offerer these acts must be performed by him. For the significance of the laying on of the hand, see Leviticus 1:4. From later Jewish authorities we learn that there was added the following confession of sin, and prayer that the victim might be accepted as its expiation: “I have sinned, I have done iniquity, I have trespassed, and done thus and thus; and do return by repentance before thee, and with this I make atonement.” This confession, if it was not a part of the original ritual, was a pardonable addition; the proper — we may say necessary — expression of the penitent soul.

V. 5. To the tabernacle-Into the tabernacle; which was not required nor allowed in any other sacrifice, possibly to shew the greatness of the high-priest’s sin, which needed more than ordinary diligence in him, and favour from God to expiate it.

Verse 5. To the tabernacle — Into the tabernacle; which was not required nor allowed in any other sacrifice, possibly to show the greatness of the high-priest’s sin, which needed more than ordinary diligence in him, and favour from God, to expiate it.

SIN OF A PRIEST, 3-12.

3. The priest — The term priest in the original signifies a performer of the offices of worship. In the English it is derived from presbyter, referring more to the order than to the duties. That is anointed — The anointing at the consecration of the Aaronic priest symbolized his setting apart to a sacred office, and prefigured the inward unction of the Holy Ghost, which, after Jesus was glorified, should be poured upon all perfect believers in Christ, making them “kings and priests unto God.” Revelation 1:6. The original is the word messiah, adumbrating the only Priest who mediates between the believer and the Father in the Gospel dispensation. The high priest is here intended, because he had the anointing in a pre-eminent sense. Leviticus 16:32; note on 6:22; Psalm 133:2. The anointing oil was composed of pure myrrh, sweet cinnamon, calamus, cassia, and olive oil, (Exodus 30:23,) emblematic of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. St. Chrysostom never opened his “golden mouth” for a more terse and truthful sentence than this: “The Law was the Gospel in anticipation; the Gospel is the Law in fulfilment.” Do sin — The radical notion of sin, in both the Hebrew and Greek mind, is that of missing the mark. The priest “taken from among men is compassed with infirmities,” and is so liable to miss the mark by any involuntary unsteadiness of aim that he is regarded as a presumptive sinner, (Leviticus 8:14,) and provision is made for the expiation of his offences before he can acceptably officiate at the altar in behalf of others, who, like himself, are unwittingly “out of the way.” According to the sin of the people — Rather, to the fault of the people, so that they incur guilt. If the high priest sins, the propitiation which he attempts to make is null and void, and the people are left in a state of guilt exposed to the penalty of the law. Hence provision is made to secure an atonement for the atoner. At no point does the superiority of our great High Priest to the frail and sinning head of the Levitical hierarchy shine forth with greater brightness. He is not obliged to present an offering first for himself and then for us. “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Without blemish — See note on Leviticus 1:3. Sin offering — The Hebrew chattath signifies sin, sinner, sacrifice for sin, repentance, or punishment. This explains 2 Corinthians 5:21. The idea of rendering satisfaction for the transgression of the law lies on the very surface of the sin offering. The blood of the bullock is the life. The life of the animal must be substituted for the forfeited life of the sinner. See Introduction, (6.)

V. 6. Seven times-A number much used in scripture, as a number of perfection; and here prescribed, either to shew that his sins needed more then ordinary purgation, and more exercise of his faith and repentance, both which graces he was obliged to join with that ceremonial rite. Before the veil-The second veil dividing between the holy of holies, which is generally called the veil of the sanctuary.

Verse 6. Seven times] See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 29:30”. The blood of this sacrifice was applied in three different ways: 1. The priest put his finger in it, and sprinkled it seven times before the veil, Leviticus 4:6. 2. He put some of it on the horns of the altar of incense. 3. He poured the remaining part at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offerings, Leviticus 4:7.

Verse 6. Seven times — A number much used in Scripture, as a number of perfection; and here prescribed, either to show that his sins needed more than ordinary purgation, and more exercise of his faith and repentance, both which graces he was obliged to join with that ceremonial rite. Before the veil — The second veil, dividing between the holy place and the holy of holies, which is generally called the veil of the sanctuary.

Ver. 6. Seven times. This number is much used in scripture as a number of perfection; but it is used here to mark the perfection of the atonement. The fathers had a notion that the world should endure seven thousand years; hence they affirmed, that Christ’s blood should be sprinkled throughout the seven ages or periods.

6. Dip his finger in the blood — Some explain the shedding of blood in sacrifice by the theory that evil rests in that which is material, and that blood is the representation of that evil principle in matter. Hence these modern Gnostics see in the shedding of blood the putting away of moral evil. In addition to other objections to this view, is the command to the priest to come into immediate contact with the blood which would have ceremonially defiled him, if it was the representation of all impurity. Sprinkle… seven times — This number represented perfection. The origin of the symbolism of seven has been much discussed. It is reasonable to suppose that the first idea associated with seven would be that of religious periodicity arising from the sabbath, and that the notion of the completeness of a religious act arose from this. We certainly cannot agree with Bahr’s fanciful division of seven into its component elements, three and four, the first of which=Divinity, and the second=Humanity, whence Seven =Divinity+Humanity=the God-man. The more we have of such exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, the more will sceptics be confirmed in unbelief, and thoughtful believers be perplexed. The sanctuary — The most holy place or the holy of holies. Behind the vail the visible presence of Jehovah was enthroned above the ark of the covenant and between the outspread wings of the cherubim. The nearest that the ordinary priest could come to this throne of Jehovah was to the vail. There he might sprinkle the blood to make propitiation for sin. Within the vail only the high priest could go, one day in the year, to sprinkle the mercyseat. Leviticus 16:14.

V. 7. All the blood-All the rest; for part was disposed elsewhere.

7. Blood… horns of the altar — These horns are not supposed to have been made of horn, but to have been projections from the four corners covered with the metal with which the altar was overlaid. Josephus describes the altars in use in his day as having these projections in the shape of horns. Others are of the opinion that the horns of the original altars were perpendicular cones rising from each corner of the altar to half its height. There is much discussion respecting their purpose. They could not, in the case of the altar of incense, have been for binding the victim before killing it, (Psalm 118:27,) because no victim was ever burned on this altar. The horn is with the Hebrews a favourite symbol of power. Its presence on every altar may have been to suggest the glory of Jehovah’s omnipotence. Previous to the appointment of the six cities of refuge, the altar was the asylum for the accidental manslayer. Exodus 21:14. The refugee was accustomed to lay hold of the horns of the altar. 1 Kings 1:50. The horns were to be smeared with blood, perhaps to set forth the great truth that the blood of Christ is the only inviolable refuge, and that the penitent sinner can lay hold of the protecting power of God only as he lays hold of sacrificial blood. See Introduction, (6.) Altar of sweet incense — This, being covered with gold, was called the golden altar, to distinguish it from the brazen altar of burnt offering. Exodus 38:30; 39:38. The Hebrew name for altar, signifying “the killing-place,” as applied to the altar of incense is not strictly appropriate. It is not here used in its etymological sense. For a description, see notes on Exodus 30:1-10. Before the Lord — This altar was situated in the holy place. In apparent contradiction to this, the writer to the Hebrews (Hebrews 9:4) enumerates it among the objects which were within the second vail, that is, in the holy of holies. In 1 Kings 6:21, 22, it is said to belong to “the oracle,” or most holy place. The best explanation is that suggested by Bleek and adopted by Tholuck, namely, that the author of the epistle “treats the holy of holies, irrespective of the vail, as symbolical of the heavenly sanctuary, and had also a motive to include in it the altar of incense, whose offerings of incense are the symbol of the prayers of the saints. See note on Hebrews 9:4. Pour all the blood… bottom of the altar — In the temple there was a duct by which the blood was conveyed to the brook Kedron. There was doubtless some such way of disposing of the blood in the tabernacle, of which the temple was only an enlarged copy.

8. All the fat — Suet. See notes on Leviticus 3:3, 17.

9. The two kidneys… caul — See note on Leviticus 3:4.

SIN OF A PRIEST, 3-12.

3. The priest — The term priest in the original signifies a performer of the offices of worship. In the English it is derived from presbyter, referring more to the order than to the duties. That is anointed — The anointing at the consecration of the Aaronic priest symbolized his setting apart to a sacred office, and prefigured the inward unction of the Holy Ghost, which, after Jesus was glorified, should be poured upon all perfect believers in Christ, making them “kings and priests unto God.” Revelation 1:6. The original is the word messiah, adumbrating the only Priest who mediates between the believer and the Father in the Gospel dispensation. The high priest is here intended, because he had the anointing in a pre-eminent sense. Leviticus 16:32; note on 6:22; Psalm 133:2. The anointing oil was composed of pure myrrh, sweet cinnamon, calamus, cassia, and olive oil, (Exodus 30:23,) emblematic of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. St. Chrysostom never opened his “golden mouth” for a more terse and truthful sentence than this: “The Law was the Gospel in anticipation; the Gospel is the Law in fulfilment.” Do sin — The radical notion of sin, in both the Hebrew and Greek mind, is that of missing the mark. The priest “taken from among men is compassed with infirmities,” and is so liable to miss the mark by any involuntary unsteadiness of aim that he is regarded as a presumptive sinner, (Leviticus 8:14,) and provision is made for the expiation of his offences before he can acceptably officiate at the altar in behalf of others, who, like himself, are unwittingly “out of the way.” According to the sin of the people — Rather, to the fault of the people, so that they incur guilt. If the high priest sins, the propitiation which he attempts to make is null and void, and the people are left in a state of guilt exposed to the penalty of the law. Hence provision is made to secure an atonement for the atoner. At no point does the superiority of our great High Priest to the frail and sinning head of the Levitical hierarchy shine forth with greater brightness. He is not obliged to present an offering first for himself and then for us. “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Without blemish — See note on Leviticus 1:3. Sin offering — The Hebrew chattath signifies sin, sinner, sacrifice for sin, repentance, or punishment. This explains 2 Corinthians 5:21. The idea of rendering satisfaction for the transgression of the law lies on the very surface of the sin offering. The blood of the bullock is the life. The life of the animal must be substituted for the forfeited life of the sinner. See Introduction, (6.)

11. The skin — This, in the whole burnt offering, was the perquisite of the priest. See note on Leviticus 7:8. In the sin offering for a priest or the congregation it was to be burned. But in the sin offering for a prince or a private person it is left doubtful.

V. 12. The whole bullock-So no part of this was to be eaten by the priests, as it was in other sin-offerings. The reason is plain, because the offerer might not eat of his own sin-offering, and the priest was the offerer in this case, as also in the sin-offering for the whole congregation below, of which the priest himself was a member. Shall be carried forth-Not himself, which would have defiled him, but by another whom he shall appoint for that work. Without the camp-To signify either,

1. The abominable nature of sin, especially in high and holy persons, or when it overspreads a whole people. Or,

2. The removing of the guilt or punishment of that sin from the people. Or,

3. That Christ should suffer without the camp or gate. Where the ashes are-For the ashes, though at first they were thrown down near the altar, Leviticus 1:16, yet afterwards they, together with the filth of the sacrifices, were carried into a certain place without the camp.

Verse 12. Without the camp] This was intended figuratively to express the sinfulness of this sin, and the availableness of the atonement. The sacrifice, as having the sin of the priest transferred from himself to it by his confession and imposition of hands, was become unclean and abominable, and was carried, as it were, out of the Lord’s sight; from the tabernacle and congregation it must be carried without the camp, and thus its own offensiveness was removed, and the sin of the person in whose behalf it was offered. The apostle (Hebrews 13:11-13) applies this in the most pointed manner to Christ: “For 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. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.”

Verse 12. The whole bullock — So no part of this was to be eaten by the priests, as it was in other sin-offerings. The reason is plain, because the offerer might not eat of his own sin-offering, and the priest was the offerer in this case, as also in the sin-offering for the whole congregation below, of which the priest himself was a member. Shall be carried forth — Not by himself, which would have defiled him, but by another whom he shall appoint for that work. Without the camp — To signify either, 1st, The abominable nature of sin, especially in high and holy persons, or when it overspreads a whole people. Or, 2d, The removing of the guilt or punishment of that sin from the people. Or, 3d, That Christ should suffer without the camp or gate. Where the ashes are — For the ashes, though at first they were thrown down near the altar, (Leviticus 1:16,) yet afterward they, together with the filth of the sacrifices, were carried into a certain place without the camp.

12. The whole bullock shall he carry forth — Bishop Colenso finds a physical impossibility here, and in his estimation a conclusive proof that Leviticus is “unhistorical,” a bungling fabrication of a later age. But the Hebrew does not require the priest personally to carry forth the bullock, but “to cause it to go forth,” by the agency of others, probably the Levites. Without the camp — The reason for this requirement is not recorded. Says Fairbairn, “It is true that all impure things were carried without the camp, but it does not follow that every thing carried out of the camp was impure.” A clean place in which it was to be burned implies that it is most holy. But the usual treatment of the most holy things, namely, eating by the priests could not be resorted to, because it was a sin offering for a priest. The only other way in which Jehovah signified his acceptance was by receiving the sweet odour when consumed by fire. But if burned on the altar there would be nothing to distinguish it from the burnt offering. Hence, though most holy, it was borne without the camp and consumed in a clean place, yet where carrion and other impurities were found near at hand. The holy Son of God, the great Sin Offering, suffered between two malefactors, himself separate from sinners. “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate,” (Hebrews 13:12,) after “the Lord had laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:6. Where the ashes are poured out — At a little distance from Jerusalem are several large mounds of ashes, one of them forty feet high, which some conjecture may be as old as the age of the temple, having been built up by the ashes carried out thither from the altar of sacrifice. Professor Liebig has proved them to be composed largely of animal elements. And burn him — “The word ‘burn,’ here, is different from that which is used to denote turning into odour or perfume on the altar. It signifies to destroy by fire; whereas the other means to incend or consume as incense.” There is something very peculiar and exceptional about the treatment of the sin offering for the people and for the high priest, their representative; it was most holy, and yet was committed not to the slow altar-fires to sweeten the sky with its odour, but to the devouring flames in a place surrounded by impurities. How unique and mysterious the sufferings of Christ when forsaken by the Father!

V. 13. The whole congregation-The body of the people, or the greater part of them, their rulers concurring with them.

Verse 13. If the whole congregation of Israel sin] This probably refers to some oversight in acts of religious worship, or to some transgression of the letter of the law, which arose out of the peculiar circumstances in which they were then found, such as the case mentioned 1 Samuel 14:32, &c., where the people, through their long and excessive fatigue in their combat with the Philistines, being faint, flew on the spoil, and took sheep, oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground, and did eat with the blood; and this was partly occasioned by the rash adjuration of Saul, mentioned 1 Samuel 14:24: Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening.

The sacrifices and rites in this case were the same as those prescribed in the preceding, only here the elders of the congregation, i.e., three of the sanhedrim, according to Maimonides, laid their hands on the head of the victim in the name of all the congregation.

Verses 13, 14. The whole congregation — The body of the people, or the greater part of them, their rulers concurring with them. A bullock — But if the sin of the congregation was only the omission of some ceremonial duty, a kid of the goats was to be offered, Numbers 15:24.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

V. 14. A bullock-But if the sin of the congregation was only the omission of some ceremonial duty, a kid of the goats was to be offered, Numbers 15:24.

Verses 13, 14. The whole congregation — The body of the people, or the greater part of them, their rulers concurring with them. A bullock — But if the sin of the congregation was only the omission of some ceremonial duty, a kid of the goats was to be offered, Numbers 15:24.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

V. 15. The elders-Who here acted in the name of all the people, who could not possibly perform this act in their own persons.

Verse 15. The elders — Who here acted in the name of all the people, who could not possibly perform this act in their own persons.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

V. 17. And sprinkle it-It was not to be poured out there, but sprinkled only; for the cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ was sufficiently represented by sprinkling. It was sprinkled seven times: seven is a number of perfection; because God made the world in six days, and rested the seventh. This signified the perfect satisfaction Christ made, and the compleat cleansing of our souls thereby.

Verses 17, 18. And sprinkle it — It was not to be poured out there, but sprinkled only; for the cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ was sufficiently represented by sprinkling. It was sprinkled seven times — Because God made the world in six days, and rested the seventh. This signified the perfect satisfaction Christ made, and the complete cleansing of our souls thereby. The altar — Of incense; Which is before the Lord — That is, before the holy of holies, where the Lord was in a more special manner present.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

V. 18. The altar-Of incense: Which is before the Lord-That is, before the holy of holies, where the Lord was in a more special manner present.

Verses 17, 18. And sprinkle it — It was not to be poured out there, but sprinkled only; for the cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ was sufficiently represented by sprinkling. It was sprinkled seven times — Because God made the world in six days, and rested the seventh. This signified the perfect satisfaction Christ made, and the complete cleansing of our souls thereby. The altar — Of incense; Which is before the Lord — That is, before the holy of holies, where the Lord was in a more special manner present.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

V. 20. For a sin-offering-That is, for the priest’s sin-offering, called the first bullock, Leviticus 4:21.

Verse 20. For a sin-offering — That is, for the priest’s sin-offering, called the first bullock, verse 21.

20. Make… atonement for them — The radical significance of this term is to cover the sinner from the holiness of God lest he be consumed because of his sin. The term atonement in the Old Testament corresponds not to the Greek of which atonement is the translation in Romans 5:11, katallaghn, reconciliation, or a state of harmonized variance, irrespective of the means, but to propitiation, ilasthrion, (Romans 3:25,) and ilasmov. 1 John 2:2; 4:10. See note on Leviticus 1:4. It shall be forgiven — For the nature of the Old Testament forgiveness, see Introduction, (7.)

Ver. 21. Carry forth the bullock without the camp. Maimonides observes here, as in the case of the red heifer and of the scape-goat, that the more heinous crimes of the nation, for which no atonement was provided by the altar, but the law requiring on the contrary that such offenders should be put to death, those crimes were expiated by the victims being burned without the camp. And as no vestige of such sacrifices remained, so the remembrance of the sin was forgotten. The people, returning from those tragic sacrifices, left their sins behind their backs. An apostle calls those sins, “dead works,” which could only be purged by the superior efficacy of the blood shed on Calvary.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

Verse 22. When a ruler hath sinned] Under the term aycn nasi, it is probable that any person is meant who held any kind of political dignity among the people, though the rabbins generally understand it of the king. A kid of the goats was the sacrifice in this case, the rites nearly the same as in the preceding cases, only the fat was burnt as that of the peace-offering. See Leviticus 4:26, and Leviticus 3:5.

Verses 22, 24. A ruler — Of the people, or a civil magistrate. Where they kill the burnt-offering — So called by way of eminence, to wit, the daily burnt-offering. It is a sin-offering — And therefore to be killed where the burnt-offering is killed; whereby it is distinguished from the peace-offerings, which were killed elsewhere.

SIN OF A PRINCE, 22-26.

22. A ruler — This term signifies any high political officer, especially the heads of the tribes, or phylarchs. The rabbins generally understand that under the monarchy it referred only to the king. The ritual for a prince is like that for the priest and for the congregation, except that the victim was a kid of the goats, and that the fat was burned as was that of the peace offering. Instead of being burnt without the camp, the flesh was to be eaten by the priest. Leviticus 6:26.

SIN OF A PRIVATE PERSON, 27-35.

The only difference between the method of expiating the sin of a private person and that of a ruler is, that the offering of the former being a female kid is supposed to be inferior to that of the ruler.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Ethical writers insist that the moral sense of mankind pronounces innocent the inadvertent doer of an act wrong in itself. They declare that there is a broad distinction between wrong and guilt, on the one hand, and right and innocence on the other, and that guilt always involves a knowledge of the wrong and an intention to commit it. Hence in the light of the moral philosophies filling our libraries and taught in our colleges a sin of inadvertence or ignorance needs no expiation. The punishment of such sins by human judicatories, it is asserted, would be an outrage against which every good man would cry out. Nevertheless, so great are the interests intrusted to men in certain positions that severe penalties are attached to carelessness, as in the handling of poisons by physicians and apothecaries, the involuntary sleep of a weary sentinel at his post, or in the case of the bridge-tender, who, through a misapprehension of the hour of the day, has the draw open when the express train arrives. These are inadvertent sins which men regard and punish as crimes. Now what the exigencies of human society require in a few cases, the perfect moral government of God demands in all cases — satisfaction for involuntary sins. But there is this difference. God always provides an atonement for such sins, and never executes sentence till the atonement has been rejected. Where the expiation cannot be known and applied he forbears to inflict the penalty. The time of this ignorance God overlooked. Acts 17:30. Hence the law of God is more merciful than the law of man, which, in the cases specified, makes no provision for escaping the punishment of involuntary offences. The objection which some have raised against the Divine government for holding errors and inadvertencies as culpable and penal, falls to the ground when we find the first announcement of this fact accompanied by the institution of the sin offering.

(2.) Though a well-meant mistake does not defile the conscience and bring the soul into condemnation, it nevertheless demands a penitent confession and a presentation of the great Sin Offering unto a God of absolute holiness. The refusal to do this, since the sin offering is provided, involves positive guilt. Says John Wesley, “Not only sin, properly so called, that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law; but sin improperly so called, that is, an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning blood. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions.” Hence Chas. Wesley sings, “Every moment, Lord, I want

The merit of thy death.”

(3.) The Jewish teachers were thorough literalists, as is seen in their definition of the sin of ignorance: 1.) It must be involuntary. 2.) Against a prohibition. 3.) An outward act and not a word or a thought. 4.) The deed must be worthy of capital punishment when wilfully committed. We believe that this is taking too narrow a view of the broad field of inadvertent sins. The New Testament here illumines the Old. In Acts 3:17, St. Peter, after boldly charging the Jewish authorities with the denial of the Holy One and the Just, the liberation of a murderer, and the killing of the Prince of life, throws the mantle of charity over these flagrant and wilful sins by saying, “Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” Then after having brought their sins within the efficacy of the great sin offering, if they will avail themselves of the blood of sprinkling, he exhorts them to repent that their sins may be blotted out. Peter speaks in the same strain in his epistolary exhortation to the Church not to fashion themselves “according to the former lusts in your ignorance.” 1 Peter 1:14. St. Paul repeatedly palliates his wilful sin of violent persecution of the Church by the declaration that he did it ignorantly. 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 26:9. Hence Archbishop Magee infers that the sin of ignorance “includes all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully, or otherwise. It stands opposed to sins committed with a high hand, (Numbers 15:22-31,) that is, deliberately and presumptuous-ly, for which no atonement was admitted. So that the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature, and was withheld only from those which sprang from deliberate and audacious defiance of the Divine authority. “This view is also confirmed by the example given of particular sins which called for the atonement — fraud, lying, rash swearing or perjury, and licentiousness.” This throws light upon the sin “for which there is no more sacrifice,” (Hebrews 10:26-29;) the sin unto death, (1 John 5:16;) the irremissible sin, (Mark 3:29;) and clearly identifies it with the sin committed “with a high hand” for which the “soul shall be utterly cut off.” The contrast between the two Testaments, which makes the Old the embodiment of unmitigated severity and the New the impersonation of mercy, is groundless. There is mercy in the dispensation of the law; there is in the dispensation of grace “the wrath of the Lamb” flashing out to consume incorrigible offenders.

(4.) The diversity in the victims appointed for sin offerings was evidently intended to mark the different degrees of offensiveness in the sin to be atoned, except the alternative conceded to poverty. Thus we have an ascending scale: a female kid, or pair of pigeons, a male kid, a young bullock, respectively, for a private person, a prince, a high priest, or the whole people, show that the heinousness of sin increases with the rank and number of the transgressors. “Begin at my sanctuary.” Ezekiel 9:6.

Verses 22, 24. A ruler — Of the people, or a civil magistrate. Where they kill the burnt-offering — So called by way of eminence, to wit, the daily burnt-offering. It is a sin-offering — And therefore to be killed where the burnt-offering is killed; whereby it is distinguished from the peace-offerings, which were killed elsewhere.

SIN OF A PRINCE, 22-26.

22. A ruler — This term signifies any high political officer, especially the heads of the tribes, or phylarchs. The rabbins generally understand that under the monarchy it referred only to the king. The ritual for a prince is like that for the priest and for the congregation, except that the victim was a kid of the goats, and that the fat was burned as was that of the peace offering. Instead of being burnt without the camp, the flesh was to be eaten by the priest. Leviticus 6:26.

SIN OF A PRIVATE PERSON, 27-35.

The only difference between the method of expiating the sin of a private person and that of a ruler is, that the offering of the former being a female kid is supposed to be inferior to that of the ruler.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Ethical writers insist that the moral sense of mankind pronounces innocent the inadvertent doer of an act wrong in itself. They declare that there is a broad distinction between wrong and guilt, on the one hand, and right and innocence on the other, and that guilt always involves a knowledge of the wrong and an intention to commit it. Hence in the light of the moral philosophies filling our libraries and taught in our colleges a sin of inadvertence or ignorance needs no expiation. The punishment of such sins by human judicatories, it is asserted, would be an outrage against which every good man would cry out. Nevertheless, so great are the interests intrusted to men in certain positions that severe penalties are attached to carelessness, as in the handling of poisons by physicians and apothecaries, the involuntary sleep of a weary sentinel at his post, or in the case of the bridge-tender, who, through a misapprehension of the hour of the day, has the draw open when the express train arrives. These are inadvertent sins which men regard and punish as crimes. Now what the exigencies of human society require in a few cases, the perfect moral government of God demands in all cases — satisfaction for involuntary sins. But there is this difference. God always provides an atonement for such sins, and never executes sentence till the atonement has been rejected. Where the expiation cannot be known and applied he forbears to inflict the penalty. The time of this ignorance God overlooked. Acts 17:30. Hence the law of God is more merciful than the law of man, which, in the cases specified, makes no provision for escaping the punishment of involuntary offences. The objection which some have raised against the Divine government for holding errors and inadvertencies as culpable and penal, falls to the ground when we find the first announcement of this fact accompanied by the institution of the sin offering.

(2.) Though a well-meant mistake does not defile the conscience and bring the soul into condemnation, it nevertheless demands a penitent confession and a presentation of the great Sin Offering unto a God of absolute holiness. The refusal to do this, since the sin offering is provided, involves positive guilt. Says John Wesley, “Not only sin, properly so called, that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law; but sin improperly so called, that is, an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning blood. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions.” Hence Chas. Wesley sings, “Every moment, Lord, I want

The merit of thy death.”

(3.) The Jewish teachers were thorough literalists, as is seen in their definition of the sin of ignorance: 1.) It must be involuntary. 2.) Against a prohibition. 3.) An outward act and not a word or a thought. 4.) The deed must be worthy of capital punishment when wilfully committed. We believe that this is taking too narrow a view of the broad field of inadvertent sins. The New Testament here illumines the Old. In Acts 3:17, St. Peter, after boldly charging the Jewish authorities with the denial of the Holy One and the Just, the liberation of a murderer, and the killing of the Prince of life, throws the mantle of charity over these flagrant and wilful sins by saying, “Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” Then after having brought their sins within the efficacy of the great sin offering, if they will avail themselves of the blood of sprinkling, he exhorts them to repent that their sins may be blotted out. Peter speaks in the same strain in his epistolary exhortation to the Church not to fashion themselves “according to the former lusts in your ignorance.” 1 Peter 1:14. St. Paul repeatedly palliates his wilful sin of violent persecution of the Church by the declaration that he did it ignorantly. 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 26:9. Hence Archbishop Magee infers that the sin of ignorance “includes all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully, or otherwise. It stands opposed to sins committed with a high hand, (Numbers 15:22-31,) that is, deliberately and presumptuous-ly, for which no atonement was admitted. So that the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature, and was withheld only from those which sprang from deliberate and audacious defiance of the Divine authority. “This view is also confirmed by the example given of particular sins which called for the atonement — fraud, lying, rash swearing or perjury, and licentiousness.” This throws light upon the sin “for which there is no more sacrifice,” (Hebrews 10:26-29;) the sin unto death, (1 John 5:16;) the irremissible sin, (Mark 3:29;) and clearly identifies it with the sin committed “with a high hand” for which the “soul shall be utterly cut off.” The contrast between the two Testaments, which makes the Old the embodiment of unmitigated severity and the New the impersonation of mercy, is groundless. There is mercy in the dispensation of the law; there is in the dispensation of grace “the wrath of the Lamb” flashing out to consume incorrigible offenders.

(4.) The diversity in the victims appointed for sin offerings was evidently intended to mark the different degrees of offensiveness in the sin to be atoned, except the alternative conceded to poverty. Thus we have an ascending scale: a female kid, or pair of pigeons, a male kid, a young bullock, respectively, for a private person, a prince, a high priest, or the whole people, show that the heinousness of sin increases with the rank and number of the transgressors. “Begin at my sanctuary.” Ezekiel 9:6.

V. 24. The burnt-offering-So called by way of eminency, to wit, the daily burnt-offering. It is a sin-offering-And therefore to be killed where the burnt-offering is killed; whereby it is distinguished from the peace-offering, which were killed elsewhere.

Verses 22, 24. A ruler — Of the people, or a civil magistrate. Where they kill the burnt-offering — So called by way of eminence, to wit, the daily burnt-offering. It is a sin-offering — And therefore to be killed where the burnt-offering is killed; whereby it is distinguished from the peace-offerings, which were killed elsewhere.

SIN OF A PRINCE, 22-26.

22. A ruler — This term signifies any high political officer, especially the heads of the tribes, or phylarchs. The rabbins generally understand that under the monarchy it referred only to the king. The ritual for a prince is like that for the priest and for the congregation, except that the victim was a kid of the goats, and that the fat was burned as was that of the peace offering. Instead of being burnt without the camp, the flesh was to be eaten by the priest. Leviticus 6:26.

SIN OF A PRIVATE PERSON, 27-35.

The only difference between the method of expiating the sin of a private person and that of a ruler is, that the offering of the former being a female kid is supposed to be inferior to that of the ruler.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Ethical writers insist that the moral sense of mankind pronounces innocent the inadvertent doer of an act wrong in itself. They declare that there is a broad distinction between wrong and guilt, on the one hand, and right and innocence on the other, and that guilt always involves a knowledge of the wrong and an intention to commit it. Hence in the light of the moral philosophies filling our libraries and taught in our colleges a sin of inadvertence or ignorance needs no expiation. The punishment of such sins by human judicatories, it is asserted, would be an outrage against which every good man would cry out. Nevertheless, so great are the interests intrusted to men in certain positions that severe penalties are attached to carelessness, as in the handling of poisons by physicians and apothecaries, the involuntary sleep of a weary sentinel at his post, or in the case of the bridge-tender, who, through a misapprehension of the hour of the day, has the draw open when the express train arrives. These are inadvertent sins which men regard and punish as crimes. Now what the exigencies of human society require in a few cases, the perfect moral government of God demands in all cases — satisfaction for involuntary sins. But there is this difference. God always provides an atonement for such sins, and never executes sentence till the atonement has been rejected. Where the expiation cannot be known and applied he forbears to inflict the penalty. The time of this ignorance God overlooked. Acts 17:30. Hence the law of God is more merciful than the law of man, which, in the cases specified, makes no provision for escaping the punishment of involuntary offences. The objection which some have raised against the Divine government for holding errors and inadvertencies as culpable and penal, falls to the ground when we find the first announcement of this fact accompanied by the institution of the sin offering.

(2.) Though a well-meant mistake does not defile the conscience and bring the soul into condemnation, it nevertheless demands a penitent confession and a presentation of the great Sin Offering unto a God of absolute holiness. The refusal to do this, since the sin offering is provided, involves positive guilt. Says John Wesley, “Not only sin, properly so called, that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law; but sin improperly so called, that is, an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning blood. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions.” Hence Chas. Wesley sings, “Every moment, Lord, I want

The merit of thy death.”

(3.) The Jewish teachers were thorough literalists, as is seen in their definition of the sin of ignorance: 1.) It must be involuntary. 2.) Against a prohibition. 3.) An outward act and not a word or a thought. 4.) The deed must be worthy of capital punishment when wilfully committed. We believe that this is taking too narrow a view of the broad field of inadvertent sins. The New Testament here illumines the Old. In Acts 3:17, St. Peter, after boldly charging the Jewish authorities with the denial of the Holy One and the Just, the liberation of a murderer, and the killing of the Prince of life, throws the mantle of charity over these flagrant and wilful sins by saying, “Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” Then after having brought their sins within the efficacy of the great sin offering, if they will avail themselves of the blood of sprinkling, he exhorts them to repent that their sins may be blotted out. Peter speaks in the same strain in his epistolary exhortation to the Church not to fashion themselves “according to the former lusts in your ignorance.” 1 Peter 1:14. St. Paul repeatedly palliates his wilful sin of violent persecution of the Church by the declaration that he did it ignorantly. 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 26:9. Hence Archbishop Magee infers that the sin of ignorance “includes all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully, or otherwise. It stands opposed to sins committed with a high hand, (Numbers 15:22-31,) that is, deliberately and presumptuous-ly, for which no atonement was admitted. So that the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature, and was withheld only from those which sprang from deliberate and audacious defiance of the Divine authority. “This view is also confirmed by the example given of particular sins which called for the atonement — fraud, lying, rash swearing or perjury, and licentiousness.” This throws light upon the sin “for which there is no more sacrifice,” (Hebrews 10:26-29;) the sin unto death, (1 John 5:16;) the irremissible sin, (Mark 3:29;) and clearly identifies it with the sin committed “with a high hand” for which the “soul shall be utterly cut off.” The contrast between the two Testaments, which makes the Old the embodiment of unmitigated severity and the New the impersonation of mercy, is groundless. There is mercy in the dispensation of the law; there is in the dispensation of grace “the wrath of the Lamb” flashing out to consume incorrigible offenders.

(4.) The diversity in the victims appointed for sin offerings was evidently intended to mark the different degrees of offensiveness in the sin to be atoned, except the alternative conceded to poverty. Thus we have an ascending scale: a female kid, or pair of pigeons, a male kid, a young bullock, respectively, for a private person, a prince, a high priest, or the whole people, show that the heinousness of sin increases with the rank and number of the transgressors. “Begin at my sanctuary.” Ezekiel 9:6.

SIN OF A PRINCE, 22-26.

22. A ruler — This term signifies any high political officer, especially the heads of the tribes, or phylarchs. The rabbins generally understand that under the monarchy it referred only to the king. The ritual for a prince is like that for the priest and for the congregation, except that the victim was a kid of the goats, and that the fat was burned as was that of the peace offering. Instead of being burnt without the camp, the flesh was to be eaten by the priest. Leviticus 6:26.

SIN OF A PRIVATE PERSON, 27-35.

The only difference between the method of expiating the sin of a private person and that of a ruler is, that the offering of the former being a female kid is supposed to be inferior to that of the ruler.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Ethical writers insist that the moral sense of mankind pronounces innocent the inadvertent doer of an act wrong in itself. They declare that there is a broad distinction between wrong and guilt, on the one hand, and right and innocence on the other, and that guilt always involves a knowledge of the wrong and an intention to commit it. Hence in the light of the moral philosophies filling our libraries and taught in our colleges a sin of inadvertence or ignorance needs no expiation. The punishment of such sins by human judicatories, it is asserted, would be an outrage against which every good man would cry out. Nevertheless, so great are the interests intrusted to men in certain positions that severe penalties are attached to carelessness, as in the handling of poisons by physicians and apothecaries, the involuntary sleep of a weary sentinel at his post, or in the case of the bridge-tender, who, through a misapprehension of the hour of the day, has the draw open when the express train arrives. These are inadvertent sins which men regard and punish as crimes. Now what the exigencies of human society require in a few cases, the perfect moral government of God demands in all cases — satisfaction for involuntary sins. But there is this difference. God always provides an atonement for such sins, and never executes sentence till the atonement has been rejected. Where the expiation cannot be known and applied he forbears to inflict the penalty. The time of this ignorance God overlooked. Acts 17:30. Hence the law of God is more merciful than the law of man, which, in the cases specified, makes no provision for escaping the punishment of involuntary offences. The objection which some have raised against the Divine government for holding errors and inadvertencies as culpable and penal, falls to the ground when we find the first announcement of this fact accompanied by the institution of the sin offering.

(2.) Though a well-meant mistake does not defile the conscience and bring the soul into condemnation, it nevertheless demands a penitent confession and a presentation of the great Sin Offering unto a God of absolute holiness. The refusal to do this, since the sin offering is provided, involves positive guilt. Says John Wesley, “Not only sin, properly so called, that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law; but sin improperly so called, that is, an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning blood. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions.” Hence Chas. Wesley sings, “Every moment, Lord, I want

The merit of thy death.”

(3.) The Jewish teachers were thorough literalists, as is seen in their definition of the sin of ignorance: 1.) It must be involuntary. 2.) Against a prohibition. 3.) An outward act and not a word or a thought. 4.) The deed must be worthy of capital punishment when wilfully committed. We believe that this is taking too narrow a view of the broad field of inadvertent sins. The New Testament here illumines the Old. In Acts 3:17, St. Peter, after boldly charging the Jewish authorities with the denial of the Holy One and the Just, the liberation of a murderer, and the killing of the Prince of life, throws the mantle of charity over these flagrant and wilful sins by saying, “Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” Then after having brought their sins within the efficacy of the great sin offering, if they will avail themselves of the blood of sprinkling, he exhorts them to repent that their sins may be blotted out. Peter speaks in the same strain in his epistolary exhortation to the Church not to fashion themselves “according to the former lusts in your ignorance.” 1 Peter 1:14. St. Paul repeatedly palliates his wilful sin of violent persecution of the Church by the declaration that he did it ignorantly. 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 26:9. Hence Archbishop Magee infers that the sin of ignorance “includes all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully, or otherwise. It stands opposed to sins committed with a high hand, (Numbers 15:22-31,) that is, deliberately and presumptuous-ly, for which no atonement was admitted. So that the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature, and was withheld only from those which sprang from deliberate and audacious defiance of the Divine authority. “This view is also confirmed by the example given of particular sins which called for the atonement — fraud, lying, rash swearing or perjury, and licentiousness.” This throws light upon the sin “for which there is no more sacrifice,” (Hebrews 10:26-29;) the sin unto death, (1 John 5:16;) the irremissible sin, (Mark 3:29;) and clearly identifies it with the sin committed “with a high hand” for which the “soul shall be utterly cut off.” The contrast between the two Testaments, which makes the Old the embodiment of unmitigated severity and the New the impersonation of mercy, is groundless. There is mercy in the dispensation of the law; there is in the dispensation of grace “the wrath of the Lamb” flashing out to consume incorrigible offenders.

(4.) The diversity in the victims appointed for sin offerings was evidently intended to mark the different degrees of offensiveness in the sin to be atoned, except the alternative conceded to poverty. Thus we have an ascending scale: a female kid, or pair of pigeons, a male kid, a young bullock, respectively, for a private person, a prince, a high priest, or the whole people, show that the heinousness of sin increases with the rank and number of the transgressors. “Begin at my sanctuary.” Ezekiel 9:6.

V. 26. It shall be forgiven-Both judicially, as to all ecclesiastical censures or civil punishment; and really, upon condition of repentance and faith in the Messiah to come.

Verse 26. It shall be forgiven — Both judicially, as to all ecclesiastical censures or civil punishment; and really, upon condition of repentance and faith in the Messiah to come.

SIN OF A PRINCE, 22-26.

22. A ruler — This term signifies any high political officer, especially the heads of the tribes, or phylarchs. The rabbins generally understand that under the monarchy it referred only to the king. The ritual for a prince is like that for the priest and for the congregation, except that the victim was a kid of the goats, and that the fat was burned as was that of the peace offering. Instead of being burnt without the camp, the flesh was to be eaten by the priest. Leviticus 6:26.

SIN OF A PRIVATE PERSON, 27-35.

The only difference between the method of expiating the sin of a private person and that of a ruler is, that the offering of the former being a female kid is supposed to be inferior to that of the ruler.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Ethical writers insist that the moral sense of mankind pronounces innocent the inadvertent doer of an act wrong in itself. They declare that there is a broad distinction between wrong and guilt, on the one hand, and right and innocence on the other, and that guilt always involves a knowledge of the wrong and an intention to commit it. Hence in the light of the moral philosophies filling our libraries and taught in our colleges a sin of inadvertence or ignorance needs no expiation. The punishment of such sins by human judicatories, it is asserted, would be an outrage against which every good man would cry out. Nevertheless, so great are the interests intrusted to men in certain positions that severe penalties are attached to carelessness, as in the handling of poisons by physicians and apothecaries, the involuntary sleep of a weary sentinel at his post, or in the case of the bridge-tender, who, through a misapprehension of the hour of the day, has the draw open when the express train arrives. These are inadvertent sins which men regard and punish as crimes. Now what the exigencies of human society require in a few cases, the perfect moral government of God demands in all cases — satisfaction for involuntary sins. But there is this difference. God always provides an atonement for such sins, and never executes sentence till the atonement has been rejected. Where the expiation cannot be known and applied he forbears to inflict the penalty. The time of this ignorance God overlooked. Acts 17:30. Hence the law of God is more merciful than the law of man, which, in the cases specified, makes no provision for escaping the punishment of involuntary offences. The objection which some have raised against the Divine government for holding errors and inadvertencies as culpable and penal, falls to the ground when we find the first announcement of this fact accompanied by the institution of the sin offering.

(2.) Though a well-meant mistake does not defile the conscience and bring the soul into condemnation, it nevertheless demands a penitent confession and a presentation of the great Sin Offering unto a God of absolute holiness. The refusal to do this, since the sin offering is provided, involves positive guilt. Says John Wesley, “Not only sin, properly so called, that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law; but sin improperly so called, that is, an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning blood. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions.” Hence Chas. Wesley sings, “Every moment, Lord, I want

The merit of thy death.”

(3.) The Jewish teachers were thorough literalists, as is seen in their definition of the sin of ignorance: 1.) It must be involuntary. 2.) Against a prohibition. 3.) An outward act and not a word or a thought. 4.) The deed must be worthy of capital punishment when wilfully committed. We believe that this is taking too narrow a view of the broad field of inadvertent sins. The New Testament here illumines the Old. In Acts 3:17, St. Peter, after boldly charging the Jewish authorities with the denial of the Holy One and the Just, the liberation of a murderer, and the killing of the Prince of life, throws the mantle of charity over these flagrant and wilful sins by saying, “Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” Then after having brought their sins within the efficacy of the great sin offering, if they will avail themselves of the blood of sprinkling, he exhorts them to repent that their sins may be blotted out. Peter speaks in the same strain in his epistolary exhortation to the Church not to fashion themselves “according to the former lusts in your ignorance.” 1 Peter 1:14. St. Paul repeatedly palliates his wilful sin of violent persecution of the Church by the declaration that he did it ignorantly. 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 26:9. Hence Archbishop Magee infers that the sin of ignorance “includes all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully, or otherwise. It stands opposed to sins committed with a high hand, (Numbers 15:22-31,) that is, deliberately and presumptuous-ly, for which no atonement was admitted. So that the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature, and was withheld only from those which sprang from deliberate and audacious defiance of the Divine authority. “This view is also confirmed by the example given of particular sins which called for the atonement — fraud, lying, rash swearing or perjury, and licentiousness.” This throws light upon the sin “for which there is no more sacrifice,” (Hebrews 10:26-29;) the sin unto death, (1 John 5:16;) the irremissible sin, (Mark 3:29;) and clearly identifies it with the sin committed “with a high hand” for which the “soul shall be utterly cut off.” The contrast between the two Testaments, which makes the Old the embodiment of unmitigated severity and the New the impersonation of mercy, is groundless. There is mercy in the dispensation of the law; there is in the dispensation of grace “the wrath of the Lamb” flashing out to consume incorrigible offenders.

(4.) The diversity in the victims appointed for sin offerings was evidently intended to mark the different degrees of offensiveness in the sin to be atoned, except the alternative conceded to poverty. Thus we have an ascending scale: a female kid, or pair of pigeons, a male kid, a young bullock, respectively, for a private person, a prince, a high priest, or the whole people, show that the heinousness of sin increases with the rank and number of the transgressors. “Begin at my sanctuary.” Ezekiel 9:6.

Verse 27. The common people] xrah µ[ am haarets, the people of the land, that is, any individual who was not a priest, king, or ruler among the people; any of the poor or ordinary sort. Any of these, having transgressed through ignorance, was obliged to bring a lamb or a kid, the ceremonies being nearly the same as in the preceding cases. The original may denote the very lowest of the people, the labouring or agricultural classes. The law relative to the general cases of sins committed through ignorance, and the sacrifices to be offered on such occasions, so amply detailed in this chapter, may be thus recapitulated. For all sins and transgressions of this kind committed by the people, the prince, and the priest, they must offer expiatory offerings. The person so sinning must bring the sacrifice to the door of the tabernacle, and lay his hands upon its head, as in a case already referred to, acknowledging the sacrifice to be his, that he needed it for his transgression; and thus he was considered as confessing his sin, and the sin was considered as transferred to the animal, whose blood was then spilt to make an atonement. See Clarke on “Leviticus 1:4”. Such institutions as these could not be considered as terminating in themselves, they necessarily had reference to something of infinitely higher moment; in a word, they typified Him whose soul was made an offering for sin, Isaiah 53:10. And taken out of this reference they seem both absurd and irrational. It is obviously in reference to these innocent creatures being brought as sin-offerings to God for the guilty that St. Paul alludes 2 Corinthians 5:21, where he says, He (God) made him to be sin (amartian, a sin-offering) for us WHO KNEW NO SIN, that we might be made the righteousness of God-holy and pure by the power and grace of God, in or through him. And it is worthy of remark, that the Greek word used by the apostle is the same by which the Septuagint, in more than fourscore places in the Pentateuch, translate the Hebrew word hach hattaah, sin, which in all those places our translation renders sin-offering. Even sins of ignorance cannot be unnoticed by a strict and holy law; these also need the great atonement: on which account we should often pray with David, Cleanse thou me from secret faults! Psalm 19:12. How little attention is paid to this solemn subject! Sins of this kind-sins committed sometimes ignorantly, and more frequently heedlessly, are permitted to accumulate in their number, and consequently in their guilt; and from this very circumstance we may often account for those painful desertions, as they are called, under which many comparatively good people labour. They have committed sins of ignorance or heedlessness, and have not offered the sacrifice which can alone avail in their behalf. How necessary in ten thousand cases is the following excellent prayer! “That it may please thee to give us true repentance; to forgive us all our sins, negligences, and ignorances; and to endue us with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, to amend our lives according to thy HOLY WORD.”-Litany. LEVITICUS

V. 28. A female-Which here was sufficient, because the sin of one of those was less than the sin of the ruler, for whom a male was required.

Verse 28. A female — Which here was sufficient, because the sin of one of those was less than the sin of the ruler, for whom a male was required.

V. 33. He shall slay it-Not by himself, but by the hands of the priest.

Verses 33-35. He shall slay it — Not by himself, but by the hands of the priest. Burn them — The fat; but he useth the plural number, because the fat was of several kinds, as we saw, verses 8, 9. Hebrew, upon the offerings, together with them, or after them; because the burnt-offerings were to have the first place.

Verses 33-35. He shall slay it — Not by himself, but by the hands of the priest. Burn them — The fat; but he useth the plural number, because the fat was of several kinds, as we saw, verses 8, 9. Hebrew, upon the offerings, together with them, or after them; because the burnt-offerings were to have the first place.

V. 35. Burn them-The fat; but he useth the plural number, because the fat was of several kinds, as we saw Leviticus 4:8,9, Heb. upon the offerings, together with them, or after them; because the burnt-offerings were to have the first place.

Verses 33-35. He shall slay it — Not by himself, but by the hands of the priest. Burn them — The fat; but he useth the plural number, because the fat was of several kinds, as we saw, verses 8, 9. Hebrew, upon the offerings, together with them, or after them; because the burnt-offerings were to have the first place.