Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Leviticus 4:1 - 5:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Lev_4:1 to Lev_5:13
3If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people [to the guilt of the people]; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. 4And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation before the Lord; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the Lord. 5And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation: 6and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. 7And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation; and shall pour all the [other] blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 8And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 9and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on] the kidneys, it shall hetake away, 10as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. 11And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, 12even the whole bullock shall Hebrews 8 carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.
13And if the whole congregation of Israel sin [err] through ignorance [inadvertence1], and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly,8 and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; 14when the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin [a sin offering] and bring him before the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 15And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed [one shall kill the bullock] before the Lord. 16And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock’s blood to the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation: 17and the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord even before the vail. 18And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, and shall pour out all the [other] blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 19And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. 20And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a [the] sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. 21And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.
22When a ruler [prince] hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance [inadvertence] against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning 23 things which should not be done, and is guilty; or if [if perhaps] his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid [a buck] of the goats, a male without blemish: 24and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord: it is a sin-offering. 25And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. 26And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.
27And if any one of the common people [any soul of the people of the land] sin through ignorance [inadvertence1] while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments 28of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; or if [if perhaps20] his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats [a she-goat] a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. 30And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the [other] blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. 31And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.
32And if he bring a lamb [a sheep] for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. 33And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. 34And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the [other] blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: 35and he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb [sheep] is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to [upon28] the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.
Gen_5:1. And if a soul sin, and hear [in that he hear] the voice of swearing [adjuration], and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not 2utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. 3Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. 4Or if a soul swear, pronouncing [speaking idly] with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce [speak idly32] with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. 5And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: 6and he shall bring his trespass offering [bring for his trespass] unto the Lord, for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats [a sheep27or a she-goat], for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
7And if he be not able to bring a lamb [sheep27], then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. 8And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring [pinch] off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder: 9and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung [pressed] out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering. 10And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner [ordinance]: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
11But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.37 12Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to [upon] the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin offering.37 13And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meat offering [an oblation].
Lev_4:2. îֵàַçַú îֵäֵðָּä . The A. V. has supplied against, as in the former clause, where the construction is the same; but there it is required, and here worse than useless to the sense. It should be omitted as in nearly all the ancient versions. The îִï in both clauses is to be taken partitively.
Lev_4:3. ìְàַùְׁîַú Prop. inf. const. Kal., and there used as a noun = to bring guilt upon. So most of the ancient versions and the modern expositors generally.
Lev_4:5. To anointed the LXX. and Sam. Vers. add whose hand is consecrated. The Sam. text has a similar addition.
Lev_4:7. The Sam. and 8 MSS. prefix the article to ãָּí , while the Sam., 3 MSS., and Vulg., omit the bullock.
Lev_4:8. òַìÎäַ÷ֶּøֶá . This is translated in the A. V. and in the ancient versions as if it were àֵúָÎä֟ as in Lev_3:14. So it must be translated, and such is actually the reading in the Sam. and many MSS.
Lev_4:12. The Sam. and LXX. here have the plural. Of course the high-priest did not do this with his own hands, but is said to do that which he caused to be done, according to common usage of all languages.
Lev_4:9. On. See Lev_3:4, Textual Note 3.
Lev_4:13. ëָּìÎòֲãַú (congregation) ÷ָäָì (assembly) the two words used here, and îåֹòֵã Num_16:2 and freq. have no difference in signification which can be recognized in translation. They are used in apposition.
Lev_4:13. ùָׁâָä . In the A. V. sin always in Lev. is the translation of çָèָà . This being the only exception, should be changed.
Lev_4:13. ðֶòְìַּí has dagesh in the ì here and in Lev_5:2; Lev_5:4. According to Delitzsch it is an old rule of pointing “that every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh, if the guttural was to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph.” Comp. åַéֶּàְñֹּø Gen_46:29; Exo_14:6, úַּòְìּéִí (according to some copies) Psa_10:1.
Lev_4:14. The Sam. and LXX. here add the “without blemish” so frequently expressed, and always to be understood.
Lev_4:14. ìְçַèָּàú . The word is used in both senses—a sin, and a sin-offering. The context requires the latter here. It has no article.
Lev_4:14. The LXX. and Vulg. add the door of, which is implied.
Lev_4:2. áִּùְׁâָâָä from ùָׁâָà = ùָׁâָä = ùָׁâַâ = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev_4:13; Lev_4:22; Lev_4:27; Lev_5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev_5:1; Lev_5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num_35:11; Num_35:15; Num_35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sins—sins “with a high hand”—for which no sacrifice was allowable (Num_15:27-31). The LXX. ἀêïõóßùò , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) áְּùָׁìåּ = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads ἐí ἀãíïßᾳ , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek ἀãíïßá and ἀãíïÞìá . (Heb_9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
Lev_4:15. The subject of ùָׁçַè is one of the elders.
Lev_4:17. The ellipsis supplied by it in the A. V. is filled out in the Sam., in one MS., and in the Syr., by “of the blood,” comp. Lev_4:6. Several other words are filled out in the same version in the following verses from the preceding paragraph.
Lev_4:18. The Sam. and LXX. unnecessarily specify “altar of incense.”
Lev_4:20. The article of the original should be retained as the reference is to the sin-offering of the high-priest.
Lev_4:21. The Sam. and many MSS. have here again the later feminine form äִéà .
Lev_4:22. ðָùִׂéà . This word variously rendered in the A. V. captain, chief, governor, prince, and ruler, occurs in Lev. only here, but very frequently in Num., where it is translated captain in Leviticus 2 (12 times), chief in chs. 3, 4 (5 times), once ruler, Lev_13:2, and prince throughout the rest of the book (42 times) as well as throughout Gen. and Josh. In Ex. it occurs four times uniformly translated ruler. In nearly all these places it refers to persons of substantially the same rank, and it would be better therefore that its translation should be uniform. It means literally, an exalted person, and is applied to the head of a tribe, or other large division of the people, whether of Israel or of other nations. Lange interprets it of “the tribe chieftain,” referring to Num_3:24. As prince is on the whole the most common rendering of the A. V., and expresses very well the sense, it is retained here.
Lev_4:23. The conjunction àåֹ should be rendered if perhaps, Fuerst, Gesenius. The Syr. renders by if, the LXX. êáß , Vulg. et postea.
Lev_4:23. ùָׂòִéø = a he-goat, generally understood of one older than the òַúּåּã or young he-goat used in the burnt and peace-offerings (Fuerst, Knobel). It is often rendered kid in the A. V. It is also rendered devil Lev_17:7; 2Ch_11:15, where the reference is to the idolatrous worship of the goat, (or goat-like deity) and twice satyr in Isa. (Lev_13:21; Leviticus 34:14). It is the kind of goat used in the sin-offering generally. Bochart supposes it to mean a goat of a peculiar breed; so Keil.
Lev_4:24. The Sam. puts the verb in the plural; so also in Lev_4:33.
Lev_4:25. The LXX. and 4 MSS. have all his blood, as in the other places.
Lev_4:27. There seems no occasion here to deviate from the literal translation which is retained so far as “people of the land” is concerned, in Lev_20:2; Lev_20:4; 2Ki_11:18-19; 2Ki_16:15. It was the common name of the whole people as distinguished from the priests (in this case probably from the high-priest) and the rulers.
Lev_4:28. ùְׂòִéøָä is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev_4:23.
Lev_4:28. ùְׂòִéøָä is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev_4:23.
Lev_4:30. Two MSS., the Sam., and the Syr., unnecessarily add “of burnt-offering.” The Sam. and the LXX. make the same addition at the end of Lev_4:34.
Lev_4:32. ëֶּáֶùׂ = a sheep, see Text. note 5 under Lev_3:7.
Lev_4:35. òַì àִùֵּé . The sense is here as in Lev_3:5 upon. These being special offerings, the daily burnt-offering would always have been upon the altar before them, and even if that were already wholly consumed, the expression “upon” it could still be naturally used.
Lev_5:1. “Particula å ante ùָֽׁîְòָä hic usurpatur áἰôéïëïãéêῶò , estque vertenda quia, eo quod, ut Gen_26:12; Deu_17:16.” Rosenmueller.
Lev_5:1. àָìָä . Commentators are generally agreed that this should be translated adjuration. The verb in the Hiph. is translated adjure in 1Sa_14:24. See Exeg. Com. The Heb. has no word for adjuration as distinct from swearing. It is expressed in the LXX. by ὁñêéóìïῦ .
Lev_5:2. The full form would be ëִּé àֲùֵׁø ; accordingly the Sam. and some MSS. prefix ëִּé here and add àֲùֶׁø in Lev_5:4
Lev_5:2. See note1 on Lev_11:2.
Lev_5:4. éְáַèֵּà , ìְáַèֵּà , speak idly, or ill-advisedly. Comp. âáôôïëïãÝù , Mat_6:7.
Lev_5:5. For éֶàְùַּׁí the Sam. and 20 MSS. here substitute éֶçֱèָּà .
Lev_5:6. àָùָׁí , like çָèָּàú , is used in the sense both of trespass and trespass-offering. The ancient versions leave the question between them open. The Vulg. has simply agat, penitentiam, LXX. ïἴóåé ðåñὶ ὧí ἐðëçììÝëçóå êõñßῳ , while the Semitic versions leave the same doubt as the Hebrew. Modern commentators are divided, but the weight of opinion accords with the Exeg. Com. At the end of the verse the Sam. and the LXX. have the fuller form, “and the priest shall make an atonement for him, for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.”
Lev_5:7. åְàִñÎìֹà úַâִּéòָ éָãåֹ lit. If his hand cannot acquire. The sense is well expressed by the A. V.
Lev_5:9. éִîָּöֵä the translation of the A. V. wrung might answer here, but as the same word must be translated pressed in Lev_1:15, it seems better to preserve uniformity.
Lev_5:9; Lev_5:11-12. The Sam. and many MSS. have the later feminine form of the pronoun äéà .
Lev_5:12. òַì = upon, as Lev_3:5; Lev_4:35.
Lev_5:13. Oblation. Comp. Lev_2:1, Textual Note 2, and Exeg. at beginning of Leviticus 2.
Lange takes a somewhat different view of the relation of these two offerings, and consequently of the proper analysis of this whole passage, Lev_4:1 to Lev_6:7. The substance of his views may be gathered from the headings of his several subdivisions as follows: The Sin offering and the Trespass offering (4–6:7). (a) The Sin-offering and the little Sin and Trespass offering (4–5:13). 1. The Sin offering (Lev_4:1-21). 2. The little Sin offering (Lev_4:22-35). (b) The Trespass offering. 1. The little Sin and Trespass offering, or the uncleanness of the common people (Lev_5:1-13). 2. The great Trespass offering, or guilt offering (Lev_5:14 to Lev_6:7). Accordingly he says: “The following considerations may serve somewhat to disentangle the question how the sections of the sin offering and the trespass offering are to be separated from one another, and whether Lev_5:1-13 treats of the sin offering or of the trespass offering. There is, certainly, no question that all sin is at the same time guilt, a deed which has made itself into an actual state of things which must be atoned for, or has become liable to punishment. And there is also no question that guilt in general is also sin, although as participation in guilt, it may be widely separated from the centre of sinfulness, as far as the disappearing minimum, even until it is said of the guiltless Messiah in Isaiah 53. that He would give his life as a trespass offering—Asham; and from this arises also the possibility that two classes may be formed in which the one emphasizes sin as such, while the other emphasizes more the state of guilt. The state of guilt may be very trifling, as being accessory to a guilty principal, or very evil as an original offence; in all cases it requires a proportionate penance (not expiation) or satisfaction. From the indeterminate character of the antithesis, it also comes that there may be a transitional form between the sin and the trespass offerings—a form of sin offerings which, at the same time, becomes elevated as a trespass offering. There are forms of the predominating participation in guilt, and one such we find in the section Lev_5:1-13. On the other hand, in the strict trespass offerings which follow further on, we shall take up all cases in which the offence against the holy places and rights of Jehovah, or in regard to the property of a neighbor, amount to an offence that is a violation of right, which must be atoned for by restitution, punishment and sacrifice.
“In Lev_4:3 the sin of the High Priest brings guilt on the people—that is, the guilt of participation in guilt. Luther translates ìְàַùְîִéú äָòָí that he scandalizes the people—a conception not very different from our own—viz.: that he brings upon them liability of penalty and punishment. So it is also with the congregation of Israel: it becomes guilty through its sin (Lev_4:13). So also with the noble (Lev_4:22). So too, at last, with the common Israelite (Lev_4:27). Ought now the section Lev_5:1-13 to be (as Knobel) only an example to illustrate the foregoing transaction in the case of the sin offering of the common Israelite? Lev_5:6 says: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the lord for his sin.” [This is probably the key to the whole view of Lange. If, however, àָùָׁí be here considered as standing not for trespass offering, but for trespass (see Text. note 34 on verse 6), the view before given seems preferable.] “It is true that both Lev_5:11-12 repeat the statement that his offering is a sin offering. But according to the context, the meaning of this is that this sacrifice must be treated entirely after the analogy of the sin offering. No incense nor oil are to be added to this sacrifice. The same rule is applied to the great trespass offerings that follow, Lev_5:14 sq. The first instance, Lev_5:1, has peculiarly the character of participation in guilt. The properly guilty person in this case is the blasphemer; the participation in guilt comes from a soul hearing the curse and not cleansing itself from defilement by giving information. The view of the Heidelberg Catechism, that “by silence and looking on one may become a participant in such fearful sins,” appears here. So the touching a corpse is set with the unclean states of men by its natural connection, and the rash swearing, by traditional and common custom. That which is spoken of in the special greater crimes, as they are raised into a class by themselves by the introduction in Lev_5:14, is the gross violation of the law. Here, then, rightly appear the actions in which a man is guilty against Jehovah, i.e., against His holy things or His law. The fraud of which the sinner has at last become conscious must be atoned for in most cases by a restitution which was increased by one-fifth of the whole amount. But legal restitution alone was not enough; it must be preceded (without mentioning the trespass offering elsewhere prescribed) by a costly sacrifice of a ram worth two shekels. As religious atonement was of little value alone, when social restitution was directed, so also restitution, as a supplementary payment, was of little worth without religious atonement.
“Now, on the one hand, we must not mistake the fact that the section Lev_5:14 sq. draws a distinction between those faults which at the same time have become debts or relate to customs (mostly legal transgressions of right, as violations of the rights of property), and the purely religious faults in which throughout (with the exception of the case in Lev_5:17-19) the sinner has only to deal with God. and so far the newer division must be considered right, as in Knobel and Keil (and so also in Kurtz and others). But, on the other hand, it must not be overlooked that the subject has already been about the offering of the Asham in the section v. 1 sq. [?], and this is in favor of the older opinion which may be found in the headings of Stier’s translation. There is also no question that to reduce the whole guilt-idea to legal transgressions will obscure very much the guilt-idea in the present case, as when Knobel wishes to leave out of consideration the passage Isa_53:10, when he says “ àָùָׁí can be no actual trespass offering.” According to Knobel, the Asham arises from the rights of neighbors. But here evidently it arises from the rights of Jehovah, which Keil also emphasizes, and Knobel states indirectly. But we should rather say that it arises from the absolute right which is considered to be under Jehovah’s protection, in heaven and earth, and which has been completely confused with the guilt-idea itself in the theology of the day, in which justice in its many forms is travestied by “Good disposition” (the substantive and the adjective are allowed to evaporate into the adverb). It would have been better to have found the key to the conception of guilt in Isaiah 53. For just as the guilt of a sinner can extend over a community, so also the exculpation wrought by the Redeemer. The àָùָׁí expresses that man has become guilty, liable to punishment, towards Jehovah or towards his fellow-man; and the emphasis lies so strongly on the liability to punishment that the same word denotes at the same time satisfaction; and conversely, the Hiphil means not merely to give satisfaction, but also to bring over others the ban of guilt as a penalty. As concerns the varying distinction between the respective sections, we must especially notice that one must proceed from the distinction between the universal guilt idea and the conception of a legal fault, falling into the theocratic judicial sphere. If this difference be held to, we can certainly establish the newer division; for in the ritual of sacrifice the distinction between the sin and trespass offerings is not to be mistaken. Knobel has stated this difference accurately, p. 394 sq. It is properly made prominent that the trespass-offering—as a religious offence makes the forgiveness of God necessary—may also be a sin-offering, so that it is frequently cited as a sin-offering “The trespass-offering, it may then be said, was always available only for the single Israelite, and was the same for all; while the sin-offering served also for the whole people, and varied according to the standing of the sinner in the Theocracy; the trespass-offering consisted always of sheep, while in the sin-offering all sacrificial animals were allowed; the trespass-offering must be worth a definite price, and was not modified, in the case of those who were unable to offer it, to a pair of doves or a meat-offering, as was the sin-offering; in the trespass-offering, as in the burnt-offering and thank-offering, the blood was sprinkled on the side of the altar of burnt offering (Lev_7:2); in the sin-offering, on the other hand, departing from the custom in all other sacrifices, it was brought before God (Lev_4:5); the flesh in the trespass-offering always belonged to the priest (Lev_7:6), while in the more especial sin-offerings it was burned.” Then the distinction of the occasions may be expressed as follows: 1) Dishonesty against the revenues of the priests, as against the holy things of Jehovah. 2) Dishonesty in the due fidelity towards a neighbor (in a trust, in a deposit, in property found). 3) Dishonestuse of authority over a maid betrothed to another man (Lev_19:20). 4) Defrauding in regard to the preference of the daughters of Israel over heathen women (Ezr_10:19). Besides these, the Violation of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines (1Sa_6:3); imperilling the congregation by the contagious leprosy (Lev_14:12); Defilement of the Nazarite, as weakening the inviolability of his vow (Num_6:12). “According to these examples the trespass-offering is distinguished from the sin-offering in the following manner: it arises from the right of a neighbor, and rests upon a violation of this right.” But Jehovah too claims satisfaction, “since He has fixed the rights of those pertaining to Him.” Or also the right simply claims satisfaction: a particular instance is the case of a guilty person who has gone astray, through oversight or heedlessness, in a way that is known to no one but himself; who afterwards has an uneasy conscience, and then feels himself burdened by his misdeed, and becomes conscious of his guilt (Lev_5:17-18). Otherwise indeed, he would be unable to atone, for instance, for his false oath. With the former division one could with propriety reverse the designations, and term the sin-offering the trespass-offering, and the trespass-offering for the most part the sin-offering, the offering for real and ideal transgressions of right. In this confusion of ideas the manifold differences are not too prominent as they are cited in Knobel, p. 396, Keil, p. (53) 316, Winer (Schuld und Sündopfer) and others. If we go back briefly to the ideal distinctions: sin, as sin, is indeed guilt, êáô ’ ἐîï÷Þí , the particular evil deed; guilt, as such on the contrary, is the entire effect of sin in its cosmic sphere from the bad conscience even to death, to Sheol, to Hell. Guilt, as such, falls within the circle of evil, although the axiom “guilt is the greatest of evils” refers to sin. The sinfulness in guilt is the temptation to further sinfulness; it has, however, also a natural influence, according to which it reacts upon sin. See the article “Schuld” in Herzog’s Realencyclopädie. Guilt rests in the legal effect, there must be satisfaction for it; in the ethical effect, evil conscience, false position towards God, temptation to new sin; in the social effect, it lies as a burden upon the sphere of life that surrounds the sinner, whether he be high or low; in the generic effect, it is visited upon the children of the fathers, and becomes a universal might, a cosmic evil. Sin is solitary, guilt is common (“forgive us our trespasses”). It is obvious that sin in all cases is originally guilt; but guilt in distinction from sin is, in many cases, only participation in sin—accessoriness. Even in the section of the great trespass-offering, the force of participation in guilt may not be entirely wanting, for the severity of the Levitical relations, the temptations which adhered to the church goods and lands, to property, come into consideration. Under the law the ignorant man is touched on all sides, and is thus constituted in some measure a sinner, an accessory through greater sinners who made the law necessary. Sin is like a stone cast into a lake; guilt like the wave-circles which go out from it, the circumference of that evil centre. Sin, in its consequences, is ideally an infinitum, enmity against God; guilt, in itself considered, is a self-consuming finitum, so far as it is not changed into a curse by its constant reciprocity with sin. Sin can only be done away through the reconciliation of person to person; it requires repentance. Guilt is to be done away by means of atonement (voluntary penance, not expiation), personal or vicarious restitution; for, on the one hand, this of course is preliminary to the completed reconciliation, and, on the other hand, that breaks the way for expiation. See the history of Jacob: the vision of the heavenly ladder preceded the wrestling at the Jabbok. Keil says somewhat differently: “As in the sin-offering the idea of expiation or atonement for sin, indicated in the sprinkling of blood, comes forward, so in the trespass-offering we find the idea of satisfaction for the purpose of restoring the violated rightful order.”
In what follows, the views previously presented will be followed, since the rendering of àָùָׁí by trespass rather than by trespass-offering in Lev_5:6 renders it unnecessary to enter upon much of the nice distinctions here drawn by Lange, and enables us clearly to separate the sections of the sin and the trespass-offering.
Lange continues: “Lev_4:1. Sin, çèָּàú , as missing, is in Leviticus more particularly missing in regard to the holy fellowship with the holy God through transgression of His command or violation of the reverence due Him. It must, as debt, be paid for by punishment. It makes the sinner unclean, so that he cannot appear in God’s fellowship, and hence uncleanness is a symbolic representation of sin, and the unclean needs, when cleansed, a sin-offering for a token and sign of his cleanness. It is understood that the sin offering that was introduced into the law by Moses preceded the given law; and so it is easily to be supposed that voluntary sin-offerings from compulsion of conscience most probably must be as old as the sacrifice in general, as certainly in the Passover the force of the sin offering may be plainly recognized.”—[Lange must mean that the more general sacrifices of old often included within them the idea of the sin offering, as they did of every other sacrifice; but the specialized sin offering itself, as already pointed out, is not mentioned before Exo_29:14, nor is there any evidence that it was used or known at an earlier date.]—”On the extra-theocratic sin offering see Knobel, p. 386. But it is not correct to see with Knobel in the death of the sacrificial animal an actual satisfactio vicaria of the sinner, or to find in the death of the animal the expression that the offerer had already deserved death. In regard to the first point, the sacrificial animal furnishes only in the symbolical sense what the offerer ought to furnish personally, but cannot. And as to the second point, the death-punishment, in the peace-offering, it is self-evident, that the reference could not be to the punishment of death, and also in the sin-offering the difference between the Cherem” [ çֶøֶí =a curse, a thing devoted to destruction] “and the propitiation through the sacrifice must be considered. That the divine Justice should have punished an inadvertence, áִּùְׁðָðָä , with death is an overstraining of the confession (with which the sacrificer appeared before God), that by this oversight or going astray he had entered the paths of death, as this idea indeed belongs to pardonable sin. Otherwise an arbitrary distinction would have to be drawn between sin with uplifted hand, and sin from inadvertence, under which head must be understood not only sins of ignorance and precipitation, but also natural weakness and heedlessness. The turning point of these sins lay in contrition. But the sacrificer could in reality hardly satisfy the theocratic order by his sacrifice; on the religious side his sacrifice was thus a confession of his inability to satisfy, an appeal for mercy; and hence the sacrifice became a typical prophetic movement towards the future satisfaction.”
The sins for which sin offerings were to be presented were offences against the Divine law much more in its moral than in its ceremonial aspect. Great offences against civil society, such as involuntary manslaughter (Num_35:10-15; Deu_19:1-10), did not come within the scope of these sacrifices; and minor breaches of the ceremonial law, such as uncleanness from contact with the dead bodies of animals (Lev_11:24; Lev_11:28) or men (Num_19:11; Num_19:19-20), were otherwise provided for. The sin offering had relation much more to the individual conscience than to the theocratic state or the peculiar Hebrew polity. In Num_15:29 its privileges are expressly extended to the “stranger.” But it was not allowed to be offered in cases where no true penitence could be supposed to exist, and it was therefore not permitted in the case of presumptuous or defiant sins (Num_15:30-31).
The idea of vicarious satisfaction necessarily appears more clearly in this specialized offering for sin than in other sacrifices which were either more general in their character, or specialized for other purposes. (The word çַèָּàú occurs several times in Genesis in the sense of sin, but never in the sense of sin offering, before Exo_29:14). Hence, in view of the intrinsic insufficiency of animal victims to atone for moral offences, this sacrifice was emphatically typical of the true Sacrifice for sin to come. The object of all the divine dealings with man has been his restoration to communion with God by the restoration of his holiness; and the first step to this end was necessarily the putting away of his sin. Under the old dispensation, therefore, the typical sin offering was the culmination of its whole system, presented in the most emphatic form on the great day of atonement (chap. 16); just as under the new dispensation the culmination of Christ’s work for the redemption of His people was His atoning sacrifice of Himself upon the Cross of Calvary.
Unlike the preceding sacrifices, the victim in the sin offering varied according to the offender’s rank in the theocracy. The ground of this is to be sought in the conspicuousness of the offence, not at all in its grossness. Here, as elsewhere, there was no correlation between the value of the victim and the magnitude of the sin. Every sin, great or small, of the same class of persons was expiated by the same means; a victim of higher value was only required in consequence of official responsibility and position, and the consequently greater strain which offences brought upon the theocracy. There was no such gradation in the Trespass offering, which was related more to the harm done than to the sin committed. Four grades are prescribed: for the sin—(1) of the high-priest (Lev_4:3-12); (2) of the whole congregation (Lev_4:13-21); (3) of a prince (Lev_4:22-26); (4) of any of the people of the land (Lev_4:27-35). After this follows an enumeration of special sins for which confession should be made and sin offerings offered (Lev_5:1-6), with the allowance of inferior offerings in case of poverty (Lev_4:7-13).
Lev_4:1-2. The general condition of the sin offering.
Lev_4:2. Speak unto the children of Israel.—It is always to be remembered that these laws are given to a people already in covenant relation to God, and the essential point of that covenant was the promise of the final victory over sin in the person of “the seed of the woman.” The laws given until He should come are therefore necessarily based upon His coming, and look forward to Him.
Any of the commandments.— îִëֹּì in a partitive sense. At the close of this verse must be understood some such clause as he shall bring an offering for his sin. The actual apodosis of the verse is the whole following chapter, and not Lev_4:3, which relates only to the high-priest.
Lev_4:3-12. The sin offering of the high-priest. Lange here says: “It must be noticed that the high-priest could become the most guilty of all, which the haughtiness of the hierarchy never thought of enough; that the whole congregation was rated as one personality equal in rank to him; that the prince was only considered slightly greater than the common man (the difference is he goats, she goats, or an ewe); and that for the poor, in the section Lev_5:1-13, there were two more peculiar modifications.”
Lev_4:3. The priest that is anointed.—LXX.: ἀñ÷éåñåýò , ëַּäֲðָà øַáִּà = high-priest, Targums. The high-priest is so called by reason of the peculiar authority by which he alone was consecrated to his office (Exo_29:7; Lev_8:12). The anointing of all the priests was indeed expressly commanded (Exo_28:41; Exo_40:15), and is recognized as having taken place Lev_7:36; Lev_10:7; Num_3:3; yet in the account of the consecration, chap, 8, no other anointing of the common priests is mentioned than that Moses sprinkled both them and Aaron with “the anointing oil” and the blood from the altar. According to the best Jewish authorities, however, the priests were anointed with the finger upon the forehead. Outram places the distinction in the fact that each successive high-priest was personally anointed, while the others were only anointed once for all in the persons of Aaron’s immediate sons. Whatever may be the truth in regard to these things, the high-priest is evidently regarded in a peculiar sense as anointed, and is generally designated in Lev. (Lev_4:5; Lev_4:16; Lev_6:22; Lev_16:32) as the anointed priest. He is also called the äַëֹּäֵï äַâָּãåֹì = great priest (Lev_21:10; Num_35:25; Num_35:28 bis:Jos_20:6), and in later times the head or chief priest (2Ki_25:18; 2Ch_19:11), or simply the priest, êáô ’ ἐîï÷ὴí (1Ki_2:35, etc.).
Do sin.—Origen (Horn. II. in Lev. § 1) observes that inadvertence is not specified in the case of the high-priest. It must, of course, be supposed in view of the general principles on which sacrifices were allowed at all; but it probably was not written in the law that the infirmity of the high-priest might not be made too prominent.
To the guilt of the people, ìְּàַùְׁîַú äָòָí —i.e., to bring upon the people the guilt of his own transgression. It is an undue restriction of the sense of these words to limit them to the sins committed by the high-priest in his official capacity. Such sins, of course, did bring guilt upon the people (Lev_10:17; Mal_2:7-8); but over and above this, nothing can be clearer in history, both under the old covenant and in the world at large, than that God had so constituted men with a federal as well as individual relation, that the sins of the head, whether of the nation, the community, or the family, entail suffering upon its members. The high-priest as the head of the theocracy could not sin, but that the whole body of Israel should feel its effects. The distinction may indeed be made between natural and moral consequences, between earthly and future punishments; still the two things are so intimately connected, a debasing of the moral sense of the community is so much the effect of the unfaithfulness of its head that the spiritual condition of the Israelites, following the general law, was largely affected by that of their high-priest, so that his sins did indeed “bring guilt upon the people.”
A young bullock without blemish.—The high-priest’s sin offering was the same as that of the whole congregation (Lev_4:14), not merely because of the conspicuousness of his position and of the gravity of sin in one who should be the leader to all holiness; but especially (see Lev_4:3) because of his representative character and his federal headship mentioned above. According to Jewish tradition, if the bullock of the high-priest and the bullock of the congregation stood together ready for sin offerings, the former had the preference in every way. There was a careful gradation of the victims for the sin offering: the high priest and the whole congregation offered a male—a young bullock; the prince offered also a male, but of the goats (Lev_4:23); the people offered a female of either the goats (Lev_4:28) or the sheep (Lev_4:32). There was also a corresponding gradation, but with fewer steps, in the ritual in regard to the blood, and also in the disposition of the flesh. See below.
Lev_4:4. The presentation, laying on of hands, and slaughtering, were the same (Lev_4:14-15; Lev_4:23-24), as in the case of other sacrifices (Lev_1:3-5).
Lev_4:5-7. And the priest that is anointed shall take.—At the point of the treatment of the blood the difference between the ritual of the sin offerings and the other sacrifices begins, and this treatment differs somewhat in the several sin offerings themselves. In this case, the high-priest, who was himself the offerer, brought some of the blood to the tabernacle of the congregation; afterwards the person officiating is designated simply the priest. From this it has been argued that, as the high-priest was the one whose sin was to be atoned for, the service was here taken up on his behalf by another priest; but there is precisely the same change at the same point in the following offering for the whole congregation (Lev_4:16-17), and the high-priest certainly officiated throughout on the great day of atonement (chap. 16); moreover, the fact of his offering the sin offering for himself as well as for the people is established by Heb_5:3.
Lev_4:6. Sprinkle of the blood.—The word äִæָּä is different from æָøַ÷ used for sprinkle in chaps. 1 and 3 in view of the much smaller quantity of blood used here. It is difficult to express this in English translation, though the difference is observed in the LXX. and Vulg.
Seven times.—The seven-fold sprinkling of blood is frequently commanded (Lev_4:17; Lev_16:17; Lev_16:19; Num_19:4) always in connection with sin offering, or (Lev_14:7; Lev_14:27) with the purification of leprosy. In consecrations, too, there was a seven-fold sprinkling of oil (Lev_8:11; Lev_14:16), and frequently the number seven is designated for the victims in sacrifice (Lev_23:18; Num_23:1; Num_23:4; Num_23:14; Num_23:29; Num_28:11; Num_28:19; Num_28:27; Num_29:2; Num_29:8; Num_29:13; Num_29:36). The same number also appears in many other particulars connected with the divine service, and has always been considered as symbolical of completeness and perfection. The number is so frequent in the divine word, as well as in the ordering of nature, that it must be thought to have its foundation in some unfathomable heavenly relations. Its use in connection with the sin offering is plainly to give emphasis to the typical completeness of the propitiation.
Before the veil of the sanctuary.—There is a variety of opinion as to precisely where the blood was sprinkled. The LXX: êáôὰ ôὸ êáôáðÝôáóìá , and the Vulg.: contra velum, seem to have supposed it was upon the veil itself. It is more probable that the high-priest, dipping his finger in the blood at the entrance of the sanctuary, sprinkled it before him towards the veil as he advanced to the altar of incense. The object was plainly the presenting of the blood before Jehovah, the manifestation of whose presence was on the ark just within the veil. “The objective point was not the veil, but the ark of the covenant.” Lange.
Lev_4:7. Upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense—the golden altar which stood immediately before the veil. It was only in the case of the sin-offerings for the high-priest and for the whole people (Lev_4:18) that the blood was brought to this altar—doubtless on account of the especial gravity of the sins to be atoned for; in case of the other sin offerings the blood was put on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, (Lev_4:25; Lev_4:30; Lev_4:34) which stood in the court without. It was to be put in either case upon the horns of the altar because in these the significance of the altar culminated, and in the sin offering, as has already appeared, and will still more fully appear, the utmost emphasis was to be given to every part of the ritual of propitiation.
Shall pour all the blood.—But very little of the blood had thus far been used; the remainder—all the blood—was to be poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering, the place to which all blood of the sacrifices not otherwise required was to be brought; it had no sacrificial significance. During the life in the wilderness the blood of the comparatively small number of sacrifices was here