Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through inadvertence against any of the commandments of Jehovah [in things] that ought not to be done, and do any of them;
Leviticus opens with offerings a worshipper could choose to bring. At chapter 4 the tone changes. God now speaks about the person who breaks one of His commandments without meaning to. Why give a sacrifice for a sin nobody intended, and by whose measure is such a sin weighed?
The first three chapters left room for the willing worshipper.
This is all the more striking, because from Leviticus 4 we find completely different language. We come to another kind of offering there... "If anyone sins," it is written, "in any of the LORD's commandments, then let him bring for his sin" this or that. This was an absolute requirement. The Israelite was left no choice. He had to do it, and every detail was laid down. A person could not simply bring what he liked.
Older translations read "through ignorance." The Hebrew word behind it means something a little different.
In Leviticus 4 the circumstances of the sin decided whether the offender could use the Lord's gracious provision. The Lord provided there only for sins against His commandments about things that ought not to be done, and only when someone did them by inadvertence, or in error. That is what sh'gagah means, rather than ignorance... In each case the commandment the person had broken was clear. So nothing less than the shedding of blood could meet what the case needed.
Left to ourselves, we would rank sins by intention and by damage done. God's arrangement here runs the other way.
God did not leave it to man to define the nature of his act, or the occasion when he should bring offerings of this kind. Man would have ordered such sacrifices for gross sins. He would have thought them needless when the offender could plead error or ignorance as an excuse. God acted in just the opposite way. For deliberate, defiant sins God provided no sacrifice, and the sinner had nothing but death to face (Num. 15)... Man tends to measure his guilt by the kind of act he did, whether on purpose or knowingly, and by the results that may follow from it. God measures it by what He is in Himself, who is light as well as love.
The verse names what the sin is against, and the timing matters — Israel now had the law in detail.
First, the sin in view is against "any of the LORD's commandments." As noted before, "sin is not counted where there is no law" (Rom. 5:13). We have now reached the time when God has given the law, with its many detailed commandments. So when someone broke any of these commandments, the sin was at once put to his account, and this offering was set up to make atonement for the sinner.
The kind of sin named here also shows God's heart toward weak people.
The sins in view when this offering was set up were those committed "through ignorance." In this we see the compassion of our God shining out. He knew well the weakness and ignorance and forgetfulness that mark poor, fallen humanity, and He made this provision.
If a man can offend God without noticing, something is wrong deeper than his choices.
In sins of error or inadvertence, clearly man's will was not at work, though the evil of his nature showed itself. So God could not pass such acts over, and He provided a sacrifice. But how deeply rooted evil must be in man, if he can sin against God without meaning to. And how hateful our sins must be to God, since nothing less than the atoning death of the Lord Jesus can put them away from before Him.
The category itself settles the question of self-help.
Nothing shows man's inability to deal with sin more strongly than the very existence of a "sin of ignorance." How could he deal with what he does not know? How could he get rid of what has never even come within his conscience? Impossible. Man's ignorance of sin proves his total inability to put it away. He is as powerless as he is ignorant.
The same truth that leaves us helpless can also settle the heart. It turns on whose knowledge the atonement answers.
True, we might be doing such things "through ignorance," but that could not change the matter before God, because He knows everything. So there would be constant fear, doubt, and unease. God meets all of this, because sin has been atoned for — not according to our "ignorance," but according to His knowledge. The assurance of this gives great rest to the heart and conscience. All God's claims have been answered by His own work.
- Commanded — from chapter 4 the offering is not a choice. The sinner must bring what God names, and nothing else.
- Inadvertent — the word means error, not ignorance. The commandment was clear and the will was not at work, yet the case still called for blood.
- Measured — God weighs the act by what He Himself is, not by intent or result. Deliberate sin had no sacrifice at all.
- Exposed — a person can sin without meaning to. That shows how deep the evil in human nature runs, and how helpless he is to remove what he never saw.
- Rested — the atonement answers God's knowledge, not our ignorance; that is why the conscience can be at peace.
if the priest that is anointed sin according to the trespass of the people; then for his sin which he hath sinned shall he present a young bullock without blemish to Jehovah for a sin-offering.
Leviticus 4 turns to the sacrifice for sin, and God's first case is the failure of the priest who stood closest to Him. His sin brought guilt on the whole nation, which raises the question of who could serve as priest and never need such an offering.
The chapter deals with sins nobody planned. The word behind "unintentionally" points to error or a slip, and God still did not let such acts pass:
Everyone in Israel could sin, from the anointed priest to the lowest of the people. They could sin by error or without noticing, which is what the word sh'gagah, translated "ignorance," really means. In such sins against any of the Lord's commandments, man's will was not at work, though the evil of his nature still showed. So God could not pass these acts over, and He provided a sacrifice. But how deeply rooted evil must be in man, when he can sin against God without meaning to. And how hateful our sins must be to God, since they need nothing less than the atoning death of the Lord Jesus to put them away from before Him.
Older versions read "according to the sin of the people." The phrase has a stronger force than that:
Then from verse 3 comes the particular case of the anointed or high priest. If he should sin so as to make the people guilty — this is the true force of the phrase, and the real effect of his sin in the ways of Jehovah. … The anointed priest can "sin so as to bring guilt on the people," that is, without their sinning.
The same principle explains why the two heaviest cases in the chapter are treated alike:
When the anointed priest sinned, the result was exactly the same as if the whole congregation had sinned. When a prince sinned, it was a different matter, though a stronger case for sacrifice than where it was a private man. In short, the relationship of the guilty person determines the relative extent of the sin, though none was obscure enough for his sin to be passed by.
Arno Clemens Gaebelein, quoting William Kelly
For this sin God named the victim, and the priest had no choice in it:
But if the anointed priest should sin, as indeed happened often enough, "he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the LORD for a sin offering." It had to be the largest offering. God allowed no choice. He must bring this victim and no other. Since he had broken the Lord's command, he had to bring the animal to the appointed place, and kill it there before Him, with his hand laid on its head. That was the sign of transferring the guilt to the victim — how precious for the sinner!
The gesture appears in the burnt offering too, but writers draw a careful distinction between the two directions in which it works.
As in the burnt offering, the offerers had to identify themselves with the offering by laying their hands on the head of the bull. But notice this difference. In the burnt offering we see the believer identified with Christ and accepted in Christ. In the sin offering Christ became identified with us in our sin. Sin was transferred to Him as our substitute. "The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
The two offerings are not described in the same words, and the difference points to Christ:
In the burnt offering we could recognise the Lord Jesus Christ offering Himself voluntarily before God… But in the sin offering it is quite different: "He shall be brought" and "He shall be killed." Instead of coming, He shall be brought. Instead of laying down His life of Himself, His life shall be taken from Him.
Israel's high priest had to bring a sacrifice for his own sin. The High Priest Christians confess is different:
What a blessed contrast is the High Priest of our confession, a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God! He was tempted in every way as we are, yet apart from sin, not merely apart from sinning. Sin was completely shut out. In Him was no sin.
One writer notices a silence in the text: for the priest's offering, unlike the other three cases, neither atonement nor forgiveness is mentioned.
He whose love led Him to take our judgment upon Himself could not be forgiven, nor could any atonement be made for Him.
- Reach — The priest's sin did not stop with him. It brought guilt on the whole nation, because he stood before God for them.
- Weight — Even sin done in ignorance could not be passed over. God answered it with a sacrifice, which shows how deep the evil runs.
- Cost — The heaviest guilt needed the largest victim: a bull without blemish, and nothing else allowed.
- Transfer — The hand on the head moves the guilt to the victim. In the sin offering Christ is identified with us in our sin.
- Contrast — Israel's priest offered for his own sin. Our High Priest was tempted yet without sin, so He needed no offering and could be the offering.