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.
And he shall bring the bullock to the entrance of the tent of meeting before Jehovah; and shall lay his hand on the bullock's head, and slaughter the bullock before Jehovah.
This verse tells the anointed priest — the man who stood before God for all Israel — what to do when he himself has sinned. Everything turns on two things: his hand on the animal's head, and the words "before the LORD."
Nothing here was left to the offerer's taste.
It must be the largest offering. No option was allowed. He must bring this victim, and no other… He had broken Jehovah's command, so the high priest must bring the animal Jehovah named before Him to the appointed place. There he must kill it before Him, with his hand laid on its head. That hand was the token of transferring the guilt to the victim — how precious for the sinner!
The priest brings the largest animal of all, and his place explains why. His sin also does not stop with him.
Look at the differences in the way these sins are met. They show that the greater the privilege, the greater the responsibility, the greater the sin… The whole congregation was affected, for the anointed priest stood in relation to the whole camp.
Scripture gives this gesture a fixed meaning.
To put the hand on the head means in Scripture identification. It is to say, "I identify myself with you." It was done in the case of the burnt offering. So the offerer identified himself with the value of the sacrifice… In the sin offering, Christ identifies Himself in grace with sin. That is, with everything in us that is offensive to God. It is transferred to Him.
The same hand is laid on the burnt offering. But there the transfer runs the other way, and that decides what happens to the animal.
When a Jew brought his burnt offering, the point was that the acceptance of the victim should pass to him… In the sin offering the opposite appears: the offerer's evil was charged on the victim… So the victim, when offered for sin, did not as such rise up before God. If the sin passed to the victim, then the victim must be dealt with in judgment to the very end.
No priest does this part for him. The offerer's own hand kills the animal, and it dies in God's sight.
The death of the victim follows at the offerer's hands: priestly work has not yet begun… This shows that the death of Christ was our act. Not that we are morally one with those who killed Him — although that is true, and most important in its place. Rather, our sin made His death necessary… It is "before the Lord." That shows that the necessity on the other side was a divine one, coming from the holiness of the divine nature.
One act of the hand did two opposite things at once.
The act of laying on hands charged sin to One "who knew no sin," but was "holy, innocent, unstained," and whose very nature hated all sin. At the same moment, it credited perfect righteousness to a man who was by nature a cruel, fierce and self-willed murderer.
This is not only Israel's history. It leaves a question: where is my own hand?
If I claim "Christ died for sinners" for myself, I have, as it were, my hands on the head of the victim. That is how my acceptance is declared to me. People sometimes confuse this with what Isaiah says: "the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." But the hand of the offerer could not be Jehovah's hand. And however long ago that precious Sacrifice was offered, I can by faith consent to it as offered for me.
- Hand — the hand on the head says, "I identify myself with you."
- Direction — in the burnt offering the value moves to the offerer. In the sin offering the guilt moves to the victim, so the victim must be judged.
- Place — no choice of animal and no choice of spot; the bull God named dies at the entrance, in His sight.
- Cost — sin charged to One who knew no sin, and perfect righteousness credited to a guilty man.
- Now — faith lays the same hand on the same head and consents: Christ died for me.
And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it into the tent of meeting;
This verse gives one short instruction. The priest who has sinned must carry some of the bull's blood inside, into the tent of meeting itself. Why does his failure send blood further in than any ordinary Israelite's sin does? And what does that say about the One this priest pictures?
One writer explains the real force of the phrase that describes his sin:
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... If the anointed priest "sins so as to bring guilt on the people," that is, without their sinning.
The remedy went further than in any other case:
If the anointed priest sinned, then we have the most serious case of all. He was the appointed link between the people and God, and the whole people were involved with himself. So he had to offer a young bull without blemish. Its blood went on the altar outside. It was also carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled seven times before the veil and on the horns of the altar of incense. In the picture, the worship of the people stopped through the sin of the man who presented it before God in the fragrance of the incense. Until the blood was sprinkled, no priest could act before the Lord for the people.
Note how far in the blood went — and how far it did not:
Whether outside or inside the sanctuary, what is done is "before Jehovah." He is the One who has to be vindicated. Blood is brought not only "to" but "into" the tent of meeting, and sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary. Only on the one solemn day of atonement did the high priest go with incense into the holiest place. There he sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat and in front of it. Here he went only into the holy place. There he put some of the blood on the horns of the golden altar. He poured out all the rest of the blood at the base of the bronze altar.
How far the blood travels shows the size of the breach:
The difference between this offering and the common person's offering is very important. If an individual sinned, the people were still in communion, and it is merely a restoring of the person himself. But if the priest or the congregation sinned, the breach was total, and all the people were on the same ground as the sinner. Reconciliation must above all be with God, and blood must go in to Him: we are wholly on this ground.
The blood that goes in does two things at once:
The priest represented the people before Jehovah. If he sinned, or if the whole congregation sinned, the priest sprinkled the blood — the witness of death — seven times before Jehovah. He also put it on the horns of the golden altar. The blood sprinkled seven times before Him met God's claims in full. The blood on the horns of the altar restored the worship and communion of the redeemed congregation.
When an anointed priest in Israel sinned, he had to bring an offering for himself. One priest never needed to:
When the anointed priest sinned, the result was exactly as if the whole congregation had sinned... In short, the standing of the guilty person decides how far the sin reaches, though no one was so unimportant that his sin could be ignored. Our blessed Lord, on the other hand, meets each and all. He is Himself the true anointed priest, the only One who needs no offering. So He could be the offering for all, for any.
What the priest did in figure, Christ has done in fact:
Christ, having obtained eternal redemption by His blood, entered into heaven carrying the value of that blood into the presence of God.
- Representative. The anointed priest was the link between God and the nation; his sin brought guilt on a people who had not sinned.
- Total breach. When that link failed, everyone stood on the sinner's ground — so the blood could not stop at the altar outside.
- Inside. The blood went not just to the tent but into it — yet only into the holy place. The mercy seat waited for the day of atonement.
- Restored. Blood sprinkled seven times met God's claims. Blood on the golden altar reopened worship and communion.
- Fulfilled. Christ is the true anointed priest. He needed no offering for Himself. He entered heaven carrying the value of His own blood.
and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before Jehovah before the veil of the sanctuary;
Leviticus 4 deals with sin done by mistake. Verse 6 describes the strangest step: the priest does not leave the blood at the outdoor altar. He carries it inside and flicks it seven times toward the curtain that screened God's presence. Why there, and why seven times?
Where the blood goes matters. It travels not just to the tent but into it, and the priest does every act in God's sight. (Older translations write "Jehovah" where the ESV has "the LORD.")
Whether outside or inside the sanctuary, what is done is "before Jehovah." He is the One who has to be vindicated. Blood is brought not only "to" but "into" the tent of meeting, and sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary. Only on the one solemn day of atonement did the high priest go with incense into the most holy place. There he sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat and in front of it. Here it was only inside the holy place, where he put some of the blood on the horns of the golden altar. All the rest of the blood he poured out at the base of the bronze altar.
Sin closed the priest's way in. The blood goes to the exact spot where he had to pass, and access follows.
He has come to the door of the tabernacle. He must now carry that blood right in. It is the same for the ruler as for the anointed priest: the blood is sprinkled once more before the veil, and the result is access for that priest. The way opens out again, now that the question of that sin has been settled and removed, and the priest is in full liberty to approach God.
This pattern runs right through the tabernacle: wherever a person meets God, blood has been there first.
There is no place of meeting for man with God where the blood is not to be found. Whether at the altar of burnt offering (Lev. 4:25, 34), before the tent of meeting (Num. 19:4), at the golden altar (Lev. 4:7, 18), before the veil (Lev. 4:6, 17), or before or on the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14-15).
Why seven, and not once?
The priest then brought the blood into the tent of meeting. He sprinkled it "before Jehovah, before the veil of the Sanctuary," not once, or twice, but seven times. This shows that God would have the offender feel the perfection of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, which removes the stain of sin before Him and from the conscience. The blood is then put on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense. Would this not suggest how the offerer is restored to full liberty of communion and confidence in prayer?
Commentators differ on what the sevenfold act is for. One writer reads it as securing a place for the offender, not as presenting anything to God.
The priest takes some of the blood and, passing into the tabernacle, sprinkles it seven times before the veil of the sanctuary. This seems not to be for presentation to God, but to secure a standing before the throne, like the sevenfold sprinkling on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:14). Presentation to God comes rather through anointing the horns of the altar of incense. At ordinary times that altar is the only place of communion with the inner sanctuary.
This was the gravest case in the chapter. The priest's position explains why.
If the anointed priest sinned, then we have the most serious case of all. He was the appointed link between the people and God, and the whole people were involved with him. So a young bull without blemish had to be offered. Its blood had to be sprinkled on the altar outside. It also had to be carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled seven times before the veil and on the horns of the altar of incense. In type, the worship of the people was interrupted by the sin of the man who presented it before God in the fragrance of the incense. Until the blood was sprinkled there could be no priestly action before the Lord on behalf of the people.
The ritual stopped at the curtain. Christ's death did not.
Such also is the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. It is forever on the mercy seat, effective as the ground of the relationship between us and God. The other sin offerings mentioned were to restore the communion of those already in that relationship… But for us the veil is torn, and as to conscience of guilt we are perfected forever. If our walk is defiled, water by the word restores the communion of our souls, and that with the Father and with His Son.
- Blocked. Sin shut down approach, so the blood went to the very place where the guilty man had to draw near — before the veil.
- Carried. The blood went not just to the tent but into it. Every act was done "before Jehovah," the One who must be vindicated.
- Sevenfold. Not once or twice, but seven times. It shows the perfect efficacy of the blood. Commentators differ on whether this reached the conscience or secured a standing.
- Shared. The anointed priest's sin involved the whole people. Until the blood was sprinkled, no priest could act for them before the Lord.
- Opened. For the believer the veil is torn and the conscience is perfected forever. When the walk is defiled, the word restores communion.
and the priest shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense, which is in the tent of meeting, before Jehovah; and he shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
When the anointed priest — the high priest — sinned, the blood of his sin offering went through three stages, and this verse gives the last two. Why did any of it have to go inside the sanctuary, when the blood for an ordinary Israelite stopped at the outer altar?
The high priest stood between the people and God, so his failure was never a private matter.
If the anointed priest sinned, then we have the most serious case of all. He was the appointed link between the people and God, and the whole people were involved with himself. So a young bullock without blemish had to be offered. Its blood was sprinkled not only on the altar outside; it was also carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled seven times before the veil and on the horns of the altar of incense. In type, the sin of the man who presented the people's worship before God in the fragrance of the incense interrupted that worship. Until the blood was sprinkled there could be no priestly action before the Lord on behalf of the people.
Later in the chapter the ritual changes for other offenders. The place of the blood follows the place where approach to God had been blocked.
The Lord Jesus becomes the substitute in this case for the one who was guilty. When a single person sinned, the blood was put on the bronze altar, since it only needed to be dealt with in the place of sinful man's access to God. But the sin of the anointed priest, or of the whole congregation, interrupted communion. There the ritual was far more solemn. So the blood had to be brought into the sanctuary and put on the horns of the golden altar.
Two of the cases in this chapter brought blood as far as the incense altar.
In the first and second of the cases mentioned in this chapter (that is, for the anointed priest, and for the whole congregation), some of the blood was put upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense. So no priest could enter there without seeing the witness that communion was restored. Its blood was put on the horns, the most visible part of the altar.
The golden altar was where fragrant incense went up before God. One writer gives each of the three blood actions its own meaning.
The first action showed that the righteousness of Jehovah's throne had to be satisfied. The high priest lifted his hand and sprinkled the blood of the victim which had been made sin seven times before that throne. This perfectly met its claims. The second action showed that the power of intercession — the horns of the golden altar — was founded on righteousness. The blood of the sin offering vindicated divine justice, and then the fragrance of its incense followed.
This verse names two altars, and blood goes to both.
The anointed priest was the only person who had access to God as far as the veil, and he alone burnt incense on the altar of sweet incense. To restore him to this place of privilege, the ground on which he stood and the altar which he touched in that service also needed to be cleansed by blood. This included pouring out the blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. That was the ground he stood on when he offered a sacrifice for anyone in the congregation who had sinned. It suggests that a priest's sin defiled the ground he stood on and the vessels he used; these, and the priest himself, had to be cleansed by blood.
Only a little blood touched the horns. The rest went out at the base of the outer altar.
The blood was poured out at the bottom of the Altar of Burnt Offering. The blood signified the life. Nothing less than the shedding of blood would meet God's claims — a life surrendered under the judgment of God. Sin is a very serious matter, and all this ritual would bring that home to the anointed priest who had sinned.
- Link. The anointed priest linked God and the people, so his sin touched everyone.
- Loss. His sin stopped worship. No priest could act before the Lord until the blood was applied.
- Location. Blood went where approach to God was blocked: the golden altar for the priest and the congregation, the outer altar for one person.
- Display. Blood on the horns, the most visible part, let every priest see that communion was restored and intercession founded on righteousness.
- Life. The rest poured out at the base declared the cost: a life surrendered under God's judgment, since nothing less met His claims.
And all the fat of the bullock of the sin-offering shall he take off from it; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is on the inwards,
In Leviticus 4 the sin offering deals with sin that has broken fellowship with God, and the priest burns most of the animal outside the camp. Yet God first claims the fat for Himself, and it goes on the altar — so why does any part of a sin offering belong on the place of acceptance?
Fat is a symbol in the sacrifices, and other Scriptures show what it stands for.
Next, all the fat, especially the fat of the entrails, was taken and burnt on the altar of burnt offering to the Lord. Fat and blood were alike forbidden to be eaten. The blood was the life, and by its very nature belonged to God. Life came from Him in a special way. Fat too was never to be eaten but burnt, and so offered to God. This symbol, fat, is familiar enough in Scripture. "Their heart is fat as grease." "Jeshurun grew fat and kicked." "They are enclosed in their own fat, with their mouth they speak proudly." It is the energy and force of the inward will, the inward parts of a man's heart.
Those three Old Testament lines follow an older translation's wording.
The verse names the fat of the entrails twice, and that repetition matters.
The part that was burnt was very significant: "the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails." If there is anything wrong with the creature, it is sure to be found in the entrails. There may even be a fair outside, but wherever there is thorough corruption, the more you go within, the more you find the evil core. On the other hand, nothing could show the good condition and the acceptability of the sacrifice more clearly than burning the fat of the entrails on the bronze altar.
The next verse names the kidneys, and the word behind them carries its own meaning.
These, "with the fat on them," were often burned on the altar in the sacrifices… The same word, Kelayoth, is translated "reins" (which means "kidneys") when it stands for the inward feelings and affections.
Applied to Christ, the fat and the kidneys speak of His inner life.
The fat speaks of energy. In man this energy usually shows itself in self-will and rebellion, but in Him it went willingly to the cross… His inward affections, the reins, the exercise of judgment in the refusal of evil — all these He presented to God in His death in unblemished purity.
The rest of the bull went outside the camp. This portion did not.
"The priest shall burn them" — where? outside the camp? No: "the priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering" — the altar, where everything for acceptance with Jehovah, everything that was a pleasing aroma to Him, was burnt. So God shows how wrong it would be to think the offering was not acceptable in itself. Part of it was burnt on the altar that speaks of acceptance, just as surely as the rest was burnt outside the camp.
The sin offering pictures what Christ became for others. One rite in it speaks of who He was in Himself.
The intrinsic excellency of Christ is not omitted, even in the sin offering. The fat burnt upon the altar fittingly expresses how God valued the preciousness of Christ's Person, whatever place He might take, in perfect grace, on our behalf or in our stead… But the One made sin was the Lord Jesus Christ — God's elect, His Holy One, His pure, His spotless, His eternal Son. So the fat of the sin offering was burnt on the altar, as proper material for that fire which displayed divine holiness.
Commentators differ on how much weight to put on this altar-portion here. One notes what the text withholds:
Nothing is said about this burning being for a sweet aroma, as it was with the peace offerings. The fat did speak of the excellence of the sacrifice, and that was needed if atonement was to be made for sin. But the point now is the covering of man's sin, not the delight brought to God.
Another points further down the chapter:
In the case of one of the common people it is even said to be for a sweet aroma. This is not said about the first two cases. Still, the word used for the burning on the altar is the ordinary one for that, and it differs from the word used for burning the sacrifice on the ground outside the camp.
The order here carries a lesson for the worshipper.
The fat therefore was God's portion… God must have His part before His people had theirs. This is the secret of all blessing — giving the Lord the supreme place, thinking first of what is due to Him.
- Fat — the symbol of inward energy and force of will; in Christ that energy went willingly to the cross.
- Entrails — corruption would show there first, so burning them declares the sacrifice sound all through.
- Kidneys — the same word as "reins," which stands for inward feelings and affections; God claims the hidden motives too.
- Altar — this portion goes to the place of acceptance, not outside the camp; the sin offering was acceptable in itself.
- Order — God receives His part first; that priority is where blessing for His people begins.
and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the net above the liver which he shall take away as far as the kidneys,
This verse continues the list of inner parts the priest takes off the bull offered for sin. They were not burned outside the camp with the rest of the animal but laid on the altar — so why does an offering that deals with sin give God a portion on the altar of acceptance?
One writer explains what the fat stands for.
But it is the fat that gets unusual emphasis… The fat represents the inward energy of the animal, not its life — the life is in the blood, given up to God. The richest part is claimed here as a sacrifice for the altar.
Another writer reads the kidneys as a picture of the Lord's inward judgment. He takes the removal of the lobe above the liver — called "the caul" in older translations — as a statement about the Lord's whole life.
The kidneys get special attention. They stand for our Lord's inward judgment and His refusal of all evil, and could be laid on the altar as a token of His perfect sinlessness. But "the caul above the liver" was taken away and burned. This was perhaps the diaphragm, which divides the lungs from the liver — the line between the nobler vital organs and the lower ones, tied more to earth. Its removal suggests there could be no such line in the holy life of our Lord. With Him, there was no separation between sacred and common.
The hidden parts went to the altar, not the outside of the animal. One writer explains why.
If there is anything wrong with the creature, it is sure to be found in the inward parts. The outside may even look fine. But wherever there is thorough corruption, the further in you go, the more you find the evil core. On the other hand, the point might be to show that a victim was in good condition and acceptable. Nothing could say that better than burning the fat of the inward parts on the bronze altar. So with Christ. Outside He might be treated as the object of God's judgment, bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. But His blood was always fit for God's acceptance… Never was Christ more the object of God's delight than at the moment when God abandoned Him for our sins on the cross.
The sin offering mainly shows what Christ became for us, not what He was in Himself. This one detail says the other thing too.
So even in the sin offering, the excellence of Christ Himself is not left out. The fat burned on the altar fitly expresses how God prizes the preciousness of Christ's Person. That holds whatever place He might take, in perfect grace, on our behalf or in our stead… But it was the Lord Jesus Christ who was made sin — God's chosen One, His Holy One, His pure, His spotless, His eternal Son. That is why the fat of the sin offering was burned on the altar.
Another writer points out where the chapter calls this burning "a sweet aroma" and where it does not.
So the fat here goes on the altar, just as it does with the peace offering. When the offering is for one of the common people, it is even called a sweet aroma. That is not said about the first two cases. Even there, though, the word for the burning on the altar is the ordinary one, and it differs from the word used for burning the victim on the ground outside the camp.
The fat comes off here as it does for the peace offering. One writer draws out why.
The peace offering has fellowship with God in view… God would press on us why He deals with sin. It is to bring back into our souls, and into our enjoyment, that wonderful sense of divine favour — "accepted in the Beloved". And what else can come of enjoying divine favour in our souls, as accepted "in the Beloved", but to be restored to happy communion with God?
The fat belonged to God, and the timing of the ritual teaches something.
The fat, then, was God's portion… For that reason it must not be neglected and left until the morning. It had to be offered at once. God must have His part before His people had theirs. This is the secret of all blessing: giving the Lord the highest place, thinking first of what is due to Him, and losing sight of everything else until that is given.
- Inward. The fat pictures inward energy and the kidneys inward judgment — the hidden parts, where any fault would show first.
- Undivided. The lobe above the liver, removed and burned, leaves no line between sacred and common in the life offered.
- Unspoiled. Even while God judges sin, Christ's own excellence is not left out: the inward parts rise from the altar of acceptance.
- Restored. The fat comes off just as it does for the peace offering: God aims past forgiveness at restored fellowship.
- First. The fat was God's portion, claimed before anyone else had a share — His part comes first.
as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offering; and the priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt-offering.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung,
The priest had already sprinkled the sin offering's blood before the Lord and burned its fat on the altar. Now God deals with everything left over — the whole rest of the animal. Why is it carried away and destroyed instead of eaten or offered up? And what does that place outside the camp say about the cross?
The offerings differ most in what happened to the body of the animal.
In this act, we have the main feature of the sin offering. It is the thing that set it apart from both the burnt offering and the peace offering. The priest did not burn its flesh on the altar, as in the burnt offering. Neither the priest nor the worshipper ate it, as in the peace offering. It was wholly burned outside the camp.
Even the word for burning here is not the burnt offering's word.
The skin of the bullock, with the whole bullock, was burned outside the camp. The Hebrew word for "burned" is different from the one used for the burnt offering. The word used with the sin offering is "saraph"; it speaks of the burning of judgment.
Nothing of the animal was spared, and the parts named carry meaning.
The flesh of the sin offering was burned, showing what is general. The flesh is altogether bad. The dung too was burned. The dung, the waste of the animal, stands for what even people recognise as bad — the excesses of sin. These include drunkenness, dishonesty, blasphemy, uncleanness and the like. Everyone can understand the dung being burned.
The place where it could not be burned matters as much as the place where it was.
Taking it outside the camp was a sign: the victim, identified with the evil of the offerer, had to be put far away from God. The camp was the place where the people of God were, as the sanctuary was where He Himself dwelt. To express this holy hatred of evil, the sin offering could not be burned near the sanctuary in the court — not even in the camp. It had to be taken outside the camp and burned there solemnly in a clean place.
The burning happened away from the altar, and two things were true of the animal at once.
There too it differs from the burnt offering, which was burned inside the court on the bronze altar. The sin offering must be burned outside the camp. It was holy, most holy, yet completely identified with the sin confessed on it. How it was all more than verified — heightened on every side to the highest degree — in Him who suffered for our sins!
What did "outside the camp" mean, and what did it cost Christ to go there?
The camp was made up of a people in outward relationship with God. "Outside the camp" is a place where there is no recognised relationship with God or man. It is seen either as the place of judgment from God, or as the place of reproach from man. Seen in the light of judgment, it is the place of forsaking — a place without God... The body of the sin offering burned "outside the camp" is a fitting picture of God's holy judgment against sin. Into this place Jesus went. That He might sanctify His people with His own blood, He suffered outside the camp — or, as the Word says, "outside the gate", because when Christ died the city had taken the place of the camp. In order that we might have the place of blessing inside the veil, He had to take our place of judgment outside the camp.
The fire burned everything, and what it left behind still speaks.
When the whole bullock was burned outside the camp, we see a picture of holy judgment completely consuming what was so offensive to God. The ashes speak of judgment that is eternally exhausted.
The two directions shape two sides of Christian life.
Now compare what was done with the "blood" and what was done with the "flesh" or "body" of the sacrifice. Two great branches of truth come into view: worship and discipleship. The blood brought into the sanctuary is the foundation of the first. The body burned outside the camp is the foundation of the second.
- Burned, not offered. No one put the flesh on the altar and no one ate it. Burning it outside the camp is what makes a sin offering a sin offering.
- Judgment, by name. The Hebrew word here is not the burnt offering's word. It is saraph, the burning of judgment.
- Everything included. The list leaves nothing out. It runs from the excesses everyone calls evil to the flesh itself, which is altogether bad.
- Outside, because God is holy. Not in the court, not even in the camp. The victim carrying the offerer's sin had to be put far from God. That is where Jesus suffered, taking the place of judgment so we could have the place of blessing.
- Ashes remain. What the fire leaves behind shows the judgment is spent. From the two places, sanctuary and outside the camp, come worship and discipleship.
even the whole bullock shall he carry forth outside the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt.
Leviticus 4 sets out what happens when the anointed priest sins. This verse gives the last step: the rest of the bull leaves the camp and burns to ashes. Why send it outside instead of accepting it on the altar? And what does that say about the death of Christ?
"All the rest of the bull" goes out of the camp. That one instruction marks this offering off from the others.
The witness is just as plain that it was a sin offering. Verses 11 and 12 show something quite different from the eating of the peace offering. It differs from the burnt offering too, which was burnt inside the court on the bronze altar. The sin offering had to be burnt outside the camp. It was holy, most holy, yet fully identified with the sin confessed on it. How all of this was more than fulfilled — raised to the highest degree on every side — in Him who suffered for our sins!
The camp was where God's people lived, close to the tent where He dwelt. Sending the body away from both places was a statement about where sin belongs.
Taking it outside the camp was a sign: the victim, now identified with the offerer's evil, had to go far away from God. The camp was the place where the people of God were, as the sanctuary was where He Himself dwelt. To show this holy hatred of evil, the priest could not burn the sin offering near the sanctuary in the court, or even in the camp. He had to take it outside the camp and burn it solemnly there in a clean place.
What does that outside place mean, and who went there?
"Outside the camp" is a place where there is no recognised relationship with God or man. It is seen either as the place of judgment from God, or as the place of reproach from man... The body of the sin offering burnt "outside the camp" is a fitting picture of God's holy judgment on sin. Into this place Jesus went. He suffered outside the camp, or, as the Word says, "outside the gate" — for when Christ died the city had taken the place of the camp. So that we might have the place of blessing inside the veil, He had to take our place of judgment outside the camp.
The verse calls the spot "a clean place." It is not a rubbish heap.
It was not burned on the altar, and not with the fire of acceptance. On the contrary, it was burned outside the camp. It counted as sin, and was in no sense a sweet aroma. Yet when what had been made sin was no more, its ashes were mingled with those of the burnt offering. In effect, the sacrifices were one.
Nothing of the animal survives the fire. That carried a message to the man who brought it.
How precise these directions, and how complete. Every part of the animal was to be burnt; nothing of it was to be preserved. Either to be burnt, or to be eaten; that was the command about it. Why was this? God was teaching here that the guilt was not charged to the sinner for the sin he had just brought the sacrifice for. The offerer laid his hand on the animal's head and confessed his sin over it. The victim was then charged with that sin, and once it was eaten or burnt the sin could no longer be found, for the victim carrying it was nowhere to be found.
Earlier in the chapter the priest carries the blood in toward the sanctuary. Here he carries the body out.
Now compare what was done with the "blood" with what was done with the "flesh" or "body" of the sacrifice. Two great branches of truth come into view: worship and discipleship. The blood brought into the sanctuary is the foundation of the first. The body burnt outside the camp is the foundation of the second.
The picture becomes a call to follow. But what the Christian carries outside is not what the victim carried.
We are not called to go outside under the judgment of God. We are called to go outside under the reproach of men, and that to the fullest... We cannot share His sufferings at the hand of God, but it is our privilege to share the insults He received from the hands of men. He went outside the camp to bear our judgment: we go outside the camp to bear His reproach.
- Outside — sin cannot stay near where God dwells; the victim carrying it had to be put far away from Him.
- Outside for us — Christ took that place of judgment, so we could have the place of blessing inside the veil.
- Outside but clean — the spot was a clean place. The ashes of the sin offering mingled with the ashes of the burnt offering: one Christ, one work.
- Outside means finished — nothing of the animal survived the fire, and God did not charge the guilt to the offerer.
- Outside with Him — the blood carried in gives us worship. The body carried out calls us to discipleship: we share His reproach from men, never His judgment from God.
And if the whole assembly of Israel sin inadvertently, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the congregation, and they do [somewhat against] any of all the commandments of Jehovah [in things] which should not be done, and are guilty;
Leviticus 4 lists grades of sin offering, and this verse takes the second: a wrong the whole nation fell into without noticing. How can people be guilty of what they never saw, and what does that do to their worship?
Commentators weigh what the people could see against what God sees. They also note whose service such a failure interrupts.
The sin of "the whole congregation" is a very serious matter. Like the sin of the anointed priest, it interferes with the service of God. The thing may be "hidden from the eyes of the assembly." But it is not hidden from the eyes of Him before whom everything is "naked and exposed."
So an act no one noticed is still sin. Our conscience does not set the standard.
Suppose we have gone wrong as worshippers, and have done any of the things God forbids without knowing it. Here is sin, though we did not know it. The holiness of God is not limited by our conscience.
The verse says they "realize their guilt." The guilt came first. What follows in the chapter shows what they must do once they see it, and who acts for the crowd.
It might be that the whole congregation of Israel became involved in a sin that they did not at the time realize was sin. Their ignorance did not excuse them, however. Once the sin came to their attention, they had to bring a sin offering. The link with the sin of the priest seems very clear, for the instructions for the sacrifice are just the same. The one difference is that the elders of the people were to lay their hands on the head of the bull before it was killed, for the elders represent the people.
One writer explains the parallel by what is at stake in each case, and by the three uses of the blood.
The result was the same, whether the representative of the assembly sinned or the assembly itself. Three things were at stake either way: God's dwelling place in the assembly, the worship of the assembly, and individual conscience. All three depended on the blood, so the priest did three things with it. He sprinkled it seven times before the veil, which secured God's dwelling among the people. He put some on the horns of the golden altar of incense, which secured the assembly's worship. He poured out the blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering, the place where each person came near and where God met the sinner.
Read the two sections side by side. The priest's section never says he was forgiven. The congregation's section does.
But the assembly — ah, this is another matter. They indeed could sin, and sin as a whole. For this He made atonement, as we see here in the shadow, so that it might be forgiven them. Notice that the matching section about the great priest leaves this assurance out. Of course no one can doubt that his sin was forgiven him once atonement was made. But the omission points to the only One who had no sins to be forgiven, though He is the One who made atonement for all.
A whole company can go wrong together. One writer takes the principle down to a local gathering of God's people.
This time the whole congregation of Israel has sinned through ignorance. That is a far more serious matter. We may take it down to ourselves and apply it to a local company of God's people. If a whole company has sinned and come to a wrong judgment about something, they have to come to God. They must own to Him that their judgment was wrong, and that they have offended against one of God's claims.
A company's sin damages the way in to God. The remedy goes further than a cleared record.
But thank God for the offering. It was still there for them. The blood sprinkled before that veil would open up again the thought of access to God. This company was cleansed, re-established, and restored into communion with God. As God's people they could once more go on with His service in this world.
- Hidden. The failure was out of the assembly's sight, but not out of God's; His holiness, not our awareness, sets the standard.
- Guilty. Ignorance delayed the discovery. It did not excuse the deed. Guilt was real before anyone noticed it.
- Owned. Once the sin came to light, the congregation had to admit before God that they were wrong together. The elders laid hands on the offering for all.
- Atoned. The same offering that covered the priest covered them. Here the promise "they shall be forgiven" appears — words the priest's own section leaves out.
- Restored. The blood before the veil reopened the way in, so the company could return to communion and to God's service.
and the sin wherewith they have sinned against it have become known; then the congregation shall present a young bullock for the sin-offering, and shall bring it before the tent of meeting;
This verse picks up at one moment: the whole community has done wrong without realising it, and then the truth comes out. What does a people do with a sin they discover only afterwards? And why does God ask for the costliest animal on the list?
Everything here hangs on the sin becoming known. Until then the people carried real guilt while feeling none. Commentators are firm on one point: our lack of awareness does not lower God's standard.
The claims of God demand that sins of ignorance should be taken notice of. We might feel inclined to say, or at least to think, that such sins ought to be passed over. But God does not think so. His holiness must not be reduced to the standard of our intelligence. Grace has made provision for sins of ignorance. But holiness demands that such sins be judged and confessed. Every true heart will bless God for this.
This case is one of four in the chapter, and it belongs to the first pair. With those two, the harm did not stop at the one who sinned.
In this chapter four cases demanded a sin offering. The first two had no limit in the consequence they brought. Without the offering, everything was over for the entire people of God. In both cases the communion of the whole camp was broken. In the second, the whole assembly of Israel had sinned and were guilty. In the first, the high priest had sinned, and that had the same result for everyone as for himself. We shall see how grace provided against that which was in itself ruinous.
The size of the animal matters. The bull sits at the top of the scale, and only two parties bring it — the anointed priest and the whole assembly. Position raises the reckoning.
All classes in Israel might sin in this way, but some carried greater responsibility than others. The anointed priest represented the people before God. If he sinned, he sinned to the guilt of the people: the whole nation shared the consequences of his act. So for him, as for the whole congregation when they had sinned through error, the appointed offering was a bull. That was the largest offering anyone could bring in sacrifice.
The guilty party here is a whole nation. So who lays hands on the animal?
It might be that the whole congregation of Israel became involved in a sin that they did not at the time realise was sin. Their ignorance did not excuse them, however. When the sin was brought to their attention, then a sin offering was required. The connection between this and the sin of the priest seems very clear. The instructions for the sacrifice are just the same, with one exception: the elders of the people were to lay their hands on the head of the bull before it was killed. The elders represent the people.
Hands laid on a head appear in the burnt offering too, but commentators point out that the traffic runs the opposite way in each case.
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 the believer is seen as 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 offering does more than clear guilt. It opens the way back into fellowship. Commentators see the same need in a church of the New Testament.
It is quite possible that the Corinthian assembly had been guilty of a collective sin. They all seemed to be going on in a very corrupt, loose way. But thank God for the offering — it was still there for them. The blood sprinkled before that veil would open up again the thought of access to God, with this company cleansed, re-established, and restored into communion with God. Then, as a company of God's people, they might once more go on with His service in this world.
- Hidden. A sin can be real while the people who commit it feel nothing. God's holiness, not our awareness, sets the standard.
- Known. When the wrong comes to light, the offering is due. Discovery is not a shame to bury but a call to act.
- Owned. The elders lay hands on the bull for everyone. Those who stand for the people own what the whole body has done.
- Offered. The largest sacrifice matches the widest damage. The transfer runs one way: sin moves to the substitute.
- Restored. The aim is not a settled account but a reopened door — a cleansed company back in fellowship and back in service.
and the elders of the assembly shall lay their hands on the head of the bullock before Jehovah; and one shall slaughter the bullock before Jehovah.
Here the sin belongs not to one person but to the whole nation. So a chosen few act for everyone, laying their hands on one animal before God.
God did not let the nation shrug off a sin once it came to light. But a whole nation cannot crowd around one animal.
But Jehovah wanted His people to search their conscience about any sin of theirs when it became known. So the congregation was to present a young bull for the sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting (v. 14). All could not lay their hands on the victim's head. So the elders of the congregation had to lay theirs on behalf of all (v. 15). It was killed before Jehovah, for sin always refers to God.
The same act appears in the burnt offering. But the two offerings point in opposite directions.
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 the believer is 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."
A whole nation could go wrong without knowing it. The question is what happens when the truth comes out.
It might be that the whole congregation of Israel became involved in a sin that they did not at the time realise was sin. Their ignorance did not excuse them, however. When the sin was brought to their attention, then a sin offering was required. The connection of this with the sin of the priest seems very clear. The instructions about the sacrifice are just the same. The one difference is that the elders of the people were to lay their hands on the head of the bull before its slaughter, for the elders represent the people.
Not every sin in this chapter carried the same weight. Who sinned decided how far the damage spread.
In this chapter four cases demanded a sin offering. The first two had no limit in the consequence they brought. Without it, everything was over for the entire people of God. In both cases the sin broke the communion of the whole camp. In the second case the whole assembly of Israel had sinned and were guilty. In the first, the high priest had sinned, and that had the same result for all as for himself. We shall see how grace provided against what was in itself ruinous. In the last two cases of the chapter the ill result did not go beyond the individual concerned.
The elders stand before God in place of the whole nation. Commentators see in that a picture of Christ.
Here we see, as it were, our Lord taking His place before God. He confesses not merely His people's sins. In a certain sense He stands as their Representative, gathering into Himself the entire responsibility that was theirs... He is therefore the Priest seen as the Surety for His people. This explains why the sacrifice for the entire congregation is similar to that for the priest... Surely our Lord could not answer for sin which He did not have. So when He says "my iniquities" (Ps. 40:12), it is as our Surety alone that He speaks. The whole congregation are those for whom He is the Surety.
Some writers apply the pattern to a group of believers today, where a wrong judgment has been reached together rather than by one person.
If a whole company have sinned, come to some wrong judgment about something, they have to come to God and own to Him that they have come to a wrong judgment about that something, and offended against some claim of God.
The same writer points to a New Testament case where a whole gathering had gone wrong together, and to what restored them.
It is quite possible that the Corinthian assembly had been guilty of a collective sin... But thank God for the offering — it was still there for them. The blood sprinkled before that veil would open up again the thought of access to God. This company would be cleansed, re-established, and restored into communion with God. Then, as a company of God's people, they might once more go on with His service in this world.
- Represented. A whole nation cannot crowd around one animal, so the elders lay hands in place of everyone.
- Transferred. The hand on the head means identification. In the sin offering, sin was transferred to Christ as our substitute.
- Uncovered. Sin done in ignorance still counted. Once the wrong came to light, the offering had to be brought.
- Costly. A congregation's sin, like the high priest's, broke communion for the whole camp, so it took the same offering as the priest's sin.
- Restored. The one who stands for the many points to Christ, the Surety of His people. The blood opens the way back, so a restored people can serve Him again.
And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood into the tent of meeting;
Leviticus 4 deals with sins committed by mistake. Here a whole nation has sinned without realising it, and God treats that sin like the sin of the one man who stood closest to Him: the blood must go inside the tent.
Not knowing about the sin changes nothing about how God sees it.
The sin of "the whole assembly" is a very serious matter since, like the sin of the anointed priest, it interferes with the service of God. The thing may be "hidden from the eyes of the assembly," but it is not hidden from the eyes of Him before whom everything is "naked and exposed."
The verse does not say "a priest" but "the anointed priest" — the one man set apart above the rest. In the later cases in the chapter, that restriction disappears.
The animal was killed before the LORD, for sin always refers to God. Then the anointed priest was called to act on behalf of the congregation, just as in his own case. It was not so in the cases that follow: usually any priest could serve, but here the high priest only.
The reason lies in how closely the priest and the people were tied together.
This was done so that nothing would interrupt the communion of all. The whole congregation was identified with the high priest, so their shared defilement would interrupt his worship in the sanctuary at the altar of incense. And again, the priest represented the whole congregation before the LORD, so their exclusion was bound up in his.
Whether the priest sinned or the whole assembly sinned, the ritual was the same. The blood brought "into the tent of meeting" had three destinations, and each one repaired something the sin had damaged.
In either case there were three things involved: God's dwelling-place in the assembly, the worship of the assembly, and individual conscience. Now, since all three depended upon the blood, we find, in the first grade of sin offering, there were three things done with the blood. The priest sprinkled it "seven times before the LORD in front of the veil of the sanctuary." This secured the LORD's relationship with the people, and His dwelling among them. Again, we read that the priest "shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before the LORD that is in the tent of meeting." This secured the worship of the assembly.
The blood goes in, but not all the way in.
In the first two sin offerings in Leviticus 4, the priest did not go right in. He went only where he usually went, to the altar of incense. But when we come to the reality itself, the blood is upon the mercy seat; it goes upon the pure gold... The priest sprinkled it seven times, and seven is the completeness we find again and again in Scripture. The sin had defiled the altar itself, and so it had to be sprinkled.
Israel had many sacrifices, but not every one of them qualified for this.
Of all, there was only one offering whose blood could be put upon the mercy seat, which could really open the way to God. What was that? It was the one in which the body of the victim was burned outside the camp.
Commentators connect this carrying-in to Christ, our priest. He had two possible grounds for entering God's presence, and only one of them would do for us.
He had a personal right to enter because of what He was personally; but He could not enter in that way as our representative. If He is to appear for us, it must be with the witness of the blood. The priest, who appeared for the people and for himself, had to carry the blood into the holiest. Christ has gone in by His own blood, having accomplished eternal redemption.
The assembly's sin had to be dealt with in the place of worship. Personal failure is handled somewhere else.
We must never raise a question of personal sin or failure in the place of priestly worship, or in the assembly. It must be settled in the place of personal approach. Many go wrong here. They come into the assembly, or into the outward place of priestly worship, with their conscience defiled, and so drag down the whole assembly and spoil its worship.
- Hidden. The people never saw their sin. God saw it, and it still got in the way of His service.
- Shared. Priest and people were counted as one. So only the anointed priest could act, because the sin of either one shut out the other.
- Carried in. Blood at the outer altar was not enough. It had to reach the veil and the golden altar, where God dwelt and the assembly worshipped.
- Stopped short. The sevenfold sprinkling was complete, yet the blood halted outside the veil. Only one sacrifice had blood that could go further and open the way to God.
- Gone in. Christ has gone in by His own blood, having accomplished eternal redemption. So take personal failure to the place of personal approach, not into the assembly.
and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before Jehovah, before the veil;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
and he shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before Jehovah which is in the tent of meeting; and he shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Leviticus 4:18 belongs to the rules for what happens when the whole nation of Israel sins without realising it. It sends the blood of the bull to two different altars: the golden altar of incense inside the tent, and the altar of burnt offering at the entrance. The difference between them carries the meaning.
The sin here is not one person's slip. The whole nation is guilty at once, and that puts every member of the camp out of fellowship with God.
In this chapter four cases demanded a sin offering. The first two had no limit in the consequence they brought. Without that offering it was all over for the entire people of God. In both cases the communion of the whole camp was interrupted. In the second, the whole assembly of Israel had sinned and were guilty. In the first, the high priest had sinned, and that had the same result for all as for himself.
The altar named first in this verse stands inside the tent. The priest burns incense there. It is the place of worship and prayer, and that is exactly where the blood must go.
He must then put some of the blood on the horns of the golden altar that is before the LORD. The communion of all had to be restored. It stands out all the more against the individual cases. In all the others, the priest poured out all the blood of the sin offering that remained at the bottom of the bronze altar.
Another writer points out that the priests would see this mark every time they came in to serve.
In the first two cases in this chapter — for the anointed priest, and for the whole congregation — the priest put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense. So it was clear: no priest could enter there without seeing the evidence that communion was restored. The blood went on the horns, the most visible part of the altar.
The horns were the raised corners of the altar, and they speak of strength. On this inner altar, one writer argues, they point not to atonement itself but to what atonement makes possible.
The horns here in the sanctuary do carry the witness of the blood of the sin offering on them (Lev. 4:18). Yet they are not connected with atonement, except as its fruits are displayed there. They are connected with the mighty intercession and worship of our Lord Jesus Christ. The horns were the high points at the corners, and may in that way suggest that they set out the intensity of meaning of the whole altar. So they would speak of the strength of our divine Lord. In all that energy He prevails as the Intercessor and the One who presents His people's worship.
The rest of the blood goes to the outer altar, at the entrance of the tent. The place matters, because of what burns on that altar.
The second action of the priest with the blood is to pour out the bulk of it at the bottom of the altar. The fire is always burning on the altar, expressing the consuming judgment of God. The priest pours the blood below that fire. This suggests the blessed truth that our Lord Jesus Christ laid down His life — His blood — under the judgment of God. His death was not merely the surrender of life. It was bound up with the righteous wrath of God against sin, and He was subjecting Himself to it.
Kelly reads the same act as marking the place where God and the sinner meet.
The blood was a substitute for the life of the sinner. The priest poured it out where God met him, in righteousness but in love also, because of Christ, who was lifted up from the earth and drew people there to Himself.
The chapter goes on to two lesser cases. In those, the priest never takes blood to the golden altar at all.
In the two remaining cases — for "a leader" or "anyone of the common people" — it was only a question of individual conscience. So there was only one thing done with the blood. It was all poured "at the base of the altar of burnt offering."
All of this was a shadow. What it pointed to was forgiveness for a whole people at once.
But the assembly — ah, this is another matter. They indeed could sin, and sin as a whole. For this He made atonement, as we see here in the shadow, so that it might be forgiven them.
- Sin breaks communion. When the whole assembly sinned, sin broke the fellowship of the entire camp — not just one conscience.
- Blood restores it. The priest put blood on the horns of the golden altar, the place of worship, because the communion of all had to be restored.
- Blood is visible. It went on the most visible part of that altar, so no priest could come in without seeing it.
- Blood goes under judgment. The priest poured the rest at the foot of the altar, below the fire — a picture of Christ laying down His life under the righteous judgment of God.
- Blood brings forgiveness. A whole people could sin as a whole, and God made atonement for it, so that it might be forgiven them.
And all its fat shall he take off from it and burn on the altar.
Leviticus 4 covers four cases of sin done without knowing it. Verse 19 belongs to the second case: the whole assembly has failed, and the people bring a bullock. The instruction is short — burn all the fat on the altar. Yet it raises the question that shapes the whole sin offering. Why does any part of a victim charged with sin go up on the altar of acceptance, while the rest of it must go outside the camp to be burned?
The offering here is not for one person's slip. It answers a wrong that the entire gathered people fell into without noticing.
This time it is the whole congregation of Israel who have sinned without knowing it. That is a much more serious event. It is not one individual only, but sin that might have taken place in the whole company of God's people. We may bring it down to a smaller size and apply it to a local company of God's people... but it comes out in a collective way. If a whole company have sinned and come to a wrong judgment about something, they have to come to God and own to Him that they have judged wrongly, and have offended against one of God's claims.
The fat named in this chapter is the fat covering the inward parts. Commentators read that detail as a test: what lies inside an animal shows what it really is.
But notice another point. The part that was burnt was full of meaning: "the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails." If there is anything wrong with the creature, you are sure to find it inside. The outside may even look fine. But where there is real corruption, the further in you go, the more you find the evil core. On the other hand, if the aim was to show the good condition and the acceptability of a victim, nothing could say it more clearly than burning the fat of the inward parts on the bronze altar.
The body of this bullock went outside the camp to be burned. The fat did not. That difference is the point of verse 19.
There all the fat was burned, not outside but on the altar (19), with the same care as in the sin offering for the anointed priest (20). This gave the fullest witness to the holiness that belonged to the victim itself. Verse 21 then shows how completely it was identified with the sin of the congregation, and burnt on a clean place outside the camp.
Set the sin offering beside the burnt offering. There, the whole animal went up on the altar. Here, only the fat.
With the burnt offering, it was not only the fat but the whole sacrifice that was burnt on the altar, because it was Christ, with no question of sin-bearing at all. With the sin offering, only the fat was burnt on the altar, because sin-bearing was in question, though Christ was the sin bearer... So the deep mystery is opened to us: God's face hidden from what Christ became, and God's heart refreshed by what Christ was.
Another writer looks at who the victim had to be.
But how beautiful to see even in the sin-offering the type preserved of that inward perfection which was necessarily and ever God's delight and the basis of all the acceptability of it. Only He could be "made sin for us" who Himself "knew no sin."
The chapter uses different Hebrew words for the two fires, and commentators weigh how far the altar language may be pressed. Some note that "sweet savour" is used only of the offering for a common person, not for the priest or the assembly; Darby holds the same, while still finding acceptance signalled here.
In the three other sacrifices, which concerned the whole people, the bodies were indeed burnt outside the camp. But the burning of the fat on the altar of burnt offering kept the link with the perfect acceptance of Christ in His work, as He offered Himself... The fat was burnt on the altar to hold that link and the unity of the sacrifice of Christ. Yet, because the different offerings keep their own character and purpose, it is not usually called a sweet savour to Jehovah.
- Failure. A whole company goes wrong without knowing it. It must own before God the claim it has offended.
- Substitute. A bullock takes the place of the guilty many, and the priest takes off its fat.
- Inward. The fat covers the entrails, where any fault in a creature would show. Here it showed soundness.
- Acceptance. The fat goes up on the altar, not outside the camp. It witnesses that the victim was holy in itself while carrying sin.
- Mystery. God's face turned away from what Christ became; God's heart rested in what Christ was — both told in one sacrifice.
And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock of sin-offering so shall he do with it. And the priest shall make atonement for them; and it shall be forgiven them.
Leviticus 4:20 ends the case of a sin by the whole assembly of Israel: the same bull, the same blood and the same steps as for the sin of the high priest. The verse raises three questions — why the sin of a whole nation needed a sacrifice, what "make atonement" means, and how sure the forgiveness was.
The first two cases in this chapter differ from the last two in how far the damage spreads. One writer sets them side by side and notes what was at stake for the entire camp.
In this chapter four cases demanded a sin offering. The first two had no limit in the consequence they brought. Without it, all was over for the entire people of God. In both cases the communion of the whole camp was interrupted. In the second, the whole assembly of Israel had sinned and were guilty. In the first, the high priest had sinned, and that had the same result for everyone as for himself. We shall see how grace provided against what was in itself ruinous. In the last two cases of the chapter the bad result did not go beyond the individual concerned.
The Hebrew word behind "make atonement" is kaphar. Its weight falls on God's side, not on the offender's.
But kaphar always carries a distinct and important idea. It views the sin as toward God. It means ransom, except where it is used literally for sums of money. The related word kapporeth is the mercy seat. Kaphar does involve forgiveness and the purging of sin. But it always has God in view, not merely that the sinner is relieved or forgiven: there is expiation and propitiation in it.
The blood went to two places, and each placing answered a different need.
The priest represented the people before the Lord. If he sinned, or if the whole congregation sinned, the blood — the witness of death — was sprinkled seven times before the Lord and put on the horns of the golden altar. The blood sprinkled seven times before Him perfectly met God's claims. The blood on the horns of the altar restored the worship and communion of the redeemed congregation.
The promise that "they shall be forgiven" was not a hope the offerer carried home. It was a verdict, and its timing matters.
Once all that had to be done at the altar was done, the offerer could return to his tent. He was not uncertain about his condition, but assured of divine forgiveness. The Lord Himself assured him of it. "It shall be forgiven him" declared it (Lev. 4:20, 31, 35; Lev. 5:10, 13, 16, 18; Lev. 6:7). That was God's gracious announcement once atonement had been made — but note this, not before it was made.
The same two supports carry over to the believer: God's word and shed blood. What they now cover is far wider.
Now, why did a Jew's mind come to rest, for the time being, once he had offered his sin offering? How did he know that God had forgiven the particular sin for which he brought his sacrifice? Because God had said, "it shall be forgiven him." His peace of heart about that particular sin rested on the testimony of the God of Israel and the blood of the victim. In the same way, the believer's peace about "all SIN" rests on the authority of God's word and "the precious blood of Christ."
Commentators differ on the reach of Old Testament forgiveness. One writer treats the wording of this verse as settling it plainly:
The types do not speak this way. "The priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them" (Lev. 4:20)... So constantly: the sins were forgiven and gone; the blood shed did its work.
Another puts the emphasis on what the animal's blood could not yet accomplish:
In old days the blood covered the sins of God's people, and so God passed over them. But those sins were not really put away until the blood of the Lord Jesus was shed. His blood alone could do this.
The offering met the need of a whole group that had gone wrong together, not just one person.
But thank God for the offering — it was still there for them. The blood sprinkled before that veil would open up again the thought of access to God, with this company cleansed, re-established and restored into communion with God. So, as a company of God's people, they could once more go on with His service in this world.
- Sin spreads. When the high priest or the whole assembly sinned, it broke the communion of the entire camp, not one person's only.
- Atonement answers God. The word behind "make atonement" views sin as toward God. It carries ransom, expiation and propitiation, not just the offender's relief.
- Blood restores. Blood sprinkled seven times met God's claims. Blood on the golden altar restored worship and communion.
- The word gives certainty. God said "they shall be forgiven" only after atonement was made, never before. The offerer went home resting on God's own word.
- The provision is corporate. The blood cleanses a whole company that has gone wrong and sets it going again in God's service.
And he shall carry forth the bullock outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bullock it is a sin-offering of the congregation.
Leviticus 4:21 closes the rules for a sin that the whole nation of Israel commits without noticing. The bull for that sin ends where the bull for the high priest's sin ended: outside the camp, in the fire. Two questions follow. Why does a whole people's sin weigh as much as their highest leader's sin? And why must this offering burn outside the camp instead of on the altar?
This is the same offering God required when the anointed priest sinned. Why should one man's sin and a whole nation's sin cost the same?
Look at the differences in the way these sins are met. They show that the greater the privilege, the greater the responsibility, the greater the sin. Take "the anointed priest," or take "the whole congregation of Israel" when guilty. Either way a young bull had to be offered, and it had to be burned outside the camp. In either case the whole congregation was affected, for the anointed priest stood in relation to the whole camp.
Another writer asks what this sin cost the priest, even if he took no part in it.
When the whole congregation sinned, the priest himself may not have been involved. Even so, he would be left without any people fit to be represented before the Lord. In effect the result was very much the same. In both these cases the sin was grave enough to affect everyone, so the body of the victim had to be carried outside the camp and burnt there.
The people never noticed this sin. That did not make it less serious.
The sin of "the whole assembly" is a very serious matter. Like the sin of the anointed priest, it interferes with the service of God. The sin may be "hidden from the eyes of the assembly," but it is not hidden from the eyes of Him to whom everything is "naked and exposed."
Why outside the camp? Because of what the offering had become.
The bodies of the offerings that concerned the whole people, or the high priest, were burnt outside the camp. The two came to the same thing, because the communion of the whole body was interrupted. This was not done with the offerings for individual people, nor with the sweet savour offerings, the sacrifice made by fire, though those were burnt whole. But the offerings for the high priest, or for the whole people, were burnt outside. They had been made sin, and were carried out of the camp as such. The sacrifice itself was without blemish, and the fat was burnt on the altar. But the offender had confessed his sins on its head. So it was viewed as bearing those sins, and made sin for God, and was taken outside the camp. In the same way Jesus suffered outside the gate, so that He might sanctify the people with His own blood. This was always the case when the blood was brought into the sanctuary for sin.
Nothing was wrong with the animal itself. That is what makes this burning so startling.
The sin offering must be burnt outside the camp. It is holy, most holy, yet completely identified with the sin confessed on it. How it was all more than verified — heightened on every side to the highest degree — in Him who suffered for our sins!
This offering answered for a whole people, not one person. One writer sees a wider reach in it.
This offering for the whole congregation seems to teach us that at the cross God judged sin itself in full, not only individual sins. This gives a further reason why the animal was burned outside the camp, while its blood was brought into the sanctuary to make atonement.
The place mattered as much as the fire. What did that boundary line mean, and why did Jesus cross it?
The camp was composed of a people in outward relationship with God. "Outside the camp" is a place where there is no recognised relationship with God or man. It is viewed either as the place of judgment from God, or as the place of reproach from man. Viewed in the light of judgment, it is the place of forsaking — a place without God. The body of the sin offering burnt "outside the camp" is a fitting picture of God's holy judgment on sin. Into this place Jesus went. He must take our place of judgment outside the camp, so that we might have the place of blessing inside the veil.
- Hidden — the people never saw this sin. God did, and it still had to be dealt with.
- Shared — God treated the whole assembly's guilt like its anointed priest's guilt — the same bull, the same fire.
- Charged — the people confessed their sin on a spotless victim. It was then counted as sin and carried out of the camp.
- Outside — the place of burning stood for God's judgment and for total loss of relationship. Jesus went there, suffering outside the gate.
- Exchanged — He took the place of judgment outside so that His people could have the place of blessing inside the veil.