And this is the law of the trespass-offering -- it is most holy
Leviticus 7:1 opens a second set of rules for the guilt offering, also called the trespass offering. It calls this sacrifice for wrongdoing "most holy" — so why does the law tell it twice, and why is the offering for guilt the holiest of all?
The book has already described these offerings once. Here they come round again, and the reason lies in who is listening.
From verse 8 of chapter 6 to the end of Leviticus 7 we have the law of the various offerings. In each case the "law" gives further details. It shows how to present the offering to the Lord, and especially how the priests were to handle the parts not burned before Him.
The Hebrew word behind "trespass" is not the ordinary word for sin. One writer sets the two side by side and shows why the change of word matters.
The Trespass offering meets a different shade of evil from the more general and public offering for sin. The word for sin is chata, which means departure from what is right. But asham, translated trespass, means guilt. It was an act of treachery in the holy things of the Lord, though people supposed it happened by oversight and not on purpose. In the eyes of others it was not a moral wrong. Still, it was a secret betrayal against Him with whom they stood in holy relationship, and it brought guilt.
The first time this offering appeared, the rules stopped at paying back the wrong. Now they go deeper.
Here the law commands the killing of the sacrifice, the sprinkling of the blood, the presentation of the fat, and the burning on the altar — all left out at the first mention. Restitution is the prominent thing at the first mention of the trespass offering. It reveals the joy of God in what Christ has accomplished in His redemption work. But restitution must rest on atonement for a foundation. This is now therefore brought out in the law of the trespass offering.
The offering that handles sin and guilt is the last place we would expect the highest word for holiness.
In the burnt offering the Holy Spirit did not need to guard the personal holiness of Christ so jealously. But the soul might lose sight of that holiness while it thinks about the place the Blessed One took in the sin offering. So the words "it is most holy" remind us of it again and again. It builds up and refreshes us to see the divine and essential holiness of the Person of Christ shining out in the middle of Calvary's deep and awful darkness. The law of the trespass offering makes the same point. Never was the Lord Jesus more fully seen to be "the Holy One of God" than when He was "made sin" upon the cursed tree.
Because the offence was a failure inside a relationship with God, the demand ran in two directions at once — and so does the answer to it.
All the more necessary, then, that the trespass offering should be most holy. Even in human matters it was "against the Lord", and it demanded proper satisfaction in both directions. We find that satisfaction perfectly and only in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. It produces results even now toward people as well as toward God. See Saul the persecutor become Paul the sufferer. See the proud, abusive man become a lowly servant of God and of men for Jesus' sake. Never did the holiness of God stand out so clearly, or receive such measureless proof. God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us — a curse for those under a curse — so that those who believe on Him should be cleared for ever.
Commentators differ on how the sin offering and the trespass offering divide. Some draw the line like this:
The sin offering deals with sin in view of the divine nature. The trespass offering deals with sin in view of the divine government. The words "sin" and "trespass" convey this difference well. Restitution has a prominent place in the trespass offering. The sin offering alone shows that God must stay separate from sin. His nature requires that separation, and it is sin's most terrible punishment.
Not every proposed distinction holds up:
One well-known writer taught that the sin offering was for sin in the flesh, and the trespass offering for acts of evil. But this cannot stand. No such distinction was meant, nor could it be in Old Testament times: it was Christ who made that difference clear.
- Guilt. Asham means guilt, not just going wrong. It is a secret betrayal of a holy relationship, even when it happens by oversight.
- Atonement. The first rules pressed paying back the wrong. The law now supplies the blood and the fire underneath it, because paying back must stand on atonement.
- Priests. This second set of rules speaks to the priests. It tells them how to handle the parts not burned before God.
- Most holy. The highest word for holiness falls on the offering for guilt. It guards the holiness of the One who was made sin.
- Results. God clears for ever those who believe, and the change reaches other people too — the persecutor becomes the servant.
in the place where they slaughter the burnt-offering shall they slaughter the trespass-offering; and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle on the altar round about.
Leviticus 7 begins the "laws" for each offering, and verse 2 settles two things about the guilt or trespass offering: where they killed it, and what the priest did with its blood. Why kill it on the same ground as the burnt offering, and why does the blood come first?
The earlier chapters on this offering said nothing about the altar. Chapter 7 fills that gap, and the order it teaches matters.
This offering too is called "most holy." Chapters 5:14–6:7 left out the killing of the sacrifice, the sprinkling of the blood, the presentation of the fat, and the burning on the altar. God now commands them all. Restitution is the prominent thing at the first mention of the trespass offering. But restitution must rest on atonement as its foundation. So the law of the trespass offering now brings this out.
A trespass did more than break a rule.
In its law, the trespass offering is called "most holy." Yes, the offering was to meet a particular failure, whether against God or against man. It dealt not with moral wrong simply, but with failure in their relationship before Jehovah. That makes it all the more necessary that the trespass offering should be most holy. Even in human matters the wrong was "against Jehovah," and it demanded adequate satisfaction in both respects. That satisfaction is found perfectly and only in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and it produces results even now toward man as well as toward God. See Saul the persecutor become Paul the sufferer. See the proud, abusive man become a lowly servant of God and of man for Jesus' sake.
One writer sees the repeated "most holy" as God guarding our thoughts of Christ.
The Holy Spirit did not need to guard the personal holiness of Christ so jealously in the burnt offering. But the soul might lose sight of that holiness while considering the place the Blessed One took in the sin offering. So again and again the words "it is most holy" remind us of it. … Never was the Lord Jesus more fully seen to be "the Holy One of God" than when He was "made sin" upon the cursed tree. On the cross He stood identified with what was vile and black. That only showed more clearly that He was "most holy."
The place where the animal died ties this offering to another, and both to the ground outside the camp.
"In the place where they kill the burnt offering." Connect this with Leviticus 6:10–11, where the ashes of everything burnt on the bronze altar went outside the camp "to a clean place." Connect it also with Leviticus 4:12, where they burnt the body of the sin offering bull at the same spot. Whatever details God appointed differently, these two offerings were killed on one spot, and in the end their ashes mingle outside the camp. They picture one Christ, and one and the same work of death and judgment-bearing, while both are "most holy."
The order of the instructions is not accidental.
About the trespass offering we have first the directions for dealing with the blood, next the directions about the parts to burn on the altar, and then the provision for disposing of the rest. Notice that in all these sacrifices the directions about the blood come first. The priest sprinkled it on the altar at once, presenting the life of the flesh to Jehovah in this way. No sacrifice whose life was taken could be rightly dealt with on the altar until the priest had duly presented its blood to God.
The likenesses and the differences between the offerings were both God's choice, not the offerer's.
Like the burnt offering and the peace offering, the blood of the ram was only sprinkled on the altar round about. The animal appointed for the trespass offering was different from the animals marked out for sin offerings. It was treated at the altar in the same way as a sin offering brought for one person, yet its blood was dealt with differently. All this teaches that man was not allowed to suggest or invent what he thought suitable; God directed the sinner, and the priest on his behalf, as was right in His sight. For the question about a sacrifice must always be: What will God accept, and how will He have it treated?
- Foundation. The trespass offering starts with repaying the wrong. But restitution must rest on atonement, and this law supplies it.
- Holy. Even a wrong against a neighbour was a wrong against God. So the offering that meets it is "most holy," and it demanded full satisfaction.
- Place. They killed the trespass offering on the burnt offering's ground. Both point to one Christ and one work of death and judgment-bearing.
- Blood. The directions about the blood always come first. Nothing else could happen until the priest presented the life to God at the altar.
- Appointed. God left no detail to the offender's taste. The only question is what He will accept, and how He will have it treated.
And he shall present of it all the fat thereof; the fat tail and the fat that covereth the inwards,
This verse sits inside a second set of instructions for the trespass offering, called the guilt offering in some Bibles. They come after the offering was first commanded, and this time every detail is about what God claims for Himself. The fat tail, the fat covering the inner parts, every scrap of fat: it all goes to God. Why does an offering for wrongdoing end that way?
The earlier chapters told the offender what to bring and what to pay back. This section turns to the altar. One writer traces what the law claims:
Here, then, come the details of the killing and the sprinkling, or dashing, of the blood on the altar all around... "The law" dwells on what directly, minutely, and sacrificially concerned Jehovah: whether for sin or for trespass, the offering is "most holy." If Jesus was the Holy One of God, nowhere was it so proved as when He was forsaken by God on the cross. And here again, not in the original directions for the trespass offering, the law is careful to claim all the fat as an offering: the fat tail, the fat that covers the inwards, the two kidneys, and the fat on them. This speaks not of the life given up, but of the inward energy that perfectly pleased God. It yields only sweet savour when searched by His full judgment.
The Bible pictures fat in other places too. One writer gathers those lines to show that it stands for the drive of the inner will:
Next, all the fat, especially of the inwards, 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 necessarily belonged to God in its very nature... but fat also was never to be eaten, only burnt, and so offered to God. The use of this symbol, fat, is familiar enough in the Word. "Their heart is fat as grease." "Jeshurun waxed 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 lines come from an older Bible translation. In man that energy turns to self-will.
Fat and organs alike lie deep inside the animal, out of sight. One writer sees in the fat a perfect will given up to God, and in the kidneys — "the reins" in older Bibles — inward judgment:
The part that was offered up to God was the fat within — all the energy of a perfect will, which was not lacking, but willingly offered up to God. The kidneys get special attention: "the reins," our Lord's inward judgment and refusal of all evil. These could be laid on the altar as a token of His perfect sinlessness. But "the caul above the liver" was removed and consumed. That caul is possibly the diaphragm, which separates the lungs from the liver — the nobler vital organs, we might say, as distinct from the lower ones connected more with earth. Its removal seems to suggest that no such distinction could exist in the holy life of our Lord. With Him there was no separation between sacred and common. He was as much for God in the lowliest details of life as in His very breath and the beating of His holy heart of affection for Him.
Even here, where the subject is a wrong done and a debt paid, the offering ranks with the holiest:
In common with all the other offerings, the trespass offering was "most holy." It was to be killed in the same place as the burnt offering. The priest was to sprinkle its blood all around on the altar... These all speak of characteristics of Christ that are entirely for God's appreciation: all are offered in fire to Him.
The first instructions stressed paying back what was owed. The altar comes only now. One writer explains the order:
The killing of the sacrifice, the sprinkling of the blood, the presentation of the fat, and the burning on the altar are now commanded. Chapters 5:14–6:7 left them out. Restitution is the prominent thing at the first mention of the trespass offering... But restitution must rest on atonement as its foundation. So this is now brought out in the law of the trespass offering.
Paying back settles the wrong with people. The altar settles it with God, and the offering He claims is "most holy."
- Place — The trespass offering was killed where the burnt offering was killed, and stamped "most holy."
- Fat — Fat pictures the energy and force of the inward will. In man it turns to pride and self-will. It was never eaten, only burnt, because it belonged to God.
- Reins — The kidneys stand for inward judgment and the refusal of evil. The membrane above the liver was removed: in Christ's life there is no line between sacred and common.
- Fire — God took not the life given up but the inward energy that pleased Him. Under His full judgment it yielded only sweet savour.
- Foundation — Paying back what you owe is the visible part of a trespass. But restitution can only stand on atonement. That is why the law adds the altar.
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.
Leviticus 7:4 belongs to the rules for the guilt offering — the sacrifice brought when someone had wronged God or a neighbour. It names parts of the animal that no worshipper ever saw, and God claimed them for the altar: why does He ask for what is out of sight?
The guilt offering is also called the trespass offering. Its law repeats features found in the other sacrifices, and God set every detail Himself.
Looking at the law of the trespass offering, we see features in it shared with other animal sacrifices. Like the burnt offering and the peace offering, the blood of the ram was only sprinkled around the altar. As with the sin offering, one priest, not several, carried out this service. As with the peace offering and the sin offering, the fat of the inner parts and the inner organs named were all burned on the bronze altar, an offering made by fire to the Lord... All this teaches that man was not allowed to suggest or invent what he thought suitable. God directed the sinner, and the priest on his behalf, as was right in His sight. For the question of a sacrifice must always be: what will God accept, and how will He have it treated?
The verse names the kidneys and the fat on them. One writer explains what each stands for.
The fat speaks of the inward energy of the Lord's devotion to the Father's will. The kidneys, which filter and purify the blood, symbolize the inner motives of the Lord Jesus in all His ways, always perfectly pure. These were offered on the altar to God, for they are for His own pleasure.
Another writer links the same organs to what Christ refused.
Special attention is called to the kidneys, "the reins" — our Lord's inward judgment and refusal of all evil. This could be laid on the altar as a token of His perfect sinlessness.
Older Bibles call this the "caul," and it names a piece of anatomy few readers have met:
The diaphragm or midriff, which stretches above the liver all across the chest.
This part too went into the fire, and one writer sees a lesson in that.
"The caul above the liver" is possibly the diaphragm, which separates the lungs from the liver. We might call these the nobler vital organs, as distinct from those connected more with earth. It was removed and burned, as though suggesting there could be no such distinction in the holy life of our Lord. With Him there was no separation between sacred and common. He was as much for God in the lowliest details of life as in His very breath and the beating of His holy heart of affection for Him.
Fat and blood were both kept from the table, and Scripture uses fat as a picture elsewhere. The lines quoted below come from an older translation.
Fat and blood were alike forbidden to be eaten. The blood was the life, and necessarily belonged to God; life was from Him in a special way. But fat also was never to be eaten, only burned, and so offered to God. The use of this symbol, fat, is familiar enough in the word: "Their heart is fat as grease." "Jeshurun grew fat and kicked." "They are enclosed in their own fat; with their mouths they speak arrogantly." It is the energy and force of the inward will, the inward parts of a man's heart.
These instructions appear here but not in the earlier directions for the guilt offering.
Here again, and not in the original directions for the trespass offerings, care is taken to claim the offering of all the fat — the fat tail, the fat that covers the inner parts, the two kidneys and the fat on them. This is expressive not of the life given up, but of the inward energy that perfectly pleased God, and it yields only sweet savour when searched by His full judgment. The priest, we are told here, was to burn this on the altar, a fire offering to Jehovah. He was not to carry the animal out and burn it whole outside the camp.
The priest received the skin of the burnt offering, while the inward parts went to the fire.
The skin of the burnt offering was for the offering priest. He was allowed the outer parts of the sacrifice, whose inward parts were wholly for God. We may apply this to ourselves. Though we may be allowed to share in the sweet savour of the death of Christ, we only touch the outside. The inward excellence, as known to God, must always be beyond us.
- Hidden. The kidneys, their fat, and the long lobe of the liver are parts nobody sees — God claims the unseen parts first.
- Motives. The kidneys, which filter the blood, stand for inner motives and inward judgment; in Christ both were always pure.
- Will. Fat pictures the force of the inward will; Scripture uses it of pride, but here it goes wholly to God.
- Tested. God's full judgment searched that inward energy and found only sweet savour. So it burned on the altar, not outside the camp.
- Beyond us. We may share the sweet savour of Christ's death, but only the outside; the inward excellence stays God's own portion.
And the priest shall burn them on the altar, an offering by fire to Jehovah it is a trespass-offering.
Leviticus 7:5 closes the law of the guilt offering, brought when someone had done damage to God's holy things or to a neighbour. Older translations, and the writers quoted here, call it the trespass offering.
A trespass does more than create guilt. It leaves damage. One writer points to Christ as the One who made it good, quoting Psalm 69:4 in an older wording.
Christ is He who restores. "I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4) — that is what prophecy says of Him. He is the offerer of this trespass offering. He is the One who has overpaid God (if I may say it that way) for all the wrong that sin has done Him. He is also the One who has more than restored to man — to as many as receive Him — all that sin had taken away.
This offering deals with failure, and the law still calls it "most holy." One writer shows why the failure makes that holiness all the more necessary.
Here the law of this offering calls it "most holy." True, the offering was there to meet a particular failure, against God or against man. It was not simply moral wrong. It was failure in their relationship before Jehovah. That makes it all the more necessary that the trespass offering should be most holy: even if the wrong was in human things, it was "against Jehovah," and it demanded adequate satisfaction in both directions. That satisfaction is found perfectly and only in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and it produces results even now toward man as well as toward God. The holiness of God never stood out so clearly as when God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us. This was so that those who believe on Him would be cleared for ever.
God fixes every step of this offering: the place, the blood, the parts that go on the altar. One writer draws the lesson out of that precision.
Like the burnt offering and the peace offering, the blood of the ram was only sprinkled on the altar all around. As with the sin offering, one priest, not several, carried out this service. So the directions about each offering are precise, and in no two are they the same. The animal appointed for the trespass offering was different from those marked out for sin offerings. At the altar it was treated in the same way as the sin offering brought for an individual. Yet the blood was dealt with differently. All this teaches that man was not allowed to suggest or invent what he thought suitable. God directed the sinner, and the priest acting for him, as was right in His sight. For the question about a sacrifice must always be: What will God accept, and how will He have it treated?
The parts named in verses 3 to 5 are all inward — the fat, the kidneys, what covers the organs. One writer explains what they stand for.
The original directions for the trespass offering said nothing of this. Here the law claims every part of its fat: the fat tail, the fat that covers the inner parts, the two kidneys and the fat on them. The fat does not stand for the life given up. It stands for the inward energy that perfectly pleased God, and it yielded only a sweet savour when His full judgment searched it. The priest was to burn this on the altar as a fire offering to Jehovah. He did not carry the animal out and burn it whole outside the camp.
One writer names what those parts picture:
These all speak of characteristics of Christ that are entirely for God's appreciation: all are offered in fire to Him.
The priest burns the fat as a food offering to the Lord; older translations call it an offering made by fire. One writer marks a limit on how far the words sweet savour reach.
Notice — the bearing of our sins is never called a sweet savour, except in one particular case. He was made sin, and that was not a sweet savour, though He was never so holy and perfect as He was then.
- Damage. The trespass offering answers harm done to God's holy things or to a neighbour. Harm demands repayment, not just pardon.
- Repayment. Christ is the offerer who restored what He never took away. He more than repaid both God and man.
- Holiness. The wrong was against the Lord Himself, so the law calls the offering that settles it "most holy."
- Inward. The inward parts burned on the altar stand for the inward energy that pleased God. Only God could weigh that side of Christ.
- Method. God left nothing to the offerer's taste. The question is always what God will accept, and how He will have it treated.
Every male among the priests shall eat thereof; in a holy place shall it be eaten it is most holy.
Leviticus 7 gives the law of the trespass offering — the sacrifice for guilt. This verse says who may eat that offering, where they must eat it, and that it is most holy.
Earlier chapters gave rules for the trespass offering, but they said nothing about eating it:
Nothing was said on this point in Leviticus 5:14-19 or 6:1-7. So these added regulations are hardly open to any fair charge of useless repetition. Aaron's family alone could eat of these offerings for sin or for trespass. But every male was called to eat of them, and only in a holy place... For are not "holy brothers, who share in a heavenly calling," what Aaron's sons pointed forward to?
Eating the offering tied the eater to the guilt it covered. That shapes how a believer meets someone else's failure:
The eating means here what it means elsewhere. It is entering into what makes atonement for God, and so of necessity into the sin itself as it stands before Him... When Daniel confessed his sin and the sin of his people, he was surely eating the sin offering. We all greatly need to identify ourselves with the sins of God's people in just that way... A slight knowledge of God's grace may let someone treat sin lightly, and perhaps judge it bitterly too. Really eating the sin offering makes a person as serious as he is tender. Who can judge harshly when Christ has borne the judgment? Who can treat lightly what brought Him to the cross?
Aaron's own sons failed here, and we can fail in the same way:
Eleazar and Ithamar burned the goat (Leviticus 10) instead of eating it in a holy place. In the same way we may fail to make a brother's sins our own, bearing the sin and shame before God as if we ourselves had been guilty. To condemn him is easy and natural. To identify ourselves with him, confessing and mourning the failure, is the clear privilege of the priestly family — at least of "every male." That means everyone strong in faith, whether of one sex or the other, for a distinction that belongs only to the body cannot exist in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).
The word "male" here points to strength:
Eating the sin or trespass offering took a larger measure of priestly energy than merely sharing in the heave and wave offerings of gift. Aaron's daughters could eat the gift offerings. Only his sons could eat the offerings for sin and trespass... How few of us have enough priestly energy to let us make another's sin or trespass our own! The blessed Lord Jesus did this perfectly.
A priest could eat other offerings in any clean place. This one called for nearness to God:
This goes far beyond the kindest feeling. It comes from a deep sense of what is due to God, and it feels the offence as if we ourselves had committed it. This is to bear the iniquity of the assembly, valuing the things that are Christ's, not those of men who would soften and excuse. That is why it was to be eaten not merely in a clean place, like the peace offering, but in the holy place. Propitiation had its own unique moment. But priestly grace also has its due place and time in nearness to God.
The offering met specific wrongs, some of them against other people. That is why it had to be most holy:
True, the offering was to meet a particular failing, whether against God or against man. It dealt not simply with moral wrong, but with failure in their relationship before Jehovah. That makes it all the more necessary that the trespass offering should be most holy. Even in human matters the wrong was "against Jehovah," and it demanded full satisfaction in both directions. That satisfaction is found perfectly and only in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. God's holiness never stood out so clearly as when He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us. And this was so that those who believe on Him would be cleared for ever.
The priest who ate it pictured what Christ has done:
But the trespass offering, like the sin offering, belonged to the priest. When the priest eats the trespass offering he makes the trespass of the man who offers it his own. What amazing grace! And this is just what our great High Priest has done for us.
- Most holy — a trespass against a neighbour is still a wrong against God, so the offering must satisfy both sides. Only Christ crucified does that.
- Priests only — this food belongs to Aaron's family, and that family pointed forward to those who share a heavenly calling.
- Eating is owning — to eat the offering is to take the sin before God as your own. Daniel did this when he confessed his people's sin.
- Every male — this asks strength of faith, not a certain sex. It costs more priestly energy than sharing the gift offerings.
- A holy place — a clean place was enough for the peace offering; this one needed nearness to God. That nearness makes a believer both serious about sin and tender toward the sinner.
As the sin-offering, so is the trespass-offering; [there shall] be one law for them it shall be the priest's who maketh atonement therewith.
Leviticus 7:7 closes the law of the guilt offering with two short rulings. One law covers both this offering and the sin offering, and the priest who makes the atonement keeps what he offers.
The verse is a summary line. It ties the guilt offering back to the sin offering, so nothing has to be repeated. Older translations call the guilt offering the "trespass offering," the name used in the quotations below.
Leviticus 7:1-7 records the law of the trespass offering, which is the same as for the sin offering. As verse 7 says, "there is one law for them."
If one law covers both, what separates them? Commentators do not agree. Some hold that the sin offering answers to the sinful nature and the guilt offering to sinful acts. Others reject that reading outright:
One writer, once well known to many and still more widely read, argued that the sin offering was for sin in the flesh, and the trespass offering for acts of evil. But this is completely untenable. No such distinction was meant, nor could it be in Old Testament times: it was Christ who made that difference clear. Moral evil in general was in view in the one case. In the other case it was wrongs done to Jehovah in holy things, or to a neighbour but still against Him by breaking trust — and repayment was due accordingly.
Others place the difference in God rather than in the sinner: His nature on one side, His government on the other:
The sin offering deals with sin in view of the divine nature; the trespass offering, in view of the divine government. The words "sin" and "trespass" convey this difference well. Restitution has a prominent place in the trespass offering. The sin offering alone displays that necessary separation of God from sin, which is at once what His nature requires and sin's most awful punishment.
The same verse also keeps this offering in the highest class of sacred things. The reason lies in who was wronged.
Its law calls the trespass offering "most holy." Granted, the offering was to meet a particular failure, whether against God or against man. It was not moral wrong on its own, but failure in their relationship before Jehovah. All the more necessary, then, that the trespass offering should be most holy. Even in human matters the wrong was "against Jehovah," and it demanded adequate satisfaction in both directions. It is found perfectly and only in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
The offering became the priest's food. Eating it was not merely payment — it was an act of taking the offender's case upon himself.
But the trespass offering, like the sin offering, was the priest's. When the priest eats the trespass offering he makes the trespass of the man who offers it his own. What indescribable grace! And this is exactly what our great High Priest has done for us.
In Christ the two roles that Leviticus keeps apart — the animal that dies and the priest who eats — meet in one Person, and the order between them matters:
The priest who offered the blood ate the victim. So the priest and the victim that represented the sin of the offerer were completely one. Since Christ is both, the eating by the priest shows how He did make it His own. Only, in Christ, what was pictured here happened first when He was the victim. The priesthood He exercises for us now in heaven comes afterwards.
"The priest who makes atonement with it shall have it" is more than a rule about the priest's pay. It points to what a person gains by taking up this service.
The priest who made atonement with the sin or trespass offering received the offering for his service. This suggests the gain to our souls in taking up this priestly exercise.
This priestly exercise is still asked of believers. It means feeling another's sin before God instead of judging it from a distance.
The eating has the same meaning here as elsewhere. It is entering into what makes atonement before God, and so, of necessity, into the sin itself as He sees it… Daniel confessing his sin and the sin of his people was surely eating the sin offering. Just such identification of ourselves with the sins of God's people is a great need for all of us… Really eating the sin offering makes a person as serious as he is tender. Who can judge harshly when Christ has borne the judgment?
- One law. The guilt offering follows the sin offering step for step. God does not set up a new procedure for each failure.
- One difference, debated. Commentators differ. Some deny any split between sinful nature and sinful acts. Others see God's nature on one side and God's government on the other.
- One holiness. Every wrong, even one against a neighbour, is against the Lord. So the offering that covers it ranks most holy, and it is found perfectly only in Christ crucified.
- One Person. The priest who eats the offering makes the offender's trespass his own. Christ is both victim and priest — first bearing sin, then serving us as priest in heaven.
- One portion. What the priest handled, he received. Taking up another's sin before God is service that feeds the one who serves.