And if one soul sin through inadvertence, then he shall present a yearling she-goat for a sin-offering.
Numbers 15 breaks into the story right after Israel refused the land. God turned them back into the wilderness. Then, instead of dropping the nation, He began to speak about the day they would live in Canaan. Verse 27 sits inside that surprise. One person sins without meaning to, and God has already named the animal that will cover it.
These laws came when Israel had the least claim on them. One writer sees the whole chapter as God going back to His own settled purpose, not to Israel's record.
The people had shown all this unbelief. God had declared that the earth would be filled with His glory, and He did it by cutting off the rebellious congregation. One might have supposed they had lost the land for ever. So it is beautiful to see the Lord, in chapter 15, going back into the perfect rest of the purposes He settled beforehand... Sins of ignorance are forgiven through the sacrifice that the perfection of God's ways requires. Only sin done in open defiance brings destruction.
The verse covers the person who breaks God's word without knowing it at the time. That does not make the act harmless.
Because of our sinful nature there are sins we commit without realizing at the time that such things are sin. The Lord does not allow the foolish modern notion that as long as we think a thing is all right, it is not sin. Sin is sin, no matter what we think about it. Yet a sin done by accident is very different from one we commit boldly while knowing it is wrong.
Why bring a sacrifice for something nobody noticed? Because the measure is God's, not ours. One writer turns that into good news for us:
We would only add that God's claims require sins of ignorance to be taken into account. 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 lowered to the level of our understanding. 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. For what would become of us if the provisions of divine grace were not enough to meet the claims of divine holiness?
Another writer refuses to let "I didn't know" become a shelter. Ignorance has a cause of its own.
If we were ignorant, why were we ignorant? Ignorance means carelessness of some kind... Since this is true, the plea of ignorance helps in only one way — it marks the sin off from open, defiant sin.
Yet no one can claim to be clear of such sins. Two men who watched themselves closely would not claim it:
But who can say he is free from these sins of ignorance? Not the psalm writer, who asks the same kind of question: "Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults" (Psalm 19:12). Not the apostle, who says, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Corinthians 4:4).
The offering named here is small: a female goat a year old. Both the size and the sex carry meaning.
The case of an individual's unintentional sin required only the sacrifice of a young female goat (v.27), a picture of Christ as the substitute who takes our place in suffering for sin. The female shows the personal side of this. The individual is to take deeply to heart the truth that the innocent victim, the Lord Jesus, has taken his place in suffering for sin.
Small as the offering is, the care God shows the one who brings it is not small. One writer notices the attention God gives to the person of least standing:
The Lord would have the lowliest soul among His people feel that He shared his concern about his sin — a sin done without knowing it, and now troubling him once he knew... He stooped to notice the lowly man by a special mark of communion: the burning of the fat for him when the offering for his sin was made.
- Setting — The law comes right after Israel's rebellion. God returns to His own unchanging purpose, not to their record.
- Sin — An act done without realising is still sin; intent changes the category, never the fact.
- Standard — God's holiness fixes what counts as sin, not the sharpness of our conscience.
- Excuse — "I didn't know" marks this off from defiant sin, but it does not clear the account. No one can claim to be free of hidden faults.
- Provision — For one person God names one small victim. The lowliest offender learns that an innocent substitute took his place, and he is forgiven.
And the priest shall make atonement for the soul that hath done inadvertently, when he sinneth by inadvertence before Jehovah, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
Numbers 15 follows straight after Israel refused to enter the land, and God still gives laws for the day they will live there. This one covers the person who sins by mistake, and it raises the question every honest conscience asks: if I did not know it was wrong, does it still count against me?
The placing of this law matters. It comes when the people seemed to have thrown the land away for good.
After all this unbelief of the people, God had declared that the earth would be filled with His glory, by cutting off the rebellious congregation. One might have supposed they had forfeited the land for ever. Yet it is perfectly beautiful, in chapter 15, to see the Lord returning into the perfect rest of the purposes He settled beforehand... Sins of ignorance are forgiven by means of the sacrifice that the perfection of God's ways requires. Only the sin committed on purpose brings destruction.
The Hebrew word behind the phrase points to a slip, not a decision. The matching law in Leviticus shows what sin of this kind reveals about us.
Every class in Israel could sin, from the anointed priest down to the lowest of the people. They could sin by mistake or by carelessness, which is what the word sh'gagah, translated "ignorance," really means... In such cases a man's will was clearly not at work, yet the evil of his nature showed itself. So God could not pass those acts over, and He provided a sacrifice. But how deeply rooted evil must be in man, when he can sin against God without even meaning to.
Because God has spoken clearly, not knowing is itself something to answer for. Yet the plea still has one real use.
God's Word is perfect, and able to fully equip us for every good work. So failure must be our own sin, whatever the point. If we were ignorant, why were we ignorant? Ignorance means negligence in some way... So the plea of ignorance only counts in one way — to mark the difference from presumptuous sin. So the apostle could say this about his sin before he was converted: "though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief."
Earlier in the chapter the whole assembly brings burnt offering, grain offering, drink offering and sin offering. For the single person in verses 27–28 only the sin offering is named. Why the difference?
The priest had to make a different atonement in each case, and that difference shows that the ignorance of the congregation is a more serious thing than ignorance in one person... For the individual God appoints only the sin offering, his own confession of sin done in ignorance. The other offerings are just as necessary to restore one soul as to restore a congregation. But they are included when the individual is restored to his place in the congregation, where he stands as one accepted through the power of the burnt offering.
The priest makes the atonement, not the sinner. And the Lord states the forgiveness as a fact, again and again in the parallel laws in Leviticus.
...the guilty one could go home with the assurance from the Lord Himself that his sin was forgiven. The Lord took such care to impress this on the offender that He states it three times in these few verses... If the offender brought the appointed sacrifice and met the demands of the law, he had the Lord's own assurance of forgiveness. A pardon from the priest was not the question. No priest in Aaron's family could pardon a man's sins. But he could tell him what the Lord had promised, and assure him of it on the authority of the written revelation given through Moses.
If unknown sin still needs a sacrifice, no one can stand outside this law.
But from these sins of ignorance, who can declare that he is free? Not the Psalmist, when he asks the same question: "Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults." Not the apostle, when he declares, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me." Here is the integrity of a man who has searched and judged himself. He is free from every known offence. Yet he fully admits there might easily be things wrong that he knew nothing about.
- Timing — God gives this law just after Israel refused the land. He returns to His settled purpose instead of abandoning the people.
- Cause — sin done "unintentionally" is a slip, not a choice. The will was not at work, yet the evil in our nature showed itself.
- Limit — ignorance never turns sin into something harmless. It only marks this offender off from the one who sins on purpose in verse 30.
- Gift — the priest makes the atonement, not the sinner. The one man is then restored to a congregation whose acceptance rests on the burnt offering.
- Result — the Lord Himself announces the forgiveness, so the offender goes home sure. The honest believer still prays to be cleared of hidden faults.
For him that is born in the land among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them -- there shall be one law for you, for him who doeth anything through inadvertence.
Numbers 15 gives laws for the day Israel enters the land, and one of them covers sin done by mistake. Verse 29 puts the Israelite and the foreigner living among them under a single law — which raises two questions: does ignorance count as sin, and why is a stranger treated like a native?
The chapter keeps saying that the outsider is not kept at a lower level. One writer traces this to God's own character. He will not have a person in His land who does not enjoy Him:
See how "the branches run over the wall," in God's heart running out, as in verse 14, to the stranger. Christ said He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But a poor Gentile woman appealed to the nature of God as a giver. He could not deny her, because He could not deny what He was. Here God is saying, I cannot have a person in My land, and not a worshipper, not enjoying God. All must be happy there. If any person is in the land of God, he must know the mind and temper of the God of the land. There is one law for all. God will be Himself, and make Himself known. ... God says, There may be failure, therefore I will make provision for sin in grace. And here comes in the sin-offering — so that when man fails, God may still maintain and keep him in the place of blessing.
Why is the stranger placed on exactly the same footing? Another writer answers that Israel itself had forfeited every claim, so both come in on the same ground:
The stranger is placed on the very same platform with Israel! "As you are, so shall the stranger be," and this, too, "before the Lord." ... Israel had forfeited everything. God was about to set aside and cut off the rebellious generation. But His eternal purpose of grace must stand, and all His promises must be fulfilled. All Israel will be saved. They will have the land. They will offer pure offerings, pay their vows, and taste the joy of the Kingdom. On what ground? On the ground of sovereign mercy. Well, it is on the very same ground that "the stranger" shall be brought in.
The same equality shows up in the sacrifice itself. One commentator reads the young female goat of verse 27 as a picture of Christ, and then notes how verse 29 widens the circle:
An individual's unintentional sin required only the sacrifice of a young female goat (v.27). The goat is a picture of Christ as the substitute who takes our place in suffering for sin. The female shows the personal side of this. The individual is to take deeply to heart the truth that the innocent victim, the Lord Jesus, has taken his place in suffering for sin. Again the passage stresses that one law covers both natives of Israel and strangers who live among them (v.29).
The next verse sets this sin by mistake against sin done in open defiance. The difference lies in the penalty, not in whether it counts as sin:
We learn that death falls on the defiant sinner. Yet ignorance does not stop sin from being sin: atonement must be made for it.
We might expect God to overlook a sin nobody meant to commit. One writer answers that instinct:
We might feel inclined to say, or at least to think, that such sins should be passed over. But God does not think so. He will not lower His holiness to the level of our understanding. Grace has made provision for sins of ignorance. But holiness demands that we judge and confess such sins. Every true heart will bless God for this. For what would become of us if God's provisions of grace were not enough to meet the claims of His holiness?
Verse 29 gives no excuse. One commentator asks where the ignorance came from, and then names the one thing the plea is good for:
If ignorant, yet why were we ignorant? Ignorance means negligence in some way ... Since that is true, the plea of ignorance helps in only one way. It marks the sin off from defiant sin. So of the sin he committed before his conversion the apostle could say, "I formerly was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim. 1:13).
- One law. The same ruling covers the person born in Israel and the foreigner living among them — no second-class standing before God.
- One ground. The rebellious generation had forfeited every claim, so Israel and the stranger alike come in on mercy: "as you are, so shall the stranger be."
- One offering. One sacrifice pictures Christ taking the offender's place, and it covers Israelite and stranger alike.
- One standard. God measures sin by His own holiness, not by what we happened to notice. Sin done by mistake still needs atonement, and still needs owning.
- One warning. Ignorance never functions as an excuse. Its only use is to mark this sin off from defiant sin, which meets death instead.
But the soul that doeth ought with a high hand, whether born in the land, or a stranger, he reproacheth Jehovah; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Numbers 15 sets two kinds of wrongdoing side by side. For sin done in ignorance, God names an offering. For sin done "with a high hand," He names none. Older translations call the second kind sinning "presumptuously." Why does God provide an offering for one sin and none for the other?
A sin is high-handed not because it looks large, but because the person already knew the command he broke. Commentators point to the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, whose case comes later in this chapter:
This was clearly a presumptuous sin. It went straight against a plain and definite commandment of God. That is what marks a presumptuous sin and leaves it completely inexcusable. No one can plead ignorance when God has given a command.
So an act that looks trivial can carry the heaviest guilt. The contempt behind it is what counts:
The presumptuous sinner cannot plead ignorance. He breaks a command he knows well… To despise the word of the LORD is presumptuous. It is sin whatever the act itself may be… One man gathered sticks on the sabbath day, and another blasphemed the Name; both were stoned. In the one case the act was sin because it had been forbidden. The other was sin even if there had been no command. Each was equal to the other in guilt, despising the authority of God.
The sin offering earlier in the chapter has a fixed limit. It covers people who did not know or did not notice — and it stops there:
The sacrifice was for unintentional sins, done when a person was not watchful and not living in the fear of God. God made no provision for deliberate sins. Such sins showed man's will asserting itself high-handedly against God's commandments.
The verse says such a person reviles the LORD. The insult lands on God Himself, not just on a rule:
Presumptuous sins were not acts of gross immorality. They were direct insults to the majesty of the Law-giver, such as picking up sticks on the sabbath day. Now God deals out grace, not law, and He announces the effective work of His Son. So presumptuous sin now means dishonouring that work by going back to legal, self-righteous confidence in oneself.
Under the law the sentence was death, with nothing softened:
The person who sins presumptuously — someone who has no life in him — is to be cut off; "his iniquity shall be on him." Under the law the presumptuous sinner met the law in all its severity. No mercy; but "stone him with stones outside the camp."
What the law refused, grace can now give. Sins that once brought certain death can be forgiven today. What cannot be forgiven is knowing Christ and then giving Him up:
Under the law there was no forgiveness for sins done with a high hand. The law says clearly, "if one person sins unintentionally." Paul says he received mercy "because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief." So in earlier days, if a man sinned in pride, as in blasphemy, they stoned him. There is forgiveness for such sins now. But there is none if a man sins after full knowledge of Christ, so as to give Him up.
A warning in Hebrews picks up the same rule, and a troubled conscience often turns it on itself by mistake:
The Holy Spirit, in Hebrews 10:26, is no doubt referring to this. Sinning wilfully there does not mean a true child of God drifting from the Lord and falling into sin. It means someone who gave up Christianity altogether — a person who abandons the faith and denies the value of the precious blood. It does not refer to a backsliding Christian at all.
Some sins fall between the two — knowing failure that is not defiance:
Peter in the high priest's palace is a clear example. When he swore and cursed that he did not know the Man, it was not ignorance speaking; and yet he was not an "adversary." Through self-confidence he had got into a place where the pressure was too much for him… The passage before us does not deal with this kind of sin.
- Knowledge — A high-handed sin breaks a command the person already knew. Ignorance is no defence.
- Contempt — The insult strikes the Lawgiver, not just the rule. That is why gathering sticks could cost a man his life.
- Silence — God names an offering for sins of ignorance. Here He names none, and the law showed no mercy.
- Grace — Sins the law punished with death can be forgiven now. What cannot be forgiven is knowing Christ and then giving Him up.
- Comfort — A believer's fall, even one as bad as Peter's denials, is not the case this passage describes.
For he hath despised the word of Jehovah, and hath broken his commandment that soul shall surely be cut off; his iniquity is upon him.
Numbers 15 sets two kinds of sin side by side. For sin done in ignorance, God appoints an offering. For sin done on purpose, He appoints none. Verse 31 gives the reason for that difference. It is not the size of the act, but what the act says about a person's attitude to God's word.
The line between the two is not how bad the deed looks. It is whether the offender knew what God had said.
The presumptuous sinner cannot plead ignorance. His sin breaks a command he knew well… To despise the word of Jehovah is presumptuous. It is sin apart from the nature of the thing done.
That is why the excuse every heart reaches for is closed off here.
This surely was a presumptuous sin — it was flying in the face of a most plain and positive commandment of God. It is this that specially marks a presumptuous sin, and leaves it utterly inexcusable. Ignorance cannot be pleaded in the face of a divine command.
The chapter's own example is a man gathering sticks on the sabbath. Human judgment calls that trivial. Commentators say its very smallness is the point.
The presumptuous sin recorded in Numbers 15 seems trivial. That is to show the absolute and perfect obedience Israel was to render in that day… Compared with the blasphemer of Leviticus 24, human judgment would see a great difference between the two. It would give the blasphemer the heaviest penalty and treat gathering sticks on the sabbath as trifling. But in divine things human judgment is always wrong. Each was equal to the other in guilt, despising the authority of God.
The law appointed an offering for sins of ignorance. For this sin it appointed none. Even so, commentators find mercy in the distinction God drew.
God did not put to death everyone who sinned. He made a distinction between an act of weakness, which is sin, and the presumptuous deeds of a man who acts by the dictates of his own evil will. Had the Lord acted in righteousness alone, every sinner must have been cut off. There is no child of Adam who has not sinned (1 John 1:10)… So the Lord provided the sin-offering. It was a token that, on the ground of an accepted sacrifice, He could act in grace towards one who had sinned.
The verse leaves the guilt on the sinner himself. Commentators note what kind of person this describes, and how the law dealt with him.
The person who sins presumptuously — the case of one who has no life in him — is cut off: "his iniquity shall be on him." Under the law, the presumptuous sinner faced the law's rigour. No mercy; but "stone him with stones outside the camp."
David's adultery and murder fell under this verse. He had no sacrifice to bring. Only mercy could meet his case.
No sacrifice could be offered, for he had sinned presumptuously (Psalm 51:16; Numbers 15:30-31). There was nothing for him but the sovereign mercy of God. Could that be extended to him? God did not leave him in doubt for a moment. The prophet did not have to go away and wait before he could assure him of pardon. As soon as David confessed, Nathan declared it with authority: "The Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die."
What the law left without remedy, the blood of Christ now cleanses — with one exception.
For Israel under law, wilful sin was without resource. The law allowed none. Whoever committed it was to be put away from among the people. Take the case of Achan. He was a wilful sinner who had to be cut off. Israel on the same occasion had sinned through ignorance, and could be restored. Under grace there is a perfect resource for all sins — "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." Only one wilful sin is now without resource. That is apostasy from Christianity: the abandonment of Christ and His sacrifice. "If we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26).
The safeguard against this whole category of sin is a conscience that still answers to Scripture.
A tender conscience always gives a true response to the action of the word of God. It bows down without a question to its plain statements… So long as it stays true to the touch of Scripture, as the Holy Spirit applies it, there is always a safe and sure regulating power. But if it becomes sluggish, hardened, or twisted — if it refuses to give a true response to "Thus says the Lord" — there is little if any hope.
- Knowledge. A sin is presumptuous because of the knowledge it defies, not because of its size. A known command leaves no room to plead ignorance.
- Contempt. The offence is despising God's word. The man gathering sticks and the blasphemer shared equal guilt, because both set aside His authority.
- Silence. The law appointed an offering for every failure done in ignorance. Here it appointed none, so the guilt stayed on the sinner's own head.
- Mercy. David sinned under this very verse and found no sacrifice to bring. Only the sovereign mercy of God met him, and it came the moment he confessed.
- Resource. Under grace the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. One wilful sin still has no remedy: abandoning Christ and His sacrifice.
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day.
While Israel was in the wilderness, some men found another Israelite gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, and nobody knew what to do with him. The placing matters. This story comes right after the law about sinning "with a high hand," and it forces the question of why so small an act drew so heavy a sentence.
The chapter has just set out two categories: sins done unintentionally, which had a sacrifice, and sins done in open defiance, which had none. This story illustrates the second kind. The difference between the two is not the size of the act. It is the knowledge behind it.
The presumptuous sinner cannot plead ignorance; his sin is the breaking of a well-known command… To despise the word of the LORD is presumptuous. It is sin apart from the nature of the thing done. God gives an example, for He teaches us both by example and by precept.
The same writer sets this case beside the blasphemer of Leviticus 24 and notes that our instincts would rank the two very differently — one an outrage, the other a trifle — yet "each was equal to the other in guilt."
Readers often feel the penalty is out of proportion to a bundle of firewood. One commentator answers that the smallness of the thing exposes the heart behind it.
Many unbelievers would call it far too harsh. They would say the same about the disastrous results that followed Adam's sin in eating the forbidden fruit. But sin is lawlessness. The creature asserts its own will and defies the Creator. The element of defiance is never more pronounced than when the matter involved is only trivial.
They did not improvise. Nobody had named a penalty, so they held the man in custody and asked God. One writer turns their pause into a rule for hard cases.
Where we have no clear word of the Lord, so far as we know, there is always one great safeguard: to wait. Never be in a hurry to devise a remedy, or to exercise discipline, without the word of the Lord. What is done cannot be undone… So, however solemn the sentence, the children of Israel had fresh proof that God entered into their difficulties. He took the greatest interest in what concerned them. Never can souls wait upon the Lord and be confounded.
The command about the Sabbath was old and plain. The punishment for breaking it was not. One writer asks why Israel had to hold the man at all, and then explains what the sticks were for.
Because, although the commandment was explicit, the breaking of it had not been anticipated, and no penalty had been laid down… He purposely left the case unnoticed until occasion required it. But occasion did require it, for man is capable of anything. He has no heart for God's rest. To kindle a fire on the Sabbath day was not only a plain breach of the law. It showed complete alienation from the mind of the Lawgiver, because it brought into the day of rest the fitting symbol of judgment. Fire is a picture of judgment, and it was wholly out of keeping with the rest of that day.
The man injured no neighbour. The weight of the act came from what the day stood for.
He had not directly harmed other people by his working. But he had defied the Word of God, which is certainly more serious. Why did God make the Sabbath so serious a matter? Because He was telling mankind a basic truth: no one can gain or keep a relationship with God by human works. So anyone who broke the Sabbath was choosing his own works instead of faith in the clear Word of God.
Commentators are careful about how far this law reaches today. The same writer adds that God no longer asks for a death sentence for Sabbath work, and that God gave the Sabbath to Israel, not to the nations.
One writer turns the picture on anyone who adds his own effort to a finished work.
They may think it a light thing to break that Sabbath, that rest, by only gathering a few of the worthless, rotten sticks of their own works. Ponder this solemn lesson. God guarded the shadow with the penalty of death. What then will happen to the soul who dares to sin in this way against the Holy Spirit, despising the great salvation, the eternal Sabbath of rest in Christ?
- Known. This was not ignorance. The man defied a command everyone already knew. That is what presumptuous means here.
- Small. The small size of the act is the point, not the excuse. Defiance shows most where nothing but God's word is at stake.
- Waited. Israel had no ruling, so they held the man and asked. Souls who wait on the Lord are never put to shame, and what is done cannot be undone.
- Rest. The day guarded a truth about God, that no relationship with Him is gained or kept by human work.
- Sticks. The warning outlives the penalty. A man gathering his own works into God's rest pictures the soul that refuses the rest Christ has already secured.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to the whole assembly.
A man is caught gathering sticks on the sabbath, and the people who find him do not judge him on the spot. They hand him over instead, which raises two questions: why not settle it themselves, and why does picking up firewood concern the whole nation?
They had no instruction to go on. One commentator finds in their action a rule for any case where we have no clear word from the Lord:
Here a very important principle comes out — what is to be done where, as far as we know, we have no clear word from the Lord. There is always one great safeguard: to wait. Never be in a hurry to devise a remedy, or to exercise discipline, without the word of the Lord. What is done cannot be undone. It is better to wait and admit you do not know. But let it be the kind of not knowing that is confident the Lord hears and cares for us. This is exactly what they did. And they were right… However solemn the sentence was, it gave the children of Israel fresh proof. God entered into their difficulties and took the greatest interest in what concerned them. Souls can never wait on the Lord and come away ashamed.
This judgment lands in a chapter full of grace. One commentator marks the turn:
Here the grace of God runs over, and presumptuous sin alone is fatal. The next lesson we learn is this: God had not tied His own hands. He would still judge whatever was against His glory along the way.
So the man had something to answer for. The act was small, but the command behind it was plain:
This was surely a presumptuous sin — it was flying in the face of a most plain and positive commandment of God. This is what especially marks a presumptuous sin, and leaves it completely inexcusable. No one can plead ignorance in the face of a command from God.
The other case in view is the blasphemer of Leviticus 24. The two sins are not even of the same kind, and our instincts rank one far above the other:
Gathering sticks was sin because it had been forbidden. Blasphemy would have been sin even if there had been no command. Compared with Leviticus 24, human judgment would see a great gap between the two cases. It would hand the heaviest penalty to the blasphemer. It would treat gathering sticks on the sabbath as a small matter. But in divine things human judgment is always wrong. Each was equal to the other in guilt, despising the authority of God.
The sabbath was a day of rest God had given. One writer reads that rest as a shadow of rest in Christ, and the sticks as works of our own:
Men may presumptuously deny the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the finished work of Christ. They may think it a light thing to break that Sabbath, that rest. It is only a few worthless, rotten sticks of their own works, after all. Think carefully about this solemn lesson. The shadow itself carried the penalty of death. What then will happen to the soul that dares to sin against the Holy Spirit in this way, and despises the great salvation, the eternal Sabbath of rest in Christ? … Christ is the rest of God. Give up your own works: enter into His rest.
The whole assembly acts here, and later readers have tried to copy the pattern. One writer warns against that:
We have to remember that we are not under the law, but under grace. For this reason it is unsafe to try to use Old Testament laws as a guide to church action. People have done this far too often, especially where the New Testament gave no authority at all for what they proposed.
- Found. The man was caught doing something small, but plainly forbidden. What marks a presumptuous sin is not the size of the act but the clearness of the command it breaks.
- Brought. Those who found him did not handle the case themselves. They took it to Moses, Aaron and the whole assembly.
- Waited. With no clear word from the Lord, waiting was the safeguard. Hasty discipline cannot be undone, and no one who waits on the Lord comes away ashamed.
- Weighed. Our sense of proportion misjudges this story. Gathering sticks and cursing God's name look worlds apart to us. Both despised the same authority.
- Warned. The sticks picture our own works carried into God's rest. That rest points to Christ, so the deeper danger is refusing the rest He finished. Give up your own works and enter it.
And they put him in custody, for it was not declared what should be done to him.
Israel is in the wilderness, and a man is caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath — the day God had guarded with a clear command. They know he is guilty, but no penalty has been given, so they hold him under guard and wait for God to speak.
The custody was not hesitation about guilt. It was the gap between a known command and an unstated penalty.
But why did they have to put the man in custody? Because the commandment was clear, but nobody had expected anyone to break it, and God had set no penalty. To speak in human terms, the Lord had not expected such folly from man as the interruption of His rest, and so He had not formally provided for such a case. We need not say that God knows the end from the beginning. But in the matter now before us, He left the case unmentioned on purpose, until the occasion called for it. But sadly, the occasion did require it, for man is capable of anything. He has no heart for God's rest.
Their response gives a pattern for cases where Scripture has not yet spoken.
And here comes out a very important principle — what should we do where we have no clear word of the Lord, so far as we know? There is always one great safeguard, namely, to wait. Never be in a hurry to devise a remedy, or to exercise discipline, without the word of the Lord. What is done cannot be undone. It is better to wait and take the place of ignorance, but at the same time an ignorance that is confident that the Lord hears and cares for us. This is exactly what they did. And they were right… Whatever the solemnity of the sentence, the children of Israel had fresh proof that God entered into their difficulties and took the greatest interest in what concerned them. No soul ever waits on the Lord and is put to shame.
The incident does not sit in the chapter by accident. It follows immediately on the rule about sinning with a high hand, where the sacrifices of the earlier verses stop.
Verse 30 deals with presumptuous sins, in despising the word of the Lord, and no offering is prescribed for such. Then comes an example of such a presumptuous sin: the man who broke the sabbath by gathering sticks. He was put to death. This was undoubtedly judgment of a drastic kind.
The offence looks small next to the sentence. One writer sets it beside the case of the man who cursed God's name.
To despise the word of the Lord is presumptuous. It is sin apart from the nature of the thing done… The presumptuous sin recorded in Numbers 15 looks trivial. That is to show the complete and perfect obedience Israel is to give in that day… Human judgment would see a great difference between the two. It would give the heaviest penalty to the man who cursed God's name, and treat the gathering of sticks on the sabbath as a small matter. But in divine things human judgment is always wrong. Each was equal to the other in guilt, for each despised the authority of God.
God's answer came at last. One writer turns that answer on the reader.
Here we have the case of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. The Sabbath had only just been made known, so they asked what should be done to him. The Lord said, "The man shall be put to death." Men may presumptuously deny the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the finished work of Christ. They may think it a light thing to break that Sabbath, that rest, by only gathering a few of the worthless rotten sticks of their own works.
No one carries out that sentence today. But the offence it pictures has not grown lighter.
Why did God make the Sabbath so serious a matter? Because He was declaring the basic truth that no relationship with God could be gained or kept by human works. One who broke the Sabbath was therefore choosing his own works rather than faith in the clear Word of God. Today, under grace, God does not demand the death sentence for working on the Sabbath. He never laid the Sabbath on the other nations, but only on Israel under law (Ex. 31:12-17). However, the spiritual significance of this is more serious than the literal law of the Sabbath. Suppose someone refuses to trust God's Word about the sacrifice of His Son, and trusts his own works instead. He will suffer not only death, but the judgment of eternal fire.
- Command. The Sabbath law was clear. Only the penalty was missing, so his guilt was never in doubt.
- Custody. They held the man instead of inventing a sentence. That was the right answer where God had not yet spoken.
- Waiting. Where the Lord has not spoken to a case, waiting is the safeguard, because what is done cannot be undone.
- Word. God answered. Those who wait on Him in their difficulties find He takes real interest in what concerns them.
- Rest. A handful of sticks carried into God's day pictures our own works carried into the rest He gives. Nothing of ours may touch it.
And Jehovah said to Moses, The man shall certainly be put to death the whole assembly shall stone him with stones outside the camp.
The march pauses for a single incident. A man gathers sticks on the sabbath, and the law has not yet named a penalty for it. So the whole camp waits while Moses asks God what to do. The answer is death by stoning outside the camp. Why did so small an act cost so much?
Israel did not settle the case themselves. They held the man and waited for God to speak.
Here a very important principle comes out. What should we do when we have no clear word from the Lord, so far as we know? There is always one great safeguard: wait. Never rush to devise a remedy, or to use discipline, without the word of the Lord. What is done cannot be undone. It is better to wait and admit we do not know — but with the confidence that the Lord hears us and cares for us... However solemn the sentence was, the children of Israel had a fresh proof that God entered into their difficulties and took the greatest interest in what concerned them. Souls who wait on the Lord are never disappointed.
The man knew the command. That single fact removes every excuse.
This was certainly a presumptuous sin — it openly defied a plain and definite commandment of God. That is what marks a presumptuous sin above all, and leaves it completely inexcusable. No one can plead ignorance when God has given a command.
Elsewhere in the law a man who cursed God's name received the same sentence. To us the two cases look nothing alike, and that reaction is itself the lesson.
The sin recorded in Numbers 15 looks trivial, and that is the point: it shows the complete and perfect obedience Israel was to give in that day... Set beside Leviticus 24, human judgment would see a huge difference between the two. It would give the heaviest penalty to the blasphemer and treat the gathering of sticks on the sabbath as a small matter. But in divine things human judgment is always wrong. Each was equal to the other in guilt, because each despised the authority of God. Both were presumptuous sinners. The One who said, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain," also said, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Nobody was hurt by a bundle of sticks. The offence lay in what the day itself stood for, and in what working on it said about the man's confidence.
He had not directly harmed other people by his working, but he had defied the Word of God, which is certainly more serious. Why did God make the Sabbath so serious a matter? Because He was declaring to mankind the basic truth that no one can gain or keep a relationship with God by human works. So the man who broke the Sabbath was choosing his own works instead of faith in the clear Word of God. Today, under grace, God does not require the death sentence for working on the Sabbath, and the Sabbath was never imposed on Gentiles, only on Israel under law... But if someone refuses to trust God's Word about the sacrifice of His Son, and trusts his own works instead, he will suffer not only death, but the judgment of eternal fire.
Another writer weighs the man's whole record. One breach was enough.
A man was found gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Even if he had kept the law at every other point, he was still guilty... The sabbath day pictured the rest of soul God gives through redemption, so nothing on man's part could be allowed to pollute that rest.
The law had one answer for the sinner who defied it on purpose.
The soul that sins presumptuously... he shall be cut off — "his iniquity shall be upon him." Under the law, the presumptuous sinner faced the full severity of the law. No mercy; but "stone him with stones outside the camp."
Why did God involve every person in the camp?
The judgment God pronounced was carried out by the whole congregation. This tells us that believers should fully agree with God's judgment against what dishonors Him.
- Wait. When no word from God covers the case, hold still instead of inventing a remedy. What is done cannot be undone.
- Defiance. The act was small, but it broke a plain word of God. Anyone who knows the command cannot plead ignorance.
- One voice. The same God forbade blasphemy and commanded the sabbath, so both sins drew one sentence. In divine things our own judgment is always wrong.
- Rest. The sabbath said that no one gains or keeps a relationship with God by working. Trusting your own works instead of God's Word still ends in judgment.
- Agreement. All Israel had a hand in the stoning. God's people are to agree with His judgment on what dishonours Him.
And the whole assembly led him outside the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as Jehovah had commanded Moses.
A man gathers sticks on the Sabbath, and God sentences him to death by stoning outside the camp. The act looks tiny and the penalty huge, so two questions press: what did the man really break, and why did the whole camp take part?
The man did not act in ignorance. The Sabbath law was public and well known, so he had no excuse.
This was surely a presumptuous sin. It flew straight in the face of a plain, definite command of God. That, above all, is what marks a presumptuous sin and leaves it completely without excuse. No one can plead ignorance when God has given a command.
Before this verse comes a pause. The people did not know what penalty to give, so they held the man and waited. One commentator makes that pause a pattern for anyone facing a case God's word has not yet settled.
Here a very important principle comes out: what should we do when, as far as we know, we have no clear word from the Lord? There is always one great safeguard — wait. Never rush to devise a remedy or to apply discipline without the word of the Lord. What is done cannot be undone... So, however solemn the sentence was, the people of Israel had fresh proof that God entered into their difficulties and took the greatest interest in what concerned them. Souls who wait on the Lord are never put to shame.
The smallness of the act is the point, not an objection to it. When the thing commanded is trivial, there is nothing left to defy but the One who commanded it.
How do we react to it? Many unbelievers would condemn it as harsh and unjustified... But sin is lawlessness. It is the creature asserting its own will and defying the Creator. And that defiance is never clearer than when the thing involved is trivial.
Set beside the blasphemer — the man who spoke against God's name — our instinct puts the two crimes far apart. Another writer says that instinct is wrong.
The sin here looks trivial, and that is deliberate: it shows the complete and perfect obedience Israel was to give... In the one case the act was sin because God had forbidden it. The other was sin even if no command had been given... Human judgment sees a huge gap between the two. It gives the blasphemer the heaviest penalty and treats gathering sticks on the Sabbath as a small matter. But in the things of God human judgment is always wrong. Each was as guilty as the other.
Why did this one law carry so much weight, and what does it mean for us now? The day of rest stood for something God will not share with human effort.
His work did no direct harm to other people, but he had defied the Word of God, which is far more serious. Why did God treat the Sabbath so seriously? Because He was telling everyone a basic truth: no relationship with God can be gained or kept on the basis of human works. So the man who broke the Sabbath was choosing his own works instead of faith in the clear Word of God. Today, under grace, God does not require the death sentence for working on the Sabbath, and the Sabbath was never laid on other nations, but only on Israel under law. Yet the spiritual meaning of this is more serious than the literal Sabbath law. If someone refuses to trust God's Word about the sacrifice of His Son, and trusts his own works instead, he will suffer not only death, but the judgment of eternal fire.
Once a person stands on law as his ground before God, the size of the failure stops mattering.
The man had not lit the fire, but he had gathered the sticks in open defiance. And note this: if a man stands on the principle of law... he is under the curse, because the smallest breach of that law brings a curse.
No single executioner carried out the sentence. The whole congregation did, and one commentator draws a lesson from that for God's people today.
The whole congregation carried out the judgment God pronounced (v.36). This tells us that believers should agree fully with God's judgment on what dishonours Him.
- Waiting — Israel had no word from God for this case, so they held the man and waited. That is the safeguard, because what is done cannot be undone.
- Defiance — the word about the Sabbath was plain and public. The man broke it on purpose, so he could not plead ignorance.
- Triviality — the act was small, and that sharpens the defiance instead of softening it. Before God, the man with the sticks and the man who blasphemed were equally guilty.
- Rest — God's word about the Sabbath guarded one truth: no one gains or keeps a relationship with God by working for it.
- Agreement — the whole congregation carried out the sentence. God's people are still to stand with His judgment on what dishonours Him.