Does God view unintentional sin differently?

From offerings which the people, if so minded, were permitted to bring, we pass on to others, which, because of acts done by them, were demanded by God, and are termed sin-offerings, or trespass-offerings, according to the character of the transgression. For God left it not to man to define the character of his act, nor the occasion on which he should bring offerings of this kind. Man might have enjoined such sacrifices where gross sins had been committed, but would have thought them needless, when error or ignorance could have been pleaded as an excuse for the offender. God acted in just the opposite way. For presumptuous sins there was no sacrifice provided, and nothing but death for the sinner to contemplate (Num. 15). For acts, many of which man would have excused, sin-offerings, or trespass-offerings, were enjoined. As the Holy One, God could not pass over the sin, as if it were of no moment. As the Gracious and Merciful One, He would not cut off the offender for that which was not done presumptuously. How different is God's standard from man's. Man is apt to measure his guilt by the character of his act, whether done wilfully or knowingly, and by the consequences which may ensue from it. God measures it by that which He is in Himself, who is light as well as love.

We pass, then, now from the consideration of those sacrifices which the people were allowed to bring, to those which they were obliged to present when the circumstances of the case permitted of it. What they were the law set forth; for if it was Jehovah's prerogative to declare what sacrifices He was willing to receive as the voluntary expression of His people's thankfulness, it clearly was for Him, and Him alone, to announce what those offerings were to be which could meet the claims of His holiness. And this He did, classing those sins for which sin-offerings could be brought in two categories; viz., sins against any of the commandments of the Lord, which ought not to be done, i.e. violations of natural conscience; and sins which were made such by special divine enactment. The former are treated of in Lev. 4, the latter in Lev. 5:1-13. As regarded the former, the Lord took note of the responsibility of the offender. With reference to the latter, He took account of the sinner's ability to procure an offering for his sin. How gracious was this!

In Lev. 4 the circumstances under which the sin was committed determined the question, whether or not the offender could avail himself of the Lord's gracious provision; for the Lord therein provided only for sins against any of the commandments of the Lord which ought not to be done, when committed through inadvertence, or in error, as sh'gagah means, rather than ignorance. In the cases specified in Lev. 5 ignorance was for the most part the reason why an offender in the ways described was permitted to draw nigh with his offering. In each case the commandment was clear which the person had broken; hence nothing less than bloodshedding could meet the necessities of the case. Measuring his sin, as man is apt to do, by the circumstances under which it has been committed, the guilty one might have thought lightly of his offence, in extenuation of which he could rightly urge the plea of inadvertence. But God, as we have said, measures sin by a different standard. His holiness therefore must be cared for, and the measure of the offender's responsibility may also have to be taken into account, as we learn from Lev. 4.

Whoever had sinned through inadvertence, the death of the appointed sacrifice had of necessity to take place. Life had to be taken for the offender to be saved from death. Blood had to be presented to God for the guilty one to be forgiven. But a greater degree of responsibility attached to the anointed priest, the whole congregation, or even the ruler, than to the common person, when any one of these different classes had sinned through inadvertence. Now, this is not according to man's ordinary judgment of such things, who, provided the matter does not personally concern himself, is wont to deal more leniently with the great ones of the earth who offend than with one of the common people. Not so God who judges righteously.

Because of our sinful nature there are sins we commit without realizing at the time that such things are sin. Certainly the Lord does not allow the foolish present-day notion that so long as we think a thing is alright, then it is not sin. Sin is sin, no matter what we think about it. Yet if it is done through inadvertence, this is much different than when it is boldly committed in the face of knowing it to be wrong.

For the unintentional sin therefore the Lord provided a sacrifice. The whole congregation of Israel might be guilty of such sin, and when afterward it was brought to their attention as being sin, they were to offer one young bull as a burnt offering, together with its grain offering and drink offering, and one kid of the goats as a sin offering (v.24). The burnt offering speaks of God's glory being the first consideration in this matter, and with it the reminder that the perfect Man, Christ Jesus (the grain offering) is the one standard of sinlessness, who is therefore the only acceptable burnt offering. The drink offering was to symbolize Israel's joy in being so blessed by the offering. The sin offering was essential too as that which fully atones for sin, so that Israel could be forgiven (vs.25-26).

All classes in Israel were liable to sin, from the anointed priest to the meanest of the people, and to sin from error or inadvertence, as the word sh'gagah translated "ignorance," really means. Of this class of offences, chapter 4 treats; those defined in chapter 5:1-13, are not thus termed. As to sins of error or inadvertence against any of the commandments of the Lord, which ought not to be done, it is clear that man's will in such cases was not in action, though the evil of the person's nature was manifested; the acts, therefore, could not be passed over by God, hence He provided a sacrifice. But how truly innate must evil be in man, when he can sin against God inadvertently; and how abhorrent to God must our sins be, since they require nothing less than the atoning death of the Lord Jesus to put them away from before him. All classes in Israel, we see, might, in this manner sin, but the responsibility of some was regarded as greater than that of others. If the anointed priest thus sinned, who represented the people before God, he sinned to (not "according to") the guilt of the people, i.e., the whole nation was involved in the consequences of his act, so for him, as for the whole congregation, when they had sinned through error, the appointed offering was a bullock, the largest offering that could be offered in sacrifice.

In verse 2 let us note two things. First, the sin that is contemplated is "against any of the commandments of the Lord." As before remarked, "sin is not imputed [put to account] when there is no law (Rom. 5:13). We have now reached the time when the law, with its many commandments in detail, has been given, so that when any of these commandments had been broken, the sin was at once put to account against the transgressor, and this particular offering was instituted to make atonement for the sinner.

But second, the sins that were contemplated when this offering was instituted, were those committed "through ignorance." In this we see the compassion of our God shining out. He well knew the frailty and ignorance and forgetfulness that characterizes poor, fallen humanity, and this provision was made. Sin committed deliberately in cold-blooded defiance of God is not contemplated here; indeed we read in Hebrews 10:28, "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses." Though God is a God of mercy, the law as such has no mercy in it, and therefore the merciful provision of the sin and trespass offerings only came into effect where the root of the sin was ignorance and not wilfulness.

The question is not raised in this passage, we apprehend, as to where the punishment of the unfaithful servant will be inflicted, but it solely concerns the principle of responsibility. And most solemn is the instruction given in this connection. First, the case is supposed of the servant, who knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will: such an one shall be beaten with many stripes. The greater the light therefore, the greater is the responsibility; for where the light is possessed, there is positively no excuse for disobedience. Indeed, not to do according to the will made known is refusing to obey; in other words, it is rebellion. Judgment will thus take this into account, and hence there will be "many stripes." The second case given is one "that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes." It might have been thought that ignorance of his lord's will would have shielded the servant, though he deserved the punishment. But not so; for while he really did not know his master's mind, his will had been made known, as now, for example, in the Scriptures, and it was the servant's responsibility to have made himself acquainted with it. On this account, although the ignorance is accepted in mitigation of the sentence, the "few stripes" will be administered. Thereon the Lord affirms the principle already stated: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." The principle, therefore, is both divine and human, man also acting upon it in the ordinary transactions of life.

Further, there would be in detail a righteous adjudgment to the servant - he who knew, and did it not, many stripes, and he who knew it not, and did it not, few stripes. All was in ruin, all guilty; sin and neglect had produced ignorance. But the righteous distinction would be made. Note, they would be treated in the responsibility of the place they held, though they might not serve nor have spiritual right there. And so to whom much was given, of him much would be required, and if much has been afforded, more will be demanded. Thus the Lord unfolds the place and principles of service, as before of position, through His rejection and its consequences, and sole force. Further, we have to note here a manifest distinction between the called Church, called to wait for its Lord, and the ignorance of heathenism and the like, and the far more terrible portion of the Church. That servant, alluding specially to the one of whom He had just spoken, who knew his Lord's will and prepared not himself, i.e., for his Lord that was coming, and did not do according to His will, shall be beaten with many stripes - but he who - it is not said: Did not prepare himself, for he was not at all in that position, but "Committed things worthy of stripes," acted evilly according to his natural heart, as a heathen might do, shall be beaten with few stripes. The distinction is clear, and the judgment of the Lord as righteous, so is it solemn thereon, exceeding solemn, for the professing Church.

God is ignorant of nothing, and evil, however hidden to us, is evil to Him. "All things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do." He may have compassion, enlighten by His Spirit, provide a way of approach so that the greatest sinner may come, restore the soul that has wandered, take account of the degree of spiritual light, where light is honestly sought; but that does not change His judgment of evil. "The priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass-offering; he has certainly trespassed against Jehovah."

Between sins of ignorance and presumptuous sins there is, of course, an immense difference. While all sin is, as already said, sin, and the want of knowledge can never justify us, with God's word in our hand, and Himself so accessible for our enlightenment, yet a sin committed in real ignorance does not shut out God as a sin against conscience does. If it were so, communion would be impossible to any, short of practical perfection. But He is tender and merciful, and of infinite compassion. It would not be this to pass over that which argues a spirit of "revolt," which trifles with His known will. Here, too, we must take care; for we may trifle with His will by refusing to seek the light, as well as by refusing to walk by it when we have it. And this, one must fear, is the cause of many blighted lives among the children of God. They do not know, indeed, the evil paths they are in, but they have, nevertheless, as it were instinctively, turned from and refused the knowledge. Not willing to be disturbed, or to abide the cost of truth, they give up seeking it, — at least, in the dreaded line. But they cannot so escape from the consequences, terrible as some day they will find them, of real disobedience.

The blood dealt with, the fire on the altar of burnt-offering then received its portion; for nothing short of the endurance by the substitute of that which typifies divine judgment could meet the case, where a sin-offering was demanded; yet whilst bearing the judgment of God, that which was then consumed was a sweet savour to God. Our knowledge of the true sacrifice makes all this plain to us. After that, the rest of the carcase was either burnt outside the camp, or else it was eaten by the officiating priest, or all the males of the priestly family. But with the burning of the appointed portions on the altar for a sweet savour, the offerer's attendance there ceased, and he, or they, could return to their dwelling-place with the word of Jehovah ringing in their ear, "It shall be forgiven." What had they done to deserve that? nothing of any merit on their part. They had brought their offering. They had identified it with themselves. They had killed it, and the blood had been dealt with, and the inwards and fat had been burnt on the altar. Obedience to God's word they had manifested, but an obedience necessitated by their sin. No merit, therefore, could they boast of; but God's grace they could magnify, as divine forgiveness for a sin for which they deserved divine judgment, and which judgment had to be borne by their substitute, they were consciously enjoying. Inadvertently they had sinned, it was true; but that plea, though valid to preserve them from death if they brought their sacrifice, could never be urged on their behalf as a reason for God to think lightly of their sin. The sacrifice required showed what He thought of it, and showed, too, in what light they were to regard it. Done in error, it was nevertheless a sin, and when the offender came to the knowledge of it, the sin-offering was to be brought. No excuse, then, was allowed in palliation of their guilt, nor could any have felt the need of it, when God appointed a suitable sacrifice, which, if they offered, removed all dread of Him against whom they had sinned.