Why were there times in the Old Testament when God forgave people who did not offer a sacrifice?

In Old Testament times it was different. There were sins for which a sin-offering could be brought. There were those for which no sacrifice under the law was provided, and the penalty for which was death (Num. 15:30-31). God might, of course, act in mercy in such cases, and forgive. At times He did. Under such circumstances no sin-offering could be offered, but the sinner could be assured of forgiveness on the simple authority of God's word.

A way of escape from judgment thus offered to the undeserving, we next read of that which is absolutely needful, if that salvation is to be known — viz. confession of sin after grievous failure (Ps. 51). Of this David is the example. Of murder and adultery had he been guilty — grievous crimes in the eyes of men. What, indeed, were they in the eyes of God? What, then, was his resource? On what could he count? For himself he could say nothing, but acknowledge his guilt and the taint of corruption derived from his progenitor, Adam (2-5). On God's mercy, however, he could cast himself, the unfailing resource for all who in truthfulness of heart resort to it. "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving-kindness; according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions" (1). He could do nothing but this. He could offer nothing to meet his case, for the law did not provide a sacrifice for one who had sinned presumptuously, as he had. Death was its only award (Num. 15:30-31); and the only sacrifice which God could accept, under such circumstances, for David was that of a broken spirit. But a broken and contrite heart God does not, He will not, despise. Further, if He can act in grace toward an individual sinner amongst His people, He will not forget Jerusalem, with whose fortunes and restoration the hopes of His people are inseparably connected. So with this the Psalm ends, "Do good in Thy good pleasure to Zion, build thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt Thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering, and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar" (18, 19). Not till the Lord comes out of heaven will the godly remnant of His people know the forgiveness of their sins. Hence forgiveness to be enjoyed by them is, and must ever be, associated with the commencement of their time of millennial blessedness. One understands, then, why the rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem will be connected in their minds with Jehovah's ways in grace towards them. We need to understand dispensational actings in order to be able to trace the connection of their thoughts. Much there is of deep interest in this Psalm (51), but the limits of our present inquiry forbid us to dwell on it. We must pass on to trace the connection with the Psalms which follow.

Convicted by the prophet, the king has nothing to say but to acknowledge it. "I have sinned against the Lord" was all he said. To confess was all he could do; and that was all that was needed for the grace of God in forgiveness to be extended to him. "I have sinned against the Lord." But others have said like this, yet to no purpose; for God reads the heart, and He knows the motive of the creature. Pharaoh could say, "I have sinned this time" (Ex. 9:27), when alarmed by the thunder and hail, and desirous of its removal; yet he had not repented, for he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, when the mighty thunderings had ceased. A second time he confessed the same, when the locust had destroyed of vegetation all that the hail had spared; but his only object was to get rid of that plague (Ex. 10:16-17). Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned"; but betrayed the state of his heart as he added, "Yet honour me now before the elders of my people, and before Israel" (1 Sam. 15:30). Judas, when he saw that the Lord was condemned, confessed to the chief priests that he had sinned (Matt. 27:4). He had probably reckoned on the Lord delivering Himself, and so hoped to keep the money without being guilty of His death. In none of these cases was there real repentance. In David's case how different. He was not thinking of his character before men, and how that could be saved. He saw and confessed what his guilt was before God. He thus cast himself unreservedly on Him. Now the one who really does that will never repent of it.

"I have sinned against the Lord." A short, real, but solemn confession — an acknowledgment that he was in God's hands, and deserved only death for his offences. "The Lord has put away thy sin; thou shalt not die," was the prophet's immediate and reassuring rejoinder. The mercy of God could be extended to one convicted of blood-guiltiness. The law could not meet the case. It demanded David's death on the two counts, viz., of adultery and of murder (Lev. 20:10; Num. 35:31). No sacrifice could be offered, for he had sinned presumptuously (Ps. 51:16; Num. 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 one moment in doubt. The prophet had not to go away, and wait till he could assure him of his pardon. Immediately on David's confession, Nathan authoritatively declared it: "The Lord has put away thy sin: thou shalt not die."

On what could the convicted one rest? On the word of God. He had nothing else; and on that word once uttered, and never, that we read of, repeated. Once uttered. Yes. Has God to speak twice? David did not ask that. He heard surely, and rejoiced in the mercy of his God. Like him, the woman in Luke 7 accepted without a question the announcement on the part of the Lord of her forgiveness. The other guests might question it; she did not. Could any one suppose that she walked out of that house otherwise than in peace? So with David. He did not cross-examine the prophet to be sure that there was no mistake. Each surely took what was said, and received it as was meant. Was not that honoring God, the creature bowing readily and in simplicity to the word of the Creator? How differently have many of us acted. How differently do many still act so slow to receive the gospel message, so slow to bow to the unfettered proclamation of forgiveness (Acts 13:38).

Accordingly, the voice of divine mercy is not delayed: "Jehovah has also put away thy sin: thou shalt not die." For sin such as his, there was in the law no offering or sacrifice: death was the righteous penalty, which only could be remitted directly by the Throne above the throne. And this is the meaning of what he declares in his psalm of penitence: "for Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou delightest not in burnt-offering"; and then, in contrast with that, he shows what God had accepted as of more value with Him: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." (Ps. 51:16-17.)

This is not, of course, a denial of the worth and need of sacrifice, but only of such as were in his hand to bring, or the law could ordain. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin; and for sins like David's these were not spoken of at all. What really availed to prevent the extreme sentence, when nothing else could, was just the broken heart," divinely convicted, which God saw in him. This is no question of atonement: there was no atonement made with God by this conviction; the atonement — for David and for all others — was made on Calvary alone; only through this could the mercy of God prevail against judgment. The contrite heart was only, as a "sacrifice," upon the footing of the legal sacrifices, as having efficacy through the work to which they pointed; — though more efficacious than these because it testified of real faith on the part of him in whom it had produced this, and which linked him with that in which the efficacy truly was.

The reader of Psalm 32 will quickly see that David flies not to law for his refuge on the occasion of his grievous sin. When Psalm 51 (written concerning the same occasion) is also read, this will be most abundantly plain. He did not even seek relief by means of sacrifices provided under law (Ps. 51:16-17); for he knew that such sacrifices could not meet his case: his sin demanded immediate death, if law was to be carried out. But his plea is simply, “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions” (Ps. 51:1). Moreover, in Psalm 32 (v. 5), he can say “Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” Blessed answer, according to mercy, certainly not according to law!

Now comes the disclaiming of legal sacrifices. "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou delightest not in burnt-offering." In fact, as has been already said, none could be prescribed for sin like this, a thing which limits very much therefore the absoluteness of this disclaimer. Here the "sacrifices of God" could only be "a broken spirit!" Not as if this were the true antitype of the legal offerings, a supposition of which there has been given explicit denial in the words of Christ Himself by His Spirit in the fortieth psalm: "In the volume of the book it is written of ME." Nor can a broken spirit be the justification of God's grace in salvation, though it may define the condition morally necessary to the sinner's acceptance. And this is the only possible thought here. That would not be a broken spirit which could estimate itself as having atoning value in the sight of God. It is the very confession of sin and worthlessness which makes it possible for Him to come in in mercy; and in this way indeed to come to God may have attaching to it all the certainty which the bringing of sacrifice ensured in those cases in which they were prescribed. In this comparison with the legal sacrifices, the failed creature taking his place must necessarily, with God, far outweigh the ritual service, and in fact permit God to come in in his behalf. He will act according to His heart, and we can trust His heart. The case is in His hand; and divine wisdom will be able to conserve divine righteousness in meeting so desperate a condition. Christ is the answer of wisdom as to this: and now it can indeed be said: "a broken and crushed heart" — so it literally reads — "O God, Thou wilt not despise."

God did not desire sacrifice. In fact, there was no sacrifice available under law for the sin of adultery or of murder. Can we dare to think of giving up something in order to deserve the salvation of God? Mere pride may think so, but such a thing is repulsive to a God of truth and of grace. If we want to speak of sacrifices, verse 17 gives us the only instruction we need as pleasing to God, — a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart." This is just the opposite of the pride of trying to appease God by giving Him some material offering. God would absolutely despise the latter, but will not despise a contrite heart.

But when you come to the fifty-first psalm you find the sin of presumption: there is no question that David knew the awful character of the sin which he was committing. His conscience and heart were hardened for the time, and he went on in that fearful course which ended practically in murder. Then, when he came under the sense of that sin, after God had by the prophet Nathan touched his conscience, he could not plead ignorance, and therefore does not presume to bring an offering. There were trespass- and sin-offerings provided under the law; offerings for the sin too of a ruler, — but he could not bring that. He says, "Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it." How could he bring a sacrifice for the very sin for which God declared there was no sacrifice?

And yet, though the law was perfectly helpless to minister comfort or peace to David's soul, he lays hold upon God, and there are the breathings of confidence, the confidence of a restored soul; but it is not on the basis of legal sacrifice. He says, The only sacrifice I can bring is a broken and a crushed heart. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit." Ah, God will not despise that; it is that condition of heart which lays hold of the truth of Christ and His precious work.

They went through the wilderness on this covenant, entered the land and settled there on the basis of obedience to the Lord. Provision was made for failure, by sacrifice; and yet all provisions failed just where most needed. There was no sacrifice for presumptuous sins, only for those of ignorance. There could therefore be no peace for the most guilty, and king David in his broken-hearted prayer (Ps. 51), must turn from the sacrificial provision of the law to a mercy to which he held fast in spite of the law.

"Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Your loving kindness" (v. 1). Though David was under law, he could not appeal to God's law in this case. There was no sacrifice provided by God under law to meet such sin as David had committed. There were sacrifices for "sins of ignorance," but David had deliberately sinned, being fully aware of the wickedness of what he did. Being king, according to the law he ought to have passed the sentence of death upon himself! Just so, if Israel now were to appeal to the law which they claim to honor, that law decidedly condemns them to death. It offers no hope whatever!