SIN AND TRESPASS-OFFERINGS.
By John O. Corliss
Under the Levitical system, sin was regarded according to the position the transgressor held in the community. For instance, a priest, on account of the sacredness of his office, held a very prominent place among the people, and he had to bring, for any sin of his, an offering equal to that required in behalf of the whole nation when found guilty of sin. Compare Lev. 4:3, 13, 14. This was because the priest in his office, not only stood for the people before God, but his example was likely to influence the entire nation. Therefore, for him to be found doing wrong was as serious a thing as for the whole people to do wrong. The guilty priest must bring a bullock before the door of the tabernacle, and, in sight of all Israel, lay his hand on the head of his offering, thus figuratively transferring his guilt to the substitute and devoting it to death. Then with his own hand he must kill the victim, thus acknowledging before all beholders that he was a sinner and deserving of death. The only difference between the priest’s act of humiliation, and that of the nation, when all alike were found guilty of a common sin, was that the elders of the congregation acted for the people, and performed in concert the act of humiliation. When a ruler or one of the common people was known to be guilty of sin, he must bring a kid of the goats, over which to confess his sin, and upon which to visit the penalty of death as his substitute in the transgression. The only difference in the offering of these two parties was that the sacrifice of the ruler was to be a male, and that of a common person a female. Compare verses 22, 23 and 27, 28. We are not informed as to the reason for this apparently slight difference, but it teaches us that God is particular as to the obligations of those who would seek restoration to His favor. We may also learn from these cases that no sinner is permitted to decide for himself what is an adequate offering for sin on his part, but that he must implicitly follow divine directions if he would have divine forgiveness. There is another point here worthy of notice. In reading the directions to be followed in each of these cases in Israel, it is seen that the same rule obtained with all in one respect. That is, these offerings were available only for sins committed “thru ignorance,” and repented of as soon as made known. The atonement types provided no remedy for sins willfully persisted in. In fact, all persons of this bent of mind were summarily cut off from the house of Israel and from life. Num. 15:24-31. It was therefore, in that day, and under the typical priesthood, a terrible thing for one openly to rebel against the rule of heaven. But if that order of things was a true shadow of the heavenly, how is it under the ministry of Christ’s priesthood? We may say that it is now different, because His is a mission of love and long-suffering mercy. It is true that these attributes are now tempering the ministry of Christ for the sins of the world; but these were always elements of control in the dealing of God with His people. In their worst days He declared to the house of Israel that He had loved them with an everlasting love. Jer. 31:3. He also proclaimed to Moses from Sinai that His very name was merciful, gracious, long-suffering, etc. Ex. 34:5-7. But the rule of cutting off wilful sinners prevailed under the direction of these infinite attributes. How is it now? Of course we do not see all that is in the mind of God on this or other points; but what the apostle has written on this subject must mean something strong and decisive. He says, “If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” Heb. 10:26. How can it be otherwise? Jesus died for our sins, to redeem us from a position we would avoid; but if we sin willfully, showing that we desire to remain in sin, where is the sacrifice for such a condition? At any rate, in view of what is written it is well for all to hasten to “kiss the Son” before His anger is kindled to destroy them “from the way.” Ps. 2:12. Besides direct sin, which was a plain transgression of the letter of the Ten Commandments, there was another offense which required a sacrifice for its atonement. It is difficult indeed to define the difference between the two, because the difference is not so clearly stated. Then sometimes the sin-offering and trespass-offering were made at the same time, and each seemed to be a part of the other, as in the ceremony for the cleansing of leprosy. Lev. 14:1, 12-14, 19, 20. But generally the trespass-offering was for such offenses as ignorant sacrilege (Lev. 5:15, 16), for fraud, or a suppression of truth, which amounted really to perjury. Lev. 6:1-6. The slight difference between the two ceremonies would imply that the sin-offering looked to the cleansing of personal guilt for direct sin against God alone, while the trespass-offering looked to the far-reaching evil consequences of a wrong done to a fellow-man. In all these offerings, however, the fat was all to be consumed in fire. Lev. 3:14-17. It was called “food” of the offering for the fire. Verse 11. It was also called the “bread of God.” Lev. 21:6, 8, 17. Inasmuch as the altar on which this offering was consumed was the Lord’s, it is plain why the part of the sacrifice thus burned was called the food of the offering given by fire to God. But now, in our sacrifices, we are stripped of sins, and these are offered to the Lord, for Him to consume. These sins belong to Him because by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, He has bought them, and therefore expects the repentant sinner to give them up to Him to be disposed of. Gal. 1:4. These are really the fat of the sacrifice to be consumed, but the Lord in mercy permits us to retain all the rest of the sacrifice, to be, at the proper time, transferred bodily to the sanctuary above. J. O. CORLISS.