Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Leviticus 4:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a person shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them;'"
The Lord continued talking to Moses telling him what to say to the people with regard to offerings and sacrifices. In the first three chapters of Leviticus, He had given Moses instructions for voluntary burnt offerings, grain offerings, and peace offerings. This appears to be a new type of offering for a person who sinned through ignorance. This appears to refer to an actual deed, something done against the commandments, not just a word or thought, and it appears to be a committed act done against the commandment that stated the act should not be done. That is to say there may be a distinction being made here between a sin of commission, doing something the Lord commanded not to do, and one of omission, not doing something the Lord said to do.
(3) "'If the priest that is anointed sins, according to the sin of the people, then let him offer to the LORD for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish for a sin offering.'"
Continuing the instructions for a person who sins unintentionally, the Lord started with a case of an anointed priest who sinned through ignorance or unintentionally. Most all the old commentaries I study on a regular basis believe "the priest that is anointed" meant the high priest. Although the high priest should have the greatest understanding and knowledge of the Lord and His laws, it would be possible for even him to sin through ignorance, especially since the word of God was still being revealed at the time the Lord was giving these instructions. To me "according to the sin of the people" sounds as if the priest committed the same such sins as the common people, but most of the old commentaries suggested this phrase meant more along the lines of "making the people to sin". Indeed, a person in an elevated position could lead masses of people astray by his erred example, even if unintentional. Perhaps by observing a general sin of the people, it could be pointed back to the unintentional advice or consent of the high priest, and that is what is meant by "according to the sin of the people". In whatever way it was meant, when the priest sinned in ignorance of the law and unintentionally, he was to offer a young bull without blemish for a sin offering. Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, wrote that a young bullock (as it was written in the KJV) was considered one to be two years old. He referenced Maimonides, the Jewish medieval scholar, who wrote that "wherever it is said a calf, that is a young one of the first year, but a bullock it is a young one of the second year", and neither were to be confused with an ox which was three years old.
(4) "'And he shall bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD, and shall lay his hand on the bull’s head, and kill the bull before the LORD.'"
The priest was to bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle and was to lay his hand on the bull's head, indicating that this sacrifice was his and his alone, and that he alone deserved to die as that animal he brought was about to do, but with this animal sacrifice, he requested pardon of his sin. This action of laying his hand on the head of the bull also signified the transferring of his sins from himself to this sacrifice, which was to be offered to make atonement for them.
(5) "'And the priest that is anointed shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation.'"
The high priest offering for himself was he himself to take some of the bull's blood and bring it inside the tabernacle, probably in a basin.
(6) "'And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil of the sanctuary.'"
The priest offering for himself was to then dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle some of it seven times before the Lord in front of the veil that covered the mercy seat within the holiest of holies. The number seven was a number of perfection indicating completion or fullness. It began with creation when the Lord made everything in six days and rested the seventh. The sprinkling probably represented the sprinkling of Christ's blood ("So shall He sprinkle many nations..." - Isaiah 52:15), and sprinkling seven times represented the perfect satisfaction Christ made with the complete cleansing of souls by His blood, of which this animal blood sacrifice was a precursor and picture of what was to come.
(7) "'And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.'"
The priest, again offering for himself, was to then put some of the blood on the horns of the incense altar, which was the golden altar inside the tabernacle before the veil within the holy place. He was then to pour out all the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering which was at the door of the tabernacle.
(8) "'And he shall take from it all the fat of the bull for the sin offering; the fat that covers the inwards and all the fat that is on the inwards, (9) And the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, he shall remove, (10) As it was taken from the bull of the sacrifice of peace offering; and the priest shall burn them on the altar of the burnt offering.'"
The priest was to take from the bull the fat that covered the inwards (possibly the mid-section), the two kidneys and the fat that was on them, and the caul above the liver, just as it was to be taken from the bull of the peace offering (Lev. 3:3-5, studied here). These parts were to be burned on the altar of burnt offering.
(11) "'And the skin of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and legs, its inwards and its dung, (12) The whole bull he shall carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are
poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured
out it shall be burned.'"
The head and body of the animal, including its internal organs and dung, skin and all, were to be carried outside the camp to a certain place appointed for that purpose, "where the ashes are poured out", and there it was to be burnt to ashes.
(13) "'And if the whole congregation of Israel sins through ignorance, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done something against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty, (14) When the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the congregation shall offer a young bull for the sin, and bring it before the tabernacle of the congregation.'"
Continuing the instructions for sin offerings for people who sinned unintentionally, the
Lord turned now to the case of a whole congregation that sinned through
ignorance or unintentionally. This might be the case if they were led astray by a high priest who also sinned unintentionally. Again this seems to refer to sins of commission against the negative precepts, i.e. "Thou shalt not..." When the sin was made known to them, then the congregation was to offer a young bull for the sin, the same offering as that of the anointed priest, and they were to bring it before the tabernacle.
(15) "'And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD; and the bull shall be killed before the LORD.'"
It was not possible for all the people to put their hands on the head of the bull, especially when it was possible the whole nation could have sinned unintentionally. Therefore only the elders, as representatives of the entire people, were to place their hands on the head of the bull. The elders were agents for the people, and they represented the fact that all the people acknowledged that this offering was theirs and they recognized that they deserved to die for their transgression against the Lord, and that by their agents' hands on the bull's head, they were transferring their sin to the bull and offered it to make atonement for them. The bull was then to be killed, although the verse does not specify whether this was to be done by the elders, the priest, or some third party butcher.
(16) "'And the priest that is anointed shall bring some of the bull’s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation. (17) And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil.'"
It was definitely by this point that the anointed priest took over from the elders, and he was to bring some of the bull's blood to the tabernacle, as he did for himself in verse 5. As he also did for himself in verse 6, the priest was to dip his finger in the blood of the people's bull sacrifice and was to sprinkle it seven times before the Lord in front of the veil that covered the Ark of the Covenant with the mercy seat.
(18) "‘And he shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and he shall pour the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.'"
Some of the blood was then put on the horns of the incense altar, the golden altar inside the tabernacle before the veil within the holy place, and the remaining blood was poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering which was at the door of the tabernacle.
(19) "'And he shall take all the fat from it and burn it on the altar. (20) And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull for a sin offering; thus he shall do with it; and the priest shall make an atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them. (21) And he shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull; it is a sin offering for the congregation.'"
The priest was then to take the fat from the bull and burn it on the altar. It was to be done in the same way as with the sin offering of the high priest in verses 8 and 9 above--the fat covering the inwards, the kidneys and their fat, and the caul above the liver. With this sin offering of the congregation, the priest could make atonement for their sin and it would be forgiven them. The priest was then to carry the bull outside the camp just as was done in verse 12, and burn it to ashes.
(22) "‘When a ruler has sinned, and done something through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty, (23) Or if his sin, wherein he has sinned, comes to his knowledge, he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish.'"
The Lord turned to instructions for the sin offering of a ruler. First I have to take an aside with the original word translated as "ruler"--"nasi", meaning "exalted one" or "one lifted up", "chief, prince, captain, leader". I find it so interesting that we called the Nazis this when that name was really only an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistishe, the national socialist German workers party. I find no evidence that people realized its Hebrew meaning at the time. Rather it is suggested that it was a derogatory slang word akin to "nutsy", and Hitler and his party did not call themselves Nazis. There is also this movement that suggests a connection between Nazis and Ashkenazi, but I certainly won't go there. The word is simply "Nazi", or "nasi" in Hebrew, and means "exalted one" or "one lifted up", and I find it very interesting that name came to be used thousands of years after it was first written in the Bible. It seems as if people didn't really know why they came to use the term, but there may be a divine reason behind it. Just food for thought...
Back to the sin offering of a ruler: This ruler probably referred to anyone who was lifted up above others as with a political leader, prince, or governor of a family or tribe. Some of the old commentaries I read suggest that it meant "king", but I don't see that the word "nasi" was ever translated as "king" in any other scriptures. Its most common translation was "prince", followed by "captain", "chief", "ruler", and one instance of "governor". Once again this sin offering was for a ruler who sinned against the negative precepts, doing something that he was commanded not to do, but he did it in ignorance of the law. It was not an intentional sin. Once the sin came to his knowledge, he was to bring his offering, that of a kid of the goats, a male without blemish. I find it interesting that the sin offering of a ruler seems less than that of a high priest or even one of a whole congregation; a kid seems smaller and less of a burden and sacrifice than a young bull. This may suggest that a ruler was held to a lesser standard than the high priest, which makes perfect sense. However, what is most interesting is that the congregation's sin appears to be considered more heinous than that of a ruler. A kid of the goats was sufficient to be offered for a ruler, but it had to be a bull for the congregation. It is bad when rulers give bad rules and examples, but worse when all men follow them. I can't help but think of the countless times it was written in scripture that a king "was evil in the sight of the Lord" and "made Israel to sin". I always considered our current leaders most at fault when they put in ungodly laws and "cause the people to sin". However, this would suggest that the people are most at fault. Perhaps it is because a whole people who sin causes more destruction than one ruler. Let's face it, a handful of judges who declare that it's okay to murder unborn children is very bad, but an entire nation of people who then participate in the murder of millions upon millions of unborn children would definitely be much worse. It's no wonder that we have begun to see the decline and destruction of our country.
(24) "‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and kill it at the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD; it is a sin offering.'"
The ruler was to place his hand on the head of the goat in the same way as all the previous offerings. However, I'm not sure it was the ruler himself who killed the animal. Although it appears to read that way, both Dr. John Gill and the 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes say that it was not the ruler who killed the goat, "but the priest after mentioned, or the butcher" (Gill), "for it was not lawful for any out of that (priest's) office to kill the beast" (Geneva). The goat was to be killed in the place where they killed the burnt offerings, that is, on the north side of the altar (Lev. 1:11). This was to be a "sin offering", an offering for his sin of ignorance.
(25) "'And the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering.'"
The priest was then to take some of the animal's blood with his finger and was to put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. This was different than the offering of the priest himself and of the congregation, where there the blood was to be placed on the horns of the altar of incense. I'm not sure how this was significant, other than it may again prove the more heinous sin was that of the high priest or of the congregation, and that blood was placed on the horns of the altar inside the tabernacle before the veil within the holy place. For the sin of the ruler, it was sufficient to place the blood on the horns of the altar of burnt offering.
(26) "‘And he shall burn all its fat on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.'"
The priest was then to burn the animal's fat on the altar in the manner of the peace offering described in Leviticus 3:3-4, "the fat that covers the inwards and all the fat that is on the inwards, and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and
the caul above the liver, with the kidneys". By these actions, the priest made atonement for the sin of the ruler, and his sin would be forgiven him. Not that there was any power in the priest or the sacrifice, but that this would be considered an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord and He would forgive the sin.
(27) "'And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance by doing something against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and is guilty, (28) Or if his sin, which he has sinned comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the
goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned.'"
If one of the common people, that is one who was not a priest or a ruler, but just one of the general public, sinned unintentionally by doing something against one of the commandments that specifically said not to do what he had done, once the sin became known, he was to bring an offering to the Lord. This offering was to be a female kid goat without blemish, probably considered inferior to the offering of the ruler because the unintentional sin of the commoner was considered not as great or heinous as the sin of the ruler which might affect many.
(29) "‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.'"
The one bringing the goat to be sacrificed was to place his hand on the head of his offering. Again it reads as if the offerer was to kill the offering at the place of the burnt offerings. However, this time Dr. John Gill stated that the one offering the sacrifice was the one who killed the animal. Even though the verses read the same way, Dr. Gill made two different assertions about which person killed the sacrifices. Perhaps he knew the historical law or tradition, but I have to assume it is not an important issue. The fact that in all cases the one offering the sacrifice placed his hand on his own sacrifice indicated he acknowledged and confessed his sin, transferring it to the sacrifice. I'm not sure it was necessary for he himself to kill the animal, or necessary that an anointed priest be the one who killed the animal, at least not when it had not been expressly commanded.
(30) "'And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out all the remaining blood at the base of the altar.'"
At this point, we know that the priest has taken over, and he was to take some of the goat's blood with his finger and was to put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and was then to pour out the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar.
(31) "'And he shall take away all its fat, as the fat is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma to the LORD; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.'"
Again the priest was to burn the animal's fat on the altar in the manner of the peace offering described in Leviticus 3:3-4. It would be a sweet aroma to the Lord, that is, it was acceptable to Him for the forgiveness of the offerer's sin, and in that way, the priest made atonement for the offerer, by doing what was commanded by the Lord for him to do.
(32) "'And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish.'"
By this, we learn that a commoner was allowed to bring either a goat or a lamb, whichever was more convenient for him, again indicating that the commoner's unintentional sin perhaps did not require as high a price as that of others who sinned unintentionally. Whether a lamb or a kid, the animal must be a female without blemish.
(33) "'And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill it as a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.'"
As always, the one offering the sacrifice must place his hand on the head of his offering, and the animal was to be killed in the place where they killed the burnt offerings, that is, on the north side of the altar (Lev. 1:11). In this case, it was John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, who suggested it was the priest who killed the animal, and not the offerer. I am not going to pretend to know with certainty when the animal was killed by the priest, and when it was killed by the one offering the animal. If I were to go by scripture alone, I would think it suggests the one offering did the killing, but I don't know the history of the traditions as these Bible scholars probably knew. I will have to assume it doesn't make much difference who did the killing at this point.
(34) "'And the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar.'"
As with the kid goat offering, the priest was to take some of the lamb's blood with his finger and was to put it on the horns of the altar of
burnt offering and was then to pour out the rest of the blood at the
foot of the altar.
(35) "'And he shall take away all the fat, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.'"
The priest was to remove and burn the fat of the lamb on the altar. It was to be in the same manner as the fat of the lamb in peace offerings described in Leviticus 3:9-10. The parts of the lamb that were to be burned on the altar were much the
same as those above described, except that the fat tail of
the lamb was also burned. By following these instructions, the priest would be able to make atonement for the unintentional sin of the common man.
In this chapter, we learn that sin is sin, even if it is unintentional, and must be atoned for, once it is discovered. Matthew Henry pointed out, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "perhaps there was some allusion to this law concerning sacrifices for sins of ignorance in that prayer of Christ's, just when he was offering up himself a sacrifice, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
