---

Leviticus 5:1-13; cf. Psalm 19:12; Galatians 6:1; 1 Timothy 1:13, etc. The offerings already considered, viz. the burnt offering, the meat offering, and the peace offering, have respectively emphasized the ideas of personal consecration, consecrated life-work, and fellowship. Moreover, they are to be regarded as voluntary offerings, depending upon the impulse of the heart for their celebration. Special experience might impel an Israelite to express his consecration or his fellowship, and he would then bring the appointed sacrifice. But here we come across an offering which is imperative. The moment an Israelite became convinced of sin, then he was bound to bring the offering prescribed. Besides, the sin offering is Mosaic in its origin; it had no existence, as such, before the promulgation of the covenant at Sinai; and consequently it is to be taken as the rule for penitents, whose consciences have been educated in a more thorough detection of sin through the Law. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." We have at this stage, confrequently, a perceptible elevation of the moral standard.

I. THE FIRST LESSON OF THE SIN OFFERING IS THAT SIN IS A NATURE. The superficial treatment of sin deals with outward and conscious acts, such as trespasses; what God declares by his Law is that, behind all conscious acts of the will, there are natural movements of which we are not conscious, and for which, nevertheless, we are responsible. This important principle is affirmed by all these minute regulations about sins of ignorance. The thoughtful Israelite would see from this that sin is a much wider and deeper thing than he at first suspected; that the motions of his personal being are more numerous and varied than he supposed; that deliberation, in fact, is not essential to every sin, and does not cover responsibility. In other words, he would look within and realize that sin is a nature, working on, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously, and that for all its workings he will be held accountable. No more important principle lies in the field of self-examination. Without it there can be no thorough treatment of sin. With it we stand abashed and humbled under a sense of the unknown sin as well as of the known. We cry with David, "Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression" (Psalm 19:12, 13; cf. also Shedd's 'Discourses and Essays,' No. VI.).

II. SIN VARIES IS ITS HEINOUSNESS. The Israelite not only recognized this whole category of sins of ignorance marshaled in the Law before him; he also saw a difference of treatment in the cases under review. A sin of ignorance on the part of the high priest was made more emphatic than one on the part of a prince or a private person. The high priest's representative position and character modified the whole case. His sin of omission or neglect became much more serious than a private individual's could be. He was consequently directed to bring a bullock, the same offering as for a sin on the part of the collective people; for his representative character made him, so to speak, a moral equivalent to them. While, therefore, it is well to recognize sin as a nature, we must also remember that God does not treat sin in the mass, but discriminates between the more or less guilty. In his morality there are the most delicate appreciations and adjustments. Penitence must likewise be discriminating as well as profound. Self-examination may be a most humiliating and disappointing process, but we should weigh the relations of our faults and sins when we discover them and deal faithfully with ourselves.

III. YET ALL SINNERS ARE PLACED WITHIN REACH OF AN APPROPRIATE ATONEMENT. The high priest and the collective people, the prince and one of the common people, each and all had their prescribed offering and guaranteed atonement. And when people proved so poor that they could not offer turtle-doves or young pigeons, they were directed to bring an ephah of fine flour, with which the priest would make atonement. And as for this atonement, it is in all cases secured by the surrender of life. Even the ephah of flour conveyed this idea, for the germ is hopelessly sacrificed in its manufacture. The one idea binding the various sacrifices together is the surrender of life. That this idea is to be attributed to substances in the vegetable kingdom as well as the animal, is evident from John 12:24, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." And it need scarcely be added that the atonement of which these sin offerings were types is that of the Lord Jesus, who "was once offered to bear the sins of many" (Hebrews 9:28; also verses 11-14). In the proclamation of the gospel, this most appropriate atonement is put within the reach of all. No sinner is excluded from the possibility of atonement except through his own self-will.

IV. THE RECONCILIATION WITH the PENITENT, WHICH ATONEMENT SECURES, IS A MATTER OF DEEP DELIGHT TO GOD. For not only is the blood of the sacrifice accepted at the appropriate spot, whether vail and altar of incense, or the brazen altar only, according to the status of the penitent; but there is besides an acceptance of the best portions of the animal upon the altar, indicating that God is delighted with the accomplished atonement. It was, so far as God was concerned, as much a feast as the peace offering. It expressed, consequently, that God was delighted beyond all our conception with the reconciliation. It is well to make this idea always emphatic. Our blinded souls are ready to imagine that we are more anxious for reconciliation, and would be more delighted with it when it came, than God can be. The truth, however, is all the other way. The reconciliation begins with God, the atonement is due to his wisdom and mercy, and over the actual consummation he rejoices with "joy unspeakable and full of glory."

V. THE RECONCILIATION IS ALSO MEANT TO BE A FEAST OF DELIGHT TO ALL GOD'S SERVANTS WHO ARE INSTRUMENTAL IN BRINGING IT ABOUT. For we must notice that, in the cases where the priests are not penitents themselves, but mediators, they are allowed to make a feast of what is left after the best portions are dedicated to God. Of course, when they are penitents, as in the case of a personal or a congregational sin, the carcass is to be considered too holy for the priests to partake of it; hence it is disposed of in its entirety in a clean place beyond the camp. This was the solemn way of disposing of the whole carcass. But in the other cases the priests were directed to feast upon the remainder of the offering, as those bearing atonement. So far they enjoyed what was their lot in the peace offering. As a feast, and not a lugubrious fast, it surely was intended to indicate their personal joy and satisfaction in the reconciliation they were instrumental in bringing about. Luke 15 presents the joy of the Godhead and of the angels over returning penitents. It is this spirit we should cultivate. It will require, of course, much personal dealing with souls, but it is worth all the trouble to be instrumental in leading them to peace with God, and to the joy that results therefrom. - R.M.E.

---

---

KJV: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

WEB: Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,