Leviticus 4

Chap. IV. Ver. 1-35. Sin-offering of ignorance.—‘The sin-offering (says Scott) seem to have been appointed for such violations of express prohibitions, when ignorantly and heedlessly fallen into, (especially in those things which relate to the worship of God,) as if committed presumptuously, were punishable with death.”’ So the Hebrew Doctors. It is a popular notion, that ignorance wholly excuses sin; but an important distinction should here be made between that ignorance which arises from the total want of means of information, and that which arises from the neglect of those means; the one is unavoidable, the other culpable. If we have the means of knowing the divine will, and neglect to employ them, we have no excuse.

If the Bible be put into the hands of any man who cannot read, nor has any means of learning, he is an object of pity rather than blame; but if he can read, or has the means of learning, but neglects or despises them, then is his ignorance inexcusable. This distinction applies particularly to the case of the Israelites. At this early period few could read, and fewer still could have access to the tablets of the law: this, therefore, was a merciful provision in favour of those who wished to know and to do the will of God, but whose means of information were scanty and precarious. The sins for which these sacrifices were appointed are all supposed to be overt acts, for it were endless to have sacrifices for every sinful thought; and they included sins of omission and commission, both which are chargeable upon us all; for we have “done that which we ought not to have done, and left undone that which we ought to have done; and there is no health in us.” These offerings are also adapted to the different classes of offenders.

The high priest (supposed to be meant by the priest that was anointed) was to offer a bullock, the same as for the whole congregation: for “the priest’s lips should keep [preserve] knowledge,” (Malachi ii. 7.) and, therefore, his ignorance was more culpable than that of a ruler, or any other individual, from whom only a kid or lamb was required. This establishes the important fact, that our guilt is in proportion to our means of knowledge. The inspired author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in referring to this chapter, more than once directs us to the “Great Apostle and High Priest of our profession, who needed not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” “He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners;” neither was that necessary, for he “offered up himself once for all,” when “he suffered without the gate.” ((Hebrews 7:26-27); xiii. 12.) The acts of religious worship, or some transgression of the letter of the law,

Notes on the verses

Chap. IV, Ver. 1. If a soul sin.—The word soul is here, as frequently, used for person. See ver. 27.

Ver. 6. Seven times.—“The number seven is what is called a number of perfection among the Hebrews; and is often used to denote the completion, fulness, or perfection of a thing. It was much esteemed even among the heathen, and deemed the most efficacious in religious actions. Thus Apuleius speaks of dipping the head seven times in the sea for purification; because the divine Pythagoras taught this to be above all others the most proper in religion.”—Bagster.

Ver. 11. And the skin.—“The skin and the flesh of the sin-offerings in general, were the perquisites of the priests, ((Leviticus 7:7-8); x. 16, 17;) but when the high-priest offered for himself, or for the congregation, the whole was [burnt].”

Ver. 12. Without the camp.—Heb. to without the camp.—This was intended, figuratively, to express the sinfulness of this sin, and the availableness of the atonement. The sacrifice, as having the sin of the priest transferred from himself to it, by his confession and imposition of hands, was become unclean and abominable, and was carried, as it were, out of God’s sight: and thus its own offensiveness was removed, with the sin of the person in whose behalf it was offered. (Compare ch. xiii. 46.)—Bagster. Which arose out of the circumstances in which they were then found, in (1 Samuel 14:32). The sacrifices and rites in this case, as in the case mentioned [above], were the same as in the preceding; only here the elders laid their hands on the head of the victim, in the name of all the congregation.—Bagster.

Ver. 18. Pour the blood.—The reason for pouring out the blood, which is so constantly and strictly required by the law, was, according to Maimonides, in opposition to an idolatrous custom of the ancient Zabii, who were accustomed to eat of the blood of their sacrifices, because they imagined this to be the food of their gods, with whom they thought they had such communion, by eating their meat, that they revealed to them future things.—Bagster.

Ver. 22. Ruler hath sinned.—Under the term nasi, that is, one preferred or elevated above others, from nasa, to exalt, it is probable that any person is meant who held any kind of political dignity among the people; and it evidently means the head of a tribe in ((Numbers 1:4, 16); vii. 2; xxxiv. 18). But the Rabbins generally understand it of the prince of the great sanhedrin, who, when they were under the regal form of government, was the king. A kid of the goats was the sacrifice in this case; and the rites were nearly the same as in the preceding,