fice of the peace-offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: kand or bodies of this and the foregoing Sinoffering of the rulers, they were not, like those of the high priest and the congregation, burnt without the camp, but were eaten by the priests, as directed, Lev. 6. 26-30. REMARKS. (2.) Sins of ignorance, though of less guilt than sins of pre. sumption, do as really need the blood of atonement, and as truly form the matter of repentance, as any others. (2.) From the fact that greater sacri fices and more burdensome rites were appointed for the priest and the prince than for private persons, it is evident that the sins of some men are of a more heinous character, more scandalous and pernicious, than those of others. Per. sons occupying a public station, which makes them conspicuous, cannot sin with impunity, however it may be with others. (13.) As there might be among the people of Israel a sin of the whole congregation, so at the present time there may be a sin of the whole nation, which needs, as it were, a national atonement. (28.) 'If his sin come to his know. ledge.' Whenever conscience charges upon us former sins committed, whether against God or man, we are bound to make restitution, though years may have elapsed since the event occurred. CHAPTER V. THE TRESPASS-OFFERING. The original word for Trespass-offering is DUN âshâm, from a root of the same letters UN âsham, to fail in duty, to transgress, to be guilty, or, as it is for the most rendered in our version to trespass. The leading idea is plainly that of guilt, and it is extensively admitted by lexicographers that the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. ich. 3. 5. k ver 26, 31. the degree of guilt denoted by the term is greater than that denoted by the word 'hâtâ, to sin, from which comes the appropriate term for sin-offerings. אשמך אשר חטא) The Trespass-offerings, as we have already remarked, so greatly resembled the Sin-offerings, that it is by no means. easy to distinguish between them. The occasions on which they were offered were much the same, and the ceremo nies much the same also. Indeed, we sometimes have the same oblations called interchangeably Sin-offerings and Trespass-offerings, as particularly Lev. 5. 6-8: 'And he shall bring his trespass-offering (MDN ashâmo) unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, (N TONUM by al 'hattâtho asher 'hâta) a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin-offering. And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass which he hath committed (ND N ashâmo asher 'hâtâ) two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; one for a sin-offering (3 lehat tûth) and the other for a burnt-offering.' Here it is observable that the offence committed is called indifferently a sin and a trespass, and the sacrifice offered, a trespass-offering and a sin-offering. Notwithstanding this there were marked points of difference between the two. Sin-offerings were sometimes offered for the whole congregation; Trespass-offerings never but for particular persons. Bullocks were sometimes used for Sinofferings, never for Trespass-offerings. The blood of the Sin-offering was put on the horns of the altar; that of the Trespass-offering was only sprinkled round about the bottom of the altar. Still we are left in ignorance of the precise nature of the distinction, or for what reasons the law in one case pre be expiated by the Trespass-offering were of this character. Indeed, Outram, whose authority on this subject is per haps of more weight than that of any other writer, observes that in all cases where the DX âshâm was required, there was some wrong or injury done to a neighbor, except in the case of the Nazarite defiled by the dead, Num. 6. 12, and of the leper, Lev. 14. 12. Still we cannot positively affirm that this is the designed import of the term, and are obliged therefore to leave the matter enveloped more or less in that cloud of obscurity which, as we have already remarked in the introduction to the preceding chapter, rests upon the distinction between the Sin and the Trespass-offering. Thus much however is clear, that the class of offences for which the Trespass-offering was to be brought included those which, though not amounting to wilful and presumptuous acts, were yet usually committed against knowledge, and were therefore of a higher grade of guilt than the sins of mere ignorance and infirmity which were contemplated by the Sin-offerings. Several such are mentioned in the commencement of this chapter, viz. the concealing of any part of the truth by a witness properly adjured; the touching scribed one, and in another the other. | that most of the offences which were to Lightfoot, guided by rabbinical authority, makes the difference to consist in this, that both indeed were offered for the same sort of transgressions, but the DEN âshâm, or trespass-offering was to be offered when it was doubtful whether a person had transgressed or not; as for instance, suppose that he had eaten fat, and was afterwards in doubt whether it was the fat belonging to the muscular flesh, which was lawful to be eaten, or the fat of the inwards, which was unlawful; then he was to offer an Dux âshẩm. But if it were certain, and he knew that he had trespassed, he inust offer the 'hattââh, or sin-of fering. Maimonides is of opinion that the offences for which the DLX âshậm was offered were inferior to those for which the 'hattâûh was offered. Bochart, on the other hand, and we think with much better reason, holds that the offences expiated by DEN âshâm were more grievous than those expiated by a 'hattââh. Aben Ezra makes DM 'hattââh to signify a sacrifice offered for purging offences committed through ignorance of the law; DUN âshâm for such as were committed through forgetfulness of it. Others again make the difference to be, that the 'hattââh was for offences proved by witnesses; the DWN âshâm | any unclean person or thing; and the for secret faults known to others only by the offender's confession. But against all these hypotheses very specious objections may be urged, and it is therefore to the following that we are disposed to give the preference. טאה swearing rashly that he would do what might be sinful, or what he might not be able to perform. In all these cases a female lamb or kid was to be offered, and confession made of guilt. The ceremonies of oblation were precisely the same as those of the Sin-offering, except that the blood, instead of being put upon the horns of the altar, was to It is contended, and we think upon very plausible grounds, by several distinguished critics, that the class of offences to which the word DN âshâm | be sprinkled round about the altar. If is applied, although ultimately committed against God, were yet always, or generally, such as involved an injury towards one's neighbor; and in this sense they affirm that our English word trespass is its most suitable representative. It is certain, as a matter of fact, the offender was too poor to give a lamb, he was to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, the one for this particular sin which burdened his conscience, the other for a burnt-offering for his sins in general; making expiation first for that in which he had more immediately offended. If even this was beyond his means, the tenth part of an ephah of flour, or about five pints, might be substituted. forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.' On the general subject of the Sin and Trespass-offerings we may remark, that while the purpose and design of these various ceremonies have been disclosed so far as they can convey moral or spiritual knowledge to our minds, there is doubtless much in the external forms that must be referred to the sove Another class of offences to which this offering had reference, was that in which some trespass was committed ignorantly or undesignedly against the holy things of the Lord, Lev. 5. 15 compared with Lev. 22. These were things dedicated to the Lord under the cere-reign will of God. No other satisfacmonial law, or prescribed or prohibited tory reason can be assigned for the by its rules, and were very numerous. requirement in certain cases of one of Thus if one had unwittingly kept back these species of offerings rather than any of the required offerings, or had another, than that it was the divine eaten within his private gates the tithes pleasure so to have it. In the ordi that belonged to the priests, or had nances before us it is clear, that the failed to sanctify the firstlings of the wilful sins for which a ram was the males; in these cases he was to bring largest offering required, were greater as a Trespass-offering a ram without than those infirmities for which a bul. blemish. But besides this, he was to lock was demanded. If the atonement make restitution, with the addition of had really lain in the type, this would the fifth part, according to the estimate have borne almost an appearance of informed by the priest. Nay, if he even justice. But as it was no doubt intendonly suspected that he had offended in ed by every kind of expiation to fix the any of these holy things, he was to attention upon the Great Atonement bring the ram as a Trespass-offering, thereafter to be made for all sin, the and to pay the estimated value, but intrinsic value of the particular offering without the addition of the twenty per was a matter of comparatively little importance. Indeed it is very conceiv A third class of offences were those able, as we have already remarked, of a somewhat deeper dye-certain that a sacrifice of less value may have open and wilful injuries and violatioas been ordained for sins of greater enor of law, such as thefts, violence, false-mity with the express purpose of conswearing, deceit and fraud. If a soul veying the intimation that the atoning sin and commit a trespass against the virtue was not in the sacrificè, but in Lord, and lie against his neighbor, &c.' the better blood which was to be shed Thus if one denied what had been com- at a future day on Calvary. Compared mitted to his trust, or dealt fraudulently with this every typical prefiguration, in even the most costly that could be devised fell so infinitely short in value, that it might have been a special aim of divine wisdom to ordain a less in cent. any concern of partnership, or took any thing away by open violence, or secretly deceived his neighbor to his loss, or denied having found that which was lost; in all these cases the delin-order the more forcibly to impress upquent must bring a ram for a Trespass on the mind the intrinsic inefficacy of offering, and must pay the value, esti- a greater. mated by the priest, of the injury done, But while it was not especially imwith the addition of the fifth part there-portant for the worshipper to know why of. Doing thus, it was said that the one animal was chosen to expiate one priest should make an atonement for sin, and another another, it was importhim before the Lord, and it should be ant for him to know that for every par CHAPTER V. AND if a soul sin, aand hear the voice of swearing, and is a a 1 Kings 8. 31. Matt. 26. 63. ticular sin there was a remedy provided; so that no man need incur the divine wrath, either by reason of his most secret faults or his most flagrant violations of the law. This is the very essence of gospel truth. No sin, not even the smallest or most unintentional, could be forgiven without a sacrifice. But no man need await the judicial punishment. As soon as he knew his fault, or suspected it, he had his reme dy. He knew what he was to do. If he did it not the condemnation that ensued was self-procured. It was not the fault of the law, nor the fault of the judge, nor the fault even of his own natural weakness or infirmity, if the evil he had committed was not forgiven him. This is the gospel. Whatever men may think of their natural condition as an extenuation of their sins; however they may venture to impugn the justice that assures their punishment ; this at least cannot be gain. sayed the remedy is provided; the atonement is made known; the mode of making it personably available is clearly stated; it is efficacious for every sin; it is within the reach of every sinner. Christ by his one oblation has made satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. If any man chooses to abide the consequences of his transgressions, rather than seek forgiveness in the way prescribed, the condemnation is his own deliberate choice. Various offences of Infirmity or Inadvertence for which the Trespass-offering was prescribed. Į —In concealing Knowledge. 1. And hear the voice of swearing. Heb. x bp 07 veshâmeûh kol âlâh, and hear the voice of adjuration, execration, or oath. That is, when one witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. b ver. 17. ch. 7. 18, and 17. 16, and 19. 8, and 20. 17. Numb. 9. 13. is adjured or put upon his oath as a witness of any fact which is brought into legal question. The precept does not, it would seem, relate to the duty of informing against a common profane swearer, but to the case of one who is summoned to give evidence before the civil magistrate. Judges, among the Jews, had power to adjure not only the witnesses, but the person suspected (contrary to the criminal jurisprudence of modern times, which requires no man to accuse himself), as appears from the high priest's adjuring our Savior, who thereupon answered, though he had before been silent, Mat. 26. 63, 64. So the apostle says, 1 Thess. 5. 27, 'I charge (adjure) you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.' Now if a person heard the voice of swearing,' i. e. if he were adjured by an oath of the Lord to testify what he knew in relation to any matter of fact in question, and yet through fear or favor refused to give evidence, or gave it but in part, he was to hear his iniquity;' i. e. to bear the punishment of his iniquity, if he repented not and brought not the appointed sacrifices It seems to be implied that such an one should be considered in the sight of God as guilty of the transgression which he has endeavored to conceal, as may be inferred from Prov. 29. 24, Whoso is partner with a thief, hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing and bewrayeth it not ;' i. e. he hears the words of the magistrate adjuring him, and binding his soul under the penalty of a 'curse' to declare the whole truth, yet he 'bewrayeth,' or uttereth it not; he persists in wickedly stifling his evidence and concealing the facts; surely such an one is a partner' with the culprit, and by exposing himself to the consequences of thus withholding the truth, may be of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. 4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips fto do evil, or gto do good, whatsoever it be that a man f See 1 Sam. 25. 22. Acts 23. 12. & See Mark 6. 23. a mere continuation of the conditional 2.—In touching an unclean Thing. known of it. That is, whether it be a clean water, and were considered as matter which has come under his own unclean until evening, Lev. 11. 8, 24. 31. personal knowledge, or which he has -¶ If it be hidden from him. That learnt from the information of others. is, if he be not aware of the uncleanness The spirit of the precept seems to re- which he has contracted, and goes on quire a voluntary rendering of testimony to do those things which he would not when it was known that information be at liberty to do, provided he were was sought, as well as a true and faith-conscious of his defilement, such as enful declaration when summoned by le-tering the tabernacle or eating of holy gal process.¶ He shall bear his ini things, then when he comes to be acquity. Heb. 777 XW17 venâsâ avono. quainted with the fact he shall look The whole clause may perhaps be rendered, 'If he do not utter it, and upon himself as unclean,' just as if he knowingly touched the unclean thing, shall bear his iniquity,' i. e. shall con- and consequently excluded from divine sequently remain subject to the wrath of God, and liable to condign punish appointed v. 6. worship till he had offered the sacrifice ment; implying that this is a part of the sinful condition embraced under the hypothetic particle if,' which is not an improbable sense. And so in respect to the final clause of the three ensuing verses, we may regard it as 3.-In touching an unclean Person. 3. Or if he touch the uncleanness, &c. These different kinds of uncleanness are afterwards specified in detail, Lev. 11-15, where see Notes. |