And first, the expression, "if a soul sin through ignorance," which occurs in the former, is omitted in the latter. The reason of this is obvious. The claims which stand connected with the holy things of the Lord must pass infinitely beyond the reach of the most elevated human sensibility. Those claims may be continually interfered with—continually trespassed upon, and the trespasser not be aware of the fact. Man's consciousness can never be the regulator in the sanctuary of God. This is an unspeakable mercy. God's holiness alone must fix the standard when God's rights are in question.
On the other hand, the human conscience can readily grasp the full amount of a human claim, and can readily take cognizance of any interference with such claim. How often may we have wronged God, in His holy things, without ever taking a note of it in the tablet of conscience—yea, without having the competency to detect it. (See Mal. iii. 8.) Not so, however, when man's rights are in question. The wrong which the human eye can see, and the human heart feel, the human conscience can take notice of. A man, "through ignorance" of the laws which governed the sanctuary of old, might commit a trespass against those laws without being aware of it, until a higher light had shone in upon his conscience; but a man could not "through ignorance" tell a lie, swear falsely, commit an act of violence, deceive his neighbor, or find a lost thing and deny it. These were all plain and palpable acts, lying within the range of the most sluggish sensibility. Hence it is that the expression, "through ignorance" is introduced in reference to "the holy things of the Lord," and omitted in reference to the common affairs of men. How blessed it is to know that the precious blood of Christ has settled all questions, whether with respect to God or man—our sins of ignorance or our known sins! Here lies the deep and settled foundation of the believer's peace. The cross has divinely met ALL.
Again, when it was a question of trespass "in the holy things of the Lord," the unblemished sacrifice was first introduced; and afterward, "the principal" and "the fifth." This order was reversed when it was a question of the common affairs of life. (Comp. chap. v. 15, 16 with chap. vi. 4-7.) The reason of this is equally obvious. When the divine rights were infringed, the blood of atonement was made the great prominent matter; whereas when human rights were interfered with, restitution would naturally assume the leading place in the mind. But inasmuch as the latter involved the question of the soul's relation with God as well as the former, therefore the sacrifice is introduced, though it be last in order. If I wrong my fellow-man, that wrong will undoubtedly interfere with my communion with God; and that communion can only be restored on the ground of atonement. Mere restitution would not avail; it might satisfy the injured man, but it could not form the basis of restored communion with God. I might restore "the principal" and add "the fifth" ten thousand times over, and yet my sin remain, for "without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. ix. 22.) Still, if it be a question of injury done to my neighbor, then restitution must first be made.—"If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." (Matt. v. 23, 24.)[18]
There is far more involved in the divine order prescribed in the trespass-offering than might at first sight appear. The claims which arise out of our human relations must not be disregarded; they must ever get their proper place in the heart. This is distinctly taught in the trespass-offering. When an Israelite had, by an act of trespass, deranged his relation with Jehovah, the order was, sacrifice and restitution: when he had, by an act of trespass, deranged his relation with his neighbor, the order was, restitution and sacrifice. Will any one undertake to say this is a distinction without a difference? Does the change of the order not convey its own appropriate, because divinely appointed, lesson? Unquestionably. Every point is pregnant with meaning, if we will but allow the Holy Ghost to convey that meaning to our hearts, and not seek to grasp it by the aid of our poor vain imaginings. Each offering conveys its own characteristic view of the Lord Jesus and His work, and each is presented in its own characteristic order; and, we may safely say, it is at once the business and the delight of the spiritual mind to apprehend both the one and the other. The very same character of mind which would seek to make nothing of the peculiar order of each offering, would also set aside the idea of a peculiar phase of Christ in each. It would deny the existence of any difference between the burnt-offering and the sin-offering, and between the sin-offering and the trespass-offering, and between any or all of these and the meat-offering or the peace-offering. Hence, it would follow that the first seven chapters of the book of Leviticus are all a vain repetition, each successive chapter going over the same thing. Who could cede aught so monstrous as this? What Christian mind could suffer such an insult to be offered to the sacred page? A German rationalist or neologian may put forth such vain and detestable notions, but those who have been divinely taught that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," will be led to regard the various types, in their specific order, as so many variously-shaped caskets, in which the Holy Ghost has treasured up, for the people of God, "the unsearchable riches of Christ." There is no tedious repetition, no redundancy. All is rich, divine, heavenly variety; and all we need is to be personally acquainted with the great Antitype, in order to enter into the beauties and seize the delicate touches of each type. Directly the heart lays hold of the fact that it is Christ we have in each type, it can hang with spiritual interest over the most minute details, it sees meaning and beauty in every thing, it finds Christ in all. As, in the kingdom of nature, the telescope and the microscope present to the eye their own special wonders, so with the Word of God; whether we look at it as a whole, or scrutinize each clause, we find that which elicits the worship and thanksgiving of our hearts.
Christian reader, may the name of the Lord Jesus ever be more precious to our hearts! Then shall we value every thing that speaks of Him—every thing that sets Him forth—every thing affording a fresh insight into His peculiar excellency and matchless beauty.
Note.—The remainder of chapter vi, together with the whole of chapter vii, is occupied with the law of the various offerings, to which reference has already been made. There are, however, some points presented in the law of the sin-offering and the trespass-offering which may be noticed ere we leave this copious section of our book.
In none of the offerings is Christ's personal holiness more strikingly presented than in the sin-offering. "Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin-offering: In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy.... Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy.... All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy." (Chap. vi. 25-29.) So also in speaking of the meat-offering, "It is most holy, as is the sin-offering, and as the trespass-offering." This is most marked and striking. The Holy Ghost did not need to guard with such jealousy the personal holiness of Christ in the burnt-offering; but lest the soul should, by any means, lose sight of that holiness while contemplating the place which the blessed One took in the sin-offering, we are again and again reminded of it by the words, "It is most holy." Truly edifying and refreshing it is to behold the divine and essential holiness of the Person of Christ shining forth in the midst of Calvary's profound and awful gloom. The same point is observable "in the law of the trespass-offering." (See chap. vii. 1, 6.) Never was the Lord Jesus more fully seen to be "the Holy One of God" than when He was "made sin" upon the cursed tree. The vileness and blackness of that with which He stood identified on the cross, only served to show out more clearly that He was "most holy." Though a sin-bearer, He was sinless; though enduring the wrath of God, He was the Father's delight; though deprived of the light of God's countenance, He dwelt in the Father's bosom. Precious mystery! Who can sound its mighty depths? How wonderful to find it so accurately shadowed forth in "the law of the sin-offering"!
Again, my reader should seek to apprehend the meaning of the expression, "All the males among the priests shall eat thereof." The ceremonial act of eating the sin-offering or the trespass-offering was expressive of full identification; but to eat the sin-offering—to make another's sin one's own, demanded a higher degree of priestly energy, such as was expressed in "the males among the priests." "And the Lord spake unto Aaron, 'Behold, I also have given thee the charge of Mine heave-offerings of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel; unto thee have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to thy sons, by an ordinance forever. This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of theirs, every meat-offering of theirs, and every sin-offering of theirs, and every trespass-offering of theirs, which they shall render unto Me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons. In the most holy place shalt thou eat it; every male shall eat it: it shall be holy unto thee. And this is thine; the heave-offering of their gift, with all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel: I have given them unto thee, and to thy sons and to thy daughters with thee, by a statute forever: every one that is clean in thy house shall eat of it." (Numb. xviii. 8-11.)
It demanded a larger measure of priestly energy to eat of the sin or trespass-offering than merely to partake of the heave and wave-offerings of gift. The "daughters" of Aaron could eat of the latter: none but the "sons" could eat of the former. In general, "the male" expresses a thing according to the divine idea; "the female," according to human development. The former gives you the thing in full energy; the latter, in its imperfections. How few of us have sufficient priestly energy to enable us to make another's sin or trespass our own! The blessed Lord Jesus did this perfectly. He made His people's sins His own, and bore the judgment thereof, on the cross. He fully identified Himself with us, so that we may know, in full and blessed certainty, that the whole question of sin and trespass has been divinely settled. If Christ's identification was perfect, then the settlement was perfect likewise; and that it was perfect, the scene enacted at Calvary declares. All is accomplished. The sin, the trespasses, the claims of God, the claims of man—all have been eternally settled; and now, perfect peace is the portion of all who, by grace, accept as true the record of God. It is as simple as God could make it, and the soul that believes it is made happy. The peace and happiness of the believer depend wholly upon the perfection of Christ's sacrifice. It is not a question of his mode of receiving it, his thoughts about it, or his feelings respecting it; it is simply a question of his crediting, by faith, the testimony of God as to the value of the sacrifice. The Lord be praised for His own simple and perfect way of peace! May many troubled souls be led by the Holy Spirit into an understanding thereof?