[11] There is this difference between the offering for "a ruler" and for "one of the common people:" in the former, it was "a male without blemish;" in the latter, "a female without blemish." The sin of a ruler would necessarily exert a wider influence than that of a common person, and therefore a more powerful application of the value of the blood was needed. In chapter v. 13, we find cases demanding a still lower application of the sin-offering—cases of swearing, and of touching any uncleanness, in which "the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour" was admitted as a sin-offering. (See chap. v. 11-13.) What a contrast between the view of atonement presented by a ruler's bullock and a poor man's handful of flour! And yet, in the latter, just as truly as in the former, we read, "It shall be forgiven him."
The reader will observe that chapter v. 1-13 forms a part of chapter iv. Both are comprehended under one head, and present the doctrine of the sin-offering in all its applications, from the bullock to the handful of flour. Each class of offering is introduced by the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses." Thus, for example, the sweet savor offerings (chap. i.-iii.) are introduced by the words, "The Lord called unto Moses." These words are not repeated until chapter iv. 1, where they introduce the sin-offering. They occur again at chapter v. 14, where they introduce the trespass-offering for wrongs done "in the holy things of the Lord;" and again at chapter vi. 1, where they introduce the trespass-offering for wrongs done to one's neighbor.
This classification is beautifully simple, and will help the reader to understand the different classes of offering. As to the different grades in each class, whether "a bullock," "a ram," "a female," "a bird," or "a handful of flour," they would seem to be so many varied applications of the same grand truth.
[12] I would desire it to be particularly remembered that the point before us in the text is simply atonement. The Christian reader is fully aware, I doubt not, that the possession of "the divine nature" is essential to fellowship with God. I not only need a title to approach God, but a nature to enjoy Him. The soul that "believes in the name of the only begotten Son of God" has both the one and the other. (See John i. 12, 13; iii. 36; v. 24; xx. 31; 1 John v. 11-13.)
[13] Some may find difficulty in the fact that the word "voluntary" has reference to the worshiper and not to the sacrifice; but this can in no wise affect the doctrine put forward in the text, which is founded upon the fact that a special word used in the burnt-offering is omitted in the sin-offering. The contrast holds good whether we think of the offerer or the offering.
[14] The statement in the text refers only to the sin-offerings of which the blood was brought into the holy place. There were sin-offerings of which Aaron and his sons partook. (See Lev. vi. 26, 29; Numb. xviii. 9, 10.)
[15] We have a singularly beautiful example of the divine accuracy of Scripture in 2 Cor. v. 21.—"He hath made Him to be sin [αμαρτιαν εποιησεν] for us, that we might become [γινωμεθα] the righteousness of God in Him." The English reader might suppose that the word which is rendered "made" is the same in each clause of the passage. This is not the case.
[16] The epistle to the Ephesians furnishes the most elevated view of the Church's place above, and gives it to us, not merely as to the title, but also as to the mode. The title is assuredly the blood; but the mode is thus stated: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph. ii. 4-6.)
[17] There is a fine principle involved in the expression, "against the Lord." Although the matter in question was a wrong done to one's neighbor, yet the Lord looked upon it as a trespass against Himself. Every thing must be viewed in reference to the Lord. It matters not who may be affected, Jehovah must get the first place. Thus, when David's conscience was pierced by the arrow of conviction, in reference to his treatment of Uriah, he exclaims, "I have sinned against the Lord." (2 Sam. xii. 13.) This principle does not in the least interfere with the injured man's claim.
[18] From a comparison of Matt. v. 23, 24 with Matt. xviii. 21, 22, we may learn a fine principle as to the way in which wrongs and injuries are to be settled between two brothers. The injurer is sent back from the altar, in order to have his matters set straight with the injured one; for there can be no communion with the Father so long as my brother "hath aught against me." But then, mark the beauteous way in which the injured one is taught to receive the injurer.—"'Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?' Jesus saith unto him, 'I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.'" Such is the divine mode of settling all questions between brethren. "Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." (Col. iii. 13.)