THE SIN-OFFERING
THE SIN-OFFERING
JT It helps to arrive at a right thought of the offerings by noting the references made to the officiating priest, or priests. It will be observed in this offering the priests are not alluded to as Aaron’s sons, as in the other offerings. It is here “the priest that is anointed” The priesthood is more official. We are dealing with a matter that refers directly to God’s holy nature. It has reference to God’s nature and His rights. It is not a question simply of Christian privilege, which is covered by the expression, “Aaron’s sons the priests”; but rather of responsibility as dealing with sin. It is not so much privilege as a serious responsibility.
Another thing is, that the priest eats it. According to the law it is said, “The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it”, Leviticus 6:26. Although it is a fact that “All the males among the priests shall eat thereof” (Leviticus 6:29) yet it is said, the priest that offereth it is to eat thereof.
JS What does that involve?
JT I think it suggests the person who especially feels the sin on the Lord’s account; he judges the thing in himself. As we get in Galatians, “If even a man be taken in some fault, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted”, Galatians 6:1. You have to consider yourself in self-judgment.
ANW Nehemiah and Ezra were samples of that, were they not?
JT I think so; you are referring to their confessions.
GWW What is contemplated in this section of Scripture is that communion has been interrupted by sin.
JT “If the priest that is anointed do sin”.
[p. 137] It begins with him. Necessarily all is affected if he is affected. Then, following upon that we find, “If the whole assembly of Israel sin”, verse 13; then, “When a prince sinneth”, verse 22; then, “If any one of the people of the land sin”, verse 27. So it is a question, not of a sinner who does not know God, but people who are in relation with God are contemplated. Sin has intervened, and so communion is interrupted.
GWW It has often been taken up in connection with a sinner; that is to say, what one might speak of as the first dealings of God with a sinner, but that is not what is contemplated here.
JT The congregation is already viewed in relation with God, and it is a sin through ignorance that is in view. It is not a provision for wilful sin, but for a sin through ignorance; therefore it applies to Christians in the various sects now. They are not aware of the evil of their associations. God graciously regards Christians under these circumstances as sinning ignorantly. Wilful sin or apostasy is not forgiven.
GWW The sin of ignorance has really come home to the soul, because communion is interfered with; and the question is raised as to what has obscured or destroyed communion. Then there is self-judgment. The eating of the sin-offering is a very serious thing.
JT Hence the Lord graciously raises up ministry that leads to conviction in the hearts and consciences of the people of God. Although they may have been ignorant of the sin, God has taken account of it, and for recovery there must be judgment of the sin.
GWW The sense of loss of communion becomes a serious exercise for the believer’s soul; he feels that something has come in between his soul and God which must be judged.
BTF While this deals primarily with the case [p. 138] of a believer who has sinned, do we not get here also the great principles which mark God’s dealings with sin, as proclaimed in the gospel?
JT Yes. Only that we do not get here the blood brought in and put on the mercy-seat as on the day of atonement, as in chapter 16. In this chapter it is not God placing Himself as the centre of the universe, putting Himself in relation to the universe in righteousness. It is not so great as that here. The blood is not taken beyond the altar of sweet incense in this chapter; but in chapter 16 the blood is taken within the veil and sprinkled upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat. That refers not only to the congregation in relation to God, but God’s majesty having been offended He has to be vindicated in regard to the whole realm of creation. Everything for God and men is necessarily founded on what took place typically on that great day.
It is well to notice that in the last two instances mentioned in this chapter, namely, the ruler and one of the common people, the blood is not brought into the holy place, not even to the golden altar. It is simply put upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and the blood poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering. Whereas some of the blood of the offering of the priest, and of the whole congregation, is put upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense. It is evidently a question of restoration of communion between God and His people first as a whole. Then the priestly relation having been restored we have the case of the ruler and the common person, which represent certain individual states amongst God’s people; but the communion of the people in general is not interrupted, although, no doubt, it is hindered. All is adjusted on the ground of blood-shedding, communion having been interrupted.
Ques Is this on the line [p. 139] of intercession l It is brought about by the intercession of Christ. But the recovery of the priest, or priestly state, makes way for the intercession of the saints, too. The way of intercession is thus opened up again through access to God. The hierarchal system in Christendom denies all that. It denies the priestly place of all the saints. God desires that this should be re-established.
GWW All the classes contemplated here are what every believer is called to. It is not the idea that one is a ruler, another a common person, another a priest; but every believer may not have taken up his place in connection with priesthood. If he has, his failure is much more serious. The blood is carried much further than in the case of one who is only regarded as one of the common people. In Leviticus 16 we have the establishment of relations between God and the people and all things; but here in this chapter what we have is God’s gracious provision for the maintenance of those relationships in restoration if sin has come in.
Ques Why should the offering be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation? Why is the place so definitely pointed out?
JT It is the public place. The judgment of sin must be open. This holds good when evil has to be dealt with amongst God’s people now. “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”, 1 Corinthians 5:13. That is in keeping with the thought of the door of the tabernacle. It is a public action.
GWW The door corresponds with what we get in connection with the gate, the place where the principles of the city are administered.
JT The gate of the city is a public place, the place of concourse. As in Proverbs, where wisdom crieth, “Beside the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors, she crieth aloud”, Proverbs 8:3. The door of the tabernacle is a public [p. 140] place; a place of administration, corresponding with the gates of the city.
WB The brazen altar was there, where God dealt with sin. It was public. When coming back to God we pass the brazen altar.
JT Sin has to be dealt with and that publicly. Of course we deal with things in secret with God. It is not always necessary to expose sin. “For love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8) but when the evil is such as to affect the glory of God, the holiness of His house, as at Corinth, and as has occurred since, alas! it is obvious that things have to be dealt with publicly, so that all may know it has been judged. The people of God are marked by the judgment of sin. They are not hypocritical; they judge sin according to God.
Rem Open and public confession.
JT “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”, 1 Corinthians 5:13. That is what the apostle said; it was to be a public act. That man was no longer regarded as in the fellowship of God’s assembly.
BTF Is not this in line with, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us [our] sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”, 1 John 1:9.
JT That is true individually; but in speaking of the door, the public place, it refers to what is due to God in the assembly, in the light of which His people seek to walk.
ANW Is the burning of the bullock outside the camp a still further public act?
JT It shows what God thinks of sin. It is actually taken outside and burnt; but it is said, “unto a clean place”.
PHP The sin at Corinth was not one of ignorance, it was wilful.
JT In one sense every sin is wilful. Sin is [p. 141] the action of the will, but it may not be deliberate. Wilful sin is dealt with in the epistle to the Hebrews. “For where we sin wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains any sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26) there is no more provision made. In the types we find that for the man who gathered sticks upon the sabbath day there was no forgiveness, Numbers 15:32 - 36. But while at Corinth the sin was wilful the man was not beyond recovery. Every sin is the action of the will in some sense; but wilful sin as seen in Scripture is unpardonable.
GWW That is not contemplated in this chapter. Here it is that through lack of vigilance the will has worked and sin has come in and communion been interrupted. God’s provision for the removal of all that state of things is thus seen.
JT I think it helps to place it on wider ground than the mere committal of sin by an individual, because it is the communion of God’s people, the whole congregation, that was affected. The instruction begins with the priest. It is not a priest. It is “the priest that is anointed”.
CAM Regarding a sin of ignorance, Peter said, “I know that ye did it in ignorance”, Acts 3:17.
JT The greatest of all sins, the murder of the Lord Jesus, is called a sin of ignorance. It is spoken of in that way to show that pardon was offered to Israel in spite of their sin. Had they humbled themselves, had they responded to the word of Peter, the means were there of bringing the whole nation back to its place in relation to God; but they spurned the offer. The same thing has come to pass in the history of Christendom. The communion of the whole congregation was interrupted, and God has brought in light. And I trust we all have come to see that, in order for any recovery today, I have to judge not only what I may be personally, but all [p. 142] that exists in Christendom. That has to be judged and departed from in order that the believer’s communion with God in the light of the assembly should be resumed.
GWW That is indeed important. The state of Christendom is extremely offensive under the eye of God; but God has brought some souls to judge it, and on the ground of this He is free to enable such to walk in the light of His own purposes.
JT Were it not that God in forbearing grace places things on the ground of ignorance He would necessarily have to come in and act against all on the ground of wilful sin. He would have been justified in acting against Israel on the ground of wilful sin at the beginning of their departure from Him, but His forbearance was so great as to regard even the slaying of Christ as a sin of ignorance, and He made overtures to them on that ground, as we see in Peter’s sermon in Acts 3. Peter said, “I know that ye did it in ignorance”, Acts 3:17. God bears with Christendom on that principle now. If He did not, He would necessarily have to act against it now as sinning wilfully, and so the case would be hopeless. The ground today is that God’s attitude to man is in grace in virtue of the sacrifice of Christ. The principles of God’s house have been violated all over; but God in grace puts it down to ignorance as yet, though judgment from Him will fall on it at the end, when the day of grace is over, but in the meantime some of us through grace have bowed to the fact that there has been sin and that we have had our part in it.
GWW This being so there is an answer to God’s attitude. We have come to a sense that things have been displeasing to God, that there has been sin, which is to be judged and abandoned. In this way only can we be free from it before God.
Ques Can we connect it with what God said to Abraham “I will not destroy [it] for the ten’s sake”, Genesis 18:32. Does God hold back the judgment which is impending when He finds a judgment of the sin in the souls of His people?
JT There will be no judgment until Christendom is openly apostate, and this will not be until the assembly is translated. I think 2 Timothy answers to what we are considering. “Let every one who names the name of [the] Lord withdraw from iniquity”, 2 Timothy 2:19. There is no other way. There must be a complete judgment of the evil, and this is expressed by the believer in withdrawing from it, or rather from those who support and practise it.
Ques What is a wilful sin in the New Testament?
JT The Jews are so regarded as refusing the testimony of Stephen. The Lord says, “Whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in the coming [one]”, Matthew 12:32. The Jews were guilty of that and are so regarded in the New Testament. It is dispensational.
ANW How do you view Stephen’s prayer, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:60) and the Lord’s own words, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do?”, Luke 23:34. What is the difference?
JT Stephen did not say, ‘They know not what they do’ He was, however, in keeping with the dispensation of grace. He was not on Old Testament ground. If it had been the dispensation of the Psalmist, he would have prayed for vengeance. He maintains the spirit of the present dispensation in a wonderful way; but that is not saying it was answered. Stephen said to them, “Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers, yealso”, Acts 7:51. So they are arraigned and convicted before God. They are not regarded as sinning ignorantly any [p. 144] longer.
JS In Saul of Tarsus you have one obtaining forgiveness. He said, “I did it ignorantly, in unbelief”, 1 Timothy 1:13.
JT I do not think the overture is again made to the nation as such, although Paul faithfully presented the truth to the Jew. But Peter’s address was formally to the nation. He calls them ‘the Sons of the prophets’ “Ye are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God appointed to our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. To you first God, having raised up his servant, has sent him, blessing you in turning each one [of you] from your wickedness”, Acts 3:25 - 26.
A remarkable tract was printed many years ago by J.N. Darby, ‘The Notion of a Clergyman Dispensationally the sin against the Holy Ghost’ The statement is true, but it has to be spiritually discerned. The religious leaders of the present day have, in principle, resisted the Holy Spirit, sinned against the Holy Spirit, but God bears with it yet. God in grace is still acting on the ground of sins of ignorance.
GWW There are people who do admit of the wrong and confess it, and God goes on with them.
JT At the same time Christendom has not yet been formally rejected. Its rejection, however, can be and is discerned spiritually.
CAM You would not come to a decision that any certain sin was wilful, would you? You might have great difficulty in deciding as to whether a sin was a wilful one.
JT It taxes our spiritual discernment. The epistle of John is very interesting in that way. It is abstract. He says, “If any one see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for those that do not sin unto death. There is a sin to death: I do not say of that that he should make a request”, 1 John 5:16. Also “Whoever has [p. 145] been begotten of God does not practise sin, because his seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God”, 1 John 3:9. “Begotten of God” is the foundation of what is subjective here. What is begotten of God cannot sin. That is an absolute statement: “he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God”. What is begotten of God by the Spirit cannot sin. That was not said in the Old Testament. What makes the difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament is that the New Testament supplies that which the Old Testament demanded.
BTF Does it mean that you cannot go on sinning?
JT It is absolute. That which is begotten of God by the Spirit is of His nature, and cannot sin. His seed remains in him. He shows there is that here subjectively which corresponds with Christ. That is Christianity in the vital sense of the word.
GWW It is a feature in the groundwork of all true self-judgment.
JT There is that which in virtue of the Spirit answers to God revealed in Christ. It shows what vital Christianity is.
PHP If a wilful sin, is it not a specific act?
JT In Hebrews a wilful sin is seen in a turning away from what had already been acknowledged. It is said there they had “tasted the good word of God, and [the] works of power of [the] age to come”, Hebrews 6:5. In the Old Testament it is seen in the man who gathered sticks on the sabbath day, which was an open disregard of the symbol of the covenant. We who have the Spirit know that what answers to that is done constantly; but we hold to the dispensation in which God is still bearing with things, although He maintains what is due to Himself; but “sins of ignorance” are still provided for.
[p. 146] Ques When we fail, do we call that a sin of ignorance?
GWW We do well to remind ourselves and one another that we need to get rid of the word failure and to say sin, acknowledging that the will has been in motion. The action of the will is what has to be judged if communion is to be restored.
JT That appears here. It is said in verse 3, “If the priest that is anointed sin according to the trespass of the people; then for his sin which he hath sinned shall he present a young bullock without blemish to Jehovah for a sin-offering”. In bringing the bullock he is judging the sin. What does he bring the bullock for? It is not a burnt-offering; it is not a voluntary offering. In the burnt-offering it was “of his own voluntary will” It was a question of worship. Here in every step the offerer takes towards the door of the tabernacle, he is judging sin. The bullock did not sin; he sinned, that is what would come home to his conscience.
BTF Is it possible for a Christian not to sin?
JT Let John answer. He does not say a Christian; but, “Whoever has been begotten of God does not practise sin”, 1 John 3:9. What do abstract statements in Scripture mean? There are many of them. That is one. John says it twice, 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:18. What these abstract statements mean is a most important question.
You have one in Romans 8: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death”, Romans 8:2. The apostle there predicates something definitely of himself. Then he goes on to say, “God having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit”, Romans 8:3 - 4. That was God’s purpose. We do not know who the us may be,
[p. 147] except as Paul says it is those who walk after the Spirit. It is an abstract statement. The us refers to some persons; but it is quite obvious that it does not include all Christians, for all do not walk according to the Spirit. It is brought in abstractly to show what Christianity in its true sense is. The terms of Christianity are used by the world, by the professor, but it is only what is vital, what is a continuation of Christ, that is real Christianity, and God triumphs in Christ.
In view of the breakdown of Israel in the wilderness the righteous requirement of the law is to be fulfilled in those “who do not walk according to flesh, but according to Spirit”, Romans 8:4. The epistle to the Romans shows that Christianity in its vital sense is not a failure. It is the work of the Spirit and therefore a triumph for God in Christ. It is not a question of what this Christian or that Christian is. In all, the walking after the Spirit is a question of measure. In such an one as Paul we see what the power of Christianity as the work of the Spirit is.
Rem The apostle, having such a sense of that in his soul, is enabled to write such an epistle as the one to the Corinthians.
JT He says in 1 Corinthians 5:7, “As ye are unleavened”. This again is abstract. It is not as ye should be unleavened, but “as ye are” That is what they are in Christ. So on the ground of that they are to ‘Purge out the old leaven [the flesh that is still in them], that ye may be a new lump’ .
CAM There are three statements in the epistle of John, to which you referred, which are abstract. “Whoever abides in him, does not sin” (1 John 3:6) and “Whoever has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because his seed abides in him: and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God”, 1 John 3:9. Also, “We know that every one begotten of God does not sin”, [p. 148] 1 John 5:18.
GWW These are remarkable statements, they are abstract.
JT It is said in Romans 8, ‘God, having sent his own Son ... . condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh, but according to Spirit’ And then he goes on to say, referring to the Spirit, “whereby we cry, Abba, Father”, Romans 8:15. That is another statement to show how God secures what He seeks in Christianity. Then at the end of the chapter he says, “we more than conquer through him that has loved us”, Romans 8:37. It is put in that positive way to show what the Spirit can effect. I think Paul and the other apostles were examples of that. He makes a remarkable statement in the epistle to the Corinthians, “For whatever promises of God [there are],in him is the yea, and in him the amen, for glory to God by us”, 2 Corinthians 1:20.
ANW Might we refer to 1 John 1:8? “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us”.
JT That is the believer as he is actually here in the flesh. Note that it is not sins, but sin there, and he also says in chapter 2, “If any one sin, we have a patron with the Father”, 1 John 2:1. James says, “We all often offend”, James 3:2. This refers to conduct. James insists on what Christian conduct should be in spite of the humbling fact that we all offend.
GWW That keeps us in the place of dependence. God never proposes anything to believers without providing ample power in the gift of the Spirit for carrying it out. Failure may and does come in; but God has never proposed anything without supplying ample power for the carrying of it out.
JT God has presented to us in the gospels a perfect walk in Christ, and in the epistles He has presented to us a walk in the power of the Spirit, which is realised in proportion as we in our measure [p. 149] are followers of Christ. Paul was a true follower of Christ.
JS And thus he could say, “Be my imitators, even as I also [am] of Christ”, 1 Corinthians 11:1.
PHP Does it not show the importance of self-judgment going on continually?
JT Yes. We have the judgment of sin as at the brazen altar. We see there what God thinks of sin. The blood in all its infinite efficacy cleanses us from all sin. “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin”, 1 John 1:7. There it is not said all sins but sin. The point is, that although conscious you have sin in you, your conscience is free of it according as you walk in the Spirit, and you thus are free to enjoy what you are in Christ before God.
BTF The pouring out of the blood as we get it in chapter 4:7, would imply deep soul exercise, would it not?
JT I think it shows the fulness of death. Death had to take place in all its reality. We may have thought lightly of the sin; but the blood is poured out where God’s judgment is. Self-judgment according to God is expressed in that.
BTF What is the thought conveyed in the blood sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary?
JT In the first instance we read, “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense which is in the tent of meeting, before Jehovah and he shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting”. Notice the locations are most carefully given to us. The sprinkling of the blood before the veil is to re-establish communion with [p. 150] God in the sanctuary in a general way, we may say. But its being put on the altar of incense is to re-establish access; that is, prayer. So that you can pray again. The distance is gone. You can lift up your heart to God. The blood being poured at the bottom of the altar would signify the public judgment of sin. Not only has the particular sin been dealt with, but the sinner himself has been ended judicially and in a public way.
BTF Is that the blood of atonement?
JT Atonement is Romans 3. That refers more to what was brought inside and put on the mercy-seat. That which is within, in the holiest of all, refers to God’s majesty. That had been offended. Atonement was effected between God and Christ and typified by Aaron going inside with the blood, Leviticus 16. It is now announced in the gospel. Leviticus 16 typifies the great work of atonement. I suppose it is the most profound of all the types. The priest went in once a year, and was alone with God when He dealt with sin. There is a great deal said as to the garments he wore; but that is not found in this chapter.
JC Will you say more about the publicity of this?
JT It is important that sin should be judged publicly where it has compromised God’s rights and His majesty, as, for instance, at Corinth. So in 2 Timothy 2, you are told to purify, and separate yourself; you withdraw yourself from iniquity. That is a public action. You formally separate. The defection in Christendom is what is contemplated in the “great house”.
GWW Many judge the thing secretly to be wrong but go on in it; but the man of God says that he must judge it publicly by separating from it.
PHP Pouring out all the blood would signify the entire judgment of [p. 151] the thing.
JT The blood in total refers to the life gone, the whole man judged.
BTF Then the whole bullock was to be carried forth without the camp.
JT That is in keeping with the publicity of it, and emphasises the abhorrence that God has of sin, also the Christian’s abhorrence of it now that he has come to judge it.
GWW The fat and inwards were to be burnt on the altar of burnt-offering.
JT So it is sacrificial. The offering is Christ. Although there is the testimony to God’s utter abhorrence of sin there is also that which denotes His infinite complacency in Christ as offered as a sacrifice for sin.
GWW It is very humiliating to find I have allowed something in my “inwards” that found no place in Christ.
JT We have in Hebrews 4:12, “For the word of God [is] living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to [the] division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of [the] heart”.
It is to be noted that first it is the priest who is anointed, and then the officiating priest. Obviously he could not officiate for himself because he has lost his priestly character, he is dependent on another. I think the priest being spoken of here as “the priest that is anointed” emphasises the official priesthood. What I mean by official, is that which God regards as such. Applying it to Christians it would be one who has the Spirit. It occurred to me yesterday in regard to fellowship, that many of us are apt to assume that because we are converted we are qualified for fellowship; but the question is, Have you the Spirit? That question lies at the basis of assembly fellowship. When Paul went to Ephesus he asked the question, “Did ye receive [[p. 152] the] Holy Spirit when ye had believed?”, Acts 19:2 This is significant in many respects, especially because Ephesus is treated as in a way representing the whole assembly. One who has the Spirit has certain spiritual instincts, and in coming in touch with the Lord’s people he forms links with them. He does not assert his title to break bread; but on account of the spiritual instincts he possesses he forms spiritual links with the saints. The “priest who is anointed” (typically speaking) has the Spirit and it is he who comes into the breach.
I believe this has taken place among God’s people historically. God has brought in that element. There has been self-judgment and a return to the recognition of the Holy Spirit as indwelling believers. The Spirit should characterise the believer. That is where the link is. The priest who came into view was one who had previously eaten the sin-offering; but all the males, the whole priestly company, were adjusted by it.