As in the preceding paragraph we have lessons from the relation of sin offering to communities, here we are reminded -

I. THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO GOD. We have:

1. The responsibility of the ruler.

(1) Rulers stand related to subjects. Their influence is extensive in proportion to the elevation of their rank. The Jews construe this law to relate to the king; but the term for ruler (נשׂיא, nasi) is not so restricted in Scripture (see Numbers 10:4). This law was in force 400 years before there existed a king in Israel.

(2) As rulers of subjects they stand related to God (Proverbs 8:15, 16; 2 Samuel 23:3). Note: here only, the commandment transgressed is said to be the "commandment of the Lord his God" (verse 22). This is to remind him that if he rules others, God rules him, and will call him to account for the manner in which he uses his authority.

(3) The individual is not sunk in the office. Men are too apt to forget this, particularly so when they sit in conclave. So far from neutralizing, it makes individuality more conspicuous, and should render it more intense.

2. The responsibility of the private person.

(1) Subjects stand related to rulers. They have relative as well as personal duties. They have public as well as private interests and obligations.

(2) They stand as subjects to rulers in relation to God. This is recognized in his laws. (See Exodus 22:28; the margin construes the term אלהים, rendered "gods," by "judges." Magistrates are here presented as representatives of the Elohim.) They are to respect and sustain authority in righteousness (1 Timothy 6:1). To pray for those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1, 2).

(3) The individual is not sunk in the subject. None are too obscure to be noticed by God; too insignificant to escape his inquisition.

II. THAT SIN OFFERING IS PROVIDED FOR INDIVIDUALS.

1. It is appointed for the ruler (verses 22-26).

(1) He has to bring a "kid of the goats," not a bullock, which was required from the priest and from the congregation. The blood of the kid was to be sprinkled simply upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, whereas the blood of the bullock was also sprinkled upon the altar of incense and the vail. A further difference was that whereas the bodies of the beasts offered for the priest and for the congregation were burnt without the camp, the kid of the ruler was treated as the peace offering.

(2) These differences show that the sin of the ruler, though so heinous as not to be forgiven without sacrifice, was yet not so heinous as that of the priest. More is expected from men of religious profession. Nor was the sin of the ruler regarded as so heinous as that of the congregation. "It is bad when great men give ill examples, but worse when all men follow them" (Matthew Henry).

2. It is appointed for the common person (verses 27-35).

(1) Whereas the offering of the ruler is defined to be "a kid of the goats," that of the private individual may be either a kid or a lamb. As he has more liberty in his sacrifice, so has he in his conduct. Freedom is limited in the ratio of elevation. The humble should not be envious of the great.

(2) The offering of the private person was to be a female, which was proper to one having no authority; whereas, and for the opposite reason, the ruler had to bring a male.

(3) These differences go to show that the sin of a ruler is more serious than that of a common person. If his privileges are greater, so are his responsibilities. If his position is elevated, his influence, for good or evil, is proportionately great.

III. THAT SIN OFFERING IS DISCRIMINATIVE.

1. As to the nature of the sin.

(1) It is for sin against God. It seems to have nothing to do immediately with sins against our fellows or against society. These, of course, may be constructively viewed as offenses also against God. If this were more considered, men would be more respectful to their fellows, who are "made after the image of God" (see James 3:9).

(2) It is for sin against his negative commandments. This is the teaching of verses 2, 15, 22, 27.

(3) It is for sin ignorantly committed against them (see John 16:2, 3; Acts 3:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8). Ignorance is no plea for mercy without sacrifice. It is a plea for mercy with a sacrifice (see Luke 23:34; 1 Timothy 1:13).

2. As to the time of the offering.

(1) "And is guilty," viz. before the punishment of his sin has come upon him. If he discover his sin in time and bring his sin offering, it may avert that punishment. Men should never try to hide their sins from their own souls. On the contrary, they should diligently seek to discover them. We should plead the sin sacrifice for those we have not discovered (see Psalm 19:12; Psalm 139:23, 24; 1 John 1:7).

(2) "Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge," viz. by the punishment of it overtaking him (see 2 Samuel 31:1). When calamity comes we must not too readily relegate it to the category of mere physical sequence, but confess the hand of God. Timely sacrifice may stay a plague (see 2 Samuel 24:25).

3. For obstinate infidelity there is no mercy.

(1) This is what Paul, alluding to the sin offering, calls willful sin (Hebrews 10:26). His argument goes to show that the Great Sacrifice of Calvary is the anti-type of that offering.

(2) The Law had no provision of mercy for presumptuous sins, whether the precept outraged were negative or positive (see Numbers 15:27-31). An awful instance of the severity of the Law is described in Numbers 15:32-36. This instance is referred to by Paul, who goes on to state that the gospel has its corresponding law of extremity, but with a "much sorer punishment" (Hebrews 10:28, 29). If the extreme penalty of the Mosaic Law was the infliction of death upon the body, what punishment can be "much sorer" but the "destruction of both body and soul in hell" (Matthew 10:28)? - J.A.M.

While there are many in our parliaments and like governing bodies in Christendom who cast their every vote with the fear of God before their eyes, yet, if there be any truth in the general opinion of men upon this subject, there are many in such places who, in their voting, have before their eyes the fear of party more than the fear of God; and who, when a question comes before them, first of all consider, not what would the law of absolute righteousness, the law of God, require, but how will a vote, one way or the other, in this matter, be likely to affect their party? Such certainly need to be emphatically reminded of this part of the law of the sin-offering, which held the civil ruler specially responsible to God for the execution of his trust. For so it is still; God has not abdicated His throne in favour of the people, nor will He waive His crown-rights out of deference to the political necessities of a party. Nor is it only those who sin in this particular way who need the reminder of their personal responsibility to God. All need it who either are or may be called to places of greater or less governmental responsibility; and it is those who are the most worthy of such trust who will be the first to acknowledge their need of this warning. For in all times those who have been lifted to positions of political power have been under peculiar temptation to forget God, and become reckless of their obligation to Him as His ministers. But under the conditions of modern life, in many countries of Christendom, this is true as perhaps never before. For now it has come to pass that, in most modern communities, those who make and execute laws hold their tenure of office at the pleasure of a motley army of voters, Protestants and Romanists, Jews, atheists, and what not, a large part of whom care not the least for the will of God in civil government, as revealed in Scripture. Under such conditions, the place of the civil ruler becomes one of such special trial and temptation that we do well to remember in our intercessions, with peculiar sympathy, all who in such positions are seeking to serve supremely, not their party but their God, and so best serve their country. It is no wonder that the temptation too often to many becomes overpowering to silence conscience with plausible sophistries, and to use their office to carry out in legislation, instead of the will of God, the will of the people, or, rather, of that particular party which put them in power. Yet the great principle affirmed in this law of the sin-offering stands, and will stand for ever, and to it all will do well to take heed; namely, that God will hold the civil ruler responsible, and more heavily responsible than any private person, for any sin he may commit, and especially for any violation of law in any matter committed to his trust. And there is abundant reason for this. For the powers that be are ordained of God, and in His providence are placed in authority; not as the modern notion is, for the purpose of executing the will of the constituents, whatever that will may be, but rather the unchangeable will of the Most Holy God, the Ruler of all nations, so far as revealed, concerning the civil and social relations of men. Nor must it be forgotten that this eminent responsibility attaches, to them, not only in their official acts, but in all their acts as individuals. No distinction is made as to the sin for which the ruler must bring his sin-offering, whether public and official or private and personal. Of whatsoever kind the sin may be, if committed by a ruler, God holds him specially responsible, as being a ruler, and reckons the guilt of that sin, even if a private offence, to be heavier than if it had been committed by one of the common people. And this, for the evident reason that his exalted position gives his example double influence and effect.

(S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)