Leviticus 4:22-35 When a ruler has sinned… 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. Parallel Verses KJV: When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; |
    |