Hebrews 10:12-14 tells us that “when Christ had offered of all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

Amen! When the author of Hebrews says that we have been perfected in Christ, he uses the perfect tense, which refers to a past action with ongoing effects. Thus, Christ gave Himself once as an offering, and we have been made righteous and holy in Him.

But if that is the case, why does Paul in 2 Corinthians 7:1 say: “Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God”? If we have been cleansed once for all by Christ, why do we need to still cleanse ourselves?

The short answer is that even though we are fully justified before God in Christ, until they day we are glorified in Him, we continue to wrestle against our sin. The decisive battle against sin was won on the cross, but the war continues until His second coming.

Indeed, we see a similar reality in the five offerings listed in Leviticus. As I have been noting, these offerings are how the Israelites were able to draw near to Yahweh for worship. They could have a moment of fellowship with God, which was the purpose behind the exodus. The order in which the offerings are presented also proclaims this centrality, for the peace or fellowship offering lies at the center of the five. The first two offerings are what is required to have peace with God: atonement and tribute. In order to communion with God, the worshiper’s sin must be dealt with. The chasm that it creates between himself and Yahweh must be bridged. But the worshiper must also acknowledge God as God and give thanks to Him. Thus, those who would be in God’s presence must embrace Him as both Savior and Lord.

But what about the last two offerings? They are our subject for the next two studies. These offerings differ from the first three, which for the ordinary Israelite were voluntary; they could be offered whenever the worshiper desired. The sin and guilt offerings, however, were mandatory offerings; that is, they were required to be given in response to certain circumstances. Specifically, these two offerings were to be given in response to particular sins that the worshiper committed. They do not address the worshiper’s overall sinfulness like the whole burnt offering but express repentance over certain actual (and confessed) sins. Thus, if the burnt and grain offerings were about establishing peace and fellowship with God, the sin and guilt offerings reestablished fellowship after it was broken by sin.

Since these offerings were “enacted dramas” (as Ross calls them), it may be helpful to structure our study of this text somewhat like a drama. We will organize our exposition around four questions:

1) What’s the problem that this offering is addressing?

2) What’s the solution being presented?

3) Who is this for?

4) What is the end result?

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM THAT THIS OFFERING IS ADDRESSING?

This is a necessary question to ask. Again, the texts for the previous offerings did not give specific instances that required those offerings to be made; they were voluntary or freewill offerings. As we come to our present text, we ought to immediately notice that this offering is different. Unlike the previous offerings, this one is not named until the end of verse 3. Instead, Yahweh begins with when this offering will need to be made, which we read in verse 2: If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the LORD’s commandments about things not done, and does any one of them…

The ESV footnotes that unintentionally could also be translated as by mistake. This word is used later in the Torah to distinguish between premeditated murder and what we now called manslaughter. The difference being intent. Our laws rightly make a distinction between accidently killing someone and a cold, calculated murder. We know that that distinction is right because God makes just such a distinction. Numbers 15:27-29 gives a succinct summary of our passage, but then it contrasts unintentional sins with another kind of sin. Consider verses 30-31 that follow:

But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is a native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.

A high-handed sin is exactly what it sounds like. It is an intentional and defiant sin that is essentially shaking one’s fist to the heavens at the LORD. There was no offering that could be made for such a sin in the Old Testament; the person was simply cut off from the rest of Israel, either by exile or execution.

There was, however, forgiveness for an unintentional sin. This means that his sin was likely accidental, which is why in verses 14, 23, and 28 specify that it is “made known” to him. Verses 1-4 of chapter 5 give four examples of such sins. The middle two examples (5:2, 3) can easily be seen as accidental. As we will discuss in a couple of weeks, ritual impurity was not necessarily sinful, touching carcasses and human uncleanness was a part of regular life. But God did require them to follow certain rituals for becoming pure once more. Sklar writes:

And therein lies the problem: “though they have become impure” by touching the carcass, the fact “is hidden from them,” that is, “hidden” or “concealed” from their memory and forgotten (which is the meaning of the phrase in 5:4). As we might say, it “slipped their mind.” The person forgot to address the impurity, which was a serious matter, not only because they were not following the LORD’s commands (11:24-25) but also because they risked defiling the LORD’s tabernacle (15:31) or holy items associated with it (7:20-21)–serious signs of disrespect to the LORD. (161)

We can also imagine the fourth sin (5:4) being accidental. Sklar suggests we imagine a soldier in the heat of battle pledging to offer his best animal to God if he survives but then forgets that vow once the battle is done. As with the ritual impurity, he is not being blatantly defiant; he just forgot.

The first (5:1) is difficult to read as accidental. Instead, we could imagine a person not answering a court summons out of a moment of fear or simply carelessness. It is still unintentional because it is not premeditated. The Israelite responded sinfully in the spur of the moment and later regretted it.

That list is not exhaustive, but it wasn’t meant to be. Those are case studies, examples that we can meditate over and apply to our own sin.

But while unintentional sins are less severe than high-handed sins, they are still sins. This point is important to make because, while God graciously distinguishes sin by intention, we tend to entirely write off sin according to intention. Few today would ever dream of calling treating an accidental sin as an actual sin. But a violation of God’s law is sin, regardless of intent. You see, the reality is that all accidental sin is ultimately caused by neglect and carelessness. As Deuteronomy 6:5 will tell us, Yahweh deserves nothing less than our complete and perfect worship, loving Him with all our heart, soul, and strength. Anything less is sin.

That is the problem that this offering addresses. What then was an Israelite do with his or her unintentional sins?

WHAT’S THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM?

The solution to the problem is the same as with the previous offerings: through sacrifice. Atonement requires sacrifice. Tribute requires sacrifice. Peace and fellowship with God requires sacrifice. And now, forgiveness for sin requires sacrifice.

We will focus on the different kinds of animals that could be offered whenever we address the different parties that would make this offering. For now, let’s focus on the offering itself and how it was answering the problem of unintentional sins.

The end of verse 3 calls it a sin offering. That is the most natural name, since the Hebrew word (chattat) literally means sin and since sin is what this offering is addressing in our text. However, Sklar notes that chattat is built on the same root for the verb chitte, which means ‘to cleanse’, ‘to decontaminate’, or ‘to purify.’ This helps to make more sense of places like Leviticus 12, where women were required to make a sin offering after childbirth. Giving birth is not an act of sin, but as we will cover soon, it results in ritual impurity that must be cleansed. Of course, as we noted earlier, if that cleansing was ignored or neglected, then it would rightly be called sin. But for this reason, I think the term purification offering is best.

Indeed, actual sin contaminates just as much as ritual impurity. Sin, even if it was committed unintentionally, soils the sinner, but it also pollutes the tabernacle. And it is the second that is chiefly in focus during the actual performing of the rite. Today, we tend only to think of sin as having individual consequences; however, ancient Israel was not as atomized as we tend to be. As Ross notes, “sin and its effects defiled God’s sanctuary and… such defilement put people in mortal danger should they enter the sanctuary in that condition” (124). Each person’s sin endangered everyone in Israel by contaminating the tent of meeting, which was the only place where they could have communion with God.

Such defilement must be addressed with blood. “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood,” says Hebrews 9:22. Notice that blood is applied to various parts of the tabernacle during the purification offering. For the sin of a priest or of the entire congregation, blood was taken to the veil that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. Blood was also sprinkled upon the altar of incense that is inside the tabernacle. This marks the first time in Leviticus that we literarily enter the tent of meeting. This is because the sins of a priest or of the whole congregation are more severe than the sins of a single Israelite or even an elder or leader. For them, the blood needed to be applied to the bronze altar, which is called “the altar of burnt offering” in verse 25, and also poured at the base. By the blood, the tabernacle was purified of the defilement that sin had brought, making it possible for the worshiper to safely enter once again.

Indeed, we should make it clear that the purification of the tabernacle was for Israel’s protection, not because God Himself was at risk of being defiled. Wenham notes:

It is not God who is endangered by the pollution of sin, but man. God’s holiness may be expressed in wrath, where sin is not atoned for and its guilt is not removed. The great calling of Israel was to be God’s holy people among whom he would dwell… The tabernacle was indeed God’s dwelling place among his people (Exod. 29:43-46). It had to be kept pure from sin, if God was to remain there and if the people were not to experience God’s wrath instead of his mercy. To have God dwelling in your midst is both a great blessing and a great danger. (95)

As we noted in Exodus, the tabernacle is an earthly copy of God’s heavenly dwelling place. That is why Hebrews 9:23-24 says,

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things [the tabernacle and its furniture] to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

As with the tabernacle, heaven did not need to be purified because our sin had corrupted it but so that we can enter without suffering the wrath of God. The blood signified that God’s wrath had already gone forth. Remember that through pressing his hand upon the animal’s head the worshiper was identified with the animal. Thus, the animal’s blood represented his own. The wages of sin is death, and death had been dealt. Of course, the blood of bulls and goats could not actually atone for anyone’s sin; they simply pointed forward to the perfect sacrifice in Christ Jesus. Indeed, I believe that is why the blood is not applied to the worshiper. The blood of animals was not taking away their sins. As we will see shortly, they were granted forgiveness by the pure grace of God and in response to their faith.

WHO IS THIS FOR?

Now that we know the problem that the purification offering addresses and its solution, let us consider who this offering is for. Notice that chapter 4 is divided into four big sections: verses 3-12 focus on the anointed priest, verses 13-21 on the whole congregation, verses 22-26 on a leader, and verses 27-35 on ordinary Israelites.

These are clearly listed by decreasing order of severity. While all sin is damnable and can impact the entire society (consider Achen’s sin), the ordinary Israelites sin was last likely to lead to societal corruption. Thus, it was a smaller offering. A leader’s sin could have greater impact on those around, perhaps leading them into the same sin, so his offering was of greater value, needing to be a male goat. Even worse than the sin of a leader was the sin of the entire congregation. On behalf of the people, the elders needed to offer a bull, and notice that the priests were not permitted to eat its meat. It was not completely turned to smoke upon the altar like the whole burnt offering; rather, the remainder was taken outside the camp and burned.

This was most likely intended to be a picture of Israel’s sin being removed and destroyed. Again, Hebrews applies this to us today, saying in 13:11-12, “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.”

But more severe than even the congregation was the sin of the anointed priest. while all priests were anointed, the high priests is likely in particular view here. The procedure is nearly identical to the purification offering for the whole congregation. One commentator notes why the sin of the priest was so significant:

The priests were to be the teachers of the people (Deut. 33:10) and therefore had to be an example especially in their private lives; and the high priest, who stood at the head of the priests, had to exhibit in his life the ideal of a holy life to which all could look up.

The high priest is the representative of the nation and its ideal. So long as he is pure and spotless, all Israel fulfilled its obligations through its representative. When however the high priest is tainted through sin and becomes unworthy of representing the nation, all Israel stands guilty before God. (Cited in Wenham, 97)

Indeed, recall that the high priest wore an ephod with twelve stones representing the twelve tribes over his heart, so that he was carrying Israel with him into the Holy Place. This ought to remind us of James 3:1, which says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” Indeed, 2 Peter 2:17 says that “the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved” for false teachers. Thus, while Paul calls aspiring to be an elder (who must be able to teach) a noble task (1 Timothy 3:1), I always think of that desire needing to be baptized in a proper view of self. One of my favorite scenes from Prince Caspian shows what I mean by that:

Caspian knelt and kissed the Lion’s paw.

“Welcome, Prince,” said Aslan. “Do you feel yourself sufficient to take up the Kingship of Narnia?”

“I–I don’t think I do, Sir,” said Caspian. “I’m only a kid.”

“Good,” said Aslan. “If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would have been a proof that you were not.”

Similar to how we can only begin to become wise by seeing that we are fools, how we obtain glory through forsaking our own glory, and how we save our lives by losing them in Christ, the desire for leadership among God’s people is a seed that must die and be forgotten before it can spring to life.

Notice, however, that the purification offering is available to every Israelite. Indeed, 5:5-13 notes God’s goodness in providing for the poor in Israel. If he could not afford a goat, he could bring two turtledoves or two pigeons. And if he could not bring that, he could bring a tenth ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense.

I love Kevin DeYoung’s comments regarding these offerings:

Sometimes we read through the Old Testament and we think that’s so strange and it is for us, and you might be tempted to think, “Boy, God is such a meanie in the Old Testament and He has all these animals dying all the time and all these sacrifices and it’s so confusing.” But think about it. For one animal your sins can be forgiven. If you don’t have that animal here, well, a couple birds. If you don’t have a couple birds, can you just bring some flour? Now that is a pretty good deal. Two liters of flour for your immortal soul.

That takes us to our final point.

WHAT’S THE END GOAL?

When reading through the text, did you notice what the goal of the purification offering was? Verse 20: And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven. Verse 26: So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sins, and he shall be forgiven. Verse 31: And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven. Verse 35: And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven. Verse 10 of chapter 5: And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven. Verse 13: Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed in any one of these things, and he shall be forgiven.

Notice that this pronouncement is not made the anointed priest. Even though we know that God did forgive his sins, I think this accomplishes two literary functions. First, upon noticing, we should immediately be stricken with the gravity of the high priest’s sin. Second, it establishes a tension that will only be addressed in Leviticus 16, during the Day of Atonement. Theologically, however, it reminds us that no human high priest is sufficient for the task; only Christ.

The purification offering reestablished their atonement, their at-one-ment, with Yahweh that was broken by their sin. But how, you may ask, can our relationship with God be broken after He has already forgiven all of our sins in Christ? If we have been justified in Christ, we are sealed with His Spirit, and nothing can snatch us from His hand, not even our own sin. Praise the Lord! However, a covenant can be secure and strained at the same time. Every married couple has gone through periods of sometimes great emotional distance, even when divorce is utterly out of mind as an option. Even as Christians, our on-going sin still fractures our relationship with God, not fully, not finally, but nonetheless truly and painfully.

This is why the life of a Christian is not marked by sinlessness but by repentance. Notice in 5:5 that the worshiper confesses the sin he has committed. That confession was a verbal acknowledgement of his sin. Perhaps to the priest; perhaps only to God; probably both. Likewise, James 5:16 says, “therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” Yet even when we confess our sins to God alone, it is beneficial to say it out alone, so that you can hear your own lips acknowledging your sin.

Let me conclude with one final point. While the purification offering resulted in forgiveness of sin, it did not achieve that forgiveness. As Mathews notes:

Forgiveness was solely a gift from God, an act of grace. The priest did not provide forgiveness; he only mediated forgiveness. In the Old Testament the word translated here “forgive” (tsalach) is only used of God as the one who forgives. This term is never used of a human forgiving another. The idea of forgiveness is the “release” of a person from the guilt brought about by the transgression. The Lord ensured a means of forgiveness through the ritual of blood, but the ritual was just a symbolic act. It was necessary that the people turn from their sins and confess their sins. (50)

Forgiveness did not come from the purification offering but God Himself, looking with mercy upon His repentant people. The same is true for us today whenever we come to the Lord’s Supper. There is no power in this bread and cup to atone for our sins; they are simply signs that point to Christ’s atoning death. The Table before us is a visual reminder that Christ “has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” But like the purification offering, it also summons us to obey Paul’s words: “Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1). That continual cleansing is accomplished through acknowledging our sin and turn from our sin to Christ. With these pictures of the body and blood of our Lord before us, let us do just, falling before the Lord of mercy.