Keith Hunt - Law of the Offerings #4b - Page Eleven   Restitution of All Things

  Home Previous Page Next Page

Law of the Offerings #4b

The Sin-offering in typology


                        Andrew Jukes


(3.) The third peculiarity we may note in the Sin-offering is,
that it was an offering for trespass (chap.4:3,21,24,33, compared
with chap.5:13,19, and 6:2,6). This distinction, like all the
rest which God has recorded, is full of instruction and of
comfort to our souls. It is as definite, too, as any of the other
differences which we have dwelt upon. The want of apprehension
respecting it only arises from our so little knowing either what
man is, or what God is. With our shortsightedness, our inability
to see beyond the surface, we naturally look at what man does
rather than at what he is; and while we are willing to allow that
he does evil, we perhaps scarcely think that he is evil. But God
judges what we are as well as what we do; our sin, the sin in us;
as much as our trespasses. In His sight sin in us, our evil
nature, is as clearly seen as our trespasses, which are but the
fruit of that nature. He needs not wait to see the fruit put
forth. He knows the root is evil, and so will be the buddings.

(This idea - of an evil nature - just wanting to go and do evil
ways - is not necessarily so. Job was perhaps the most righteous
man who ever lived except for Jesus the Christ. Even God said he
was righteous and would find no fault in him but that he had
never really seen the Holiness of the true God, hence had never
really come to see that comparing himself with God, he was
nothing. This he did come to see in chapter 42 of the book of
A child is born "neutral" - neither knowing good or evil [see
Deut.1:39], and so with the correct guidance in the way of the
Lord, does not have to show ANY "root of evil" that some claim is
automatically "within" a person, even a child. Samuele would be a
fine example. Given to serve the Lord, in the Tabernacle of God
and under the Priesthood of God - as a very young child, never
had this evil nature "ruling or controlling him." This does NOT
mean he was sinless, no, not at all, for Paul was inspired to say
that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God, but it
does show that the moral free-choice nature, that we have, does
NOT have to RULE or DOMINATE us, in evil ways. We can if within a
certain  "godly" environment, produce from a young age, much good
fruit, as obviously Job and Samuele did - Keith Hunt)

Now the distinction between the Sin and Trespass offerings is
just this: - the one is for sin in our, the other for the fruits
of it. 

And a careful examination of the particulars of the offerings is
all that is needed to make this manifest. Thus in the
Sin-offering no particular act of sin is mentioned, but a certain
person is seen standing confessedly as a sinner: in the
Trespass-offering certain acts are enumerated, and the person
never appears. 

In the Sin-offering I see a person who needs atonement, offering
an oblation for himself as a sinner: in the Trespass-offering I
see certain acts which need atonement, and the offering offered
for these particular offenses. The details of the offerings, as
we examine them, will bring all this before us most remarkably.  

(The sin-offering then would be for someone especially like Job,
who had it would seem just about no outward faults or trespasses.
Job over and over enumerates to those talking to him, his
righteous ways and acts. Even his mind he kept a close check
upon. In one section he tells how he made a covenant with his
mind not to even look upon a woman in a wrong way. But Job was
still a sinner for he had the sin of self-righteousness and never
having come to really see himself next to a Holy and Perfect God
- Job still needed the SIN-offering. When he then applied it so
to speak, the sin-offering, then he could say the words he said
in chapter 42:1-6 of his book. 
It can be hard sometimes for some who are raised in a "godly
Christian home" and have never experienced being on "the wild
side" as we say, to come to realize they are still sinners, and
need the SIN-offering. For starters, how many of such individuals
can even come close to being like a Job, in conduct and in the
mind - none I would say - Job was very unique. Hence if
"righteous people" "good people" as they have been raised from
childhood, will meditate, they will soon find out they are in
much need of the SIN-offering in their lives - Keith Hunt)

Of course, in the Sin-offering, though the man is seen rather
than his acts, proof must needs be brought that he is a sinner.  
But let it be noticed that this is done, not by the enumeration
of certain trespasses, but simply by a reference to the law;
which, though no particular transgression is mentioned, is said
to have been neglected or broken (chap.4:2,13,14,22,27, etc.).

Be it noticed, no particular act is mentioned, though of course
it is by particular acts that sin in us is shewn; but the
particular acts are not seen in the Sin-offering, for the object
is to shew sin, not trespass. And therefore, though it was
needful to shew sin, and in doing so to refer to the commandment
as exposing it, yet any definite act of trespass is not seen
here: for it is "an offering for SIN," not an offering for
TRESPASS. In the Trespass-offering, on the other hand, it is
exactly the reverse. 

We have nothing but one detail after another of particular wrongs
and offenses; the first class being of wrongs done against God,
the other of wrongs against our neighbour.

And here, by the way, let me call attention to a point
incidentally brought before us respecting the Sin-offering,
namely, that the sin was brought out "by the commandment," as it
is said, "If he shall sin through ignorance against any of the
commandments" (verse 2, etc.).....

Rom.5:15. I observe that in Job (chap. 1:5.) we find the Burnt-
offering offered in reference to sin. We read that "Job rose up
early in the morning, and offered Burnt-offerings according to
the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have
sinned, and cursed God in their hearts." This was before the law
was given; so Job says, "It may be that my sons have sinned." Had
they sinned after the giving of the law, a Sin or Trespass-
offering would have been needed; but before the law the
Burnt-offering was all which could be given: and as it
represented all God's claim fulfilled, nothing more in such an
age could be added to it.

The law entered (this is the Law Covenant given to Israel under
Moses - Keith Hunt) and it proved man a sinner (it AMPLIFIED and
REALLY hit home, put in technicolor, we may say, what SIN was,
and taught that we are sinners within in some way, even though
outwardly we may look very prefect as Job did - Keith Hunt) ...

But grace has done what law could not do; grace brought One "in
the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin" (Rom.8:3) to save us. 

The truth is, the law given by Moses was given neither to make
nor prove man holy; but rather to prove us, what God ever since
the fall has seen us, in ourselves sinners and only sinners.     
Yet how has Satan beguiled man here also: he would have us to
prove ourselves holy by that which God gave to prove us sinners.

But to return to the distinction between the Sin and
Trespass-offering: - the one was for sin in our nature, the other
for the fruits of it. In the Sin-offering, the atonement is seen
not for trespasses the fruits of sin, but for sin itself within
us. I would that all God's children saw this. Sure I am, - and
the type proves it, - that many know the Trespass-offering who
have but very imperfect views of Christ as Sin-offering. I do not
now speak of the unconverted: with them acts of trespass are the
only things discernible: sin in them is generally utterly
disbelieved; at all events its guilt is always unfelt,
unrecognized. With the young Christian, too, but just awakened,
how much less perception is there of sin than trespass: he has
done this evil, or that evil, or the other; he scarcely has
learnt as yet that in himself he is evil. But look at the man who
has somewhat grown in grace; not only what he has done; but what
he is, is his sorrow. With such it is not so much this or that
act of trespass, which leaves the question of guilt on the
conscience: but it is the constant sense of indwelling evil, and
that "when we would do good, evil is present with us." This or
that particular act of iniquity we have confessed, it is past,
and we believe it pardoned: but this ever-remaining, ever-
struggling sin within us, it is this more than ought else that
burdens us. True, "the Spirit in our hearts cries Abba, Father,"
and "the Spirit in us lusteth against the flesh;" but we find
that all this instead of improving the flesh only manifests it,
and shews how it "lusteth against the Spirit" (Gal.5:17). To
those who are thus painfully learning what they are, what joy to
know Christ died for this as well as for trespasses; and that
this indwelling sin, as much as our acts of wickedness, was
equally confessed and put away by His sacrifice. Nay, had we not
been suffering under this very evil, had we been without this
sin, He would not have offered a Sin-offering. It was because we
were this that He offered; and because He offered, we who trust
Him are saved.

(The above was so true of Job. He could look at his outward
conduct, even his words of mouth, and even his thoughts, and
could find no place where he fell short. Why, at this point even
God agreed Job was one of a kind in the earth, "perfect and
upright man, one that feareth God, and turns away from evil" -
Job 1:8 - yet Job was a sinner. In all his righteous upbringing,
in all his wonderful conduct in life and towards fellow humanity,
and a certain form of what we would call "Christianity" today,
Job was a sinner. He had never come to see that compared to a
holy and perfect God, all his righteousness was but as filthy
rags. He still needed to apply the SIN-offering, to come to
understand the sin-offering we can say. He finally did, praise
the Lord, and we then have his humble words as recorded in Job
42:1-6 - Keith Hunt)

Oh, how little is this apprehended, and, consequently, how little
peace is there among saints! Many seem to think that the Spirit's
work in revealing to them their sinfulness (He shall convince of
sin - John 16:8) should be an excuse for unbelief and doubting;
that because God in His mercy has shewn them what they are,
sinners, therefore they are not safe. To such I say, - Are we
saved by Christ as sinners, or are we saved by being sinless and
God's testimony is that we are saved as sinners, not by the
Spirit's work in us, but by Christ's work for us. The Lord grant
us to know more of the Spirit's work in us; but after all, this
is not the ground of peace. The type is clear on this: and if it
shews anything, it chews that the discovery of sin should not
shake the believer's faith of pardon; for faith sees not only
that we have sinned, but that the "Holy One" has been made sin
for us. To doubt our pardon because we see our sin is just
weakness of faith in the Offering: it proves how low is our
estimate of Christ, how limited our confidence in God's love and

Do I then speak lightly of sin? God forbid! If we want to know
how hateful it is, we have but to look at the Sin-offering; to
see the Holy One of God, His beloved Son, for sin cast out and
broken. Our sin is indeed hateful to God, but it does not alter
the value of Christ's Offering. Our sin indeed is most hateful;
but I ask still, has not the Sin-offering been offered? If it has
not, then we may mourn for ever, for we can never blot out one
single trespass. But if it has been offered, what are all our
doubts but aspersions on the value of Christ's Offering? Whatever
plea we have for them, - be it humility, or fear of presumption,
or the amount and evil of our sinfulness, - God judges such pleas
for doubt as unbelief, and as a questioning of what He testifies
of Jesus. God indeed never forgets we are sinners: we may forget
it, He never can: but He never forgets the Offering of Christ,
and that by that Offering the Church's sins are cancelled. And
the blood of the Sin-offering which is taken within the veil, by
the High Priest on the great day of Atonement, remains there
where none can approach to hide it, ever present before the eye
of God. And even when through the uncleanness of the camp or the
wilderness we seem to lose sight of it, it remains there before
Him, a witness that sin has been judged, and that the way is open
for sinners into the holiest.

"He by Himself purged our sins" (Heb.1:3) Yea, He sat not down
again in glory till He had purged them. What certainty of
salvation is there here for those who trust in Jesus? It is no
future work, no promised work, no work to be yet accomplished,
but a finished work which is our sure foundation. "He bore our
sins:" this is God's testimony: and having borne them "He was
raised because we were justified" (Rom.4:25 "He was delivered,
because of our sins; and raised because of our justification").

Had we not been justified, Christ could not have been raised. His
resurrection, and ours in Him, is the proof that we are
justified. If sin has not been already borne, how shall it be
borne? Is Christ to die again, is He to be again a Sin-offering?
"Christ was ONCE offered to hear the sins of many" (Heb.9:28),
and "now there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin"
(Heb.10:18,26). If therefore He has not borne our sins, He can
never bear them. If He has borne them, why have we not peace?    

If we think that the Sin-offering once offered on Calvary has not
met all sin and every trespass, whatsoever remains, be it small
or great, can never be propitiated, never pardoned. But Jesus for
His people bore not some sins, but all sins: and "by Him all that
believe are justified from all things" (Acts 13:39). "He hath
forgiven us ALL trespasses" (Col.2:13). The Cross has cancelled
all. May the Lord more fully reveal these things to His chosen
ones, that their rejoicing may be, not Yea and Nay, but Yea and

Such is the general character of the Sin-offering, as elicited by
comparing the particulars in which it stands in contrast to the
other Offerings. 

We now proceed to consider:

THE VARIETIES IN THIS OFFERING, which shew the different
apprehensions which may be entertained of this particular aspect
of Christ's sacrifice.

And HERE there is VERY GREAT variety, far exceeding what we find
in any of the preceding offerings. In the Sin-offering there is
not only variety seen in the animal offered, and in the details
which are given as to the mode of offering it: but a good deal
of variety is noticed as to the person of the offerer, a
peculiarity not to be found in any of the other offerings. 
Besides the varieties, are  minor ones, in reference to the
blood, the fat, the body, and lastly the name, of the offering.

Each of these varieties as they are recorded by the Lord, so will
they be found worthy of our attentive meditation. I shall do
little more here than mark some of the chief outlines, and may
the Lord make His people to profit by them.

The FIRST variety, then, which is seen in the Sin-offering is the
difference in the ANIMAL offered. In the Burnt-offering we
observed a similar variety; the purport of which is, of course,
the same in both cases. There is, however, far greater variety in
the different grades of the Sin-offering than in the
Burnt-offering; thus teaching us that Christ's offering for sin
maybe apprehended with far greater measures of difference than
Christ as Burnt-offering. In the Burnt-offering, the offering
though varied was limited, either to a bullock, a lamb, a goat,
or turtle-doves. Here in the Sin-offering we have several
other grades, ("A male kid," chapter 4:23 - "a female kid," 4:28
- "a female lamb," 4:32 - ending at last with "flour," verse 11)
coming down at last to a sin-offering composed of simple "flour."

The last grade is this: - "And if he be not able to bring two,
turtle-doves or two young pigeons; then he that sinned shall  
bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour
for a sin-offering: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he
put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering."

We have already considered the import of these varied emblem;
I need not therefore do more than just advert to them. Suffice
it to say that here, as in the Burnt-offerings, they shew us the
different characters under which the Offering of Christ may be
apprehended by us. In the Sin-offering as in the Burnt-offering,
one saint has one view, another, another view respecting the
character of the offering. One sees the willing labour, another
the submission, another the innocence, of the Offering which is
yielded to Jehovah. But in the Sin-offering we have still lower
views, the lowest of which is, as we have observed, very like a
Meat-offering. The solution is easy.    

As in the preceding offerings we found, without exception, that
there was an indistinctness, almost like confusion, in the lower
views, - a mixing up of one aspect with another, while the
distinct thought of each was more or less lost sight of; so is it
here: in its lowest grade, (the one we are considering,) the Sin-
offering  is seen very nearly as a Meat-offering. The thought is
almost that of Meat-offing, yet it is seen as offered for sin:
this is distinctly noticed: though "of flour," "it is a
Sin-offering (chap.5:11).

How exactly this peculiarity in the type describes the way in
which some apprehend the Offering, will be best understood by
those who, going from strength to strength, have learnt how
partially Christ may be apprehended, even by those who love Him.
Some see the pain and sorrow Christ had in service, the grinding,
the bruising, the scorching, of the Meat-offering: and they think
that this was His sin-bearing: they cannot distinguish between
the trials of service and the curse. They see indeed a life of
suffering, but they do not see One accursed for them.  
Nevertheless, they see a suffering One offered, and though they
lose many points in His Offering, they still see it as offered
for sin. Yet how much is lost, in such partial views, of the
design and character of the work of Jesus.

(2.) The next variety we may notice is in the person offering: we
have the priest, the congregation, the ruler, and the common

First in order we have the Sin-offering for the priest!
(chap.4:3-12), then the Sin-offering for the whole congregation;
(chap.4:13021) then the Sin-offering for a ruler; (chap.4:22-26)
then for one of the common people; (chap.4:27-35) and lastly, the
Sin-offering for particular sins; (chap.5:1-13) in which last the
person of the offerer is lost sight of, and the particular act
for which he offers more clearly seen. This last is very nearly
akin to the Trespass-offering, and is indeed called indifferently
by both names of Sin and Trespass (chap.5:6-9).
In this last class, as in the lowest classes of the other
offerings, we get the lowest view which can be taken of this
particular aspect of the Offering.

But what is the import of this variety in the person offering?   
We have only to remember what these varieties are. They are,
as we have sufficiently seen, only different measures of
apprehension. In the Burnt-offering, the Meat-offering, and the
Peace-offering, we have already become familiar with the
varieties in the Offering, and have seen that they represent the
different apprehensions which may be, and are, formed of its
value and character. So in the Sin-offering, the varieties which
are noted of the Offerer, in like manner represent the different
apprehensions which are formed of the person who offered. Of
course the Offerer here, as elsewhere, is Christ, man under the
law, our representative. As such He is here seen confessing sin;
but though seen as Offerer in this aspect, He may yet be seen
very differently. 

For example, in the first case the offerer is apprehended as 
"priest," a person who stands the representative of a family or
congregation. In other cases the offerer is seen as "one of the
common people," one who stands simply the representative of an
individual. In the lowest cases of all, the person of the offerer
is altogether lost sight of, neither individual nor congregation
are seen, and the sin for which he suffers is almost the only
thing apprehended.

But let us note here a little more particularly, the exact
difference which is intended by these separate views of the
Offerer; and that we may see the contrast more clearly, let us
for a moment set side by side the higher and lower grades of the

In the first class the offerer is the "anointed priest;" in the
next, "the whole congregation;" in a lower grade (how great the
contrast) the offerer is "one of the common people."  "The   
anointed  priest," and "the whole congregation," are types
familiar to the youngest Christian. The "anointed priest," as  
head of the priestly family, and the appointed mediator between
God and man, stands the type of Jesus as head of a priestly
family, and also as mediator to God's chosen Church. In this
class, Christ, as Offerer of the Sin-offering, is seen either as
Head of the Church, or as its appointed Mediator. 

His Offering is apprehended, not merely as the atonement for this
or that individual, but as affecting a whole family or people. 

In the next class, "the congregation" offer. This congregation
represents the Church. Here we lose sight of the priest as under
the guilt of sin with Israel; but with this exception, the
congregation's offering is almost identical with the preceding
But the point to be especially noted in both these cases, and
where they differ so remarkably from the others, is that the sin,
and atonement made, is seen, not as affecting an individual
merely, but the whole of Israel.

Now, mark the contrast. In the lower classes the offerer is a
private individual, "one of the common people:" and his sin, and
the atonement made for it, is seen as affecting only himself.   
Those saints who have the highest views of the Sin-offering, see
it as affecting not themselves merely, but the Priest and
Israel. Those with lower views only see it for themselves: the
High Priest's or Israel's interest in it is unseen and forgotten.

Here then is the difference. The apprehension some have of Christ
as Offerer of the Sin-offering is One who in His own person
represented the whole Church; the Church being seen either as
the family of the Priest, or as the whole congregation of Israel.
Others again see Him as head of a tribe, "the ruler;" in this
case the unity of the Church is lost sight of. Others, far more
numerous; never see anything of this.

Christ as Offerer of the Sin-offering is viewed as having stood
for them individually. Others again, lower still in the scale of
intelligence, see only that He stood for sin. These stages in
the apprehension and experience of Christians, will be familiar
to those who know much of that experience.

Such is the variety respecting the person of the Offerer, and
such too, if I mistake not, the purport of it. We have only
glanced at the outlines, but the details are equally full of
interest; requiring indeed a certain measure of intelligence to
apprehend them, yet if apprehended, precious to our souls. And
just as every difference of the Offering, - the difference, I
mean, whether it was a bullock, a lamb, or turtle-dove, - all
brought before us some feature of Christ's work or character, in
which both God and His saints saw perfectness; so here, in each
of these varieties in the Offerer, there is some fresh thought or
view of Christ's person for us to glory in.  
I will not, however, enter further into the consideration of
them, not from a doubt of their value, but from a sense of the
length to which they would carry me. I only pray that we may be
led to feel our need of knowing more of Him of whom these things

(3.) A third variety in the Sin-offering has reference to "the
blood." In the higher classes the blood was sprinkled on the
incense altar; (chap.4:7,18) in the lower classes it was not
taken into the holy place, but sprinkled upon the brazen altar in
the court (chap.4:25,30,34).



  Home Previous Page Top of Page Next Page

Navigation List:

Word Search: