not been a complete removal and forgetting of the sin' atoned for. This view entirely

accords with the statement in Leviticus 10:17, where the purpose of this meal by the

priests is said to be 'to bear the iniquity of the congregation.' Hence, also, the flesh of all

sacrifices, either for the high-priest, as representing the priesthood, or for the whole

people, had to be burnt; because those who, as God's representatives , were alone

allowed to eat the sacrificial meal were themselves among the offerers of the sacrifice.

III. The trespass-offering was provided for certain transgressions committed through

ignorance, or else, according to Jewish tradition, where a man afterwards voluntarily

confessed himself guilty. The Rabbis arrange this class into those for a doubtful and for

a certain trespass. The former were offered by the more scrupulous, when, uncertain

whether they might not have committed an offence which, if done high-handed, would

have implied being 'cut off,' or, if in ignorance, necessitated a sin -offering. Accordingly,

the extreme party, or Chassidim, were wont to bring such a sacrifice every day! On the

other hand, the offering for certain trespasses covered five distinct cases, 57 which had

all this in common, that they represented a wrong for which a special ransom was to be

It forms no exception to this principle, that a trespass-offering was also prescribed in the

case of a healed leper (Lev 14:12), and in that of a Nazarite, whose vow had been

interrupted by sudden defilement with the dead (Num 6:10-12), since leprosy was also

symbolically regarded as a wrong to the congregation as a whole, 58 while the

interruption of the vow was a kind of wrong directly towards the Lord.

But that this last was, at the same time, considered the lightest kind of trespass appears

even from this --that, while ordinarily the flesh of the trespass-offering, after burning the

inwards on the altar of (Lev 7:3), was only to be eaten by the officiating priests within

the Holy Place, the lamb offered for such a Nazarite might be eaten by others also, and

anywhere within Jerusalem. The blood of the trespass-offering (like that of the burnt-

offering) was thrown on the corners of the altar below the red line.

IV. The most joyous of all sacrifices was the peace-offering, or, as from its derivation it

might also be rendered, the offering of completion. 59

This was, indeed, a season of happy fellowship with the Covenant God, in which He

condescended to become Israel's Guest at the sacrificial meal, even as He was always

their Host. Thus it symbolised the spiritual truth expressed in Revelation 3:20, 'Behold, I

stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come

in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.' In peace-offerings the sacrificial meal

was the point of main importance. Hence the name 'Sevach,' by which it is designated in

the Pentateuch, and which means 'slaying,' in reference to a meal. It is this sacrifice

which is so frequently referred to in the Book of Psalms as the grateful homage of a soul

justified and accepted before God (Psa 51:17; 54:6; 56:12; 116:17,18). If, on the one hand,

then, the 'offering of completion' indicated that there was complete peace with God, on

the other, it was also literally the offering of completeness. The peace-offerings were

either public or private. The two lambs offered every year at Pentecost (Lev 23:19) were

a public peace-offering, and the only one which was regarded as 'most holy.' As such

they were sacrificed at the north side of the altar, and their flesh eaten only by the

officiating priests, and within the Holy Place. The other public peace-offerings were

slain at the south side, and their 'inwards' burnt on the altar (Lev 3:4,5). Then, after the

priests had received their due, the rest was to be eaten by the offerers themselves, either