Chapter 15
This chapter breaks away from the historical narrative and gives more rules for sacrificing. MSB says these rules about the grain offering in vss 1-16 are different than those laws given in Lev 2. These allow offering of grain and wine with either the burnt offering or peace offerings. Note that it says this will be acceptable "2 ...When you come into the land you are to inhabit, which I am giving you, [Num 15:2 ESV]". So here, immediately after God tells them about the 40 years they are sentenced to wander and die in the wilderness, He also gives them some instruction for sacrifices in the new land. God's promises are still in place, but this generation won't see it, and the next will receive those promises.
It says in this chapter that these sacrifices are to go on throughout their generations. Again, this may be why the sacrifices resume in the end times.
2025 - This verse: 16 One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you." [Num 15:16 ESV]. God does not have different plans of salvation for different generations or dispensations. The plan for Jews and Gentiles alike has always been the same. But God's requirements for the way we worship him have changed, many times over the history of man.
These verses about intentional, knowing, premeditated sin:
30 But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 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." [Num 15:30-31 ESV]
The Mosaic Law was very specific about what sacrifices were required to cover unintentional sins. For instance, if a person had dinner with someone, and was served a food the law prohibited but didn't know about it until later, that was unintentional sin. Once one learned they had sinned this way, the law required certain sacrifices. In God's eyes, this sacrifice removed the guilt of the accidental sin from a person. But the verses above say that if the sin was committed with full knowledge that it was a sin, and the person did it anyway, there was no provision in the law to remove that kind of guilt. Intentional sin separated a person from God and Mosaic Law provided no remedy. While guilt for such a sin could not be removed with an animal sacrifice, the annual atonement by the high priest put off God's punishment for that sin for a year. This, then, was the point the Mosaic Law was designed to make. Intentional sins - which none of us could ever avoid completely and which no animal sacrifice could ever cover - could only be forgiven after the offering of a perfect sacrifice. In this way, the law was sent to condemn all men, and Jesus - the perfect sacrifice - was sent to save all men! His death on the cross paid the price and removed the guilt of intentional sin for all who believe in Him. In all of history, only Jesus was qualified to be the perfect sacrifice. The Law and Jesus are connected and inseparable. The Law both required and prophesied the coming of the perfect sacrifice. Jesus ties the Old Covenant to the New. Only God could make such a plan!
This MUST be a FB post!
2021 - But it says a person who committed intentional sin would be "utterly cut off". How does that leave room for yearly atonement? Is it this verse that the Pharisees seized upon to say that they could lead sinless lives by obeying every law and never intentionally breaking one? They focused on "observable" sins, and they never did those, so they were without sin? I really need to nail down whether the annual atonement was for intentional, unintentional, or both. It makes sense to me if it was both or for just intentional, but then I still need to resolve that with vss 30, 31.
Hmmm....vvs 22-26...Here, there are several key phrases. First, in vs 22, the section opens with saying this is about unintentional sin. It has to have been unintentional and without the knowledge of the congregation. So something that a person did, not realizing it was a sin and no one in the congregation knew about it, or they also did not realize it was a sin. For such sins, ALL the congregation was to present a bull offering and a male goat offering, with grain, oil and wine as appropriate. The whole congregation was to do this. The priest is to "make atonement for all". It does not mention this being an annual thing, monthly, etc. It does not say how the sin was recognized and the need for a sacrifice acknowledged. Perhaps this is a "national sin". Something they all forgot to do, or something they all did not "remembering" that they weren't to do it that way. Maybe they all ate some bugs they thought were acceptable but later determined to be unclean. Then they'd all need to make atonement. I note also that atonement is not capitalized here in the ESV. It doesn't seem to tied this command to the annual Day of Atonement. I need to read about that in more detail. Surely it was to delay wrath for intentional sins.
vs 27 seems to indicate that I am on the right track about this being some "mistake" by the whole of the congregation, because 27 starts with "If one person..." as contrasted to vs 22 which starts with "But if you..." I bet that's a plural you...Checked interlinear and it is second person masculine plural. "you guys". Reading vs 27 is clear that it is an individual offering, not a corporate offering that needs to be done.
Isn't it interesting that unintentional sins could be removed/forgiven completely even under Mosaic Law. Christ's sacrifice removes both for all time. How freeing is that.
Then we get vss 30, 31, where the sin is "high-handed". There is no atonement sacrifice for this person in this chapter. Utterly cut off is what happens. Perhaps the high-handed part means an habitual eating of ham for breakfast every morning. Reckless disregard of ongoing sin in one's life. Perhaps a moment of weakness in committing a known sin, and choosing in weakness to do it, counts as a mistake, and repentance and sacrifice are still possible. I do not know.
MSB notes say the unintentional, or unwitting sin, is one of unintentional neglect or omission. The atonement for these is in vss 22-29. MSB says vs 30 is about sins "committed knowingly and deliberately". These were considered blasphemous because they were an arrogant act of insubordination. This sounds like sin without repentance. With no intention of repentance. It does not sound like a moment of weakness. Was David's sin with Bathsheba a moment of weakness? Or does the ongoing attempt to "get away with it" imply this was blasphemous sin? Surely it did not, because Saul did not declare David utterly cut off, or stoned or anything like that. MSB note says those guilty of high-handed sin are to be excommunicated and put to death.
2024 - So...my great FB post above is very likely in error. How can the sentence be "excommunication and put to death" if the annual atonement would delay that sentence? There has to be an explanation for this. Perhaps the Jewish Study Bible, the JSB, will help me out.
2024 - In this chapter, there is no mention of death for intentional sin. Only that one will be "cut off from his people". Might gain some insight by studying all applications of that phrase. In JSB it says "his offense will remain with him". Are these the ones in captivity whom Jesus took captive? There sins could not be removed ever by bulls and goats and therefore they had to be kept in a place that was not hell, but was also not heaven, until Jesus and went and got them - their spirits - and took them with him into heaven between his death and resurrection? Intentional sin could not even be atoned for under the law. The condemnation remained, and God viewed these as unredeemed sinners, but as his chosen people. I do not believe for one second that any person could live life without committing even one intentional sin. Fifteen minutes after this Law was spoken, pretty much ALL ISRAEL would have been cut off from Israel. So there has to be something else...and captivity captive may be the explanation for it. (No help in JSB).
Then a paragraph is inserted about the people stoning a man caught gathering sticks on the sabbath. 2021 - MSB says this goes with the injunction just before. This man gathering sticks was disdaining the rule, and habitually, repeatedly gathering sticks on the Sabbath. The interlinear says this is an active participle formed from a poel stem. It is a masculine singular absolute. That's a lot. But I found a rather lengthy but understandable explanation here: https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/participle_active.html
The short version is that it expresses non-finite, ongoing, repeated action. This really clarifies what is going on here. This man didn't just do this once. He kept on doing it, and possibly bragged about how nothing had happened to him, so anyone could break the Sabbath. I believe it is unrepented, ongoing, repeated, disdainful sin that requires stoning. That is why David was not stoned for Bathsheba. She was another man's wife. The law is clear. If I am wrong about all this, David is in hell. No way to go there.
Then we go back to more rules, these about putting tassels on each corner of their garments, with a blue cord. This was to remind them of the law, the rules, the commandments. A constant reminder that they were under conditional contract and had much that they were responsible for.
This verse:
41 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am the LORD your God." [Num 15:41 ESV]
This phrase "I am the Lord you God", includes the "I am". The Hebrew word is transliterated "an-ee". Here is what it looks like in Hebrew: אֲנִי
The first time the phrase is used, it is like this, transliterated: "an-ee Yehova' eloheem". The second time it is "eloheem an-ee Yehova". But in English they are translated identically. What shades of meaning are hidden here in English that see light in Hebrew? Literally, the first says "I am Lord God", and the second says "God I am Lord".