The guilt offering is just like the sin offering; there is one law for them. The priest who makes atonement with it shall have it.
Leviticus 7:7 closes the law of the guilt offering with two short rulings. One law covers both this offering and the sin offering, and the priest who makes the atonement keeps what he offers.
One Law for Two Offerings
The verse is a summary line. It ties the guilt offering back to the sin offering, so nothing has to be repeated. Older translations call the guilt offering the "trespass offering," the name used in the quotations below.
F. B. HoleLeviticus 7:1-7 records the law of the trespass offering, which is the same as for the sin offering. As verse 7 says, "there is one law for them."
Where Commentators Differ
If one law covers both, what separates them? Commentators do not agree. Some hold that the sin offering answers to the sinful nature and the guilt offering to sinful acts. Others reject that reading outright:
William KellyOne writer, once well known to many and still more widely read, argued that the sin offering was for sin in the flesh, and the trespass offering for acts of evil. But this is completely untenable. No such distinction was meant, nor could it be in Old Testament times: it was Christ who made that difference clear. Moral evil in general was in view in the one case. In the other case it was wrongs done to Jehovah in holy things, or to a neighbour but still against Him by breaking trust — and repayment was due accordingly.
Others place the difference in God rather than in the sinner: His nature on one side, His government on the other:
Frederick W GrantThe sin offering deals with sin in view of the divine nature; the trespass offering, in view of the divine government. The words "sin" and "trespass" convey this difference well. Restitution has a prominent place in the trespass offering. The sin offering alone displays that necessary separation of God from sin, which is at once what His nature requires and sin's most awful punishment.
Most Holy
The same verse also keeps this offering in the highest class of sacred things. The reason lies in who was wronged.
William KellyIts law calls the trespass offering "most holy." Granted, the offering was to meet a particular failure, whether against God or against man. It was not moral wrong on its own, but failure in their relationship before Jehovah. All the more necessary, then, that the trespass offering should be most holy. Even in human matters the wrong was "against Jehovah," and it demanded adequate satisfaction in both directions. It is found perfectly and only in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
The Priest Makes the Trespass His Own
The offering became the priest's food. Eating it was not merely payment — it was an act of taking the offender's case upon himself.
G C WillisBut the trespass offering, like the sin offering, was the priest's. When the priest eats the trespass offering he makes the trespass of the man who offers it his own. What indescribable grace! And this is exactly what our great High Priest has done for us.
In Christ the two roles that Leviticus keeps apart — the animal that dies and the priest who eats — meet in one Person, and the order between them matters:
J. N. DarbyThe priest who offered the blood ate the victim. So the priest and the victim that represented the sin of the offerer were completely one. Since Christ is both, the eating by the priest shows how He did make it His own. Only, in Christ, what was pictured here happened first when He was the victim. The priesthood He exercises for us now in heaven comes afterwards.
The Servant's Gain
"The priest who makes atonement with it shall have it" is more than a rule about the priest's pay. It points to what a person gains by taking up this service.
An Outline of Sound WordsThe priest who made atonement with the sin or trespass offering received the offering for his service. This suggests the gain to our souls in taking up this priestly exercise.
Eating the Sin Offering Now
This priestly exercise is still asked of believers. It means feeling another's sin before God instead of judging it from a distance.
Numerical Bible NotesThe eating has the same meaning here as elsewhere. It is entering into what makes atonement before God, and so, of necessity, into the sin itself as He sees it… Daniel confessing his sin and the sin of his people was surely eating the sin offering. Just such identification of ourselves with the sins of God's people is a great need for all of us… Really eating the sin offering makes a person as serious as he is tender. Who can judge harshly when Christ has borne the judgment?
Summary
- One law. The guilt offering follows the sin offering step for step. God does not set up a new procedure for each failure.
- One difference, debated. Commentators differ. Some deny any split between sinful nature and sinful acts. Others see God's nature on one side and God's government on the other.
- One holiness. Every wrong, even one against a neighbour, is against the Lord. So the offering that covers it ranks most holy, and it is found perfectly only in Christ crucified.
- One Person. The priest who eats the offering makes the offender's trespass his own. Christ is both victim and priest — first bearing sin, then serving us as priest in heaven.
- One portion. What the priest handled, he received. Taking up another's sin before God is service that feeds the one who serves.