In this message we come to a big, big problem that seems to be against the scriptural principle. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. But according to Leviticus 5:11-13 the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, which, of course, has no blood, could be offered for a sin offering. How could any blood be shed from the grains of wheat, especially out of flour made from wheat? It is impossible! Blood has to come out of an animal, not out of any vegetable. In poetry people sometimes like to say that a grapevine sheds its blood to produce wine for us. But still that is wine, not blood. Blood cannot come out of a vegetable. How then could the fine flour of wheat be used as a trespass offering and even for a sin offering?
Some teachers have said that Leviticus 5:1-13 is still on the sin offering as a continuation of chapter four. But nearly all the leading versions of the Bible translate the Hebrew word in 5:6 into trespass offering. Leviticus 5:7 should also read the same, but the King James Version did not render it so accurately. The best translation of Leviticus 5:7 reads: “And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring his trespass offering for that wherein he hath sinned; two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord, one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.”
Other teachers have said that the Hebrew word for trespass or trespass offering is a derivation from the Hebrew word that means be guilty. You may translate this Hebrew word into guilt, and you may translate the same Hebrew word into guilt offering, which means the trespass offering.
Most translators translate this word for trespass offering into one of three words: trespass offering, transgression offering, or guilt offering. In chapters four and five of Leviticus the verb form, be guilty, is used many times (4:13, 22, 27; 5:2, 4, 5, 17). The noun form of guilty can be translated into a guilt offering, meaning a trespass offering.
But in verse 6, to translate the word into guilt is meaningless. To say he shall bring his guilt unto the Lord for his sin is not meaningful. So according to the context of the verse you have to translate it into a kind of offering, whether you call it a trespass offering, a transgression offering, or a guilt offering. It is a kind of offering, not just a kind of guilt, or a kind of trespass, or a kind of transgression. The sentence governs the meaning of the word. The same word in any language may be used differently according to the context of the sentence. You must make a decision based upon the context. No one can explain away the trespass offering in 5:6. This is a strong proof that 5:1-13 is not a continuation of the sin offering. It is a new section, a section on the trespass offering.
All these points indicate that there are many complications related to these chapters. Not only in the writing of the Bible are there complications, but also even in our experiences we have many complications. Why are there complications in the writing of the Bible? It is because the writing of the Bible is a kind of reflection of our experiences. For example, a certain machine is made in a particular way, so it has a book of particular instructions. If you only look at the instructions apart from the machine, you may think that the writer was not so clear and that his instruction has a lot of complications. But it is because the machine itself was made with so many complications. How could the instructions have no complications? If the instructions had no complications, that would not match the machine. The instructions are written according to the make-up of the machine. You have to realize that Leviticus 4, 5, and 6 were written according to your make-up and your experiences.
In this chapter there is also a bigger and even more basic complication, that is, the word guilt. Many times the word guilt is used instead of sin and instead of transgression or trespass. Two kinds of offerings are mentioned and yet both are dealing with the matter of guilt.
Of course, sin is a guilt and transgressions are also guilt. We illustrated previously using a peach tree and peaches. Both are peach. You cannot say that the peaches are peach but that the tree is not peach.
Apparently this is a complication. Actually it is not a complication. It is a distinct writing. The tree is the tree, and the peaches are the peaches. Although all are peach, still there is a difference. In like manner sin is a guilt, and all the trespasses are guilt. Both are guilt, yet there is a difference. Sin as a guilt is something in our nature. Trespasses or transgressions are guilt, yet they are not in our nature. They are in our conduct and behavior. Yet they all come out of the very sin that is in our nature. The many guilts come out of that one guilt which is in our nature. In our daily character and daily behavior there are a lot of guilts. All these guilts have come out of that unique guilt which is in our nature.
Adam committed sin, and now we have committed sin. What is the difference? The difference is this: with Adam the committing of sin was unique, but with us the committing of sin is not unique. Adam’s committing of sin was a father to produce so many other committings of sin in us.