Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto the LORD, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering.
If ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation—corporate inadvertent sin required corporate atonement. The phrase "without the knowledge" (me'eyney, מֵעֵינֵי—literally "from the eyes of") means sin committed when the congregation was unaware, either of the act itself or its sinfulness. The prescribed offering—one young bullock for a burnt offering... and one kid of the goats for a sin offering—combined the olah (עֹלָה, burnt offering, wholly consumed) expressing total dedication, with the chattat (חַטָּאת, sin offering) providing atonement.
This dual offering reveals atonement theology: sin required blood purification (chattat) AND renewed consecration to God (olah). The burnt offering's sweet savour unto the LORD (reach nichoach, רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ—literally "aroma of appeasement") indicates God's acceptance, not literal divine smell-pleasure. God graciously accepted symbolic substitution—an animal's life for the sinner's deserved death. This prefigures Christ who offered Himself "for a sweetsmelling savour" (Ephesians 5:2).
Historical Context
Corporate guilt was real in Israel's covenant structure—the whole nation could suffer for communal sin (Achan's sin in Joshua 7). This corporate dimension contrasts with modern individualism. Ancient Near Eastern cultures generally understood collective responsibility more readily than modern Western societies. The sacrificial system's elaborate regulations (detailed in Leviticus 1-7) governed Israel's worship from Sinai through the first temple's destruction (586 BC) and again after the return until AD 70.
Questions for Reflection
How does the concept of corporate guilt challenge individualistic modern Christianity?
What does the combination of burnt offering and sin offering teach about comprehensive atonement?
How do these typological sacrifices deepen appreciation for Christ's singular, sufficient sacrifice?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
If ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation—corporate inadvertent sin required corporate atonement. The phrase "without the knowledge" (me'eyney, מֵעֵינֵי—literally "from the eyes of") means sin committed when the congregation was unaware, either of the act itself or its sinfulness. The prescribed offering—one young bullock for a burnt offering... and one kid of the goats for a sin offering—combined the olah (עֹלָה, burnt offering, wholly consumed) expressing total dedication, with the chattat (חַטָּאת, sin offering) providing atonement.
This dual offering reveals atonement theology: sin required blood purification (chattat) AND renewed consecration to God (olah). The burnt offering's sweet savour unto the LORD (reach nichoach, רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ—literally "aroma of appeasement") indicates God's acceptance, not literal divine smell-pleasure. God graciously accepted symbolic substitution—an animal's life for the sinner's deserved death. This prefigures Christ who offered Himself "for a sweetsmelling savour" (Ephesians 5:2).