Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is n boldface (=bold=).
Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.
Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained
except in obvious cases of typographical error.
The cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the
transcriber and is placed in the public domain.
Page 188: "The thought of the inspired writer appears to be this: Just
as" ... The transcriber has added the colon.
Page 337: "And in order to do this, we must" ... The transcriber has
supplied the word "do".
* * * * *
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE
EDITED BY THE REV.
W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
_Editor of "The Expositor," etc._
THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS
BY THE REV
S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.
_Toronto, Canada_
London
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
27, PATERNOSTER ROW
MCMVI
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.
_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._
FIRST SERIES.
Colossians.
By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D., D.Lit.
St. Mark.
By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.
Genesis.
By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.
1 Samuel.
By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.
2 Samuel.
By the same Author.
Hebrews.
By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.
SECOND SERIES.
Galatians.
By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.
The Pastoral Epistles.
By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.
Isaiah I.--XXXIX.
By Prof. G. A. SMITH, DD. Vol. I.
The Book of Revelation.
By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.
1 Corinthians.
By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D,
The Epistles of St. John.
By the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Armagh.
THIRD SERIES.
Judges and Ruth.
By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.
Jeremiah.
By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.
Isaiah XL.--LXVI.
By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.
St. Matthew.
By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.
Exodus.
By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.
St. Luke.
By the Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.
FOURTH SERIES.
Ecclesiastes.
By the Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.
St. James and St. Jude.
By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.
Proverbs.
By the Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.
Leviticus.
By the Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.
The Gospel of St. John.
By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.
The Acts of the Apostles.
By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.
FIFTH SERIES.
The Psalms.
By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.
1 and 2 Thessalonians.
By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.
The Book of Job.
By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.
Ephesians.
By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.
The Gospel of St. John.
By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.
The Acts of the Apostles.
By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.
SIXTH SERIES.
1 Kings.
By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.
Philippians.
By Principal RAINY, D.D.
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.
By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.
Joshua.
By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.
The Psalms.
By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.
The Epistles of St. Peter.
By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.
SEVENTH SERIES.
2 Kings.
By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.
Romans.
By the Right Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.
The Books of Chronicles.
By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.
2 Corinthians.
By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.
Numbers.
By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.
The Psalms.
By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.
EIGHTH SERIES.
Daniel.
By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.
The Book of Jeremiah.
By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.
Deuteronomy.
By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.
The Song of Solomon and Lamentations.
By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.
Ezekiel.
By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.
The Books of the Twelve Prophets.
By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols.
THE
BOOK OF LEVITICUS
BY THE REV.
S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.
AUTHOR OF
"THE JEWS; OR, PREDICTION AND FULFILMENT," "THE LIGHT OF ASIA
AND THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD," ETC.
_FIFTH EDITION_
London
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
27, PATERNOSTER ROW
MCMVI
_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._
CONTENTS.
PART I.
_THE TABERNACLE WORSHIP._
(LEV. i.-x., xvi.)
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY (i. 1) 3
The Origin and Authority of Leviticus, 5.--The Occasion and
Plan of Leviticus, 18.--The Purpose of Leviticus, 20.--The
Present-day use of Leviticus, 24.
CHAPTER II.
SACRIFICE: THE BURNT-OFFERING (i. 2-4) 29
The Ritual of the Burnt-offering, 36.--The Presentation of
the Victim, 39.--The Laying on of the Hand, 41.
CHAPTER III.
THE BURNT-OFFERING [CONCLUDED] (i. 5-17; vi. 8-13) 47
The Killing of the Victim, 47.--The Sprinkling of the
Blood, 48.--The Sacrificial Burning, 50.--The Continual
Burnt-offering, 59.
CHAPTER IV.
THE MEAL-OFFERING (ii. 1-16; vi. 14-23) 63
The Daily Meal-Offering, 79.
CHAPTER V.
THE PEACE-OFFERING (iii. 1-17; vii. 11-34; xix. 5-8; xxii.
21-25) 82
The Prohibition of Fat and Blood, 99.--Thank-offerings,
Vows, and Freewill-offerings, 104.
CHAPTER VI.
THE SIN-OFFERING (iv. 1-35) 109
Graded Responsibility, 120.
CHAPTER VII.
THE RITUAL OF THE SIN-OFFERING (iv. 4-35; v. 1-13; vi.
24-30) 134
The Sprinkling of the Blood, 136.--The Sanctity of the
Sin-offering, 150.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE GUILT-OFFERING (v. 14; vi. 7; vii. 1-7) 155
CHAPTER IX.
THE PRIESTS' PORTIONS (vi. 16-18, 26; vii. 6-10, 14, 31-36) 175
CHAPTER X.
THE CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS, AND OF THE
TABERNACLE (viii. 1-36) 181
The Levitical Priesthood and Tabernacle as Types,
184.--The Washing with Water, 190.--The Investiture,
191.--The Anointing, 201.--The Consecration Sacrifices,
204.
CHAPTER XI.
THE INAUGURATION OF THE TABERNACLE SERVICE (ix. 1-24) 219
The Double Benediction, 231.
CHAPTER XII.
NADAB'S AND ABIHU'S "STRANGE FIRE" (x. 1-20) 237
Mourning in Silence, 247.--Carefulness after Judgment, 250.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT (xvi. 1-34) 256
Azazel, 264.
PART II.
_THE LAW OF THE DAILY LIFE._
(LEV. xi.-xv.; xvii.-xxv.)
CHAPTER XIV.
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, AND DEFILEMENT BY DEAD
BODIES (xi. 1-47) 277
CHAPTER XV.
OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF ISSUES (xv. 1-33) 305
CHAPTER XVI.
THE UNCLEANNESS OF CHILD-BEARING (xii. 1-8) 313
The Ordinance of Circumcision, 315.--Purification after
Child-birth, 320.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY (xiii. 1-46) 327
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER (xiv. 1-32) 345
Leprosy in a Garment or House, 358.
CHAPTER XIX.
HOLINESS IN EATING (xvii. 1-16) 367
CHAPTER XX.
THE LAW OF HOLINESS: CHASTITY (xviii. 1-30) 379
CHAPTER XXI.
THE LAW OF HOLINESS [CONCLUDED] (xix. 1-37) 391
CHAPTER XXII.
PENAL SANCTIONS (xx. 1-27) 418
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE LAW OF PRIESTLY HOLINESS (xxi. 1-xxii. 33) 432
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE SET FEASTS OF THE LORD (xxiii. 1-44) 447
The Weekly Sabbath, 453.--Passover and Unleavened
Bread, 455.--Pentecost, 459.--The Feast of Trumpets,
461.--The Day of Atonement, 463.--The Feast of
Tabernacles, 464.--Typical Meaning of the Feasts of
the Seventh Month, 468.
CHAPTER XXV.
THE HOLY LIGHT AND THE SHEW-BREAD: THE BLASPHEMER'S
END (xxiv. 1-23) 474
The "Bread of the Presence," 477.--The Penalty of
Blasphemy, 480.
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE SABBATIC YEAR AND THE JUBILEE (xxv. 1-55) 487
The Jubilee, 489.--The Jubilee and the Land, 491.--The
Jubilee and Dwelling-houses, 494.--The Jubilee and
Slavery, 497.--Practical Objects of the Sabbatic Year
and the Jubilee, 502.--Typical Significance of the
Sabbatic and Jubilee Years, 510.
PART III.
_CONCLUSION AND APPENDIX._
(LEV. xxvi., xxvii.)
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE PROMISES AND THREATS OF THE COVENANT (xxvi. 1-46) 519
The Promises of the Covenant, 521.--"The Vengeance of
the Covenant," 522.--The Promised Restoration, 534.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
CONCERNING VOWS (xxvii. 1-34) 541
The Vowing of Persons, 542.--The Vowing of Domestic
Animals, 545.--The Vowing of Houses and Fields,
546.--The Vow in New Testament Ethics, 549.--Exclusions
from the Vow, 553.--The Law of the Ban, 554.--The
Law of the Tithe, 559.
PART I.
_THE TABERNACLE WORSHIP._
I.-X., XVI.
SECTION 1. THE LAW OF THE OFFERINGS: i.-vi.
SECTION 2. THE INSTITUTION OF THE TABERNACLE SERVICE: viii.-x.
(1) THE CONSECRATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD: vii.
(2) THE INDUCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD: ix., x.
SECTION 3. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT: xvi.
CHAPTER I.
_INTRODUCTORY._
"And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the
tent of meeting."--LEV. i. 1.
Perhaps no book in the Bible presents to the ordinary reader so many
and peculiar difficulties as the book of Leviticus. Even of those who
devoutly believe, as they were taught in their childhood, that, like
all the other books contained in the Holy Scriptures, it is to be
received throughout with unquestioning faith as the very Word of God,
a large number will frankly own in a discouraged way that this is with
them merely a matter of belief, which their personal experience in
reading the book has for the most part failed to sustain; and that for
them so to see through symbol and ritual as to get much spiritual
profit from such reading has been quite impossible.
A larger class, while by no means denying or doubting the original
Divine authority of this book, yet suppose that the elaborate ritual
of the Levitical law, with its multiplied, minute prescriptions
regarding matters religious and secular, since the Mosaic dispensation
has now long passed away, neither has nor can have any living relation
to present-day questions of Christian belief and practice; and so,
under this impression, they very naturally trouble themselves little
with a book which, if they are right, can now only be of special
interest to the religious antiquarian.
Others, again, while sharing this feeling, also confess to a great
difficulty which they feel in believing that many of the commands of
this law can ever have been really given by inspiration from God. The
extreme severity of some of the laws, and what seems to them to be the
arbitrary and even puerile character of other prescriptions, appear to
them to be irreconcilable, in the one case, with the mercy, in the
other, with the dignity and majesty, of the Divine Being.
With a smaller, but, it is to be feared, an increasing number, this
feeling, either of indifference or of doubt, regarding the book of
Leviticus, is further strengthened by their knowledge of the fact that
in our day its Mosaic origin and inspired authority is strenuously
denied by a large number of eminent scholars, upon grounds which they
claim to be strictly scientific. And if such Christians do not know
enough to decide for themselves on its merits the question thus
raised, they at least know enough to have a very uncomfortable doubt
whether an intelligent Christian has any longer a right to regard the
book as in any true sense the Word of God; and--what is still more
serious--they feel that the question is of such a nature that it is
impossible for any one who is not a specialist in Hebrew and the
higher criticism to reach any well-grounded and settled conviction,
one way or the other, on the subject. Such persons, of course, have
little to do with this book. If the Word of God is indeed there, it
cannot reach them.
With such mental conditions so widely prevailing, some words regarding
the origin, authority, purpose, and use of this book of Leviticus
seem to be a necessary preliminary to its profitable exposition.
THE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF LEVITICUS.
As to the origin and authority of this book, the first verse presents
a very formal and explicit statement: "The Lord called unto Moses, and
spake unto him." These words evidently contain by necessary
implication two affirmations: first, that the legislation which
immediately follows is of Mosaic origin: "The Lord spake unto
_Moses_;" and, secondly, that it was not the product merely of the
mind of Moses, but came to him, in the first instance, as a revelation
from Jehovah: "_Jehovah_ spake unto Moses." And although it is quite
true that the words in this first verse strictly refer only to that
section of the book which immediately follows, yet, inasmuch as the
same or a like formula is used repeatedly before successive
sections,--in all, no less than fifty-six times in the twenty-seven
chapters,--these words may with perfect fairness be regarded as
expressing a claim respecting these two points, which covers the
entire book.
We must not, indeed, put more into these words than is truly there.
They simply and only declare the Mosaic origin and the inspired
authority of the legislation which the book contains. They say nothing
as to whether or not Moses wrote every word of this book himself; or
whether the Spirit of God directed and inspired other persons, in
Moses' time or afterward, to commit this Mosaic law to writing. They
give us no hint as to when the various sections which make up the book
were combined into their present literary form, whether by Moses
himself, as is the traditional view, or by men of God in a later day.
As to these and other matters of secondary importance which might be
named, the book records no statement. The words used in the text, and
similar expressions used elsewhere, simply and only declare the
legislation to be of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority. Only, be
it observed, so much as this they do affirm in the most direct and
uncompromising manner.
It is of great importance to note all this: for in the heat of
theological discussion the issue is too often misapprehended on both
sides. The real question, and, as every one knows, the burning
Biblical question of the day, is precisely this, whether the claim
this book contains, thus exactly defined, is true or false.
A certain school of critics, comprising many of the greatest learning,
and of undoubted honesty of intention, assures the Church and the
world that a strictly scientific criticism compels one to the
conclusion that this claim, even as thus sharply limited and defined,
is, to use plain words, not true; that an enlightened scholarship must
acknowledge that Moses had little or nothing to do with what we find
in this book; that, in fact, it did not originate till nearly a
thousand years later, when, after the Babylonian captivity, certain
Jewish priests, desirous of magnifying their authority with the
people, fell on the happy expedient of writing this book of Leviticus,
together with certain other parts of the Pentateuch, and then, to give
the work a prestige and authority which on its own merits or over
their own names it could not have had, delivered it to their
countrymen as nearly a thousand years old, the work of their great
lawgiver. And, strangest of all, they not only did this, but were so
successful in imposing this forgery upon the whole nation that history
records not even an expressed suspicion of a single person, until
modern times, of its non-Mosaic origin; that is, they succeeded in
persuading the whole people of Israel that a law which they had
themselves just promulgated had been in existence among them for
nearly ten centuries, the very work of Moses, when, in reality, it was
quite a new thing.
Astonishing and even incredible as all this may seem to the
uninitiated, substantially this theory is held by many of the Biblical
scholars of our day as presenting the essential facts of the case; and
the discovery of these supposed facts we are called upon to admire as
one of the chief literary triumphs of modern critical scholarship!
Now the average Christian, whether minister or layman, though
intelligent enough in ordinary matters of human knowledge, or even a
well-educated man, is not, and cannot be, a specialist in Hebrew and
in the higher criticism. What is he then to do when such a theory is
presented to him as endorsed by scholars of the highest ability and
the most extensive learning? Must we, then, all learn Hebrew and study
this higher criticism before we can be permitted to have any
well-justified and decided opinion whether this book, this law of
Leviticus, be the Word of God or a forgery? We think not. There are
certain considerations, quite level to the understanding of every one;
certain facts, which are accepted as such by the most eminent
scholars, which ought to be quite sufficient for the maintenance and
the abundant confirmation of our faith in this book of Leviticus as
the very Word of God to Moses.
In the first place, it is to be observed that if any theory which
denies the Mosaic origin and the inspired authority of this book be
true, then the fifty-six assertions of such origin and authority
which the book contains are unqualifiedly false. Further, however any
may seek to disguise the issue with words, if in fact this Levitical
ritual and code of laws came into existence only after the Babylonian
captivity and in the way suggested, then the book of Leviticus can by
no possibility be the Word of God in any sense, but is a forgery and a
fraud. Surely this needs no demonstration. "The Lord spake unto
Moses," reads, for instance, this first verse; "The Lord did _not_
speak these things unto Moses," answer these critics; "they were
invented by certain unscrupulous priests centuries afterwards." Such
is the unavoidable issue.
Now who shall arbitrate in these matters? who shall settle these
questions for the great multitude of believers who know nothing of
Hebrew criticism, and who, although they may not well understand much
that is in this book, have yet hitherto accepted it with reverent
faith as being what it professes to be, the very Word of God through
Moses? To whom, indeed, can we refer such a question as this for
decision but to Jesus Christ of Nazareth, our Lord and Saviour,
confessed of all believers to be in verity the only-begotten Son of
God from the bosom of the Father? For He declared that "the Father
showed unto Him," the Son, "all things that He Himself did;" He will
therefore be sure to know the truth of this matter, sure to know the
Word of His Father from the word of man, if He will but speak.
And He has spoken on this matter, He, the Son of God. What was the
common belief of the Jews in the time of our Lord as to the Mosaic
origin and Divine authority of this book, as of all the Pentateuch,
every one knows. Not a living man disputes the statement made by a
recent writer on this subject, that "previous to the Christian era,
there are no traces of a second opinion" on this question; the book
"was universally ascribed to Moses." Now, that Jesus Christ shared and
repeatedly endorsed this belief of His contemporaries should be
perfectly clear to any ordinary reader of the Gospels.
The facts as to His testimony, in brief, are these. As to the
Pentateuch in general, He called it (Luke xxiv. 44) "the law of
Moses;" and, as regards its authority, He declared it to be such that
"till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass away from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. v. 18).
Could this be truly said of this book of Leviticus, which is
undoubtedly included in this term, "the law," if it were not the Word
of God, but a forgery, so that its fifty-six affirmations of its
Mosaic origin and inspired authority were false? Again, Christ
declared that Moses in his "writings" wrote of Him,--a statement,
which, it should be observed, imputes to Moses foreknowledge, and
therefore supernatural inspiration; and further said that faith in
Himself was so connected with faith in Moses, that if the Jews had
believed Moses, they would have also believed Him (John v. 46, 47). Is
it conceivable that Christ should have spoken thus, if the "writings"
referred to had been forgeries?
But not only did our Lord thus endorse the Pentateuch in general, but
also, on several occasions, the Mosaic origin and inspired authority
of Leviticus in particular. Thus, when He healed the lepers (Matt.
viii. 4) He sent them to the priests on the ground that Moses had
commanded this in such cases. But such a command is found only in this
book of Leviticus (xiv. 3-10). Again, in justifying His disciples for
plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, He adduces the example
of David, who ate the shew-bread when he was an hungered, "which was
not lawful for him to eat, but only for the priests" (Matt. xii. 4);
thus referring to a law which is only found in Leviticus (xxiv. 9).
But the citation was only pertinent on the assumption that He regarded
the prohibition of the shew-bread as having the same inspired
authority as the obligation of the Sabbath. In John vii. 32, again, He
refers to Moses as having renewed the ordinance of circumcision, which
at the first had been given to Abraham; and, as usual, assumes the
Divine authority of the command as thus given. But this renewal of the
ordinance of circumcision is recorded only in Leviticus (xii. 3). Yet
once more, rebuking the Pharisees for their ingenious justification of
the hard-hearted neglect of parents by undutiful children, He reminds
them that Moses had said that he who cursed father or mother should be
put to death; a law which is only found in the so-called priest-code,
Exod. xxi. 17 and Lev. xx. 9. Further, He is so far from merely
assuming the truth of the Jewish opinion for the sake of an argument,
that He formally declares this law, equally with the fifth
commandment, to be "a commandment of God," which they by their
tradition had made void (Matt. xiv. 3-6).
One would suppose that it had been impossible to avoid the inference
from all this, that our Lord believed, and intended to be understood
as teaching, that the law of Leviticus was, in a true sense, of Mosaic
origin, and of inspired, and therefore infallible, authority.
We are in no way concerned, indeed,--nor is it essential to the
argument,--to press this testimony of Christ as proving more than the
very least which the words fairly imply. For instance, nothing in His
words, as we read them, any more than in the language of Leviticus
itself, excludes the supposition that in the preparation of the law,
Moses, like the Apostle Paul, may have had co-labourers or amanuenses,
such as Aaron, Eleazar, Joshua, or others, whose several parts of the
work might then have been issued under his endorsement and authority;
so that Christ's testimony is in no wise irreconcilable with the fact
of differences of style, or with the evidence of different documents,
if any think that they discover this, in the book.[1]
[1] "Genesis may be made up of various documents, and yet have
been compiled by Moses; and the same thing is possible, even in
the later books of the Pentateuch. If these could be
successfully partitioned among different writers, on the score
of variety in literary execution, why may not these have been
engaged jointly with Moses himself in preparing each his
appointed portion, and the whole have been finally reduced by
Moses to its present form?... Why might not these continue their
work, and record what occurred after Moses was taken
away?"--Professor W. H. Green, _Schaff-Herzog Encyclopædia_;
article, "The Pentateuch."
We are willing to go further, and add that in the testimony of our
Lord we find nothing which declares against the possibility of one or
more redactions or revisions of the laws of Leviticus in post-Mosaic
times, by one or more _inspired_ men; as, _e.g._, by Ezra, described
(Ezra vii. 6) as "a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord,
the God of Israel, had given;" to whom also ancient Jewish tradition
attributes the final settlement of the Old Testament canon down to his
time. Hence no words of Christ touch the question as to when the book
of Leviticus received its present form, in respect of the order of its
chapters, sections, and verses. This is a matter of quite secondary
importance, and may be settled any way without prejudice to the Mosaic
origin and authority of the laws it contains.
Neither, in the last place, do the words of our Lord, carefully
weighed, of necessity exclude even the possibility that such persons,
acting under Divine direction and inspiration, may have first reduced
some parts of the law given by Moses to writing;[2] or even, as an
extreme supposition, may have entered here and there, under the
unerring guidance of the Holy Ghost, prescriptions which, although new
as to the letter, were none the less truly Mosaic, in that by
necessary implication they were logically involved in the original
code.[3]
[2] "If it be proven that a record was committed to writing at a
comparatively late date, it does not necessarily follow that the
essential part has not been accurately handed down."--Professor
Strack, _ibid._
[3] Something like this seems to have been the final position of
the late Professor Delitzsch, who said: "We hold firmly that
Moses laid the foundation of this codification" (of the
"priest-code" of Leviticus, etc.), "but it was continued in the
post-Mosaic period within the priesthood, to whom was entrusted
the transmission, interpretation, and administration of the law.
We admit this willingly; and even the participation of Ezra in
this codification in itself furnishes no stumbling block for us.
For it is not inconceivable that laws which until then had been
handed down orally were fixed by him in writing to secure their
judicial authority and execution. The most important thing for
us is the historico-traditional character of the Pentateuchal
legislation, and especially the occasions for (the laws) and the
fundamental arrangements in the history of the times. That which
we cannot be persuaded to admit is that the so-called Priestly
Code is the work of the free invention of the latest date, which
takes on the artificial appearance of ancient history."--_The
Presbyterian Review_, July 1882; article, "Delitzsch on the
Origin and Composition of the Pentateuch," p. 578.
We do not indeed here argue either for or against any of these
suppositions, which were apart from the scope of the present work. We
are only concerned here to remark that Christ has not incontrovertibly
settled these questions. These things may be true or not true; the
decision of such matters properly belongs to the literary critics. But
decide them as one will, it will still remain true that the law is
"the law of Moses," given by revelation from God.
So much as this, however, is certain. Whatsoever modifications may
conceivably have passed upon the text, all work of this kind was done,
as all agree, long before the time of our Lord; and the text to which
He refers as of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority, was therefore
essentially the text of Leviticus as we have it to-day. We are thus
compelled to insist that whatever modifications may have been made in
the original Levitical law, they cannot have been, according to the
testimony of our Lord, such as in any way conflicted with His
affirmation of its Mosaic origin and its inspired authority. They can
thus, at the very utmost, only have been, as suggested, in the way of
legitimate logical development and application to successive
circumstances, of the Levitical law as originally given to Moses; and
that, too, under the administration of a priesthood endowed with the
possession of the Urim and Thummim, so as to give such official
deliverances, whenever required, the sanction of inerrant Divine
authority, binding on the conscience as from God. Here, at least,
surely, Christ by His testimony has placed an immovable limitation
upon the speculations of the critics.
And yet there are those who admit the facts as to Christ's testimony,
and nevertheless claim that without any prejudice to the absolute
truthfulness of our Lord, we may suppose that in speaking as He did,
with regard to the law of Leviticus, He merely conformed to the common
usage of the Jews, without intending thereby to endorse their
opinion; any more than, when, conforming to the ordinary mode of
speech, He spoke of the sun as rising and setting, He meant thereby to
be understood as endorsing the common opinion of men of that time that
the sun actually passed round the earth every twenty-four hours. To
which it is enough to reply that this illustration, which has so often
been used in this argument, is not relevant to the case before us. For
not only did our Lord use language which implied the truth of the
Jewish belief regarding the origin and authority of the Mosaic law,
but He formally teaches it; and--what is of still more moment--He
rests the obligation of certain duties upon the fact that this law of
Leviticus was a revelation from God to Moses for the children of
Israel. But if the supposed facts, upon which He bases His argument in
such cases, are, in reality, not facts, then His argument becomes null
and void. How, for instance, is it possible to explain away the words
in which He appeals to one of the laws of Exodus and Leviticus (Matt.
xv. 3-6) as being _not_ a Jewish opinion, but, instead, in explicit
contrast with the traditions of the Rabbis, "a commandment of God"?
Was this expression merely "an accommodation" to the mistaken notions
of the Jews? If so, then what becomes of His argument?
Others, again, feeling the force of this, and yet sincerely and
earnestly desiring to maintain above possible impeachment the perfect
truthfulness of Christ, still assuming that the Jews were mistaken,
and admitting that, if so, our Lord must have shared their error, take
another line of argument. They remind us of what, however mysterious,
cannot be denied, that our Lord, in virtue of His incarnation, came
under certain limitations in knowledge; and then urge that without
any prejudice to His character we may suppose that, not only with
regard to the time of His advent and kingdom (Matt. xxiv. 36), but
also with respect to the authorship and the Divine authority of this
book of Leviticus, He may have shared in the ignorance and error of
His countrymen.
But, surely, the fact of Christ's limitation in knowledge cannot be
pressed so far as the argument of such requires, without by logical
necessity nullifying Christ's mission and authority as a religious
teacher. For it is certain that according to His own word, and the
universal belief of Christians, the supreme object of Christ's mission
was to reveal unto men through His life and teachings, and especially
through His death upon the cross, the Father; and it is certain that
He claimed to have, in order to this end, perfect knowledge of the
Father. But how could this most essential claim of His be justified,
and how could He be competent to give unto men a perfect and inerrant
knowledge of the Father, if the ignorance of His humiliation was so
great that He was unable to distinguish from His Father's Word a book
which, by the hypothesis, was not the Word of the Father, but an
ingenious and successful forgery of certain crafty post-exilian
priests?
It is thus certain that Jesus must have known whether the Pentateuch,
and, in particular, this book of Leviticus, was the Word of God or
not; certain also that, if the Word of God, it could not have been a
forgery; and equally certain that Jesus could not have intended in
what He said on this subject to accommodate His speech to a common
error of the people, without thereby endorsing their belief. It thus
follows that critics of the radical school referred to are directly
at issue with the testimony of Christ regarding this book. It is of
immense consequence that Christians should see this issue clearly.
While Jesus taught in various ways that Leviticus contains a law given
by revelation from God to Moses, these teach that it is a priestly
forgery of the days after Ezra. Both cannot be right; and if the
latter are in the right, then--we speak with all possible deliberation
and reverence--Jesus Christ was mistaken, and was therefore unable
even to tell us with inerrant certainty whether this or that is the
Word of God or not. But if this is so, then how can we escape the
final inference that His claim to have a perfect knowledge of the
Father must have been an error; His claim to be the incarnate Son of
God, therefore, a false pretension, and Christianity, a delusion, so
that mankind has in Him no Saviour?
But against so fatal a conclusion stands the great established fact of
the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; whereby He was with
power declared to be the Son of God, so that we may know that His word
on this, as on all subjects where He has spoken, settles controversy,
and is a sufficient ground of faith; while it imposes upon all
speculations of men, literary or philosophical, eternal and
irremovable limitations.
Let no one think that the case, as regards the issue at stake, has
been above stated too strongly. One could not well go beyond the often
cited words of Kuenen on this subject: "We must either cast aside as
worthless our dearly bought scientific method, or we must for ever
cease to acknowledge the authority of the New Testament in the domain
of the exegesis of the Old." With good reason does another scholar
exclaim at these words, "The Master must not be heard as a witness! We
treat our criminals with more respect." So then stands the question
this day which this first verse of Leviticus brings before us: In
which have we more confidence? in literary critics, like a Kuenen or
Wellhausen, or in Jesus Christ? Which is the more likely to know with
certainty whether the law of Leviticus is a revelation from God or
not?
The devout Christian, who through the grace of the crucified and risen
Lord "of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write," and who
has "tasted the good word of God," will not long hesitate for an
answer. He will not indeed, if wise, timidly or fanatically decry all
literary investigation of the Scriptures; but he will insist that the
critic shall ever hold his reason in reverent subjection to the Lord
Jesus on all points where the Lord has spoken. Such everywhere will
heartily endorse and rejoice in those admirable words of the late
venerable Professor Delitzsch; words which stand almost as of his last
solemn testament:--"The theology of glory which prides itself upon
being its own highest authority, bewitches even those who had seemed
proof against its enchantments; and the theology of the Cross, which
holds Divine folly to be wiser than men, is regarded as an
unscientific lagging behind the steps of progress.... But the faith
which I professed in my first sermons, ... remains mine to-day,
undiminished in strength, and immeasurably higher than all earthly
knowledge. Even if in many Biblical questions I have to oppose the
traditional opinion, certainly my opposition rests on this side of the
gulf, on the side of the theology of the Cross, of grace, of
miracles!... By this banner let us stand; folding ourselves in it, let
us die!"[4] To which truly noble words every true Christian may well
say, Amen!
[4] _The Expositor_, January, 1889; article, "The Old Theology
and the New," pp. 54, 55.
We then stand without fear with Jesus Christ in our view of the origin
and authority of the book of Leviticus.
THE OCCASION AND ORDER OF LEVITICUS.
Before proceeding to the exposition of this book, a few words need to
be said regarding its occasion and plan, and its object and present
use.
The opening words of the book, "And the Lord said," connect it in the
closest manner with the preceding book of Exodus, at the contents of
which we have therefore to glance for a moment. The kingdom of God,
rejected by corporate humanity in the founding of the Babylonian
world-power, but continuing on earth in a few still loyal souls in the
line of Abraham and his seed, at last, according to promise, had been
formally and visibly re-established on earth at Mount Sinai. The
fundamental law of the kingdom contained in the ten commandments and
certain applications of the same, had been delivered in what is called
the Book of the Covenant, amid thunders and lightnings, at the holy
mount. Israel had solemnly entered into covenant with God on this
basis, saying, "All these things will we do and be obedient," and the
covenant had been sealed by the solemn sprinkling of blood.
This being done, Jehovah now issued commandment for the building of
the tabernacle or "tent of meeting," where He might manifest His glory
and from time to time communicate His will to Israel. As mediators
between Him and the people, the priesthood was appointed, their
vestments and duties prescribed. All this having been done as ordered,
the tent of meeting covering the interior tabernacle was set up; the
Shekinah cloud covered it, and the glory of Jehovah filled the
tabernacle,--the manifested presence of the King of Israel!
Out of the tent of meeting, from this excellent glory, Jehovah now
called unto Moses, and delivered the law as we have it in the first
seven chapters of the book of Leviticus. To the law of offerings
succeeds (viii.-x.) an account of the consecration of Aaron and his
sons to the priestly office, and their formal public assumption of
their functions, with an account of the very awful sanction which was
given to the preceding law, by the death of Nadab and Abihu before the
Lord, for offering as He had not commanded them.
The next section of the book contains the law concerning the clean and
the unclean, under the several heads of food (xi.), birth-defilement
(xii.), leprosy (xiii., xiv.), and unclean issues (xv.); and closes
(xvi.) with the ordinance of the great day of atonement, in which the
high priest alone, presenting the blood of a sin-offering in the Holy
of Holies, was to make atonement once a year for the sins of the whole
nation.[5]
[5] From the note in xvi. 1 it would appear that this chapter,
so different in subject from the five preceding chapters on
"Uncleannesses," originally preceded them, and so followed x.,
with which it is so closely connected. Its exposition is
therefore given immediately after that of x.
The third section of the book contains the law of holiness,[6] first,
for the people (xvii.-xx.), and then the special laws for the priests
(xxi., xxii.). These are followed, first (xxiii.), by the order for
the feasts of the Lord, or appointed times of public holy convocation;
then (xxiv.), by a historical incident designed to show that the law,
as given, must, in several respects noted, be applied in all its
strictness no less to the alien than to the native-born Israelite; and
finally (xxv.), by the remarkable ordinances concerning the sabbatic
year, and the culmination of the sabbatic system of the law in the
year of jubilee.
[6] This name is often restricted to xviii.-xx.
As a conclusion to the whole, the legislation thus given is now sealed
(xxvi.) with promises from God of blessing to the nation if they will
keep this law, and threats of unsparing vengeance against the people
and the land, if they forsake His commandments and break the covenant,
though still with a promise of mercy when, having thus transgressed,
they shall at any time repent. The book then closes with a
supplemental chapter on voluntary vows and dues (xxvii.).
THE PURPOSE OF LEVITICUS.
What now was the purpose of Leviticus? In general, as regards Israel,
it was given to direct them how they might live as a holy nation in
fellowship with God. The key-note of the book is "Holiness to
Jehovah." More particularly, the object of the book was to furnish for
the theocracy set up in Israel a code of law which should secure their
physical, moral, and spiritual well-being. But the establishment of
the theocracy in Israel was itself only a means to an end; namely, to
make Israel a blessing to all nations, in mediating to the Gentiles
the redemption of God. Hence, the Levitical laws were all intended and
adapted to train and prepare the nation for this special historic
mission to which God had chosen them.
To this end, it was absolutely necessary, first of all, that Israel
should be kept separate from the heathen nations. To effect and
maintain this separation, these laws of Leviticus were admirably
adapted. They are of such a character, that obedience to them, even in
a very imperfect way, has made the nation to this day to be, in a
manner and degree perfectly unique, isolated and separate from all the
peoples in the midst of whom they dwell.
The law of Leviticus was intended to effect this preparation of Israel
for its world-mission, not only in an external manner, but also in an
internal way; namely, by revealing in and to Israel the real character
of God, and in particular His unapproachable holiness. For if Israel
is to teach the nations the way of holiness, in which alone they can
be blessed, the chosen nation must itself first be taught holiness by
the Holy One. A lesson here for every one of us! The revelation of the
holiness of God was made, first of all, in the sacrificial system. The
great lesson which it must have kept before the most obtuse conscience
was this, that "without shedding of blood there is no remission of
sin;" that God therefore must be the Most Holy, and sin against Him no
trifle. It was made, again, in the precepts of the law. If in some
instances these seem to tolerate evils which we should have expected
that a holy God would at once have swept away, this is explained by
our Lord (Matt. xix. 8) by the fact that some things were of necessity
ordained in view of the hardness of men's hearts; while, on the other
hand, it is certainly quite plain that the laws of Leviticus
constantly held before the Israelite the absolute holiness of God as
the only standard of perfection.
The holiness of God was further revealed by the severity of the
penalties which were attached to these Levitical laws. Men often call
these harsh, forgetting that we are certain to underestimate the
criminality of sin; forgetting that God must, in any case, have
rights over human life which no earthly ruler can have. But no one
will deny that this very severity of the law was fitted to impress the
Israelite, as nothing else could, with God's absolute intolerance of
sin and impurity, and make him feel that he could not trifle with God,
and hope to sin with impunity.
And yet we must not forget that the law was adapted no less to reveal
the other side of the Divine holiness; that "the Lord God is merciful
and gracious, and of great kindness." For if the law of Leviticus
proclaims that "without shedding of blood there is no remission," with
equal clearness it proclaims that with shedding of blood there can be
remission of sin to every believing penitent.
And this leads to the observation that this law was further adapted to
the training of Israel for its world-mission, in that to every
thoughtful man it must have suggested a secret of redeeming mercy yet
to be revealed. Every such one must have often said in his heart that
it was "not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take
away sin;" and that as a substitute for human life, when forfeited by
sin, more precious blood than this must be required; even though he
might not have been able to imagine whence God should provide such a
Lamb for an offering. And so it was that the law was fitted, in the
highest degree, to prepare Israel for the reception of Him to whom all
these sacrifices pointed, the High Priest greater than Aaron, the Lamb
of God which should "take away the sins of the world," in whose person
and work Israel's mission should at last receive its fullest
realisation.
But the law of Leviticus was not only intended to prepare Israel for
the Messiah by thus awakening a sense of sin and need, it was so
ordered as to be in many ways directly typical and prophetic of Christ
and His great redemption, in its future historical development. Modern
rationalism, indeed, denies this; but it is none the less a fact.
According to the Apostle John (v. 46) our Lord declared that Moses
wrote of Him; and, according to Luke (xxiv. 27), when He expounded
unto the two walking to Emmaus "the things concerning himself," He
began His exposition with "Moses;" and (ver. 44) repeated what He had
before His resurrection taught them, that all things "which were
written in the law of Moses" concerning Him, must be fulfilled. And in
full accord with the teaching of the Master taught also His disciples.
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially, argues from this
postulate throughout, and also explicitly affirms the typical
character of the ordinances of this book; declaring, for example, that
the Levitical priests in the tabernacle service served "that which is
a copy of the heavenly things" (Heb. viii. 5); that the blood with
which "the copies of the things in the heavens" were cleansed,
prefigured "better sacrifices than these," even the one offering of
Him who "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. ix. 23-6);
and that the holy times and sabbatic seasons of the law were "a shadow
of the things to come." The fact is familiar, and one need not
multiply illustrations. Many, no doubt, in the interpretation of these
types, have broken loose from the principles indicated in the New
Testament, and given free rein to an unbridled fancy. But this only
warns us that we the more carefully take heed to follow the
intimations of the New Testament, and beware of mistaking our own
imaginings for the teaching of the Holy Ghost. Such interpretations
may bring typology into disrepute, but they cannot nullify it as a
fact which must be recognised in any attempt to open up the meaning of
the book.
Neither is the reality of this typical correspondence between the
Levitical ritual and order and New Testament facts set aside, even
though it is admitted that we cannot believe that Israel generally
could have seen all in it which the New Testament declares to be
there. For the very same New Testament which declares the typical
correspondence, no less explicitly tells us this very thing: that many
things predicted and prefigured in the Old Testament, concerning the
sufferings and glory of Christ, were not understood by the very
prophets through whom they were anciently made known (1 Peter i.
10-12). We have then carefully to distinguish in our interpretation
between the immediate historical intention of the Levitical
ordinances, for the people of that time, and their typical intention
and meaning; but we are not to imagine with some that to prove the
one, is to disprove the other.
THE PRESENT-DAY USE OF LEVITICUS.
This very naturally brings us to the answer to the frequent question:
Of what use can the book of Leviticus be to believers now? We answer,
first, that it is to us, just as much as to ancient Israel, a
revelation of the character of God. It is even a clearer revelation of
God's character to us than to them; for Christ has come as the
Fulfiller, and thus the Interpreter, of the law. And God has not
changed. He is still exactly what He was when He called to Moses out
of the tent of meeting or spoke to him at Mount Sinai. He is just as
holy as then; just as intolerant of sin as then; just as merciful to
the penitent sinner who presents in faith the appointed blood of
atonement, as He was then.
More particularly, Leviticus is of use to us now, as holding forth, in
a singularly vivid manner, the fundamental conditions of true
religion. The Levitical priesthood and sacrifices are no more, but the
spiritual truth they represented abides and must abide for ever:
namely, that there is for sinful man no citizenship in the kingdom of
God apart from a High Priest and Mediator with a propitiatory
sacrifice for sin. These are days when many, who would yet be called
Christians, belittle atonement, and deny the necessity of the shedding
of substitutionary blood for our salvation. Such would reduce, if it
were possible, the whole sacrificial ritual of Leviticus to a symbolic
_self_-offering of the worshipper to God. But against this stands the
constant testimony of our Lord and His apostles, that it is only
through the shedding of blood _not his own_ that man can have
remission of sin.
But Leviticus presents not only a ritual, but also a body of civil law
for the theocracy. Hence it comes that the book is of use for to-day,
as suggesting principles which should guide human legislators who
would rule according to the mind of God. Not, indeed, that the laws in
their detail should be adopted in our modern states; but it is certain
that the principles which underlie those laws are eternal. Social and
governmental questions have come to the front in our time as never
before. The question of the relation of the civil government to
religion, the question of the rights of labour and of capital, of
land-holding, that which by a suggestive euphemism we call "the social
evil," with its related subjects of marriage and divorce,--all these
are claiming attention as never before. There is not one of these
questions on which the legislation of Leviticus does not cast a flood
of light, into which our modern law-makers would do well to come and
walk.
For nothing can be more certain than this; that if God has indeed once
stood to a commonwealth in the relation of King and political Head, we
shall be sure to discover in His theocratic law upon what principles
infinite righteousness, wisdom, and goodness would deal with these
matters. We shall thus find in Leviticus that the law which it
contains, from beginning to end, stands in contradiction to that
modern democratic secularism, which would exclude religion from
government and order all national affairs without reference to the
being and government of God; and, by placing the law of sacrifice at
the beginning of the book, it suggests distinctly enough that the
maintenance of right relation to God is fundamental to good
government.
The severity of many of the laws is also instructive in this
connection. The trend of public opinion in many communities is against
capital punishment, as barbarous and inhuman. We are startled to
observe the place which this has in the Levitical law; which exhibits
a severity far removed indeed from the unrighteous and undiscriminating
severity of the earlier English law, but no less so from the more
undiscriminating leniency which has taken its place, especially as
regards those crimes in which large numbers of people are inclined to
indulge.
No less instructive to modern law-makers and political economists is
the bearing of the Levitical legislation on the social question, the
relations of rich and poor, of employer and employed. It is a
legislation which, with admirable impartiality, keeps the poor man
and the rich man equally in view; a body of law which, if strictly
carried out, would have made in Israel either a plutocracy or a
proletariat alike impossible. All these things will be illustrated in
the course of exposition. Enough has been said to show that those
among us who are sorely perplexed as to what government should do, at
what it should aim in these matters, may gain help by studying the
mind of Divine wisdom concerning these questions, as set forth in the
theocratic law of Leviticus.
Further, Leviticus is of use to us now as a revelation of Christ. This
follows from what has been already said concerning the typical
character of the law. The book is thus a treasury of divinely-chosen
illustrations as to the way of a sinner's salvation through the
priestly work of the Son of God, and as to his present and future
position and dignity as a redeemed man.
Finally, and for this same reason, Leviticus is still of use to us as
embodying in type and figure prophecies of things yet to come,
pertaining to Messiah's kingdom. We must not imagine with some that
because many of its types are long ago fulfilled, therefore all have
been fulfilled. Many, according to the hints of the New Testament,
await their fulfilment in a bright day that is coming. Some, for
instance, of the feasts of the Lord have been fulfilled; as passover,
and the feast of Pentecost. But how about the day of atonement for the
sin of corporate Israel? We have seen the type of the day of atonement
fulfilled in the entering into heaven of our great High Priest; but in
the type He came out again to bless the people: has that been
fulfilled? Has He yet proclaimed absolution of sin to guilty Israel?
How, again, about the feast of trumpets, and that of the ingathering
at full harvest? How about the Sabbatic year, and that most
consummate type of all, the year of jubilee? History records nothing
which could be held a fulfilment of any of these; and thus Leviticus
bids us look forward to a glorious future yet to come, when the great
redemption shall at last be accomplished, and "Holiness to Jehovah"
shall, as Zechariah puts it (xiv. 20), be written even "on the bells
of the horses."
CHAPTER II.
_SACRIFICE: THE BURNT-OFFERING._
i. 2-4.
The voice of Jehovah which had spoken not long before from Sinai, now
speaks from out "the tent of meeting." There was a reason for the
change. For Israel had since then entered into covenant with God; and
Moses, as the mediator of the covenant, had sealed it by sprinkling
with blood both the Book of the Covenant and the people. And therewith
they had professedly taken Jehovah for their God, and He had taken
Israel for His people. In infinite grace, He had condescended to
appoint for Himself a tabernacle or "tent of meeting," where He might,
in a special manner, dwell among them, and manifest to them His will.
The tabernacle had been made, according to the pattern shown to Moses
in the mount; and it had been now set up. And so now, He who had
before spoken amid the thunders of flaming, trembling Sinai, speaks
from the hushed silence of "the tent of meeting." The first words from
Sinai had been the holy law, forbidding sin with threatening of wrath:
the first words from the tent of meeting are words of grace,
concerning fellowship with the Holy One maintained through sacrifice,
and atonement for sin by the shedding of blood. A contrast this which
is itself a Gospel!
The offerings of which we read in the next seven chapters are of two
kinds, namely, bloody and unbloody offerings. In the former class were
included the burnt-offering, the peace-offering, the sin-offering, and
the guilt-, or trespass-offering; in the latter, only the
meal-offering. The book begins with the law of the burnt-offering.
In any exposition of this law of the offerings, it is imperative that
our interpretation shall be determined, not by any fancy of ours as to
what the offerings might fitly symbolise, nor yet, on the other hand,
be limited by what we may suppose that any Israelite of that day might
have thought regarding them; but by the statements concerning them
which are contained in the law itself, and in other parts of Holy
Scripture, especially in the New Testament.
First of all, we may observe that in the book itself the offerings are
described by the remarkable expression, "the bread" or "food of God".
Thus, it is commanded (xxi. 6) that the priests should not defile
themselves, on this ground: "the offerings of the Lord made by fire,
the bread of their God, do they offer." It was an ancient heathen
notion that in sacrifice, food was provided for the Deity in order
thus to show Him honour. And, doubtless, in Israel, ever prone to
idolatry, there were many who rose no higher than this gross
conception of the meaning of such words. Thus, in Psalm l. 8-15, God
sharply rebukes Israel for so unworthy thoughts of Himself, using
language at the same time which teaches the spiritual meaning of the
sacrifice, regarded as the "food," or "bread," of God: "I will not
reprove thee for thy sacrifices; and thy burnt-offerings are
continually before Me.... I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor
he-goats out of thy stalls.... If I were hungry, I would not tell
thee; for the world is Mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the
flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God the
sacrifice of _thanksgiving_; and _pay thy vows_ unto the Most High;
and call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee and thou
shalt glorify Me."
Of which language the plain teaching is this. If the sacrifices are
called in the law "the bread of God," God asks not this bread from
Israel in any material sense, or for any material need. He asks that
which the offerings symbolise; thanksgiving, loyal fulfilment of
covenant engagements to Him, and that loving trust which will call on
Him in the day of trouble. Even so! Gratitude, loyalty, trust! this is
the "food of God," this the "bread" which He desires that we should
offer, the bread which those Levitical sacrifices symbolised. For even
as man, when hungry, craves food, and cannot be satisfied without it,
so God, who is Himself Love, desires our love, and delights in seeing
its expression in all those offices of self-forgetting and
self-sacrificing service in which love manifests itself. This is to
God even as is food to us. Love cannot be satisfied except with love
returned; and we may say, with deepest humility and reverence, the God
of love cannot be satisfied without love returned. Hence it is that
the sacrifices, which in various ways symbolise the self-offering of
love and the fellowship of love, are called by the Holy Ghost "the
food," or "bread of God."
And yet we must, on no account, hasten to the conclusion, as many do,
that therefore the Levitical sacrifices were _only_ intended to
express and symbolise the self-offering of the worshipper, and that
this exhausts their significance. On the contrary, the need of
infinite Love for this "bread of God" cannot be adequately met and
satisfied by the self-offering of any creature, and, least of all, by
the self-offering of a sinful creature, whose very sin lies just in
this, that he has fallen away from perfect love. The symbolism of the
sacrifice as "the food of God," therefore, by this very phrase points
toward the self-offering in love of the eternal Son to the Father, and
in behalf of sinners, for the Father's sake. It was the sacrifice on
Calvary which first became, in innermost reality, that "bread of God,"
which the ancient sacrifices were only in symbol. It was this, not
regarded as satisfying Divine justice (though it did this), but as
satisfying the Divine love; because it was the supreme expression of
the perfect love of the incarnate Son of God to the Father, in His
becoming "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
And now, keeping all this in view, we may venture to say even more
than at first as to the meaning of this phrase, "the bread of God,"
applied to these offerings by fire. For just as the free activity of
man is only sustained in virtue of and by means of the food which he
eats, so also the love of the God of love is only sustained in free
activity toward man through the self-offering to the Father of the
Son, in that atoning sacrifice which He offered on the cross, and in
the ceaseless service of that exalted life which, risen from the dead,
Christ now lives unto God for ever. Thus already, this expression, so
strange to our ears at first, as descriptive of Jehovah's offerings
made by fire, points to the person and work of the adorable Redeemer
as its only sufficient explication.
But, again, we find another expression, xvii. 11, which is of no less
fundamental consequence for the interpretation of the bloody offerings
of Leviticus. In connection with the prohibition of blood for food,
and as a reason for that prohibition, it is said: "The life of the
flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to
make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh
atonement,"--mark the expression; not, as in the received version,
"_for_ the soul," which were mere tautology, and gives a sense which
the Hebrew cannot have, but, as the Revised Version has it,--"by
reason of the life," or "soul" (marg.). Hence, wherever in this law we
read of a sprinkling of blood upon the altar, this must be held fast
as its meaning, whether it be formally mentioned or not; namely,
atonement made for sinful man through the life of an innocent victim
poured out in the blood. There may be, and often are, other ideas, as
we shall see, connected with the offering, but this is always present.
To argue, then, with so many in modern times, that because, not the
idea of an atonement, but that of a sacrificial meal given by the
worshipper to God, is the dominant conception in the sacrifices of the
ancient nations, therefore we cannot admit the idea of atonement and
expiation to have been intended in these Levitical sacrifices, is
simply to deny, not only the New Testament interpretation of them, but
the no less express testimony of the record itself.
But it is, manifestly, in the nature of the case "impossible that the
blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Hence, we are
again, by this phrase also, constrained to look beyond this Levitical
shedding of sacrificial blood, for some antitype of which the innocent
victims slain at that altar were types; one who, by the shedding of
his blood, should do that in reality, which at the door of the tent of
meeting was done in symbol and shadow.
What the New Testament teaches on this point is known to every one.
Christ Jesus was the Antitype, to whose all-sufficient sacrifice each
insufficient sacrifice of every Levitical victim pointed. John the
Baptist struck the key-note of all New Testament teaching in this
matter, when, beholding Jesus, he cried (John i. 29), "Behold the Lamb
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Jesus Christ declared
the same thought again and again, as in His words at the sacramental
Supper: "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many
for the remission of sins." Paul expressed the same thought, when he
said (Eph. v. 2) that Christ "gave Himself up for us, an offering and
a sacrifice to God, for an odour of a sweet smell;" and that "our
redemption, the forgiveness of our trespasses," is "through His blood"
(Eph. i. 7). And Peter also, speaking in Levitical language, teaches
that we "were redeemed ... with precious blood, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ;" to which he adds
the suggestive words, of which this whole Levitical ritual is the most
striking illustration, that Christ, although "manifested at the end of
the times," "was foreknown" as the Lamb of God "before the foundation
of the world" (1 Peter i. 18-20). John, in like manner, speaks in the
language of Leviticus concerning Christ, when he declares (1 John i.
7) that "the blood of Jesus ... cleanseth us from all sin;" and even
in the Apocalypse, which is the Gospel of Christ glorified, He is
still brought before us as a Lamb that had been slain, and who has
thus "purchased with His blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and
people, and nation," "to be unto our God a kingdom and priests" (Rev.
v. 6, 9, 10).
In this clear light of the New Testament, one can see how meagre also
is the view of some who would see in these Levitical sacrifices
nothing more than fines assessed upon the guilty, as theocratic
penalties. Leviticus itself should have taught such better than that.
For, as we have seen, the virtue of the bloody offerings is made to
consist in this, that "the life of the flesh is in the blood;" and we
are told that "the blood makes atonement for the soul," not in virtue
of the monetary value of the victim, in a commercial way, but "by
reason of the life" that is in the blood, and is therewith poured out
before Jehovah on the altar,--the life of an innocent victim in the
stead of the life of the sinful man.
No less inadequate, if we are to let ourselves be guided either by the
Levitical or the New Testament teaching, is the view that the
offerings only symbolised the self-offering of the worshipper. We do
not deny, indeed, that the sacrifice--of the burnt-offering, for
example--may have fitly represented, and often really expressed, the
self-consecration of the offerer. But, in the light of the New
Testament, this can never be held to have been the sole, or even the
chief, reason in the mind of God for directing these outpourings of
sacrificial blood upon the altar.
We must insist, then, on this, as essential to the right
interpretation of this law of the offerings, that every one of these
bloody offerings of Leviticus typified, and was intended to typify,
our Saviour, Jesus Christ. The burnt-offering represented Christ; the
peace-offering, Christ; the sin-offering, Christ; the guilt-, or
trespass-offering, Christ. Moreover, since each of these, as intended
especially to shadow forth some particular aspect of Christ's work,
differed in some respects from all the others, while yet in all alike
a victim's blood was shed upon the altar, we are by this reminded that
in our Lord's redemptive work the most central and essential thing is
this, that, as He Himself said (Matt. xx. 28), He "came to give His
life a ransom for many."
Keeping this guiding thought steadily before us, it is now our work to
discover, if we may, what special aspect of the one great sacrifice of
Christ each of these offerings was intended especially to represent.
Only, by way of caution, it needs to be added that we are not to
imagine that every minute circumstance pertaining to each sacrifice,
in all its varieties, must have been intended to point to some
correspondent feature of Christ's person or work. On the contrary, we
shall frequently see reason to believe that the whole purpose of one
or another direction of the ritual is to be found in the conditions,
circumstances, or immediate intention of the offering. Thus, to
illustrate, when a profound interpreter suggests that the reason for
the command that the victim should be slain on the north side of the
altar, is to be found in the fact that the north, as the side of
shadow, signifies the gloom and joylessness of the sacrificial act, we
are inclined rather to see sufficient reason for the prescription in
the fact that the other three sides were already in a manner occupied:
the east, as the place of ashes; the south, as fronting the entrance;
and the west, as facing the tent of meeting and the brazen laver.
THE RITUAL OF THE BURNT-OFFERING.
In the law of the offerings, that of the burnt-offering comes first,
though in the order of the ritual it was not first, but second,
following the sin-offering. In this order of mention we need, however,
seek no mystic meaning. The burnt-offering was very naturally
mentioned first, as being the most ancient, and also in the most
constant and familiar use. We read of burnt-offerings as offered by
Noah and Abraham; and of peace-offerings, too, in early times; while
the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, in Leviticus treated last,
were now ordered for the first time. So also the burnt-offering was
still, by Divine ordinance, to be the most common. No day could pass
in the tabernacle without the offering of these. Indeed, except on the
great day of atonement for the nation, in the ritual for which, the
sin-offering was the central act, the burnt-offering was the most
important sacrifice on all the great feast-days.
The first law, which applies to bloody offerings in general, was this:
that the victim shall be "of the cattle, even of the herd and of the
flock" (ver. 2); to which is added, in the latter part of the chapter
(ver. 14), the turtle-dove or young pigeon. The carnivora are all
excluded; for these, which live by the death of others, could never
typify Him who should come to give life. And among others, only clean
beasts could be taken. Israel must not offer as "the food of God" that
which they might not eat for their own food; nor could that which was
held unclean be taken as a type of the Holy Victim of the future. And,
even among clean animals, a further selection is made. Only domestic
animals were allowed; not even a clean animal was permitted, if it
were taken in hunting. For it was fitting that one should offer to God
that which had become endeared to the owner as having cost the most of
care and labour in its bringing up. For this, also, we can easily see
another reason in the Antitype. Nothing was to mark Him more than
this: that He should be subject and obey, and that not of constraint,
as the unwilling captive of the chase, but freely and unresistingly.
And now follow the special directions for the burnt-offering. The
Hebrew word so rendered means, literally, "that which ascends". It
thus precisely describes the burnt-offering in its most distinctive
characteristic. Of the other offerings, a part was burned, but a part
was eaten; in some instances, even by the offerer himself. But in the
burnt-offering all ascends to God in flame and smoke. For the creature
is reserved nothing whatever.
The first specification in the law of the burnt-offering is this: "If
his oblation be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male
without blemish" (ver. 3). It must be a "male," as the stronger, the
type of its kind; and "without blemish," that is, ideally perfect.
The reasons for this law are manifest. The Israelite was thereby
taught that God claims the best that we have. They needed this lesson,
as many among us do still. At a later day, we find God rebuking them
by Malachi (i. 6, 13), with indignant severity, for their neglect of
this law: "A son honoureth his father: ... if then I be a Father,
where is My honour?... Ye have brought that which was taken by
violence, and the lame, and the sick; ... should I accept this of your
hand? saith the Lord." And as pointing to our Lord, the command was no
less fitting. Thus, as in other sacrifices, it was foreshadowed that
the great Burnt-offering of the future would be the one Man without
blemish, the absolutely perfect Exemplar of what manhood should be,
but is not.
And this brings us now to the ritual of the offering. In the ritual of
the various bloody offerings we find six parts. These are: (1) the
Presentation; (2) the Laying on of the Hand; (3) the Killing of the
Victim; in which three the ritual was the same for all kinds of
offerings. The remaining three are: (4) the Sprinkling of Blood; (5)
the Burning; (6) the Sacrificial Meal. In these, differences appear in
the various sacrifices, which give each its distinctive character;
and, in the burnt-offering, the sacrificial meal is omitted,--the
whole is burnt upon the altar.
First is given the law concerning
THE PRESENTATION OF THE VICTIM.
"He shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he
may be accepted before the Lord" (ver. 3).
In this it was ordered, first, that the offerer should bring the
victim himself. There were parts of the ceremony in which the priest
acted for him; but this he must do for himself. Even so, he who will
have the saving benefit of Christ's sacrifice must himself bring this
Christ before the Lord. As by so doing, the Israelite signified his
acceptance of God's gracious arrangements concerning sacrifice, so do
we, bringing Christ in our act of faith before the Lord, express our
acceptance of God's arrangement on our behalf; our readiness and
sincere desire to make use of Christ, who is appointed for us. And
this no man can do for another.
And the offering must be presented for a certain purpose; namely,
"that he may be accepted before the Lord;"[7] and that, as the context
tells us, not because of a present made to God, but through an atoning
sacrifice. And so now it is not enough that a man make much of
Christ, and mention Him in terms of praise before the Lord, as the One
whom He would imitate and seek to serve. He must in his act of faith
bring this Christ before the Lord, in such wise as to secure thus his
personal acceptance through the blood of the Holy Victim.
[7] The usage of the common Hebrew phrase so rendered does not
warrant the translation in the old version: "of his voluntary
will."
And, finally, the _place_ of presentation is prescribed. It must be
"at the door of the tent of meeting." It is easy to see the original
reason for this. For, as we learn from other Scriptures, the
Israelites were ever prone to idolatry, and that especially at places
other than the appointed temple or tent of meeting, in the fields and
on high places. Hence the immediate purpose of this order concerning
the place, was to separate the worship of God from the worship of
false gods. There is now, indeed, no law concerning the place where we
may present the great Sacrifice before God. At home, in the closet, in
the church, on the street, wherever we will, we may present this
Christ in our behalf and stead as a Holy Victim before God. And yet
the principle which underlies this ordinance of place is no less
applicable in this age than then. For it is a prohibition of all
self-will in worship. It was not enough that an Israelite should have
the prescribed victim; it is not enough that we present the Christ of
God in faith, or what we think to be faith. But we must make no terms
or conditions as to the mode or condition of the presentation, other
than God appoints. And the command was also a command of publicity.
The Israelite was therein commanded to confess publicly, and thus
attest, his faith in Jehovah, even as God will now have us all make
our confession of Christ a public thing.
The second act of the ceremonial was
THE LAYING ON OF THE HAND.
It was ordered:
"He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and
it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him" (ver.
4).
The laying on of the hand was not, as some have maintained, a mere
declaration of the offerer's property in that which he offered, as
showing his right to give it to God. If this were true, we should find
the ceremony also in the bloodless offerings; where the cakes of corn
were no less the property of the offerer than the bullock or sheep of
the burnt-offering. But the ceremony was confined to these bloody
offerings.
It is nearer the truth when others say that this was an act of
designation. It is a fact that the ceremony of the laying on of hands
in Scripture usage does indicate a designation of a person or thing,
as to some office or service. In this book (xxiv. 14), the witnesses
are directed to lay their hands upon the blasphemer, thereby
appointing him to death. Moses is said to have laid his hands on
Joshua, thus designating him in a formal way as his successor; and, in
the New Testament, Paul and Barnabas are set apart to the ministry by
the laying on of hands. But, in all these cases, the ceremony
symbolised more than mere designation; namely, a transfer or
communication of something invisible, in connection with this visible
act. Thus, in the New Testament the laying on of hands always denotes
the communication of the Holy Ghost, either as an enduement for
office, or for bodily healing. The laying of the hands of Moses on
Joshua, in like manner, signified the transfer to him of the gifts,
office, and authority of Moses. Even in the case of the execution of
the blaspheming son of Shelomith, the laying on of the hands of the
witnesses had the same significance. They thereby designated him to
death, no doubt; but therewith thus symbolically transferred to the
criminal the responsibility for his own death.
From the analogy of these cases we should expect to find evidence of
an ideal transference of somewhat from the offerer to the victim here.
And the context does not leave the matter doubtful. It is added (ver.
4), "It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." Hence
it appears that while, indeed, the offerer, by this laying on of his
hand, did dedicate the victim to death, the act meant more than this.
It symbolised a transfer, according to God's merciful provision, of an
obligation to suffer for sin, from the offerer to the innocent victim.
Henceforth, the victim stood in the offerer's place, and was dealt
with accordingly.
This is well illustrated by the account which is given (Numb. viii.)
of the formal substitution of the Levites in the place of all the
first-born of Israel, for special service unto God. We read that the
Levites were presented before the Lord; and that the children of
Israel then laid their hands upon the heads of the Levites, who were
thus, we are told, "offered as an offering unto the Lord," and were
thenceforth regarded and treated as substitutes for the first-born of
all Israel. Thus the obligation to certain special service was
symbolically transferred, as the context tells us, from the first-born
to the Levites; and this transfer of obligation from all the tribes to
the single tribe of Levi was visibly represented by the laying on of
hands. And just so here: the laying on of the hand designated,
certainly, the victim to death; but it did this, in that it was the
symbol of a transfer of obligation.
This view of the ceremony is decisively confirmed by the ritual of the
great day of atonement. In the sin-offering of that day, in which the
conception of expiation by blood received its fullest symbolic
expression, it was ordered (xvi. 21) that Aaron should lay his hands
on the head of one of the goats of the sin-offering, and "confess over
him all the iniquities of the children of Israel." Thereupon the
iniquity of the nation was regarded as symbolically transferred from
Israel to the goat; for it is added, "and the goat shall bear upon him
all their iniquities unto a solitary land." So, while in this ritual
for the burnt-offering there is no mention of such confession, we have
every reason to believe the uniform Rabbinical tradition, that it was
the custom to make also upon the head of the victim for the
burnt-offering a solemn confession of sin, for which they give the
form to be used.
Such then was the significance of the laying on of hands. But the
ceremony meant even more than this. For the Hebrew verb which is
always used for this, as the Rabbis point out, does not merely mean to
lay the hand upon, but so to lay the hand as to rest or lean heavily
upon the victim. This force of the word is well illustrated from a
passage where it occurs, in Psalm lxxxviii. 7, "Thy wrath lieth hard
upon me." The ceremony, therefore, significantly represented the
offerer as resting or relying on the victim to procure that from God
for which he presented him, namely, atonement and acceptance.
This part of the ceremonial of this and other sacrifices was thus full
of spiritual import and typical meaning. By this laying on of the hand
to designate the victim as a sacrifice, the offerer implied, and
probably expressed, a confession of personal sin and demerit; as done
"before Jehovah," it implied also his acceptance of God's penal
judgment against his sin. It implied, moreover, in that the offering
was made according to an arrangement ordained by God, that the offerer
also thankfully accepted God's merciful provision for atonement, by
which the obligation to suffer for sin was transferred from himself,
the guilty sinner, to the sacrificial victim. And, finally, in that
the offerer was directed so to lay his hand as to rest upon the
victim, it was most expressively symbolised that he, the sinful
Israelite, rested and depended on this sacrifice as the atonement for
his sin, his divinely appointed substitute in penal death.
What could more perfectly set forth the way in which we are for our
salvation to make use of the Lamb of God as slain for us? By faith, we
lay the hand upon His head. In this, we do frankly and penitently own
the sins for which, as the great Burnt-sacrifice, the Christ of God
was offered; we also, in humility and self-abasement, thus accept the
judgment of God against ourselves, that because of sin we deserve to
be cast out from Him eternally; while, at the same time, we most
thankfully accept this Christ as "the Lamb of God which taketh away
the sins of the world," and therefore our sins also, if we will but
thus make use of Him; and so lean and rest with all the burden of our
sin on Him.
* * * * *
For the Israelite who should thus lay his hand upon the head of the
sacrificial victim a promise follows. "It shall be accepted for him,
to make atonement for him."
In this word "atonement" we are introduced to one of the key-words of
Leviticus, as indeed of the whole Scripture. The Hebrew radical
originally means "to cover," and is used once (Gen. vi. 14) in this
purely physical sense. But, commonly, as here, it means "to cover" in
a spiritual sense, that is, to cover the sinful person from the sight
of the Holy God, who is "of purer eyes than to behold evil." Hence, it
is commonly rendered "to atone," or "to make atonement;" also, "to
reconcile," or "to make reconciliation." The thought is this: that
between the sinner and the Holy One comes now the guiltless victim; so
that the eye of God looks not upon the sinner, but on the offered
substitute; and in that the blood of the substituted victim is offered
before God for the sinner, atonement is made for sin, and the Most
Holy One is satisfied.
And when the believing Israelite should lay his hand with confession
of sin upon the appointed victim, it was graciously promised: "It
shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." And just so
now, whenever any guilty sinner, fearing the deserved wrath of God
because of his sin, especially because of his lack of that full
consecration which the burnt-sacrifice set forth, lays his hand in
faith upon the great Burnt-offering of Calvary, the blessing is the
same. For in the light of the cross, this Old Testament word becomes
now a sweet New Testament promise: "When thou shalt rest with the hand
of faith upon this Lamb of God, He shall be accepted for thee, to make
atonement for thee."
This is most beautifully expressed in an ancient "Order for the
Visitation of the Sick," attributed to Anselm of Canterbury, in which
it is written:--
"The minister shall say to the sick man: Dost thou believe that thou
canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? The sick man answereth,
Yes. Then let it be said unto him: Go to, then, and whilst thy soul
abideth in thee, put all thy confidence in this death alone; place thy
trust in no other thing; commit thyself wholly to this death; cover
thyself wholly with this alone.... And if God would judge thee, say:
Lord! I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy
judgment; otherwise I will not contend or enter into judgment with
Thee.
"And if He shall say unto thee that thou art a sinner, say: I place
the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins. If He shall
say unto thee, that thou hast deserved damnation, say: Lord! I put the
death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and all my sins; and I
offer His merits for my own, which I should have, and have not."
And whosoever of us can thus speak, to him the promise speaks from out
the shadows of the tent of meeting: "This Christ, the Lamb of God, the
true Burnt-offering, shall be accepted for thee, to make atonement for
thee!"
CHAPTER III.
_THE BURNT-OFFERING (CONCLUDED)._
LEV. i. 5-17; vi. 8-13.
After the laying on of the hand, the next sacrificial act was--
THE KILLING OF THE VICTIM.
"And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord" (ver. 5).
In the light of what has been already said, the significance of this
killing, in a typical way, will be quite clear. For with the first
sin, and again and again thereafter, God had denounced death as the
penalty of sin. But here is a sinner who, in accord with a Divine
command, brings before God a sacrificial victim, on whose head he lays
his hand, on which he thus rests as he confesses his sins, and gives
over the innocent victim to die instead of himself. Thus each of these
sacrificial deaths, whether in the burnt-offering, the peace-offering,
or the sin-offering, brings ever before us the death in the sinner's
stead of that one Holy Victim who suffered for us, "the just for the
unjust," and thus laid down His life, in accord with His own
previously declared intention, "as a ransom for many."
In the sacrifices made by and for individuals, the victim was killed,
except in the case of the turtle-dove or pigeon, by the offerer
himself; but, very naturally, in the case of the national and public
offerings, it was killed by the priest. As, in this latter case, it
was impossible that all individual Israelites should unite in killing
the victim, it is plain that the priest herein acted as the
representative of the nation. Hence we may properly say that the
fundamental thought of the ritual was this, that the victim should be
killed by the offerer himself.
And by this ordinance we may well be reminded, first, how Israel,--for
whose sake as a nation the antitypical Sacrifice was offered,--Israel
itself became the executioner of the Victim; and, beyond that, how, in
a deeper sense, every sinner must regard himself as truly causal of
the Saviour's death, in that, as is often truly said, our sins nailed
Christ to His cross. But whether such a reference were intended in
this law of the offering or not, the great, significant, outstanding
fact remains, that as soon as the offerer, by his laying on of the
hand, signified the transfer of the personal obligation to die for sin
from himself to the sacrificial victim, then came at once upon that
victim the penalty denounced against sin.
And the added words, "before the Lord," cast further light upon this,
in that they remind us that the killing of the victim had reference to
Jehovah, whose holy law the offerer, failing of that perfect
consecration which the burnt-offering symbolised, had failed to
glorify and honour.
THE SPRINKLING OF BLOOD.
"And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and
sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is at the door
of the tent of meeting" (ver. 5).
And now follows the fourth act in the ceremonial, the Sprinkling of
the Blood. The offerer's part is now done, and herewith the work of
the priest begins. Even so must we, having laid the hand of faith upon
the head of the substituted Lamb of God, now leave it to the heavenly
Priest to act in our behalf with God.
The directions to the priest as to the use of the blood vary in the
different offerings, according as the design is to give greater or
less prominence to the idea of expiation. In the sin-offering this has
the foremost place. But in the burnt-offering, as also in the
peace-offering, although the conception of atonement by blood was not
absent, it was not the dominant conception of the sacrifice. Hence,
while the sprinkling of blood by the priest could in no wise be
omitted, it took in this case a subordinate place in the ritual. It
was to be sprinkled only on the sides of the altar of burnt-offering
which stood in the outer court. We read (ver. 5): "Aaron's sons, the
priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about
upon the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting."
It was in this sprinkling of the blood that the atoning work was
completed. The altar had been appointed as a place of Jehovah's
special presence; it had been designated as a place where God would
come unto man to bless him. Thus, to present and sprinkle the blood
upon the altar was symbolically to present the blood unto God. And the
blood represented life,--the life of an innocent victim atoning for
the sinner, because rendered up in the stead of his life. And the
_priests_ were to sprinkle the blood. So, while to bring and present
the sacrifice of Christ, to lay the hand of faith upon His head, is
our part, with this our duty ends. To sprinkle the blood, to use the
blood God-ward for the remission of sin, this is the work alone of our
heavenly Priest. We are then to leave that with Him.
Reserving a fuller exposition of the meaning of this sprinkling of
blood for the exposition of the sin-offering, in which it was the
central act of the ritual, we pass on now to the burning of the
sacrifice, which in this offering marked the culmination of its
special symbolism.
THE SACRIFICIAL BURNING.
i. 6-9, 12, 13, 17.
"And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its
pieces. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the
altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire: and Aaron's sons, the
priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order
upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: but
its inwards and its legs shall he wash with water: and the priest
shall burn the whole on the altar, for a burnt offering, an
offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.... And he
shall cut it into its pieces, with its head and its fat: and the
priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire
which is upon the altar: but the inwards and the legs shall he
wash with water: and the priest shall offer the whole, and burn
it upon the altar: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by
fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.... And he shall rend it by
the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the
priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon
the fire: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a
sweet savour unto the Lord."
It was the distinguishing peculiarity of the burnt-offering, from
which it takes its name, that in every case the whole of it was
burned, and thus ascended heavenward in the fire and smoke of the
altar. The place of the burning, in this and other sacrifices, is
significant. The flesh of the sin-offering, when not eaten, was to be
burned in a clean place without the camp. But it was the law of the
burnt-offering that it should be wholly consumed upon the holy altar
at the door of the tent of meeting. In the directions for the burning
we need seek for no occult meaning; the most of them are evidently
intended simply as means to the end; namely, the consumption of the
offering with the utmost readiness, ease, and completeness. Hence it
must be flayed and cut into its pieces, and carefully arranged upon
the wood. The inwards and the legs must be washed with water, that
into the offering, as to be offered to the Holy One, might come
nothing extraneous, nothing corrupt and unclean.
In vv. 10-13 and 14-17 provision is made for the offering of different
victims, of the flock, or of the fowls. The reason for this permitted
variation, although not mentioned here, was doubtless the same which
is given for a similar permission in chap. v. 7, where it is ordered
that if the offerer's means suffice not for a certain offering, he may
bring one of less value. Poverty shall be no plea for not bringing a
burnt-sacrifice; to the Israelite of that time it thus set forth the
truth, that "if there first be a willing heart, it is accepted
according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."
The variations in the prescriptions regarding the different victims to
be used in the sacrifice are but slight. The bird having been killed
by the priest (why this change it is not easy to see), its crop, with
its contents of food unassimilated, and therefore not a part of the
bird, as also the feathers, was to be cast away. It was not to be
divided, like the bullock, and the sheep or goat, simply because, with
so small a creature, it was not necessary to the speedy and entire
combustion of the offering. In each case alike, the declaration is
made that the sacrifice, thus offered and wholly burnt upon the altar,
is "an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord."
And now a question comes before us, the answer to which is vital to
the right understanding of the burnt-offering, whether in its original
or typical import. What was the significance of the burning? It has
been very often answered that the consumption of the victim by fire
symbolised the consuming wrath of Jehovah, utterly destroying the
victim which represented the sinful person of the offerer. And,
observing that the burning followed the killing and shedding of blood,
some have even gone so far as to say that the burning typified the
eternal fire of hell! But when we remember that, without doubt, the
sacrificial victim in all the Levitical offerings was a type of our
blessed Lord, we may well agree with one who justly calls this
interpretation "hideous." And yet many, who have shrunk from this,
have yet in so far held to this conception of the symbolic meaning of
the burning as to insist that it must at least have typified those
fiery sufferings in which our Lord offered up His soul for sin. They
remind us how often, in the Scripture, fire stands as the symbol of
the consuming wrath of God against sin, and hence argue that this may
justly be taken here as the symbolic meaning of the burning of the
victim on the altar.
But this interpretation is nevertheless, in every form, to be
rejected. As regards the use of fire as a symbol in Holy Scripture,
while it is true that it often represents the punitive wrath of God,
it is equally certain that it has not always this meaning. Quite as
often it is the symbol of God's purifying energy and might. Fire was
not the symbol of Jehovah's vengeance in the burning bush. When the
Lord is represented as sitting "as a refiner and a purifier of
silver," surely the thought is not of vengeance, but of purifying
mercy. We should rather say that fire, in Scripture usage, is the
symbol of the intense energy of the Divine nature, which continually
acts upon every person and on every thing, according to the nature of
each person or thing; here conserving, there destroying; now
cleansing, now consuming. The same fire which burns the wood, hay, and
stubble, purifies the gold and the silver.
Hence, while it is quite true that fire often typifies the wrath of
God punishing sin, it is certain that it cannot always symbolise this,
not even in the sacrificial ritual. For in the meal-offering of chap.
ii. it is impossible that the thought of expiation should enter since
no life is offered and no blood is shed; yet this also is presented
unto God in fire. The fire then in this case must mean something else
than the Divine wrath, and presumably must mean one thing in all the
sacrifices. And that not even in the burnt-offering can the burning of
the sacrifice symbolise the consuming wrath of God, becomes plain,
when we observe that, according to the uniform teaching of the
sacrificial ritual, atonement is already fully accomplished, prior to
the burning, in the sprinkling of the blood. That the burning, which
follows the atonement, should have any reference to Christ's expiatory
sufferings, is thus quite impossible.
We must hold, therefore, that the burning can only mean in the
burnt-offering that which alone it can signify in the meal-offering;
namely, the ascending of the offering in consecration to God, on the
one hand; and, on the other, God's gracious acceptance and
appropriation of the offering. This was impressively set forth in the
case of the burnt-offering presented when the tabernacle service was
inaugurated; when, we are told (ix. 24), the fire which consumed it
came forth from before Jehovah, lighted by no human hand, and was
thus a visible representation of God accepting and appropriating the
offering to Himself.
The symbolism of the burning thus understood, we can now perceive what
must have been the special meaning of this sacrifice. As regarded by
the believing Israelite of those days, not yet discerning clearly the
deeper truth it shadowed forth as to the great Burnt-sacrifice of the
future, it must have symbolically taught him that complete
consecration unto God is essential to right worship. There were
sacrifices having a different special import, in which, while a part
was burnt, the offerer might even himself join in eating the remaining
part, taking that for his own use. But, in the burnt-offering, nothing
was for himself: all was for God; and in the fire of the altar God
took the whole in such a way that the offering for ever passed beyond
the offerer's recall. In so far as the offerer entered into this
conception, and his inward experience corresponded to this outward
rite, it was for him an act of worship.
But to the thoughtful worshipper, one would think, it must sometimes
have occurred that, after all, it was not himself or his gift that
thus ascended in full consecration to God, but a victim appointed by
God to represent him in death on the altar. And thus it was that,
whether understood or not, the offering in its very nature pointed to
a Victim of the future, in whose person and work, as the One only
fully-consecrated Man, the burnt-offering should receive its full
explication. And this brings us to the question, What aspect of the
person and work of our Lord was herein specially typified? It cannot
be the resultant fellowship with God, as in the peace-offering; for
the sacrificial feast which set this forth was in this case wanting.
Neither can it be expiation for sin; for although this is expressly
represented here, yet it is not the chief thing. The principal thing,
in the burnt-offering, was the burning, the complete consumption of
the victim in the sacrificial fire. Hence what is represented chiefly
here, is not so much Christ representing His people in atoning death,
as Christ representing His people in perfect consecration and entire
self-surrender unto God; in a word, in perfect obedience.
Of these two things, the atoning death and the representative
obedience, we think, and with reason, much of the former; but most
Christians, though without reason, think less of the latter. And yet
how much is made of this aspect of our Lord's work in the Gospels! The
first words which we hear from His lips are to this effect, when, at
twelve years of age, He asked His mother (Luke ii. 49), "Wist ye not
that I must be (lit.) in the things of My Father?" and after His
official work began in the first cleansing of the temple, this
manifestation of His character was such as to remind His disciples
that it was written, "The zeal of Thy house shall eat me
up";--phraseology which brings the burnt-offering at once to mind.[8]
And His constant testimony concerning Himself, to which His whole life
bare witness, was in such words as these: "I came down from heaven,
not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me." In
particular, He especially regarded His atoning work in this aspect. In
the parable of the Good Shepherd (John x. 1-18), for example, after
telling us that because of His laying down His life for the sheep the
Father loved Him, and that to this end He had received from the
Father authority to lay down His life for the sheep, He then adds as
the reason of this: "This commandment have I received from My Father."
And so elsewhere (John xii. 49, 50) He says of all His words, as of
all His works: "The Father hath given Me a commandment, what I should
say, and what I should speak; ... the things therefore which I speak,
even as the Father hath said unto Me, so I speak." And when at last
His earthly work approaches its close, and we see Him in the agony of
Gethsemane, there He appears, above all, as the perfectly consecrated
One, offering Himself, body, soul, and spirit, as a whole
burnt-offering unto God, in those never-to-be-forgotten words (Matt.
xxvi. 39), "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me;
nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." And, if any more proof
were needed, we have it in that inspired exposition (Heb. x. 5-10) of
Psalm xl. 6-8 wherein it is taught that this perfect obedience of
Christ, in full consecration, was indeed the very thing which the Holy
Ghost foresignified in the whole burnt-offerings of the law: "When He
cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest
not, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me; in whole burnt-offerings
and sacrifices for sin Thou hadst no pleasure: then said I, Lo, I am
come (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O
God."
[8] See Psalm lxix. 9, and compare in the Hebrew such
expressions as, "the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering;" and
Deut. iv. 24, "thy God is a devouring fire," etc., in all which
the verb signifying "to eat" is idiomatically used of fire.
Thus the burnt-offering brings before us in type, for our faith,
Christ as our Saviour in virtue of His being the One wholly
surrendered to the will of the Father. Nor does this exclude, but
rather defines, the conception of Christ as our substitute and
representative. For He said that it was for our sakes that He
"sanctified," or "consecrated" Himself (John xvii. 19); and while the
New Testament represents Him as saving us by His death as an expiation
for sin, it no less explicitly holds Him forth to us as having obeyed
in our behalf, declaring (Rom. v. 19) that it is "by the obedience of
the One Man" that "many are made righteous." And, elsewhere, the same
Apostle represents the incomparable moral value of the atoning death
of the cross as consisting precisely in this fact, that it was a
supreme act of self-renouncing obedience, as it is written (Phil. ii.
6-9): "Being in the form of God, He yet counted it not a prize to be
on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
servant, being made in the likeness of men; ... becoming obedient even
unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly
exalted Him, and gave unto Him the name which is above every name."
And so the burnt-offering teaches us to remember that Christ has not
only died for our sins, but has also consecrated Himself for us to God
in full self-surrender in our behalf. We are therefore to plead not
only His atoning death, but also the transcendent merit of His life of
full consecration to the Father's will. To this, the words, three
times repeated concerning the burnt-offering (vv. 9, 13, 17), in this
chapter, blessedly apply: it is "an offering made by fire, of a sweet
savour," a fragrant odour, "unto the Lord." That is, this full
self-surrender of the holy Son of God unto the Father is exceedingly
delightful and acceptable unto God. And for this reason it is for us
an ever-prevailing argument for our own acceptance, and for the
gracious bestowment for Christ's sake of all that there is in Him for
us.
Only let us ever remember that we cannot argue, as in the case of the
atoning death, that as Christ died that we might not die, so He
offered Himself in full consecration unto God, that we might thus be
released from this obligation. Here the exact opposite is the truth.
For Christ Himself said in His memorable prayer, just before His
offering of Himself to death, "For their sakes I sanctify (marg.
"consecrate") Myself, _that they also might be sanctified in truth_."
And thus is brought before us the thought, that if the sin-offering
emphasised, as we shall see, the substitutionary death of Christ,
whereby He became our righteousness, the burnt-offering, as
distinctively, brings before us Christ as our sanctification, offering
Himself without spot, a whole burnt-offering to God. And as by that
one life of sinless obedience to the will of the Father He procured
our salvation by His merit, so in this respect He has also become our
one perfect Example of what consecration to God really is. A thought
this is which, with evident allusion to the burnt-offering, the
Apostle Paul brings before us, charging us (Eph. v. 2) that we "walk
in love, as Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us, an offering
and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell."
And the law further suggests that no extreme of spiritual need can
debar any one from availing himself of our great Burnt-sacrifice. A
burnt-offering was to be received even from one who was so poor that
he could bring but a turtle-dove or a young pigeon (ver. 14). One
might, at first thought, not unnaturally say: Surely there can be
nothing in this to point to Christ; for the true Sacrifice is not
many, but one and only. And yet the very fact of this difference
allowed in the typical victims, when the reason of the allowance is
remembered, suggests the most precious truth concerning Christ, that
no spiritual poverty of the sinner need exclude him from the full
benefit of Christ's saving work. Provision is made in Him for all
those who, most truly and with most reason, feel themselves to be poor
and in need of all things. Christ, as our sanctification, is for all
who will make use of Him; for all who, feeling most deeply and
painfully their own failure in full consecration, would take Him, as
not only their sin-offering, but also their burnt-offering, both their
example and their strength, unto perfect self-surrender unto God. We
may well here recall to mind the exhortation of the Apostle to
Christian believers, expressed in language which at once reminds us of
the burnt-offering (Rom. xii. 1): "I beseech you, brethren, by the
mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service."
THE CONTINUAL BURNT-OFFERING.
vi. 8-13.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his
sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: the burnt
offering shall be on the hearth upon the altar all night unto the
morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereon.
And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen
breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the
ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt offering on the
altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put
off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the
ashes without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the
altar shall be kept burning thereon, it shall not go out; and the
priest shall burn wood on it every morning: and he shall lay the
burnt offering in order upon it, and shall burn thereon the fat
of the peace offerings. Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar
continually; it shall not go out."
In chap. vi. 8-13 we have a "law of the burnt-offering" specially
addressed to "Aaron and his sons," and designed to secure that the
fire of the burnt-offering should be continually ascending unto God.
In chap. i. we have the law regarding burnt-offerings brought by the
individual Israelite. But besides these it was ordered, Exod. xxix.
38-46, that every morning and evening the priest should offer a lamb
as a burnt-offering for the whole people,--an offering which primarily
symbolised the constant renewal of Israel's consecration as "a kingdom
of priests" unto the Lord. It is to this, the daily burnt-offering,
that this supplementary law of chap. vi. refers. All the regulations
are intended to provide for the uninterrupted maintenance of this
sacrificial fire; first, by the regular removal of the ashes which
would else cover and smother the fire; and, secondly, by the supply of
fuel. The removal of the ashes from the fire is a priestly function;
hence it was ordained that the priest for this service put on his
robes of office, "his linen garment and his linen breeches," and then
take up the ashes from the altar, and lay them by the side of the
altar. But as from time to time it would be necessary to remove them
from this place quite without the tent, it was ordered that he should
carry them forth "without the camp unto a clean place," that the
sanctity of all connected with Jehovah's worship might never be lost
sight of; though, as it was forbidden to wear the priestly garments
except within the tent of meeting, the priest, when this service was
performed, must "put on other garments," his ordinary, unofficial
robes. The ashes being thus removed from the altar each morning, then
the wood was put on, and the parts of the lamb laid in order upon it
to be perfectly consumed. And whenever during the day any one might
bring a peace-offering unto the Lord, on this ever-burning fire the
priest was to place also the fat, the richest part, of the offering,
and with it also the various individual burnt-offerings and
meal-offerings of each day. And thus it was arranged by the law that,
all day long, and all night long, the smoke of the burnt-offering
should be continually ascending unto the Lord.
The significance of this can hardly be missed. By this supplemental
law which thus provided for "a continual burnt-offering" to the Lord,
it was first of all signified to Israel, and to us, that the
consecration which the Lord so desires and requires from His people is
not occasional, but continuous. As the priest, representing the
nation, morning by morning cleared away the ashes which had else
covered the flame and caused it to burn dull, and both morning by
morning and evening by evening, laid a new victim on the altar, so
will God have us do. Our self-consecration is not to be occasional,
but continual and habitual. Each morning we should imitate the priest
of old, in putting away all that might dull the flame of our devotion,
and, morning by morning, when we arise, and evening by evening, when
we retire, by a solemn act of self-consecration give ourselves anew
unto the Lord. So shall the word in substance, thrice repeated, be
fulfilled in us in its deepest, truest sense: "The fire shall be kept
burning on the altar continually; it shall not go out" (vv. 9, 12,
13).
But we must not forget that in this part of the law, as in all else,
we are pointed to Christ. This ordinance of the continual
burnt-offering reminds us that Christ, as our burnt-offering,
_continually_ offers Himself to God in self-consecration in our
behalf. Very significant it is that the burnt-offering stands in
contrast in this respect with the sin-offering. We never read of a
continual sin-offering; even the great annual sin-offering of the day
of atonement, which, like the daily burnt-offering, had reference to
the nation at large, was soon finished, and once for all. And it was
so with reason; for in the nature of the case, our Lord's offering of
Himself for sin as an expiatory sacrifice was not and could not be a
continuous act. But with His presentation of Himself unto God in full
consecration of His person as our Burnt-offering, it is different.
Throughout the days of His humiliation this self-offering of Himself
to God continued; nor, indeed, can we say that it has yet ceased, or
ever can cease. For still, as the High Priest of the heavenly
sanctuary, He continually offers Himself as our Burnt-offering in
constantly renewed and constantly continued devotement of Himself to
the Father to do His will.
In this ordinance of the daily burnt-offering, ever ascending in the
fire that never went out, the idea of the burnt-sacrifice reaches its
fullest expression, the type its most perfect development. And thus
the law of the burnt-offering leaves us in the presence of this holy
vision: the greater than Aaron, in the heavenly place as our great
Representative and Mediator, morning by morning, evening by evening,
offering Himself unto the Father in the full self-devotement of His
risen life unto God, as our "continual burnt-offering." In this, let
us rejoice and be at peace.
CHAPTER IV.
_THE MEAL-OFFERING._
LEV. ii. 1-16; vi. 14-23.
The word which in the original uniformly stands for the English
"meal-offering" (A.V. "meat-offering," _i.e._, "food-offering")
primarily means simply "a present," and is often properly so
translated in the Old Testament. It is, for example, the word which is
used (Gen. xxxii. 13) when we are told how Jacob sent a present to
Esau his brother; or, later, of the gift sent by Israel to his son
Joseph in Egypt (Gen. xliii. 11); and, again (2 Sam. viii. 2), of the
gifts sent by the Moabites to David. Whenever thus used of gifts to
men, it will be found that it suggests a recognition of the dignity
and authority of the person to whom the present is made, and, in many
cases, a desire also to procure thereby his favour.
In the great majority of cases, however, the word is used of offerings
to God, and in this use one or both of these ideas can easily be
traced. In Gen. iv. 4, 5, in the account of the offerings of Cain and
Abel, the word is applied both to the bloody and the unbloody
offering; but in the Levitical law, it is only applied to the latter.
We thus find the fundamental idea of the meal-offering to be this: it
was a gift brought by the worshipper to God, in token of his
recognition of His supreme authority, and as an expression of desire
for His favour and blessing.
But although the meal-offering, like the burnt-offering, was an
offering made to God by fire, the differences between them were many
and significant. In the burnt-offering, it was always a life that was
given to God; in the meal-offering, it was never a life, but always
the products of the soil. In the burnt-offering, again, the offerer
always set apart the offering by the laying on of the hand, signifying
thus, as we have seen, a transfer of obligation to death for sin; thus
connecting with the offering, in addition to the idea of a gift to
God, that of expiation for sin, as preliminary to the offering by
fire. In the meal-offering, on the other hand, there was no laying on
of the hand, as there was no shedding of blood, so that the idea of
expiation for sin is in no way symbolised. The conception of a gift to
God, which, though dominant in the burnt-offering, is not in that the
only thing symbolised, in the meal-offering becomes the _only_ thought
the offering expresses.
It is further to be noted that not only must the meal-offering consist
of the products of the soil, but of such alone as grow, not
spontaneously, but by cultivation, and thus represent the result of
man's labour. Not only so, but this last thought is the more
emphasised, that the grain of the offering was not to be presented to
the Lord in its natural condition as harvested, but only when, by
grinding, sifting, and often, in addition, by cooking in various ways,
it has been more or less fully prepared to become the food of man. In
any case, it must, at least, be parched, as in the variety of the
offering which is last mentioned in the chapter (vv. 14-16).
With these fundamental facts before us, we can now see what must have
been the primary and distinctive significance of the meal-offering,
considered as an act of worship. As the burnt-offering represented the
consecration of the life, the person, to God, so the meal-offering
represented the consecration of the fruit of his labours.
If it be asked, why it was that when man's labours are so manifold,
and their results so diverse, the product of the cultivation of the
soil should be alone selected for this purpose, for this, several
reasons may be given. In the first place, of all the occupations of
man, the cultivation of the soil is that of by far the greatest
number, and so, in the nature of the case, must continue to be; for
the sustenance of man, so far as he is at all above the savage
condition, comes, in the last analysis, from the soil. Then, in
particular, the Israelites of those days of Moses were about to become
an agricultural nation. Most natural and suitable, then, it was that
the fruit of the activities of such a people should be symbolised by
the product of their fields. And since even those who gained their
living in other ways than by the cultivation of the ground, must needs
purchase with their earnings grain and oil, the meal-offering would,
no less for them than for others, represent the consecration to God of
the fruit of their labour.
The meal-offering is no longer an ordinance of worship, but the duty
which it signified remains in full obligation still. Not only, in
general, are we to surrender our persons without reserve to the Lord,
as in the burnt-offering, but unto Him must also be consecrated all
our works.
This is true, first of all, regarding our religious service. Each of
us is sent into the world to do a certain spiritual work among our
fellow-men. This work and all the result of it is to be offered as a
holy meal-offering to the Lord. A German writer has beautifully set
forth this significance of the meal-offering as regards Israel.
"Israel's bodily calling was the cultivation of the ground in the land
given him by Jehovah. The fruit of his calling, under the Divine
blessing, was corn and wine, his bodily food, which nourished and
sustained his bodily life. Israel's spiritual calling was to work in
the field of the kingdom of God, in the vineyard of his Lord; this
work was Israel's covenant obligation. Of this, the fruit was the
spiritual bread, the spiritual nourishment, which should sustain and
develop his spiritual life."[9] And the calling of the spiritual
Israel, which is the Church, is still the same, to labour in the field
of the kingdom of God, which is the world of men; and the result of
this work is still the same, namely, with the Divine blessing,
spiritual fruit, sustaining and developing the spiritual life of men.
And in the meal-offering we are reminded that the fruit of all our
spiritual labours is to be offered to the Lord.
[9] Kurtz, "Der Alt-testamentliche Opfercultus," p. 243.
The reminder might seem unneedful, as indeed it ought to be; but it is
not. For it is sadly possible to call Christ "Lord," and, labouring in
His field, do in His name many wonderful works, yet not really unto
Him. A minister of the Word may with steady labour drive the
ploughshare of the law, and sow continually the undoubted seed of the
Word in the Master's field; and the apparent result of his work may be
large, and even real, in the conversion of men to God, and a great
increase of Christian zeal and activity. And yet it is quite possible
that a man do this, and still do it for himself, and not for the
Lord; and when success comes, begin to rejoice in his evident skill as
a spiritual husbandman, and in the praise of man which this brings
him; and so, while thus rejoicing in the fruit of his labours, neglect
to bring of this good corn and wine which he has raised for a daily
meal-offering in consecration to the Lord. Most sad is this, and
humiliating, and yet sometimes it so comes to pass.
And so, indeed, it may be in every department of religious activity.
The present age is without its like in the wonderful variety of its
enterprise in matters benevolent and religious. On every side we see
an ever-increasing army of labourers driving their various work in the
field of the world. City Missions of every variety, Poor Committees
with their free lodgings and soup-kitchens, Young Men's Christian
Associations, Blue Ribbon Societies, the White Cross Army and the Red
Cross Army, Hospital Work, Prison Reform, and so on;--there is no
enumerating all the diverse improved methods of spiritual husbandry
around us, nor can any one rightly depreciate the intrinsic excellence
of all this, or make light of the work or of its good results. But for
all this, there are signs that many need to be reminded that all such
labour in God's field, however God may graciously make use of it, is
not necessarily labour for God; that labour for the good of men is not
therefore of necessity labour consecrated to the Lord. For can we
believe that from all this the meal-offering is always brought to Him?
The ordinance of this offering needs to be remembered by us all in
connection with these things. The fruit of all these our labours must
be offered daily in solemn consecration to the Lord.
But the teaching of the meal-offering reaches further than to what we
call religious labours. For in that it was appointed that the offering
should consist of man's daily food, Israel was reminded that God's
claim for full consecration of all our activities covers everything,
even to the very food we eat. There are many who consecrate, or think
they consecrate, their religious activities; but seem never to have
understood that the consecration of the true Israelite must cover the
secular life as well,--the labour of the hand in the field, in the
shop, the transactions of the office or on 'Change, and all their
results, as also the recreations which we are able to command, the
very food and drink which we use,--in a word, all the results and
products of our labours, even in secular things. And to bring this
idea vividly before Israel, it was ordered that the meal-offering
should consist of food, as the most common and universal visible
expression of the fruit of man's secular activities. The New Testament
has the same thought (1 Cor. x. 31): "Whether ye eat or drink, or
whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
And the offering was not to consist of any food which one might choose
to bring, but of corn and oil, variously prepared. Not to speak yet of
any deeper reason for this selection, there is one which lies quite on
the surface. For these were the most common and universal articles of
the food of the people. There were articles of food, then as now,
which were only to be seen on the tables of the rich; but grain, in
some form, was and is a necessity for all. So also the oil, which was
that of the olive, was something which in that part of the world, all,
the poor no less than the rich, were wont to use continually in the
preparation of their food; even as it is used to-day in Syria, Italy,
and other countries where the olive grows abundantly. Hence it
appears that that was chosen for the offering which all, the richest
and the poorest alike, would be sure to have; with the evident intent,
that no one might be able to plead poverty as an excuse for bringing
no meal-offering to the Lord.
Thus, if this ordinance of the meal-offering taught that God's claim
for consecration covers all our activities and all their result, even
to the very food that we eat, it teaches also that this claim for
consecration covers all persons. From the statesman who administers
the affairs of an Empire to the day-labourer in the shop, or mill, or
field, all alike are hereby reminded that the Lord requires that the
work of every one shall be brought and offered to Him in holy
consecration.
And there was a further prescription, although not mentioned here in
so many words. In some offerings, barley-meal was ordered, but for
this offering the grain presented, whether parched, in the ear, or
ground into meal, must be only wheat. The reason for this, and the
lesson which it teaches, are plain. For wheat, in Israel, as still in
most lands, was the best and most valued of the grains. Israel must
not only offer unto God of the fruit of their labour, but the best
result of their labours. Not only so, but when the offering was in the
form of meal, cooked or uncooked, the best and finest must be
presented. That, in other words, must be offered which represented the
most of care and labour in its preparation, or the equivalent of this
in purchase price. Which emphasises, in a slightly different form, the
same lesson as the foregoing. Out of the fruit of our several labours
and occupations we are to set apart especially for God, not only that
which is best in itself, the finest of the wheat, but that which has
cost us the most labour. David finely represented this thought of the
meal-offering when he said, concerning the cattle for his
burnt-offerings, which Araunah the Jebusite would have him accept
without price: "I will not offer unto the Lord my God of that which
doth cost me nothing."
But in the meal-offering it was not the whole product of his labour
that the Israelite was directed to bring, but only a small part. How
could the consecration of this small part represent the consecration
of all? The answer to this question is given by the Apostle Paul, who
calls attention to the fact that in the Levitical symbolism it was
ordained that the consecration of a part should signify the
consecration of the whole. For he writes (Rom. xi. 16), "If the
first-fruit is holy, then the lump"--the whole from which the
first-fruit is taken--"is also holy;" that is, the consecration of a
part signifies and symbolically expresses the consecration of the
whole from which that part is taken. The idea is well illustrated by a
custom in India, according to which, when one visits a man of
distinction, he will offer the guest a silver coin; an act of social
etiquette which is intended to express the thought that all he has is
at the service of the guest, and is therewith offered for his use. And
so in the meal-offering. By offering to God, in this formal way, a
part of the product of his labour, the Israelite expressed a
recognition of His claim upon the whole, and professed a readiness to
place, not this part merely, but the whole, at God's service.
But in the selection of the materials, we are pointed toward a deeper
symbolism, by the injunction that in certain cases, at least,
frankincense should be added to the offering. But this was not of
man's food, neither was it, like the meal, and cakes, and oil, a
product of man's labour. Its effect, naturally, was to give a
grateful perfume to the sacrifice, that it might be, even in a
physical sense, "an odour of a sweet smell." The symbolical meaning of
incense, in which the frankincense was a chief ingredient, is very
clearly intimated in Holy Scripture. It is suggested in David's prayer
(Psalm cxli. 2): "Let my prayer be set forth as incense; the lifting
up of my hands, like the evening oblation." So, in Luke i. 10, we read
of the whole multitude of the people praying without the sanctuary,
while the priest Zacharias was offering incense within. And, finally,
in the Apocalypse, this is expressly declared to be the symbolical
significance of incense; for we read (v. 8), that the four-and-twenty
elders "fell down before the Lamb, having ... golden bowls full of
incense, which are the prayers of the saints." So then, without doubt,
we must understand it here. In that frankincense was to be added to
the meal-offering, it is signified that this offering of the fruit of
our labours to the Lord must ever be accompanied by prayer; and,
further, that our prayers, thus offered in this daily consecration,
are most pleasing to the Lord, even as the fragrance of sweet incense
unto man.
But if the frankincense, in itself, had thus a symbolical meaning, it
is not unnatural to infer the same also with regard to other elements
of the sacrifice. Nor is it, in view of the nature of the symbols,
hard to discover what that should be.
For inasmuch as that product of labour is selected for the offering,
which is the food by which men live, we are reminded that this is to
be the final aspect under which all the fruit of our labours is to be
regarded; namely, as furnishing and supplying for the need of the many
that which shall be bread to the soul. In the highest sense, indeed,
this can only be said of Him who by His work became the Bread of Life
for the world, who was at once "the Sower" and "the Corn of Wheat"
cast into the ground; and yet, in a lower sense, it is true that the
work of feeding the multitudes with the bread of life is the work of
us all; and that in all our labours and engagements we are to keep
this in mind as our supreme earthly object. Just as the products of
human labour are most diverse, and yet all are capable of being
exchanged in the market for bread for the hungry, so are we to use all
the products of our labour with this end in view, that they may be
offered to the Lord as cakes of fine meal for the spiritual sustenance
of man.
And the oil, too, which entered into every form of the meal-offering,
has in Holy Scripture a constant and invariable symbolical meaning. It
is the uniform symbol of the Holy Spirit of God. Isaiah lxi. 1 is
decisive on this point, where in prophecy the Messiah speaks thus:
"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord God hath
anointed me to preach good tidings." Quite in accord with this, we
find that when Jesus reached thirty years of age,--the time for
beginning priestly service,--He was set apart for His work, not as the
Levitical priests, by anointing with symbolical oil, but by the
anointing with the Holy Ghost descending on Him at His baptism. So,
also, in the Apocalypse, the Church is symbolised by seven golden
candlesticks, or lamp-stands, supplied with oil after the manner of
that in the temple, reminding us that as the lamp can give light only
as supplied with oil, so, if the Church is to be a light in the world,
she must be continually supplied with the Spirit of God. Hence, the
injunction that the meal of the offering be kneaded with oil, and
that, of whatever form the offering be, oil should be poured upon it,
is intended, according to this usage, to teach us, that in all work
which shall be offered so as to be acceptable to God, must enter, as
an inworking and abiding agent, the life-giving Spirit of God.
It is another direction as to these meal-offerings, as also regarding
all offerings made by fire, that into them should never enter leaven
(ver. 11). The symbolical significance of this prohibition is familiar
to all. For in all leaven is a principle of decay and corruption,
which, except its continued operation be arrested betimes in our
preparation of leavened food, will soon make that in which it works
offensive to the taste. Hence, in Holy Scripture, leaven, without a
single exception, is the established symbol of spiritual corruption.
It is this, both as considered in itself, and in virtue of its power
of self-propagation in the leavened mass. Hence the Apostle Paul,
using familiar symbolism, charged the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 7) that
they "purge out from themselves the old leaven; and that they keep
festival, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth". Thus, in this prohibition is
brought before us the lesson, that we take heed to keep out of those
works which we present to God for consumption on His altar the leaven
of wickedness in every form. The prohibition, in the same connection,
of honey (ver. 11) rests upon the same thought; namely, that honey,
like leaven, tends to promote fermentation and decay in that with
which it is mixed.
The Revised Version--in this case doubtless to be preferred to the
other--brings out a striking qualification of this universal
prohibition of leaven or honey, in these words (ver. 12): "As an
oblation of first-fruits ye shall offer them unto the Lord; but they
shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar."
Thus, as the prohibition of leaven and honey from the meal-offering
burned by fire upon the altar reminds us that the Holy One demands
absolute freedom from all that is corrupt in the works of His people;
on the other hand, this gracious permission to offer leaven and honey
in the first-fruits (which were _not_ burned on the altar) seems
intended to remind us that, nevertheless, from the Israelite in
covenant with God through atoning blood, He is yet graciously pleased
to accept even offerings in which sinful imperfection is found, so
that only, as in the offering of first-fruits, there be the hearty
recognition of His rightful claim, before all others, to the first and
best we have.
In ver. 13 we have a last requisition as to the material of the
meal-offering: "Every oblation of thy meal-offering shalt thou season
with salt." As leaven is a principle of impermanence and decay, so
salt, on the contrary, has the power of conservation from corruption.
Accordingly, to this day, among the most diverse peoples, salt is the
recognised symbol of incorruption and unchanging perpetuity. Among the
Arabs of to-day, for example, when a compact or covenant is made
between different parties, it is the custom that each eat of salt,
which is passed around on the blade of a sword; by which act they
regard themselves as bound to be true, each to the other, even at the
peril of life. In like manner, in India and other Eastern countries,
the usual word for perfidy and breach of faith is, literally,
"unfaithfulness to the salt;" and a man will say, "Can you distrust
me? Have I not eaten of your salt?" That the symbol has this
recognised meaning in the meal-offering is plain from the words which
follow (ver. 13): "Neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant
of thy God to be wanting from thy meal-offering." In the
meal-offering, as in all offerings made by fire, the thought was this:
that Jehovah and the Israelite, as it were, partake of salt together,
in token of the eternal permanence of the holy covenant of salvation
into which Israel has entered with God.
Herein we are taught, then, that by the consecration of our labours to
God we recognise the relation between the believer and his Lord, as
not occasional and temporary, but eternal and incorruptible. In all
our consecration of our works to God, we are to keep this thought in
mind: "I am a man with whom God has entered into an everlasting
covenant, 'a covenant of salt.'"
Three varieties of the meal-offering were prescribed: the first (vv.
1-3), of uncooked meal; the second (vv. 4-11), of the same fine meal
and oil, variously prepared by cooking; the third (vv. 14-16), of the
first and best ears of the new grain, simply parched in the fire. If
any special significance is to be recognised in this variety of the
offerings, it may possibly be found in this, that one form might be
suited better than another to persons of different resources. It has
been supposed that the different implements named--the oven, the
baking-pan or plate, the frying-pan--represent, respectively, what
different classes of the people might be more or less likely to have.
This thought more certainly appears in the permission even of parched
grain, which then, as still in the East, while used more or less by
all, was especially the food of the poorest of the people; such as
might even be too poor to own so much as an oven or a baking-pan.
In any case, the variety which was permitted teaches us, that whatever
form the product of our labour may take, as determined either by our
poverty or our riches, or by whatever reason, God is graciously
willing to accept it, so the oil, frankincense, and salt be not
wanting. It is our privilege, as it is our duty, to offer of it in
consecration to our redeeming Lord, though it be no more than parched
corn. The smallness or meanness of what we have to give, need not keep
us back from presenting our meal-offering.
If we have rightly understood the significance of this offering, the
ritual which is given will now easily yield us its lessons. As in the
case of the burnt-offering, the meal-offering also must be brought
unto the Lord by the offerer himself. The consecration of our works,
like the consecration of our persons, must be our own voluntary act.
Yet the offering must be delivered through the mediation of the
priest; the offerer must not presume himself to lay it on the altar.
Even so still. In this, as in all else, the Heavenly High Priest must
act in our behalf with God. We do not, by our consecration of our
works, therefore become able to dispense with His offices as Mediator
between us and God. This is the thought of many, but it is a great
mistake. No offering made to God, except in and through the appointed
Priest, can be accepted of Him.
It was next directed that the priest, having received the offering at
the hand of the worshipper, should make a twofold use of it. In the
burnt-offering the whole was to be burnt; but in the meal-offering
only a small part. The priest was to take out of the offering, in each
case, "a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar"; and then it is
added (vv. 3-10), "that which is left of the meal offering"--which
was always much the larger part--"shall be Aaron's and his sons'." The
small part taken out by the priest for the altar was burnt with fire;
and its consumption by the fire of the altar, as in the other
offerings, symbolised God's gracious acceptance and appropriation of
the offering.
But here the question naturally arises, if the total consecration of
the worshipper and his full acceptance by God, in the case of the
burnt-offering, was signified by the burning of the whole, how is it
that, in this case, where also we must think of a consecration of the
whole, yet only a small part was offered to God in the fire of the
altar? But the difficulty is only in appearance. For, no less than in
the burnt-offering, all of the meal-offering is presented to God, and
all is no less truly accepted by Him. The difference in the two cases
is only in the use to which God puts the offering. A part of the
meal-offering is burnt on the altar as "a memorial," to signify that
God takes notice of and graciously accepts the consecrated fruit of
our labours. It is called "a memorial" in that, so to speak, it
reminded the Lord of the service and devotion of His faithful servant.
The thought is well illustrated by the words of Nehemiah (v. 19), who
said: "Think upon me, O Lord, for good, according to all that I have
done for this people;" and by the word of the angel to Cornelius (Acts
x. 4): "Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before
God;" for a memorial in such wise as to procure to him a gracious
visitation.
The remaining and larger portion of the meal-offering was given to the
priest, as being the servant of God in the work of His house. To this
service he was set apart from secular occupations, that he might give
himself wholly to the duties of this office. In this he must needs be
supported; and to this end it was ordained by God that a certain part
of the various offerings should be given him, as we shall see more
fully hereafter.
In striking contrast with this ordinance, which gave the largest part
of the meal-offering to the priest, is the law that of the
frankincense he must take nothing; "all" must go up to God, with the
"memorial," in the fire of the altar (vv. 2, 16). But in consistency
with the symbolism it could not be otherwise. For the frankincense was
the emblem of prayer, adoration, and praise; of this, then, the priest
must take nought for himself. The manifest lesson is one for all who
preach the Gospel. Of the incense of praise which may ascend from the
hearts of God's people, as they minister the Word, they must take none
for themselves. "Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name be the glory."
Such then was the meaning of the meal-offering. It represents the
consecration unto God by the grace of the Holy Spirit, with prayer and
praise, of all the work of our hands; an offering with salt, but
without leaven, in token of our unchanging covenant with a holy God.
And God accepts the offerings thus presented by His people, as a
savour of a sweet smell, with which He is well pleased. We have called
this consecration a duty; is it not rather a most exalted privilege?
Only let us remember, that although our consecrated offerings are
accepted, we are not accepted because of the offerings. Most
instructive it is to observe that the meal-offerings were not to be
offered alone; a bloody sacrifice, a burnt-offering or sin-offering,
must always precede. How vividly this brings before us the truth that
it is only when first our persons have been cleansed by atoning blood,
and thus and therefore consecrated unto God, that the consecration
and acceptance of our works is possible. We are not accepted because
we consecrate our works, but our consecrated works themselves are
accepted because first we have been "accepted in the Beloved" through
faith in the blood of the holy Lamb of God.
THE DAILY MEAL-OFFERING.
vi. 14-23.
"And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron
shall offer it before the Lord, before the altar. And he shall
take up therefrom his handful, of the fine flour of the
meal-offering and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense
which is upon the meal-offering, and shall burn it upon the altar
for a sweet savour, as the memorial thereof, unto the Lord. And
that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: it shall
be eaten without leaven in a holy place: in the court of the tent
of meeting they shall eat it. It shall not be baken with leaven.
I have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire; it
is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering.
Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, as a due
for ever throughout your generations, from the offerings of the
Lord made by fire: whosoever toucheth them shall be holy. And the
Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This is the oblation of Aaron and
of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when
he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a
meal-offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half
thereof in the evening. On a baking-pan it shall be made with
oil; when it is soaked, thou shalt bring it in: in baken pieces
shalt thou offer the meal-offering for a sweet savour unto the
Lord. And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from
among his sons shall offer it: by a statute for ever it shall be
wholly burnt unto the Lord. And every meal-offering of the priest
shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten."
As there were not only the burnt-offerings of the individual
Israelite, but also a daily burnt-offering, morning and evening,
presented by the priest as the representative of the collective
nation, so also with the meal-offering. The law concerning this daily
meal-offering is given in chap. vi. 19. The amount in this case was
prescribed, being apparently the amount regarded as a day's portion of
food--"the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour," half of which was to
be offered in the morning and half in the evening, made on a baking
pan with oil, "for a sweet savour unto the Lord." Unlike the
meal-offering of the individual, it is said, "by a statute for ever,
it shall be wholly burnt unto the Lord.... Every meal-offering of the
priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten." This single
variation from the ordinance of chap. ii. is simply an application of
the principle which governs all the sacrifices except the
peace-offering, that he who offered any sacrifice could never himself
eat of it; and as the priest in this case was the offerer, the
symbolism required that he should himself have nothing of the
offering, as being wholly given by him to the Lord. And this
meal-offering was to be presented, not merely, as some have inferred
from ver. 20, on the day of the anointing of the high priest, but, as
is expressly said, "perpetually."
The typical meaning of the meal-offering, and, in particular, of this
daily meal-offering, which, as we learn from Exod. xxx. 39, 40, was
offered with the daily burnt-offering, is very clear. Every
meal-offering pointed to Christ in His consecration of all His works
to the Father. And as the daily burnt-offering presented by Aaron and
his sons typified our heavenly High Priest as offering His person in
daily consecration unto God in our behalf, so, in the daily
meal-offering, wholly burnt upon the altar, we see Him in like manner
offering unto God in perfect consecration, day by day, perpetually,
all His works for our acceptance. To the believer, often sorely
oppressed with the sense of the imperfection of his own consecration
of his daily works, in that because of this the Father is not
glorified by him as He should be, how exceedingly comforting this view
of Christ! For that which, at the best, we do so imperfectly and
interruptedly, He does in our behalf perfectly, and with never-failing
constancy; thus at once perfectly glorifying the Father, and also,
through the virtue of the boundless merit of this consecration,
constantly procuring for us daily grace unto the life eternal.
CHAPTER V.
_THE PEACE-OFFERING._
LEV. iii. 1-17; vii. 11-34; xix. 5-8; xxii. 21-25.
In chap. iii. is given, though not with completeness, the law of the
peace-offering. The alternative rendering of this term,
"thank-offering" (marg. R.V.), precisely expresses only one variety of
the peace-offering; and while it is probably impossible to find any
one word that shall express in a satisfactory way the whole conception
of this offering, it is not easy to find one better than the familiar
term which the Revisers have happily retained. As will be made clear
in the sequel, it was the main object of this offering, as consisting
of a sacrifice terminating in a festive sacrificial meal, to express
the conception of friendship, peace, and fellowship with God as
secured by the shedding of atoning blood.
Like the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, the peace-offering had
come down from the times before Moses. We read of it, though not
explicitly named, in Gen. xxxi. 54, on the occasion of the covenant
between Jacob and Laban, wherein they jointly took God as witness of
their covenant of friendship; and, again, in Exod. xviii. 12, where
"Jethro took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came
and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law
before God." Nor was this form of sacrifice, any more than the
burnt-offering, confined to the line of Abraham's seed. Indeed,
scarcely any religious custom has from the most remote antiquity been
more universally observed than this of a sacrifice essentially
connected with a sacrificial meal. An instance of the heathen form of
this sacrifice is even given in the Pentateuch, where we are told
(Exod. xxxii. 6) how the people, having made the golden calf,
worshipped it with peace-offerings, and sat down to eat and to drink
at the sacrificial meal which was inseparable from the peace-offering;
while in 1 Cor. x. Paul refers to like sacrificial feasts as common
among the idolaters of Corinth.
It hardly needs to be again remarked that there is nothing in such
facts as these to trouble the faith of the Christian, any more than in
the general prevalence of worship and of prayer among heathen nations.
Rather, in all these cases alike, are we to see the expression on the
part of man of a sense of need and want, especially, in this case, of
friendship and fellowship with God; and, seeing that the conception of
a sacrifice culminating in a feast was, in truth, most happily adapted
to symbolise this idea, surely it were nothing strange that God should
base the ordinances of His own worship upon such universal conceptions
and customs, correcting in them only, as we shall see, what might
directly or indirectly misrepresent truth. Where an alphabet, so to
speak, is thus already found existing, whether in letters or in
symbols, why should the Lord communicate a new and unfamiliar
symbolism, which, because new and unfamiliar, would have been, for
that reason, far less likely to be understood?
The plan of chap. iii. is very simple; and there is little in its
phraseology requiring explanation. Prescriptions are given for the
offering of peace-offerings, first, from the herd (vv. 1-5); then,
from the flock, whether of the sheep (vv. 6-11) or of the goats (vv.
12-16). After each of these three sections it is formally declared of
each offering that it is "a sweet savour," "an offering made by fire,"
or "the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord." The chapter
then closes with a prohibition, specially occasioned by the directions
for this sacrifice, of all use by Israel of fat or blood as food.
The regulations relating to the selection of the victim for the
offering differ from those for the burnt-offering in allowing a
greater liberty of choice. A female was permitted, as well as a male;
though recorded instances of the observance of the peace-offering
indicate that the male was even here preferred when obtainable. The
offering of a dove or a pigeon is not, however, mentioned as
permissible, as in the case of the burnt-offering. But this is no
exception to the rule of greater liberty of choice, since these were
excluded by the object of the offering as a sacrificial meal, for
which, obviously, a small bird would be insufficient. Ordinarily, the
victim must be without blemish; and yet, even in this matter, a larger
liberty was allowed (chap. xxii. 23) in the case of those which were
termed "free-will offerings," where it was permitted to offer even a
bullock or a lamb which might have "some part superfluous or lacking."
The latitude of choice thus allowed finds its sufficient explanation
in the fact that while the idea of representation and expiation had a
place in the peace-offering as in all bloody offerings, yet this was
subordinate to the chief intent of the sacrifice, which was to
represent the victim as food given by God to Israel in the sacrificial
meal. It is to be observed that only such defects are therefore
allowed in the victim as could not possibly affect its value as food.
And so even already, in these regulations as to the selection of the
victim, we have a hint that we have now to do with a type, in which
the dominant thought is not so much Christ, the Holy Victim, our
representative, as Christ the Lamb of God, the food of the soul,
through participation in which we have fellowship with God.
As before remarked, the ritual acts in the bloody sacrifices are, in
all, six, each of which, in the peace-offering, has its proper place.
Of these, the first four, namely, the presentation, the laying on of
the hand, the killing of the victim, and the sprinkling of the blood,
are precisely the same as in the burnt-offering, and have the same
symbolic and typical significance. In both the burnt-offering and the
peace-offering, the innocent victim typified the Lamb of God,
presented by the sinner in the act of faith to God as an atonement for
sin through substitutionary death; and the sprinkling of the blood
upon the altar signifies in this, as in the other, the application of
that blood Godward by the Divine Priest acting in our behalf, and
thereby procuring for us remission of sin, redemption through the
blood of the slain Lamb.
In the other two ceremonies, namely, the burning and the sacrificial
meal, the peace-offering stands in strong contrast with the
burnt-offering. In the burnt-offering all was burned upon the altar;
in the peace-offering all the fat, and that only. The detailed
directions which are given in the case of each class of victims are
intended simply to direct the selection of those parts of the animal
in which the fat is chiefly found. They are precisely the same for
each, except in the case of the sheep. With regard to such a victim,
the particular is added, according to King James's version, "the whole
rump;" but the Revisers have with abundant reason corrected this
translation, giving it correctly as "the fat tail entire." The change
is an instructive one, as it points to the idea which determined this
selection of all the fat for the offering by fire. For the reference
is to a special breed of sheep which is still found in Palestine,
Arabia, and North Africa. With these, the tail grows to an immense
size, sometimes weighing fifteen pounds or more, and consists almost
entirely of a rich substance, in character between fat and marrow. By
the Orientals in the regions where this variety of sheep is found it
is still esteemed as the most valuable part of the animal for food.
And thus, just as in the meal-offering the Israelite was required to
bring out of all his grain the best, and of his meal the finest, so in
the peace-offering he is required to bring the fat, and in the case of
the sheep this fat tail, as the best and richest parts, to be burnt
upon the altar to Jehovah. And the burning, as in the whole
burnt-sacrifice, was, so to speak, the visible Divine appropriation of
that which was placed upon the altar, the best of the offering, as
appointed to be "the food of God." If the symbolism, at first thought,
perplex any, we have but to remember how frequently in Scripture "fat"
and "fatness" are used as the symbol of that which is richest and
best; as, _e.g._, where the Psalmist says, "They shall be abundantly
satisfied with the fatness of Thy house;" and Isaiah, "Come unto Me,
and let your soul delight itself in fatness." Thus when, in the
peace-offering, of which the larger part was intended for food, it is
ordered that the fat should be given to God in the fire of the altar,
the same lesson is taught as in the meal-offering, namely, God is
ever to be served first and with the best that we have. "All the fat
is the Lord's."
In the burnt-offering, the burning ended the ceremonial: in the nature
of the case, since all was to be burnt, the object of the sacrifice
was attained when the burning was completed. But in the case of the
peace-offering, to the burning of the fat upon the altar now followed
the culminating act of the ritual, in the eating of the sacrifice. In
this, however, we must distinguish from the eating by the offerer and
his household, the eating by the priests; of which only the
first-named properly belonged to the ceremonial of the sacrifice. The
assignment of certain parts of the sacrifice to be eaten by the
priests has the same meaning as in the meal-offering. These portions
were regarded in the law as given, not by the offerer, but by God, to
His servants the priests; that they might eat them, not as a
ceremonial act, but as their appointed sustenance from His table whom
they served. To this we shall return in a subsequent chapter, and
therefore need not dwell upon it here.
This eating of the sacrifice by the priests has thus not yet taken us
beyond the conception of the meal-offering, with a part of which they,
in like manner, by God's arrangement, were fed. Quite different,
however, is the sacrificial eating by the offerer which follows. He
had brought the appointed victim; it had been slain in his behalf; the
blood had been sprinkled for atonement on the altar; the fat had been
taken off and burned upon the altar; the thigh and breast had been
given back by God to the officiating priest; and now, last of all, the
offerer himself receives back from God, as it were, the remainder of
the flesh of the victim, that he himself might eat it before Jehovah.
The chapter before us gives no directions as to this sacrificial
eating; these are given in Deut. xii. 6, 7, 17, 18, to which passage,
in order to the full understanding of that which is most distinctive
in the peace-offering, we must refer. In the two verses last named, we
have a regulation which covers, not only the peace-offerings, but with
them all other sacrificial eatings, thus: "Thou mayest not eat within
thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the
firstlings of thy herd or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou
vowest, nor thy free-will offerings, nor the heave-offering of thy
hand: but thou shalt eat them before the Lord thy God in the place
which the Lord thy God shall choose, thou and thy son, and thy
daughter, and my man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite
that is within thy gates; and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy
God in all that thou puttest thy hand unto."
In these directions are three particulars; the offerings were to be
eaten, by the offerer, not at his own home, but before Jehovah at the
central sanctuary; he was to include in this sacrificial feast all the
members of his family, and any Levite that might be stopping with him;
and he was to make the feast an occasion of holy joy before the Lord
in the labour of his hands. What was now the special significance of
all this? As this was the special characteristic of the
peace-offering, the answer to this question will point us to its true
significance, both for Israel in the first place, and then for us as
well, as a type of Him who was to come.
It is not hard to perceive the significance of a feast as a symbol. It
is a natural and suitable expression of friendship and fellowship. He
who gives the feast thereby shows to the guests his friendship toward
them, in inviting them to partake of the food of his house. And if, in
any case, there has been an interruption or breach of friendship, such
an invitation to a feast, and association in it of the formerly
alienated parties, is a declaration on the part of him who gives the
feast, as also of those who accept his invitation, that the breach is
healed, and that where there was enmity, is now peace.
So natural is this symbolism that, as above remarked, it has been a
custom very widely spread among heathen peoples to observe sacrificial
feasts, very like to this peace-offering of the Hebrews, wherein a
victim is first offered to some deity, and its flesh then eaten by the
offerer and his friends. Of such sacrificial feasts we read in ancient
Babylonia and Assyria, in Persia, and, in modern times, among the
Arabs, Hindoos, and Chinese, and various native races of the American
continent; always having the same symbolic intent and meaning--namely,
an expression of desire after friendship and intercommunion with the
deity thus worshipped. The existence of this custom in Old Testament
days is recognised in Isa. lxv. 11 (R.V.), where God charges the
idolatrous Israelites with preparing "a table for the god Fortune,"
and filling up "mingled wine unto (the goddess) Destiny"--certain
Babylonian (?) deities; and in the New Testament, as already remarked,
the Apostle Paul refers to the same custom among the idolatrous Greeks
of Corinth.
And because this symbolic meaning of a feast is as suitable and
natural as it is universal, we find that in the symbolism of Holy
Scripture, eating and drinking, and especially the feast, has been
appropriated by the Holy Spirit to express precisely the same ideas of
reconciliation, friendship, and intercommunion between the giver of
the feast and the guest, as in all the great heathen religions. We
meet this thought, for instance, in Psalm xxii. 5: "Thou preparest a
table before me in the presence of my enemies;" and in Psalm xxxvi. 8,
where it is said of God's people: "They shall be abundantly satisfied
with the fatness of Thy house;" and again, in the grand prophecy in
Isaiah, xxv., of the final redemption of all the long-estranged
nations, we read that when God shall destroy in Mount Zion "the veil
that is spread over all nations, and swallow up death for ever," then
"the Lord of hosts shall make unto all peoples a feast of fat things,
a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines
on the lees well refined." And in the New Testament, the symbolism is
taken up again, and used repeatedly by our Lord, as, for example, in
the parables of the Great Supper (Luke xiv. 15-24) and the Prodigal
Son (Luke xv. 23), the Marriage of the King's Son (Matt. xxii. 1-14),
concerning the blessings of redemption; and also in that ordinance of
the Holy Supper, which He has appointed to be a continual reminder of
our relation to Himself, and means for the communication of His grace,
through our symbolic eating therein of the flesh of the slain Lamb of
God.
Thus, nothing in the Levitical symbolism is better certified to us
than the meaning of the feast of the peace-offering. Employing a
symbol already familiar to the world for centuries, God ordained this
eating of the peace-offering in Israel, to be the symbolic expression
of peace and fellowship with Himself. In Israel it was to be eaten
"before the Lord," and, as well it might be, "with rejoicing."
But, just at this point, the question has been raised: How are we to
conceive of the sacrificial feast of the peace-offering? Was it a
feast offered and presented by the Israelite to God, or a feast given
by God to the Israelite? In other words, in this feast, who was
represented as host, and who as guest? Among other nations than the
Hebrews, it was the thought in such cases that the feast was given by
the worshipper to his god. This is well illustrated by an Assyrian
inscription of Esarhaddon, who, in describing his palace at Nineveh,
says: "I filled with beauties the great palace of my empire, and I
called it 'the Palace which rivals the World.' Ashur, Ishtar of
Nineveh, and the gods of Assyria, all of them, I feasted within it.
Victims, precious and beautiful, I sacrificed before them, and I
caused them to receive my gifts."
But here we come upon one of the most striking and instructive
contrasts between the heathen conception of the sacrificial feast and
the same symbolism as used in Leviticus and other Scripture. In the
heathen sacrificial feasts, it is man who feasts God; in the
peace-offering of Leviticus, it is God who feasts man. Some have
indeed denied that this is the conception of the peace-offering, but
most strangely. It is true that the offerer, in the first instance,
had brought the victim; but it seems to be forgotten by such, that
prior to the feasting he had already given the victim to God, to be
offered in expiation for sin. From that time the victim was no longer,
any part of it, his own property, but God's. God having received the
offering, now directs what use shall be made of it; a part shall be
burned upon the altar; another part He gives to the priests, His
servants; with the remaining part He now feasts the worshipper.
And as if to make this clearer yet, while Esarhaddon, for example,
gives his feast to the gods, not in their temples, but in his own
palace, as himself the host and giver of the feast, the Israelite, on
the contrary,--that he might not, like the heathen, complacently
imagine himself to be feasting God,--is directed to eat the
peace-offering, not at his own house, but at God's house. In this way
God was set forth as the host, the One who gave the feast, to whose
house the Israelite was invited, at whose table he was to eat.
Profoundly suggestive and instructive is this contrast between the
heathen custom in this offering, and the Levitical ordinance. For do
we not strike here one of the deepest points of contrast between all
of man's religion, and the Gospel of God? Man's idea always is, until
taught better by God, "I will be religious and make God my friend, by
doing something, giving something for God." God, on the contrary,
teaches us in this symbolism, as in all Scripture, the exact reverse;
that we become truly religious by taking, first of all, with
thankfulness and joy, what He has provided for us. A breach of
friendship between man and God is often implied in the heathen
rituals, as in the ritual of Leviticus; as also, in both, a desire for
its removal, and renewed fellowship with God. But in the former, man
ever seeks to attain to this intercommunion of friendship by something
that he himself will do for God. He will feast God, and thus God shall
be well pleased. But God's way is the opposite! The sacrificial feast
at which man shall have fellowship with God is provided not by man for
God, but by God for man, and is to be eaten, not in our house, but
spiritually partaken in the presence of the invisible God.
We can now perceive the teaching of the peace-offering for Israel. In
Israel, as among all the nations, was the inborn craving after
fellowship and friendship with God. The ritual of the peace-offering
taught him how it was to be obtained, and how communion might be
realised. The first thing was for him to bring and present a
divinely-appointed victim; and then, the laying of the hand upon his
head with confession of sin; then, the slaying of the victim, the
sprinkling of its blood, and the offering of its choicest parts to God
in the altar fire. Till all this was done, till in symbol expiation
had been thus made for the Israelite's sin, there could be no feast
which should speak of friendship and fellowship with God. But this
being first done, God now, in token of His free forgiveness and
restoration to favour, invites the Israelite to a joyful feast in His
own house.
What a beautiful symbol! Who can fail to appreciate its meaning when
once pointed out? Let us imagine that through some fault of ours a
dear friend has become estranged; we used to eat and drink at his
house, but there has been none of that now for a long time. We are
troubled, and perhaps seek out one who is our friend's friend and also
our friend, to whose kindly interest we entrust our case, to reconcile
to us the one we have offended. He has gone to mediate; we anxiously
await his return; but or ever he has come back again, comes an
invitation from him who was estranged, just in the old loving way,
asking that we will eat with him at his house. Any one of us would
understand this; we should be sure at once that the mediator had
healed the breach, that we were forgiven, and were welcome as of old
to all that our friend's friendship had to give.
But God is the good Friend whom we have estranged; and the Lord Jesus,
His beloved Son, and our own Friend as well, is the Mediator; and He
has healed the breach; having made expiation for our sin in offering
His own body as a sacrifice, He has ascended into heaven, there to
appear in the presence of God for us; He has not yet returned. But
meantime the message comes down from Him to all who are hungering
after peace with God: "The feast is made; and ye all are invited;
come! all things are now ready!" And this is the message of the
Gospel. It is the peace-offering translated into words. Can we
hesitate to accept the invitation? Or, if we have sent in our
acceptance, do we need to be told, as in Deuteronomy, that we are to
eat "with rejoicing."
And now we may well observe another circumstance of profound typical
significance. When the Israelite came to God's house to eat before
Jehovah, he was fed there with the flesh of the slain victim. The
flesh of that very victim whose blood had been given for him on the
altar, now becomes his food to sustain the life thus redeemed. Whether
the Israelite saw into the full meaning of this, we may easily doubt;
but it leads us on now to consider, in the clearer light of the New
Testament, the deepest significance of the peace-offering and its
ritual, as typical of our Lord and our relation to Him.
That the victim of the peace-offering, as of all the bloody offerings,
was intended to typify Christ, and that the death of that victim, in
the peace-offering, as in all the bloody offerings, foreshadowed the
death of Christ for our sins,--this needs no further proof. And so,
again, as the burning of the whole burnt-offering represented Christ
as accepted for us in virtue of His perfect consecration to the
Father, so the peace-offering, in that the fat is burned, represents
Christ as accepted for us, in that He gave to God in our behalf the
very best He had to offer. For in that incomparable sacrifice we are
to think not only of the completeness of Christ's consecration for us,
but also of the supreme excellence of that which He offered unto God
for us. All that was best in Him, reason, affection, and will, as well
as the members of His holy body,--nay, the Godhead as well as the
Manhood, in the holy mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation, He
offered for us unto the Father.
This, however, has taken us as yet but little beyond the meaning of
the burnt-offering. The closing act of the ritual, the sacrificial
eating, however, reaches in its typical significance far beyond this
or any of the bloody offerings.
First, in that he who had laid his hand upon the victim, and for whom
the blood had been sprinkled, is now invited by God to feast in His
house, upon food given by himself, the food of the sacrifice, which is
called in the ritual "the bread of God," the eating of the
peace-offering symbolically teaches us that if we have indeed
presented the Lamb of God as our peace, not only has the Priest
sprinkled for us the blood, so that our sin is pardoned, but, in token
of friendship now restored, God invites the penitent believer to sit
down at His own table,--in a word, to joyful fellowship with Himself!
Which means, if our weak faith but take it in, that the Almighty and
Most Holy God now invites us to fellowship in all the riches of His
Godhead; places all that He has at the service of the believing
sinner, redeemed by the blood of the slain Lamb. The prodigal has
returned; the Father will now feast him with the best that He has.
Fellowship with God through reconciliation by the blood of the slain
Lamb,--this then is the first thing shadowed forth in this part of
the ritual of the peace-offering. It is a sufficiently wonderful
thought, but there is truth yet more wonderful veiled under this
symbolism.
For when we ask, what then was the bread or food of God, of which He
invited him to partake who brought the peace-offering, and learn that
it was the flesh of the slain victim; here we meet a thought which
goes far beyond atonement by the shedding of blood. The same victim
whose blood was shed and sprinkled in atonement for sin is now given
by God to be the redeemed Israelite's food, by which his life shall be
sustained! Surely we cannot mistake the meaning of this. For the
victim of the altar and the food of the table are one and the same.
Even so He who offered Himself for our sins on Calvary, is now given
by God to be the food of the believer; who now thus lives by "eating
the flesh" of the slain Lamb of God. Does this imagery, at first
thought, seem strange and unnatural? So did it also seem strange to
the Jews, when in reply to our Lord's teaching they wonderingly asked
(John vi. 52), "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" And yet so
Christ spoke; and when He had first declared Himself to the Jews as
the Antitype of the manna, the true Bread sent down from heaven, He
then went on to say, in words which far transcended the meaning of
that type (John vi. 51), "The bread which I will give is My flesh, for
the life of the world." How the light begins now to flash back from
the Gospel to the Levitical law, and from this, again, back to the
Gospel! In the one we read, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your
peace-offerings before the Lord with joy;" in the other, the word of
the Lord Jesus concerning Himself (John vi. 33, 55, 57): "The bread of
God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the
world.... My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.... As
the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he
that eateth Me, he also shall live because of Me." And now the
Shekinah light of the ancient tent of meeting begins to illumine even
the sacramental table, and as we listen to the words of Jesus, "Take,
eat! this is My body which was broken for you," we are reminded of the
feast of the peace-offerings. The Israel of God is to be fed with the
flesh of the sacrificed Lamb which became their peace.
Let us hold fast then to this deepest thought of the peace-offering, a
truth too little understood even by many true believers. The very
Christ who died for our sins, if we have by faith accepted His
atonement and have been for His sake forgiven, is now given us by God
for the sustenance of our purchased life. Let us make use of Him,
daily feeding upon Him, that so we may live and grow unto the life
eternal!
But there is yet one thought more concerning this matter, which the
peace-offering, as far as was possible, shadowed forth. Although
Christ becomes the bread of God for us only through His offering of
Himself first for our sins, as our atonement, yet this is something
quite distinct from atonement. Christ became our sacrifice once for
all; the atonement is wholly a fact of the past. But Christ is now
still, and will ever continue to be unto all His people, the bread or
food of God, by eating whom they live. He was the propitiation, as the
slain victim; but, in virtue of that, He is now become the flesh of
the peace-offering. Hence He must be this, not as dead, but as living,
in the present resurrection life of His glorified humanity. Here
evidently is a fact which could not be directly symbolised in the
peace-offering without a miracle ever repeated. For Israel ate of the
victim, not as living, but as dead. It could not be otherwise. And yet
there is a regulation of the ritual (chap. vii. 15-18; xix. 6, 7)
which suggests this phase of truth as clearly as possible without a
miracle. It was ordered that none of the flesh of the peace-offering
should be allowed to remain beyond the third day; if any then was left
uneaten, it was to be burned with fire. The reason for this lies upon
the surface. It was doubtless that there might be no possible
beginning of decay; and thus it was secured that the flesh of the
victim with which God fed the accepted Israelite should be the flesh
of a victim that was not to see corruption. But does not this at once
remind us how it was written of the Antitype, "Thou wilt not suffer
Thy Holy One to see corruption"? while, moreover, the extreme limit of
time allowed further reminds us how it was precisely on the third day
that Christ rose from the dead in the incorruptible life of the
resurrection, that so He might through all time continue to be the
living bread of His people.
And thus this special regulation points us not indistinctly toward the
New Testament truth that Christ is now unto us the bread of God, not
merely as the One who died, but as the One who, living again, was not
allowed to see corruption. For so the Apostle argues (Rom. v. 11),
that "being justified by faith," and so having "peace with God through
our Lord Jesus Christ," our peace-offering, having been thus
"reconciled by His death, we shall now be saved by His life." And
thus, as we appropriate Christ crucified as our atonement, so by a
like faith we are to appropriate Christ risen as our life, to be for
us as the flesh of the peace-offering, our nourishment and strength by
which we live.
THE PROHIBITION OF FAT AND BLOOD.
iii. 16, 17; vii. 22-27; xvii. 10-16.
"And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of
the offering made by fire, for a sweet savour: all the fat is the
Lord's. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat
nor blood.... And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto
the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or
sheep, or goat. And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and
the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any
other service: but ye shall in no wise eat of it. For whosoever
eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made
by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut
off from his people. And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether
it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whosoever it
be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his
people.... And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or
of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner
of blood; I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood,
and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the
flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh
atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall
any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever
man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that
sojourn among them, which taketh in hunting any beast or fowl
that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover
it with dust. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof
is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh:
for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth
it shall be cut off. And every soul that eateth that which dieth
of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be
homeborn or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe
himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be
clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he
shall bear his iniquity."
The chapter concerning the peace-offering ends (vv. 16, 17) with these
words: "All the fat is the Lord's. It shall be a perpetual statute for
you throughout your generations, that ye shall eat neither fat nor
blood."
To this prohibition so much importance was attached that in the
supplemental "law of the peace-offering" (vii. 22-27) it is repeated
with added explanation and solemn warning, thus: "And the Lord spake
unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye
shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. And the
fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is
torn with beasts, may be used for any other service: but ye shall in
no wise eat of it. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which
men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that
eateth it shall be cut off from his people. And ye shall eat no manner
of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from
his people."
From which it appears that this prohibition of the eating of fat
referred only to the fat of such beasts as were used for sacrifice.
With these, however, the law was absolute, whether the animal was
presented for sacrifice, or only slain for food. It held good with
regard to these animals, even when, because of the manner of their
death, they could not be used for sacrifice. In such cases, though the
fat might be used for other purposes, still it must not be used for
food.
The prohibition of the blood as food appears from xvii. 10 to have
been absolutely universal; it is said, "Whatsoever man there be of the
house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that
eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that
eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."
The reason for the prohibition of the eating of blood, whether in the
case of the sacrificial feasts of the peace-offerings or on other
occasions, is given (xvii. 11, 12), in these words: "For the life of
the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh
atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the children of
Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger
that sojourneth among you eat blood."
And the prohibition is then extended to include not only the blood of
animals which were used upon the altar, but also such as were taken in
hunting, thus (ver. 13): "And whatsoever man there be of the children
of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, which taketh
in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the
blood thereof, and cover it with dust," as something of peculiar
sanctity; and then the reason previously given is repeated with
emphasis (ver. 14): "For as to the life of all flesh, the blood
thereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for
the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall
be cut off."
And since, when an animal died from natural causes, or through being
torn of a beast, the blood would be drawn from the flesh either not at
all or but imperfectly, as further guarding against the possibility of
eating blood, it is ordered (vv. 15, 16) that he who does this shall
be held unclean: "Every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself,
or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a
stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and
be unclean until the even. But if he wash them not nor bathe his
flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity."
These passages explicitly state the reason for the prohibition by God
of the use of blood for food to be the fact that, as the vehicle of
the life, it has been appointed by Him as the means of expiation for
sin upon the altar. And the reason for the prohibition of the fat is
similar; namely, its appropriation for God upon the altar, as in the
peace-offerings, the sin-offerings, and the guilt-offerings; "all the
fat is the Lord's."
Thus the Israelite, by these two prohibitions, was to be continually
reminded, so often as he partook of his daily food, of two things: by
the one, of atonement by the blood as the only ground of acceptance;
and by the other, of God's claim on the man redeemed by the blood, for
the consecration of his best. Not only so, but by the frequent
repetition, and still more by the heavy penalty attached to the
violation of these laws, he was reminded of the exceeding importance
that these two things had in the mind of God. If he eat the blood of
any animal claimed by God for the altar, he should be cut off from his
people; that is, outlawed, and cut off from all covenant privilege as
a citizen of the kingdom of God in Israel. And even though the blood
were that of the beast taken in the chase, still ceremonial
purification was required as the condition of resuming his covenant
position.
Nothing, doubtless, seems to most Christians of our day more remote
from practical religion than these regulations touching the fat and
the blood, which are brought before us with such fulness in the law of
the peace-offering and elsewhere. And yet nothing is of more
present-day importance in this law than the principles which underlie
these regulations. For as with type, so with antitype. No less
essential to the admission of the sinful man into that blessed
fellowship with a reconciled God, which the peace-offering typified,
is the recognition of the supreme sanctity of the precious sacrificial
blood of the Lamb of God; no less essential to the life of happy
communion with God, is the ready consecration of the best fruit of our
life to Him.
Surely, both of these, and especially the first, are truths for our
time. For no observing man can fail to recognise the very ominous fact
that a constantly increasing number, even of professed preachers of
the Gospel, in so many words refuse to recognise the place which
propitiatory blood has in the Gospel of Christ, and to admit its
pre-eminent sanctity as consisting in this, that it was given on the
altar to make atonement for our souls. Nor has the present generation
outgrown the need of the other reminder touching the consecration of
the best to the Lord. How many there are, comfortable, easy-going
Christians, whose principle--if one might speak in the idiom of the
Mosaic law--would rather seem to be, ever to give the lean to God, and
keep the fat, the best fruit of their life and activity, for
themselves! Such need to be most urgently and solemnly reminded that
in spirit the warning against the eating of the blood and the fat is
in full force. It was written of such as should break this law, "that
soul shall be cut off from his people." And so in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (x. 26-29) we find one of its most solemn warnings directed to
those who "count this blood of the covenant," the blood of Christ, "an
unholy (_i.e._, common) thing;" as exposed by this, their
undervaluation of the sanctity of the blood, to a "sorer punishment"
than overtook him that "set at nought Moses' law," even the
retribution of Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith
the Lord."
And so in this law of the peace-offerings, which ordains the
conditions of the holy feast of fellowship with a reconciled God, we
find these two things made fundamental in the symbolism: full
recognition of the sanctity of the blood as that which atones for the
soul; and the full consecration of the redeemed and pardoned soul to
the Lord. So was it in the symbol; and so shall it be when the
sacrificial feast shall at last receive its most complete fulfilment
in the communion of the redeemed with Christ in glory. There will be
no differences of opinion then and there, either as to the
transcendent value of that precious blood which made atonement, or as
to the full consecration which such a redemption requires from the
redeemed.
THANK-OFFERINGS, VOWS, AND FREEWILL-OFFERINGS.
vii. 11-21.
"And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which
one shall offer unto the Lord. If he offer it for a thanksgiving,
then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened
cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil,
and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked. With cakes of
leavened bread he shall offer his oblation with the sacrifice of
his peace-offerings for thanksgiving. And of it he shall offer
one out of each oblation for an heave-offering unto the Lord; it
shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the
peace-offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his
peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his
oblation; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. But if
the sacrifice of his oblation be a vow, or a freewill offering,
it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his sacrifice: and
on the morrow that which remaineth of it shall be eaten: but that
which remaineth of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day
shall be burnt with fire. And if any of the flesh of the
sacrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten on the third day, it
shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that
offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth
of it shall bear his iniquity. And the flesh that toucheth any
unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.
And as for the flesh, everyone that is clean shall eat thereof:
but the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of
peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his
uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
And when any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness
of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean abomination, and eat
of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that soul shall
be cut off from his people."
According to this supplemental section on the law of the
peace-offerings, these were of three kinds; namely, "sacrifices of
thanksgiving," "vows," and "freewill-offerings." The first were
offered in token of gratitude for mercies received; as in Psalm cxvi.
16, 17, where we read: "Thou hast loosed my bonds; I will offer to
Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving." The second, like these, were
offered also in grateful return for prayer answered and mercy
received, but with the difference that they were promised before, upon
the condition of the prayer for mercy being granted. Lastly, the
freewill-offerings were those which had no special occasion, but were
merely the spontaneous expression of the love of the offerer to God,
and his desire to live in friendship and fellowship with Him. It is
apparently these freewill-offerings that we are to recognise in the
many instances recorded where the peace-offering was presented in
connection with supplication for special help and favour from God; as,
_e.g._, when (Judges xx. 26) Israel supplicated mercy from God after
their disastrous defeat in the civil war with the tribe of Benjamin;
and when David entreated the Lord (2 Sam. xxiv. 25) for the staying of
the plague in Israel.
With not only the thank-offering, but all peace-offerings, as is clear
from Numb. xv. 2-4, a full meal-offering, consisting of three kinds of
unleavened cakes, was to be offered, of each of which, one was to be
presented as a heave-offering, with the heave-shoulder of the
sacrifice, to the Lord (vii. 12). For the sacrificial feast, in which
the offerer, his family, and friends were to partake, he was also to
bring cakes of leavened bread, which, however, though eaten before God
by the offerer, might not be presented unto God for a heave-offering,
nor come upon the altar (ver. 13).
From what we have already seen, the spiritual meaning of this will be
clear. Thus in symbol the Israelite offered unto God, with his life,
the fruit of the labour of his hands, in gratitude to Him, and
expressed his happy consciousness of friendship and fellowship with
God through atonement, by feasting before Him. The leavened bread is
offered simply, as Bähr suggests, as the usual accompaniment to a
feast; though regard is still had to the fact, never once forgotten in
Holy Scripture, that leaven is nevertheless an element and symbol of
corruption; so that however the reconciled Israelite may eat his
leavened bread before God, yet it cannot be allowed to come upon the
altar of the Most Holy One.
Two slight differences appear in the ritual for the different kinds of
peace-offerings. First, in the case of the freewill-offering, a single
exception is allowed to the general rule that the victim must be
without blemish, in the permission to offer what, otherwise perfect,
might have "anything superfluous or lacking" in its parts (xxii. 23);
a circumstance which could not affect its fitness as the symbol of
spiritual food. For a vow (and, we may infer, for a thank-offering
also) such a victim, however, could not be offered; evidently because
it would seem peculiarly unsuitable, where the object of the offering
was to make in some sense a return for the always perfect and most
gracious gifts of God, that anything else than the absolutely perfect
should be offered. In the case of the thank-offering, again, an
exception is made to the general regulation permitting the eating of
the offering on the first and second days, requiring that all be eaten
on the day that it is presented, or else be burnt with fire (vii. 15).
We need seek for no spiritual meaning in this. A sufficient reason for
this special restriction in this case is probably to be found in the
consideration that as this was the most common variety of the
offering, there was the most danger that the flesh, by some oversight,
might be kept too long. The flesh of the victim offered to God, the
type of the Victim of Calvary, must on no account be allowed to see
corruption; and to this end every needed precaution must be taken,
that by no chance it shall remain unconsumed on the third day.
It is easy to connect the special characteristics of these several
varieties of the peace-offering with the great Antitype. So may we use
Him as our thank-offering; for what more fitting as an expression of
gratitude and love to God for mercies received, than renewed and
special fellowship with Him through feeding upon Christ as the slain
Lamb? So also we may thus use Christ in our vows; as when,
supplicating mercy, we promise and engage that if our prayer be heard
we will renewedly consecrate our service to the Lord, as in the
meal-offering, and anew enter into life-giving fellowship with Him
through feeding by faith on the flesh of the Lord. And it is
beautifully hinted in the permission of the use of leaven in this
feast of the peace-offering, that while the work of the believer, as
presented to God in grateful acknowledgment of His mercies, is ever
affected with the taint of his native corruption, so that it cannot
come upon the altar where satisfaction is made for sin, yet God is
graciously pleased, for the sake of the great Sacrifice, to accept
such imperfect service offered to Him, and make it in turn a blessing
to us, as we offer it in His presence, rejoicing in the work of our
hands before Him.
But there was one condition without which the Israelite could not have
communion with God in the peace-offering. He must be clean! even as
the flesh of the peace-offering must be clean also. There must be in
him nothing which should interrupt covenant fellowship with God; as
nothing in the type which should make it an unfit symbol of the
Antitype. For it was ordered (vii. 19-21), as regards every possible
occasion of uncleanness, thus: "The flesh that toucheth any unclean
thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. As for the
flesh, every one that is clean shall eat thereof; but the soul that
eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain
unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut
off from his people. And when any one shall touch any unclean thing,
the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean
abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,
that soul shall be cut off from his people."
In such cases, he must first go and purify himself, as provided in the
law; and then, and then only, presume to come to eat before the Lord.
And so Israel was ever impressively reminded that he who would have
fellowship with God, and eat in happy fellowship with Him at His
table, must keep himself pure. So by the spirit of these commands are
we no less warned that we take not encouragement from God's grace, in
providing for us the flesh of the Lamb as our food, to be careless in
walk and life. If we will use Christ as our peace-offering, we must
keep ourselves "unspotted from the world;" must hate "even the garment
spotted by the flesh," remembering ever that it is written in the New
Testament (1 Peter i. 15, 16), with direct reference to the typical
law of Leviticus: "As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves
also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be
holy; for I am holy."
CHAPTER VI.
_THE SIN-OFFERING._
LEV. iv. 1-35.
Both in the burnt-offering and in the peace-offering, Israel was
taught, as we are, that all consecration and all fellowship with God
must begin with, and ever depends upon, atonement made for sin. But
this was not the dominant thought in either of these offerings;
neither did the atonement, as made in these, have reference to
particular acts of sin. For such, these offerings were never
prescribed. They remind us therefore of the necessity of atonement,
not so much for what we do or fail to do, as for what we are.
But the sin even of true believers, whether then or now, is more than
sin of nature. The true Israelite was liable to be overtaken in some
overt act of sin; and for all such cases was ordained, in this section
of the law (iv. 1-v. 13), the sin-offering; an offering which should
bring out into sole and peculiar prominence the thought revealed in
other sacrifices more imperfectly, that in order to pardon of sin,
there must be expiation. There was indeed a limitation to the
application of this offering; for if a man, in those days, sinned
wilfully, presumptuously, stubbornly, or, as the phrase is, "with a
high hand," there was no provision made in the law for his
restoration to covenant standing. "He that despised Moses' law died
without mercy under two or three witnesses;" he was "cut off from his
people." But for sins of a lesser grade, such as resulted not from a
spirit of wilful rebellion against God, but were mitigated in their
guilt by various reasons, especially ignorance, rashness, or
inadvertence, God made provision, in a typical way, for their removal
by means of the atonement of the sin- and the guilt-offerings. By
means of these, accompanied also with full restitution of the wrong
done, when such restitution was possible, the guilty one might be
restored in those days to his place as an accepted citizen of the
kingdom of God.
No part of the Levitical law is more full of deep, heart-searching
truth than the law of the sin-offering. First of all, it is of
consequence to observe that the sins for which this chief atoning
sacrifice was appointed, were, for the most part, sins of ignorance.
For so runs the general statement with which this section opens (ver.
2): "If any one shall sin unwittingly, in any of the things which the
Lord hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any of them." And to
these are afterwards added sins committed through rashness, the result
rather of heat and hastiness of spirit than of deliberate purpose of
sin; as, for instance, in chap. v. 4: "Whatsoever it be that a man
shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him." Besides
these, in the same section (vv. 1-4) as also in all the cases
mentioned under the guilt-offering, and the special instance of a
wrong done to a slave-girl (xix. 21), a number of additional offences
are mentioned which all seem to have their special palliation, not
indeed in the ignorance of the sinner, but in the nature of the acts
themselves, as admitting of reparation. For all such it was also
ordained that the offender should bring a sin- (or a guilt-) offering,
and that by this, atonement being made for him, his sin might be
forgiven.
All this must have brought before Israel, and is meant to bring before
us, the absolute equity of God in dealing with His creatures. We think
often of His stern justice in that He so unfailingly takes note of
every sin. But here we may learn also to observe His equity in that He
notes no less carefully every circumstance that may palliate our sin.
We thankfully recognise in these words the spirit of Him of whom it
was said (Heb. v. 2, marg.) that in the days of His flesh He could
"reasonably bear with the ignorant;" and who said concerning those who
know not their Master's will and do it not (Luke xii. 48), that their
"stripes" shall be "few;" and who, again, with equal justice and
mercy, said of His disciples' fault in Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 41),
"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." We do well to
note this. For in these days we hear it often charged against the holy
religion of Christ, that it represents God as essentially and horribly
unjust in consigning all unbelievers to one and the same unvarying
punishment, the eternal lake of fire; and as thus making no difference
between those who have sinned against the utmost light and knowledge,
wilfully and inexcusably, and those who may have sinned through
ignorance, or weakness of the flesh. To such charges as these we have
simply to answer that neither in the Old Testament nor in the New is
God so revealed. We may come back to this book of Leviticus, and
declare that even in those days when law reigned, and grace and love
were less clearly revealed than now, God made a difference, a great
difference, between some sins and others; He visited, no doubt,
wilful and defiant sin with condign punishment; but, on the other
hand, no less justly than mercifully, He considered also every
circumstance which could lessen guilt, and ordained a gracious
provision for expiation and forgiveness. The God revealed in
Leviticus, like the God revealed in the Gospel, the God "with whom we
have to do," is then no hard and unreasonable tyrant, but a most just
and equitable King. He is no less the Most Just, that He is the Most
Holy; but, rather, because He is most holy, is He therefore most just.
And because God is such a God, in the New Testament also it is plainly
said that ignorance, as it extenuates guilt, shall also ensure
mitigation of penalty; and in the Old Testament, that while he who
sins presumptuously and with a high hand against God, shall "die
without mercy under two or three witnesses," on the other hand, he who
sins unwittingly, or in some sudden rash impulse, doing that of which
he afterward truly repents; or who, again, has sinned, if knowingly,
still in such a way as admits of some adequate reparation of the
wrong,--all these things shall be judged palliation of his guilt; and
if he confess his sin, and make all possible reparation for it, then,
if he present a sin- or a guilt-offering, atonement may therewith be
made, and the sinner be forgiven.
This then is the first thing which the law concerning the sin-offering
brings before us: it calls our attention to the fact that the heavenly
King and Judge of men is righteous in all His ways, and therefore will
ever make all the allowance that strict justice and righteousness
demand, for whatever may in any way palliate our guilt.
But none the less for this do we need also to heed another intensely
practical truth which the law of the sin-offering brings before us:
namely, that while ignorance or other circumstances may palliate
guilt, they do not and cannot nullify it. We may have sinned without a
suspicion that we were sinning, but here we are taught that there can
be no pardon without a sin-offering. We may have sinned through
weakness or sudden passion, but still sin is sin, and we must have a
sin-offering before we can be forgiven.
We may observe, in passing, the bearing of this teaching of the law on
the question so much discussed in our day, as to the responsibility of
the heathen for the sins which they commit through ignorance. In so
far as their ignorance is not wilful and avoidable, it doubtless
greatly diminishes their guilt; and the Lord Himself has said of such
that their stripes shall be few. And yet more than this He does not
say. Except we are prepared to cast aside the teaching alike of
Leviticus and the Gospels, it is certain that their ignorance does not
cancel their guilt. That the ignorance of any one concerning moral law
can secure his exemption from the obligation to suffer for his sin, is
not only against the teaching of all Scripture, but is also
contradicted by all that we can see about us of God's government of
the world. For when does God ever suspend the operation of physical
laws, because the man who violates them does not know that he is
breaking them? And so also, will we but open our eyes, we may see that
it is with moral law. The heathen, for example, are ignorant of many
moral laws; but do they therefore escape the terrible consequences of
their law-breaking, even in this present life, where we can see for
ourselves how God is dealing with them? And is there any reason to
think it will be different in the life hereafter?
Does it seem harsh that men should be punished even for sins of
ignorance, and pardon be impossible, even for these, without
atonement? It would not seem so, would men but think more deeply. For
beyond all question, the ignorance of men as to the fundamental law of
God, to love Him with all the heart, and our neighbour as ourselves,
which is the sum of all law, has its reason, not in any lack of light,
but in the evil heart of man, who everywhere and always, until he is
regenerated, loves self more than he loves God. The words of Christ
(John iii. 20) apply: "He that doeth evil cometh not to the light;"
not even to the light of nature.
And yet, one who should look only at this chapter might rejoin to
this, that the Israelite was only obliged to bring a sin-offering,
when afterward he came to the knowledge of his sin as sin; but, in
case he never came to that knowledge, was not then his sin passed by
without an atoning sacrifice? To this question, the ordinance which we
find in chapter xvi. is the decisive answer. For therein it was
provided that once every year a very solemn sin-offering should be
offered by the high priest, for all the multitudinous sins of Israel,
which were not atoned for in the special sin-offerings of each day.
Hence it is strictly true that no sin in Israel was ever passed over
without either penalty or shedding of blood. And so the law keeps it
ever before us that our unconsciousness of sinning does not alter the
fact of sin, or the fact of guilt, nor remove the obligation to suffer
because of sin; and that even the sin of which we are quite ignorant,
interrupts man's peace with God and harmony with him. Thus the best of
us must take as our own the words of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. iv. 4,
R.V.): "I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified;
He that judgeth me is the Lord."
Nor does the testimony of this law end here. We are by it taught that
the guilt of sins unrecognised as sins at the time of their committal,
cannot be cancelled merely by penitent confession when they become
known. Confession must indeed be made, according to the law, as one
condition of pardon, but, besides this, the guilty man must bring his
sin-offering.
What truths can be more momentous and vital than these! Can any one
say, in the light of such a revelation, that all in this ancient law
of the sin-offering is now obsolete, and of no concern to us? For how
many there are who are resting all their hopes for the future on the
fact that they have sinned, if at all, then ignorantly; or that they
"have meant to do right;" or that they have confessed the sin when it
was known, and have been very sorry. And yet, if this law teach
anything, it teaches that this is a fatal mistake, and that such hopes
rest on a foundation of sand. If we would be forgiven, we must indeed
confess our sin and we must repent; but this is not enough. We must
have a sin-offering; we must make use of the great Sin-Offering which
that of Leviticus typified; we must tell our compassionate High Priest
how in ignorance, or in the rashness of some unholy, over-mastering
impulse, we sinned, and commit our case to Him, that He may apply the
precious blood in our behalf with God.
It is a third impressive fact, that after we include all the cases for
which the sin-offering was provided, there still remain many sins for
the forgiveness of which no provision was made. It was ordered
elsewhere, for instance (Numb. xxxv. 31-33) that no satisfaction,
should be taken for the life of a murderer. He might confess and
bewail his sin, and be never so sorry, but there was no help for him;
he must die the death. So was it also with blasphemy; so with
adultery, and with many other crimes. This exclusion of so many cases
from the merciful provision of the typical offering had a meaning. It
was intended, not only to emphasise to the conscience the aggravated
wickedness of such crimes, but also to develop in Israel the sense of
need for a more adequate provision, a better sacrifice than any the
Levitical law could offer; blood which should cleanse, not merely in a
ceremonial and sacramental way, but really and effectively; and not
only from some sins, but from all sins.
The law of the sin-offering is introduced by phraseology different
from that which is used in the case of the preceding offerings. In the
case of each of these, the language used implies that the Israelites
were familiar with the offering before its incorporation into the
Levitical sacrificial system. The sin-offering, on the other hand, is
introduced as a new thing. And such, indeed, it was. While, as we have
seen, each of the offerings before ordered had been known and used,
both by the Shemitic and the other nations, since long before the days
of Moses, before this time there is no mention anywhere, in Scripture
or out of it, of a sacrifice corresponding to the sin- or the
guilt-offering. The significance of this fact is apparent so soon as
we observe what was the distinctive conception of the sin-offering, as
contrasted with the other offerings. Without question, it was the idea
of expiation of guilt by the sacrifice of a substituted victim. This
idea, as we have seen, was indeed not absent from the other bloody
offerings; but in those its place was secondary and subordinate. In
the ritual of the sin-offering, on the contrary, this idea was brought
out into almost solitary prominence;--sin pardoned on the ground of
expiation made through the presentation to God of the blood of an
innocent victim.
The introduction of this new sacrifice, then, marked the fact that the
spiritual training of man, of Israel in particular, herewith entered
on a new stadium; which was to be distinguished by the development, in
a degree to that time without a precedent, of the sense of sin and of
guilt, and the need therefore of atonement in order to pardon. This
need had not indeed been unfelt before; but never in any ritual had it
received so full expression. Not only is the idea of expiation by the
shedding of blood almost the only thought represented in the ritual of
the offering, but in the order afterward prescribed for the different
sacrifices, the sin-offering, in all cases where others were offered,
must go before them all; before the burnt-offering, the meal-offering,
the peace-offering. So again, this new law insists upon expiation even
for those sins which have the utmost possible palliation and excuse,
in that at the time of their committal the sinner knew them not as
sins; and thus teaches that even these so fatally interrupt fellowship
with the holy God, that only such expiation can restore the broken
harmony. What a revelation was this law, of the way in which God
regards sin! and of the extremity, in consequence, of the sinner's
need!
Most instructive, too, were the circumstances under which this new
offering, with such a special purpose, embodying such a revelation of
the extent of human guilt and responsibility, was first ordained. For
its appointment followed quickly upon the tremendous revelation of
the consuming holiness of God upon Mount Sinai. It was in the light of
the holy mount, quaking and flaming with fire, that the eye of Moses
was opened to receive from God this revelation of His will, and he was
moved by the Holy Ghost to appoint for Israel, in the name of Jehovah,
an offering which should differ from all other offerings in this--that
it should hold forth to Israel, in solitary and unprecedented
prominence, this one thought, that "without shedding of blood there is
no remission of sin," not even of sins which are not known as sins at
the time of their committal.
Our own generation, and even the Church of to-day, greatly needs to
consider the significance of this fact. The spirit of our age is much
more inclined to magnify the greatness and majesty of man, than the
infinite greatness and holy majesty of God. Hence many talk lightly of
atonement, and cannot admit its necessity to the pardon of sin. But
can we doubt, with this narrative before us, that if men saw God more
clearly as He is, there would be less talk of this kind? When Moses
saw God on Mount Sinai, he came down to ordain a sin-offering even for
sins of ignorance! And nothing is more certain, as a fact of human
experience in all ages, than this, that the more clearly men have
perceived the unapproachable holiness and righteousness of God, the
more clearly they have seen that expiation of our sins, even of our
sins of ignorance, by atoning blood, is the most necessary and
fundamental of all conditions, if we will have pardon of sin and peace
with a Holy God.
Man is indeed slow to learn this lesson of the sin-offering. It is
quite too humbling and abasing to our natural, self-satisfied pride,
to be readily received. This is strikingly illustrated by the fact
that it is not until late in Israel's history that the sin-offering
is mentioned in the sacred record; while even from that first mention
till the Exile, it is mentioned only rarely. This fact is indeed often
in our day held up as evidence that the sin-offering was not of Mosaic
origin, but a priestly invention of much later days. But the fact is
quite as well accounted for by the spiritual obtuseness of Israel. The
whole narrative shows that they were a people hard of heart and slow
to learn the solemn lessons of Sinai; slow to apprehend the holiness
of God, and the profound spiritual truth set forth in the institution
of the sin-offering. And yet it was not wholly unobserved, nor did
every individual fail to learn its lessons. Nowhere in heathen
literature do we find such a profound conviction of sin, such a sense
of responsibility even for sins of ignorance, as in some of the
earliest Psalms, and the earlier prophets. The self-excusing which so
often marks the heathen confessions, finds no place in the confessions
of those Old Testament believers, brought up under the moral training
of that Sinaitic law which had the sin-offering as its supreme
expression on this subject. "Search me, O God, and try my heart; and
see if there be in me any wicked way" (Psalm cxxxix. 23, 24); "Cleanse
Thou me from secret sins" (Psalm xix. 12); "Against Thee only have I
sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight" (Psalm li. 4). Such words as
these, with many other like prayers and confessions, bear witness to
the deepening sense of sin, till at the last the sin-offering teaches,
as its own chief lesson, its own inadequacy for the removal of guilt,
in those words of the prophetic Psalm, (xl. 6) from the man who
mourned iniquities more than the hairs of his head: "Sin-offering Thou
hast not required."
But, according to the epistle to the Hebrews, we are to regard David
in these words, speaking by the Holy Ghost, as typifying Christ; for
we thus read, x. 5-10: "When He cometh into the world He saith,
Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body didst Thou
prepare for Me; in whole burnt-offerings and sin-offerings Thou hadst
no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is
written of Me) to do Thy will, O God."
Which words are then expounded thus: "Saying above, Sacrifices and
offerings, and whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou
wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered
according to the law); then hath He said, Lo, I am come to do Thy
will. He taketh away the first that He may establish the second. By
which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all."
And so, as the deepest lesson of the sin-offering, we are taught to
see in it a type and prophecy of Christ, as the true and one eternally
effectual sin-offering for the sins of His people; who, Himself at
once High Priest and Victim, offering Himself for us, perfects us for
ever, as the old sin-offering could not, giving us therefore "boldness
to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus." May we all have
grace by faith to receive and learn this deepest lesson of this
ordinance, and thus in the law of the sin-offering discover Him who in
His person and work became the Fulfiller of this law.
GRADED RESPONSIBILITY.
iv. 3, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 28.
"If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the
people; then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a
young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a
sin-offering.... And if the whole congregation of Israel shall
err, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they
have done any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to
be done, and are guilty; when the sin wherein they have sinned is
known, then the assembly shall offer a young bullock for a
sin-offering, and bring it before the tent of meeting.... When a
ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any one of all the things
which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is
guilty; if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him,
he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without
blemish.... And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly,
in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to
be done, and be guilty; if his sin, which he hath sinned, be made
known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a
female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned."
The law concerning the sin-offering is given in four sections, of
which the last, again, is divided into two parts, separated by the
division of the chapter. These four sections respectively treat
of--first, the law of the sin-offering for the "anointed priest" (vv.
3-12); secondly, the law for the offering for the whole congregation
(vv. 13-21); thirdly, that for a ruler (vv. 22-26); and lastly, the
law for an offering made by a private person, one of "the common
people" (iv. 27-v. 16). In this last section we have, first, the
general law (iv. 27-35), and then are added (v. 1-16) special
prescriptions having reference to various circumstances under which a
sin-offering should be offered by one of the people. Under this last
head are mentioned first, as requiring a sin-offering, in addition to
sins of ignorance or inadvertence, which only were mentioned in the
preceding chapter, also sins due to rashness or weakness (vv. 1-4);
and then are appointed, in the second place, certain variations in the
material of the offering, allowed out of regard to the various ability
of different offerers (vv. 5-16).
In the law as given in chap. iv., it is to be observed that the
selection of the victim prescribed is determined by the position of
the persons who might have occasion to present the offering. For the
whole congregation, the victim must be a bullock, the most valuable of
all; for the high priest, as the highest religious official of the
nation, and appointed also to represent them before God, it must also
be a bullock. For the civil ruler, the offering must be a he-goat--an
offering of a value less than that of the victim ordered for the high
priest, but greater than that of those which were prescribed for the
common people. For these, a variety of offerings were appointed,
according to their several ability. If possible, it must be a female
goat or lamb, or, if the worshipper could not bring that, then two
turtle doves, or two young pigeons. If too poor to bring even this
small offering, then it was appointed that, as a substitute for the
bloody offering, he might bring an offering of fine flour, without oil
or frankincense, to be burnt upon the altar.
Evidently, then, the choice of the victim was determined by two
considerations: first, the rank of the person who sinned, and,
secondly, his ability. As regards the former point, the law as to the
victim for the sin-offering was this: the higher the theocratic rank
of the sinning person might be, the more costly offering he must
bring. No one can well miss of perceiving the meaning of this. The
guilt of any sin in God's sight is proportioned to the rank and
station of the offender. What truth could be of more practical and
personal concern to all than this?
In applying this principle, the law of the sin-offering teaches,
first, that the guilt of any sin is the heaviest, when it is committed
by one who is placed in a position of religious authority. For this
graded law is headed by the case of the sin of the anointed priest,
that is, the high priest, the highest functionary in the nation.
We read (ver. 3): "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring
guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin which he hath
committed, a young bullock without blemish, unto the Lord, for a
sin-offering."
That is, the high priest, although a single individual, if he sin,
must bring as large and valuable an offering as is required from the
whole congregation. For this law there are two evident reasons. The
first is found in the fact that in Israel the high priest represented
before God the entire nation. When he sinned it was as if the whole
nation sinned in him. So it is said that by his sin he "brings guilt
on the people"--a very weighty matter. And this suggests a second
reason for the costly offering that was required from him. The
consequences of the sin of one in such a high position of religious
authority must, in the nature of the case, be much more serious and
far-reaching than in the case of any other person.
And here we have another lesson as pertinent to our time as to those
days. As the high priest, so, in modern time, the bishop, minister, or
elder, is ordained as an officer in matters of religion, to act for
and with men in the things of God. For the proper administration of
this high trust, how indispensable that such a one shall take heed to
maintain unbroken fellowship with God! Any shortcoming here is sure to
impair by so much the spiritual value of his own ministrations for the
people to whom he ministers. And this evil consequence of any
unfaithfulness of his is the more certain to follow, because, of all
the members of the community, his example has the widest and most
effective influence; in whatever that example be bad or defective, it
is sure to do mischief in exact proportion to his exalted station. If
then such a one sin, the case is very grave, and his guilt
proportionately heavy.
This very momentous fact is brought before us in an impressive way in
the New Testament, where, in the epistles to the Seven Churches of
Asia (Rev. ii., iii.), it is "the angel of the church," the presiding
officer of the church in each city, who is held responsible for the
spiritual state of those committed to his charge. No wonder that the
Apostle James wrote (James iii. 1): "Be not many teachers, my
brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment." Well may
every true-hearted minister of Christ's Church tremble, as here in the
law of the sin-offering he reads how the sin of the officer of
religion may bring guilt, not only on himself, but also "on the whole
people"! Well may he cry out with the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. ii. 16):
"Who is sufficient for these things?" and, like him, beseech those to
whom he ministers, "Brethren, pray for us!"
With the sin of the high priest is ranked that of the congregation, or
the collective nation. It is written (vv. 13, 14): "If the whole
congregation of Israel shall err, and the thing be hid from the eyes
of the assembly, and they have done any one of the things which the
Lord hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty, then the assembly
shall offer a young bullock for a sin-offering."
Thus Israel was taught by this law, as we are, that responsibility
attaches not only to each individual person, but also to associations
of individuals in their corporate character, as nations, communities,
and--we may add--all Societies and Corporations, whether secular or
religious. Let us emphasise it to our own consciences, as another of
the fundamental lessons of this law: there is individual sin; there
is also such a thing as a sin by "the whole congregation." In other
words, God holds nations, communities--in a word, all associations and
combinations of men for whatever purpose, no less under obligation in
their corporate capacity to keep His law than as individuals, and will
count them guilty if they break it, even through ignorance.
Never has a generation needed this reminder more than our own. The
political and social principles which, since the French Revolution in
the end of the last century, have been, year by year, more and more
generally accepted among the nations of Christendom, are everywhere
tending to the avowed or practical denial of this most important
truth. It is a maxim ever more and more extensively accepted as almost
axiomatic in our modern democratic communities, that religion is
wholly a concern of the individual; and that a nation or community, as
such, should make no distinction between various religions as false or
true, but maintain an absolute neutrality, even between Christianity
and idolatry, or theism and atheism. It should take little thought to
see that this modern maxim stands in direct opposition to the
principle assumed in this law of the sin-offering; namely, that a
community or nation is as truly and directly responsible to God as the
individual in the nation. But this corporate responsibility the spirit
of the age squarely denies.
Not that all, indeed, in our modern so-called Christian nations have
come to this. But no one will deny that this is the mind of the
vanguard of nineteenth century liberalism in religion and politics.
Many of our political leaders in all lands make no secret of their
views on the subject. A purely secular state is everywhere held up,
and that with great plausibility and persuasiveness, as the ideal of
political government; the goal to the attainment of which all good
citizens should unite their efforts. And, indeed, in some parts of
Christendom the complete attainment of this evil ideal seems not far
away.
It is not strange, indeed, to see atheists, agnostics, and others who
deny the Christian faith, maintaining this position; but when we hear
men who call themselves Christians--in many cases, even Christian
ministers--advocating, in one form or another, governmental neutrality
in religion as the only right basis of government, one may well be
amazed. For Christians are supposed to accept the Holy Scriptures as
the law of faith and of morals, private and public; and where in all
the Scripture will any one find such an attitude of any nation or
people mentioned, but to be condemned and threatened with the judgment
of God?
Will any one venture to say that this teaching of the law of the
sin-offering was only intended, like the offering itself, for the old
Hebrews? Is it not rather the constant and most emphatic teaching of
the whole Scriptures, that God dealt with all the ancient Gentile
nations on the same principle? The history which records the overthrow
of those old nations and empires does so, even professedly, for the
express purpose of calling the attention of men in all ages to this
principle, that God deals with all nations as under obligation to
recognise Himself as King of nations, and submit in all things to His
authority. So it was in the case of Moab, of Ammon, of Nineveh, and
Babylon; in regard to each of which we are told, in so many words,
that it was because they refused to recognise this principle of
national responsibility to the one true God, which was brought before
Israel in this part of the law of the sin-offering, that the Divine
judgment came upon them in their utter national overthrow. How awfully
plain, again, is the language of the second Psalm on this same
subject, where it is precisely this national repudiation of the
supreme authority of God and of His Christ, so increasingly common in
our day, which is named as the ground of the derisive judgment of God,
and is made the occasion of exhorting all nations, not merely to
belief in God, but also to the obedient recognition of His
only-begotten Son, the Messiah, as the only possible means of escaping
the future kindling of His wrath.
No graver sign of our times could perhaps be named than just this
universal tendency in Christendom, in one way or another, to repudiate
that corporate responsibility to God which is assumed as the basis of
this part of the law of the sin-offering. There can be no worse omen
for the future of an individual than the denial of his obligations to
God and to His Son, our Saviour; and there can be no worse sign for
the future of Christendom, or of any nation in Christendom, than the
partial or entire denial of national obligation to God and to His
Christ. What it shall mean in the end, what is the future toward which
these popular modern principles are conducting the nations, is
revealed in Scripture with startling clearness, in the warning that
the world is yet to see one who shall be in a peculiar and eminent
sense "_the_ Antichrist" (1 John ii. 18); who shall deny both the
Father and Son, and be "the Lawless One," and the "Man of Sin," in
that He shall "set Himself forth as God" (2 Thess. ii. 3-8); to whom
authority will be given "over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and
nation" (Rev. xiii. 7).
The nation, then, as such, is held responsible to God! So stands the
law. And, therefore, in Israel, if the nation should sin, it was
ordained that they also, like the high priest, should bring a bullock
for a sin-offering, the most costly victim that was ever prescribed.
This was so ordained, no doubt, in part because of Israel's own
priestly station as a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation," exalted
to a position of peculiar dignity and privilege before God, that they
might mediate the blessings of redemption to all nations. It was
because of this fact that, if they sinned, their guilt was peculiarly
heavy.
The principle, however, is of present-day application. Privilege is
the measure of responsibility, no less now than then, for nations as
well as for individuals. Thus national sin, on the part of the British
or American nation, or indeed with any of the so-called Christian
nations, is certainly judged by God to be a much more evil thing than
the same sin if committed, for example, by the Chinese or Turkish
nation, who have had no such degree of Gospel light and knowledge.
And the law in this case evidently also implies that sin is aggravated
in proportion to its universality. It is bad, for example, if in a
community one man commit adultery, forsaking his own wife; but it
argues a condition of things far worse when the violation of the
marriage relation becomes common; when the question can actually be
held open for discussion whether marriage, as a permanent union
between one man and one woman, be not "a failure," as debated not long
ago in a leading London paper; and when, as in many of the United
States of America and other countries of modern Christendom, laws are
enacted for the express purpose of legalising the violation of
Christ's law of marriage, and thus shielding adulterers and
adulteresses from the condign punishment their crime deserves. It is
bad, again, when individuals in a State teach doctrines subversive of
morality; but it evidently argues a far deeper depravation of morals
when a whole community unite in accepting, endowing, and upholding
such in their work.
Next in order comes the case of the civil ruler. For him it was
ordered: "When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any of the
things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is
guilty; if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him, he
shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish" (ver.
22). Thus, the ruler was to bring a victim of less value than the
high-priest or the collective congregation; but it must still be of
more value than that of a private person; for his responsibility, if
less than that of the officer of religion, is distinctly greater than
that of a man in private life.
And here is a lesson for modern politicians, no less than for rulers
of the olden time in Israel. While there are many in our Parliaments
and like governing bodies in Christendom who cast their every vote
with the fear of God before their eyes, yet, if there be any truth in
the general opinion of men upon this subject, there are many in such
places who, in their voting, have before their eyes the fear of party
more than the fear of God; and who, when a question comes before them,
first of all consider, not what would the law of absolute
righteousness, the law of God, require, but how will a vote, one way
or the other, in this matter, be likely to affect their party? Such
certainly need to be emphatically reminded of this part of the law of
the sin-offering, which held the civil ruler specially responsible to
God for the execution of his trust. For so it is still; God has not
abdicated His throne in favour of the people, nor will He waive His
crown-rights out of deference to the political necessities of a party.
Nor is it only those who sin in this particular way who need the
reminder of their personal responsibility to God. All need it who
either are or may be called to places of greater or less governmental
responsibility; and it is those who are the most worthy of such trust
who will be the first to acknowledge their need of this warning. For
in all times those who have been lifted to positions of political
power have been under peculiar temptation to forget God, and become
reckless of their obligation to Him as His ministers. But under the
conditions of modern life, in many countries of Christendom, this is
true as perhaps never before. For now it has come to pass that, in
most modern communities, those who make and execute laws hold their
tenure of office at the pleasure of a motley army of voters,
Protestants and Romanists, Jews, atheists, and what not, a large part
of whom care not the least for the will of God in civil government, as
revealed in Holy Scripture. Under such conditions, the place of the
civil ruler becomes one of such special trial and temptation that we
do well to remember in our intercessions, with peculiar sympathy, all
who in such positions are seeking to serve supremely, not their party,
but their God, and so best serve their country. It is no wonder that
the temptation too often to many becomes overpowering, to silence
conscience with plausible sophistries, and to use their office to
carry out in legislation, instead of the will of God, the will of the
people, or rather, of that particular party which put them in power.
Yet the great principle affirmed in this law of the sin-offering
stands, and will stand for ever, and to it all will do well to take
heed; namely, that God will hold the civil ruler responsible, and more
heavily responsible than any private person, for any sin he may
commit, and especially for any violation of law in any matter
committed to his trust. And there is abundant reason for this. For the
powers that be are ordained of God, and in His providence are placed
in authority; not as the modern notion is, for the purpose of
executing the will of their constituents, whatever that will may be,
but rather the unchangeable will of the Most Holy God, the Ruler of
all nations, so far as revealed, concerning the civil and social
relations of men. Nor must it be forgotten that this eminent
responsibility attaches to them, not only in their official acts, but
in all their acts as individuals. No distinction is made as to the sin
for which the ruler must bring his sin-offering, whether public and
official, or private and personal. Of whatsoever kind the sin may be,
if committed by a ruler, God holds him specially responsible, as being
a ruler; and reckons the guilt of that sin, even if a private offence,
to be heavier than if it had been committed by one of the common
people. And this, for the evident reason that, as in the case of the
high priest, his exalted position gives his example double influence
and effect. Thus, in all ages and all lands, a corrupt king or
nobility have made a corrupt court; and a corrupt court or corrupt
legislators are sure to demoralise all the lower ranks of society. But
however it may be under the governments of men, under the equitable
government of the Most Holy God, high station can give no immunity to
sin. And in the day to come, when the Great Assize is set, there will
be many who in this world stood high in authority, who will learn, in
the tremendous decisions of that day, if not before, that a just God
reckoned the guilt of their sins and crimes in exact proportion to
their rank and station.
Last of all, in this chapter, comes the law of the sin-offering for
one of the common people, of which the first part is given vv. 27-35.
The victim which is appointed for those who are best able to give, a
female goat, is yet of less value than those ordered in the cases
before given; for the responsibility and guilt in the case of such is
less. The first prescription for a sin-offering by one of the common
people, is introduced by these words:--"If any one of the common
people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which the Lord hath
commanded not to be done, and be guilty; if his sin, which he hath
sinned, be made known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a
goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned" (vv.
27, 28).
In case of his inability to bring so much as this, offerings of lesser
value are authorised in the section following (v. 5-13), to which we
shall attend hereafter.
Meanwhile it is suggestive to observe that this part of the law is
expanded more fully than any other part of the law of the
sin-offering. We are hereby reminded that if none are so high as to be
above the reach of the judgment of God, but are held in that
proportion strictly responsible for their sin; so, on the other hand,
none are of station so low that their sins shall therefore be
overlooked. The common people, in all lands, are the great majority of
the population; but no one is to imagine that, because he is a single
individual, of no importance in a multitude, he shall therefore, if he
sin, escape the Divine eye, as it were, in a crowd. Not so. We may be
of the very lowest social station; the provision in chapter v. 11
regards the case of such as might be so poor as that they could not
even buy two doves. Men may judge the doings of such poor folk of
little or no consequence; but not so God. With Him is no respect of
persons, either of rich or poor. From all alike, from the anointed
high priest, who ministers in the Holy of Holies, down to the common
people, and among these, again, from the highest down to the very
lowest, poorest, and meanest in rank, is demanded, even for a sin of
ignorance, a sin-offering for atonement.
What a solemn lesson we have herein concerning the character of God!
His omniscience, which not only notes the sin of those who are in some
conspicuous position, but also each individual sin of the lowest of
the people! His absolute equity, exactly and accurately grading
responsibility for sin committed, in each case, according to the rank
and influence of him who commits it! His infinite holiness, which
cannot pass by without expiation even the transient act or word of
rash hands or lips, not even the sin not known as sin by the sinner; a
holiness which, in a word, unchangeably and unalterably requires, from
every human being, nothing less than absolute moral perfection like
His own!
CHAPTER VII.
_THE RITUAL OF THE SIN-OFFERING._
LEV. iv. 4-35; v. 1-13; vi. 24-30.
According to the Authorised Version (v. 6, 7), it might seem that the
section, v. 1-13, referred not to the sin-offering, but to the
guilt-offering, like the latter part of the chapter; but, as suggested
in the margin of the Revised Version, in these verses we may properly
read, instead of "guilt-offering," "for his guilt." That the latter
rendering is to be preferred is clear when we observe that in vv. 6,
7, 9 this offering is called a sin-offering; that, everywhere else,
the victim for the guilt-offering is a ram; and, finally, that the
estimation of a money value for the victim, which is the most
characteristic feature of the guilt-offering, is absent from all the
offerings described in these verses. We may safely take it therefore
as certain that the marginal reading should be adopted in ver. 6, so
that it will read, "he shall bring for his guilt unto the Lord;" and
understand the section to contain a further development of the law of
the sin-offering. In the law of the preceding chapter we have the
direction for the sin-offering as graded with reference to the rank
and station of the offerer; in this section we have the law for the
sin-offering for the common people, as graded with reference to the
ability of the offerer.
The specifications (v. 1-5) indicate several cases under which one of
the common people was required to bring a sin-offering as the
condition of forgiveness. As an exhaustive list would be impossible,
those named are taken as illustrations. The instances selected are
significant as extending the class of offences for which atonement
could be made by a sin-offering, beyond the limits of sins of
inadvertence as given in the previous chapter. For however some cases
come under this head, we cannot so reckon sins of rashness (ver. 4),
and still less, the failure of the witness placed under oath to tell
the whole truth as he knows it. And herein it is graciously intimated
that it is in the heart of God to multiply His pardons; and, on
condition of the presentation of a sin-offering, to forgive also those
sins in palliation of which no such excuse as inadvertence or
ignorance can be pleaded. It is a faint foreshadowing, in the law
concerning the type, of that which should afterward be declared
concerning the great Antitype (1 John i. 7), "The blood of Jesus ...
cleanseth from all sin."
When we look now at the various prescriptions regarding the ritual of
the offering which are given in this and the foregoing chapter, it is
plain that the numerous variations from the ritual of the other
sacrifices were intended to withdraw the thought of the sinner from
all other aspects in which sacrifice might be regarded, and centre his
mind upon the one thought of sacrifice as expiating sin, through the
substitution of an innocent life for the guilty. In many particulars,
indeed, the ritual agrees with that of the sacrifices before
prescribed. The victim must be brought by the guilty person to be
offered to God by the priest; he must, as in other cases of bloody
offerings, then lay his hand on the head of the victim, and then (a
particular not mentioned in the other cases) he must confess the sin
which he has committed, and then and thus entrust the victim to the
priest, that he may apply its blood for him in atonement before God.
The priest then slays the victim, and now comes that part of the
ceremonial which by its variations from the law of other offerings is
emphasised as the most central and significant in this sacrifice.
THE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD.
iv. 6, 7, 16-18, 25, 30; v. 9.
"And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle
of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the
sanctuary. And the priest shall put of the blood upon the horns
of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the
tent of meeting; and all the blood of the bullock shall he pour
out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the
door of the tent of meeting.... And the anointed priest shall
bring of the blood of the bullock to the tent of meeting: and the
priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven
times before the Lord, before the veil. And he shall put of the
blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that
is in the tent of meeting, and all the blood shall he pour out at
the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of
the tent of meeting.... And the priest shall take of the blood of
the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of
the altar of burnt offering, and the blood thereof shall he pour
out at the base of the altar of burnt offering.... And the priest
shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon
the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and all the blood
thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar.... And he
shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of
the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the
base of the altar: it is a sin offering."
In the case of the burnt-offering and of the peace-offering, in which
the idea of expiation, although not absent, yet occupied a secondary
place in their ethical intent, it sufficed that the blood of the
victim, by whomsoever brought, be applied to the sides of the altar.
But in the sin-offering, the blood must not only be sprinkled on the
sides of the altar of burnt-offering, but, even in the case of the
common people, be applied to the horns of the altar, its most
conspicuous and, in a sense, most sacred part. In the case of a sin
committed by the whole congregation, even this is not enough; the
blood must be brought even into the Holy Place, be applied to the
horns of the altar of incense, and be sprinkled seven times before the
Lord before the veil which hung immediately before the mercy seat in
the Holy of Holies, the place of the Shekinah glory. And in the great
sin-offering of the high priest once a year for the sins of all the
people, yet more was required. The blood was to be taken even within
the veil, and be sprinkled on the mercy seat itself over the tables of
the broken law.
These several cases, according to the symbolism of these several parts
of the tabernacle differ, in that atoning blood is brought ever more
and more nearly into the immediate presence of God. The horns of the
altar had a sacredness above the sides; the altar of the Holy Place
before the veil, a sanctity beyond that of the altar in the outer
court; while the Most Holy Place, where stood the ark, and the
mercy-seat, was the very place of the most immediate and visible
manifestation of Jehovah, who is often described in Holy Scripture,
with reference to the ark, the mercy-seat, and the overhanging
cherubim, as the God who "dwelleth between the cherubim."
From this we may easily understand the significance of the different
prescriptions as to the blood in the case of different classes. A sin
committed by any private individual or by a ruler, was that of one who
had access only to the outer court, where stood the altar of
burnt-offering; for this reason, it is there that the blood must be
exhibited, and that on the most sacred and conspicuous spot in that
court, the horns of the altar where God meets with the people. But
when it was the anointed priest that had sinned, the case was
different. In that he had a peculiar position of nearer access to God
than others, as appointed of God to minister before Him in the Holy
Place, his sin is regarded as having defiled the Holy Place itself;
and in that Holy Place must Jehovah therefore see atoning blood ere
the priest's position before God can be re-established.
And the same principle required that also in the Holy Place must the
blood be presented for the sin of the whole congregation. For Israel
in its corporate unity was "a kingdom of priests," a priestly nation;
and the priest in the Holy Place represented the nation in that
capacity. Thus because of this priestly office of the nation, their
collective sin was regarded as defiling the Holy Place in which,
through their representatives, the priests, they ideally ministered.
Hence, as the law for the priests, so is the law for the nation. For
their corporate sin the blood must be applied, as in the case of the
priest who represented them, to the horns of the altar in the Holy
Place, whence ascended the smoke of the incense which visibly
symbolised accepted priestly intercession, and, more than this, before
the veil itself; in other words, as near to the very mercy-seat itself
as it was permitted to the priest to go; and it must be sprinkled
there, not once, nor twice, but seven times, in token of the
re-establishment, through the atoning blood, of God's covenant of
mercy, of which, throughout the Scripture, the number seven, the
number of sabbatic rest and covenant fellowship with God, is the
constant symbol.
And it is not far to seek for the spiritual thought which underlies
this part of the ritual. For the tabernacle was represented as the
earthly dwelling-place, in a sense, of God; and just as the defiling
of the house of my fellow-man may be regarded as an insult to him who
dwells in the house, so the sin of the priest and of the priestly
people is regarded as, more than that of those outside of this
relation, a special affront to the holy majesty of Jehovah, criminal
just in proportion as the defilement approaches more nearly the
innermost shrine of Jehovah's manifestation.
But though Israel is at present suspended from its priestly position
and function among the nations of the earth, the Apostle Peter (1
Peter ii. 5) reminds us that the body of Christian believers now
occupies Israel's ancient place, being now on earth the "royal
priesthood," the "holy nation." Hence this ritual solemnly reminds us
that the sin of a Christian is a far more evil thing than the sin of
others; it is as the sin of the priest, and defiles the Holy Place,
even though unwillingly committed, and thus, even more imperatively
than other sin, demands the exhibition of the atoning blood of the
Lamb of God, not now in the Holy Place, but more than that, in the
true Holiest of all, where our High Priest is now entered. And thus,
in every possible way, with this elaborate ceremonial of sprinkling of
blood does the sin-offering emphasise to our own consciences, no less
than for ancient Israel, the solemn fact affirmed in the Epistle to
the Hebrews (ix. 22), "Without shedding of blood there is no remission
of sin."
Because of this, we do well to meditate much and deeply on this
symbolism of the sin-offering, which, more than any other in the law,
has to do with the propitiation of our Lord for sin. Especially does
this use of the blood, in which the significance of the sin-offering
reached its supreme expression, claim our most reverent attention. For
the thought is inseparable from the ritual, that the blood of the
slain victim must be presented, not before the priest, or before the
offerer, but before Jehovah. Can any one mistake the evident
significance of this? Does it not luminously hold forth the thought
that atonement by sacrifice has to do, not only with man, but with
God?
There is cause enough in our day for insisting on this. Many are
teaching that the need for the shedding of blood for the remission of
sin, lies only in the nature of man; that, so far as concerns God, sin
might as well have been pardoned without it; that it is only because
man is so hard and rebellious, so stubbornly distrusts the Divine
love, that the death of the Holy Victim of Calvary became a necessity.
Nothing less than such a stupendous exhibition of the love of God
could suffice to disarm his enmity to God and win him back to loving
trust. Hence the need of the atonement. That all this is true, no one
will deny; but it is only half the truth, and the less momentous
half,--which indeed is hinted in no offering, and in the sin-offering
least of all. Such a conception of the matter as completely fails to
account for this part of the symbolic ritual of the bloody sacrifices,
as it fails to agree with other teachings of the Scriptures. If the
only need for atonement in order to pardon is in the nature of the
sinner, then why this constant insistence that the blood of the
sacrifice should always be solemnly presented, not before the sinner,
but before Jehovah? We see in this fact most unmistakably set forth,
the very solemn truth that expiation by blood as a condition of
forgiveness of sin is necessary, not merely because man is what he is,
but most of all because God is what He is. Let us then not forget that
the presentation unto God of an expiation for sin, accomplished by the
death of an appointed substitutionary victim, was in Israel made an
indispensable condition of the pardon of sin. Is this, as many urge,
against the love of God? By no means! Least of all will it so appear,
when we remember who appointed the great Sacrifice, and, above all,
who came to fulfil this type. God does not love us because atonement
has been made, but atonement has been made because the Father loved
us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
God is none the less just, that He is love; and none the less holy,
that He is merciful; and in His nature, as the Most Just and Holy One,
lies this necessity of the shedding of blood in order to the
forgiveness of sin, which is impressively symbolised in the unvarying
ordinance of the Levitical law, that as a condition of the remission
of sin, the blood of the sacrifice must be presented, not before the
sinner, but before Jehovah. To this generation of ours, with its so
exalted notions of the greatness and dignity of man, and its
correspondingly low conceptions of the ineffable greatness and majesty
of the Most Holy God, this altar truth may be most distasteful, so
greatly does it magnify the evil of sin; but just in that degree is it
necessary to the humiliation of man's proud self-complacency, that,
whether pleasing or not, this truth be faithfully held forth.
Very instructive and helpful to our faith are the allusions to this
sprinkling of blood in the New Testament. Thus, in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (xii. 24), believers are reminded that they are come "unto
the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better than that of Abel." The
meaning is plain. For we are told (Gen. iv. 10), that the blood of
Abel cried out against Cain from the ground; and that its cry for
vengeance was prevailing; for God came down, arraigned the murderer,
and visited him with instant judgment. But in these words we are told
that the sprinkled blood of the holy Victim of Calvary, sprinkled on
the heavenly altar, also has a voice, and a voice which "speaketh
better than that of Abel;" better, in that it speaks, not for
vengeance, but for pardoning mercy; better, in that it procures the
remission even of a penitent murderer's guilt; so that, "being now
justified through His blood" we may all "be saved from wrath through
Him" (Rom. v. 9). And, if we are truly Christ's, it is our blessed
comfort to remember also that we are said (1 Peter i. 2) to have been
chosen of God unto the sprinkling of this precious blood of Jesus
Christ; words which remind us, not only that the blood of a Lamb
"without blemish and without spot" has been presented unto God for us,
but also that the reason for this distinguishing mercy is found, not
in us, but in the free love of God, who chose us in Christ Jesus to
this grace.
And as in the burnt-offering, so in the sin-offering, the blood was to
be sprinkled by the priest. The teaching is the same in both cases. To
present Christ before God, laying the hand of faith upon His head as
our sin-offering, this is all we can do or are required to do. With
the sprinkling of the blood we have nothing to do. In other words, the
effective presentation of the blood before God is not to be secured by
some act of our own; it is not something to be procured through some
subjective experience, other or in addition to the faith which brings
the Victim. As in the type, so in the Antitype, the sprinkling of the
atoning blood--that is, its application God-ward as a propitiation--is
the work of our heavenly Priest. And our part in regard to it is
simply and only this, that we entrust this work to Him. He will not
disappoint us; He is appointed of God to this end, and He will see
that it is done.
In a sacrifice in which the sprinkling of the blood occupies such a
central and essential place in the symbolism, one would anticipate
that this ceremony would never be dispensed with. Very strange it thus
appears, at first sight, to find that to this law an exception was
made. For it was ordained (ver. 11) that a man so poor that "his means
suffice not" to bring even two doves or young pigeons, might bring, as
a substitute, an offering of fine flour. From this, some have hastened
to infer that the shedding of the blood, and therewith the idea of
substituted life, was not essential to the idea of reconciliation with
God; but with little reason. Most illogical and unreasonable it is to
determine a principle, not from the general rule, but from an
exception; especially when, as in this case, for the exception a
reason can be shown, which is not inconsistent with the rule. For had
no such exceptional offering been permitted in the case of the
extremely poor man, it would have followed that there would have
remained a class of persons in Israel whom God had excluded from the
provision of the sin-offering, which He had made the inseparable
condition of forgiveness. But two truths were to be set forth in the
ritual; the one, atonement by means of a life surrendered in expiation
of guilt; the other,--as in a similar way in the burnt-offering,--the
sufficiency of God's gracious provision for even the neediest of
sinners. Evidently, here was a case in which something must be
sacrificed in the symbolism. One of these truths may be perfectly set
forth; both cannot be, with equal perfectness; a choice must therefore
be made, and is made in this exceptional regulation, so as to hold up
clearly, even though at the expense of some distinctness in the other
thought of expiation, the unlimited sufficiency of God's provision of
forgiving grace.
And yet the prescriptions in this form of the offering were such as to
prevent any one from confounding it with the meal-offering, which
typified consecrated and accepted service. The oil and the
frankincense which belonged to the latter, are to be left out (ver.
11); incense, which typifies accepted prayer,--thus reminding us of
the unanswered prayer of the Holy Victim when He cried upon the cross,
"My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me?" and oil, which typifies
the Holy Ghost,--reminding us, again, how from the soul of the Son of
God was mysteriously withdrawn in that same hour all the conscious
presence and comfort of the Holy Spirit, which withdrawment alone
could have wrung from His lips that unanswered prayer. And, again,
whereas the meal for the meal-offering had no limit fixed as to
quantity, in this case the amount is prescribed--"the tenth part of an
ephah" (ver. 11); an amount which, from the story of the manna,
appears to have represented the sustenance of one full day. Thus it
was ordained that if, in the nature of the case, this sin-offering
could not set forth the sacrifice of life by means of the shedding of
blood, it should at least point in the same direction, by requiring
that, so to speak, the support of life for one day shall be given up,
as forfeited by sin.
All the other parts of the ceremonial are in this ordinance made to
take a secondary place, or are omitted altogether. Not all of the
offering is burnt upon the altar, but only a part; that part, however,
the fat, the choicest; for the same reason as in the peace-offering.
There is, indeed, a peculiar variation in the case of the offering of
the two young pigeons, in that, of the one, the blood only was used in
the sacrifice, while the other was wholly burnt like a burnt-offering.
But for this variation the reason is evident enough in the nature of
the victims. For in the case of a small creature like a bird, the fat
would be so insignificant in quantity, and so difficult to separate
with thoroughness from the flesh, that the ordinance must needs be
varied, and a second bird be taken for the burning, as a substitute
for the separated fat of larger animals. The symbolism is not
essentially affected by the variation. What the burning of the fat
means in other offerings, that also means the burning of the second
bird in this case.
THE EATING AND THE BURNING OF THE SIN-OFFERING WITHOUT THE CAMP.
iv. 8-12, 19-21, 26, 31; v. 10, 12.
"And all the fat of the bullock of the sin offering he shall take
off from it; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat
that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that
is upon them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver,
with the kidneys, shall he take away, as it is taken off from the
ox of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn
them upon the altar of burnt offering. And the skin of the
bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and
its inwards, and its dung, even the whole bullock shall he carry
forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are
poured out, and burn it on wood with fire: where the ashes are
poured out shall it be burnt.... And all the fat thereof shall he
take off from it, and burn it upon the altar. Thus shall he do
with the bullock; as he did with the bullock of the sin offering,
so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make atonement
for them, and they shall be forgiven. And he shall carry forth
the bullock without the camp, and burn it as he burned the first
bullock: it is the sin offering for the assembly.... And all the
fat thereof shall he burn upon the altar, as the fat of the
sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make atonement
for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.... And
all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat is taken away
from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall
burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the
priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven....
And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to
the ordinance: and the priest shall make atonement for him as
concerning his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be
forgiven.... And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest
shall take his handful of it as the memorial thereof, and burn it
on the altar, upon the offerings of the Lord made by fire: it is
a sin offering."
In the ritual of the sin-offering, sacrificial meal, such as that of
the peace-offering, wherein the offerer and his house, with the priest
and the Levite, partook together of the flesh of the sacrificed
victim, there was none. The eating of the flesh of the sin-offerings
by the priests, prescribed in chap. vi. 26, had, primarily, a
different intention and meaning. As set forth elsewhere (vii. 35), it
was "the anointing portion of Aaron and his sons;" an ordinance
expounded by the Apostle Paul to this effect, that (1 Cor. ix. 13)
they which wait upon the altar should "have their portion with the
altar." Yet not of all the sin-offerings might the priest thus
partake. For when he was himself the one for whom the offering was
made, whether as an individual, or as included in the congregation,
then it is plain that he for the time stood in the same position
before God as the private individual who had sinned. It was a
universal principle of the law that because of the peculiarly near and
solemn relation into which the expiatory victim had been brought to
God, it was "most holy," and therefore he for whose sin it is offered
could not eat of its flesh. Hence the general law is laid down (vi.
30): "No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the
tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten;
it shall be burnt with fire."
And yet, although, because the priests could not eat of the flesh, it
must be burnt, it could not be burnt upon the altar; not, as some have
fancied, because it was regarded as unclean, which is directly
contradicted by the statement that it is "most holy," but because so
to dispose of it would have been to confound the sin-offering with the
burnt-offering, which had, as we have seen, a specific symbolic
meaning, quite distinct from that of the sin-offering. It must be so
disposed of that nothing shall divert the mind of the worshipper from
the fact that, not sacrifice as representing full consecration, as in
the burnt-offering, but sacrifice as representing expiation, is set
forth in this offering. Hence it was ordained that the flesh of these
sin-offerings for the anointed priest, or for the congregation, which
included him, should be "burnt on wood with fire without the camp"
(iv. 11, 12, 21). And the more carefully to guard against the
possibility of confounding this burning of the flesh of the
sin-offering with the sacrificial burning of the victims on the altar,
the Hebrew uses here and in all places where this burning is referred
to, a verb wholly distinct from that which is used of the burnings on
the altar, and which, unlike that, is used of any ordinary burning of
anything for any purpose.
But this burning of the victim without the camp was not therefore
empty of all typical significance. The writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews calls our attention to the fact that in this part of the
appointed ritual there was also that which prefigured Christ and the
circumstances of His death. For we read (Heb. xiii. 10-12), after an
exhortation to Christians to have done with the ritual observances of
Judaism regarding meats:--"We," that is, we Christian believers, "have
an altar,"--the cross upon which Jesus suffered,--"whereof they have
no right to eat which serve the tabernacle;" _i.e._, they who adhere
to the now effete Jewish tabernacle service, the unbelieving
Israelites, derive no benefit from this sacrifice of ours. "For the
bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the Holy Place by
the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned without the camp;"
the priesthood are debarred from eating them, according to the law we
have before us. And then attention is called to the fact that in this
respect Jesus fulfilled this part of the type of the sin-offering,
thus: "Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with
His own blood, suffered without the camp." That is, as Alford
interprets (Comm. sub. loc.), in the circumstance that Jesus suffered
without the gate, is seen a visible adumbration of the fact that He
suffered outside the camp of legal Judaism, and thus, in that He
suffered for the sin of the whole congregation of Israel, fulfilled
the type of this sin-offering in this particular. Thus a prophecy is
discovered here which perhaps we had not else discerned, concerning
the manner of the death of the antitypical victim. He should suffer as
a victim for the sin of the whole congregation, the priestly people,
who should for that reason be debarred, in fulfilment of the type,
from that benefit of His death which had else been their privilege.
And herein was accomplished to the uttermost that surrender of His
whole being to God, in that, in carrying out that full consecration,
"He, bearing His cross went forth," not merely outside the gate of
Jerusalem,--in itself a trivial circumstance,--but, as this fitly
symbolised, outside the congregation of Israel, to suffer. In other
words, His consecration of Himself to God in self-sacrifice found its
supreme expression in this, that He voluntarily submitted to be cast
out from Israel, despised and rejected of men, even of the Israel of
God.
And so this burning of the flesh of the sin-offering of the highest
grade in two places, the fat upon the altar, in the court of the
congregation, and the rest of the victim outside the camp, set forth
prophetically the full self-surrender of the Son to the Father, as the
sin-offering, in a double aspect: in the former, emphasising simply,
as in the peace-offering, His surrender of all that was highest and
best in Him, as Son of God and Son of man, unto the Father as a
Sin-offering; in the latter, foreshowing that He should also, in a
special manner, be a sacrifice for the sin of the congregation of
Israel, and that His consecration should receive its fullest
exhibition and most complete expression in that He should die outside
the camp of legal Judaism, as an outcast from the congregation of
Israel.
Accordingly we find that this part of the type of the sin-offering was
formally accomplished when the high priest, upon Christ's confession
before the Sanhedrim of His Sonship to God, declared Him to be guilty
of blasphemy; an offence for which it had been ordered by the Lord
(Lev. xxiv. 14) that the guilty person should be taken "without the
camp" to suffer for his sin.
In the light of these marvellous correspondences between the typical
sin-offering and the self-offering of the Son of God, what a profound
meaning more and more appears in those words of Christ concerning
Moses: "He wrote of Me."
THE SANCTITY OF THE SIN-OFFERING.
vi. 24-30.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and to
his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: in the
place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering
be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that
offereth it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be
eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. Whatsoever shall
touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is
sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash
that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place. But the earthen
vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden
in a brasen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.
Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the
tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be
eaten: it shall be burnt with fire."
In chap. vi. 24-30 we have a section which is supplemental to the law
of the sin-offering, in which, with some repetition of the laws
previously given, are added certain special regulations, in fuller
exposition of the peculiar sanctity attaching to this offering. As in
the case of other offerings called "most holy," it is ordered that
only the males among the priests shall eat of it; among whom, the
officiating priest takes the precedence. Further, it is declared that
everything that touches the offering shall be regarded as "holy," that
is, as invested with the sanctity attaching to every person or thing
specially devoted to the Lord.
Then by way of application of this principle to two of the most common
cases in which it could apply, it is ordered, first (ver. 27), with
regard to any garment which should be sprinkled with the blood, "thou
shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place;" that so by
no chance should the least of the blood which had been shed for the
remission of sin, come into contact with anything unclean and unholy.
And then, again, inasmuch as the flesh which should be eaten by the
priest must needs be cooked, and the vessel used by this contact
became holy, it is commanded (ver. 28) that, if a brazen vessel, "it
shall be scoured" and "then rinsed with water;" that in no case should
a vessel in which might remain the least of the sacrificial flesh, be
used for any profane purpose, and so the holy flesh be defiled. And
because when an (unglazed) earthen vessel was used, even such scouring
and rinsing could not so cleanse it, but that something of the juices
of the holy flesh should be absorbed into its substance, therefore, in
order to preclude the possibility of its ever being used for any
common purpose it is directed (ver. 28) that it shall be broken.[10]
[10] A striking parallel to this ordinance is found in a caste
custom in North India, where the caste Hindoo, as I have often
seen, if he give you a drink of water in a vessel, will only use
an earthen vessel, which, immediately after you have drunk, he
breaks, to preclude the possibility of its accidental use
thereafter, by which ceremonial defilement might be contracted.
For the Hindoo does not regard it as possible so to cleanse a
metallic vessel as to remove the defilement thus caused; and as
he could not afford to throw it away, he will give one to drink
in the cheap earthen vessel, or else no drink at all.
By such regulations as these, it is plain that even in those days of
little light the thoughtful Israelite would be impressed with the
feeling that in the expiation of sin he came into a peculiarly near
and solemn relation to the holiness of God, even though he might not
be able to formulate his thought more exactly. In modern times,
however, strange to say, these very regulations with regard to the
sin-offering, when it has been taken as typical of Christ, have been
used as an argument against the New Testament teaching as to the
expiatory nature of His death as a true satisfaction to the holy
justice of God for the sins of men. For it is argued, that if Christ
was really, in a legal sense, regarded as a sinner, because standing
in the sinner's place, to receive in His person the wrath of God
against the sinner's sin, it could not have been ordered that the
blood and the flesh of the typical offering should be thus regarded as
of peculiar and pre-eminent holiness. Rather, we are told, should we,
for example, have read in the ritual, "No one, and, least of all, the
priests, shall eat of it; for it is most unclean." An extraordinary
argument and conclusion! For surely it is an utter misapprehension
both of the so-called "orthodox" view of the atonement, and of the New
Testament teaching on the subject, to represent it as involving the
suggestion that Christ, when for us "made sin," and suffering as our
substitute, thereby must have been for the time Himself unclean.
Surely, according to the constant use of the word, in imputation of
sin, of any sin, to any one, there is no conveyance of character; it
is only implied that such person is, for whatsoever reason, justly or
unjustly, treated as if he were guilty of that sin which is imputed to
him. Imputing falsehood to a man who is truth itself, does not make
him a liar, though it does involve treating him as if he were. Just so
it is in this case.
There is, then, in these regulations which emphasise the peculiar
holiness of the sin-offering, nothing which is inconsistent with the
strictest juridical view of the great atonement which in type it
represented. On the contrary, one can hardly think of anything which
should more effectively represent the great truth of the incomparable
holiness of the victim of Calvary, than just this strenuous insistence
that the blood and the flesh of the typical victim should be treated
as of the most peculiar sanctity. If, when we see the victim of the
sin-offering slain and its blood presented before God, we behold a
vivid representation of Christ, the Lamb of God, "made sin in our
behalf;" so when, in these regulations, we see how the flesh and blood
of the offered victim is treated as of the most pre-eminent sanctity,
we are as impressively reminded how it is written (2 Cor. v. 21) that
it was "Him who knew no sin," that God "made to be sin on our behalf."
Thus does the type, in order that nothing might be wanting in this law
of the offering, insist in every possible way on the holiness of the
great Victim who became the Antitype; and most of all in the
sin-offering, because in this, where, not consecration of the person
or the works, or the impartation and fellowship of the life of Christ,
but expiation, was the central idea of the sacrifice, there was a
special need for emphasising, in an exceptional way, this thought;
that the Victim who bore our sins, although visibly laden with the
curse of God, was none the less all the time Himself "most holy;" so
that in that unfathomable mystery of Calvary, never was He more truly
and really the well-beloved Son of the Father than when He cried out
in the extremity of His anguish as "made sin for us," "My God, My God,
why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
How wonderfully adapted in all its details was this law of the
sin-offering, not only for the education of Israel, but, if we will
meditate upon these things, also for our own! How the truths which
underlie this law should humble us, even in proportion as they exalt
to the uttermost the ineffable majesty of the holiness of God! And, if
we will but yield to their teachings, how mightily should they
constrain us, in grateful recognition of the love of the Holy One who
was "made sin in our behalf," and of the love of the Father who sent
Him for this end, to accept Him as our Sin-offering, set forth in the
consummation of the ages, "to put away sin by the sacrifice of
Himself." No more are offered the sin-offerings of the law of Moses:--
"But Christ, the heavenly Lamb,
Takes all our sins away;
A sacrifice of nobler name,
And richer blood, than they."
If, then, the law of the Levitical sin-offering abides in force no
longer, this is not because God has changed, or because the truths
which it set forth concerning sin, and expiation, and pardon, are
obsolete, but only because the great Sin-offering which the ancient
sacrifice typified, has now appeared. God hath "taken away the first,
that He may establish the second" (Heb. x. 9). We have thus to do with
the same God as the Israelite. Now, as then, He takes account of all
our sins, even of sins committed "unwittingly;" He reckons guilt with
the same absolute impartiality and justice as then; He pardons sin, as
then, only when the sinner who seeks pardon, presents a sin-offering.
But He has now Himself provided the Lamb for this offering, and now in
infinite love invites us all, without distinction, with whatsoever
sins we may be burdened, to make free use of the all-sufficient and
most efficient blood of His well-beloved Son. Shall we risk neglecting
this Divine provision, and undertake to deal with God by-and-bye, in
the great day of judgment, on our own merits, without a sacrifice for
sin? God forbid! Rather let us go on to say in the words of that old
hymn:--
"My faith would lay her hand
On that dear Head of Thine,
While like a penitent I stand,
And there confess my sin."
CHAPTER VIII.
_THE GUILT-OFFERING._
LEV. v. 14; vi. 7; vii. 1-7.
As in the English version, so also in the Hebrew, the special class of
sins for which the guilt-offering[11] is prescribed, is denoted by a
distinct and specific word. That word, like the English "trespass,"
its equivalent, always has reference to an invasion of the rights of
others, especially in respect of property or service. It is used, for
instance, of the sin of Achan (Josh. vii. 1), who had appropriated
spoil from Jericho, which God had commanded to be set apart for
Himself. Thus, also, the neglect of God's service, and especially the
worship of idols, is often described by this same word, as in 2 Chron.
xxviii. 22, xxix. 6, and many other places. The reason is evident; for
idolatry involved a withholding from God of those tithes and other
offerings which He claimed from Israel, and thus became, as it were,
an invasion of the Divine rights of property. The same word is even
applied to the sin of adultery (Numb. v. 12, 27), apparently from the
same point of view, inasmuch as the woman is regarded as belonging to
her husband, who has therefore in her certain sacred rights, of which
adultery is an invasion. Thus, while every "trespass" is a sin, yet
every sin is not a "trespass." There are, evidently, many sins of
which this is not a characteristic feature. But the sins for which the
guilt-offering is prescribed are in every case sins which _may_, at
least, be specially regarded under this particular point of view, to
wit, as trespasses on the rights of God or man in respect of
ownership; and this gives us the fundamental thought which
distinguishes the guilt-offering from all others, namely, that for any
invasion of the rights of another in regard to property, not only must
expiation be made, in that it is a sin, but also satisfaction, and, so
far as possible, plenary reparation of the wrong, in that the sin is
also trespass.
[11] It is to be regretted that the Revisers had not allowed in
this case the rendering "trespass-offering" to stand, as in the
Authorised Version. For, unlike the more generic term "guilt,"
our word "trespass" very precisely indicates the class of
offences for which this particular offering was ordained. It is
indeed true that the Hebrew word so rendered is quite distinct
from that rendered "trespass;" yet, in this instance, by the
attempt to represent this fact in English, more has been lost
than gained.
From this it is evident that, as contrasted with the burnt-offering,
which pre-eminently symbolised full consecration of the person, and
the peace-offering, which symbolised fellowship with God, as based
upon reconciliation by sacrifice, the guilt-offering takes its place,
in a general sense, with the sin-offering, as, like that, specially
designed to effect the reinstatement of an offender in covenant
relation with God. Thus, like the latter, and unlike the former
offerings, it was only prescribed with reference to specific instances
of failure to fulfil some particular obligation toward God or man. So
also, as the express condition of an acceptable offering, the formal
confession of such sin was particularly enjoined. And, finally, unlike
the burnt-offering, which was wholly consumed upon the altar, or the
peace-offering, of the flesh of which, with certain reservations, the
worshipper himself partook, in the case of the guilt-offering, as in
the sin-offering, the fat parts only were burnt on the altar, and the
remainder of the victim fell to the priests, to be eaten by them alone
in a holy place, as a thing "most holy." The law is given in the
following words (vii. 3-7): "He shall offer of it all the fat thereof;
the fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the two
kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the
caul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away: and the
priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire
unto the Lord: it is a guilt offering. Every male among the priests
shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in a holy place: it is most holy.
As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering: there is one law for
them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it."
But while, in a general way, the guilt-offering was evidently
intended, like the sin-offering, to signify the removal of sin from
the conscience through sacrifice, and thus may be regarded as a
variety of the sin-offering, yet the ritual presents some striking
variations from that of the latter. These are all explicable from this
consideration, that whereas the sin-offering represented the idea of
atonement by sacrifice, regarded as an _expiation_ of guilt, the
guilt-offering represented atonement under the aspect of a
_satisfaction_ and _reparation_ for the wrong committed. Hence,
because the idea of expiation here fell somewhat into the background,
in order to give the greater prominence to that of reparation and
satisfaction, the application of the blood is only made, as in the
burnt-offering and the peace-offering, by sprinkling "on the altar (of
burnt-offering) round about" (vii. 1). Hence, again, we find that the
guilt-offering always had reference to the sin of the individual, and
never to the congregation; because it was scarcely possible that every
individual in the whole congregation should be guilty in such
instances as those for which the guilt-offering is prescribed.
Again, we have another contrast in the restriction imposed upon the
choice of the victim for the sacrifice. In the sin-offering, as we
have seen, it was ordained that the offering should be varied
according to the theocratic rank of the offender, to emphasise thereby
to the conscience gradations of guilt, as thus determined; also, it
was permitted that the offering might be varied in value according to
the ability of the offerer, in order that it might thus be signified
in symbol that it was the gracious will of God that nothing in the
personal condition of the sinner should exclude any one from the
merciful provision of the expiatory sacrifice. But it was no less
important that another aspect of the matter should be held forth,
namely, that God is no respecter of persons; and that, whatever be the
condition of the offender, the obligation to plenary satisfaction and
reparation for trespass committed, cannot be modified in any way by
the circumstances of the offender. The man who, for example, has
defrauded his neighbour, whether of a small sum or of a large estate,
abides his debtor before God, under all conceivable conditions, until
restitution is made. The obligation of full payment rests upon every
debtor, be he poor or rich, until the last farthing is discharged.
Hence, the sacrificial victim of the guilt-offering is the same,
whether for the poor man or the rich man, "a ram of the flock."
It was "a ram of the flock," because, as contrasted with the ewe or
the lamb, or the dove and the pigeon, it was a valuable offering. And
yet it is not a bullock, the most valuable offering known to the law,
because that might be hopelessly out of the reach of many a poor man.
The idea of value must be represented, and yet not so represented as
to exclude a large part of the people from the provisions of the
guilt-offering. The ram must be "without blemish," that naught may
detract from its value, as a symbol of full satisfaction for the wrong
done.
But most distinctive of all the requisitions touching the victim is
this, that, unlike all other victims for other offerings, the ram of
the guilt-offering must in each case be definitely appraised by the
priest. The phrase is (v. 15), that it must be "according to thy
estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary."
This expression evidently requires, first, that the offerer's own
estimate of the value of the victim shall not be taken, but that of
the priest, as representing God in this transaction; and, secondly,
that its value shall in no case fall below a certain standard; for the
plural expression, "by shekels," implies that the value of the ram
shall not be less than two shekels. And the shekel must be of full
weight; the standard of valuation must be God's, and not man's, "the
shekel of the sanctuary."
Still more to emphasise the distinctive thought of this sacrifice,
that full satisfaction and reparation for all offences is with God the
universal and unalterable condition of forgiveness, it was further
ordered that in all cases where the trespass was of such a character
as made this possible, that which had been unjustly taken or kept
back, whether from God or man, should be restored "in full;" and not
only this, but inasmuch as by this misappropriation of what was not
his own, the offender had for the time deprived another of the use and
enjoyment of that which belonged to him, he must add to that of which
he had defrauded him "the fifth part more," a double tithe. Thus the
guilty person was not allowed to have gained even any temporary
advantage from the use for a while of that which he now restored; for
"the fifth part more" would presumably quite overbalance all
conceivable advantage or enjoyment which he might have had from his
fraud. How admirable in all this the exact justice of God! How
perfectly adapted was the guilt-offering, in all these particulars, to
educate the conscience, and to preclude any possible wrong inferences
from the allowance which was made, for other reasons, for the poor
man, in the expiatory offerings for sin!
The arrangement of the law of the guilt-offering is very simple. It is
divided into two sections, the first of which (v. 14-19) deals with
cases of trespass "in the holy things of the Lord," things which, by
the law or by an act of consecration, were regarded as belonging in a
special sense to Jehovah; the second section, on the other hand (vi.
1-7), deals with cases of trespass on the property rights of man.
The first of these, again, consists of two parts. Verses 14-16 give
the law of the guilt-offering as applied to cases in which a man,
through inadvertence or unwittingly, trespasses in the holy things of
the Lord, but in such manner that the nature and extent of the
trespass can afterward be definitely known and valued; verses 17-19
deal with cases where there has been trespass such as to burden the
conscience, and yet such as, for whatsoever reason, cannot be
precisely measured.
By "the holy things of the Lord" are intended such things as, either
by universal ordinance or by voluntary consecration, were regarded as
belonging to Jehovah, and in a special sense His property. Thus, under
this head would come the case of the man who, for instance, should
unwittingly eat the flesh of the firstling of his cattle, or the flesh
of the sin-offering, or the shew-bread; or should use his tithe, or
any part of it, for himself. Even though he did this unwittingly, yet
it none the less disturbed the man's relation to God; and therefore,
when known, in order to his reinstatement in fellowship with God, it
was necessary that he should make full restitution with a fifth part
added, and, besides this, sacrifice a ram, duly appraised, as a
guilt-offering. In that the sacrifice was prescribed over and above
the restitution, the worshipper was reminded that, in view of the
infinite majesty and holiness of God, it lies not in the power of any
creature to nullify the wrong God-ward, even by fullest restitution.
For trespass is not only trespass, but is also sin; an offence not
only against the rights of Jehovah as Owner, but also an affront to
Him as Supreme King and Lawgiver.
And yet, because the worshipper must not be allowed to lose sight of
the fact that sin is of the nature of a debt, a victim was ordered
which should especially bring to mind this aspect of the matter. For
not only among the Hebrews, but among the Arabs, the Romans and other
ancient peoples, sheep, and especially rams, were very commonly used
as a medium of payment in case of debt, and especially in paying
tribute.
Thus we read (2 Kings iii. 4), that Mesha, king of Moab, rendered unto
the king of Israel "an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand
rams, with the wool," in payment of tribute; and, at a later day,
Isaiah (xvi. 1, R.V.) delivers to Moab the mandate of Jehovah: "Send
ye the lambs for the ruler of the land ... unto the mount of the
daughter of Zion."
And so the ram having been brought and presented by the guilty person,
with confession of his fault, it was slain by the priest, like the
sin-offering. The blood, however, was not applied to the horns of the
altar of burnt-offering, still less brought into the Holy Place, as in
the case of the sin-offering; but (vii. 2) was to be sprinkled "upon
the altar round about," as in the burnt-offering. The reason of this
difference in the application of the blood, as above remarked, lies in
this, that, as in the burnt-offering, the idea of sacrifice as
symbolising expiation takes a place secondary and subordinate to
another thought; in this case, the conception of sacrifice as
representing satisfaction for trespass.
The next section (vv. 17-19) does not expressly mention sins of
trespass; for which reason some have thought that it was essentially a
repetition of the law of the sin-offering. But that it is not to be so
regarded is plain from the fact that the victim is still the same as
for the guilt-offering, and from the explicit statement (ver. 19) that
this "is a guilt-offering." The inference is natural that the
prescription still has reference to "trespass in the holy things of
the Lord;" and the class of cases intended is probably indicated by
the phrase, "though he knew it not." In the former section, the law
provided for cases in which though the trespass had been done
unwittingly, yet the offender afterward came to know of the trespass
in its precise extent, so as to give an exact basis for the
restitution ordered in such cases. But it is quite supposable that
there might be cases in which, although the offender was aware that
there had been a probable trespass, such as to burden his conscience,
he yet knew not just how much it was. The ordinance is only in so far
modified as such a case would make necessary; where there was no exact
knowledge of the amount of trespass, obviously there the law of
restitution with the added fifth could not be applied. Yet, none the
less, the man is guilty; he "bears his iniquity," that is, he is
liable to the penalty of his fault; and in order to the
re-establishment of his covenant relation with God, the ram must be
offered as a guilt-offering.
It is suggestive to observe the emphasis which is laid upon the
necessity of the guilt-offering, even in such cases. Three times,
reference is explicitly made to this fact of ignorance, as not
affecting the requirement of the guilt-offering: (ver. 17) "Though he
knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity;" and again
(ver. 18), with special explicitness, "The priest shall make atonement
for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it
not;" and yet again (ver. 19), "It is a guilt-offering: he is
certainly guilty before the Lord." The repetition is an urgent
reminder that in this case, as in all others, we are never to forget
that however our ignorance of a trespass at the time, or even lack of
definite knowledge regarding its nature and extent, may affect the
degree of our guilt, it cannot affect the fact of our guilt, and the
consequent necessity for satisfaction in order to acceptance with God.
* * * * *
The second section of the law of the guilt-offering (vi. 1-7) deals
with trespasses against man, as also, like trespasses against Jehovah,
requiring, in order to forgiveness from God, full restitution with the
added fifth, and the offering of the ram as a guilt-offering. Five
cases are named (vv. 2, 3,), no doubt as being common, typical
examples of sins of this character.
The first case is trespass upon a neighbour's rights in "a matter of
deposit;" where a man has entrusted something to another to keep, and
he has either sold it or unlawfully used it as if it were his own. The
second case takes in all fraud in a "bargain," as when, for example, a
man sells goods, or a piece of land, representing them to be better
than they really are, or asking a price larger than he knows an
article to be really worth. The third instance is called "robbery;" by
which we are to understand any act or process, even though it should
be under colour of legal forms, by means of which a man may manage
unjustly to get possession of the property of his neighbour, without
giving him due equivalent therefor. The fourth instance is called
"oppression" of his neighbour. The English word contains the same
image as the Hebrew word, which is used, for instance, of the
unnecessary retention of the wages of the _employé_ by the employer
(xix. 13); it may be applied to all cases in which a man takes
advantage of another's circumstances to extort from him any thing or
any service to which he has no right, or to force upon him something
which it is to the poor man's disadvantage to take. The last example
of offences to which the law of the guilt-offering applied, is the
case in which a man finds something and then denies it to the rightful
owner. The reference to false swearing which follows, as appears from
ver. 5, refers not merely to lying and perjury concerning this
last-named case, but equally to all cases in which a man may lie or
swear falsely to the pecuniary damage of his neighbour. It is
mentioned not merely as aggravating such sin, but because in swearing
touching any matter, a man appeals to God as witness to the truth of
his words; so that by swearing in these cases he represents God as a
party to his falsehood and injustice.
In all these cases, the prescription is the same as in analogous
offences in the holy things of Jehovah. First of all, the guilty man
must confess the wrong which he has done (Numb. v. 7), then
restitution must be made of all of which he has defrauded his
neighbour, together with one-fifth additional. But while this may set
him right with man, it has not yet set him right with God. He must
bring his guilt-offering unto Jehovah (vv. 6, 7); "a ram without
blemish out of the flock, according to the priest's estimation, for a
guilt offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make atonement
for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven; concerning
whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby."
And this completes the law of the guilt-offering. It was thus
prescribed for sins which involve a defrauding or injuring of another
in respect to material things, whether God or man, whether knowingly
or unwittingly. The law was one and unalterable for all; the condition
of pardon was plenary restitution for the wrong done, and the offering
of a costly sacrifice, appraised as such by the priest, the earthly
representative of God, in the shekel of the sanctuary, "a ram without
blemish out of the flock."
There are lessons from this ordinance, so plain that, even in the dim
light of those ancient days, the Israelite might discern and
understand them. And they are lessons which, because man and his ways
are the same as then, and God the same as then, are no less pertinent
to all of us to-day.
Thus we are taught by this law that God claims from man, and
especially from His own people, certain rights of property, of which
He will not allow Himself to be defrauded, even through man's
forgetfulness or inadvertence. In a later day Israel was sternly
reminded of this in the burning words of Jehovah by the prophet
Malachi (iii. 8, 9): "Will a man rob God? yet ye rob me. But ye say,
Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed
with the curse; for ye rob me, even this whole nation." Nor has God
relaxed His claim in the present dispensation. For the Apostle Paul
charges the Corinthian Christians (2 Cor. viii. 7), in the name of the
Lord, with regard to their gifts, that as they abounded in other
graces, so they should "abound in this grace also." And this is the
first lesson brought before us in the law of the guilt-offering. God
claims His tithe, His first-fruit, and the fulfilment of all vows. It
was a lesson for that time; it is no less a lesson for our time.
And the guilt-offering further reminds us that as God has rights, so
man also has rights, and that Jehovah, as the King and Judge of men,
will exact the satisfaction of those rights, and will pass over no
injury done by man to his neighbour in material things, nor forgive it
unto any man, except upon condition of the most ample material
restitution to the injured party.
Then, yet again, if the sin-offering called especially for _faith_ in
an expiatory sacrifice as the condition of the Divine forgiveness, the
guilt-offering as specifically called also for _repentance_, as a
condition of pardon, no less essential. Its unambiguous message to
every Israelite was the same as that of John the Baptist at a later
day (Matt. iii. 8, 9): "Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance: and
think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father."
The reminder is as much needed now as in the days of Moses. How
specific and practical the selection of the particular instances
mentioned as cases for the application of the inexorable law of the
guilt-offering! Let us note them again, for they are not cases
peculiar to Israel or to the fifteenth century before Christ. "If any
one ... deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit;" as,
_e.g._, in the case of moneys entrusted to a bank or railway company,
or other corporation; for there is no hint that the law did not apply
except to individuals, or that a man might be released from these
stringent obligations of righteousness whenever in some such evil
business he was associated with others; the guilt-offering must be
forthcoming, with the amplest restitution, or there is no pardon. Then
false dealing in a "bargain" is named, as involving the same
requirement; as when a man prides himself on driving "a good bargain,"
by getting something unfairly for less than its value, taking
advantage of his neighbour's straits; or by selling something for more
than its value, taking advantage of his neighbour's ignorance, or his
necessity. Then is mentioned "robbery;" by which word is covered not
merely that which goes by the name in polite circles, but all cases in
which a man takes advantage of his neighbour's distress or
helplessness, perhaps by means of some technicality of law, to "strip"
him, as the Hebrew word is, of his property of any kind. And next is
specified the man who may "have oppressed his neighbour," especially a
man or woman who serves him, as the usage of the word suggests;
grinding thus the face of the poor; paying, for instance, less for
labour than the law of righteousness and love demands, because the
poor man must have work or starve with his house. What sweeping
specifications! And all such, in all lands and all ages, are solemnly
reminded in the law of the guilt-offering that in these their sharp
practices they have to reckon not with man merely, but with God; and
that it is utterly vain for a man to hope for the forgiveness of sin
from God, offering or no offering, so long as he has in his pocket his
neighbour's money. For all such, full restoration with the added
fifth, according to the law of the theocratic kingdom, was the
unalterable condition of the Divine forgiveness; and we shall find
that this law of the theocratic kingdom will also be the law applied
in the adjudications of the great white throne.
Furthermore, in that it was particularly enjoined that in the
estimation of the value of the guilt-offering, not the shekel of the
people, often of light weight, but the full weight "shekel of the
sanctuary" was to be held the invariable standard; we, who are so apt
to ease things to our consciences by applying to our conduct the
principles of judgment current among men, are plainly taught that if
we will have our trespasses forgiven, the reparation and restitution
which we make must be measured, not by the standard of men, but by
that of God, which is absolute righteousness.
Yet again, in that in the case of all such trespasses on the rights of
God or man it was ordained that the offering, unlike other sacrifices
intended to teach other lessons, should be one and the same, whether
the offender were rich or poor; we are taught that the extent of our
moral obligations or the conditions of their equitable discharge are
not determined by a regard to our present ability to make them good.
Debt is debt by whomsoever owed. If a man have appropriated a hundred
pounds of another man's money, the moral obligation of that debt
cannot be abrogated by a bankrupt law, allowing him to compromise at
ten shillings in the pound. The law of man may indeed release him from
liability to prosecution, but no law can discharge such a man from the
unalterable obligation to pay penny for penny, farthing for farthing.
There is no bankrupt law in the kingdom of God. This, too, is
evidently a lesson quite as much needed by Gentiles and nominal
Christians in the nineteenth century after Christ, as by Hebrews in
the fifteenth century before Christ.
But the spiritual teaching of the guilt-offering is not yet exhausted.
For, like all the other offerings, it pointed to Christ. He is "the
end of the law unto righteousness" (Rom. x. 4), as regards the
guilt-offering, as in all else. As the burnt-offering prefigured
Christ the heavenly Victim, in one aspect, and the peace-offering,
Christ in another aspect, so the guilt-offering presents to our
adoring contemplation yet another view of His sacrificial work. While,
as our burnt-offering, He became our _righteousness_ in full
self-consecration; as our peace-offering, our _life_; as our
sin-offering, the _expiation_ for our sins; so, as our guilt-offering,
He made _satisfaction_ and plenary reparation in our behalf to the God
on whose inalienable rights in us, by our sins we had trespassed
without measure.
Nor is this an over-refinement of exposition. For in Isa. liii. 10,
where both the Authorised and the Revised Versions read, "shall make
his soul _an offering for sin_," the margin of the latter rightly
calls attention to the fact that in the Hebrew the word here used is
the very same which through all this Levitical law is rendered
"guilt-offering." And so we are expressly told by this evangelic
prophet, that the Holy Servant of Jehovah, the suffering Messiah, in
this His sacrificial work should make His soul "a guilt-offering." He
became Himself the complete and exhaustive realisation of all that in
sacrifice which was set forth in the Levitical guilt-offering.
A declaration this is which holds forth both the sin for which Christ
atoned, and the Sacrifice itself, in a very distinct and peculiar
light. In that Christ's sacrifice was thus a guilt-offering in the
sense of the law, we are taught that, in one aspect, our sins are
regarded by God, and should therefore be regarded by us, as debts
which are due from us to God. This is, indeed, by no means the only
aspect in which sin should be regarded; it is, for example, rebellion,
high treason, a deadly affront to the Supreme Majesty, which must be
expiated with the blood of the sin-offering. But our sins are also of
the nature of debts. That is, God has claims on us for service which
we have never met; claims for a portion of our substance which we have
often withheld, or given grudgingly, trespassing thus in "the holy
things of the Lord." Just as the servant who is set to do his master's
work, if, instead, he take that time to do his own work, is debtor to
the full value of the service of which his master is thus defrauded,
so stands the case between the sinner and God. Just as with the agent
who fails to make due returns to his principal on the moneys committed
to him for investment, using them instead for himself, so stands the
case between God and the sinner who has used his talents, not for the
Lord, but for himself, or has kept them laid up, unused, in a napkin.
Thus, in the New Testament, as the correlate of this representation of
Christ as a guilt-offering, we find sin again and again set forth as a
debt which is owed from man to God. So, in the Lord's prayer we are
taught to pray, "Forgive us our debts;" so, twice the Lord Himself in
His parables (Matt. xviii. 23-35; Luke vii. 41, 42) set forth the
relation of the sinner to God as that of the debtor to the creditor;
and concerning those on whom the tower of Siloam fell, asks (Luke
xiii. 4), "Think ye that they were sinners (_Greek_ 'debtors,') above
all that dwelt in Jerusalem?" Indeed so imbedded is this thought in
the conscience of man that it has been crystallised in our word
"ought," which is but the old preterite of "owe;" as in Tyndale's New
Testament, where we read (Luke vii. 41), "there was a certain lender,
which ought him five hundred pence." What a startling conception is
this, which forms the background to the great "guilt-offering"! Man a
debtor to God! a debtor for service each day due, but no day ever
fully and perfectly rendered! in gratitude for gifts, too often quite
forgotten, oftener only paid in scanty part! We are often burdened and
troubled greatly about our debts to men; shall we not be concerned
about the enormous and ever accumulating debt to God! Or is He an easy
creditor, who is indifferent whether these debts of ours be met or
not? So think multitudes; but this is not the representation of
Scripture, either in the Old or the New Testament. For in the law it
was required, that if a man, guilty of any of these offences for the
forgiveness of which the guilt-offering was prescribed, failed to
confess and bring the offering, and make the restitution with the
added fifth, as commanded by the law, he should be brought before the
judges, and the full penalty of law exacted, on the principle of "an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!" And in the New Testament, one of
those solemn parables of the two debtors closes with the awful words
concerning one of them who was "delivered to the tormentors," that he
should not come out of prison till he had "paid the uttermost
farthing." Not a hint is there in Holy Scripture, of forgiveness of
our debts to God, except upon the one condition of full restitution
made to Him to whom the debt is due, and therewith the sacrificial
blood of a guilt-offering. But Christ is our Guilt-Offering. He is our
Guilt-Offering, in that He Himself did that, really and fully, with
respect to all our debts as sinful men to God, which the
guilt-offering of Leviticus symbolised, but accomplished not. His soul
He made a guilt-offering for our trespasses! Isaiah's words imply that
He should make full restitution for all that of which we, as sinners,
defraud God. He did this by that perfect and incomparable service of
lowly obedience such as we should render, but have never rendered; in
which He has made full satisfaction to God for all our innumerable
debts. He has made such satisfaction, not by a convenient legal
fiction, or in a rhetorical figure, or as judged by any human
standard. Even as the ram of the guilt-offering was appraised
according to "the shekel of the sanctuary," so upon our Lord, at the
beginning of that life of sacrificial service, was solemnly passed the
Divine verdict that with this antitypical Victim of the
Guilt-Offering, God Himself was "well pleased" (Matt. iii. 17).
Not only so. For we cannot forget that according to the law, not only
the full restitution must be made, but the fifth must be added
thereto. So with our Lord. For who will not confess that Christ not
only did all that we should have done, but, in the ineffable depth of
His self-humiliation and obedience unto death, even the death of the
cross, paid therewith the added fifth of the law. Said a Jewish Rabbi
to the writer, "I have never been able to finish reading in the Gospel
the story of the Jesus of Nazareth; for it too soon brings the tears
to my eyes!" So affecting even to Jewish unbelief was this
unparalleled spectacle, the adorable Son of God making Himself a
guilt-offering, and paying, in the incomparable perfection of His holy
obedience, the added fifth in our behalf! Thus has Christ "magnified
this law" of the guilt-offering, and "made it honourable," even as He
did all law (Isa. xlii. 21).
And, as is intimated, by the formal valuation of the sacrificial ram,
in the type, even the death of Christ as the guilt-offering, in one
aspect is to be regarded as the consummating act of service in the
payment of debts Godward. Just as the sin-offering represented His
death in its passive aspect, as meeting the demands of justice against
the sinner as a rebel under sentence of death, by dying in his stead,
so, on the other hand, the guilt-offering represents that same
sacrificial death, rather in another aspect, no less clearly set forth
in the New Testament; namely, the supreme act of obedience to the will
of God, whereby He discharged "to the uttermost farthing," even with
the added fifth of the law, all the transcendent debt of service due
from man to God.
This representation of Christ's work has in all ages been an offence,
"the offence of the cross." All the more need we to insist upon it,
and never to forget, or let others forget, that Christ is expressly
declared in the Word of God to have been "a guilt-offering," in the
Levitical sense of that term; that, therefore, to speak of His death
as effecting our salvation merely through its moral influence, is to
contradict and nullify the Word of God. Well may we set this word in
Isa. liii. 10, concerning the Servant of Jehovah, against all modern
Unitarian theology, and against all Socinianising teaching; all that
would maintain any view of Christ's death which excludes or ignores
the divinely revealed fact that it was in its essential nature a
guilt-offering; and, because a guilt-offering, therefore of the nature
of the payment of a debt in behalf of those for whom He suffered.
Most blessed truth this, for all who can receive it! Christ, the Son
of God, our Guilt-Offering! Like the poor Israelite, who had defrauded
God of that which was His due, so must we do; coming before God,
confessing that wherein we have wronged Him, and bringing forth fruit
meet for repentance, we must bring and plead Christ in the glory of
His person, in all the perfection of His holy obedience, as our
Guilt-Offering. And therewith the ancient promise to the penitent
Israelite becomes ours (vi. 7), "The priest shall make atonement for
him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven; concerning whatsoever
he doeth so as to be guilty thereby."
CHAPTER IX.
_THE PRIESTS' PORTIONS._
LEV. vi. 16-18, 26; vii. 6-10, 14, 31-36.
After the law of the guilt-offering follows a section (vi. 8-vii. 38)
with regard to the offerings previously treated, but addressed
especially to the priests, as the foregoing were specially directed to
the people. Much of the contents of this section has already passed
before us, in anticipation of its order in the book, as this has
seemed necessary in order to a complete exposition of the several
offerings. An important part of the section, however, relating to the
portion of the offerings which was appointed for the priests, has been
passed by until now, and must claim our brief attention.
In the verses indicated above, it is ordered that of the
meal-offerings, the sin-offerings, and the guilt-offerings, all that
was not burnt, as also the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder of the
peace-offerings, should be for Aaron and his sons. In particular, it
is directed that the priest's portion of the sin-offering and the
guilt-offering shall be eaten by "the priest that maketh atonement
therewith" (vii. 7); and that of the meal-offerings prepared in the
oven, the frying-pan, or the baking-pan, all that is not burned upon
the altar, according to the law of chap. ii., shall be eaten by "the
priest that offereth it;" and that of every meal-offering mingled with
oil, or dry, the same part "shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as
well as another" (vii. 9, 10). Of the burnt-offering, all the flesh
being burned, the hide alone fell to the officiating priest as his
perquisite (vii. 8).
These regulations are explained in the concluding verses of the
section (vii. 35, 36) as follows, "This is the anointing-portion of
Aaron, and the anointing-portion of his sons, out of the offerings of
the Lord made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister
unto the Lord in the priest's office; which the Lord commanded to be
given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed
them. It is a due for ever throughout their generations."
Hence, it is plain that this use which was to be made of certain parts
of certain offerings does not touch the question of the consecration
of the whole to God. The whole of each offering is none the less
wholly accepted and appropriated by God, that He designates a part of
it to the maintenance of the priesthood. That even as thus used by the
priest it is used by him as something belonging to God, is indicated
by the phrase used, "it is most holy" (vi. 17); expressive words,
which in the law of the offerings always have a technical use, as
denoting those things of which only the sons of Aaron might partake,
and that only in the holy place. In the case of the meal-offering, its
peculiarly sacred character as belonging, the whole of it, exclusively
to God, is further marked by the additional injunctions that it should
be "eaten _without leaven_ in a holy place" (vi. 16); and that
whosoever touched these offerings should be holy (vi. 18); that is, he
should be as a man separated to God, under all the restrictions
(doubtless, without the privileges,) which belonged to the
priesthood, as men set apart for God's service. In the eating of their
portion of the various offerings by the priests, we are to recognise
no official act: we simply see the servants of God supported by the
bread of His table.
This last thought, which is absent in the case of no one of the
offerings,[12] is brought out with special clearness and fulness in
the ceremonial connected with the peace-offerings (vii. 28-34). In
this case, certain parts, the right thigh (or shoulder?) and the
breast, are set apart as the due of the priest. The selection of these
is determined by the principle which marks all the Levitical
legislation: God and those who represent Him are to be honoured by the
consecration of the best of everything. In the animals used upon the
altar, these were regarded as the choice parts, and are indeed
referred to as such in other Scriptures. But, in order that neither
the priest nor the people may imagine that the priest receives these
as a man from his fellow-men, but may understand that they are given
to God, and that it is from God that the priest now receives them, as
His servant, fed from His table; to this end, certain ceremonies were
ordained to be used with these parts; the breast was to be "heaved,"
the thigh was to be "waved," before the Lord. What was the meaning of
these actions?
[12] Even in the burnt-offering, the hide of the victim was
assigned to the priest (vii. 8).
The breast was to be "heaved;" that is, elevated heavenward. The
symbolic meaning of this act can scarcely be missed. By it, the priest
acknowledged his dependence upon God for the supply of this
sacrificial food, and, again, by this act consecrated it anew to Him
as the One that sitteth in the heavens.
But God is not only the One that "sitteth in the heavens;" He is the
God who has condescended also to dwell among men, and especially in
the tent of meeting in the midst of Israel. And thus, as by the
elevation of the breast heavenward, God, the Giver, was recognised as
the One enthroned in heaven, so by the "waving" of the thigh, which,
as the rabbis tell us, was a movement backward and forward, to and
from the altar, He was recognised also as Jehovah, who had
condescended from heaven to dwell in the midst of His people. Like the
"heaving," so the "waving," then, was an act of acknowledgment and
consecration to God; the former, to God, as in heaven, the God of
creation; the other, to God, as the God of the altar, the God of
redemption. And that this is the true significance of these acts is
illustrated by the fact that in the Pentateuch, in the account of the
gold and silver brought by the people for the preparation of the
tabernacle (Exod. xxxv. 22), the same word is used to describe the
presentation of these offerings which is here used of the
wave-offering.
And so in the peace-offering the principle is amply illustrated upon
which the priests received their dues. The worshippers bring their
offerings, and present them, not to the priest, but through him to
God; who, then, having used such parts as He will in the service of
the sanctuary, gives again such parts of them as He pleases to the
priests.
The lesson of these arrangements lies immediately before us. They were
intended to teach Israel, and, according to the New Testament, are
also designed to teach us, that it is the will of God that those who
give up secular occupations to devote themselves to the ministry of
His house should be supported by the free-will offerings of God's
people. Very strange indeed it is to hear a few small sects in our day
denying this. For the Apostle Paul argues at length to this effect,
and calls the attention of the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix. 13, 14) to the
fact that the principle expressed in this ordinance of the law of
Moses has not been set aside, but holds good in this dispensation.
"Know ye not that they which ... wait upon the altar have their
portion with the altar? Even so did the Lord ordain that they which
proclaim the Gospel should live of the Gospel." The principle plainly
covers the case of all such as give up secular callings to devote
themselves to the ministry of the Word, whether to proclaim the Gospel
in any of the great mission fields, or to exercise the pastorate of
the local church. Such are ever to be supported out of the consecrated
offerings of God's people.
To point in disparagement of modern "hireling" ministers and
missionaries, as some have done, to the case of Paul, who laboured
with his own hands, that he might not be chargeable to those to whom
he ministered, is singularly inapt, seeing that in the chapter above
referred to he expressly vindicates his right to receive of the
Corinthians his support, and in this Second Epistle to them even seems
to express a doubt (2 Cor. xii. 13) whether in refusing, as he did, to
receive support from them, he had not done them a "wrong," making them
thus "inferior to the rest of the churches," from whom, in fact, he
did receive such material aid (Phil. iv. 10, 16).
And if ever claims of this kind upon our benevolence and liberality
seem to be heavy, and if to nature the burden is sometimes irksome,
we shall do well to remember that the requirement is not of man, and
not of the Church, but of God. It comes to us with the double
authority of the Old and New Testament, of the Law and the Gospel. And
it will certainly help us all to give to these ends the more gladly,
if we keep that in mind which the Levitical law so carefully kept
before Israel, that the giving was to be regarded by them as not to
the priesthood, but to the Lord, and that in our giving outwardly to
support the ministry of God's Word, we give, really, to the Lord
Himself. And it stands written (Matt. x. 42): "Whosoever shall give to
drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, ... he
shall in no wise lose his reward."
CHAPTER X.
_THE CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS, AND OF THE TABERNACLE._
LEV. viii. 1-36.
The second section of the book of Leviticus (viii. 1-x. 20) is
historical, and describes (viii.) the consecration of the tabernacle
and of Aaron and his sons, (ix.) their induction into the duties of
their office, and, finally (x.), the terrible judgment by which the
high sanctity of the priestly office and of the tabernacle service was
very solemnly impressed upon them and all the people.
First in order (chap. viii.) is described the ceremonial of
consecration. We read (vv. 1-4): "And the Lord spake unto Moses,
saying, Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the
anointing oil, and the bullock of the sin offering, and the two rams,
and the basket of unleavened bread; and assemble thou all the
congregation at the door of the tent of meeting. And Moses did as the
Lord commanded him; and the congregation was assembled at the door of
the tent of meeting."
These words refer us back to Exod. xxviii., xxix., in which are
recorded the full directions previously given for the making of the
garments and the oil of anointing, and for the ceremonial of the
consecration of the priests. The law of offerings having been
delivered, Moses now proceeds to consecrate Aaron and his sons to the
priestly office, according to the commandment given; and to this end,
by Divine direction, he orders "all the congregation" to be assembled
"at the door of the tent of meeting." In this last statement some have
seen a sufficient reason for rejecting the whole account as fabulous,
insisting that it is palpably absurd to suppose that a congregation
numbering some millions could be assembled at the door of a single
tent! But, surely, if the words are to be taken in the ultra-literal
sense required in order to make out this difficulty, the impossibility
must have been equally evident to the supposed fabricator of the
fiction; and it is yet more absurd to suppose that he should ever have
intended his words to be pressed to such a rigid literality. Two
explanations lie before us, either of which meets the supposed
difficulty; the one, that endorsed by Dillmann,[13] that the
congregation was gathered in their appointed representatives; the
other, that which refuses to see in the words a statement that every
individual in the nation was literally "at the door," and further
reminds us that, inasmuch as the ceremonies of the consecration are
said to have continued seven days, we are not, by the terms of the
narrative, required to believe that all, in any sense, were present,
either at the very beginning or at any one time during that week. It
is not too much to say that by a captious criticism of this kind, any
narrative, however sober, might be shown to be absurd.
[13] See "Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 462.
The consecration ceremonial was introduced by a solemn declaration
made by Moses to assembled Israel, that the impressive rites which
they were now about to witness, were of Divine appointment. We read
(ver. 5), "Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing which
the Lord hath commanded to be done."
Just here we may pause to note the great emphasis which the narrative
lays upon this fact of the Divine appointment of all pertaining to
these consecration rites. Not only is this Divine ordination of all
thus declared at the beginning, but in connection with each of the
chief parts of the ceremonial the formula is repeated, "as the Lord
commanded Moses." Also, at the close of the first day's rites, Moses
twice reminds Aaron and his sons that this whole ritual, in all its
parts, is for them an ordinance of God, and is to be regarded
accordingly, upon pain of death (vv. 34, 35). And the narrative of the
chapter closes (ver. 36) with the words, "Aaron and his sons did all
the things which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses." Twelve
times in this one chapter is reference thus made to the Divine
appointment of these consecration rites.
This is full of significance and instruction. It is of the highest
importance in an apologetic way. For it is self-evident that this
twelvefold affirmation, twelve times directly contradicts the modern
theory of the late origin and human invention of the Levitical
priesthood. There is no evading of the issue which is thus placed
squarely before us. To talk of the inspiration from God, in any sense
possible to that word, of a writing containing such affirmations, so
numerous, formal, and emphatic, if the critics referred to are right,
and these affirmations are all false, is absurd. There is no such
thing as inspired falsehood.
Again, a great spiritual truth is herein brought before us, which
concerns believers in all ages. It is set forth in so many words in
Heb. v. 4, where the writer, laying down the essential conditions of
priesthood, specially mentions Divine appointment as one of these;
which he affirms as satisfied in the high-priesthood of Christ: "No
man taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, even
as was Aaron. So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made a high
priest." Fundamental to Christian faith and life is this thought:
priesthood is not of man, but of God. In particular, in all that
Christ has done and is still doing as the High Priest, in the true
holiest, He is acting under Divine appointment.
And we are hereby pointed to the truth of which some may need to be
reminded, that the work of our Lord in our behalf, and that of the
whole universe into which sin has entered, has its cause and origin in
the mind and gracious will of the Father. It was in His
incomprehensible love, who appointed the priestly office, that the
whole work of atonement, and therewith purification and full
redemption, had its mysterious origin. The thoughtful reader of the
Gospels will hardly need to be reminded how constantly our blessed
Lord, in the days of His high-priestly service upon earth, acted in
all that He did under the consciousness, often expressed, of His
appointment by the Father to this work. Thus, Aaron in the solemn
ceremonial of those days of consecration, as ever afterward, doing
"all the things which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses," in so
doing fitly represented Him who should come afterward, who said of
Himself (John vi. 38), "I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own
will, but the will of Him that sent Me."
THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD AND TABERNACLE AS TYPES.
In order to any profitable study of the following ceremonial, it is
indispensable to have distinctly before us the New Testament teaching
as to the typical significance of the priesthood and the tabernacle. A
few words on this subject, therefore, seem to be needful as
preliminary to more detailed exposition. As to the typical character
of Aaron, as high priest, the New Testament leaves us no room for
doubt. Throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is held forth as
the true and heavenly High Priest, of whom Aaron, with his successors,
was an eminent type.
As regards the other priests, while it is true that, considered in
themselves, and without reference to the high priest, each of them
also, in the performance of his daily functions in the tabernacle, was
a lesser type of Christ, as is intimated in Heb. x. 11, yet, as
contrasted with the high priest, who was ever one, while they were
many, it is plain that another typical reference must be sought for
the ordinary priesthood. What that may be is suggested to us in
several New Testament passages; as, especially, in Rev. v. 10, where
the whole body of believers, bought by the blood of the slain Lamb, is
said to have been made "unto our God a kingdom and priests;" with
which may be compared Heb. xiii. 10, where it is said, "We have an
altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle";
words which plainly assume the priesthood of all believers in Christ,
as the antitype of the priesthood of the Levitical tabernacle.[14]
[14] Especially striking in this connection is the expression
used by the Apostle Paul (Rom. xv. 16), where he speaks of
himself as "a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles,
ministering the Gospel of God;" in which last phrase, the Greek
word denotes "ministration as a priest." See R.V., margin.
As to the typical meaning of the tabernacle, which also is anointed in
the consecration ceremonial, there has been much difference of
opinion. That it was typical is declared, in so many words, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (viii. 5), where the Levitical priests are said
to have served "that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly
things;" as also ix. 24, where we read, "Christ entered not into a
holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into
heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us." But when
we ask what then were "the heavenly things" of which the tabernacle
was "the copy and shadow," we have different answers.
Many have replied that the antitype of the tabernacle, as of the
temple, was the Church of believers; and, at first thought, with some
apparent Scriptural reason. For it is certain that Christians are
declared (1 Cor. iii. 16) to be the temple of the living God; where,
however, it is to be noted that the original word denotes, not the
temple or tabernacle in general, but the "sanctuary" or inner
shrine--the "holy of holies." More to the point is 1 Peter ii. 5,
where it is said to Christians, "Ye also, as living stones, are built
up a spiritual house." Such passages as these do certainly warrant us
in saying that the tabernacle, and especially the inner sanctuary, as
the special place of the Divine habitation and manifestation, did in
so far typify the Church.
But when we consider the tabernacle, not in itself, but in relation to
its priesthood and ministry, the explanation fails, and we fall into
confusion. As when the priests are considered, not in themselves, but
in their relation to the high priest, we are compelled to seek an
antitype different from the Antitype of the high priest, so in this
case. To identify the typical meaning of the tabernacle, considered as
a part of a whole system and order, with that of the priesthood who
serve in it, is to throw that whole typical system into confusion.
Furthermore, this cannot be harmonised with a number of New Testament
expressions with regard to the tabernacle and temple, as related to
the high priesthood of our Lord. It is hard to see, for example, how
the Church of believers could be properly described as "things in the
heavens." Moreover, we are expressly taught (Heb. ix. 24), that the
Antitype of the Holy Place into which the high priest entered every
year, with blood, was "heaven itself," "the presence of God;" and
again, His ascension to the right hand of God is described (Heb. iv.
14, R.V.), with evident allusion to the passing of the high priest
through the Holy Place into the Holiest, as a passing "_through_ the
heavens;" and also (Heb. ix. 11), as an entering into the Holy Place,
"through the greater and more perfect tabernacle." These expressions
exclude reference to the Church of Christ as the antitype of the
earthly tabernacle.
Others, again, have regarded the tabernacle as a type of the human
nature of Christ, referring in proof to John ii. 19-21, where our Lord
speaks of "the temple of His body;" and also to Heb. x. 19, 20, where
it is said that believers have access to the Holiest "by a new and
living way, which He dedicated for us through the veil, that is to
say, His flesh."
As regards the first of these passages, we should note that the
original word is, again, not the word for the temple in general, but
that which is invariably used to denote the inner sanctuary, as the
special shrine of Jehovah's presence: so that it really gives us no
warrant for affirming that the tabernacle, _as a whole_, was a type of
our Lord's humanity; nor, on that supposition, does it seem possible
to explain the meaning of the three parts into which the tabernacle
was divided. And the second passage referred to is no more to the
point. For the writer had only a little before described the
tabernacle as a "pattern of things in the heavens;" words which,
surely, could not be applied to the humanity in which our Lord
appeared in His incarnation and humiliation,--a humanity which was not
a thing "of the heavens," but of the earth. The reference to the
"flesh" of Christ, as being the veil through which He passed into the
Holiest (Heb. x. 19, 20) is merely by way of illustration, and not of
typical interpretation. The thought of the inspired writer appears to
be this: Just as, in the Levitical tabernacle, the veil must be parted
before the high priest could go into the Holiest Place, even so was it
necessary that the flesh of our Lord should be rent in order that
thus, through death, it might be possible for Him to enter into the
true holiest. The thought has been happily expressed by Delitzsch,
thus: "While He was with us here below, the weak, limit-bound, and
mortal flesh which He had assumed for our sakes hung like a curtain
between Him and the Divine sanctuary into which He would enter; and in
order to such entrance, this curtain had to be withdrawn by death,
even as the high priest had to draw aside the temple veil in order to
make his entry to the Holy of Holies."[15]
[15] "Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews," vol. ii., p.
172.
Not to review other opinions on this matter, the various expressions
used constrain us to regard the tabernacle as typifying the universe
itself, measured and appointed in all its parts by infinite wisdom, as
the abode of Him who "filleth immensity with His presence," the place
of the Divine manifestation, and the abode of His holiness. In the
outer court, where the victims were offered, we have this world of
sense in which we live, in which our Lord was offered in the sight of
all; in the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies, the unseen and
heavenly worlds, through the former of which our Lord is represented
as having passed (Heb. iv. 14, ix. 11) that He might appear with His
blood in the true Holiest, where God in the innermost shrine of His
glory "covereth Himself with light as with a garment." For this
cosmical dwelling-place of the Most High God has been defiled by sin,
which, as it were, has profaned the whole sanctuary; for we read (Col.
i. 20), that not only "things upon the earth," but also "things in the
heavens," are to be "reconciled" through Christ, even "through the
blood of His cross;" and, still more explicitly, to the same effect
(Heb. ix. 23), that as the typical "copies of the things in the
heavens" needed to be cleansed with the blood of bullocks and of
goats, so "it was necessary that ... the heavenly things themselves
should be cleansed with better sacrifices than these." And so, at this
present time, Christ, as the High Priest of this cosmical tabernacle,
"not made with hands," having offered His great sacrifice for sins for
ever, is now engaged in carrying out His work of cleansing the people
of God, and the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary, to the uttermost
completion.
With these preliminary words, which have seemed essential to the
exposition of these chapters, we are now prepared to consider the
ceremonial of the consecration of the priesthood and tabernacle, and
the spiritual meaning which it was intended to convey.
THE WASHING WITH WATER.
viii. 6.
"And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with
water."
The consecration ceremonies consisted of four parts, namely, the
Washing, the Investiture, the Anointing, and the Sacrifices. Of these,
first in order was the _Washing_. We read that "Moses"--acting
throughout, we must remember, as Mediator, representing God--"brought
Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water." The meaning of this
act is so evident as not to have been called in question. Washing ever
signifies cleansing; the ceremonial cleansing of the body, therefore,
in symbol ever represents the inward purification of the spirit.
Of this usage the Biblical illustrations are very numerous. Thus, the
spiritual purification of Israel in the latter day is described (Isa.
iv. 4) by the same word as is used here, as a washing away of "the
filth of the daughters of Zion" by the Lord. So, again, in the New
Testament, we read that Christ declared unto Nicodemus that in order
to see the kingdom of God a man must be born again, "of water and the
Spirit," and in the Epistle to Titus (iii. 5) we read of a cleansing
of the Church "with the washing (_marg._, laver) of water, by the
Word," even the "washing of regeneration." The symbolism in this case,
therefore, points to cleansing from the defilement of sin as a
fundamental condition of priesthood. As regards our Lord indeed, such
cleansing was no more needed for His high priesthood than was the
sin-offering for Himself; for in His holy incarnation, though He took
our nature indeed with all the consequences and infirmities consequent
on sin He was yet "without sin." But all the more it was necessary in
the symbolism that if Aaron was to typify the sinless Christ of God he
must be cleansed with water, in type of the cleansing of human nature,
without which no man can approach to God. And in that not only Aaron,
but also his sons, the ordinary priests, were thus cleansed, we are in
the ordinance significantly pointed to the deep spiritual truth that
they who are called to be priests to God must be qualified for this
office, first of all, by the cleansing of their human nature through
the washing of regeneration, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
THE INVESTITURE.
viii. 7-9.
"And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle,
and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he
girded him with the cunningly woven band of the ephod, and bound
it unto him therewith. And he placed the breastplate upon him:
and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim. And he
set the mitre upon his head: and upon the mitre, in front, did he
set the golden plate, the holy crown; as the Lord commanded
Moses."
The next ceremony of the consecration was the Investiture of Aaron
with his official, high-priestly robes, as they had been appointed of
God to be made (Exod. xxviii.). The investiture of the sons of Aaron
significantly takes place only after the anointing of the tabernacle,
and of Aaron as high priest. Of the investiture of Aaron we read in
vv. 7-9, above.
As these garments were official, we must needs regard them as
symbolical; a thought which is the more emphasised by the very minute
and special directions given by the Lord for making them. Nothing was
left to the fancy of man; all was prescribed by the Lord. The official
robes of the high priest consisted of eight pieces, four of which,
the coat, the girdle, the turban (or "mitre"), and the breeches, were,
with the exception of the turban, of white linen, and identical in
every respect with the official dress of the ordinary priests.
Four pieces more were peculiar to himself, the special insignia of his
office, and unlike the dress of the ordinary priest, were richly made
in gold and various colours, "garments for glory and for beauty."
These were: the robe of the ephod, made all of blue, with a border of
pendant pomegranates and golden bells in alternation; the ephod itself
consisting of two pieces, broidered in gold and blue, purple, scarlet,
and fine white linen, the one hanging in front, the other behind, over
the robe of the ephod, and joined on the shoulders with two onyx
stones, on which were graven the names of the twelve tribes, six on
the one shoulder and six on the other; it was girt about him with a
girdle of the same material and colours. The third was the
breast-plate, which was a double square of the same material and
colours as the ephod, within the fold of which, as it hung from his
shoulders by golden chains, was placed the Urim and the Thummim,
whatever these may have been, and upon the front of which were set
twelve precious stones, on which, severally, were engraved the names
of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. And the fourth and
last article of his attire was "the golden plate, the holy crown;" a
band of gold bound about his forehead over the turban, with blue lace,
on which were engraven the words, "Holiness to Jehovah."
This dress of the high priest represented him, in the first place, as
the appointed minister of the _tabernacle_. The number of pieces,
twice four, like the four of the common priests' attire, answered to
the four which was represented in the ground plan of the tabernacle,
quadrangular both in its form as a whole and in its several parts, the
Holy of Holies being a perfect cube; four being in Scripture
constantly the number which symbolises the universe, as created by God
and bearing witness to Him. So also the garments of the high priest
marked him as the minister of the tabernacle by their colours, also
four in number, and the same as those of the latter, namely, blue,
purple, scarlet, and white.
But the official robes of the high priest marked him, in the second
place, as the servant of _the God of the tabernacle_, whose livery he
wore. For these colours, various modifications of light, all thus had
a symbolic reference to the God of light, who made the universe of
which the Mosaic tabernacle was a type. Of these, the blue, the colour
of the overarching heaven, has been in many lands and religions
naturally regarded as the colour symbolising God, as the God of the
heaven, bowing to the earth in condescending love and self-revelation.
In like manner, we find it repeatedly recurring in the symbolic
manifestations of Jehovah in the Holy Scriptures, where it always
brings God before us with special reference to His condescending love
as entering into covenant with man, and revealing for their good His
holy law.[16] The purple, as will occur to every one, is everywhere
recognised as the colour of royalty, and therefore symbolised the
kingly exaltation and majesty of God, as the Ruler of heaven and
earth. The scarlet reminds us at once of the colour of blood, which
stands in the very foreground of the Mosaic symbolism as the symbol of
life, and thus points us to the conception of God, as the essentially
Living One, who is Himself the sole primal source of all life, whether
physical or spiritual, in the creature. No one can mistake, again, the
symbolic meaning of the white, which, not only in the Scripture, but
among all nations, has ever been the symbol of purity and holiness,
and thus represented the high priest as the minister of God, as the
Most Holy One. By this investiture, therefore, Aaron was symbolically
constituted the minister of the tabernacle, on the one hand, and of
God, on the other; and, in particular, of God as the God of
revelation, in covenant with Israel; of God as the Most High, the King
of Israel; of God as the God of life, the Giver of life in the
redemption of Israel; and, finally, of God as the Most Holy, the God
"who is light," and "with whom is no darkness at all."
[16] See, _e.g._, Exod. xxiv. 10; Ezek. i. 26.
The "robe of the ephod" was woven in one piece, and all of blue. In
that it was thus without seam, was symbolised the wholeness and
absolute integrity necessary to him who should bear the high priestly
office. In that it was made all of blue, the colour which symbolised
the God of heaven as manifesting Himself to Israel in condescending
love, in the holy law and covenant, this robe of the ephod specially
marked the high priest as the minister of Jehovah and of His revealed
law.
The ephod, which depended from the shoulders before and behind,
according to the usage of Scripture, was the garment specially
significant of rule and authority; a thought which reached full
expression in the breast-plate which was fastened to it, which
contained the Urim and Thummim, by which God's will was made known to
Israel in times of perplexity, and was called "the breast-plate of
judgment."
The ornamentation of these garments had also a symbolic meaning,
though it may not be in each instance equally clear. In that the high
priest, as thus robed, bore upon the ephod and the breast-plate of
judgment, graven on precious stones, the names of the twelve tribes of
Israel, he was marked as one who in all his high-priestly work before
and with God, presented and represented Israel. In that the names were
engraven upon precious stones was signified the exceeding preciousness
of Israel in God's sight, as His "peculiar treasure." In that, again,
they were worn upon his shoulders, Aaron was represented to Israel as
upholding and bearing them before God in the strength of his office;
in that he wore their names upon his breast, he was represented as
also bearing them upon his heart in love and affection.
The symbolic meaning of the pomegranates and golden bells, which
formed the border of the robe of the ephod, is not quite so clear. But
we may probably find a hint as to their significance in the Divine
direction as to the border of blue which every Israelite was to wear
upon the bottom of his garment (Numb. xv. 39). The purpose of this is
said to be that it might be for a continual reminder of the law: "It
shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember
all the commandments of the Lord, and do them." If then this border in
the garment of each individual member of the priestly nation was
designed symbolically to mark them as the keepers of the law of the
God of heaven, we may safely infer an analogous meaning in the similar
border to the official garment of the high priest. And if so, then we
shall perhaps not be far out of the way if in this case we follow
Jewish tradition in regarding the pomegranate, a fruit distinguished
by being filled to the full with seeds, as the symbol, _par
excellence_, of the law of commandments, the words of the living God,
as "incorruptible seed," endowed by Him with vital energy and
power.[17]
[17] Thus _e.g._, in Cant. iv. 13, where the Revised Version
reads, "Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates," the Jewish
paraphrast in the Chaldee Targum renders, "Thy young men are
filled with the commandments (of God) like unto pomegranates
(_sc._ with their seeds)."
As for the bells, we naturally think at once of the common use of the
bell to give a signal, and announce what one may be concerned to know.
So we read of these golden bells (Exod. xxviii. 35), "the sound
thereof shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the
Lord ... that he die not."
These golden bells in the border of his garment, between each pair of
pomegranates, thus announced him as officially appearing before God as
the fulfiller of the law of commandments, and as, for this reason,
acceptable to God in the execution of his high-priestly functions.
As to the Urim and Thummim, "Light and Perfection," which were
apparently placed within the fold of the breast-plate of judgment, as
the tables of the law within the ark of the covenant, there has been
in all ages much debate; but what they were cannot be said to have
been certainly determined. Most probable appears the opinion that they
were two sacred lots, which on solemn occasions were used by the high
priest for determining the will of God. So much, in any case, is clear
from the Scriptures, that in some way through them the will of God as
the King of Israel was made known to the high priest, for the
direction of the nation in doubtful matters. Most fitly, therefore,
they were placed within the breast-plate of judgment, which, indeed,
may have received this name from this circumstance. The high priest,
therefore, as the bearer of the Urim and Thummim, was set forth, in
accordance with the meaning of these words, as one who in virtue of
his office received perfect enlightenment from God as to His will, in
all that concerned Israel's action.
The plate of graven gold, called the "holy crown," was bound by Moses
with a lace of blue upon the mitre of Aaron in front. The precious
metal here, as elsewhere in the official garments of the high priest,
and in the tabernacle, was symbolic of the boundless riches of the
glory of the God of Israel, whose minister the high priest was. The
special significance, however, of this holy crown, is found in the
words which appeared upon it, "Holiness to Jehovah." This was a
continual visible mark and reminder of the fact that the high priest,
in all that he was, and in all that he did, was a person in the
highest possible sense consecrated to Jehovah, the heavenly King of
Israel, whose livery he wore. And in that this golden plate with this
inscription is called his "crown," it is further suggested that in
this last-named fact is found the crowning glory and dignity of the
high priest's office. He is the minister of the God of Israel,
Jehovah, whose own supreme glory is just this, that He is holy. In the
directions given for this crown in Exod. xxviii. 36-38 it is said that
in virtue of his wearing this, or, rather, in virtue of the fact thus
set forth, "Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things which the
children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall
always be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the
Lord." That is, even Israel's consecrated things, their holiest
gifts, are yet defiled by the ever abiding sinfulness of those who
offer them; but they are nevertheless graciously accepted, as being
offered by Aaron, himself "holy to the Lord."
Such then appears to have been the symbolic meaning of these "garments
for glory and for beauty," with which Moses now robed Aaron, in token
of his investiture with the manifold dignities of the exalted office
to which God had called him. But we must not forget that we are not,
in all this, dealing merely with matters of antiquarian or
archæological interest. Nothing is plainer than the teaching of the
New Testament, that Aaron, as the high priest, not by accident, but by
Divine intention, prefigured Christ. In all the directions given
concerning his investiture with his office, and the work which, as
high priest, he had to do, the Holy Ghost intended to prefigure,
directly or indirectly, something concerning the person, office, and
work of Jesus Christ, as our heavenly High Priest, the Fulfiller of
all these types. As Aaron appears in his fourfold high-priestly
garments of four colours, which represented him as the minister, on
the one hand, of the tabernacle, and, on the other, of the God of
Israel, the Inhabitant of the tabernacle, so are we reminded how
Christ is appointed as the "Minister of the greater and more perfect
tabernacle, not made with hands" (Heb. ix. 11), the earth, the heaven,
and the heaven of heavens, to reconcile, by the offering of His blood,
"both the things which are on earth and those which are in the
heavens" (Col. i. 20). We look upon the blue robe of the ephod, and
remember how Christ is made a minister of "a better covenant, enacted
upon better promises" (Heb. viii. 6), representing, as that old
covenant did not, the fulness of the revelation of God's condescending
love and saving mercy. So also the inwoven scarlet reminds us how
Christ, again, as the great High Priest, is the minister of the God of
life, and is also Himself life and the Giver of life to all His
people. We look upon the high priest's purple and gold, and are
reminded again that Christ, the High Priest, is also invested with
regal power and dominion, all authority being given unto Him in heaven
and on earth (Matt. xxviii. 18).
Again, we look on the ephod of fine linen, inwoven with blue, and
scarlet, and purple, and gold, with its girdle, symbolising service,
and its pendant breast-plate of judgment, and are reminded how Christ
in all the relations thus pertaining to Him as High Priest, is the
Ruler and the Judge of His people, who, as the bearer of the true Urim
and Thummim, is not only Priest, and King, and Judge, but also, and in
order to the salvation of His people, their Prophet, continually
revealing unto those who seek Him, the will of God for their direction
and guidance in every emergency of life. The girdle, the symbol of
service, brings to mind, again, how in all this He is the Servant of
the Lord, serving the Father in saving us.
The symbolism of the pomegranates and the golden bells reminds us, for
the strengthening of our faith, how our exalted High Priest, who
appears before God in our behalf in the Holiest, appears there as the
great Preserver and Fulfiller of the Divine law, supremely qualified,
no less by His supreme merit than by Divine appointment, to urge our
needs with prevalence before God, His very presence in the heavenly
sanctuary vocal with sweet music. Did Aaron bear the names of the
twelve tribes of Israel on his shoulders and on his breast before God
continually? Even so does his great Antitype bear continually all His
people before God, as He executes His high-priestly office; and this,
too, not merely in a vague and general way, but tribe by tribe,
community by community, each with its peculiar case and special need;
nay, we may say even more; each individual, as such, is thus borne
continually on the shoulders and the breast of the heavenly Priest; on
His shoulders He bears them, to support them by His power; on His
heart, in tenderest love and sympathy. And so often as we are
distressed and discouraged by the consciousness of defilement still
pertaining even to the holiest of our holy things, consecration ever
imperfect at the best, we may bethink ourselves of the golden crown
which Aaron wore, and its inscription, and remember how the Lord Jesus
is in fullest reality "holy to the Lord;" so that we may take heart of
grace as, with full reason and right, we apply to Him what is said of
this crown of holiness on Aaron's brow: "The crown of holiness is ever
on His forehead, and He shall bear the iniquity of the holy things
which we shall hallow in all our holy gifts; it is always on His
forehead, that our works may be accepted before the Lord." And so we
are taught by this symbolism ever to look away from all conscious
defilement and sin to the infinite holiness of the person of the Lord
Jesus, as He continually appears before God as High Priest in our
behalf, the all-sufficient Surety for the acceptance of our persons
and of our imperfect works, for His own sake.
The investiture, as also the anointing, of the sons of Aaron, followed
the robing and anointing of Aaron. We read (ver. 13): "Moses brought
Aaron's sons, and clothed them with coats, and girded them with
girdles, and bound head-tires upon them; as the Lord commanded
Moses."
To the three articles of their attire here mentioned, must be added
the "linen breeches" (Exod. xxviii. 42, 43); so that they also, in the
several parts of their official vestments, bore the number four, the
signature of the creaturely, as represented in the tabernacle. All was
of pure white linen, signifying the holiness and righteousness of
those who should act as priests before God. So once and again in the
Apocalypse, the same symbol is used to denote the spotless holiness
and righteousness of the blood-bought saints, who are made "a kingdom
and priests" unto God; as, for instance, it is said of that same holy
body, symbolised as the bride of the Lamb, that "it was given unto her
that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the
fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints" (Rev. xix. 8).
THE ANOINTING.
viii. 10-12.
"And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle
and all that was therein, and sanctified them. And he sprinkled
thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and
all its vessels, and the laver and its base, to sanctify them.
And he poured of the anointed oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed
him, to sanctify him."
Next in order came the anointing, first of the tabernacle and all that
pertained to its service, and then the anointing of Aaron.
The anointing oil was made (Exod. xxx. 22-33) with a perfume of choice
spices, their number, four, the sacred number so constantly recurring
in the tabernacle. To make or use this oil, except for the sacred
purposes of the sanctuary, was forbidden under penalty of being cut
off from the holy people. The purpose of the anointing of the
tabernacle and all within it, is declared to be its consecration
thereby to the service of Jehovah. The altar, as a place of special
sanctity, the place where God had covenanted to meet with Israel, was
anointed seven times. For the number seven, compounded of three, the
signet number of the Godhead, and four, the constant symbol of the
creaturely, is thus by eminence the sacred number, the number, in
particular, which is the sign and reminder of the covenant of
redemption; and so here it is with special meaning that the altar, as
being the place where God had specially covenanted to meet with Israel
as reconciled through the blood of atonement, should receive a
sevenfold anointing.
After this, the anointing oil was poured on the head of Aaron, to
sanctify him.
As to the meaning of this part of the symbolic service, there is
little room for doubt. The "anointing" is said to have been "to
sanctify" or set apart to the service of Jehovah him that was
anointed. And, inasmuch as oil, in the Holy Scriptures, is the
constant symbol of the Holy Spirit, it is taught hereby that
consecration is secured only through the anointing with the Holy
Ghost.
The direct typical reference of this part of the ceremonial to Christ,
will not be denied by any one for whom the Scripture any longer has
authority. For Christ Himself quoted the words we find in Isa. lxi. 1,
as fulfilled in Himself: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
because the Lord God hath anointed Me." And the Apostle Peter
afterward taught (Acts x. 38) that God had "anointed Jesus with the
Holy Ghost and with power;" while the most common title of our Lord,
as "the Messiah" or "Christ," as we all know, though often forgetful
of its meaning, simply means "the Anointed One." So every time we use
the word, we unconsciously testify to the fulfilment of this type of
the anointing of Aaron as priest, as, afterward, of the anointing of
David as king, in Him. And as the anointing of Aaron took place in the
sight of all Israel, assembled at the door of the tent of meeting, so
in the fulness of time was Jesus, in the sight of all the multitude
that waited on the baptism of John, after having been washed with
water, "to fulfil all righteousness," anointed from heaven, as "the
Holy Ghost descended in bodily form, as a dove," and abode upon him
(Luke iii. 22). And while, according to Jewish tradition, the
anointing oil was applied to the ordinary priests only in small
quantity and by the finger, on the head of Aaron it was "poured;" in
which word, as suggested in Psalm cxxxiii. 2, we are to understand a
reference to the great copiousness with which it was used. In which,
again, the type exactly corresponds to the Antitype. For while it is
true of all believers that they "have an anointing from the Holy One"
(1 John ii. 20), even as their Lord, yet of Him alone is it true that
unto Him the Spirit "was not given by measure" (John iii. 34). And by
this Divine anointing with the Holy Spirit without limit, was Jesus
sanctified and qualified for the office of High Priest for all His
people.
The anointing of the tabernacle with the same holy oil was according
to a custom long before prevalent, and however it may seem strange to
any of us now, will not have seemed strange to Israel. We read, for
instance (Gen. xxviii. 18), of the anointing of the stone at Bethel by
Jacob, by which he thus consecrated it to be a stone of remembrance of
the revelation of God to him in that place. So by this anointing, the
tabernacle, with all that it contained, was "sanctified;" that is,
consecrated that so the use of these might be made, through the power
of the Holy Ghost, a means of grace and blessing to Israel. And it was
thus anointed, and for this purpose, as being a "copy and pattern of
the heavenly things." By the ceremony is signified to us, that by the
power of the Holy Ghost, through the high-priesthood of our Lord, the
whole universe and all that is in it has been consecrated and endowed
by God with virtue, to become a means of grace and blessing to all
believers, by His grace and might who works "in all things and through
all things" to this end.
THE CONSECRATION SACRIFICES.
viii. 14-32.
"And he brought the bullock of the sin offering: and Aaron and
his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock of the sin
offering. And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it
upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and
purified the altar, and poured out the blood at the base of the
altar, and sanctified it, to make atonement for it. And he took
all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul of the liver,
and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the
altar. But the bullock, and its skin, and its flesh, and its
dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the Lord commanded
Moses. And he presented the ram of the burnt offering: and Aaron
and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. And he
killed it: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round
about. And he cut the ram into its pieces; and Moses burnt the
head, and the pieces, and the fat. And he washed the inwards and
the legs with water; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the
altar: it was a burnt offering for a sweet savour: it was an
offering made by fire unto the Lord; as the Lord commanded Moses.
And he presented the other ram, the ram of consecration: and
Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. And
he slew it; and Moses took of the blood thereof, and put it upon
the tip of Aaron's right ear, and upon the thumb of his right
hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot. And he brought
Aaron's sons, and Moses put of the blood upon the tip of their
right ear, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the
great toe of their right foot: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon
the altar round about. And he took the fat, and the fat tail, and
all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul of the liver,
and the two kidneys and their fat, and the right thigh: and out
of the basket of unleavened bread, that was before the Lord, he
took one unleavened cake, and one cake of oiled bread, and one
wafer, and placed them on the fat, and upon the right thigh: and
he put the whole upon the hands of Aaron, and upon the hands of
his sons, and waved them for a wave offering before the Lord. And
Moses took them from off their hands, and burnt them on the altar
upon the burnt offering: they were a consecration for a sweet
savour: it was an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And Moses
took the breast and waved it for a wave offering before the Lord:
it was Moses' portion of the ram of consecration; as the Lord
commanded Moses. And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the
blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, upon
his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons' garments with
him; and sanctified Aaron, his garments, and his sons, and his
sons' garments with him. And Moses said unto Aaron and to his
sons, Boil the flesh at the door of the tent of meeting: and
there eat it and the bread that is in the basket of consecration,
as I commanded, saying, Aaron and his sons shall eat it. And that
which remaineth of the flesh and of the bread shall ye burn with
fire."
The last part of the consecration ceremonial was the sacrifices. Each
of the chief sacrifices of the law were offered in order; first, a
sin-offering; then, a burnt-offering; then, a peace-offering, with
some significant variations from the ordinary ritual, adapting it to
this occasion; with which was conjoined, after the usual manner, a
meal-offering. A sin-offering was offered, first of all; there had
been a symbolical cleansing with water, but still a sin-offering is
required. It signified, what so many in these days seem to forget,
that in order to our acceptableness before God, not only is needed a
cleansing of the defilement of nature by the regeneration of the Holy
Ghost, but also expiation for the guilt of our sins. The sin-offering
was first, for the guilt of Aaron and his sons must be thus typically
removed, before their burnt-offerings and their meal- and
peace-offerings can be accepted.
The peculiarities of the offerings as rendered on this occasion are
easily explained from the circumstances of their presentation. Moses
officiates, for this time only, as specially delegated for this
occasion, inasmuch as Aaron and his sons are not yet fully inducted
into their office. The victim for the sin-offering is the costliest
ever employed: a bullock, as ordered for the sin of the anointed
priest. But the blood is not brought into the Holy Place, as in the
ritual for the offering for the high priest, because Aaron is not yet
fully inducted into his office. Nor do Aaron and his sons eat of the
flesh of the sin-offering, as ordered in the case of other
sin-offerings whose blood is not brought within the Holy Place;
obviously, because of the principle which rules throughout the law,
that he for whose sin the sin-offering is offered, must not himself
eat of the flesh; it is therefore burnt with fire, without the camp,
that it may not see corruption.
By this sin-offering, not only Aaron and his sons were cleansed, but
we read that hereby atonement was also made "for the altar;" a
mysterious type, reminding us that, in some way which we cannot as yet
fully understand, sin has affected the whole universe: in such a
sense, that not only for man himself who has sinned, is propitiation
required, but, in some sense, even for the earth itself, with the
heavens. That in expounding the meaning of this part of the ritual we
do not go beyond the Scripture is plain from such passages as Heb. ix.
23, where it is expressly said that even as the tabernacle and the
things in it were cleansed with the blood of the bullock, so was
necessary that, not merely man, but "the heavenly things themselves,"
of which the tabernacle and its belongings were the "copies," should
be cleansed with better sacrifices than these, even the offering of
Christ's own blood. So also we read in Col. i. 20, before cited, that
through Christ, even through the blood of His cross, not merely
persons, "but all _things_, whether things on the earth, or things in
the heavens," should be reconciled unto God. Mysterious words these,
no doubt; but words which teach us at least so much as this, how
profound and far-reaching is the mischief which sin has wrought, even
our sin. Not merely the sinning man must be cleansed with blood before
he can be made a priest unto God, but even nature, "made subject to
vanity" (Rom. viii. 20), for man's sin, needs the reconciling blood
before redeemed man can exercise his priesthood unto God in the
heavenly places. Evidently we have here an estimate of the evil of sin
which is incomparably higher than that which is commonly current among
men; and we shall do well to conform our estimate to that of God, who
required atonement to be made even for the earthen altar, to sanctify
it.
Reconciliation being made by the sin-offering, next in order came the
burnt-offering, symbolic, as we have seen, of the full consecration of
the person of the offerer to God; in this case of the full
consecration of Aaron and his sons to the service of God in the
priesthood. The ritual was according to the usual law, and requires no
further exposition.
The ceremonial culminated and was completed in the offering of "the
ram of consecration." The expression is, literally, "the ram of
fillings;" in which phrase there is a reference to the peculiar
ceremony described in vv. 27, 28, in which certain portions of the
victim and of the meal-offering were placed by Moses on the hands of
Aaron and his sons, and waved by them for a wave-offering; and
afterwards burnt wholly on the altar upon the burnt-offering, in token
of their full devotement to the Lord. Of these it is then added, "they
were a consecration" (_lit._ "fillings," _sc._ of hands, "were
these"). The meaning of the phrase and the action it denoted is
determined by its use in 1 Chron. xxix. 5 and 2 Chron. xxix. 31, where
it is used of the bringing of the freewill-offerings by the people for
Jehovah. The ceremonial in this case therefore signified the formal
making over of the sacrifices into the charge of Aaron and his sons,
which henceforth they were to offer; that they received them to offer
them to and for Jehovah, was symbolised by their presentation to be
waved before Jehovah, and further by their being burnt upon the altar,
as a sacrifice of sweet savour.
Another thing peculiar to this special consecration sacrifice, was the
use which was made of the blood, which (ver. 23) was put upon the tip
of Aaron's right ear, upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the
great toe of his right foot. Although the solution is not without
difficulty, we shall probably not err in regarding this as
distinctively an act of consecration, signifying that in virtue of the
sacrificial blood, Aaron and his sons were set apart to sacrificial
service. It is applied to the ear, to the hand, and the foot, and to
the most representative member in each case, to signify the
consecration of the whole body to the Lord's service in the
tabernacle; the ear is consecrated by the blood to be ever attentive
to the word of Jehovah, to receive the intimations of His will; the
hand, to be ever ready to do the Lord's work; and the foot, to run on
His service.
Another peculiarity of this offering was in the wave-offering of
Aaron and his sons. Not the breast, but the thigh, and that together
with the fat (ver. 27) was waved before the Lord; and, afterward, not
only the fat was burnt upon the altar, according to the law, but also
the thigh, which in other cases was the portion of the priest, was
burnt with the fat and the memorial of the meal-offering. The breast
was afterward waved, as the law commanded in the case of the
peace-offerings, but was given to Moses as his portion. The last
particular is easy to understand; Moses in this ceremonial stands in
the place of the officiating priest, and it is natural that he should
thus receive from the Lord his reward for his service. As for the
thigh, which, when the peace-offering was offered by one of the
people, was presented to the Lord, and then given to the officiating
priest to be eaten, obviously the law could not be applied here, as
the priests themselves were the bringers of the offering; hence the
only alternative was, as in the case of sin-offerings of the holy
place, to burn the flesh with fire upon the altar, as "the food of
Jehovah." The remainder of the flesh was to be eaten by the priests
alone as the offerers, under the regulation for the thank-offering,
except that whatever remained until the next day was to be burnt; a
direction which is explained by the fact that the sacrifice was to be
repeated for seven days, so that there could be no reason for keeping
the flesh until the third day. Last of all, it is to be noted that
whereas in the thank-offerings of the people, the offerer was allowed
to bring leavened bread for the sacrificial feast, in the feast of the
consecration of priests this was not permitted; no doubt to emphasise
the peculiar sanctity of the office to which they were inducted.
With these modifications, it is plain that the sacrifice of
consecration was essentially, not a guilt-offering, as some have
supposed, but a peace-offering. It is true that a ram was enjoined as
the victim instead of a lamb, but the correspondence here with the law
of the guilt-offering is of no significance when we observe that rams
were also enjoined or used for peace-offerings on other occasions of
exceptional dignity and sanctity, as in the peace-offerings for the
nation, mentioned in the following chapter, and the peace-offerings
for the princes of the tribes (Numb. vii.). Unlike the guilt-offering,
but after the manner of the other, the sacrifice was followed by a
sacrificial feast. That participation in this was restricted to the
priests, is sufficiently explained by the special relation of this
sacrifice to their own consecration.
Before the sacrificial feast, however, one peculiar ceremony still
remained. We read (ver. 30): "Moses took of the anointing oil, and of
the blood (of the peace-offering) which was upon the altar, and
sprinkled it upon Aaron, upon his garments, and upon his sons, and
upon his sons' garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, his garments,
and his sons, and his sons' garments with him."
This sprinkling signified that now, through the atoning blood which
had been accepted before God upon the altar, and through the
sanctifying Spirit of grace, which was symbolised by the anointing,
thus inseparably associated each with the other, they had been brought
into covenant relation with God regarding the office of the
priesthood. That this their covenant relation to God concerned them,
not merely as private persons, but in their official character, was
intimated by the sprinkling, not only of their persons, but of the
garments which were the insignia of their priestly office.
All this completed, now followed the sacrificial feast. We read that
Moses now ordered Aaron and his sons (ver. 31): "Boil the flesh at the
door of the tent of meeting: and there eat it and the bread that is in
the basket of consecration, as I commanded, saying, Aaron and his sons
shall eat it. And that which remaineth of the flesh and of the bread
shall ye burn with fire."
This sacrificial feast most fitly marked the conclusion of the rites
of consecration. Hereby it was signified, first, that by this solemn
service they were now brought into a relation of peculiarly intimate
fellowship with Jehovah, as the ministers of His house, to offer His
offerings, and to be fed at His table. It was further signified, that
strength for the duties of this office should be supplied to them by
Him whom they were to serve, in that they were to be fed of His altar.
And, finally, in that the ritual took the specific form of a
thank-offering, was thereby expressed, as was fitting, their gratitude
to God for the grace which had chosen them and set them apart to so
holy and exalted service.
These consecration services were to be repeated for seven consecutive
days, during which time they were not to leave the tent of
meeting,--obviously, that by no chance they might contract any
ceremonial defilement; so jealously must the sanctity of everything
pertaining to the service be guarded.
The commandment was (vv. 33-35): "Ye shall not go out from the door of
the tent of meeting seven days, until the days of your consecration be
fulfilled: for he shall consecrate you seven days. As hath been done
this day, so the Lord hath commanded to do, to make atonement for you.
And at the door of the tent of meeting shall ye abide day and night
seven days, and keep the charge of the Lord, that ye die not: for so
I am commanded."
By the sevenfold repetition of the consecration ceremonies was
expressed, in the most emphatic manner known to the Mosaic symbolism,
the completeness of the consecration and qualification of Aaron and
his sons for their office, and the fact also that, in virtue of this
consecration, they had come into a special covenant relation with
Jehovah concerning the priestly office.
That these consecration sacrifices by which Aaron and his sons were
set apart to the priesthood, no less than the preceding part of the
ceremonial, pointed forward to Christ and His priestly people as the
Antitype, it will be easy to see. As regards our Lord, in Heb. vii.
28, the sacred writer applies to the consecration of our Lord as high
priest the very term which the Seventy had used long before in this
chapter of Leviticus to denote this formal consecration, and
represents the consecration of the Son as the antitype of the
consecration of Aaron by the law: "the law appointeth men high
priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after
the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore."
An exception, indeed, must be made, as regards our Lord, in the case
of the sin-offering; of whom it is said (Heb. vii. 27), that He
"needeth not ... like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices,
first for His own sins." But as regards the other two sacrifices, we
can see that in their distinctive symbolical import they each bring
before us essential elements in the consecration of our Lord Jesus
Christ as High Priest. In the burnt-offering, we see Him consecrating
Himself by the complete self-surrender of Himself to the Father. In
the offering of consecrations, we see Him in the meal-offering of
unleavened bread, offering in like manner His most holy works unto the
Father; and in the sacrifice of the peace-offering, wherein Aaron ate
of the food of God's house in His presence, we see Jesus in like
manner as qualified for His high-priestly work by His admission into
terms of the most intimate fellowship with the Father, and sustained
for His work by the strength given from Him, according to His own
word: "The living Father hath sent Me, and I live because of the
Father." In the formal "filling of the hands" of Aaron with the
sacrificial material, in token of his endowment with the right to
offer sacrifices for sin for the sake of sinful men, we are reminded
how our Lord refers to the fact that He had received in like manner
authority from the Father to lay down His life for His sheep,
emphatically adding the words, (John x. 18), "This commandment have I
received of My Father."
So also was the meaning of the collateral ceremonies fully realised in
Him. If Aaron was anointed with the blood on ear, hand, and foot, by
way of signifying that the members of his body should be wholly
devoted unto God in priestly service, even so we are reminded (Heb. x.
5, 7), that "when He cometh into the world He saith, ... Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare for Me; ...
Lo, I am come to do Thy will, O God."
And so, as Aaron was at the end of the sacrifice sprinkled with blood
and oil, in token that God had now, through the blood and the oil,
entered into a covenant of priesthood with him, so we find repeated
reference to the fact of such a solemn covenant and compact between
God and the High Priest of our profession summed up in the words of
prophecy, "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest
for ever after the order of Melchizedek."
So did this whole consecration ceremony, with the exception only of
such parts of it as had reference to the sin of Aaron, point forward
to the future investiture of the Son of God with the high-priestly
office, by God the Father, that He might act therein for our salvation
in all matters between us and God. How can any who have eyes to see
all this, as opened out for us in the New Testament, fail with fullest
joy and thankfulness to accept Christ, the Son of God, now passed into
the Holiest, as the High Priest of our profession? How naturally to
all such come the words of exhortation with which is concluded the
great argument upon Christ's high-priesthood in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (x. 19-23): "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter
into the holy place by the blood of Jesus; ... and having a great
priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart, in
fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,
and our body washed with pure water: let us hold fast the confession
of our hope that it waver not; for He is faithful that promised."
But not only was Aaron thus consecrated to be high priest of the
tabernacle, but his sons also, to be priests under him in the same
service. In this also the type holds good. For when in Heb. ii. Christ
is brought before us as "the High Priest of our confession," He is
represented as saying (ver. 13), "Behold, I and the children which God
hath given me!" As Aaron had his sons appointed to perform priestly
functions under him in the earthly tabernacle, so also his great
Antitype has "sons," called to priestly office under Him in the
heavenly tabernacle. Accordingly, we find that in the New Testament,
not any caste or class in the Christian Church, but all believers, are
represented as "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter ii. 5). To the
testimony of Peter corresponds that of John in the Apocalypse, where
in like manner believers are declared to be priests unto God, and
represented as also acting as priests of God and of Christ in the age
which is to come after "the first resurrection"[18] (Rev. xx. 6).
Hence it is plain that according to the New Testament we shall rightly
regard the consecration of the sons of Aaron as no less typical than
that of Aaron himself. It is typical of the consecration of all
believers to priesthood under Christ. It thus sets forth in symbol the
fact and the manner of our own consecration to ministrations between
lost men and God, in the age which now is and that which is to come,
in things pertaining to sin and salvation, according to the measure to
each one of the gift of Christ.
[18] Not, however, as many imagine, in behalf of those who have
in this age died in sin, but in ministrations to the living
nations in the flesh, in the age to come. We find no ground of
hope, in Holy Scripture, for the impenitent dead.
As the consecration of Aaron's sons began with the washing with pure
water, so ours with "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of
the Holy Ghost" (Titus iii. 5). As Aaron's sons, thus washed, were
then invested in white linen, clean and pure, so for the believer must
the word be fulfilled (Isa. lxi. 10): "He hath covered me with the
robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself" (marg.
"decketh as a priest"). That is, the reality of our appointment of God
unto this high dignity must be visibly attested unto men by the
righteousness of our lives. But whereas the sons of Aaron were not
clothed until first Aaron himself had been clothed and anointed, it is
signified that the robing and anointing of Christ's people follows and
depends upon the previous robing and anointing of their Head. Again,
as Aaron's sons were also anointed with the same holy oil as was
Aaron, only in lesser measure, so are believers consecrated to the
priestly office, like their Lord, by the anointing with the Holy
Ghost. The anointing of Pentecost follows and corresponds to the
anointing of the High Priest at the Jordan with one and the same
Spirit. This is another necessary consecration mark, on which the New
Testament Scriptures constantly insist. As Jesus was "anointed with
the Holy Ghost and (thereby) with power," so He Himself said to His
disciples (Acts i. 8), "Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is
come upon you;" which promise being fulfilled, Paul could say (2 Cor.
i. 21), "He that ... anointed us is God;" and John (1 John ii. 20), to
all believers, "Ye have an anointing from the Holy One." And the
sacrificial symbols are also all fulfilled in the case of the Lord's
priestly people. For them, no less essential to their consecration
than the washing of the Holy Ghost, is the removal of guilt by the
great Sin-offering of Calvary; which same offering, and true Lamb of
God, has also become their burnt-offering, their meal-offering, and
their sacrifice of consecrations, as it is written (Heb. x. 10), that,
by the will of God, "we have been sanctified through the offering of
the body of Jesus Christ once for all:" and that He also is become
"our peace," in that He has expiated our sins, and also given Himself
to us as our spiritual food; that so we may derive daily strength for
the daily service in the priest's office, by feeding on the Lamb of
God, the true food of the altar, given by God for our support. Also,
as the sons of Aaron, like Aaron himself, were anointed with the blood
of the peace-offering of consecration, on the ear, the hand, and the
foot, so has the blood of the Lamb, in that it has brought us into
peace with God, set apart every true believer unto full surrender of
all the members of his body unto Him; ears, that they may be quick to
hear God's Word; hands, that they may be quick to do it; feet, that
they may only run in the way of His commandments. And finally, whereas
the solemn covenant of priesthood into which Aaron and his sons had
entered with God, was sealed and ratified by the sprinkling with the
oil and the blood, so by the unction of the Holy Spirit given to
believers, and the cleansing of the conscience by the blood, is it
witnessed and certified that they are a people called out to enter
into covenant of priestly service with the God of all the earth and
the heavens.
What searching questions as to personal experience all this raises!
What solemn thoughts throng into the mind of every thoughtful reader!
All this essential, if we are to be indeed members of that royal
priesthood, who shall reign as priests of God and of Christ? Have we
then the marks, all of them? Let us not shrink from the questions, but
probe with them the innermost depths of our hearts. Have we had the
washing of regeneration? If we think that we have had this, then let
us also remember that after the washing came the investiture in white
linen. Let us ask, Have we then put on these white garments of
righteousness? All that were washed, were also clad in white; these
were their official robes, without which they could not act as priests
unto God. And there was also an anointing. Have we, in like manner,
received the anointing with the Holy Ghost, endowing us with power and
wisdom for service? Then, the sin-offering, the burnt-offering, the
peace-offering of consecration,--has the Lamb of God been used by us
in all these various ways, as our expiation, our consecration, our
peace, and our life? And has the blood which consecrates also been
applied to ear, hand, and foot? Are we consecrated in all the members
of our bodies?
What questions these are! Truly, it is no light thing to be a
Christian; to be called and consecrated to be, with and under the
great High Priest, Jesus Christ, a "priest unto God" in this life and
in that of "the first resurrection;" to deal between God and men in
matters of salvation. Have we well understood what is our "high
calling," and what the conditions on which alone we may exercise our
ministry? To this may God give us grace, for Jesus' sake. Amen.
CHAPTER XI.
_THE INAUGURATION OF THE TABERNACLE SERVICE._
LEV. ix. 1-24.
Aaron and his sons having now been solemnly consecrated to the
priestly office by the ceremonies of seven days, their formal
assumption of their daily duties in the tabernacle was marked by a
special service suited to the august occasion, signalised at its close
by the appearance of the glory of Jehovah to assembled Israel, in
token of His sanction and approval of all that had been done. It would
appear that the daily burnt-offering and meal-offering had been indeed
offered before this, from the time that the tabernacle had been set
up; in which service, however, Moses had thus far officiated. But now
that Aaron and his sons were consecrated, it was most fitting that a
service should thus be ordered which should be a complete exhibition
of the order of sacrifice as it had now been given by the Lord, and
serve, for Aaron and his sons in all after time, as a practical model
of the manner in which the divinely-given law of sacrifice should be
carried out.
The order of the day began with a very impressive lesson of the
inadequacy of the blood of beasts to take away sin. For seven
consecutive days a bullock had been offered for Aaron and his sons,
and so far as served the typical purpose, their consecration was
complete. But still Aaron and his sons needed expiating blood; for
before they could offer the sacrifices of the day for the people, they
are ordered yet again first of all to offer a sin-offering for
themselves. We read (vv. 1, 2): "And it came to pass on the eighth
day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel;
and he said unto Aaron, Take thee a bull calf for a sin offering, and
a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the
Lord."
And then Aaron was commanded (vv. 3-5): "Unto the children of Israel
thou shalt speak, saying, Take ye a he-goat for a sin offering; and a
calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt
offering; and an ox and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before
the Lord; and a meal offering mingled with oil: for to-day the Lord
appeareth unto you. And they brought that which Moses commanded before
the tent of meeting: and all the congregation drew near and stood
before the Lord."
There is little in these directions requiring explanation. Because of
the exceptional importance of the occasion, therefore, as in the
feasts of the Lord, a special sin-offering was ordered, and a
burnt-offering, besides the regular daily burnt-offering,
meal-offering, and drink-offering; and, in addition, peculiar to this
occasion, a peace-offering for the nation; which last was evidently
intended to signify that now on the basis of the sacrificial worship
and the mediation of a consecrated priesthood, Israel was privileged
to enter into fellowship with Jehovah, the Lord of the tabernacle. No
peace-offering was ordered for Aaron and his sons, as, according to
the law of the peace-offering, they would themselves take part in
that of the people. The sin-offering prescribed for the people was,
not a kid, as in King James's version, but a he-goat, which, with the
exception of the case of a sin of commission as described in chap. iv.
13, 14, appears to have been the usual victim. For the selection of
such a victim, no reason appears more probable than that assigned by
rabbinical tradition, namely, that it was intended to counteract the
tendency of the people to the worship of shaggy he-goats, referred to
in chap. xvii. 7, "They shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto
the he-goats (R.V.), after whom they go a whoring."
THE ORDER OF THE OFFERINGS.
ix. 7-21.
"And Moses said unto Aaron, Draw near unto the altar, and offer
thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make atonement for
thyself, and for the people: and offer the oblation of the
people, and make atonement for them; as the Lord commanded. So
Aaron drew near unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin
offering, which was for himself. And the sons of Aaron presented
the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and
put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at
the base of the altar: but the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul
from the liver of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar; as
the Lord commanded Moses. And the flesh and the skin he burnt
with fire without the camp. And he slew the burnt offering; and
Aaron's sons delivered unto him the blood, and he sprinkled it
upon the altar round about. And they delivered the burnt offering
unto him, piece by piece, and the head: and he burnt them upon
the altar. And he washed the inwards and the legs, and burnt them
upon the burnt offering on the altar. And he presented the
people's oblation, and took the goat of the sin offering which
was for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the
first. And he presented the burnt offering, and offered it
according to the ordinance. And he presented the meal offering,
and filled his hand therefrom, and burnt it upon the altar,
besides the burnt offering of the morning. He slew also the ox
and the ram, the sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the
people: and Aaron's sons delivered unto him the blood, and he
sprinkled it upon the altar round about, and the fat of the ox;
and of the ram, the fat tail, and that which covered the inwards,
and the kidneys, and the caul of the liver: and they put the fat
upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat upon the altar: and the
breast and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave offering before
the Lord; as Moses commanded."
Verses 7-21 detail the way in which this commandment of Moses was
carried out in the offerings, first, for Aaron and his sons, and then
for all the people; but, as the peculiarities of these several
offerings have been already explained, they need not here detain us.
That which is new, and of profound spiritual and typical meaning, is
the _order_ of the sacrifices as here enjoined; an order, which as we
learn from many Scriptures, represented what was intended to be the
permanent and invariable law. The appointed order of the offerings was
as follows: first, whenever presented, came the sin-offering, as here;
then, the burnt-offering, with its meal-offering; and last, always,
the peace-offering, with its characteristic sacrificial feast.
The significance of this order will readily appear if we consider the
distinctive meaning of each of these offerings. The sin-offering had
for its central thought, expiation of sin by the shedding of blood;
the burnt-offering, the full surrender of the person symbolised by the
victim, to God; the meal-offering, in like manner, the consecration of
the fruit of his labours; the peace-offering, sustenance of life from
God's table, and fellowship in peace and joy with God and with one
another. And the great lesson for us now from this model tabernacle
service is this: that this order is determined by a law of the
spiritual life.
So much as this, even without clear prevision of the Antitype of all
these sacrifices, the thoughtful Israelite might have discerned; and
even though the truth thus symbolised is placed before us no more in
rite and symbol, yet it abides, and ever will abide, a truth. Man
everywhere needs fellowship with God, and cannot rest without it; to
attain such fellowship is the object of all religions which recognise
the being of a God at all. Even among the heathen, we are truly told,
there are many who are feeling after God "if haply they may find Him;"
and, among ourselves in Christian lands, and even in the external
fellowship of Christian churches, there are many who with aching
hearts are seeking after an unrealised experience of peace and
fellowship with God. And yet God is "not far from any one of us;" and
the whole Scripture represents Him as longing on His part with an
incomprehensible condescension and love after fellowship with us,
desiring to communicate to us His fulness; and still so many seek and
find not!
We need not go further than this order of the offerings, and the
spiritual truth it signifies regarding the order of grace, to discover
the secret of these spiritual failures.
The peace-offering, the sacrificial feast of fellowship with God, the
joyful banqueting on the food of His table, was always, as on this
day, in order. Before this must ever come the burnt-offering. The
ritual prescribed that the peace-offering should be burnt "upon the
burnt-offering;" the presence of the burnt-offering is thus
presupposed in every acceptable peace-offering. But what if one had
ventured to ignore this divinely-appointed order, and had offered his
peace-offering to be burnt alone; can we imagine that it would have
been accepted?
These things are a parable, and not a hard one. For the burnt-offering
with its meal-offering symbolised full consecration of the person and
the works to the Lord. Remembering this, we see that the order is not
arbitrary. For, in the nature of the case, full consecration to God
must precede fellowship with God; he who would know what it is to have
God give Himself to him, must first be ready to give himself to God.
And that God should enter into loving fellowship with any one who is
holding back from loving self-surrender is not to be expected. This is
not merely an Old Testament law, still less merely a fanciful
deduction from the Mosaic symbolism; everywhere in the New Testament
is the thought pressed upon us, no longer indeed in symbol, but in
plainest language. It is taught by precept in some of the most
familiar words of the great Teacher. There is promise, for example, of
constant supply of sufficient food and raiment, fellowship with God in
temporal things; but only on condition that "we seek first the kingdom
of God, and His righteousness," shall "all these things be added unto
us" (Matt. vi. 33). There is a promise of "a hundred-fold in this
life, and in the world to come, eternal life;" but it is prefaced by
the condition of surrender of father, mother, brethren, sisters, of
houses and lands, for the Lord's sake (Matt. xix. 29). Not, indeed,
that the actual parting with these is enjoined in every case; but,
certainly, it is intended that we shall hold all at the Lord's
disposal, possessing, but "as though we possessed not;"--this is the
least that we can take out of these words.
Full consecration of the person and the works, this then is the
condition of fellowship with God; and if so many lament the lack of
the latter, it is no doubt because of the lack of the former. We often
act strangely in this matter; half unconsciously, searching, perhaps,
every corner of our life but the right one, from looking into which by
the clear light of God's Word we instinctively shrink, conscience
softly whispering that just there is something about which we have a
lurking doubt, and which therefore, if we will be fully consecrated,
we must at once give up, till we are sure that it is right, and right
for us; and for that self-denial, that renunciation unto God, we are
not ready. Is it a wonder that, if such be our experience, we lack
that blessed, joyful fellowship with the Lord, of which some tell us?
Is it not rather the chief wonder that we should wonder at the lack,
when yet we are not ready to consecrate all, body, soul, and spirit,
with all our works, unto the Lord? Let us then remember the law of the
offerings upon this point. No Israelite could have the blessed feast
of the peace-offering, except, first, the burnt-offering and the
meal-offering, symbolising full consecration, were smoking on the
altar.
But this full consecration seems to many so exceeding hard,--nay, we
may say more, to many it is utterly impossible. A consecration of some
things, especially those for which they care little, this they can
hear of; but a consecration of _all_, that the whole may be consumed
upon the altar before and unto God, this they cannot think of. Which
means--can we escape the conclusion?--that the love of God does not
yet rule supreme. How sad! and how strange! But the law of the
offerings will again declare the secret of the strange holding back
from full consecration. For it was ordained, that wherever there was
sin in the offerer, unconfessed and unforgiven, before even the
burnt-offering must go the sin-offering, expiating sin by blood
presented on the altar before God. And here we come upon another law
of the spiritual life in all ages. If fellowship with God in peace
and joy is conditioned by the full consecration of person and service
to Him, this consecration, even as a possibility for us, is in turn
conditioned by the expiation of sin through the great Sin-offering. So
long as conscience is not satisfied that the question of sin has been
settled in grace and righteousness with God, so long it is a spiritual
impossibility that the soul should come into that experience of the
love of God, manifested through atonement, which alone can lead to
full consecration.
This truth is always of vital importance; but it is, if possible, more
important than ever to insist upon it in our day, when, more and more,
the doctrine of the expiation of sin through the blood of the Lamb of
God is denied, and that, forsooth, under the claim of superior
enlightenment. Men are well pleased to hear of a burnt-offering, so
long especially as it is made to signify no more than the
self-devotement of the offerer; but for a sin-offering, much modern
theology has no place. So soon as we begin to speak of the sacrifice
of our Lord for sin in the dialect of the ancient altar--which, it
must never be forgotten, is that of Christ and His apostles--we are
told that "it would be better for the world if the Christian doctrine
of sacrifice could be presented to men apart from the old Jewish ideas
and terms, which only serve to obscure the simplicity that is in
Christ(!)" And so men, under the pretext of magnifying the love of
God, and laying a truer basis for spiritual life, in effect deny the
supreme and incomparable manifestation of that love, that God made
"Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf" (2 Cor. v. 21).
Very different is the teaching, not merely of the law of Moses, but of
the whole New Testament; which, in all it has to say of the Christian
life as proceeding from full self-surrender, ever represents this full
consecration as inspired by the believing recognition and penitent
acceptance of Christ, not merely as the great Example of perfect
consecration, but as a sin-offering, reconciling us first of all by
His death, before He saves us by His life (Rom. v. 10). The expiation
of sin by the sin-offering, before the consecration which
burnt-offering and meal-offering typify,--this is the invariable order
in both Testaments. The Apostle Paul, in his account of his own full
consecration, is in full accord with the spiritual teaching of the
Mosaic ritual when he gives this as the order. He describes himself,
and that in terms of no undue exaggeration, as so under the constraint
of the love of Christ as to seem to some beside himself; and then he
goes on to explain the secret of this consecration, in which he had
placed himself and all he had upon God's altar, as a whole
burnt-sacrifice, as consisting just in this, that he had first
apprehended the mystery of Christ's death, as a substitution so true
and real of the sinless Victim in the place of sinful men, that it
might be said that "one died for all, therefore all died;" whence he
thus judged, "that they which live should no longer live unto
themselves, but unto Him who for their sakes died and rose again" (2
Cor. v. 13-15). To the same effect is the teaching of the Apostle
John. For all true consecration springs from the thankful recognition
of the love of God; and, according to this Apostle also, the Divine
love which inspires the consecration is manifest in this, that "He
sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John iv. 10). The
apprehension, then, of the reality of the expiation made by the great
Sin-offering, and the believing appropriation of its virtue to the
cancelling of our guilt, this is the inseparable previous condition
of full consecration of person and work unto the Lord. It is so,
because only the apprehension of the need of expiation by the blood of
the Son of God, as the necessary condition of forgiveness, can give us
any adequate measure of the depth of our guilt and ruin, as God sees
it; and, on the other hand, only when we remember that God spared not
His only-begotten Son, but sent Him to become, through death upon the
cross, a propitiation for our sins, can we begin to have such an
estimate of the love of God and of Christ His Son as shall make full
consecration easy, or even possible.
Let us then, on no account, miss this lesson from the order of this
ritual; before the peace-offering, the burnt-offering; before the
burnt-offering, the sin-offering. Or, translating the symbolism,
perfect fellowship with God in peace and joy and life, only after
consecration; and the consecration only possible in fulness, and only
accepted of God, in any case, when the great Sin-offering has been
first believingly appropriated, according to God's ordination, as the
propitiation for our sins, for the cancelling of our guilt.
But there is yet more in this order of the offerings. For, as the New
Testament in every way teaches us, the Antitype of every offering was
Christ. As we have already seen, in the Sin-offering we have the type
of Christ as our propitiation, or expiation; in the burnt-offering, of
Christ as consecrating Himself unto God in our behalf; in the
meal-offering, as, in like manner, consecrating all His works in our
behalf; in the peace-offering, as imparting Himself to us as our life,
and thus bringing us into fellowship of peace and love and joy with
the Father.
Now this last is, in fact, the ultimate aim of salvation; rather,
indeed, we may say, it is salvation. For life in its fulness means the
cancelling of death; death spiritual, and bodily death also, in
resurrection from the dead; it means also perfect fellowship with the
living God, and this, attained, is heaven. Hence it must needs be that
the peace-offering which represents Christ as giving Himself to us as
our life, and introducing us into this blessed state, comes last.
But before this, in order, not of time, but of grace, as also of
logic, must be Christ as Sin-offering, and Christ as Burnt-offering.
And, first of all, Christ as Sin-offering. For God's way of peace puts
the cancelling of guilt, the satisfaction of His holy law and justice,
and therewith the restoration of our right relation to Him, first, and
in order to a holy life and fellowship; while man will ever put these
last, and regard the latter as the means to obtaining a right standing
with God. Hence, inasmuch as Christ, coming to save us, finds us under
a curse, the first thing in order is, and must be, the removal of that
curse of the holy wrath of God, against every one that "continueth not
in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them."
And so, first in order in the typical ritual is the sin-offering which
represents Christ as made "a curse for us," that He might thus redeem
us from the curse of the law (Gal. iii. 13).
But this is not a complete account of the work of our Lord for us in
the days of His flesh. His work indeed was one, but the Scriptures set
it forth in a twofold aspect. On the one hand, He is the Sinless One
bearing the curse for us; but also, in all His suffering for our sins,
He is also manifested as the Righteous One, making many righteous by
His obedience, even an obedience unto the death of the cross (Rom. v.
19; Phil. ii. 8). And if we ask what was the essence of this obedience
of our Lord for us, what was it, indeed, but that which is the essence
of all obedience to God, namely, full, unreserved, uninterrupted
consecration and self-surrender to the will of the Father? And as, by
His suffering, Christ endured the curse for us, so by all His
obedience and suffering in full submission to the will of God, He
became also "the Lord our righteousness." And this, as repeatedly
remarked, is the central thought of the burnt-offering and the
meal-offering,--full consecration of the person and the work to God.
In the sin-offering, then, we see Christ as our propitiation; in the
burnt-offering, we see Him rather as our righteousness; but the former
is presupposed in the latter; and apart from this, that in His death
He became the expiation of our sins, His obedience could have availed
us nothing. But given now Christ as our propitiation and also our
righteousness, the whole question of the relation of Christ's people
to God in law and righteousness is settled, and the way is now clear
for the communication of life which the peace-offering symbolised.
Thus, as by faith in Christ as the Sin-offering, our propitiation and
righteousness, we are "justified freely by grace," "apart from the
works of the law," so now the way is open, by the appropriation of
Christ as our life in the peace-offering, for our sanctification and
complete redemption. In a word, the law of the order of the offerings
teaches, symbolically and typically, exactly what, in Rom. vi. and
vii., the Apostle Paul teaches dogmatically, namely, that the order of
grace is first justification, then sanctification; but both by the
same crucified Christ, our propitiation, our righteousness, and our
life: in whom we come to have fellowship in all good and blessing
with the Father.
It is interesting to observe that after the analogy of this order of
the offerings, is the most usual order of the development of Christian
experience. For the awakened soul is usually first of all concerned
about the question of forgiveness of sin and acceptance; and hence,
most commonly, faith first apprehends Christ in this aspect, as the
One who "bare our sins in His body," by whose stripes we are healed;
and then, at a later period of experience, as the One who also, in
lowly consecration to the Father's will, obeyed for us, that we might
be made righteous through His obedience. But no one who is truly
justified by faith in Christ as our propitiation and righteousness,
can long rest with this. He very quickly finds what he had little
thought of before, that the evil nature abides even in the justified
and accepted believer; nay, more, that it has still a terrible
strength to overcome him and lead him into sin, even often when he
would not. And this prepares the believer, still in accord with the
law of the order of grace here set forth, to lay hold also on Christ
by faith as His Peace-offering, by feeding on whom we receive
spiritual strength, so that He thus, in a word, becomes our
sanctification and, at last, full redemption.
THE DOUBLE BENEDICTION.
ix. 22-24.
"And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed
them; and he came down from offering the sin offering, and the
burnt offering, and the peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went
into the tent of meeting, and came out, and blessed the people:
and the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people. And there
came forth fire from before the Lord, and consumed upon the
altar the burnt offering and the fat: and when all the people saw
it, they shouted, and fell on their faces."
The sacrifices having now been made, and the offerings presented in
this divinely-appointed order, by the ordained and consecrated
priesthood, two things followed: a double benediction was pronounced
upon the people, and Jehovah manifested to them His glory. We read
(ver. 22), "And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and
blessed them; and he came down from offering the sin offering, and the
burnt offering, and the peace offerings."
Presumably, the form of benediction which Aaron used was that which,
according to Numb. vi. 24-27, the priests were commanded by the Lord
to use: "The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord make His face to
shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up His
countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." It was not an empty form;
for the Lord at that time also promised Himself to make this blessing
efficient, saying thereafter, "So shall they put My Name"--Jehovah,
the name of God in covenant,--"upon the children of Israel; and I will
bless them."
So also the Lord Jesus, just before withdrawing from the bodily sight
of His disciples after the completion of His great sacrifice, "lifted
up His hands, and blessed them;" and thereupon disappeared from their
sight, ascending into heaven. Even so was it in the typical service of
this day; for when Aaron had thus lifted up his hands and blessed the
people (ver. 23), "Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting."
The work of Aaron in the outer court had been finished, and now he
disappears from Israel's sight; for he must, in like manner, be
inducted into the priestly work within the Holy Place. He must there
be shown all those things to which, in his priestly ministrations, the
blood must be applied; and, especially, must also offer the sweet
incense at the golden altar which was before the veil which enshrined
the immediate presence of Jehovah. But this offering of incense, as
all have agreed, typifies the precious and most effective intercession
of the great Antitype; so that thus it was shown in a figure, how the
Christ of God, having finished His sacrificial work in the sight of
men, and having ascended into heaven, should there for a season abide,
hidden from human sight, making intercession for His waiting people.
After an interval--we are not told how long--Moses and Aaron again
(vv. 23, 24), "came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the
Lord appeared unto all the people. And there came forth fire from
before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and
the fat: and when all the people saw it, they shouted, and fell on
their faces."
This second blessing by Moses and Aaron conjointly, followed Aaron's
reappearance to Israel, and marked the completion of these
inauguration services, the intercession within the veil, as well as
the sacrifices. And the revelation in a visible way of the glory of
the Lord added what now was alone required, the manifest attestation
by the Lord of the tabernacle of His approval of all that had been
done in these memorable eight days. This appearance of the Shekinah
glory was followed by a flash of fire which, in token of the Divine
appropriation of the sacrifices, consumed in an instant the
burnt-offering on the altar with the fat of the sin-offering and the
peace-offering, which had been laid upon it. We cannot follow here the
Jewish tradition, which has it that with this act the sacrificial
fire which was never to go out upon the altar, was originated. On the
contrary, as we have seen, the offerings had before this been made by
Moses, and even on this day the fire had been kindled before (ver. 10,
_et seq._). Nor is there any necessary inconsistency here; for we have
but to suppose that the burning of the sacrifices which had been
kindled by Aaron was not yet complete, when the flash from the cloud
of glory in an instant consummated the burning, teaching in a most
august and impressive manner the symbolic meaning of the burning of
the sacrifices on the altar, as signifying the acceptance and
appropriation of that which was offered, by the Lord who had commanded
all, and thereby endorsing all that had been done, as according to His
mind and will.
And even so, according to the sure Word of prophecy, our heavenly High
Priest has yet in reserve for His people a second benediction. His
first blessing upon leaving the world was followed by Pentecost; the
second, on His reappearing, shall bring in resurrection and full
salvation. And in that day, when He "shall appear a second time, apart
from sin, to them that wait for Him unto salvation" (Heb. ix. 28),
therewith shall appear the glory which on that day, long ago, appeared
to Israel; for He "shall come in the glory of His Father," and thus
shall God, the Most High and the Most Holy, testify before the
universe His gracious acceptance of the service of the true Aaron and
His "many sons," the priestly people of God, through all the Christian
ages. Thus, the services and events of that day of induction, in their
order from beginning to end, were not only a parable of the order of
grace, but also, as it were, a typical epitome of the whole work of
redemption. They are thus a prophecy that the work which began when
Christ made His soul an offering for sin, and to perfect which He is
now withdrawn from our sight for a season, shall be consummated at
last by His reappearing in glory for the final blessing of His waiting
people.
And if we look at other and subordinate aspects of this inauguration
service, we shall still find this sequel of all, no less richly
suggestive. Expiation, righteousness, fellowship in peace with God,
shall bring with it the blessing of the Lord, and finally issue in the
revelation of His glory in the sight of all who accept this great
redemption through sacrifice. And so also in the personal life. As the
trustful acceptance and use of the appointed Sin-offering leads to the
consecration of the person and the life, and as by this consecration
we come into conscious fellowship with God in joy and peace, as we
feed on the flesh of the slain Lamb, so, as the blessed result, unto
every true believer, according to the measure of his faith, this is
followed by the double benediction of the Lord; one for this life, and
a larger, for the life which is to come. The Lord blesses him, and
keeps him: the Lord makes His face to shine upon him, and is gracious
unto him: the Lord lifts up His countenance upon him, and gives him
peace, according to that word of the great High Priest: "Peace I leave
with you; My peace I give unto you" (John xiv. 27). And then, after
the present peace, is yet to follow, as the final issue of the
expiated sin, and the consecrated life, and fellowship in peace with
the God of life and love, the beholding of the glory of the Lord;
according to that high-priestly prayer of our Redeemer, "That which
Thou hast given Me, I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me:
that they may behold My glory" (John xvii. 24). Even here some know a
little of this, and find that expiated sin and full consecration are
followed here and now by bright glimpses of the glory of the Lord. But
what is now seen thus in part shall then be seen fully and face to
face. Who would not make sure of that beatific vision of the glory of
the Lord?
CHAPTER XII.
_NADAB'S AND ABIHU'S "STRANGE FIRE."_
LEV. x. 1-20.
The solemn and august ceremonies of the consecration of the priests
and the tabernacle, and the inauguration of the tabernacle service,
had a sad and terrible termination. The sacrifices of the inauguration
day had been completed, the congregation had received the priestly
benediction, the glory of Jehovah had appeared unto the people, and,
in token of His acceptance of all that had been done, consumed the
victims on the altar. This manifestation of the glory of the Lord so
affected the people--as well it might--that when they saw it, "they
shouted, and fell on their faces." It was, probably, under the
influence of the excitement of this occasion that (vv. 1, 2), "Nadab
and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put
fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire
before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth
fire from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the
Lord."
There has been no little speculation as to what it was, precisely,
which they did. Some will have it, that they lighted their incense,
not from the altar fire, but elsewhere. As to this, while it is not
easy to prove that to light the incense at the altar fire was an
invariable requirement, yet it is certain that this was commanded for
the great day of atonement (xvi. 12); and also, that when Moses
offered incense in connection with the plague which broke out upon the
rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Moses commanded him to take
the fire for the censer from off the altar (Numb. xvi. 46); so that,
perhaps this is not unlikely to have been one element, at least, in
their offence. Others, again, have thought that their sin lay in this,
that they offered their incense at a time not commanded in the order
of worship which God had just prescribed; and this, too, may very
probably have been another element in their sin, for it is certain
that the divinely-appointed order of worship for the day had been
already completed. Yet again, others have supposed that they rashly
and without Divine warrant pressed within the veil, into the immediate
presence of the Shekinah glory of God, to offer their incense there.
For this, too, there is evidence, in the fact that the institution of
the great annual day of atonement, and the prohibition of entrance
within the veil at any other time, even to the high priest himself, is
said to have followed "after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when
they drew near before the Lord, and died" (xvi. 1, 2).
It is perfectly possible, and even likely, that all these elements
were combined in their offence. In any case, the gravamen of their sin
is expressed in these words; they offered "fire which the Lord had not
commanded them:" offered it, either in a way not commanded, or at a
time not commanded, or in a place not commanded; or, perhaps, in each
and all of these ways, offered "fire which the Lord had not
commanded." This was their sin, and one which brought instant and
terrible judgment.
It is easy enough to believe that yet they meant well in what they
did. It probably seemed to them the right thing to do. After such a
stupendous display as they had just witnessed, of the flaming glory of
Jehovah, why should they not, in token of reverence and adoration,
offer incense, even in the most immediate presence of Jehovah? And why
should such minor variations from the appointed law, as to manner, or
time, or place, matter very much, so the motive was worship? So may
they probably have reasoned, if indeed they thought at all. But,
nevertheless, this made no difference; all the same, "fire came forth
from Jehovah, and devoured them." They had been but so lately
consecrated! and--as we learn from ver. 5--their priestly robes were
on them at the time, in token of their peculiar privilege of special
nearness to God! But this, too, made no difference; "there came forth
fire from before the Lord and devoured them."
Their sin, in the form in which it was committed, can never be
repeated; but as regards its inner nature and essence, no sin has been
in all ages more common. For the essence of their sin was this, that
it was will-worship; worship in which they consulted not the revealed
will of God regarding the way in which He would be served, but their
own fancies and inclinations. The directions for worship had been, as
we have seen, exceedingly full and explicit; but they apparently
imagined that the fragrance of their incense, and its intrinsic
suitableness as a symbol of adoration and prayer, was sufficient to
excuse neglect of strict obedience to the revealed will of God
touching His own worship. Their sin was not unlike that of Saul in a
later day, who thought to excuse disobedience by the offering of
enormous sacrifices. But he was sharply reminded that "to obey is
better than sacrifice" (1 Sam. xv. 22); and the priesthood were in
like manner on this occasion very terribly taught that obedience is
also better than incense, even the incense of the sanctuary.
In all ages, men have been prone to commit this sin, and in ours as
much as any. It is true that in the present dispensation the Lord has
left more in His worship than in earlier days to the sanctified
judgment of His people, and has not minutely prescribed details for
our direction. It is true, again, that there is, and always will be,
room for some difference of judgment among good and loyal servants of
the Lord, as to how far the liberty left us extends. But we are
certainly all taught as much as this, that wherever we are not clear
that we have a Divine warrant for what we do in the worship of God, we
need to be exceeding careful, and to act with holy fear, lest
possibly, like Nadab and Abihu, we be chargeable with offering
"strange fire," which the Lord has not commanded. And when one goes
into many a church and chapel, and sees the multitude of remarkable
devices by which, as is imagined, the worship and adoration of God is
furthered, it must be confessed that it certainly seems as if the
generation of Nadab and Abihu was not yet extinct; even although a
patient God, in the mystery of His long-suffering, flashes not
instantly forth His vengeance.
This then is the first lesson of this tragic occurrence. We have to do
with a God who is very jealous; who will be worshipped as He wills, or
not at all. Nor can we complain. If God be such a Being as we are
taught in the Holy Scripture, it must be His inalienable right to
determine and prescribe how He will be served.
And it is a second lesson, scarcely less evident, that with God,
intention of good, though it palliate, cannot excuse disobedience
where He has once made known His will. No one can imagine that Nadab
and Abihu meant wrong; but for all that, for their sin they died.
Again, we are herein impressively taught that, with God, high position
confers no immunity when a man sins; least of all, high position in
the Church. On the contrary, the greater the exaltation in spiritual
honour and privilege, the more strictly will a man be held to account
for every failure to honour Him who exalted him. We have seen this
illustrated already by the law of the sin-offering; and this tragic
story illustrates the same truth again.
But the question naturally arises, How could these men, who had been
so exalted in privilege, who had even beheld the glory of the God of
Israel in the holy mount (Exod. xxiv. 1, 9, 10), have ventured upon
such a perilous experiment? The answer is probably suggested by the
warning which immediately followed their death (vv. 8, 9): "The Lord
spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink, ... when ye
go into the tent of the meeting, that ye die not." It is certainly
distinctly hinted by these words, that it was under the excitement of
strong drink that these men so fatally sinned.
If so, then, although their sin may not be repeated in its exact form
among us, yet the fact points a very solemn warning, not only
regarding the careless use of strong drink, but, more than that,
against all religious worship and activity which is inspired by other
stimulus than by the Holy Spirit of God. Of this every age of the
Church's history has furnished sad examples. Sometimes we see it
illustrated in "revivals," even in such as may be marked by some
evidence of the presence of the Spirit of God; when injudicious
speakers seek by various methods to work up what is, after all, merely
a physical excitement of a strange, infectious kind, though too often
mistaken for the work of the Holy Spirit of God. More subtle and yet
more common is the sin of such as in preaching the Word find their
chief stimulation in the excitement of a crowded house, or the visible
signs of approbation on the part of the hearers; and perhaps sometimes
mistake the natural effect of this influence for the quickening power
of the Holy Ghost, and go on to offer before the Lord the incense of
their religious service and worship, but with "strange fire." Of this
all need to beware; and most of all, ministers of the Word.
The penalty of sin is often long delayed, but it did not lag in this
case. The strange fire in the hands of Nadab and Abihu was met by a
flash of flame that instantly withered their life; and, just as they
were, their priestly robes upon them unconsumed, their censers in
their hands, they dropped dead before the fatal bolt.
In reading this account and other similar narratives in Holy
Scripture, of the deadly outbreak of God's wrath, many have felt not a
little disquieted in mind because of the terrific severity of the
judgment, which to them seems so out of all proportion to the guilt of
the offender. And so, in many hearts, and even to many lips, the
question has perforce arisen: Is it possible to believe that in this
passage, for instance, we have a true representation of the character
of God? In answering such a question we ought always to remember,
first of all, that, apart from our imperfect knowledge, just because
we all are sinners, we are, by that fact, all more or less
disqualified and incapacitated for forming a correct and unbiassed
judgment regarding the demerit of sin. It is quite certain that every
sinful man is naturally inclined to take a lenient view of the guilt
of sin, and, by necessary consequence, of its desert in respect of
punishment. In approaching this question, here and elsewhere in God's
Word, it is imperative that we keep this fact in mind.
Again, it is not unnecessary to remark, that we must be careful and
not read into this narrative what, in fact, is not here. For it is
often assumed without evidence, that when we read in the Bible of men
being suddenly cut off by death for some special sin, we are therefore
required to believe that the temporal judgment of physical death must
have been followed, in each instance, by the judgment of the eternal
fire. But always to infer this in such cases, when, as here, nothing
of the kind is hinted in the text, is a great mistake, and introduces
a difficulty which is wholly of our own making. That sometimes, at
least, the facts are quite the opposite, is expressly certified to us
in 1 Cor. xi. 30-32, where we are told that among the Christians of
Corinth, many, because of their irreverent approach to the Holy Supper
of the Lord, slept the sleep of death; but that these judgments from
the Lord, of bodily death, instead of being necessarily intended for
their eternal destruction, were sent that they might not finally
perish. For the Apostle's words are most explicit; for it is with
reference to these cases of sickness and death of which he had spoken,
that he adds (ver. 32): "But when we are (thus) judged, we are
chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world."
What we have here before us, then, is not the question of the eternal
condemnation of Nadab and Abihu for their thoughtless, though perhaps
not so intended, profanation of God's worship,--a point on which the
narrative gives us no information,--but, simply and only, the
inflicting on them, for this sin, of the judgment of temporal death.
And if this yet seem to some undue severity, as no doubt it will,
there remain other considerations which deserve to have great weight
here. In the first place, if this reveal God as terribly severe in His
judgment, even upon what, compared with other crimes, may seem a small
sin, we have to remember that, after all, this God of the Bible, this
Jehovah of the Old Testament, is only herein revealed as in this
respect like the God whose working we see in nature and in history.
Was the God of Nadab and Abihu a severe God? Is not the God of nature
a terribly severe God? Who then is it that has so appointed the
economy of nature that even for one thoughtless indulgence by a young
man, he shall be racked with pain all his life thereafter? It is a law
of nature, one says. But what is a law of nature but the ordinary
operation of the Divine Being who made nature? So let us not forget
that the reasoning which, because of the confessed severity of this
judgment on the sons of Aaron, argues God out of the tenth of
Leviticus, and refuses to believe that this can be a revelation of His
mind and character, by parity of reasoning must go on to argue God out
of nature and out of history. But if one be not yet ready for the
latter, let him take heed how he too hastily decide on this ground
against the verity of the history and the truth of the revelation in
the case before us.
Then, again, we need to be careful that we pass not judgment before
considering all that was involved in this act of sin. We cannot look
upon the case as if the act of Nadab and Abihu had been merely a
private matter, personal to themselves alone. This it was not, and
could not be. They did what they did in their official robes;
moreover, it was a peculiarly public act: it took place before the
sanctuary, where all the people were assembled. What was the influence
of this their act, if it passed unrebuked and unpunished, likely to
be? History shows that nothing was more inbred in the nature of the
people than just this tendency to will-worship. For centuries after
this, notwithstanding many like terrible judgments, it mightily
prevailed, taking the form of numberless attempted improvements on the
arrangements of worship appointed by God, and introducing, under such
pretexts of expediency often the grossest idolatry. And although the
Babylonian judgment made an end of the idolatrous form of
will-worship, the old tendency persisted, and worked on under a new
form till, as we learn from our Lord's words in the Gospel, the people
were in His day utterly overwhelmed with "heavy burdens and grievous
to be borne," rabbinical additions to the law, attempted improvements
on Moses, under pretext of honouring Moses, all begotten of this same
inveterate spirit of will-worship. Nor are such things of little
consequence, as some seem to imagine, whether we find them among Jews
or in Christian communions. On the contrary, all will-worship, in all
its endless variety of forms, tends to confuse conscience, by
confounding with the commandments of God the practices and traditions
of men; and all history, no less of the Church than of Israel, shows
that the tendency of all such will-worship is to the subversion alike
of morality religion, occasioning, too often, total misapprehension
as to what indeed is the essence of religion well pleasing to God.
Was the sin of the priests, Nadab and Abihu, then, committed in such a
public manner, such a trifling matter after all? And when we further
remember the peculiar circumstances of the occasion,--that the whole
ceremonial of the day was designed in a special manner to instruct the
people as to the manner in which Jehovah, their King and their God,
would be worshipped,--it certainly is not so hard, after all, to see
how it was almost imperative that in the very beginning of Israel's
national history, God should give them a lesson on the sanctity of His
ordinances and His hatred of will-worship, which should be remembered
to all time.
The solemn lesson of the terrible judgment, Moses, as Prophet and
Interpreter of God's will to the people, declares in these words (ver.
3): "This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in
them that come nigh Me, and before all the people I will be
glorified."
If God separate a people to be specially near unto Him, it is that,
admitted to such special nearness to Himself, they shall ever
reverently recognise His transcendent exaltation in holiness, and take
care that He be ever glorified in them before all men. But if any be
careless of this, God will nevertheless not be defrauded. If they will
recognise His august holiness, in the reverence of loyal service,
well; God shall thus glorify Himself in them before all. But if
otherwise, still God will be glorified in them before all people,
though now in their chastisement and in retribution. The principle is
that which is announced by Amos (iii. 2): "You only have I known of
all the families of the earth; _therefore_ I will visit upon you all
your iniquities." And when we remember that the sons of Aaron
typically represent the whole body of believers in Christ, as a
priestly people, it is plain that the warning of this judgment comes
directly home to us all. If, as Christians, we have been brought into
a relation of special nearness and privilege with God, we have to
remember that the place of privilege is, in this case, a place of
peculiar danger. If we forget the reverence and honour due to His
name, and insist on will-worship of any kind, we shall in some way
suffer for it. God may wink at the sins of others, but not at ours. He
is a God of love, and desires not our death, but that He may be
glorified in our life; but if any will not have it so, He will not be
robbed of His glory. Hence the warning of the Apostle Peter, who was
so filled with these Old Testament conceptions of God and His worship:
"It is written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy. And if ye call on Him
as Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to each
man's work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear" (1 Peter i. 17).
Ver. 3: "And Aaron held his peace."
For rebellion were useless; nay, it had been madness. Even the
tenderest natural affection must be silent when God smites for sin;
and in this case the sin was so manifest, and the connection therewith
of the judgment so evident, that Aaron could say nothing, though his
heart must have been breaking.
MOURNING IN SILENCE.
x. 4-7.
"And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the
uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Draw near, carry your
brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. So they drew
near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses
had said. And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto
Ithamar, his sons, Let not the hair of your heads go loose,
neither rend your clothes; that ye die not, and that He be not
wroth with all the congregation: but let your brethren, the whole
house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled.
And ye shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting,
lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And
they did according to the word of Moses."
Even in ordinary cases, restrictions were placed upon Aaron and his
sons as regards the outward signs of mourning; but exceptions were
made in the case of the nearest relations, and, in particular, of the
death of a son, or a brother (chap. xxi. 2). In this case, however,
this permission could not be given; and they are warned that by public
expressions of grief they would not only bring death from the Lord
upon themselves, but also bring His wrath upon the whole congregation
which they represented before God. They are not indeed forbidden to
mourn in their hearts, but from all the outward and customary signs of
mourning they must abstain. And the reason for this is given; "The
anointing oil of the Lord is upon you." That is, by the anointing they
had been set apart to represent God before Israel. Hence, when God had
thus manifested His holy wrath against sin, for them to have exhibited
the public signs of mourning for this, even though the stroke of wrath
had fallen into their own family, would have been a visible
contradiction between their actions and their priestly position. To
others, indeed, these outward tokens of mourning are expressly
permitted, for they stood in no such special relation to God; their
brethren, "the whole house of Israel," might bewail the burning which
the Lord had kindled, but they, although nearest of kin to the dead,
are not permitted even to follow the slain of the Lord to the grave,
and (vv. 4, 5) the sad duty is assigned to their cousins, who bear the
dead, in their white priestly robes, just as they had fallen, out of
the camp to burial, while Aaron and his sons mourn silently within the
tent of meeting.
This has seemed hard to many, and has furnished some another
illustration of the hardness and severity of the character of God as
held up in the Pentateuch. But we shall do well to remember that in
all this we have nothing which in any respect goes beyond the very
solemn words of the tender-hearted and most compassionate Saviour, who
said, for example, "If any man cometh unto Me, and hateth not his own
father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters,
... he cannot be My disciple" (Luke xiv. 26). In language such as
this, we cannot but recognise the same character as in this command
unto Aaron and his sons; and if such "hard sayings" are to be held
reason for rejecting the revelation of the character of God as given
in the Old Testament, the same logic, in the presence of similar
words, will require us also to reject the revelation of God's
character as given by Christ in the New Testament.
The teaching of both Testaments on this matter is plain. Natural
affection is right; it is indeed implanted in our hearts by the God
who made us in all our human relations. But none the less, whenever
the feelings which belong even to the nearest and tenderest earthly
relations come into conflict with absolute fealty and submission to
the will of God, and unswerving loyalty to the will of Christ, then,
hard though indeed it may be, natural affection must give way, and
mourn within the tent in the silence of a holy submission to the
Lord.
CAREFULNESS AFTER JUDGMENT.
x. 8-20.
"And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong
drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of
meeting, that ye die not: it shall be a statute for ever
throughout your generations: and that ye may put difference
between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the
clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the
statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of
Moses. And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto
Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meal offering that
remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it
without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: and ye
shall eat it in a holy place, because it is thy due, and thy
sons' due, of the offerings of the Lord made by fire: for so I am
commanded. And the wave breast and the heave thigh shall ye eat
in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with
thee: for they are given as thy due, and thy sons' due, out of
the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the children of Israel.
The heave thigh and the wave breast shall they bring with the
offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering
before the Lord: and it shall be thine, and thy sons' with thee,
as a due for ever; as the Lord hath commanded. And Moses
diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it
was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the
sons of Aaron that were left, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten
the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most
holy, and He hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the
congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold,
the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye
should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.
And Aaron spake unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered
their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and
there have befallen me such things as these: and if I had eaten
the sin offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing in the
sight of the Lord? And when Moses heard that, it was
well-pleasing in his sight."
Such a judgment as the foregoing ought to have had a good effect, and
it did. This appeared in renewed carefulness to secure the most exact
obedience hereafter in all their official duties. To this end, the
Lord Himself now laid down a law evidently designed to preclude, as
far as possible, every risk of any such fault in the priestly service
as might again bring down judgment. It is not only holiness, but
considerate and anxious love, which speaks in the next words,
addressed to Aaron (vv. 8, 9): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou,
nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye
die not: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations."
And for this prohibition the reason is given (vv. 10, 11): "That ye
may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the
unclean and the clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel
all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of
Moses."
It was not then that the use of wine was in itself sinful; for this is
taught nowhere in the Old or New Testament, and as a doctrine of
religion is characteristic, not of Judaism or Christianity, but only
of Mohammedanism, of Buddhism and other heathen religions. The ground
of this command of abstinence, as of the New Testament counsel (Rom.
xiv. 20, 21), is that of expediency. Because, in the use of wine or
strong drink, there was involved a certain risk, that by undue
indulgence the judgment might be confused or the memory weakened, so
that something might be done amiss; therefore the priests, who were
specially commissioned to teach the statutes of the Lord to Israel,
and this most of all, by their own carefulness to obey all the least
of His commandments, are here warned to abstain whenever about
engaging in their official duties. As suggested above, it is at least
very natural to infer, from the historical setting of this
prohibition, that the fatal offence of Nadab and Abihu was occasioned
by such an indulgence in wine or strong drink as made it possible for
impulse to get the better of knowledge and judgment.
But, however this may be, the lesson for us abides the same; a lesson
which each one according to his circumstances must faithfully apply to
his own case. For the Christian it is not enough that he shall abstain
from what is in its own nature always sinful; it must be the law of
our life that we abstain also from whatever may needlessly become
occasion of sin. In this we cannot, indeed, lay down a universal code
of law. Heathen reformers have done this, and their imitators in the
Church, but never Christ or His Apostles. And this with reason. For
that which for one carries with it inevitable risk of sin, is not
always fraught with the same danger to another person with a different
temperament, or even to the same person under different circumstances.
In each instance we must judge for ourselves, taking heed not to abuse
our liberty to another's harm; and also, on the other hand, being
careful how we judge others in regard to things which in their
essential nature are neither right nor wrong. But we shall be wise to
recognise the fact that it is just in such things that many Christians
do most harm, both to their own souls and to those of others. And in
regard to the drinking of wine in particular, one must be blind indeed
not to perceive it to be the fact that, whatever the reason may be,
the English-speaking peoples seem to be peculiarly susceptible to the
danger of undue indulgence in wine and strong drink. On both sides of
the Atlantic, drunkenness must be set down as one of the most
prevalent national sins.
In deciding the question of personal duty in this and like cases, all
believers are bound, as the Lord's priestly people, to remember that
He has appointed them that they should walk before Him as a separated
people, who, by their daily walk, above all, are to teach others to
"put a difference between holy and common, and unclean and clean, and
to observe all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken."
In vv. 12-15 we have a repetition of the commandments previously
given, concerning the use to be made of the meal-offering and the
peace-offering. From this it appears that Moses himself, in view of
the tragic occurrence of the day, was stirred up to charge Aaron and
his sons anew on matters on which he had already commanded them. And
with this intensified care on his part is evidently connected the
incident recorded in the verses which follow, where we read that,
having repeated the directions as to the meal-offering and the
peace-offering (vv. 16, 17), "Moses diligently sought the goat of the
sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar
and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, saying, Wherefore
have ye not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary,
seeing it is most holy, and He hath given it you to bear the iniquity
of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?"
It had indeed been commanded, in the case of those sin-offerings of
which the blood was brought into the holy place, that their flesh
should not be eaten; but that the flesh of all others should be eaten,
as belonging to the class of things "most holy," by the priests alone
within the Holy Place. Hence Moses continued (ver. 18): "Behold, the
blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye should
certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded."
What had been done, as it appears, had been done with Aaron's
knowledge and sanction; for Aaron then answered in behalf of his sons
(ver. 19): "Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and
their burnt offering before the Lord; and there have befallen me such
things as these: and if I had eaten the sin offering to-day, would it
have been well-pleasing in the sight of the Lord?"
Of which answer, the intention seems to have been this. In this day of
special exaltation and privilege, when for the first time they had
performed their solemn priestly duties, when most of all there should
have been the utmost care to please the Lord in the very smallest
things, His holy Name had been profaned by the will-worship of his
sons, and the wrath of God had broken out against them, and, in them,
against their father's house. Could it be the will of God that a house
in which was found the guilt of such a sin, should yet partake of the
most holy things of God in the sanctuary?
From this it appears that the judgment sent into the house of Aaron
had had a most wholesome spiritual effect. They had received such an
impression of their own profound sinfulness as they had never had
before. And it is very instructive to observe that they assume to
themselves a part in the sinfulness which had been shown in the sin of
Nadab and Abihu. It did not occur to Aaron or his remaining sons to
say, in the spirit of Israel in the day of our Lord, "If we had been
in their place, we would not have done so." Rather their consciences
had been so awakened to the holiness of God and their own inborn evil,
that they coupled themselves with the others as under the displeasure
of God. Was it possible, even though they personally had not sinned,
that such as they should eat that which was most holy unto God? They
had thus in the letter disobeyed the law; but because their offence
was begotten of a misapprehension, and only showed how deeply and
thoroughly they had taken to heart the lesson of the sore judgment, we
read that "when Moses heard" their explanation, "it was well pleasing
in his sight."
All this which followed the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and the judgment
which fell on them, and thus upon the whole house of Aaron, is a most
instructive illustration of the working of the chastising judgments of
the Lord, when rightly received. Its effect was to awaken the utmost
solicitude that nothing else might be found about the tabernacle
service, even through oversight, which was not according to the mind
of God; and, in those immediately stricken, to produce a very profound
sense of personal sinfulness and unworthiness before God. The New
Testament gives us a graphic description of this effect of the
chastisement of God on the believer, in the account which we have of
the result of the discipline which the Apostle Paul inflicted on the
sinning member of the Church of Corinth; concerning which he afterward
wrote to them (2 Cor. vii. 11): "Behold, this selfsame thing, that ye
were made sorry after a godly sort, what earnest care it wrought in
you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea,
what fear, yea, what longing, yea, what zeal, yea, what avenging!"
A good test is this, which, when we have passed under the chastising
hand of God, we may well apply to ourselves: this "earnest care," this
"clearing of ourselves," this holy fear of a humbled heart,--have we
known what it means? If so, though we sorrow, we may yet rejoice that
by grace we are enabled to sorrow "after a godly sort," with "a
repentance which bringeth no regret."
CHAPTER XIII.
_THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT._
LEV. xvi. 1-34.
In the first verse of chapter xvi., which ordains the ceremonial for
the great annual day of atonement, we are told that this ordinance was
delivered by the Lord to Moses "after the death of the two sons of
Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and died."[19] Because of
the close historical connection thus declared between this chapter and
chapter x., and also because in this ordinance the Mosaic sacrificial
worship, which has been the subject of the book thus far, finds its
culmination, it seems most satisfactory to anticipate the order of the
book by taking up at this point the exposition of this chapter, before
proceeding in chapter xi. to a wholly different subject.
[19] The interposition of chapters xi.-xv. on ceremonial
uncleanness, between chapters x. and xvi., which are so closely
connected by this historical note in xvi. 1, certainly suggests
an editorial redaction--as the phrase is--in which the latter
chapter, for whatsoever reason, has been removed from its
original context. But that such a redaction, of which we have in
the book other traces, does not of necessity affect in the
slightest degree the question of its inspiration and Divine
authority, should be self-evident.
This ordinance of the day of atonement was perhaps the most important
and characteristic in the whole Mosaic legislation. In the law of the
offerings, the most distinctive part was the law of the sin-offering;
and it was on the great annual day of atonement that the conceptions
embodied in the sin-offering obtained their most complete development.
The central place which this day occupied in the whole system of
sacred times is well illustrated in that it is often spoken of by the
rabbis, without any more precise designation, as simply "_Yomà_," "The
Day." It was "_the_ day" because, on this day, the idea of sacrificial
expiation and the consequent removal of all sin, essential to the life
of peace and fellowship with God, which was set forth imperfectly, as
regards individuals and the nation, by the daily sin-offerings,
received the highest possible symbolical expression. It is plain that
countless sins and transgressions and various defilements must yet
have escaped unrecognised as such, even by the most careful and
conscientious Israelite; and that, for this reason, they could not
have been covered by any of the daily offerings for sin. Hence, apart
from this full, solemn, typical purgation and cleansing of the
priesthood and the congregation, and the holy sanctuary, from the
uncleannesses and transgressions of the children of Israel, "even all
their sins" (ver. 16), the sacrificial system had yet fallen short of
expressing in adequate symbolism the ideal of the complete removal of
all sin. With abundant reason then do the rabbis regard it as the day
of days in the sacred year.
It is insisted by the radical criticism of our day that the general
sense of sin and need of expiation which this ordinance expresses
could not have existed in the days of Moses; and that since, moreover,
the later historical books of the Old Testament contain no reference
to the observance of the day, therefore its origin must be attributed
to the days of the restoration from Babylon, when, as such critics
suppose, the deeper sense of sin, developed by the great judgment of
the Babylonian captivity and exile, occasioned the elaboration of this
ritual.
To this one might reply that the objection rests upon an assumption
which the Christian believer cannot admit, that the ordinance was
merely a product of the human mind. But if, as our Lord constantly
taught, and as the chapter explicitly affirms, the ordinance was a
matter of Divine, supernatural revelation, then naturally we shall
expect to find in it, not man's estimate of the guilt of sin, but
God's, which in all ages is the same.
But, meeting such objectors on their own ground, we need not go into
the matter further than to refer to the high authority of Dillmann,
who declares this theory of the post-exilian origin of this
institution to be "absolutely incredible;" and in reply to the
objection that the day is not alluded to in the whole Old Testament
history, justly adds that this argument from silence would equally
forbid us to assign the origin of the ordinance to the days of the
return from Babylon, or any of the pre-Christian centuries! for "one
would then have to maintain that the festival first arose in the first
Christian century; since only out of that age do we first have any
explicit testimonies concerning it."[20]
[20] "Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 525.
Again, the first verse of the chapter gives as the occasion of the
promulgation of this law, "the death of the two sons of Aaron," Nadab
and Abihu, "when they drew near before the Lord and died;" a
historical note which is perfectly natural if we have here a narrative
dating from Mosaic days, but which seems most objectless and unlikely
to have been entered, if the law were a late invention of rabbinical
forgers. On that occasion it was, as we read (v. 2), that "the Lord
said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all
times into the holy place within the veil, before the mercy-seat which
is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon
the mercy-seat."
Into this place of Jehovah's most immediate earthly manifestation,
even Aaron is to come only once a year, and then only with atoning
blood, as hereinafter prescribed.
The object of the whole service of this day is represented as
atonement; expiation of sin, in the highest and fullest sense then
possible. It is said to be appointed to make atonement for Aaron and
for his house (ver. 6), for the holy place, and for the tent of
meeting (vv. 15-17); for the altar of burnt-offering in the outer
court (vv. 18, 19); and for all the congregation of Israel (vv. 20-22,
33); and this, not merely for such sins of ignorance as had been
afterward recognised and acknowledged in the ordinary sin-offerings of
each day, but for "_all_ the iniquities of the children of Israel, and
_all_ their transgressions, even all their sins:" even such as were
still unknown to all but God (ver. 21). The fact of such an ordinance
for such a purpose taught a most impressive lesson of the holiness of
God and the sinfulness of man, on the one hand, and, on the other, the
utter insufficiency of the daily offerings to cleanse from all sin.
Day by day these had been offered in each year; and yet, as we read
(Heb. ix. 8, 9), the Holy Ghost this signified by this ordinance,
"that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made manifest;" it
was "a parable for the time now present;" teaching that the temple
sacrifices of Judaism could not "as touching the conscience, make the
worshipper perfect" (Heb. ix. 9). We may well reverse the judgment of
the critics, and say--not that the deepened sense of sin in Israel was
the cause of the day of atonement; but rather, that the solemn
observances of this day, under God, were made for many in Israel a
most effective means to deepen the conviction of sin.
The time which was ordained for this annual observance is
significant--the tenth day of the seventh month. It was appointed for
the seventh month, as the sabbatic month, in which all the related
ideas of rest in God and with God, in the enjoyment of the blessings
of a now complete redemption, received in the great feast of
tabernacles their fullest expression. It was therefore appointed for
that month, and for a day which shortly preceded this greatest of the
annual feasts, to signify in type the profound and most vital truth,
that the full joy of the sabbatic rest of man with God, and the
ingathering of the fruits of complete redemption, is only possible
upon condition of repentance and the fullest possible expiation for
sin. It was appointed for the tenth day of this month, no doubt,
because in the Scripture symbolism the number ten is the symbol of
completeness; and was fitly thus connected with a service which
signified expiation completed for the sins of the year.
* * * * *
The observances appointed for the day had regard, first, to the
people, and, secondly, to the tabernacle service. As for the former,
it was commanded (ver. 29) that they should "do no manner of work,"
observing the day as a _Sabbath Sabbathon_, "a high Sabbath," or
"Sabbath of solemn rest" (ver. 31); and, secondly, that they should
"afflict their souls" (ver. 31), namely, by solemn fasting, in
visible sign of sorrow and humiliation for sin. By which it was most
distinctly taught, that howsoever complete atonement may be, and
howsoever, in making that atonement through a sacrificial victim, the
sinner himself have no part, yet apart from his personal repentance
for his sins, that atonement shall profit him nothing; nay, it was
declared (xxiii. 29), that if any man should fail on this point, God
would cut him off from his people. The law abides as regards the
greater sacrifice of Christ; except we repent, we shall, even because
of that sacrifice, only the more terribly perish; because not even
this supreme exhibition of the holy love and justice of God has moved
us to renounce sin.
As regards the tabernacle service for the day, the order was as
follows. First, as most distinctive of the ritual of the day, only the
high-priest could officiate. The other priests, who, on other
occasions, served continually in the holy place, must on this day,
during these ceremonies, leave it to him alone; taking their place,
themselves as sinners for whom also atonement was to be made, with the
sinful congregation of their brethren. For it was ordered (ver. 17):
"There shall be no man in the tent of meeting when the high priest
goeth in to make atonement in the holy place, until he come out," and
the work of atonement be completed.
And the high priest could himself officiate only after certain
significant preparations. First (ver. 4), he must "bathe in water" his
whole person. The word used in the original is different from that
which is used of the partial washings in connection with the daily
ceremonial cleansings; and, most suggestively, the same complete
washing is required as that which was ordered in the law for the
consecration of the priesthood, and for cleansing from leprosy and
other specific defilements. Thus was expressed, in the clearest manner
possible, the thought, that the high priest, who shall be permitted to
draw near to God in the holiest place, and there prevail with Him,
must himself be wholly pure and clean.
Then, having bathed, he must robe himself in a special manner for the
service of this day. He must lay aside the bright-coloured "garments
for glory and beauty" which he wore on all other occasions, and put
on, instead, a vesture of pure, unadorned white, like that of the
ordinary priest; excepting only that for him, on this day, unlike
them, the girdle also must be white. By this substitution of these
garments for his ordinary brilliant robes was signified, not merely
the absolute purity which the white linen symbolised, but especially
also, by the absence of adornment, humiliation for sin. On this day he
was thus made in outward appearance essentially like unto the other
members of his house, for whose sin, together with his own, he was to
make atonement.
Thus washed and robed, wearing on his white turban the golden crown
inscribed "Holiness to Jehovah" (Exod. xxviii. 38), he now took (vv.
3, 5-7), as a sin-offering for himself and for his house, a bullock;
and for the congregation, "two he-goats for a sin offering;" with a
ram for himself, and one for them, for a burnt offering. The two goats
were set "before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting." The
bullock was the offering before prescribed for the sin-offering for
the high priest (iv. 3), as being the most valuable of all sacrificial
victims. For the choice of the goats many reasons have been given,
none of which seem wholly satisfactory. Both of the goats are equally
declared (ver. 5) to be "for a sin offering;" yet only one was to be
slain.
The ceremonial which followed is unique; it is without its like either
in Mosaism or in heathenism. It was ordered (ver. 8): "Aaron shall
cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot
for Azazel;" an expression to which we shall shortly return. Only the
goat on whom the lot fell for the Lord was to be slain.
The two goats remain standing before the Lord; while now Aaron kills
the sin-offering for himself and for his house (ver. 11); then enters,
first, the Holy of Holies within the veil, having taken (ver. 12) a
censer "full of coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord,"
with his hands full of incense (ver. 13), "that the cloud of the
incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony (_i.e._,
the two tables of the law within the ark), that he die not." Then
(ver. 13) he sprinkles the blood "upon the mercy-seat on the east"--by
which was signified the application of the blood God-ward, accompanied
with the fragrance of intercession, for the expiation of his own sins
and those of his house; and then "seven times, before the
mercy-seat,"--evidently, on the floor of the sanctuary, for the
symbolic cleansing of the holiest place, defiled by all the
uncleannesses of the children of Israel, in the midst of whom it
stood. Then, returning, he kills the goat of the sin-offering "for
Jehovah," and repeats the same ceremony, now in behalf of the whole
congregation, sprinkling, as before, the mercy-seat, and, seven times,
the Holy of Holies, thus making atonement for it, "because of the
uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their
transgressions, even all their sins" (ver. 16). In like manner, he was
then to cleanse, by a seven-fold sprinkling, the Holy Place; and then
again going into the outer court, also the altar of burnt-offering;
this last, doubtless, as in other cases, by applying the blood to the
horns of the altar.
In all this it will be observed that the difference from the ordinary
sin-offerings and the wider reach of its symbolical virtue is found,
not in that the offering is different from or larger than others, but
in that, symbolically speaking, the blood is brought, as in no other
offering, into the most immediate presence of God; even into the
secret darkness of the Holy of Holies, where no child of Israel might
tread. For this reason did this sin-offering become, above all others,
the most perfect type of the one offering of Him, the God-Man, who
reconciled us to God by doing that in reality which was here done in
symbol, even entering with atoning blood into the very presence of
God, there to appear in our behalf.
AZAZEL.
xvi. 20-28.
"And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, and
the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live
goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the
live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the
children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their
sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall
send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness into the
wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities
unto a solitary land: and he shall let go the goat in the
wilderness. And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and
shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went
into the holy place, and shall leave them there: and he shall
bathe his flesh in water in a holy place, and put on his
garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the
burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and
for the people. And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn
upon the altar. And he that letteth go the goat for Azazel shall
wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he
shall come into the camp. And the bullock of the sin offering,
and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to
make atonement in the holy place, shall be carried forth without
the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their
flesh, and their dung. And he that burneth them shall wash his
clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall
come into the camp."
And now followed the second stage of the ceremonial, a rite of the
most singular and impressive character. The live goat, during the
former part of the ceremony, had been left standing before Jehovah,
where he had been placed after the casting of the lot (ver. 10). The
rendering of King James' version, that the goat was so placed, "to
make an atonement _with_ him," assumes a meaning to the Hebrew
preposition here which it never has. Usage demands either that which
is given in the text or the margin of the Revised Version, to make
atonement "_for_ him" or "_over_ him." But to the former the objection
seems insuperable that there is nothing in the whole rite suggesting
an atonement as made for this living goat; while, on the other hand,
if the rendering "over" be adopted from the margin, it may not
unnaturally be understood of the performance _over_ this goat of that
part of the atonement ceremonial described as follows:--
Vv. 20-22: "When he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place,
and the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat
... and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel,
and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put
them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of
a man that is in readiness into the wilderness: and the goat shall
bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land: and he shall
let go the goat in the wilderness." And with this ceremony the
atonement was completed. Aaron now laid aside the robes which he had
put on for this service, bathed again, and put on again his richly
coloured garments of office, came forth and offered the burnt-offering
for himself and for the people, and burnt the fat of the sin-offering
as usual on the altar (vv. 23-25), while its flesh was burned,
according to the law for such sacrifices, without the camp (ver. 27).
What was the precise significance of this part of the service, is one
of the most difficult questions which arises in the exposition of this
book; the answer to which chiefly turns upon the meaning which is
attached to the expression, "for Azazel" (O.V., "for a scapegoat").
What is the meaning of "Azazel"?
There are three fundamental facts which stand before us in this
chapter, which must find their place in any explanation which may be
adopted. 1. Both of the goats are declared to be "a sin-offering;" the
live goat, no less than the other. 2. In consistency with this, the
live goat, no less than the other, was consecrated to Jehovah, in that
he was "set alive before the Lord." 3. The function expressly ascribed
to him in the law is the complete removal of the transgressions of
Israel, symbolically transferred to him as a burden, by the laying on
of hands with confession of sin. Passing by, then, several
interpretations, which seem intrinsically irreconcilable with one or
other of these facts, or are, for other reasons, to be rejected, the
case seems to be practically narrowed down to this alternative. Either
Azazel is to be regarded as the name of an evil spirit, conceived of
as dwelling in the wilderness, or else it is to be taken as an
abstract noun, as in the margin (R.V.), signifying "removal,"
"dismissal." That the word may have this meaning is very commonly
admitted even by those who deny that meaning here; and if, with
Bähr[21] and others, we adopt it in this passage, all that follows is
quite clear. The goat "for removal" bears away all the iniquities of
Israel, which are symbolically laid upon him, into a solitary land;
that is, they are taken wholly away from the presence of God and from
the camp of His people. Thus, as the killing and sprinkling of the
blood of the first goat visibly set forth the _means_ of
reconciliation with God, through the substituted offering of an
innocent victim, so the sending away of the second goat, laden with
those sins, the expiation of which had been signified by the sacrifice
of the first, no less vividly set forth the _effect_ of that
sacrifice, in the complete removal of those expiated sins from the
holy presence of Jehovah. That this effect of atonement should have
been adequately represented by the first slain victim was impossible;
hence the necessity for the second goat, ideally identified with the
other, as jointly constituting with it one sin-offering, whose special
use it should be to represent the blessed effect of atonement. The
truth symbolised, as the goat thus bore away the sins of Israel, is
expressed in those glad words (Psalm ciii. 12), "As far as the east is
from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us;" or,
under another image, by Micah (vii. 19), "Thou wilt cast all their
sins into the depths of the sea."
[21] "Symbolik des Mosäischen Cultus," 2 Band., p. 668.
So far all seems quite clear, and this explanation, no doubt, will
always be accepted by many.
And yet there remains one serious objection to this interpretation;
namely, that the meaning we thus give this word "Azazel" is not what
we would expect from the phrase which is used regarding the casting
of the lots (ver. 8): "One lot for the Lord, and the other lot for
Azazel." These words do most naturally suggest that Azazel is the name
of a person, who is here contrasted with Jehovah; and hence it is
believed by a large number of the best expositors that the term must
be taken here as the name of an evil spirit, represented as dwelling
in the wilderness, to whom this goat, thus laden with Israel's sins,
is sent. In addition to this phraseology, it is urged, in support of
this interpretation, that even the Scripture lends apparent sanction
to the Jewish belief that demons are, in some special sense, the
inhabitants of waste and desolate places; and, in particular, that
Jewish demonology does in fact recognise a demon named Azazel, also
called Sammael. It is admitted, indeed, that the name Azazel does not
occur in the Scripture as the name of Satan or of any evil spirit;
and, moreover, that there is no evidence that the Jewish belief
concerning the existence of a demon called Azazel dates nearly so far
back as Mosaic days; and, again, that even the rabbis themselves are
not agreed on this interpretation here, many of them rejecting it,
even on traditional grounds. Still the interpretation has secured the
support of the majority of the best modern expositors, and must claim
respectful consideration.
But if Azazel indeed denotes an evil spirit to whom the second goat of
the sin-offering is thus sent, laden with the iniquities of Israel,
the question then arises: How then, on this supposition, is the
ceremony to be interpreted?
The notion of some, that we have in this rite a relic of the ancient
demon-worship, is utterly inadmissible. For this goat is expressly
said (ver. 5) to have been, equally with the goat that was slain, "a
sin-offering," and (vv. 10, 20) it is placed "before the Lord," as an
offering to Him; nor is there a hint, here or elsewhere, that this
goat was sacrificed in the wilderness to this Azazel; while, moreover,
in this very priest-code (xvii. 7-9, R.V.) this special form of
idolatry is forbidden, under the heaviest penalty.
That the goat sent to Azazel personified, by way of warning and in a
typical manner, Israel, as rejecting the great Sin-offering, and thus
laden with iniquity, and therefore delivered over to Satan, is an idea
equally untenable. For the goat, as we have seen, is regarded as
ideally one with the goat which is slain; they jointly constitute one
sin-offering. If, therefore, the slain goat represented in type Christ
as the Lamb of God, our Sin-offering, so also must this goat represent
Him as our Sin-offering. Further, the ceremonial which is performed
over him is explicitly termed an "atonement;" that is, it was an
essential part of a ritual designed to symbolise, not the condemnation
of Israel for sin, but their complete deliverance from the guilt of
their sins.
Not to speak of other explanations, more or less untenable, which have
each found their advocates, the only one which, upon this
understanding of the meaning of Azazel, the context and the analogy of
the Scripture will both admit, appears to be the following. Holy
Scripture teaches that Satan has power over man, only because of man's
sin. Because of his sin, man is judicially left by God in Satan's
power (1 John v. 19, R.V.). When as "the prince of this world" he came
to the sinless Man, Jesus Christ, he had nothing in Him, because He
was the Holy One of God; while, on the other hand, he is represented
(Heb. ii. 14) as having over men under sin "the authority of death."
In full accord with this conception, he is represented, both in the
Old and the New Testament, as the accuser of God's people. He is said
to have accused Job before God (Job i. 9-11; ii. 4, 5). When Zechariah
(iii. 1) saw Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of
Jehovah, he saw Satan also standing at his right hand to be his
"adversary." So, again, in the Apocalypse (xii. 10) he is called "the
Accuser of our brethren, which accuseth them before our God day and
night," and who is only overcome by means of "the blood of the Lamb."
To this Evil One, then, the Accuser and Adversary of God's people in
all ages--if we assume the interpretation before us--the live goat was
symbolically sent, bearing on him the sins of Israel. But does he bear
their sins as forgiven, or as unforgiven? Surely, as forgiven; for the
sins which he symbolically carries are those very sins of the bygone
year for which expiating blood had just been offered and accepted in
the Holy of Holies. Moreover, he is sent as being ideally one with the
goat that was slain. As sent to Azazel, he therefore symbolically
announces to the Evil One that with the expiation of sin by
sacrificial blood the foundation of his power over forgiven Israel is
gone. His accusations are now no longer in place; for the whole
question of Israel's sin has been met and settled in the atoning
blood. Thus, as the acceptance of the blood of the one goat offered in
the Holiest symbolised the complete propitiation of the offended
holiness of God and His pardon of Israel's sin, so the sending of the
goat to Azazel symbolised the _effect_ of this expiation, in the
complete removal of all the penal effects of sin, through deliverance
by atonement from the power of the Adversary as the executioner of
God's wrath.
Which of these two interpretations shall be accepted must be left to
the reader: that neither is without difficulty, those who have most
studied this very obscure question will most readily admit; that
either is at least consistent with the context and with other
teachings of Scripture, should be sufficiently evident. In either
case, the symbolic intention of the first part of the ritual, with the
first goat, was to symbolise the _means_ of reconciliation with God;
namely, through the offering unto God of the life of an innocent
victim, substituted in the sinner's place: in either case alike, the
purpose of the second part of the ceremonial, with the second goat,
was to symbolise the blessed _effect_ of this expiation; either, if
the reading of the margin be taken, in the complete removal of the
expiated sin from the presence of the Holy God, or, if Azazel be taken
as a proper name, in the complete deliverance of the sinner, through
expiatory blood presented in the Holiest, from the power of Satan. If
in the former case, we think of the words already cited, "As far as
the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions
from us;" in the latter the words from the Apocalypse (xii. 10, 11)
come to mind, "The Accuser of our brethren is cast down, which
accuseth them before our God day and night. And they overcame him
because of the blood of the Lamb."
On other particulars in the ceremonial of the day we need not dwell,
as they have received their exposition in earlier chapters of the law
of the offerings. Of the burnt-offerings, indeed, which followed the
dismissal of the living goat of the sin-offering, little is said; it
is, emphatically, the sin-offering upon which, above all else, it was
designed to centre the attention of Israel on this occasion.
And so, with an injunction to the perpetual observance of this day,
this remarkable chapter closes. In it the sacrificial law of Moses
attains its supreme expression; the holiness and the grace alike of
Israel's God, their fullest revelation. For the like of the great day
of atonement, we look in vain in any other people. If every sacrifice
pointed to Christ, this most luminously of all. What the fifty-third
of Isaiah is to his Messianic prophecies, that, we may truly say, is
the sixteenth of Leviticus to the whole system of Mosaic types,--the
most consummate flower of the Messianic symbolism. All the
sin-offerings pointed to Christ, the great High Priest and Victim of
the future; but this, as we shall now see, with a distinctness found
in no other.
As the unique sin-offering of this day could only be offered by the
one high-priest, so was it intimated that the High Priest of the
future, who should indeed make an end of sin, should be one and only.
As once only in the whole year, a complete cycle of time, this great
atonement was offered, so did it point toward a sacrifice which should
indeed be "once for all" (Heb. ix. 26; x. 10); not only for the lesser
æon of the year, but for the æon of æons which is the lifetime of
humanity. In that the high-priest, who was on all other occasions
conspicuous among his sons by his bright garments made for glory and
for beauty, on this occasion laid them aside, and assumed the same
garb as his sons for whom he was to make atonement; herein was
shadowed forth the truth that it behoved the great High Priest of the
future to be "in all things made like unto His brethren" (Heb. ii.
17). When, having offered the sin-offering, Aaron disappeared from the
sight of Israel within the veil, where in the presence of the unseen
glory he offered the incense and sprinkled the blood, it was
presignified how "Christ having come a High Priest of the good things
to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made
with hands, ... nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but
through His own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place,"
even "into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us"
(Heb. ix. 11, 12, 24). And, in like manner, in that when the
sin-offering had been offered, the blood sprinkled, and his work
within the veil was ended, arrayed again in his glorious garments, he
reappeared to bless the waiting congregation; it was again foreshown
how yet that must be fulfilled which is written, that this same
Christ, "having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall
appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him, unto
salvation" (Heb. ix. 28).
To all this yet more might be added of dispensational truth typified
by the ceremonial of this day, which we defer to the exposition of
chap. xxv., where its consideration more properly belongs. But even
were this all, what a marvellous revelation here of the Lord Jesus
Christ! The fact of these correspondences between the Levitical ritual
and the New Testament facts, let it be observed, is wholly independent
of the questions as to the date and origin of this law; and every
theory on this subject must find a place for these correspondences and
account for them. But how can any one believe that all these are
merely accidental coincidences of a post-exilian forgery with the
facts of the incarnation, and the high priestly work of Christ in
death and resurrection as set forth in the Gospels? How can they all
be adequately accounted for, except by assuming that to be true which
is expressly taught in the New Testament concerning this very ritual:
that in it the Holy Ghost presignified things that were to come; that,
therefore, the ordinance must have been, not of man, but of God; not a
mere product of the human mind, acting under the laws of a religious
evolution, but a revelation from Him unto whom "known are all His
works from the foundation of the world"?
Nor must we fail to take in the blessed truth so vividly symbolised in
the second part of the ceremonial. When the blood of the sin-offering
had been sprinkled in the Holiest, the sins of Israel were then, by
the other goat of the sin-offering, borne far away. Israel stood there
still a sinful people; but their sin, now expiated by the blood, was
before God as if it were not. So does the Holy Victim in the Antitype,
who first by His death expiated sin, then as the Living One bear away
all the believer's sins from the presence of the Holy One into a land
of forgetfulness. And so it is that, as regards acceptance with God,
the believing sinner, though still a sinner, stands as if he were
sinless; all through the great Sin-offering. To see this, to believe
in it and rest in it, is life eternal; it is joy, and peace, and rest!
IT IS THE GOSPEL!
PART II.
_THE LAW OF THE DAILY LIFE._
XI.-XV., XVII.-XXV.
SECTION 1. THE LAW CONCERNING THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN: xi.-xv.