Having considered the "sweet savor" offerings, we now approach the
"sacrifices for sin." These were divided into two classes, namely,
sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. Of the former, there were three
grades; first, the offering for "the priest that is anointed," and for
"the whole congregation." These two were the same in their rites and
ceremonies. (Compare ver. 3-12 with ver. 13-21.) It was the same in
result, whether it were the representative of the assembly or the
assembly itself that sinned. In either case there were three things
involved,--God's dwelling-place in the assembly, the worship of the
assembly, and individual conscience. Now, inasmuch as all three
depended upon the blood, we find, in the first grade of sin-offering,
there were three things done with the blood. It was sprinkled "seven
times before the Lord, _before the vail of the sanctuary_." This
secured Jehovah's relationship with the people, and His dwelling in
their midst. Again, we read, "The priest shall put some of the blood
upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is
in the tabernacle of the congregation." This secured the worship of
the assembly. By putting the blood upon "the golden altar," the true
basis of worship was preserved; so that the flame of the incense and
the fragrance thereof might continually ascend. Finally, "He shall
pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the
burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation." Here, we have the claims of individual conscience fully
answered; for the brazen altar was the place of individual
approach,--it was the place where God met the sinner.
In the two remaining grades--for "a ruler" or "one of the common
people," it was merely a question of individual conscience, and
therefore there was only one thing done with the blood,--it was all
poured "at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering." (Comp. ver. 7
with ver. 25, 30.) There is divine precision in all this, which
demands the close attention of my reader, if only he desires to enter
into the marvelous detail of this type.[11]
[11] There is this difference between the offering for "a ruler" and
for "one of the common people:" in the former, it was "a _male_
without blemish;" in the latter, "a _female_ without blemish." The sin
of a ruler would necessarily exert a wider influence than that of a
common person, and therefore a more powerful application of the value
of the blood was needed. In chapter v. 13, we find cases demanding a
still lower application of the sin-offering--cases of swearing, and of
touching any uncleanness, in which "the tenth part of an ephah of fine
flour" was admitted as a sin-offering. (See chap. v. 11-13.) What a
contrast between the view of atonement presented by a ruler's bullock
and a poor man's handful of flour! And yet, in the latter, just as
truly as in the former, we read, "It shall be forgiven him."
The reader will observe that chapter v. 1-13 forms a part of chapter
iv. Both are comprehended under one head, and present the doctrine of
the sin-offering in all its applications, from the bullock to the
handful of flour. Each class of offering is introduced by the words,
"And the Lord spake unto Moses." Thus, for example, the sweet savor
offerings (chap. i.-iii.) are introduced by the words, "The Lord
called unto Moses." These words are not repeated until chapter iv. 1,
where they introduce the sin-offering. They occur again at chapter v.
14, where they introduce the trespass-offering for wrongs done "in the
holy things of the Lord;" and again at chapter vi. 1, where they
introduce the trespass-offering for wrongs done to one's neighbor.
This classification is beautifully simple, and will help the reader to
understand the different classes of offering. As to the different
grades in each class, whether "a bullock," "a ram," "a female," "a
bird," or "a handful of flour," they would seem to be so many varied
applications of the same grand truth.
The effect of individual sin could not extend beyond individual
conscience. The sin of "a ruler," or of "one of the common people,"
could not, in its influence, reach "the altar of incense"--the place
of priestly worship; neither could it reach to "the vail of the
sanctuary"--the sacred boundary of God's dwelling-place in the midst
of His people. It is well to ponder this. We must never raise a
question of personal sin or failure in the place of priestly worship
or in the assembly; it must be settled in the place of personal
approach. Many err as to this. They come into the assembly, or into
the ostensible place of priestly worship, with their conscience
defiled, and thus drag down the whole assembly and mar its worship.
This should be closely looked into, and carefully guarded against. We
need to walk more watchfully, in order that our conscience may ever be
in the light. And when we fail, (as, alas! we do in many things,) let
us have to do with God in secret about our failure, in order that true
worship and the true position of the assembly may always be kept with
fullness and clearness before the soul.
Having said thus much as to the three grades of sin-offering, we shall
proceed to examine, in detail, the principles unfolded in the first of
these. In so doing, we shall be able to form, in some measure, a just
conception of the principles of all. Before, however, entering upon
the direct comparison already proposed, I would call my reader's
attention to a very prominent point set forth in the second verse of
this fourth chapter; it is contained in the expression, "If a soul
shall sin through _ignorance_." This presents a truth of the deepest
blessedness, in connection with the atonement of the Lord Jesus
Christ. In contemplating that atonement, we see infinitely more than
the mere satisfaction of the claims of conscience, even though that
conscience had reached the highest point of refined sensibility. It is
our privilege to see therein that which has fully satisfied all the
claims of divine holiness, divine justice, and divine majesty. The
holiness of God's dwelling-place, and the ground of His association
with His people, could never be regulated by the standard of man's
conscience, no matter how high the standard might be. There are many
things which man's conscience would pass over--many things which might
escape man's cognizance--many things which his heart might deem all
right, which God could not tolerate; and which, as a consequence,
would interfere with man's approach to, his worship of, and his
relationship with God. Wherefore, if the atonement of Christ merely
made provision for such sins as come within the compass of man's
apprehension, we should find ourselves very far short of the true
ground of peace. We need to understand that sin has been atoned for,
according to God's measurement thereof--that the claims of His throne
have been perfectly answered--that sin, as seen in the light of His
inflexible holiness, has been divinely judged. This is what gives
settled peace to the soul. A full atonement has been made for the
believer's sins of ignorance, as well as for his known sins. The
sacrifice of Christ lays the foundation of his relationship and
fellowship with God, according to the divine estimate of the claims
thereof.
A clear sense of this is of unspeakable value. Unless this feature of
the atonement be laid hold of, there cannot be settled peace; nor will
there be any just moral sense of the extent and fullness of the work
of Christ, or of the true nature of the relationship founded thereon.
God knew what was needed in order that man might be in His presence
without a single misgiving, and He has made ample provision for it in
the cross. Fellowship between God and man were utterly impossible if
sin had not been disposed of according to God's thoughts about it;
for, albeit man's conscience were satisfied, the question would ever
be suggesting itself, Has God been satisfied? If this question could
not be answered in the affirmative, fellowship could never
subsist.[12] The thought would be continually intruding itself upon
the heart, that things were manifesting themselves in the details of
life which divine holiness could not tolerate. True, we might be doing
such things "through ignorance," but this could not alter the matter
before God, inasmuch as all is known to Him. Hence, there would be
continual apprehension, doubt, and misgiving. All these things are
divinely met by the fact that sin has been atoned for, not according
to our "ignorance," but according to God's knowledge. The assurance of
this gives great rest to the heart and conscience. All God's claims
have been answered by His own work. He Himself has made the provision;
and therefore the more refined the believer's conscience becomes,
under the combined action of the Word and Spirit of God--the more he
grows in a divinely-adjusted sense of all that morally befits the
sanctuary--the more keenly alive he becomes to every thing which is
unsuited to the divine presence, the fuller, clearer, deeper, and more
vigorous will be his apprehension of the infinite value of that
Sin-offering which has not only traveled beyond the utmost bounds of
human conscience, but also met, in absolute perfection, all the
requirements of divine holiness.
[12] I would desire it to be particularly remembered that the point
before us in the text is simply atonement. The Christian reader is
fully aware, I doubt not, that the possession of "the divine nature"
is essential to fellowship with God. I not only need a _title_ to
approach God, but a _nature_ to enjoy Him. The soul that "believes in
the name of the only begotten Son of God" has both the one and the
other. (See John i. 12, 13; iii. 36; v. 24; xx. 31; 1 John v. 11-13.)
Nothing can more forcibly express man's incompetency to deal with sin
than the fact of there being such a thing as a "sin of ignorance." How
could he deal with that which he knows not? How could he dispose of
that which has never even come within the range of his conscience?
Impossible. Man's ignorance of sin proves his total inability to put
it away. If he does not know of it, what can he do about it? Nothing.
He is as powerless as he is ignorant. Nor is this all. The fact of a
"sin of ignorance" demonstrates most clearly the uncertainty which
must attend upon every settlement of the question of sin, in which no
higher claims have been responded to than those put forth by the most
refined human conscience. There can never be settled peace upon this
ground. There will always be the painful apprehension that there is
something wrong underneath. If the heart be not led into settled
repose by the Scripture testimony that the inflexible claims of divine
Justice have been answered, there must, of necessity, be a sensation
of uneasiness, and every such sensation presents a barrier to our
worship, our communion, and our testimony. If I am uneasy in reference
to the settlement of the question of sin, I cannot worship, I cannot
enjoy communion either with God or His people, nor can I be an
intelligent or effective witness for Christ. The heart must be at rest
before God as to the perfect remission of sin ere we can "worship Him
in spirit and in truth." If there be guilt on the conscience, there
must be terror in the heart; and, assuredly, a heart filled with
terror cannot be a happy or a worshiping heart. It is only from a
heart filled with that sweet and sacred repose which the blood of
Christ imparts, that true and acceptable worship can ascend to the
Father. The same principle holds good with respect to our fellowship
with the people of God and our service and testimony amongst men,--all
must rest upon the foundation of settled peace, and this peace rests
upon the foundation of a perfectly purged conscience, and this purged
conscience rests upon the foundation of the perfect remission of all
our sins, whether they be sins of knowledge or sins of ignorance.
We shall now proceed to compare the sin-offering with the
burnt-offering, in doing which we shall find two very different
aspects of Christ. But although the aspects are different, it is one
and the same Christ; and hence the sacrifice in each case was "without
blemish." This is easily understood. It matters not in what aspect we
contemplate the Lord Jesus Christ, He must ever be seen as the same
pure, spotless, holy, perfect One. True, He did, in His abounding
grace, stoop to be the Sin-bearer of His people; but it was a perfect,
spotless Christ who did so; and it would be nothing short of
diabolical wickedness to take occasion from the depth of His
humiliation to tarnish the personal glory of the humbled One. The
intrinsic excellence, the unsullied purity, and the divine glory of
our blessed Lord appear in the sin-offering as fully as in the
burnt-offering. It matters not in what relationship He stands, what
office He fills, what work He performs, what position He occupies, His
personal glories shine out in all their divine effulgence.
This truth of one and the same Christ, whether in the burnt-offering
or in the sin-offering, is seen not only in the fact that in each
case the offering was "without blemish," but also in "the law of the
sin-offering," where we read, "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." (Lev. vi. 25.) Both types
point to one and the same great Antitype, though they present Him in
such contrasted aspects of His work. In the burnt-offering, Christ is
seen meeting the divine affections; in the sin-offering, He is seen
meeting the depths of human need. That presents Him to us as the
Accomplisher of the will of God; this, as the Bearer of the sin of
man. In the former, we are taught the preciousness of the Sacrifice;
in the latter, the hatefulness of sin. Thus much as to the two
offerings, in the main. The most minute examination of the details
will only tend to establish the mind in the truth of this general
statement.
In the first place, when considering the burnt-offering, we observed
that it was a voluntary offering.--"He shall offer it of his own
voluntary will."[13] Now, the word "voluntary" does not occur in the
sin-offering. This is precisely what we might expect. It is in full
keeping with the specific object of the Holy Ghost, in the
burnt-offering, to set it forth as a free-will offering. It was
Christ's meat and drink to do the will of God, whatever that will
might be. He never thought of inquiring what ingredients were in the
cup which the Father was putting into His hand. It was quite
sufficient for Him that the Father had mingled it. Thus it was with
the Lord Jesus as foreshadowed by the burnt-offering. But in the
sin-offering, we have quite a different line of truth unfolded. This
type introduces Christ to our thoughts, not as the "voluntary"
Accomplisher of the will of God, but as the Bearer of that terrible
thing called "sin," and the Endurer of all its appalling consequences,
of which the most appalling to Him was the hiding of God's
countenance. Hence, the word "voluntary" would not harmonize with the
object of the Spirit in the sin-offering. It would be as completely
out of place in that type as it is divinely in place in the
burnt-offering. Its presence and its absence are alike divine; and
both alike exhibit the perfect, the divine precision of the types of
Leviticus.
[13] Some may find difficulty in the fact that the word "voluntary"
has reference to the worshiper and not to the sacrifice; but this can
in no wise affect the doctrine put forward in the text, which is
founded upon the fact that a special word used in the burnt-offering
is omitted in the sin-offering. The contrast holds good whether we
think of the offerer or the offering.
Now, the point of contrast which we have been considering, explains,
or rather harmonizes, two expressions used by our Lord. He says, on
one occasion, "The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not
drink it?" And again, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass
from Me." The former of these expressions was the full carrying out of
the words with which He entered upon His course, namely, "Lo, I come
to do Thy will, O God;" and, moreover, it is the utterance of Christ
as the Burnt-offering. The latter, on the other hand, is the utterance
of Christ when contemplating the place which He was about to occupy as
the Sin-offering. What that place was, and what was involved to Him in
taking it, we shall see as we proceed; but it is interesting and
instructive to find the entire doctrine of the two offerings involved,
as it were, in the fact that a single word introduced in the one is
omitted in the other. If in the burnt-offering we find the perfect
readiness of heart with which Christ offered Himself for the
accomplishment of the will of God, then in the sin-offering we find
how perfectly He entered into all the consequences of man's sin, and
how He traveled into the most remote distance of man's position as
regards God. He delighted to do the will of God; He shrank from
losing, for a moment, the light of His blessed countenance. No one
offering could have foreshadowed Him in both these phases. We needed a
type to present Him to us as One delighting to do the will of God, and
we needed a type to present Him to us as One whose holy nature shrank
from the consequences of imputed sin. Blessed be God, we have both.
The burnt-offering furnishes the one; the sin-offering, the other.
Wherefore, the more fully we enter into the devotion of Christ's heart
to God, the more fully we shall apprehend His abhorrence of sin; and
_vice versa_. Each throws the other into relief; and the use of the
word "voluntary" in the one and not in the other, fixes the leading
import of each.
But it may be said, Was it not the will of God that Christ should
offer Himself as an atonement for sin? and if so, how could there be
aught of shrinking from the accomplishment of that will? Assuredly, it
was "the determinate counsel" of God that Christ should suffer, and,
moreover, it was Christ's joy to do the will of God; but how are we to
understand the expression, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from
Me"? Is it not the utterance of Christ? And is there no express type
of the Utterer thereof? Unquestionably. There would be a serious blank
among the types of the Mosaic economy were there not one to reflect
the Lord Jesus in the exact attitude in which the above expression
presents Him. But the burnt-offering does not thus reflect Him. There
is not a single circumstance connected with that offering which would
correspond with such language. The sin-offering alone furnishes the
fitting type of the Lord Jesus as the One who poured forth those
accents of intense agony; for in it alone do we find the circumstances
which evoked such accents from the depths of His spotless soul. The
awful shadow of the cross, with its shame, its curse, and its
exclusion from the light of God's countenance, was passing across His
spirit, and He could not even contemplate it without an "If it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me." But no sooner had He uttered
these words than His profound subjection manifests itself in "Thy will
be done." What a bitter "cup" it must have been to elicit from a
perfectly subject heart the words, "Let it pass from Me"! What
perfect subjection there must have been, when, in the presence of so
bitter a cup, the heart could breath forth, "Thy will be done"!
We shall now consider the typical act of "laying on of hands." This
act was common both to the burnt-offering and the sin-offering; but in
the case of the former, it identified the offerer with an unblemished
offering; in the case of the latter, it involved the transfer of the
sin of the offerer to the head of the offering. Thus it was in the
type; and when we look at the Antitype, we learn a truth of the most
comforting and edifying nature--a truth which, were it more clearly
understood and fully experienced, would impart a far more settled
peace than is ordinarily possessed.
What, then, is the doctrine set forth in the laying on of hands? It is
this: Christ was "made sin for us, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. v.) He took our position with
all its consequences, in order that we might get His position with all
its consequences. He was treated as sin upon the cross, that we might
be treated as righteousness in the presence of Infinite Holiness. He
was cast out of God's presence because He had sin on Him by
imputation, that we might be received into God's house and into His
bosom because we have a perfect righteousness by imputation. He had to
endure the hiding of God's countenance, that we might bask in the
light of that countenance. He had to pass through three hours'
darkness, that we might walk in everlasting light. He was forsaken of
God for a time, that we might enjoy His presence forever. All that was
due to us as ruined sinners was laid upon Him, in order that all that
was due to Him as the Accomplisher of redemption might be ours. There
was every thing against Him when He hung upon the cursed tree, in
order that there might be nothing against us. He was identified with
us in the reality of death and judgment, in order that we might be
identified with Him in the reality of life and righteousness. He drank
the cup of wrath--the cup of trembling, that we might drink the cup of
salvation--the cup of infinite favor. He was treated according to our
deserts, that we might be treated according to His.
Such is the wondrous truth illustrated by the ceremonial act of
imposition of hands. When the worshiper had laid his hand upon the
head of the burnt-offering, it ceased to be a question as to what he
was or what He deserved, and became entirely a question of what the
offering was in the judgment of Jehovah. If the offering was without
blemish, so was the offerer; if the offering was accepted, so was the
offerer. They were perfectly identified. The act of laying on of hands
constituted them one in God's view. He looked at the offerer through
the medium of the offering. Thus it was in the case of the
burnt-offering. But in the sin-offering, when the offerer had laid his
hand upon the head of the offering, it became a question of what the
offerer was, and what he deserved; the offering was treated according
to the deserts of the offerer. They were perfectly identified. The act
of laying on of hands constituted them one in the judgment of God. The
sin of the offerer was dealt with in the sin-offering; the person of
the offerer was accepted in the burnt-offering. This made a vast
difference. Hence, though the act of laying on of hands was common to
both types, and, moreover, though it was expressive, in the case of
each, of identification, yet were the consequences as different as
possible. The just treated as the unjust; the unjust accepted in the
just.--"Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that He might bring us to God." This is the doctrine. Our sins brought
Christ to the cross, but He brings us to God. And if He brings us to
God, it is in His own acceptableness, as risen from the dead, having
put away our sins, according to the perfectness of His own work. He
bore away our sins far from the sanctuary of God, in order that He
might bring us nigh, even into the holiest of all, in full confidence
of heart, having the conscience purged by His precious blood from
every stain of sin.
Now, the more minutely we compare all the details of the
burnt-offering and the sin-offering, the more clearly shall we
apprehend the truth of what has been above stated in reference to the
laying on of hands and the results thereof in each case.
In the first chapter of this volume, we noticed the fact that "the
sons of Aaron" are introduced in the burnt-offering, but not in the
sin-offering. As priests, they were privileged to stand around the
altar and behold the flame of an acceptable sacrifice ascending to the
Lord. But in the sin-offering, in its primary aspect, it was a
question of the solemn judgment of sin, and not of priestly worship or
admiration, and therefore the sons of Aaron do not appear. It is as
convicted sinners that we have to do with Christ as the Antitype of
the sin-offering: it is as worshiping priests, clothed in garments of
salvation, that we contemplate Christ as the Antitype of the
burnt-offering.
But, further, my reader may observe that the burnt-offering was
"flayed," the sin-offering was not; the burnt-offering was "cut into
his pieces," the sin-offering was not; "the inwards and the legs" of
the burnt-offering were "washed in water," which act was entirely
omitted in the sin-offering. Lastly, the burnt-offering was burnt upon
the altar, the sin-offering was burnt without the camp. These are
weighty points of difference, arising simply out of the distinctive
character of the offerings. We know there is nothing in the Word of
God without its own specific meaning; and every intelligent and
careful student of Scripture will notice the above points of
difference, and when he notices them, he will naturally seek to
ascertain their real import. _Ignorance_ of this import there may be,
but _indifference_ to it there should not. In any section of
inspiration, but especially one so rich as that which lies before us,
to pass over a single point would be to offer dishonor to the divine
Author, and to deprive our own souls of much profit. We should hang
over the most minute details, either to adore God's wisdom in them, or
to confess our own ignorance of them. To pass them by, in a spirit of
indifference, is to imply that the Holy Ghost has taken the trouble to
write what we do not deem worthy of the desire to understand. This is
what no right-minded Christian would presume to think. If the Spirit,
in writing upon the ordinance of the sin-offering, has omitted the
various rites above alluded to--rites which get a prominent place in
the ordinance of the burnt-offering, there must assuredly be some good
reason for, and some important meaning in, His doing so. These we
should seek to apprehend, and no doubt they arise out of the special
design of the divine mind in each offering. The sin-offering sets
forth that aspect of Christ's work in which He is seen taking
judicially the place which belonged to us morally. For this reason we
could not look for that intense expression of what He was in all His
secret springs of action, as unfolded in the typical act of "flaying."
Neither could there be that enlarged exhibition of what he was, not
merely as a whole, but in the most minute features of his character,
as seen in the act of "cutting it into his pieces." Nor yet could
there be that manifestation of what He was personally, practically,
and intrinsically, as set forth in the significant act of "washing the
inwards and legs in water."
All these things belonged to the burnt-offering phase of our blessed
Lord, and to that alone, because in it we see Him offering Himself to
the eye, to the heart, and to the altar of Jehovah, without any
question of imputed sin, of wrath, or of judgment. In the
sin-offering, on the contrary, instead of having, as the great
prominent idea, what Christ is, we have what sin is,--instead of the
preciousness of Jesus, we have the odiousness of sin. In the
burnt-offering, inasmuch as it is Christ Himself offered to and
accepted by God, we have every thing done that could possibly make
manifest what He was in every respect. In the sin-offering, because it
is sin as judged by God, the very reverse is the case. All this is so
plain as to need no effort of the mind to understand it. It naturally
flows out of the distinctive character of the type.
However, although the leading object in the sin-offering is to shadow
forth what Christ became for us, and not what He was in Himself, there
is nevertheless one rite connected with this type which most fully
expresses His personal acceptableness to Jehovah. This rite is laid
down in the following words: "And he shall take off from it all the
fat of the bullock for the sin-offering; 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 flanks, and
the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away, as
it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace-offering;
and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt-offering."
(Chap. iv. 8-10.) Thus the intrinsic excellency of Christ is not
omitted even in the sin-offering. The fat burnt upon the altar is the
apt expression of the divine appreciation of the preciousness of
Christ's Person, no matter what place He might, in perfect grace, take
on our behalf or in our stead. He was made sin for us, and the
sin-offering is the divinely appointed shadow of Him in this respect;
but inasmuch as it was the Lord Jesus Christ--God's Elect, His Holy
One--His pure, His spotless, His eternal Son that was made sin,
therefore the fat of the sin-offering was burnt upon the altar, as a
proper material for that fire which was the impressive exhibition of
divine holiness.
But even in this very point we see what a contrast there is between
the sin-offering and the burnt-offering. In the case of the latter, it
was not merely the fat, but the whole sacrifice that was burnt upon
the altar, because it was Christ, without any question of sin-bearing
whatever. In the case of the former, there was nothing but the fat to
be burnt upon the altar, because it was a question of sin-bearing,
though Christ was the Sin-bearer. The divine glories of Christ's
Person shine out even from amid the darkest shades of that cursed tree
to which He consented to be nailed as a curse for us. The hatefulness
of that with which, in the exercise of divine love, He connected His
blessed Person on the cross, could not prevent the sweet odor of His
preciousness from ascending to the throne of God. Thus have we
unfolded to us the profound mystery of God's face hidden from that
which Christ _became_, and God's heart refreshed by what Christ _was_.
This imparts a peculiar charm to the sin-offering. The bright beams of
Christ's Personal glory shining out from amid the awful gloom of
Calvary--His Personal worth set forth in the very deepest depths of
His humiliation--God's delight in the One from whom He had, in
vindication of His inflexible justice and holiness, to hide His
face--all this is set forth in the fact that the fat of the
sin-offering was burnt upon the altar.
Having thus endeavored to point out, in the first place, what was done
with "the blood," and, in the second place, what was done with "the
fat," we have now to consider what was done with "the flesh." "And the
skin of the bullock, and _all his flesh_, ... even _the whole bullock_
shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the
ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the
ashes are poured out shall he be burnt." (Ver. 11, 12.) In this act,
we have the main feature of the sin-offering--that which distinguished
it both from the burnt-offering and the peace-offering. Its flesh was
not burnt upon the altar as in the burnt-offering, neither was it
eaten by the priest or the worshiper as in the peace-offering; it was
wholly burnt without the camp.[14] "No sin-offering, whereof any of
the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to
reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt
in the fire." (Lev. vi. 30.) "For the bodies of those beasts, whose
blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are
burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify
the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate." (Heb. xiii.
11, 12.)
[14] The statement in the text refers only to the sin-offerings of
which the blood was brought into the holy place. There were
sin-offerings of which Aaron and his _sons_ partook. (See Lev. vi. 26,
29; Numb. xviii. 9, 10.)
Now, in comparing what was done with the "blood" with what was done
with the "flesh," or "body," of the sacrifice, two great branches of
truth present themselves to our view, namely, worship and
discipleship. The blood brought into the sanctuary is the foundation
of the former; the body burnt outside the camp is the foundation of
the latter. Before ever we can worship in peace of conscience and
liberty of heart, we must know, on the authority of the Word, and by
the power of the Spirit, that the entire question of _sin_ has been
forever settled by the blood of the divine Sin-offering--that His
blood has been sprinkled perfectly before the Lord--that all God's
claims, and all our necessities as ruined and guilty sinners, have
been forever answered. This gives perfect peace; and, in the enjoyment
of this peace, we worship God. When an Israelite of old had offered
his sin-offering, his conscience was set at rest, in so far as the
offering was capable of imparting rest. True, it was but a temporary
rest, being the fruit of a temporary sacrifice; but, clearly, whatever
kind of rest the offering was fitted to impart, that the offerer might
enjoy. Hence, therefore, our Sacrifice being divine and eternal, our
rest is divine and eternal also. As is the sacrifice, such is the rest
which is founded thereon. A Jew never had an eternally purged
conscience, simply because he had not an eternally efficacious
sacrifice. He might, in a certain way, have his conscience purged for
a day, a month, or a year; but he could not have it purged forever.
"But Christ being come a High-Priest of good things to come, by a
greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to
say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves,
but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained _eternal_ redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats,
and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge
your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. ix.
11-14.)
Here, we have the full, explicit statement of the doctrine. The blood
of goats and calves procured a temporary redemption: the blood of
Christ procures eternal redemption. The former purified outwardly; the
latter, inwardly. That purged the flesh for a time; this, the
conscience forever. The whole question hinges, not upon the character
or condition of the offerer, but upon the value of the offering. The
question is not, by any means, whether a Christian is a better man
than a Jew, but whether the blood of Christ is better than the blood
of a bullock. Assuredly, it is better. How much better? Infinitely
better. The Son of God imparts all the dignity of His own divine
Person to the sacrifice which He offered; and if the blood of a
bullock purified the flesh for a year, "how much more" shall the blood
of the Son of God purge the conscience forever?--if that took away
_some_ sin, how much more shall this take away "_all_"?
Now, why was the mind of a Jew set at rest, for the time being, when
he had offered his sin-offering? How did he know that the special sin
for which he had brought his sacrifice was forgiven? Because God had
said, "It shall be forgiven him." His peace of heart, in reference to
that particular sin, rested upon the testimony of the God of Israel
and the blood of the victim. So now, the peace of the believer, in
reference to "ALL SIN," rests upon the authority of God's word and
"the precious blood of Christ." If a Jew had sinned, and neglected to
bring his sin-offering, he should have been "cut off from among his
people;" but when he took his place as a sinner--when he laid his hand
upon the head of a sin-offering, then the offering was "cut off"
instead of him, and he was free, so far. The offering was treated as
the offerer deserved; and hence, for him not to know that his sin was
forgiven him, would have been to make God a liar, and to treat the
blood of the divinely appointed sin-offering as nothing.
And if this were true in reference to one who had only the blood of a
goat to rest upon, "how much more" powerfully does it apply to one
who has the precious blood of Christ to rest upon? The believer sees
in Christ One who has been judged for all his sin--One who, when He
hung upon the cross, sustained the entire burden of his sin--One who,
having made Himself responsible for that sin, could not be where He
now is if the whole question of sin had not been settled according to
all the claims of Infinite Justice. So absolutely did Christ take the
believer's place on the cross--so entirely was he identified with
Him--so completely was all the believer's sin imputed to Him, there
and then, that all question of the believer's liability--all thought
of his guilt--all idea of his exposure to judgment and wrath, is
eternally set aside.[15] It was all settled on the cursed tree,
between Divine Justice and the spotless Victim. And now the believer
is as absolutely identified with Christ on the throne, as Christ was
identified with him on the cross. Justice has no charge to bring
against the believer, because it has no charge to bring against
Christ. Thus it stands forever. If a charge could be preferred against
the believer, it would be calling in question the reality of Christ's
identification with him on the cross, and the perfectness of Christ's
work on his behalf. If, when the worshiper of old was on his way
back, after having offered his sin-offering, any one had charged him
with that special sin for which his sacrifice had bled, what would
have been his reply? Just this: The sin has been rolled away by the
blood of the victim, and Jehovah has pronounced the words, "It shall
be forgiven him." The victim had died instead of him, and he lived
instead of the victim.
[15] We have a singularly beautiful example of the divine accuracy of
Scripture in 2 Cor. v. 21.--"He hath _made_ Him to be sin [αμαρτιαν
εποιησεν] for us, that we might _become_ [γινωμεθα] the
righteousness of God in Him." The English reader might suppose tha
the word which is rendered "made" is the same in each clause of the
passage. This is not the case.
Such was the type. And as to the Antitype, when the eye of faith rests
on Christ as the Sin-offering, it beholds Him as One who having
assumed a perfect human life, gave up that life on the cross, because
sin was there and then attached to it by imputation. But it beholds
Him also as One who having in Himself the power of divine and eternal
life, rose from the tomb therein, and who now imparts this His risen,
His divine, His eternal life to all who believe in His name. The sin
is gone, because the life to which it was attached is gone. And now,
instead of the life to which sin was attached, all true believers
possess the life to which righteousness attaches. The question of sin
can never once be raised, in reference to the risen and victorious
life of Christ; but this is the life which believers possess. There is
no other life. All beside is death, because all beside is under the
power of sin. "He that hath the Son hath life," and he that hath life
hath righteousness also. The two things are inseparable, because
Christ is both the one and the other. If the judgment and death of
Christ upon the cross were realities, then the life and righteousness
of the believer are realities; if imputed sin was a reality to
Christ, imputed righteousness is a reality to the believer. The one is
as real as the other; for if not, Christ would have died in vain. The
true and irrefragable ground of peace is this,--that the claims of
God's nature have been perfectly met as to sin. The death of Jesus has
satisfied them all--satisfied them forever. What is it that proves
this to the satisfaction of the awakened conscience? The great fact of
resurrection. A risen Christ declares the full deliverance of the
believer--his perfect discharge from every possible demand.--"He was
delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification."
(Rom. iv. 25.) For a Christian not to know that his sin is gone, and
gone forever, is to cast a slight upon the blood of his divine
Sin-offering; it is to deny that there has been the perfect
presentation--the sevenfold sprinkling of the blood before the Lord.
And now, ere turning from this fundamental point which has been
occupying us, I would desire to make an earnest and a most solemn
appeal to my reader's heart and conscience. Let me ask you, dear
friend, have you been led to repose on this holy and happy foundation?
Do you know that the question of your sin has been forever disposed
of? Have you laid your hand, by faith, on the head of the
Sin-offering? Have you seen the atoning blood of Jesus rolling away
all your guilt, and carrying it into the mighty waters of God's
forgetfulness? Has Divine Justice any thing against you? Are you free
from the unutterable horrors of a guilty conscience? Do not, I pray
you, rest satisfied until you can give a joyous answer to these
inquiries. Be assured of it, it is the happy privilege of the feeblest
babe in Christ to rejoice in a full and everlasting remission of sins,
on the ground of a finished atonement; and hence, for any to teach
otherwise, is to lower the sacrifice of Christ to the level of "goats
and calves." If we cannot know that our sins are forgiven, then where
are the glad tidings of the gospel? Is a Christian in no wise better
off, in the matter of a sin-offering, than a Jew? The latter was
privileged to know that his matters were set straight for a year, by
the blood of an annual sacrifice. Can the former not have any
certainty at all? Unquestionably. Well, then, if there is any
certainty, it must be eternal, inasmuch as it rests on an eternal
sacrifice.
This, and this alone, is the basis of worship. The full assurance of
sin put away ministers, not to a spirit of self-confidence, but to a
spirit of praise, thankfulness, and worship. It produces, not a spirit
of self-complacency, but of Christ-complacency, which, blessed be God,
is the spirit which shall characterize the redeemed throughout
eternity. It does not lead one to think little of sin, but to think
much of the grace which has perfectly pardoned it, and of the blood
which has perfectly canceled it. It is impossible that any one can
gaze on the cross--can see the place which Christ took--can meditate
upon the sufferings which He endured--can ponder on those three
terrible hours of darkness, and at the same time think lightly of
sin. When all these things are entered into, in the power of the Holy
Ghost, there are two results which must follow, namely, an abhorrence
of sin in all its forms, and a genuine love to Christ, His people, and
His cause.
Let us now consider what was done with the "flesh," or "body," of the
sacrifice, in which, as has been stated, we have the true ground of
discipleship. "The whole bullock shall he carry forth, _without the
camp_, unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn
him on the wood with fire." (Chap. iv. 12.) This act is to be viewed
in a double way; first, as expressing the place which the Lord Jesus
took for us as bearing sin; secondly, as expressing the place into
which He was cast by a world which had rejected Him. It is to this
latter point that I would here call my reader's attention.
The use which the apostle, in Heb. xiii, makes of Christ's having
"suffered without the gate," is deeply practical.--"Let us go forth
therefore _unto Him_ without the camp, _bearing His reproach_." If the
sufferings of Christ have secured us an entrance into heaven, the
place where He suffered expresses our rejection from earth. His death
has procured us a city on high; the place where He died divests us of
a city below.[16] "He suffered without the gate," and, in so doing,
He set aside Jerusalem as the present centre of divine operation.
There is no such thing now as a consecrated spot on the earth. Christ
has taken His place, as a suffering One, outside the range of this
world's religion, its politics, and all that pertains to it. The world
hated Him and cast Him out. Wherefore, the word is, "_Go forth_." This
is the motto as regards every thing that men would set up here in the
form of a "camp," no matter what that camp may be. If men set up "a
holy city," you must look for a rejected Christ "without the gate." If
men set up a religious camp, call it by what name you please, you must
"go forth" out of it, in order to find a rejected Christ. It is not
that blind superstition will not grope amid the ruins of Jerusalem in
search of relics of Christ. It assuredly will do so, and has done so.
It will affect to find out and do honor to the site of His cross and
to His sepulchre. Nature's covetousness, too, taking advantage of
nature's superstition, has carried on for ages a lucrative traffic,
under the crafty plea of doing honor to the so-called sacred
localities of antiquity. But a single ray of light from Revelation's
heavenly lamp is sufficient to enable us to say that you must "go
forth" of all these things, in order to find and enjoy communion with
a rejected Christ.
[16] The epistle to the Ephesians furnishes the most elevated view of
the Church's place above, and gives it to us, not merely as to the
title, but also as to the mode. The title is assuredly the blood; but
the mode is thus stated: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great
love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath
quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath
raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in
Christ Jesus." (Eph. ii. 4-6.)
However, my reader will need to remember that there is far more
involved in the soul-stirring call to "go forth" than a mere escape
from the gross absurdities of an ignorant superstition, or the
designs of a crafty covetousness. There are many who can powerfully
and eloquently expose all such things, who are very far indeed from
any thought of responding to the apostolic summons. When men set up a
"camp," and rally round a standard on which is emblazoned some
important dogma of truth, or some valuable institution--when they can
appeal to an orthodox creed--an advanced and enlightened scheme of
doctrine--a splendid ritual, capable of satisfying the most ardent
aspirations of man's devotional nature--when any or all of these
things exist, it demands much spiritual intelligence to discern the
real force and proper application of the words, "Let us go forth," and
much spiritual energy and decision to act upon them. They should,
however, be discerned and acted upon, for it is perfectly certain that
the atmosphere of a camp, let its ground or standard be what it may,
is destructive of personal communion with a rejected Christ; and no
so-called religious advantage can ever make up for the loss of that
communion. It is the tendency of our hearts to drop into cold
stereotyped forms. This has ever been the case in the professing
church. These forms may have originated in real power; they may have
resulted from positive visitations of the Spirit of God. The
temptation is to stereotype the form when the spirit and power have
all departed. This is, in principle, to set up a camp. The Jewish
system could boast a divine origin. A Jew could triumphantly point to
the temple, with its splendid system of worship, its priesthood, its
sacrifices, its entire furniture, and show that it had all been handed
down from the God of Israel. He could give chapter and verse, as we
say, for every thing connected with the system to which he was
attached. Where is the system, ancient, medieval, or modern, that
could put forth such lofty and powerful pretensions, or come down upon
the heart with such an overwhelming weight of authority? And yet, the
command was to "GO FORTH."
This is a deeply solemn matter. It concerns us all, because we are all
prone to slip away from communion with a living Christ and sink into
dead routine. Hence the practical power of the words, "Go forth
therefore unto _Him_." It is not, Go forth from one system to
another--from one set of opinions to another--from one company of
people to another. No; but, Go forth from every thing that merits the
appellation of a camp, "_to Him_" who "suffered without the gate." The
Lord Jesus is as thoroughly outside the gate now as He was when He
suffered there eighteen centuries ago. What was it that put Him
outside? "The religious world" of that day; and the religious world of
that day is, in spirit and principle, the religious world of the
present moment. The world is the world still. "There is nothing new
under the sun." Christ and the world are not one. The world has
covered itself with the cloak of Christianity; but it is only in order
that its hatred to Christ may work itself up into more deadly forms
underneath. Let us not deceive ourselves. If we will walk with a
rejected Christ, we must be a rejected people. If our Master "suffered
_without_ the gate," we cannot expect to reign _within_ the gate. If
we walk in His footsteps, whither will they lead us? Surely, not to
the high places of this Godless, Christless world.
"His path, uncheered by earthly smiles,
Led only to the cross."
He is a despised Christ--a rejected Christ--a Christ outside the camp.
Oh, then, dear Christian reader, let us go forth to Him, bearing His
reproach. Let us not bask in the sunshine of this world's favor,
seeing it crucified, and still hates with an unmitigated hatred, the
beloved One to whom we owe our present and eternal all, and who loves
us with a love which many waters cannot quench. Let us not, directly
or indirectly, accredit that thing which calls itself by His sacred
name, but, in reality, hates His Person, hates His ways, hates His
truth, hates the bare mention of His advent. Let us be faithful to an
absent Lord. Let us live for Him who died for us. While our
consciences repose in His blood, let our heart's affections entwine
themselves around His Person; so that our separation from "this
present evil world" may not be merely a matter of cold principle, but
an affectionate separation, because the object of our affections is
not here. May the Lord deliver us from the influence of that
consecrated, prudential selfishness so common at the present time,
which would not be without religiousness, but is the enemy of the
cross of Christ. What we want, in order to make a successful stand
against this terrible form of evil, is not peculiar views, or special
principles, or curious theories, or cold intellectual accuracy: we
want a deep-toned devotedness to the Person of the Son of God, a
whole-hearted consecration of ourselves--body, soul, and spirit--to
His service, an earnest longing for His glorious advent. These, my
reader, are the special wants of the times in which you and I live.
Will you not, then, join in uttering, from the very depths of your
heart, the cry, "O Lord, revive Thy work!"--"Accomplish the number of
Thine elect!"--"Hasten Thy kingdom!"--"Come, Lord Jesus, come!"