Part 5 (1/2)

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 wors.h.i.+p, our communion, and our testimony. If I am uneasy in reference to the settlement of the question of sin, I cannot wors.h.i.+p, I cannot enjoy communion either with G.o.d or His people, nor can I be an intelligent or effective witness for Christ. The heart must be at rest before G.o.d as to the perfect remission of sin ere we can ”wors.h.i.+p Him in spirit and in truth.” If there be guilt on the conscience, there must be terror in the heart; and, a.s.suredly, a heart filled with terror cannot be a happy or a wors.h.i.+ping heart. It is only from a heart filled with that sweet and sacred repose which the blood of Christ imparts, that true and acceptable wors.h.i.+p can ascend to the Father. The same principle holds good with respect to our fellows.h.i.+p with the people of G.o.d 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 relations.h.i.+p He stands, what office He fills, what work He performs, what position He occupies, His personal glories s.h.i.+ne 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 Ant.i.type, 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 G.o.d; 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d'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 wors.h.i.+per 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 pa.s.s 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 G.o.d;” 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. He delighted to do the will of G.o.d; 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 G.o.d, and we needed a type to present Him to us as One whose holy nature shrank from the consequences of imputed sin. Blessed be G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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? a.s.suredly, it was ”the determinate counsel” of G.o.d that Christ should suffer, and, moreover, it was Christ's joy to do the will of G.o.d; but how are we to understand the expression, ”If it be possible, let this cup pa.s.s 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 att.i.tude in which the above expression presents Him. But the burnt-offering does not thus reflect Him. There is not a single circ.u.mstance 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 circ.u.mstances 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 G.o.d's countenance, was pa.s.sing across His spirit, and He could not even contemplate it without an ”If it be possible, let this cup pa.s.s 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 pa.s.s 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 Ant.i.type, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's presence because He had sin on Him by imputation, that we might be received into G.o.d's house and into His bosom because we have a perfect righteousness by imputation. He had to endure the hiding of G.o.d's countenance, that we might bask in the light of that countenance. He had to pa.s.s through three hours'

darkness, that we might walk in everlasting light. He was forsaken of G.o.d 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 ill.u.s.trated by the ceremonial act of imposition of hands. When the wors.h.i.+per 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 const.i.tuted them one in G.o.d'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 const.i.tuted them one in the judgment of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d.” This is the doctrine. Our sins brought Christ to the cross, but He brings us to G.o.d. And if He brings us to G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 Ant.i.type of the sin-offering: it is as wors.h.i.+ping priests, clothed in garments of salvation, that we contemplate Christ as the Ant.i.type 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.s 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 G.o.d's wisdom in them, or to confess our own ignorance of them. To pa.s.s 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 a.s.suredly 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 ”was.h.i.+ng 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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--G.o.d'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 s.h.i.+ne 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 G.o.d. Thus have we unfolded to us the profound mystery of G.o.d's face hidden from that which Christ _became_, and G.o.d's heart refreshed by what Christ _was_.

This imparts a peculiar charm to the sin-offering. The bright beams of Christ's Personal glory s.h.i.+ning out from amid the awful gloom of Calvary--His Personal worth set forth in the very deepest depths of His humiliation--G.o.d'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 wors.h.i.+per 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, wors.h.i.+p and disciples.h.i.+p. 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d'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 wors.h.i.+p G.o.d. 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 G.o.d, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living G.o.d?” (Heb. ix.