I think I see a difference between the burnt-offering and the blood on the mercy-seat, which had exercised me, more clearly. The latter is what is presented to God as contrasted with confessing sins on the scape-goat; still it was a sacrifice for sin. This latter was presented to God as a satisfaction for sin, not merely measured by man's responsibility; that was the altar of burnt-offering, and sin-offerings connected with it, but met what God was, with us, on His throne, where He Himself was-what He required, not from man as responsible as man, but for His holy and righteous nature. God in that nature was satisfied, so peace was made. It was a question settled, but there was no question of sweet savor.
But in the burnt-offering, we have the perfectness of Christ Himself in doing it; blood was shed, atonement was made; but it was what Christ was, and His perfectness in doing it when He was made sin. " That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, so I do." The Victim spotless and perfect; the motive-love to the Father-perfect; obedience perfect. It was when He was made sin (hence blood-shedding) that the perfect opposite of sin was shown, perfect obedience and love to the Father in absolute self-giving-up, instead of self-seeking. Through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God; hence, when the fire came, all was perfect sweet savor, and went up to God. Christ's soul in this directed all there -His absolute thought was the glory of God, and obeyed His will at all cost to Himself, yet perfect in doing it. " My God, my God " was perfect faith when abandoned-" Thou continuest holy," no disturbance of mind in calling upon God an instant in question, like Job, but the contrary, in far other sorrow. Hence in being made sin, and just then, all was sweet savor to God. Nor could aught else have brought out the glory of God; not in Adam's innocence. No redemption love, no righteousness, no holiness, no setting in grace His purpose in love in a creature. He enjoyed sweet blessing in innocence; but nothing had or could come out of what God was, save goodness and wise power in creation. It was not satisfying God-His righteous exigence -but a perfect sweet savor in the thing itself, though the cross did also satisfy Him in righteousness, and our sins were borne there too. Still it is here as shedding blood and making atonement, because sin was here, and God had to be glorified, when it was in respect of it.
In the burnt-offering, sin being come in, death, in the perfect self offering-up of Christ, could rise as a sweet savor and perfect satisfaction to all that God's nature and authority was and claimed, and more than glorify it. Hence it was l’ka-pher (to make an atonement) for the man who brought it. It was not merely bearing his sins, though that was needed, but meeting all the moral nature and character of God. It was the perfect offering-up of Christ in the place where sin had placed man—perfection in giving Himself up to God, even to death.
2. We must not confound here the kor'ban (oblation) and the yak'riv (he shall cause to draw near), with the consumption of, or dealing with the thing offered, the hik'tir (he shall cause to burn as a sweet savor); this is important in understanding the work of Christ.
We must carefully distinguish between the offering here kor'ban, yak'riv and the offering made by fire ish-sheh (a sacrifice made by fire), O-lah (burnt-offering) etc. The one is being presented to God, the other the dealing with the kor'ban in sacrifice. Save when he went in to present the blood after death, the former was not the priest's work, unless in the case where the high priest himself stood personally as the representative of the whole people.
3. Lir'tso-no (for his acceptance). See chapter 22: 18-20.
There is more than one aspect in which we must look at sacrifices, and learn from them as to Christ. The Passover arrested the exercise of the judgment of God, where the blood was sprinkled; the whole burnt-offering was for propitiation lir' tso-no (for his acceptance or favor) the bringing of favor upon him, and for atonement ka-phar (cover). But though death came in, as it must, for those who were in sin, in man's fallen estate, yet it was death as a whole free-will offering to God—a sweet savor.
4. It is not only ka-phar (cover) has the sense of forgiveness, but ka-sah (hide) also. The force of forgiving is to be noted—it is not per se atonement, but between the soul and God. It is ka-sah (hide) in Prov. 10:1212Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins. (Proverbs 10:12). " Charity shall cover," as in Psa. 32:11<<A Psalm of David, Maschil.>> Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. (Psalm 32:1). The atonement was needed that God might righteously forgive or cover sin. Men would unrighteously cover it up in conscience—with his brother, in wrong to self, he may, and through love; it is not out before God in government; there may be a question of conscience remaining for the individual.
There seems to be an evident difference between ka-sah (to hide) and ka-phar (to cover) as to covering sin. As far as I can see, the former is covering over in or as to the person in question—he is covered with hair, with leprosy, the latter is addressed to the person in whose sight it is covered, hence it is satisfaction, atonement—my sins are k'suy (hidden away, Psa. 32:11<<A Psalm of David, Maschil.>> Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. (Psalm 32:1)); but Christ ka-phar (atoned for) my sins. See this chapter as well as chapter 5. See Gen. 32:2020And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me. (Genesis 32:20) (I will appease), 1 Sam. 12:33Behold, here I am: witness against me before the Lord, and before his anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you. (1 Samuel 12:3), and Ex. 21:3030If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. (Exodus 21:30).
Sa-lakh (forgiven) seems to be removing sin from the person, to take it away in the sight of the person to whom he is responsible, and so forgiveness—I set it aside, and it is gone instead of holding you still responsible for it. Na-sa (bear) is to bear, and so lift up and take away, something of aphesis (remission) and airo (to lift up), only airo is not to carry or bear, and would quite as much answer to Sa-lakh. Hence in that sense it is also used of the person himself for being under sin, chapter 5:1. "He shall bear his iniquity." One who bears my burden takes it away from me; but it is used for lifting up from off a person his burden, as well as for carrying oneself, and hence for forgiving.
In Greek airo is to lift up or take away—never to bear on oneself; anaphero is to bear, but as a sacrifice on the altar; upophero is never used for this; prosphero is to offer to. So he offered Himself without spot, ka-ray (offered). Kha-ta (to err, in Piel, to offer as a sin-offering) is the wrong direction of the mind; A-sham (guiltiness) what is displeasing, offensive to God, though man through carelessness may do it unwittingly; but when he knows he has done what is offensive, then he is positively guilty if he does not turn to God, making confession, and it be repaired or set right. But it is taken ordinarily for guilt or trespass, and it is evident that if I have done something offensive to my father unawares, if I come to know it, if I have right feeling as to him I shall set it right; otherwise it becomes, i.e., the state of my mind as to it, positive sin—and so I hold it when I find it out, and hence am right—only it needs atonement.
13. The burning of the burnt-offering, and the fat of the peace-offering, and when so ordered, of the sin-offering, is not expressed by the same word as the burning of the sin-offering but by the same word as " incense " and " burn incense "; so it was for a sweet savor, a sacrifice made by fire.
It is so much the clearer that the mercy-seat was a place of approach, not judgment, that there was no fire as on the altar. The fire was the fire of the altar, was always burning upon it, and judgment is according to works, man's responsibility, though God's righteous judgment.
In this respect, therefore, the burnt-offering was, perfect as it was, inferior to the sin-offering in its highest sense. It was not an offering for particular faults as the common sin-offerings. It was a perfect voluntary free-will offering, the consecration of man to God even unto death, and where sin and death were around, so as to make it more perfect dying unto all here, and self-surrender to God of life in the place of sin, so that there was none here where sin and its fruit was, but the contrary, and the rather—"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again." But it is Man who offers Himself, divinely no doubt, completing in fact Psalm 40, and through the Eternal Spirit, to God, without spot. Still it was as a sin-offering that the blood was put upon the mercy-seat. No doubt that implied the previous offering of Himself to God, and that up to death absolutely, so that the sweet savor went to God, but it was meeting what God was in His nature as refuting sin (not the scape-goat which accompanied it—that was sins confessed), a sin-offering of which the blood was put on the mercy-seat. The burnt-offering was Man offered, perfect in the place of death; the day of atonement was God glorified in His nature, so that He was propitious, and could freely bless, which is His nature. But it was Himself glorified, so that we become the righteousness of God, and grace reigns through righteousness. But the point is, God is glorified, not merely man perfect, divinely perfect. It is not without importance to see that it was a sin-offering that was put upon the mercy-seat.
All the school of teaching, which makes it a filling up self-devotedness, though to death and in the place of condemnation, and not a true sin-offering, is proved false—i.e., perfect man, and perfect man right, not God when everything was contrary—but it was man, and there, consequently, they stop in their estimate of the character of the offering. But this was not what went within the veil, nor what was the ground of approach to God. This is just the question with some; hence they never get beyond man and the world.