Notice in the first place, that the tabernacle has been set up. It is out of the tabernacle of the congregation that this instruction is given. It supposes God is there, and it is a question of approach to Him.
There are two classes of sacrifices: those made by fire for a sweet savor; and the sin and trespass offerings (pretty much the same thing), which were not for a sweet savor, though the fat of them was burnt on the altar. The three sacrifices of sweet savor are, the burnt-offering, the meat (or meal) offering, and the peace-offering. “Peace-offering” is a bad name: “sacrifices de prospérite” they are called in French.
As to the offerings, they are here given as from the Lord in their order; they are for men, but still from the Lord, just as Christ was; whereas when men came to offer, they came, not with the burnt-offering, but with the sin-offering first. Here the divine statement of them is made, and the sin-offering is last because this is what Christ became when He had offered up Himself. It is first when persons come by them, and the order in a measure shows the character.
We first come in Lev. 1 to the burnt-offering; “If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd,” and so on. Sometimes a bullock, and sometimes a goat, or a sheep, but a “male without blemish,” representing Christ in His perfection.
“Of his own voluntary will” should rather be “for his acceptance.” There is one passage made me question it rather, but I believe that is what it should be. In chapter 22 you may make a difference; in verse 19 it means “freewill,” but in verse 29 it should be “for his acceptance.” The offerer puts his hand on the head of the victim. “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him, and he shall kill the bullock before the Lord.” Then the priest should bring the blood and deal with that; this is the priest's first act—to bring the blood.
The special character of the burnt-offering is, that it was not for a committed sin; on the contrary, what is to me a most wonderful thing is that not only the question of our sins is elsewhere met, but in the burnt-offering it is the question of glorifying God in the place of sin itself—Christ “made sin.” And He who know no sin was made sin, and stood in the place of sin (at the cross) before God, so as to glorify God there; “made sin” which, except in a divine way of wisdom, is impossible. But Christ was made sin of His own voluntary will, and yet it was in obedience: these are combined; the two things are together. God “hath made him to be sin.” God put Him in the place of sin, and He offered Himself for sin (and He is our passover), freely and entirely for it.
This is what we were reading in John, “if ye seek me, let these go their way;” Christ put Himself forward, “offered himself without spot to God;” but at the same time, He is “made sin” —it is obedience too. The thing was, to unite this fact of sin being under God's eye, and so to have it there as that God should be perfectly glorified about it. And only in a victim could this be. And there was perfectness in bringing it, for it was the giving up of Himself. Besides the fact of our sins put away there, you get nothing like the atonement. It is all for us all the while, yet Christ is there “made sin” in absolute obedience and self-sacrifice, but making good the righteousness and love and majesty and honor and truth of God, and everything else that is in God. Now it is by this we come; and therefore it is not only that the sin-offering has been there, but in coming by this I come in all the value of that which has glorified God in that very place where I was; I come to God in all the value of this, and get the acceptance of it before God, like Abel. Nowhere else at all is anything seen like this.
Until the man lays his hand upon the victim, it is not a sacrifice properly. Christ “through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God;” but now when I lay my hand upon the victim, that is the application of it, more than part of it.
We hardly get the “made sin” in the verses here. A man's bringing a burnt-offering is as good as coming to the Lord and saying, “I have no devotedness to bring; but all is due to the Lord, and I bring it in the person of my sacrifice,” which in principle would be Christ. This is our coming by it, but we must come as having undevotedness, and not only everything wanting but enmity against God—all that is bad. And then I am accepted in all the value of what Christ has done. Christ has been perfect in obedience and devotedness unto death, and He glorifies God giving Himself up to God altogether, for this is the character offering Himself has, and He is made sin and dealt with as such, and in this shows His absolute devotedness to God. He is sinless too, of course, for He is without blemish. You will get the perfectness of Christ looked at in all His thoughts and will, as attested in the meat-offering; but here more, He is given up as a victim, made sin: there is the blood and atonement here. In the meat-offering you get what Christ was Himself; here it is His offering Himself in the place of sin, that is, “made sin.” If I say “instead of” I must say “sins,” here not “instead of,” but “made sin.” We have sin brought in, which is more than saying we have sinned.
Just look round about and always and see what has come of God! He created everything good, and what state is it in? It is all corruption and defilement, and, if you could have the devil gay, it is here. Where was God's glory and all that He had made blessed? and where was His power? It was all utter dishonor done to God. Therefore there was Jehovah's lot on the day of atonement. The whole thing was God's character. Suppose God cut all off: it would have set aside wickedness, but there could be no love in that, though it would have showed how man had failed. It would have looked like “I have not made the thing well, and I am obliged to smash it up.” But the moment Christ comes in, you get perfect love, complete righteousness against sin, all that God is, looked at as against sin in itself; you get in the cross perfect love to the sinner, God's majesty maintained. “It became Him in bringing many sons into glory to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering.” You get the truth of God carried out even against His own Son; that everything God is, the most opposite things, righteousness and love (which would have been so without sin, but) all brought out here, in the person of Him who offered Himself in obedience and love; “that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.” Every moral element, even that which seemed incompatible, all that God was, was displayed. And this is the place where God has been dishonored. Thus, where all evil was, everything that was base and degrading, there the opposite was brought out, when Christ was made sin.
The burnt-offering has more to do then with the nature, the sin and trespass-offering with acts of sin. The one, the burnt-offering, is where the moral nature of God was in question; and the other, the sin-offering, where ordinances were. The burnt-offering has to do with the perfect nature of God. The great thing is that it meets God really, and in the place of sin. You might say, perhaps, it deals with our state rather than nature on our side.
It is the “Where art thou?” not “What hast thou done?” “Where art thou?” and Christ was the forsaken of God; there is grace for us. Thus the burnt-offering goes wider than the state of the world, and this is why I say in the place where sin was. But I am not speaking of Satan to include him at all.
The expression in verse 4, “to make atonement,” is the Piel form of the Hebrew verb בׇפַֽר. It is all a question what כׇּפַֽר means. What led me to that was, it is the same word which is usually translated “to make atonement for,” which means “to cover.” If I am putting away sin I cover it, but then I find the word עַל means “upon” (or with), and if you cover upon, you put out of sight. Thus I find this word Caphar used about the scapegoat, Caphar with the altar, the incense altar, as well as with the scapegoat. I get into some abstract way of thinking about it, and, if you look in a dictionary, you find no great help.
The scapegoat is an instance of the perfect nonsense of speculation. Some make the scapegoat a demon and then sent away; some that it was sent away to appease the demon lest he should do mischief to Israel; and one makes out that Azazel was a demon, and they sent the sins all back to him.
Well, it is as to sin in the sin and trespass-offering, but here it is sin. It is the same Hebrew form in Lev. 1:4; 16:10, “to make atonement for him,” and “with him,” in our Bibles.
There is “atonement about” and another case two or three times of “cover over” and “from.”
The entire burnt-offering was wholly burnt to God;
it was Jehovah's lot in a way on that one point—sin. Skin—as in the case of Adam and Eve—was given to the priest, but the whole carcass went up burnt to God. It was Christ's offering Godward, so to speak, but as a man, and made sin.
The wrath of God against sin was here, yet there came up a sweet savor. Such is the very fact. Instead of His being disobedient unto death, death was there and sin was there, and He was obedient unto it; it was the perfection of the opposite of sin. Here Christ does God's will perfectly, and that is the mystery. In the very place and condition of sin you find this; when He offers Himself and says, “the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me; but that the world may know that I love the Father,” that is perfectness on one side, “and as the Father gave me commandment,” that is the other side; and, being made sin, He has to drink this cup, and He says, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” ·
Is the priest's having the skin, the satisfaction of Christ in His own work? Perhaps so. Christ is covered with the glory of it any way; only He had nothing like nakedness to cover. Abel's offering had this character in its nature. There is no sin-offering until the law, though sins were there. The law brought out the definite transgressions and therefore the sin-offering then got its place in an intelligent way. Abel had no sin actually named. It was the “where,” and not the “what,” in his case.
The epistle to the Romans is the broad fact of the “what” to chapter v. 11; afterward the “where” is followed out. What we call the nature is practically identified with the “where;” but in the burnt-offering we look more on God's side, at the fact rather than at the nature that is active. Now, in order to get rid of the nature, I die with Christ: this is another element brought in. For when I look at the condition, I say, there is Christ the victim that died between me and God because of sin.
Then you get details. They washed the parts of the animal, that they should be ostensibly clean, to keep the idea of absolute cleanness.
Being made sin is not the idea of imputation. With imputation I could not have a sweet savor. This sacrifice is not for remission but for glorifying God. The end of 2 Cor. 5 is not remission. That is where I take up the difference between God's righteousness and righteousness under law. Men make Christ's righteousness in life under law to be our righteousness. All that was necessary in Him first. But in my righteousness now, I get all the perfection of what Christ is. It is not what He did, as a living man, but God's own character was glorified in it, and my positive righteousness is according to what God's nature is. That is why I felt the importance of what was said about it. My objection was that it kept saints back from the infinite acceptance they have in Christ in this way. It was not the mere putting away of sins as in Rom. 3; 4, which is only forgiveness; but the burnt-offering has its own infinite value and character. The result shows it: Christ is now in the glory, and I am accepted in the Beloved.
In the meat-offering we get a picture of Christ's person fully tested by the righteousness of God.
Eire is testing judgment, not death at all. If there be only a little dross, fire purges it out; if there be only evil, it is consumed.
It has been thought that the grades were to enable a poor man to bring an offering, which some have thought showed the estimate of the offerer. It was not killed before the altar, that is, between the gate and the altar, but northward. It might show a certain intelligence; at any rate, it was not simply the man's coming up as he pleased. One entered the gate at the east of the court, and the north was to the right hand. He must do God's will.
In the meat-offering the points are, the perfect humanity, and the Holy Ghost, which was the oil, but employed in different ways. The frankincense is the perfect grace that goes up to God. The burning on the altar is the thing that gives the sufferings of Christ. There are other variations; the oil kneaded in the flour gives Christ born by the Holy Ghost; the anointing with oil is what Christ was after His baptism. There is another character; it was broken to bits, and they were all anointed with oil to show that every part of Christ was in the power of the Spirit of God.
Its simple existence as a cake was sinless humanity and by the power of the Holy Ghost.
It is baked, but not baked meal by itself: when it was a meal-offering “baked in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened mingled with oil, thou shalt part it in pieces and pour oil thereon.” There it is a kind of cake common among the Hebrews, then “baken in the oven,” or “in the frying pan,” that is, every possible way. When it was offered, it was taken out. Parted in pieces means in every detail, words, works, everything. There were two things that could not be in it, honey and leaven, save in two exceptional cases. But there must always be salt. It is said both of sin-offering and meat-offering, that they are “most holy.”
Next they were eaten by the priests; it was a priestly thing, not to be eaten by the priest's daughters, as was allowed in some of the peace-offerings.
Leaven is corruption or sin; and honey is not allowed either, for it represents the sweetness of nature, which may be a very pleasant thing sometimes, but cannot go into a sacrifice; salt must— “the salt of the covenant of thy God,” which is the separative power of holiness. “Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” Everybody will get judgment; wicked and good will get fire, but it is only sacrifices offered to God that really have the power which separates from evil and keeps evil away.
Honey is pleasant and good in its place sometimes. I was thinking of Jonathan. The Lord does refresh us with outward mercies, kind things, the friendship of brethren, but with caution as to the use of them. “Hast thou found honey? Eat as much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith and vomit it,” and too much even here does do so.
The Lord Jesus had no honey, not a bit; He had divine kindness. Honey would have taken Him up to Mary and Martha when Lazarus was sick, if I may use such a figure; but salt kept Him away. There could be no honey in a sacrifice, nor in a meat-offering, “for ye shall burn no leaven nor any honey in any offering of the Lord made by fire.”
The honeycomb in Luke 24, I suppose, was good in its place. It is not meant that honey is always bad. Naturally the moment He became the cake after the baptism of John, there was no honey. There should be our answer to it, “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God.” Fire being the perfect testing of God's judgment, we have Christ here not merely looked at as making atonement, but also as tested by the fire on the cross. This is true of everyone, everyone shall be salted with fire. The fire burns out dross, if there is any to burn. This is the testing of Him who was made sin; but there is no bloodshedding here.
It answers to the Lord's death in Luke, and this character is in the garden there. John is the burnt-offering rather, in which He offers Himself. There were some meat-offerings in which leaven was bound to be put. On the day of Pentecost when the church was offered, brought to God, leaven was put in; and in the offering of the firstfruits—not in the first of the firstfruits—there was leaven. The moment you bring us in, you have it, but not in anything for a sweet savor.
As to “green ears” of corn dried by the fire, Christ was a green tree, as a living one, and He says as it were, “if I come to this, what will come to Israel, that is dead?” Here, too, green is full of life, and then dried by fire. So Christ, and He was a sweet savor. “Thou shalt offer for the meat-offering of thy first fruits green ears of corn, dried by the fire, even corn beaten out of full ears.” They were to be full as Christ was. The rest was most holy, when the memorial and the frankincense had been burnt; this all went up to God. You have both meal cakes and firstfruits as meat-offerings; and there was always oil upon it, except in the case of meal for a poor person's sin-offering. And, also, in the offering of anything with leaven, there was a sin-offering with it, which meets our leaven, so to speak.
There are beautiful details of Christ, what you see in His life. Somewhat like a great picture full of people, where they give you a little outline of the heads of them all to say who they are. For these sacrifices are very like that.
Then, in the peace-offering, we have the great facts of atonement for sin, no less than of His death, as well as the bread come down from heaven. It is not the same thought, but the two things; and the result. We have had Christ in perfectness as dying for us, and in the perfectness of His person, and then we come to talk of communion.
The force of the offering is communion, no doubt, because the people eat of it; but the name has nothing to do with that. It is a prosperity-offering, or a thanksgiving, or for vows. The man brought his animal, laid his hand upon its head, killed it at the door of the tabernacle, and the priest took the blood and sprinkled it upon the altar. The fat went to the Lord to be burnt upon the altar for a sweet savor. You cannot separate that from Christ offering Himself as a burnt-offering.
The word is merely to make a fire. I do not know of any distinct meaning. It may be mentioned like the unjust judge in the parable: God is not an unjust judge, but the judge is introduced to make the picture complete. In the meat-offering there is all Christ's life before He was offered. A peace-offering could not be offered by itself; it is not to be separated from the burnt-offering. (Chap. 3:5.) In point of fact, the meat-offering was offered with the burnt-offering; they are two aspects of the same Christ. “The priest” does not mean “the high priest.” It is said, “The priests, Aaron's sons, shall do” so and so.
When we arrive at the law of the peace-offering, a portion is for Jehovah, for the priest that offers it, for the priests in general, and for the company. There is God's joy, Christ's own joy; the priests generally, as such, rejoice, and the company of the faithful.
Fowls were allowed for a burnt-offering, as a perfection of grace, if a man was poor; whereas for a peace-offering, if he could not bring an animal, he might stay at home and take it quietly. No matter how poor my thoughts are, I cannot do without a burnt-offering.
These were all the offerings of a sweet savor. The fat and the blood were not to be eaten; the spring of life—the fat was the expression of that; and all that was in Christ, was offered to God. “Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked.” Fat is used there for a certain energy of life, and so elsewhere.
The family eat the peace-offering, so, if a man asked a company to dinner, he had to make a peace-offering of it, and part was offered to Jehovah, and part to the priests, and the company made their feast of the rest. If a man killed an animal in the wilderness and did not bring it for an offering to the Lord, that soul was to be cut off from his people. (Lev. 17:3, 4, and 5, and Deut. 12:21.) And you notice his own hand is to bring the offering made by fire. (Chap. 7:30.) “The fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave-offering before the Lord.” “And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for a heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace-offerings.”
First is the offering in itself, and then the directions for all the circumstances connected with it.
In reality, when you come to the peace-offering, it was a festival. All that concerns sin comes first, and then other things afterward.