Both types—the sin offering and the burnt offering-point to the Lord Jesus Christ, but in 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. In the former, we are taught the preciousness of the Sacrifice; in the latter, the hatefulness of sin.
Let us, for a moment, consider the typical act of “laying on of hands.” This was common to both offerings. In the case of the burnt offering, it identified the offerer with an unblemished sacrifice. In the case of the sin offering, it involved the transfer of the sin of the offerer to the head of the offering.
What, then, is the doctrine set forth in the laying on of hands? It is that Christ was made “sin for us . . . that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:2121For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)). He took our position with all its consequences, in order that we might get His position with all its consequences.
Our Lord Jesus was treated as sin upon the cross, that we might be treated as righteousness in the presence of infinite holiness. He endured the hiding of God’s countenance, that we might bask in the light of that countenance. He had to pass through three hours of 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 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 everything against Him when He hung upon the cursed tree, in order that there might be nothing against us. He drank the cup of wrath, that we might drink the cup of salvation—the cup of infinite favor. He was treated according to our desserts, that we might be treated according to His.
Such is the wonderful truth illustrated by the ceremonial act of imposition of hands. When the worshipper 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. The two were perfectly identified. The act of laying on of hands constituted them one in the view of God. He looked at the offerer through the medium of the 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 desserts of the offerer. They too 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, while the person of the offerer was accepted in the burnt offering. What a vast difference this makes! Hence, though the act of laying on of hands was common to both offerings and was expressive of identification in each case, yet the consequences were as different as possible. The just was treated as the unjust; the unjust was accepted in the just.
C. H. Mackintosh (adapted)