The evil effect of unbelief in the heart of a saint, will often appear in the being satisfied with a small measure where God offers a large one, or rather where He offers a fullness of blessing without any measure at all. Unbelief will even assume the language of humility, and protesting that a very little is "enough," will readily and confidently disavow any longing for more. But the very word "enough" is ambiguous. In one sense, any, the least, measure is "enough" for sinners, because if they were rewarded according to their iniquities and demerits, destruction itself would be a sufficient portion. But we are not to confound what is enough according to man's deservings, with what is enough according to the grace of God and the fullness of His promises. This would be to confound the merits, or rather the demerits of man with the merits of Christ. Humility will claim nothing as due to itself: faith will reject nothing that God has promised.
I have been led into this train of thought, from observing how low and unworthy are the views which sometimes even true Christians entertain of the Gospel..Gospel-redemption with them is little better than a mere rescue, the plucking of a brand from the burning, which is then, as it were, tossed aside as of no value, as worthless, and as inapplicable to any work as the branches of the vine (Ezek. 15), of which men would not even "take a pin to hang any vessel thereon." But such are not God's thoughts. "Let my people go" (not because Egypt is an iron furnace, or a house of bondage, or a place of suffering, but) "that they may serve me."- "This people have I formed for myself, that they may show forth my praise." Speaking according to the language of the Book of Leviticus, we might describe such persons as I have alluded to thus-they are satisfied with the sin-offering, knowing, and caring to know, little of the burnt-offering, and scarcely anything at all of the peace-offering.
Let it be distinctly understood, that this is not the same thing as being unduly or prematurely satisfied with the antitype of the sin-offering. That would be impossible. These offerings have only one antitype. And he that hath the Son hath life. "All things are yours." I speak of an unhappy tendency to separate in imagination, and so to lose the comfort of those things which God in reality has forever joined together. Let us now trace something of the distinction I speak of in the parable of the prodigal son; not that the several offerings are distinctly specified there only; the blessings corresponding to the sin-offering, burnt-offering, and peace-offerings are easily traced. I omit here all reference to the trespass-offering and meat-offering. Of course, if there is reconciliation at all between the father and the son, especially if the father is reconciled to the son, there is the virtue of the sin-offering; i.e. atonement (reconciliation) has been made; not that atonement, in the sense of expiation, is mentioned in Luke 15; only as the father of the prodigal is clearly designed to represent God, we may assume the reconciliation was not unholy; and the holiness of God requires, that without shedding of blood there should be no remission. Here, then, it would seem many stop. They need forgiveness, the Gospel gives it-what lack they yet? (If they said, they have forgiveness, therefore they will not lack anything, the Lord being the shepherd of all whom He forgives, the case would be widely different.) I would now, then, by the Lord's help, notice three blessings, where many seem to see only one; in other words, specify two remaining ones, so powerfully set forth in this interesting chapter. The prodigal, then, has been pardoned-the brand has been plucked from the burning-the blood has put away sin. But this alone, if we could conceive of the sin-offering apart from the burnt-offering (and we may only disjoin them in thought for the purpose of illustration), would be merely a negative advantage. He would not be condemned. Imagine an accused person in our own country, recently a prisoner at the bar, only not found guilty by law-his moral character known to have been positively bad-would the judge or the, prince honor such a one? Would he ask him to dine? But God's ways are not man's ways. The prodigal, then, is not only, forgiven and reconciled, he is accepted. And here comes in the sweet savor of the burnt-offering. Mere forgiveness is negative, acceptance is positive. The father delights in the prodigal. The father will have the servants bring forth, not an apron to cover the beggar's nakedness-not even a coat of skin (token of the sin-offering-not a robe according to the mere need of the half-starved swine-herd, but the best robe in his own wardrobe-something, not to make the, poor prodigal glorious in his own eyes, but something to render him glorious according to the father's thoughts.. Whatever "enough " may signify according to man's dictionary of unbelief, according to God it must be that which will satisfy God Himself. The father knows and. chooses the robe-the son is to be honorably appareled -is to have the ring on his hand, and the shoes on his feet, not for the sake of the son's eyes, but the father's. Here, then, we have the privileges of the burnt-offering -acceptance—sweet savor-perfection; not that we are to be offered up wholly (though it may be well to learn that lesson also by the way; the Lord grant we may learn it more and more!), but that the full acceptance of Jesus, the fire of God having searched Him through: and through, and brought out nothing but a sweet savor, should rest on us. And here it might be said,. Surely this is all. Nay, but the two blessings already noticed are but steps to a third, the crown (in one sense) of all the offerings, just as the killing of beasts, and the mingling of wine, and the furnishing of the table, are but the preliminaries to the feast-and a feast, as the Preacher tells us (Ecc. 10:19), is made for laughter, or joy. Hitherto it might be supposed that mere compassion dictated the dealings of the father with the son, though indeed not according to our view of the burnt-, offering, which we have just stated. And it might have been supposed that compassion, and the natural yearnings of the parent's heart, would lead him to see that his son should be filled as well as warmed, and thus that he should order the servants to provide meat for the hungry one, and strong drink for the lost one who was ready to 'perish, and wine for the relief of his heavy heart. But no-this would be to deny desire in the father, or only to allow it as naturally stirred up by compassion, at the sight of unsatisfied desire in another. But this is not according to God's account of Himself. God has his desire and his joy, of which our poor desires after Him, and our joy in Him, are but the faint reflection. Redemption was not a makeshift, as men say, the last resource of a foiled contriver, but the grand and perfect counterpart of the original design of the mind of God. But to return to the parable;—" And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and" (mark what follows) "let us eat and be merry"-not " Let the prodigal be kept from merely starving ", but " Spread the feast, for I will dine with him, and he with me, many others rejoicing at the same time. Surely there is meaning in that expression in Leviticus, " the food of the Lord's offering;" the. Lord Himself enjoys communion with His recovered people. I would add, that the longing of God for communion with His own is expressed in various parts of the Word, especially Sol. 2:44He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love. (Song of Solomon 2:4). How often do Christians dwell with comfort (and rightly, if they do not exclusively) on the Bridegroom's assurance of the spotlessness and beauty of the bride, and on the bride's desire for the Bridegroom, who, it is to be feared, think little of the Bridegroom's desire for the presence of the bride. I would just remark, in conclusion, that the names of the offerings in our English version are easily misunderstood, especially those of the meat-offerings and the peace-offering. The words "meat-offering," convey to modern ears the very opposite of the real meaning, i.e. it is almost the only offering in which meat, in the usual sense of the word, that is, animal food, or as we say, flesh, was absent. A more appropriate term would be meal-offering, or as the French neatly express it, "le gateau." Again, peace-offering sounds to unlearned ears, as if it were the same as the sin-offering-an offering of atonement, or for making peace. Prosperity-offering, or thank-offering, would be nearer the truth. Perhaps the character of the offering would be well expressed by the name communion-offering, i.e. an offering, in the partaking of which communion was enjoyed, on the ground of the prosperity which the Lord had granted.