As we trace out different aspects of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, typified in the offerings of old, we discover different features and phases, which unfold themselves to the heart subject to God’s word, like the different features of the landscape, which open out as we pass through beautiful scenery. At every turn something fresh strikes the eye, but each point, as it discovers itself to the diligent observer of the scene, is found to be in harmony with the rest, and really needful to make the whole complete. Without it we should feel there was a want, when all the salient points of the landscape had passed before us in due order. And as the great Architect of the universe has arranged the whole in beautiful order, which His creatures, the more they search into it the more they admire and find delight in it, so He, who knows the end from the beginning, alone knew beforehand how He would glorify Himself through the death of His Son, and therefore could alone by the Spirit so direct the saints of old in their worship as to bring out at different epochs, yet in perfect order, the varying features of that one perfect sacrifice “ Which taketh away the sin of the world.”
These remarks are suggested by noticing the difference in the manner of presenting the sacrifices in the book of Exodus and in the book of Leviticus. In Exodus these are mentioned which concern, directly or indirectly, the congregation of Israel as a whole. The Passover, the ratification of the covenant at Sinai, the daily burnt offerings, had to do directly with all Israel; whilst the sacrifices offered up at the consecration of Aaron and his sons on their individual behalf, indirectly concerned the whole congregation, because needful ere the people could avail themselves of a divinely appointed and duly consecrated priesthood. In Leviticus we have something else, for there we read how the Lord provided for the wishes and wants of individuals. Gracious surely was this. God thought of individuals whilst He charged Himself with the welfare and daily sustenance of the whole congregation in the wilderness. Was any man’s heart filled with a sense of God’s goodness? He provided the way by which he might give vent to it. Was any one bowed down under a sense of sin God revealed the plan by which he might be delivered from it. He would have His redeemed people to be at ease before Him. None need be straightened from an overwhelming sense of His favors—none need be overcome by the weight of his guilt. Joy of heart could be expressed, as the offerer approached the brazen altar with his burnt offering or peace offering; and there, at the same altar, the sinner could find relief as he witnessed the priest busied with his sin-offering or trespass-offering, “It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him,” was God’s mind about the burnt offering; “It shall be forgiven him” was Jehovah’s gracious declaration annexed to the law of the sin-offering and trespass-offering. Not that the blood of bulls, or of goats, could take away sins, or lay the ground on which man could have communion with his Creator; but this blood spake to God (however ignorant the offerer may have been of it) of that precious blood, the blood of His own Son, to be shed on the cross for the glorifying of the Father and the forgiveness and the justification of the sinner.
Redeemed by blood in Egypt, the people learn at Sinai that no sin could be passed over by Jehovah, God of Hosts. Holy and righteous He was, and must ever act in accordance with His nature. What man might have been inclined to pass over or excuse, that He must take notice of. But whilst all would acknowledge that a glaring trespass could not be passed over in silence, God would teach the people that sins done in ignorance, when remembered, must be noticed, and the appointed sacrifice offered up. Where then was the need, if so inclined, to palliate or pass over as of no moment, an act of sin for which Jehovah had provided for the offender’s forgiveness? How could they, if they had any just conception of God’s omniscience or holiness, suppose He had not seen it, or imagined it needed no atonement? But a consciousness of sin, and its deserts, without any knowledge of the sacrifice must only drive a soul to despair; whilst a knowledge of the way of forgiveness or the necessity of a sacrifice, would maintain in the soul a sense of God’s holiness, and impart to the sinner a knowledge of His grace.
For a trespass offering the animal to be brought was the same for all (5:14-6:7.) For one class of sin offerings the Lord took knowledge of the ability of the offerer (v. 1-13), and for another class the measure of his responsibility (4). If the offender was unable to bring anything out of the flock, he might draw near with two turtle doves or two young pigeons. If unable to meet the expense of the birds he might offer the tenth part of an ephah of flour. Where the sin consisted in doing anything through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord which ought not to be done, for the anointed priest, if he sinned according to the sin of the people, and for the whole congregation, a young bullock was to be offered up; for a ruler, a kid of the goats, a male was the appointed sacrifice; whilst for any of the common people, a female, a kid of the goats, or a lamb of the flock was the animal prescribed. None could select for himself what he would bring. God decided what was the suited offering, and each must conform to what He had enjoined. How could it be otherwise? The sin was against Him; the creature had acted contrary to the command of the Creator, to God therefore alone belonged the right of saying what should be offered up for the sinner to have the sense of forgiveness. But though for different classes different sacrifices were enjoined, in each case death must come in and the blood be poured out in all. Nothing less than this could do— “The wages of sin is death.” The death of the Substitute must, then, take place, whether the sinner had offended through ignorance or not. Without shedding of blood is no remission; so the blood was shed, and placed where the offerer had his standing. How clearly this speaks of the sacrifice of Christ, needed for each and all, whilst it tells us of the difference of standing of the anointed priests and the ruler or common person dispensationally before God (4: 7, 17, 18, 25, 30).
The proper victim selected, unblemished in person, the sinner drew near to the appointed place and killed it; then the priest dealt with its blood, and burnt the fat and the kidneys on the altar of burnt-offering. Till death had taken place the priestly service could not begin—for the priest’s work had to do with thy altar and the blood. The animal slain, the priest took of the blood, and sprinkled it before the Lord—before the wail of the sanctuary, putting some of it on the horns of the altar of sweet incense within the tabernacle, or on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation, and in both cases poured out the rest at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering. What sacrifice this prefigured all may understand. As the burnt-offering and peace-offering, the other offerings in which death took place, typified the Lord Jesus who died on the cross, so did the victims offered up as sin-offerings or trespass-offerings. Those typified the Lord as He was in Himself, these latter what He was made for us. And in these sin-offerings we have a double aspect of the sacrifice—viz., the intrinsic holiness and fragrance of the true Victim, and God’s judgment on sin; for besides the death and the blood we have mention of the fat of the inwards, and the ultimate disposal of the carcass. In common with the peace-offering, the fat of the inwards was burnt on the altar of burnt-offering (4:31); but, differing from the ordinance of the peace-offering, the carcass was wholly consumed by the priests, independent of the offerer. The blood spoke of the life of the great sacrifice poured out to make atonement for sinners; the fat of the inwards spoke of the will, which in man’s case, as evidenced by the offering, had not been subject to God; but in His case, whom we have here presented in type, was always subject to His Father. “I do always those things which please Him” was His word when on earth. This, then, which typified His will wholly surrendered to the Father, was burnt on the altar for a sweet savor unto the Lord (4:31); for whatever spoke of Christ as He was in Himself must have been a sweet savor to the Father. But that which spoke of Him as made sin for us was differently treated, being either burnt without the camp or consumed by the ministering priest and the males of the priesthood.
The victim, then, identified with the sinner by the laying of his hands on its head was never seen by him again. If he had sought for it he could not have found it, nor could the question of that particular sin have been re-opened; for the death of the animal had taken place, and its blood been duly dealt with. How carefully did God thus provide that the sinner’s conscience should be at rest about the sin. This is God’s way, and He would signify to the soul what can be affected by sacrifice. By the burning of the carcass by fire, God’s judgment on sin was expressed, the fire of His wrath having fallen on it; but burnt outside the camp, it also typified Him who, “that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” (Heb. 13:1212Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. (Hebrews 13:12)) So, when sacrifices shall again be offered up with acceptance on God’s altar at Jerusalem, the carcass of the sin-offering will be “burnt in the appointed place outside the sanctuary.” Outside the camp, outside the gate, outside the sanctuary, speak of the heinousness of sin in God’s eyes; but the holy character of the flesh (for it was most holy) tells of the untarnishable holiness of the sin-offering; and as God showed what sin was before Him, He also manifested, by the injunctions about the flesh, the holy nature of the antitype. If the flesh was eaten it could only be eaten in the holy place, or, as Num. 18:1010In the most holy place shalt thou eat it; every male shall eat it: it shall be holy unto thee. (Numbers 18:10), expresses it, in the most holy place— “Whosoever toucheth the flesh thereof shall be holy;” “All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.” And none but the males of the priests could eat of it, for it was the work of a priest alone to put away forever out of sight the sin now identified with the victim.
The sacrifice rightly offered up, the sinner could turn away from the altar’ and retrace his steps to his tent. But how did he return? With his heart full of hopes of forgiveness, or buoyed up with the consciousness that he had done all he could to make amends? Would that satisfy the conscience? His conscience told him he had offended against God; nothing short, then, of God’s assurance of forgiveness could satisfy him, and meet the requirements of the case. But that the offerer had, yet mark how he got it: not from man, not even from the priest, but from God Himself. He could leave the altar with the words, “It shall be forgiven him,” sounding in his ears, and awakening a response of thanksgiving from his heart; for they were the words of Jehovah Himself on behalf of this poor sinful creature. The priest could not make more sure what Jehovah had promised; Fall that he could do was to reiterate the words as God’s revelation, “it shall be forgiven him.” Thus the sinner was brought to the Word of God, and thereon was to rest on a rock, which nothing could shake. He had not to wait till the morrow to know it, for it depended on the offering up of the sacrifice; yet these gracious words were not forthcoming till the blood had been rightly dealt with, and the fat of the inwards, with the two kidneys, had been burnt at the altar for a sweet savor. Had it been otherwise, it might have been assumed that forgiveness was based on something connected with the offerer. But the words were recorded only after all had been spoken of that was to be done, that the sinner might learn his forgiveness was based on atonement by blood, and on that only. As soon as all had been done according to the law, these words could be taken by the sinner as Jehovah’s declaration to the burdened heart. He who formed the heart knew what it wanted, and would meet that want as soon as He righteously, could.
This is always God’s way; and never do we read. of man being authorized to absolve another from his sins as before God. When it is a question of acceptance before God, or restoration of soul, He speaks by His word to the sinner, and bestows forgiveness as from Himself. A fellow-creature might tell him of it, and minister to his need, but could not bestow forgiveness, or absolve him from his sins. As priests we can intercede for one another (1 John 5:1616If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. (1 John 5:16); James 5:1616Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)), that the hand of God in government may be removed from the offender. The assembly in any one place, or those (if only two or three, Matt. 18:19,2019Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19‑20),) acting as becomes the assembly, can forgive the sin which has called for discipline, and receive the sinner back to the table (2 Cor. 10); but the question between the soul and God He reserves to Himself— “Who can forgive sins but God only?” stand good still. Thus the Lord appeared to Peter after He rose from the dead, but alone; afterward He publicly commissioned him to feed His sheep. This distinction between discipline on earth and the soul’s restoration to communion with God not being observed, much confusion has in consequence arisen, and men have arrogated to themselves, and assumed the power of transmitting to others an authority which no priest under the Mosaic economy ever exercised, nor the apostles in the New Testament ever claimed. There is the outward dealing with an individual in the exercise or remission of discipline, and there is the inward dealing of God with the heart. This last must always come first, if the assembly are to act in accordance with God’s mind; and what they do is to be ratified in heaven. God deals with the heart, and imparts the sense of forgiveness, consequent on confession of the sin; the assembly deals in discipline, consequent on the failure of the individual to judge himself (Matt. 18), and the remission of discipline, if rightly done, only takes place when preceded by restoration of the soul to communion with God. In the sin-offering we have the latter brought out—God’s assurance to the sinner of forgiveness. In the cleansing of the leper we have an instance of the former; the reception, again, to the enjoyment of all rights on earth of the redeemed people, when the individual has been cleansed from that which deified. This has the character of discipline remitted-the former of sins forgiven. —C. E. S.