THE
ATONEMENT
CHAPTER VIII.
The Burnt-Offering. (Lev. i.)
THE theme of Leviticus is sanctification. Exodus closes
with the tabernacle set up and the glory of the Lord filling the place of His
habitation. Leviticus begins with the Lord speaking to Moses thence. His
presence is in grace, but in holiness: "Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord,
forever." Holiness in grace is what sanctification implies.
First of
all, then, as we open the book, we find given by God Himself the full details
of those sacrifices which are the various aspects of that one Sacrifice in the
power of which we are sanctified, or set apart to God. There are five, divided
into two classes very distinct in character, according as they are or are not
"sweet-savour offerings."
The term we have already had in connection
with Noah's sacrifice. The burnt offering, meat offering (so called), and peace
offering are all said to be "for a sweet savour unto the Lord." The sin and
trespass offerings (which are quite distinct from one another moreover), are
not that, although expressly guarded from disparagement, as "most holy." (Chap.
vi. 17.) These last are indeed the special witnesses of divine holiness as
against sin, while the former speaks more of the perfection of the offering on
its own account. Judgment is God's strange act; in the self-surrender of One
come to do His will in an obedience reaching to and tested by the death of the
cross, God can have fullest and most emphatic delight.
It is evident
that the burnt-offering has a very special place in the divinely appointed
ritual of sacrifice. It not only comes first in order here, but in a certain
sense is the basis of all the rest. The meat offering is often spoken of as an
appendage of it: "the burnt offering and its meat offering" (as Lev. xxiii. 13,
18; Num. xxviii. 28, 31; xxix. 3, 6, 9, etc.). The peace offering is burnt upon
it (Lev. iii. 3.). The altar, again, is especially styled "The altar of burnt
offering" (ch. iv. 7, 10, 18, 25, etc.); and on it, night and morning, the
"continual" burnt offering was offered: God would keep ever before Himself what
was so precious to Him.
The very name of it speaks really of that: it
is literally "the offering that ascends" - goes up to God. All the offerings
did, of course; but of them all, this is the one that does: as of all the
offerings consumed on the altar this is the only one that is entirely burnt, -
the "whole burnt offering." It is especially God's side of sacrifice, as (of
the sweet savour offerings) the peace offering was man's side. Yet, on the
other hand, it was the offering "for acceptance;" as that verse should read
which we have in our common version as "He shall offer it of his own voluntary
will." It should be, " He shall offer it for his acceptance." The measure of
our acceptance is not simply that sin is put away: it is all the preciousness
to God of that perfect "obedience unto death" by which sin is put away. This by
itself would show us that the peculiar acceptability of sacrifice to God is
what the burnt offering expresses.
But this implies that voluntariness
of character which, spite of the mistranslation already noticed, is clearly to
be found in it. This attaches, indeed, to all the sweet savour offerings, as it
could not to the sin and trespass. But here the perfect self-surrender of Him
who says, "Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God," is tested in the substitutionary
victim place. The offering is flayed and cut into [not pieces merely, but] its
pieces: all is fully and orderly exposed. Then, head, fat, inwards, legs, the
fire tries all, and sends all in sweet savour up to God.
This testing
by fire we must carefully distinguish from what is by some confounded with it -
the judgment due to sin. It has thus been said that while every offering did
not set forth death, every one (as the meat offering, and the similar offering
of fine flour, permitted to the extremely poor for a sin offering,) did set
forth that of judgment. Older expositors have inferred from it that the Lord
suffered for our sins after death. The whole thought is entire misconception,
which would introduce confusion into the meaning of all the offerings.
Consistency would then surely require that even the burning of the incense
should typify judgment also; but who would not perceive the incongruity? The
meat offering would also be true atonement. The sin offering burnt outside the
camp and upon the ground, the true figure of judgment borne, would be
indistinguishable from the burnt offering here. The distinction between the
sweet savour offerings and the rest, carefully made in these chapters, could
not be sustained; and judgment of sin would be declared a sweet smell to God.
Moreover, the answer by fire, as on God's part the token of acceptance of the
sacrifice, which we find again and again in the after-history, would connect
strangely with the thought of judgment upon sin. In a word, if any thing is
clear in these types almost, it is so that the altar fire must have another
meaning.
Now, it is admitted that fire is the common figure of
judgment; yet when it is said, "The fire shall try every man's work, of what
sort it is," we have another thought from that of wrath. "Our God is a
consuming fire" - not, surely, of wrath to those who can truly say, "Our God" -
but of holiness, yea, jealous holiness. It is this that implies of necessity
His wrath against sin: it is no mere governmental display, but the result of
His own nature - of what He in Himself is. But this holiness the Lord met
indeed (as seen in all sacrifice) in the place of sin, and therefore of the
wrath due to sin. All death, all blood shed in this way therefore was in
atonement. Of the burnt offering it is especially said, "it shall be accepted
for him, to make atonement for him." And of all blood connected with the altar
it is said, "I have given it upon the altar to make atonement for your souls,
for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." (Lev. xvii. ii.)
But while this is true of all sacrifice therefore, it is a very different thing
to assert that judgment as distinguished from death is found in every offering,
even where death was not and could not be. On the contrary, it may be
maintained that death as the great public mark of divine judgment was what was
kept prominently before the eyes of men in a dispensation which appealed to
sight and sense, as all did more or less until the Christian. But then the
judgment in this was not the judgment after death, but only the shadow of it:
it was not judgment as distinct from death, surely. The blood was the
atonement, so the law said; not the altar fire which consumed the victim.
How different, the thought of wrath consuming its object, and of
holiness exploring that which, exposed perfectly to its jealous searching,
yielded nothing but sweet savour -"savour of rest"! Here the circumstances of
the trial only enhance the perfection found. In human weakness and extremity,
where divine power exposed, not sheltered, or sustained and capacitated for
suffering, not rendered less; where upon One racked with bodily suffering fell
the reproaches of those who in Him reproached God - the taunts and mockings of
heartless wickedness, taunting Him with His love; where the God whom He had
known as none else, His all in the absolute dependence of a faith which
realized human helplessness and necessity in all its terrors, in the utter
loneliness and darkness from which all divine light had withdrawn: - there it
was that the fire brought out nothing but sweet savour. Every part fully
exposed and searched out -"head, inwards, legs" - mind and heart; spirit, soul
and all the issues of these in word and work and way - all furnished that for
God which abides perpetually before Him in unchanged and infinite delight.
"Accepted in the Beloved," this delight it is in which we too abide.
Preceding the offering upon the altar was what was common to all these
sacrifices - the laying of the offerer's hand upon the victim, and the
necessary death and sprinkling of the blood. All these must be considered in
their relation to the whole.
The "laying on of hands" we find in
various connections both in the Old Testament and the New. It is given an
important place in that summing up of the fundamental principles of Judaism -
the "word of the beginning of Christ"* (Heb. vi. 1, marg.) - from which the
apostle exhorts the Hebrew converts to go on to "perfection"- the full thing
which Christianity alone declared. The fundamental points or "foundation" of
Judaism he declares to be such truths as "repentance from dead works, and faith
toward God, a resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment." Four central and
solemn truths these, but the real Christian "foundation" Christ come and dead
and risen, is not among them. Consequently, as the apostle urges throughout the
,epistle, there was in Judaism no real "purging of the conscience from dead
works," such as the blood of Christ gives, no perfecting of the worshipper for
the presence of God, and no way of access into His presence. (Chap. ix, x.)
What then took the place of these for a believer, in the old dispensation now
passed away? In view of resurrection and eternal judgment, what had he to
assure his soul? The words I omitted just now from the statement of Jewish
principles supply us with the answer. He had "a teaching of baptisms, and
of laying on of hands," - of those baptisms, namely, which in the ninth chapter
(v. 10.) the apostle puts in contrast with that work of Christ of which they
were indeed the shadow, and only the shadow. In place of Christian assurance in
the knowledge of the one completed work of atonement, he had forgiveness of
individual sins by sacrifices continually needing repetition. How immense the
difference! Out of which, alas, the enemy of souls has cheated the mass of
Christians, replacing the "perfection," which God has declared, by sacramental
absolutions, or repeated applications of the blood of Christ, - the old Jewish
doctrine in a Christian dress.
*Not, as in the text, "the principles of the
doctrine of Christ," which surely we could not be called to "leave."
Baptismon didakes)- " teaching," rather than "doctrine." The
difference is, that "doctrine " would intimate that the explanation of the
baptisms was given, which was not: Christianity alone gives the "doctrine," as
the apostle does in chapter ix. Again, it is really "baptisms." as also in ix.
10, - not "washings," but ceremonial purifications, but not to be confounded
either with Christian baptism, or even John's, which are always
baptismmata, not baptismoi .
Here, then, as a central
part of Judaism, the "laying on of hands" had its place. It was the
designation* of the offering as the sacrificial substitute of him who offered
it. Its importance lay in this, that it expressed thus the faith of the offerer
for his own part. It said, "This is my offering." On the day of atonement, the
high priest in the same act said this for the people at large; but in these,
each for himself said it. Faith must be this individual self-appropriating
thing, although I do not mean by that what many would take from it, and what is
taught by many.
*The actual solemn appointment. The transference of sin was
implied In these cases, just because it was a substitutionary victim that was
marked out; but no transfer of any kind was necessarily shown in the act
itself. I cannot enter upon the question of its meaning in the New Testament,
which would lead me too far from what is before us. but I believe it every
where expresses the same thing.
When, in the vision of Zechariah the
prophet, the high-priest Joshua, as the representative of guilty Israel, stood
in filthy garments before the angel of the Lord, "He answered and spake unto
those that stood before Him, saying, Take away his filthy garments from
him."' But that was not enough. "And unto him He said, Behold I have
caused thine iniquity to pass from thee."' (Chap. in. 4.) How beautiful this
direct assurance from God's own lips! Translated, too, out of the language of
type and figure into the plainest possible words, that it may be fully
understood. Just so in every case for solid peace must there be this direct
assurance to the soul. It is God who appropriates the work of Christ to us:
not, indeed, in spoken words now, but in written ones. But when, then, does the
Word of God thus appropriate Christ to us? This very scene may give the answer,
It is when we repent.
Should I not rather say, "When we believe"? That
would be quite true, of course. Surely it is true that he that believeth on
Christ hath everlasting life. Yet there are those (and not a few) who stumble
here, and say, "O yes, if I were sure that I believed!" And objectors urge,
"Your faith that believers have eternal life Scripture justifies, but where is
the word to say that you are a believer? This is your own thought merely, and
you may be mistaken."
So I drop right down upon this: "Christ died for
sinners." That surely is Scripture, and you will not say, I am not a sinner, or
that I have not Scripture for that! Here, then, I have solid ground under my
feet; here the everlasting arms hold me fast. And this is repentance, when I
take home to myself the sentence of God upon myself, and thus join the company
of lost ones, whom (in contrast with those "just persons who need no
repentance") the Shepherd goes after till He finds and saves. Search as you
will, you will find no other representative of the "sinner that repenteth" but
the "sheep that was lost." (Luke xv.) To such lost ones, "clothed in filthy
garments," the Lord says still, even by the mouth of Zechariah, "I have caused
thine iniquity to pass from thee." Our appropriation here is but the
apprehension of what He has done.
But if I urge "Christ died for
sinners" in my own behalf, I have, as it were, my hands upon the head of the
victim; and thus it is that my acceptance is declared to me. People confound
this sometimes with what Isaiah says -"The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity
of us all" but the hand of the offerer could not by any possibility be
Jehovah's hand. And I can, however long ago the precious Sacrifice has been
offered, by faith consent to it as offered for me. Without this there can be no
acceptance, no salvation. It is here that the position of the one who denies
atonement is so unspeakably solemn.
The death of the victim follows at
the offerer's hands: priestly work has not yet begun. "And he shall kill the
bullock before the Lord." It is thus emphasized that the death of Christ was
our act;* not as being morally one with those who slew Him, (although that is
surely true, and most important in its place,) but by our sin necessitating His
death on account of it: "the Son of Man must be lifted up." It is "before the
Lord," as showing that the necessity on the other side was a divine one,
proceeding from the holiness of the divine nature.
*I cannot see that the
offerer here represents Christ, and therefore as laying down His own life. It
seems an unsuited act to represent this. The offerer when laying on his hands
on the victim just before cannot represent Him, moreover; nor where he offers
"for his acceptance."
Thus the "blood that maketh atonement for the
soul" is now provided. "And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood,
and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the
tent of meeting." This sprinkling of the blood is in testimony of the work
accomplished, and for the eye of God, as much as that passover blood of which
He declared, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." If the blood it is
that maketh atonement for the soul, that blood is of necessity presented to God
as the atonement was made to Him. It is not here put upon the person, and we
have not yet got to consider that; but wherever put, the blood is for God. And
indeed it is the assurance of that which gives it power, as the apostle says in
Hebrews, to "purge the conscience from dead works to serve [or"worship"] the
living God." Thus "the heart is sprinkled from an evil conscience." (Chap. ix.
14; x. 22.) It is faith's apprehension of the efficacy of that perfect work.
After the blood-sprinkling comes the flaying of the offering, the skin
of which, as we learn afterward (ch. vii. 8), belongs to the priest that offers
it. Christ is evidently the One typified by this sacrificing priest, and so we
learn whose hand it is bestows that by which the shame of our nakedness is
forever put away. It is the skin of the burnt offering, not the sin offering.
It is not true that Christ's death merely puts away our sins: it furnishes
(though not alone, as we may see hereafter,) the "best robe" for the Father's
house. "Raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father" the place which as
man He takes is the divine estimate of that "obedience unto death" of which He
says, "Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down my life that I
might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment
have I received of My Father." (Jno. x. 17, 18.) This is the true burnt
offering aspect of the cross - the full sweet savour. But the place He takes as
man He takes for men. This gives us the measure of our acceptance in the
Beloved, by which our nakedness is indeed covered, and its shame removed.
The burnt-offering having been flayed, is divided into its parts; all
exposed to the light of heaven, then to the altar-flame. The word for burning
even is not the word for ordinary burning, but for fuming as with incense: all
goes up, not as the smoke of judgment, but as pure sweet savour.
It
remains but to speak of the grades of the burnt offering, and with this of the
different animals that are used. Of these the bullock, the highest, without
doubt is the type of the labourer for God (I Cor. ix. 9, 10.): Christ was the
perfect Servant, the character in which Isaiah liii. especially presented Him.
The sheep speaks of meek surrender to the divine will, a more negative
thought in some sense; yet it is the "Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of
the world." Here too it is the male sheep, which gives the more positive
character of devotedness, as appears in the "ram of consecration," in the
eighth chapter.
The goat is the type of the Sin bearer as such, as our
Lord's classification of sheep and goats would surely intimate. Hence it is the
sin offering for the ruler and common Israelite as well as for the whole nation
on the day of atonement.
The turtle dove and pigeon, birds of heaven
both, naturally represent the Lord as come from thence. The type is brought out
in great distinctness where in the cleansing of the leper the bird offered dies
in a vessel of earth over running (living) water; a precious figure of that
humanity full of the Spirit in which a Divine Being gained capacity to suffer.
The dove is the bird of love and sorrow: most suited associations of
thought with a heavenly stranger whom love to God and man has brought into a
world of sin. The pigeon - the rock-pigeon, with its nest (like the coney)
there, - is as suited a thought of One come down to a strange path of faith.
All these are blessed types of our Lord in various perfections. They
are connected with higher or lower grades of offering, not as in themselves of
necessity conveying higher or lower thoughts. The lowest grade here is that of
the birds, surely not the lowest thought of Christ's person - rather the
contrary. The reason is one which can be easily understood. Does not the very
glory of His Godhead prevent many realizing the perfection of His manhood? Do
not many bring in the thought of the "bird," as it were, without the "vessel of
earth" in which alone it could die? And the changes in the ritual here are
quite accordant with this. The bird is not divided to the same extent as the
bullock or the sheep: the internal perfection is not in the same way seen.
There is little blood, too, for the altar; and there is no skin for the
priest.* Is it not the necessary result where the Lord's manhood is dimly
realized? Thank God that this is still a sweet savour offering to Him! What He
finds in Christ is not measured by what we find, nor our acceptance by our
apprehension of it. And these lower grades bring out our thoughts. Still we
lose by their poverty. May He graciously bring His beloved people, even here,
more to the knowledge of His own.
*The feathers are not rejected, as in our
version: the margin is better.
Go To Chapter
Nine
Home | Links | Literature