Notes on the Book of Leviticus Part 5

Impossible. Man's ignorance of sin proves his total inability to put it away. If he does not know of it, what can he do about it? Nothing.

He is as powerless as he is ignorant. Nor is this all. The fact of a "sin of ignorance" demonstrates most clearly the uncertainty which must attend upon every settlement of the question of sin, in which no higher claims have been responded to than those put forth by the most refined human conscience. There can never be settled peace upon this ground. There will always be the painful apprehension that there is something wrong underneath. If the heart be not led into settled repose by the Scripture testimony that the inflexible claims of divine Justice have been answered, there must, of necessity, be a sensation of uneasiness, and every such sensation presents a barrier to our wors.h.i.+p, our communion, and our testimony. If I am uneasy in reference to the settlement of the question of sin, I cannot wors.h.i.+p, I cannot enjoy communion either with G.o.d or His people, nor can I be an intelligent or effective witness for Christ. The heart must be at rest before G.o.d as to the perfect remission of sin ere we can "wors.h.i.+p Him in spirit and in truth." If there be guilt on the conscience, there must be terror in the heart; and, a.s.suredly, a heart filled with terror cannot be a happy or a wors.h.i.+ping heart. It is only from a heart filled with that sweet and sacred repose which the blood of Christ imparts, that true and acceptable wors.h.i.+p can ascend to the Father. The same principle holds good with respect to our fellows.h.i.+p with the people of G.o.d and our service and testimony amongst men,--all must rest upon the foundation of settled peace, and this peace rests upon the foundation of a perfectly purged conscience, and this purged conscience rests upon the foundation of the perfect remission of all our sins, whether they be sins of knowledge or sins of ignorance.

We shall now proceed to compare the sin-offering with the burnt-offering, in doing which we shall find two very different aspects of Christ. But although the aspects are different, it is one and the same Christ; and hence the sacrifice in each case was "without blemish." This is easily understood. It matters not in what aspect we contemplate the Lord Jesus Christ, He must ever be seen as the same pure, spotless, holy, perfect One. True, He did, in His abounding grace, stoop to be the Sin-bearer of His people; but it was a perfect, spotless Christ who did so; and it would be nothing short of diabolical wickedness to take occasion from the depth of His humiliation to tarnish the personal glory of the humbled One. The intrinsic excellence, the unsullied purity, and the divine glory of our blessed Lord appear in the sin-offering as fully as in the burnt-offering. It matters not in what relations.h.i.+p He stands, what office He fills, what work He performs, what position He occupies, His personal glories s.h.i.+ne out in all their divine effulgence.

This truth of one and the same Christ, whether in the burnt-offering or in the sin-offering, is seen not only in the fact that in each case the offering was "without blemish," but also in "the law of the sin-offering," where we read, "This is the law of the sin-offering: In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy." (Lev. vi. 25.) Both types point to one and the same great Ant.i.type, though they present Him in such 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. That presents Him to us as the Accomplisher of the will of G.o.d; this, as the Bearer of the sin of man. In the former, we are taught the preciousness of the Sacrifice; in the latter, the hatefulness of sin. Thus much as to the two offerings, in the main. The most minute examination of the details will only tend to establish the mind in the truth of this general statement.

In the first place, when considering the burnt-offering, we observed that it was a voluntary offering.--"He shall offer it of his own voluntary will."[13] Now, the word "voluntary" does not occur in the sin-offering. This is precisely what we might expect. It is in full keeping with the specific object of the Holy Ghost, in the burnt-offering, to set it forth as a free-will offering. It was Christ's meat and drink to do the will of G.o.d, whatever that will might be. He never thought of inquiring what ingredients were in the cup which the Father was putting into His hand. It was quite sufficient for Him that the Father had mingled it. Thus it was with the Lord Jesus as foreshadowed by the burnt-offering. But in the sin-offering, we have quite a different line of truth unfolded. This type introduces Christ to our thoughts, not as the "voluntary"

Accomplisher of the will of G.o.d, but as the Bearer of that terrible thing called "sin," and the Endurer of all its appalling consequences, of which the most appalling to Him was the hiding of G.o.d's countenance. Hence, the word "voluntary" would not harmonize with the object of the Spirit in the sin-offering. It would be as completely out of place in that type as it is divinely in place in the burnt-offering. Its presence and its absence are alike divine; and both alike exhibit the perfect, the divine precision of the types of Leviticus.

[13] Some may find difficulty in the fact that the word "voluntary"

has reference to the wors.h.i.+per and not to the sacrifice; but this can in no wise affect the doctrine put forward in the text, which is founded upon the fact that a special word used in the burnt-offering is omitted in the sin-offering. The contrast holds good whether we think of the offerer or the offering.

Now, the point of contrast which we have been considering, explains, or rather harmonizes, two expressions used by our Lord. He says, on one occasion, "The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" And again, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pa.s.s from Me." The former of these expressions was the full carrying out of the words with which He entered upon His course, namely, "Lo, I come to do Thy will, O G.o.d;" and, moreover, it is the utterance of Christ as the Burnt-offering. The latter, on the other hand, is the utterance of Christ when contemplating the place which He was about to occupy as the Sin-offering. What that place was, and what was involved to Him in taking it, we shall see as we proceed; but it is interesting and instructive to find the entire doctrine of the two offerings involved, as it were, in the fact that a single word introduced in the one is omitted in the other. If in the burnt-offering we find the perfect readiness of heart with which Christ offered Himself for the accomplishment of the will of G.o.d, then in the sin-offering we find how perfectly He entered into all the consequences of man's sin, and how He traveled into the most remote distance of man's position as regards G.o.d. He delighted to do the will of G.o.d; He shrank from losing, for a moment, the light of His blessed countenance. No one offering could have foreshadowed Him in both these phases. We needed a type to present Him to us as One delighting to do the will of G.o.d, and we needed a type to present Him to us as One whose holy nature shrank from the consequences of imputed sin. Blessed be G.o.d, we have both.

The burnt-offering furnishes the one; the sin-offering, the other.

Wherefore, the more fully we enter into the devotion of Christ's heart to G.o.d, the more fully we shall apprehend His abhorrence of sin; and _vice versa_. Each throws the other into relief; and the use of the word "voluntary" in the one and not in the other, fixes the leading import of each.

But it may be said, Was it not the will of G.o.d that Christ should offer Himself as an atonement for sin? and if so, how could there be aught of shrinking from the accomplishment of that will? a.s.suredly, it was "the determinate counsel" of G.o.d that Christ should suffer, and, moreover, it was Christ's joy to do the will of G.o.d; but how are we to understand the expression, "If it be possible, let this cup pa.s.s from Me"? Is it not the utterance of Christ? And is there no express type of the Utterer thereof? Unquestionably. There would be a serious blank among the types of the Mosaic economy were there not one to reflect the Lord Jesus in the exact att.i.tude in which the above expression presents Him. But the burnt-offering does not thus reflect Him. There is not a single circ.u.mstance connected with that offering which would correspond with such language. The sin-offering alone furnishes the fitting type of the Lord Jesus as the One who poured forth those accents of intense agony; for in it alone do we find the circ.u.mstances which evoked such accents from the depths of His spotless soul. The awful shadow of the cross, with its shame, its curse, and its exclusion from the light of G.o.d's countenance, was pa.s.sing across His spirit, and He could not even contemplate it without an "If it be possible, let this cup pa.s.s from Me." But no sooner had He uttered these words than His profound subjection manifests itself in "Thy will be done." What a bitter "cup" it must have been to elicit from a perfectly subject heart the words, "Let it pa.s.s from Me"! What perfect subjection there must have been, when, in the presence of so bitter a cup, the heart could breath forth, "Thy will be done"!

We shall now consider the typical act of "laying on of hands." This act was common both to the burnt-offering and the sin-offering; but in the case of the former, it identified the offerer with an unblemished offering; in the case of the latter, it involved the transfer of the sin of the offerer to the head of the offering. Thus it was in the type; and when we look at the Ant.i.type, we learn a truth of the most comforting and edifying nature--a truth which, were it more clearly understood and fully experienced, would impart a far more settled peace than is ordinarily possessed.

What, then, is the doctrine set forth in the laying on of hands? It is this: Christ was "made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of G.o.d in Him." (2 Cor. v.) He took our position with all its consequences, in order that we might get His position with all its consequences. He was treated as sin upon the cross, that we might be treated as righteousness in the presence of Infinite Holiness. He was cast out of G.o.d's presence because He had sin on Him by imputation, that we might be received into G.o.d's house and into His bosom because we have a perfect righteousness by imputation. He had to endure the hiding of G.o.d's countenance, that we might bask in the light of that countenance. He had to pa.s.s through three hours'

darkness, that we might walk in everlasting light. He was forsaken of G.o.d for a time, that we might enjoy His presence forever. All that was due to 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 every thing against Him when He hung upon the cursed tree, in order that there might be nothing against us. He was identified with us in the reality of death and judgment, in order that we might be identified with Him in the reality of life and righteousness. He drank the cup of wrath--the cup of trembling, that we might drink the cup of salvation--the cup of infinite favor. He was treated according to our deserts, that we might be treated according to His.

Such is the wondrous truth ill.u.s.trated by the ceremonial act of imposition of hands. When the wors.h.i.+per 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. They were perfectly identified. The act of laying on of hands const.i.tuted them one in G.o.d's view. He looked at the offerer through the medium of the offering. Thus it was in the case of the burnt-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 deserts of the offerer. They were perfectly identified. The act of laying on of hands const.i.tuted them one in the judgment of G.o.d. The sin of the offerer was dealt with in the sin-offering; the person of the offerer was accepted in the burnt-offering. This made a vast difference. Hence, though the act of laying on of hands was common to both types, and, moreover, though it was expressive, in the case of each, of identification, yet were the consequences as different as possible. The just treated as the unjust; the unjust accepted in the just.--"Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to G.o.d." This is the doctrine. Our sins brought Christ to the cross, but He brings us to G.o.d. And if He brings us to G.o.d, it is in His own acceptableness, as risen from the dead, having put away our sins, according to the perfectness of His own work. He bore away our sins far from the sanctuary of G.o.d, in order that He might bring us nigh, even into the holiest of all, in full confidence of heart, having the conscience purged by His precious blood from every stain of sin.

Now, the more minutely we compare all the details of the burnt-offering and the sin-offering, the more clearly shall we apprehend the truth of what has been above stated in reference to the laying on of hands and the results thereof in each case.

In the first chapter of this volume, we noticed the fact that "the sons of Aaron" are introduced in the burnt-offering, but not in the sin-offering. As priests, they were privileged to stand around the altar and behold the flame of an acceptable sacrifice ascending to the Lord. But in the sin-offering, in its primary aspect, it was a question of the solemn judgment of sin, and not of priestly wors.h.i.+p or admiration, and therefore the sons of Aaron do not appear. It is as convicted sinners that we have to do with Christ as the Ant.i.type of the sin-offering: it is as wors.h.i.+ping priests, clothed in garments of salvation, that we contemplate Christ as the Ant.i.type of the burnt-offering.

But, further, my reader may observe that the burnt-offering was "flayed," the sin-offering was not; the burnt-offering was "cut into his pieces," the sin-offering was not; "the inwards and the legs" of the burnt-offering were "washed in water," which act was entirely omitted in the sin-offering. Lastly, the burnt-offering was burnt upon the altar, the sin-offering was burnt without the camp. These are weighty points of difference, arising simply out of the distinctive character of the offerings. We know there is nothing in the Word of G.o.d without its own specific meaning; and every intelligent and careful student of Scripture will notice the above points of difference, and when he notices them, he will naturally seek to ascertain their real import. _Ignorance_ of this import there may be, but _indifference_ to it there should not. In any section of inspiration, but especially one so rich as that which lies before us, to pa.s.s over a single point would be to offer dishonor to the divine Author, and to deprive our own souls of much profit. We should hang over the most minute details, either to adore G.o.d's wisdom in them, or to confess our own ignorance of them. To pa.s.s them by, in a spirit of indifference, is to imply that the Holy Ghost has taken the trouble to write what we do not deem worthy of the desire to understand. This is what no right-minded Christian would presume to think. If the Spirit, in writing upon the ordinance of the sin-offering, has omitted the various rites above alluded to--rites which get a prominent place in the ordinance of the burnt-offering, there must a.s.suredly be some good reason for, and some important meaning in, His doing so. These we should seek to apprehend, and no doubt they arise out of the special design of the divine mind in each offering. The sin-offering sets forth that aspect of Christ's work in which He is seen taking judicially the place which belonged to us morally. For this reason we could not look for that intense expression of what He was in all His secret springs of action, as unfolded in the typical act of "flaying."

Neither could there be that enlarged exhibition of what he was, not merely as a whole, but in the most minute features of his character, as seen in the act of "cutting it into his pieces." Nor yet could there be that manifestation of what He was personally, practically, and intrinsically, as set forth in the significant act of "was.h.i.+ng the inwards and legs in water."

All these things belonged to the burnt-offering phase of our blessed Lord, and to that alone, because in it we see Him offering Himself to the eye, to the heart, and to the altar of Jehovah, without any question of imputed sin, of wrath, or of judgment. In the sin-offering, on the contrary, instead of having, as the great prominent idea, what Christ is, we have what sin is,--instead of the preciousness of Jesus, we have the odiousness of sin. In the burnt-offering, inasmuch as it is Christ Himself offered to and accepted by G.o.d, we have every thing done that could possibly make manifest what He was in every respect. In the sin-offering, because it is sin as judged by G.o.d, the very reverse is the case. All this is so plain as to need no effort of the mind to understand it. It naturally flows out of the distinctive character of the type.

However, although the leading object in the sin-offering is to shadow forth what Christ became for us, and not what He was in Himself, there is nevertheless one rite connected with this type which most fully expresses His personal acceptableness to Jehovah. This rite is laid down in the following words: "And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin-offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away, as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace-offering; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt-offering."

(Chap. iv. 8-10.) Thus the intrinsic excellency of Christ is not omitted even in the sin-offering. The fat burnt upon the altar is the apt expression of the divine appreciation of the preciousness of Christ's Person, no matter what place He might, in perfect grace, take on our behalf or in our stead. He was made sin for us, and the sin-offering is the divinely appointed shadow of Him in this respect; but inasmuch as it was the Lord Jesus Christ--G.o.d's Elect, His Holy One--His pure, His spotless, His eternal Son that was made sin, therefore the fat of the sin-offering was burnt upon the altar, as a proper material for that fire which was the impressive exhibition of divine holiness.

But even in this very point we see what a contrast there is between the sin-offering and the burnt-offering. In the case of the latter, it was not merely the fat, but the whole sacrifice that was burnt upon the altar, because it was Christ, without any question of sin-bearing whatever. In the case of the former, there was nothing but the fat to be burnt upon the altar, because it was a question of sin-bearing, though Christ was the Sin-bearer. The divine glories of Christ's Person s.h.i.+ne out even from amid the darkest shades of that cursed tree to which He consented to be nailed as a curse for us. The hatefulness of that with which, in the exercise of divine love, He connected His blessed Person on the cross, could not prevent the sweet odor of His preciousness from ascending to the throne of G.o.d. Thus have we unfolded to us the profound mystery of G.o.d's face hidden from that which Christ _became_, and G.o.d's heart refreshed by what Christ _was_.

This imparts a peculiar charm to the sin-offering. The bright beams of Christ's Personal glory s.h.i.+ning out from amid the awful gloom of Calvary--His Personal worth set forth in the very deepest depths of His humiliation--G.o.d's delight in the One from whom He had, in vindication of His inflexible justice and holiness, to hide His face--all this is set forth in the fact that the fat of the sin-offering was burnt upon the altar.

Having thus endeavored to point out, in the first place, what was done with "the blood," and, in the second place, what was done with "the fat," we have now to consider what was done with "the flesh." "And the skin of the bullock, and _all his flesh_, ... even _the whole bullock_ shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt." (Ver. 11, 12.) In this act, we have the main feature of the sin-offering--that which distinguished it both from the burnt-offering and the peace-offering. Its flesh was not burnt upon the altar as in the burnt-offering, neither was it eaten by the priest or the wors.h.i.+per as in the peace-offering; it was wholly burnt without the camp.[14] "No sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire." (Lev. vi. 30.) "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate." (Heb. xiii.

11, 12.)

[14] The statement in the text refers only to the sin-offerings of which the blood was brought into the holy place. There were sin-offerings of which Aaron and his _sons_ partook. (See Lev. vi. 26, 29; Numb. xviii. 9, 10.)

Now, in comparing what was done with the "blood" with what was done with the "flesh," or "body," of the sacrifice, two great branches of truth present themselves to our view, namely, wors.h.i.+p and disciples.h.i.+p. The blood brought into the sanctuary is the foundation of the former; the body burnt outside the camp is the foundation of the latter. Before ever we can wors.h.i.+p in peace of conscience and liberty of heart, we must know, on the authority of the Word, and by the power of the Spirit, that the entire question of _sin_ has been forever settled by the blood of the divine Sin-offering--that His blood has been sprinkled perfectly before the Lord--that all G.o.d's claims, and all our necessities as ruined and guilty sinners, have been forever answered. This gives perfect peace; and, in the enjoyment of this peace, we wors.h.i.+p G.o.d. When an Israelite of old had offered his sin-offering, his conscience was set at rest, in so far as the offering was capable of imparting rest. True, it was but a temporary rest, being the fruit of a temporary sacrifice; but, clearly, whatever kind of rest the offering was fitted to impart, that the offerer might enjoy. Hence, therefore, our Sacrifice being divine and eternal, our rest is divine and eternal also. As is the sacrifice, such is the rest which is founded thereon. A Jew never had an eternally purged conscience, simply because he had not an eternally efficacious sacrifice. He might, in a certain way, have his conscience purged for a day, a month, or a year; but he could not have it purged forever.

"But Christ being come a High-Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained _eternal_ redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to G.o.d, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living G.o.d?" (Heb. ix.

11-14.)

Here, we have the full, explicit statement of the doctrine. The blood of goats and calves procured a temporary redemption: the blood of Christ procures eternal redemption. The former purified outwardly; the latter, inwardly. That purged the flesh for a time; this, the conscience forever. The whole question hinges, not upon the character or condition of the offerer, but upon the value of the offering. The question is not, by any means, whether a Christian is a better man than a Jew, but whether the blood of Christ is better than the blood of a bullock. a.s.suredly, it is better. How much better? Infinitely better. The Son of G.o.d imparts all the dignity of His own divine Person to the sacrifice which He offered; and if the blood of a bullock purified the flesh for a year, "how much more" shall the blood of the Son of G.o.d purge the conscience forever?--if that took away _some_ sin, how much more shall this take away "_all_"?

Now, why was the mind of a Jew set at rest, for the time being, when he had offered his sin-offering? How did he know that the special sin for which he had brought his sacrifice was forgiven? Because G.o.d had said, "It shall be forgiven him." His peace of heart, in reference to that particular sin, rested upon the testimony of the G.o.d of Israel and the blood of the victim. So now, the peace of the believer, in reference to "ALL SIN," rests upon the authority of G.o.d's word and "the precious blood of Christ." If a Jew had sinned, and neglected to bring his sin-offering, he should have been "cut off from among his people;" but when he took his place as a sinner--when he laid his hand upon the head of a sin-offering, then the offering was "cut off"

instead of him, and he was free, so far. The offering was treated as the offerer deserved; and hence, for him not to know that his sin was forgiven him, would have been to make G.o.d a liar, and to treat the blood of the divinely appointed sin-offering as nothing.

And if this were true in reference to one who had only the blood of a goat to rest upon, "how much more" powerfully does it apply to one who has the precious blood of Christ to rest upon? The believer sees in Christ One who has been judged for all his sin--One who, when He hung upon the cross, sustained the entire burden of his sin--One who, having made Himself responsible for that sin, could not be where He now is if the whole question of sin had not been settled according to all the claims of Infinite Justice. So absolutely did Christ take the believer's place on the cross--so entirely was he identified with Him--so completely was all the believer's sin imputed to Him, there and then, that all question of the believer's liability--all thought of his guilt--all idea of his exposure to judgment and wrath, is eternally set aside.[15] It was all settled on the cursed tree, between Divine Justice and the spotless Victim. And now the believer is as absolutely identified with Christ on the throne, as Christ was identified with him on the cross. Justice has no charge to bring against the believer, because it has no charge to bring against Christ. Thus it stands forever. If a charge could be preferred against the believer, it would be calling in question the reality of Christ's identification with him on the cross, and the perfectness of Christ's work on his behalf. If, when the wors.h.i.+per of old was on his way back, after having offered his sin-offering, any one had charged him with that special sin for which his sacrifice had bled, what would have been his reply? Just this: The sin has been rolled away by the blood of the victim, and Jehovah has p.r.o.nounced the words, "It shall be forgiven him." The victim had died instead of him, and he lived instead of the victim.

[15] We have a singularly beautiful example of the divine accuracy of Scripture in 2 Cor. v. 21.--"He hath _made_ Him to be sin [aa?t?a?

ep???se?] for us, that we might _become_ [????e?a] the righteousness of G.o.d in Him." The English reader might suppose tha the word which is rendered "made" is the same in each clause of the pa.s.sage. This is not the case.

Such was the type. And as to the Ant.i.type, when the eye of faith rests on Christ as the Sin-offering, it beholds Him as One who having a.s.sumed a perfect human life, gave up that life on the cross, because sin was there and then attached to it by imputation. But it beholds Him also as One who having in Himself the power of divine and eternal life, rose from the tomb therein, and who now imparts this His risen, His divine, His eternal life to all who believe in His name. The sin is gone, because the life to which it was attached is gone. And now, instead of the life to which sin was attached, all true believers possess the life to which righteousness attaches. The question of sin can never once be raised, in reference to the risen and victorious life of Christ; but this is the life which believers possess. There is no other life. All beside is death, because all beside is under the power of sin. "He that hath the Son hath life," and he that hath life hath righteousness also. The two things are inseparable, because Christ is both the one and the other. If the judgment and death of Christ upon the cross were realities, then the life and righteousness of the believer are realities; if imputed sin was a reality to Christ, imputed righteousness is a reality to the believer. The one is as real as the other; for if not, Christ would have died in vain. The true and irrefragable ground of peace is this,--that the claims of G.o.d's nature have been perfectly met as to sin. The death of Jesus has satisfied them all--satisfied them forever. What is it that proves this to the satisfaction of the awakened conscience? The great fact of resurrection. A risen Christ declares the full deliverance of the believer--his perfect discharge from every possible demand.--"He was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification."

(Rom. iv. 25.) For a Christian not to know that his sin is gone, and gone forever, is to cast a slight upon the blood of his divine Sin-offering; it is to deny that there has been the perfect presentation--the sevenfold sprinkling of the blood before the Lord.

And now, ere turning from this fundamental point which has been occupying us, I would desire to make an earnest and a most solemn appeal to my reader's heart and conscience. Let me ask you, dear friend, have you been led to repose on this holy and happy foundation?

Do you know that the question of your sin has been forever disposed of? Have you laid your hand, by faith, on the head of the Sin-offering? Have you seen the atoning blood of Jesus rolling away all your guilt, and carrying it into the mighty waters of G.o.d's forgetfulness? Has Divine Justice any thing against you? Are you free from the unutterable horrors of a guilty conscience? Do not, I pray you, rest satisfied until you can give a joyous answer to these inquiries. Be a.s.sured of it, it is the happy privilege of the feeblest babe in Christ to rejoice in a full and everlasting remission of sins, on the ground of a finished atonement; and hence, for any to teach otherwise, is to lower the sacrifice of Christ to the level of "goats and calves." If we cannot know that our sins are forgiven, then where are the glad tidings of the gospel? Is a Christian in no wise better off, in the matter of a sin-offering, than a Jew? The latter was privileged to know that his matters were set straight for a year, by the blood of an annual sacrifice. Can the former not have any certainty at all? Unquestionably. Well, then, if there is any certainty, it must be eternal, inasmuch as it rests on an eternal sacrifice.

This, and this alone, is the basis of wors.h.i.+p. The full a.s.surance of sin put away ministers, not to a spirit of self-confidence, but to a spirit of praise, thankfulness, and wors.h.i.+p. It produces, not a spirit of self-complacency, but of Christ-complacency, which, blessed be G.o.d, is the spirit which shall characterize the redeemed throughout eternity. It does not lead one to think little of sin, but to think much of the grace which has perfectly pardoned it, and of the blood which has perfectly canceled it. It is impossible that any one can gaze on the cross--can see the place which Christ took--can meditate upon the sufferings which He endured--can ponder on those three terrible hours of darkness, and at the same time think lightly of sin. When all these things are entered into, in the power of the Holy Ghost, there are two results which must follow, namely, an abhorrence of sin in all its forms, and a genuine love to Christ, His people, and His cause.

Let us now consider what was done with the "flesh," or "body," of the sacrifice, in which, as has been stated, we have the true ground of disciples.h.i.+p. "The whole bullock shall he carry forth, _without the camp_, unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire." (Chap. iv. 12.) This act is to be viewed in a double way; first, as expressing the place which the Lord Jesus took for us as bearing sin; secondly, as expressing the place into which He was cast by a world which had rejected Him. It is to this latter point that I would here call my reader's attention.

The use which the apostle, in Heb. xiii, makes of Christ's having "suffered without the gate," is deeply practical.--"Let us go forth therefore _unto Him_ without the camp, _bearing His reproach_." If the sufferings of Christ have secured us an entrance into heaven, the place where He suffered expresses our rejection from earth. His death has procured us a city on high; the place where He died divests us of a city below.[16] "He suffered without the gate," and, in so doing, He set aside Jerusalem as the present centre of divine operation.

There is no such thing now as a consecrated spot on the earth. Christ has taken His place, as a suffering One, outside the range of this world's religion, its politics, and all that pertains to it. The world hated Him and cast Him out. Wherefore, the word is, "_Go forth_." This is the motto as regards every thing that men would set up here in the form of a "camp," no matter what that camp may be. If men set up "a holy city," you must look for a rejected Christ "without the gate." If men set up a religious camp, call it by what name you please, you must "go forth" out of it, in order to find a rejected Christ. It is not that blind superst.i.tion will not grope amid the ruins of Jerusalem in search of relics of Christ. It a.s.suredly will do so, and has done so.

It will affect to find out and do honor to the site of His cross and to His sepulchre. Nature's covetousness, too, taking advantage of nature's superst.i.tion, has carried on for ages a lucrative traffic, under the crafty plea of doing honor to the so-called sacred localities of antiquity. But a single ray of light from Revelation's heavenly lamp is sufficient to enable us to say that you must "go forth" of all these things, in order to find and enjoy communion with a rejected Christ.

[16] The epistle to the Ephesians furnishes the most elevated view of the Church's place above, and gives it to us, not merely as to the t.i.tle, but also as to the mode. The t.i.tle is a.s.suredly the blood; but the mode is thus stated: "But G.o.d, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph. ii. 4-6.)

However, my reader will need to remember that there is far more involved in the soul-stirring call to "go forth" than a mere escape from the gross absurdities of an ignorant superst.i.tion, or the designs of a crafty covetousness. There are many who can powerfully and eloquently expose all such things, who are very far indeed from any thought of responding to the apostolic summons. When men set up a "camp," and rally round a standard on which is emblazoned some important dogma of truth, or some valuable inst.i.tution--when they can appeal to an orthodox creed--an advanced and enlightened scheme of doctrine--a splendid ritual, capable of satisfying the most ardent aspirations of man's devotional nature--when any or all of these things exist, it demands much spiritual intelligence to discern the real force and proper application of the words, "Let us go forth," and much spiritual energy and decision to act upon them. They should, however, be discerned and acted upon, for it is perfectly certain that the atmosphere of a camp, let its ground or standard be what it may, is destructive of personal communion with a rejected Christ; and no so-called religious advantage can ever make up for the loss of that communion. It is the tendency of our hearts to drop into cold stereotyped forms. This has ever been the case in the professing church. These forms may have originated in real power; they may have resulted from positive visitations of the Spirit of G.o.d. The temptation is to stereotype the form when the spirit and power have all departed. This is, in principle, to set up a camp. The Jewish system could boast a divine origin. A Jew could triumphantly point to the temple, with its splendid system of wors.h.i.+p, its priesthood, its sacrifices, its entire furniture, and show that it had all been handed down from the G.o.d of Israel. He could give chapter and verse, as we say, for every thing connected with the system to which he was attached. Where is the system, ancient, medieval, or modern, that could put forth such lofty and powerful pretensions, or come down upon the heart with such an overwhelming weight of authority? And yet, the command was to "GO FORTH."

This is a deeply solemn matter. It concerns us all, because we are all p.r.o.ne to slip away from communion with a living Christ and sink into dead routine. Hence the practical power of the words, "Go forth therefore unto _Him_." It is not, Go forth from one system to another--from one set of opinions to another--from one company of people to another. No; but, Go forth from every thing that merits the appellation of a camp, "_to Him_" who "suffered without the gate." The Lord Jesus is as thoroughly outside the gate now as He was when He suffered there eighteen centuries ago. What was it that put Him outside? "The religious world" of that day; and the religious world of that day is, in spirit and principle, the religious world of the present moment. The world is the world still. "There is nothing new under the sun." Christ and the world are not one. The world has covered itself with the cloak of Christianity; but it is only in order that its hatred to Christ may work itself up into more deadly forms underneath. Let us not deceive ourselves. If we will walk with a rejected Christ, we must be a rejected people. If our Master "suffered _without_ the gate," we cannot expect to reign _within_ the gate. If we walk in His footsteps, whither will they lead us? Surely, not to the high places of this G.o.dless, Christless world.

"His path, uncheered by earthly smiles, Led only to the cross."

He is a despised Christ--a rejected Christ--a Christ outside the camp.

Oh, then, dear Christian reader, let us go forth to Him, bearing His reproach. Let us not bask in the suns.h.i.+ne of this world's favor, seeing it crucified, and still hates with an unmitigated hatred, the beloved One to whom we owe our present and eternal all, and who loves us with a love which many waters cannot quench. Let us not, directly or indirectly, accredit that thing which calls itself by His sacred name, but, in reality, hates His Person, hates His ways, hates His truth, hates the bare mention of His advent. Let us be faithful to an absent Lord. Let us live for Him who died for us. While our consciences repose in His blood, let our heart's affections entwine themselves around His Person; so that our separation from "this present evil world" may not be merely a matter of cold principle, but an affectionate separation, because the object of our affections is not here. May the Lord deliver us from the influence of that consecrated, prudential selfishness so common at the present time, which would not be without religiousness, but is the enemy of the cross of Christ. What we want, in order to make a successful stand against this terrible form of evil, is not peculiar views, or special principles, or curious theories, or cold intellectual accuracy: we want a deep-toned devotedness to the Person of the Son of G.o.d, a whole-hearted consecration of ourselves--body, soul, and spirit--to His service, an earnest longing for His glorious advent. These, my reader, are the special wants of the times in which you and I live.

Will you not, then, join in uttering, from the very depths of your heart, the cry, "O Lord, revive Thy work!"--"Accomplish the number of Thine elect!"--"Hasten Thy kingdom!"--"Come, Lord Jesus, come!"

CHAPTER V. 14-VI. 7

These verses contain the doctrine of the trespa.s.s-offering, of which there were two distinct kinds, namely, trespa.s.s against _G.o.d_, and trespa.s.s against _man_. "If a soul commit a trespa.s.s, and sin _through ignorance_, in the holy things of the Lord, then shall he bring for his trespa.s.s unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespa.s.s-offering." Here we have a case in which a positive wrong was done, in the holy things which pertained unto the Lord; and, albeit this was done "through ignorance," yet could it not be pa.s.sed over. G.o.d can forgive all manner of trespa.s.s, but He cannot pa.s.s over a single jot or t.i.ttle. His grace is perfect, and therefore He can forgive _all_: His holiness is perfect, and therefore He cannot pa.s.s over any thing. He cannot sanction iniquity, but He can blot it out; and that, moreover, according to the perfection of His grace, and according to the perfect claims of His holiness.

It is a very grave error to suppose that, provided a man acts up to the dictates of his conscience, he is all right and safe. The peace which rests upon such a foundation as this will be eternally destroyed when the light of the judgment-seat s.h.i.+nes in upon the conscience. G.o.d could never lower His claim to such a level. The balances of the sanctuary are regulated by a very different scale from that afforded by the most sensitive conscience. We have had occasion to dwell upon this point before, in the notes on the sin-offering. It cannot be too strongly insisted upon. There are two things involved in it,--first, a just perception of what the holiness of G.o.d really is; and secondly, a clear sense of the ground of a believer's peace in the divine presence.

Whether it be a question of my condition or my conduct--my nature or my acts--G.o.d alone can be the Judge of what suits Himself, and of what befits His holy presence. Can human ignorance furnish a plea when divine requirements are in question? G.o.d forbid. A wrong has been done "in the holy things of the Lord," but man's conscience has not taken cognizance of it. What then? Is there to be nothing more about it? Are the claims of G.o.d to be thus lightly disposed of? a.s.suredly not. This would be subversive of every thing like divine relations.h.i.+p. The righteous are called to give thanks at the remembrance of G.o.d's holiness. (Ps. xcvii. 12.) How can they do this? Because their peace has been secured on the ground of the full vindication and perfect establishment of that holiness. Hence, the higher their sense of what that holiness is, the deeper and more settled must be their peace.

This is a truth of the most precious nature. The unregenerate man could never rejoice in the divine holiness. His aim would be to lower that holiness, if he could not ignore it altogether. Such an one will console himself with the thought that G.o.d is good, G.o.d is gracious, G.o.d is merciful; but you will never find him rejoicing in the thought that G.o.d is holy. He has unholy thoughts respecting G.o.d's goodness, His grace, and His mercy. He would fain find in those blessed attributes an excuse for his continuing in sin.

On the contrary, the renewed man exults in the holiness of G.o.d. He sees the full expression thereof in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that holiness which has laid the foundation of his peace; and not only so, but he is made a partaker of it, and he delights in it, while he hates sin with a perfect hatred. The instincts of the divine nature shrink from it, and long after holiness. It would be impossible to enjoy true peace and liberty of heart if one did not know that all the claims connected with "the holy things of the Lord" had been perfectly met by our divine Trespa.s.s-offering. There would ever be springing up in the heart the painful sense that those claims had been slighted, through our manifold infirmities and shortcomings. Our very best services, our holiest seasons, our most hallowed exercises, may present something of trespa.s.s "in the holy things of the Lord"--"something that ought not to be done." How often are our seasons of public wors.h.i.+p and private devotion infringed upon and marred by barrenness and distraction!