GRADED RESPONSIBILITY
Lev 4:3; Lev 4:13-14; Lev 4:22-23; Lev 4:27-28
"If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the
people; then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a
young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering And
if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, and the thing be hid
from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any of the things
which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty; when
the sin wherein they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall
offer a young bullock for a sin offering, and bring it before the
tent of meeting When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any one
of all the things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be
done. and is guilty; if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made
known to him, he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without
blemish And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in
doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be
done, and be guilty; if this sin, which he hath sinned, be made
known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a female
without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned."
The law concerning the sin offering is given in four sections, of
which the last, again, is divided into two parts, separated by the
division of the chapter. These four sections respectively treat
of-first, the law of the sin offering for the "anointed priest" (Lev
4:3-12); secondly, the law for the offering for the whole
congregation (Lev 4:13-21); thirdly, that for a ruler (Lev 4:22-26);
and lastly, the law for an offering made by a private person, one of
"the common people". {Lev 4:27-35; Lev 5:1-16} In this last section
we have, first, the general law, {Lev 4:27-35} and then are added
{Lev 5:1-16} special prescriptions having reference to various
circumstances under which a sin offering should be offered by one of
the people. Under this last head are mentioned first, as requiring a
sin offering, in addition to sins of ignorance or inadvertence,
which only were mentioned in the preceding chapter, also sins due to
rashness or weakness (Lev 4:1-4): and then are appointed, in the
second place, certain variations in the material of the offering,
allowed out of regard to the various ability of different offerers
(Lev 4:5-16).
In the law as given in chapter 4, it is to be observed that the
selection of the victim prescribed is determined by the position of
the persons who might have occasion to present the offering.
For the whole congregation, the victim must be a bullock, the most
valuable of all; for the high priest, as the highest religious
official of the nation, and appointed also to represent them before
God, it must also be a bullock. For the civil ruler, the offering
must be a he-goat-an offering of a value less than that of the
victim ordered for the high priest, but greater than that of those
which were prescribed for the common people. For these, a variety of
offerings were appointed, according to their several ability. If
possible, it must be a female goat or lamb, or, if the worshipper
could not bring that, then two turtledoves, or two young pigeons. If
too poor to bring even this small offering, then it was appointed
that, as a substitute for the bloody, offering, he might bring an
offering of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, to be burnt
upon the altar.
Evidently, then, the choice of the victim was determined by two
considerations: first, the rank of the person who sinned, and,
secondly, his ability. As regards the former point, the law as to
the victim for the sin offering was this: the higher the theocratic
rank of the sinning person might be, the more costly offering he
must bring. No one can well miss of perceiving the meaning of this.
The guilt of any sin in God’s sight is proportioned to the rank and
station of the offender. What truth could be of more practical and
personal concern to all than this?
In applying this principle, the law of the sin offering teaches,
first, that the guilt of any sin is the heaviest, when it is
committed by one who is placed in a position of religious authority.
For this graded law is headed by the case of the sin of the anointed
priest, that is, the high priest, the highest functionary in the
nation.
We read (Lev 4:3): "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring
guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin which he hath
committed, a young bullock without blemish, unto the Lord, for a sin
offering."
That is, the high priest, although a single individual, if he sin,
must bring as large and valuable an offering as is required from the
whole congregation. For this law there are two evident reasons. The
first is found in the fact that in Israel the high priest
represented before God the entire nation. When he sinned it was as
if the whole nation sinned in him. So it is said that by his sin he
"brings guilt on the people"-a very weighty matter. And this
suggests a second reason for the costly offering that was required
from him. The consequences of the sin of one in such a high position
of religious authority must, in the nature of the case, be much more
serious and far-reaching than in the case of any other person.
And here we have another lesson as pertinent to our time as to those
days. As the high priest, so, in modern time, the bishop, minister,
or elder, is ordained as an officer in matters of religion, to act
for and with men in the things of God. For the proper administration
of this high trust, how indispensable that such a one shall take
heed to maintain unbroken fellowship with God! Any shortcoming here
is sure to impair by so much the spiritual value of his own
ministrations for the people to whom he ministers. And this evil
consequence of any unfaithfulness of his is the more certain to
follow, because, of all the members of the community, his example
has the widest and most effective influence; in whatever that
example be bad or defective, it is sure to do mischief in exact
proportion to his exalted station. If then such a one sin, the case
is very grave, and his guilt proportionately heavy.
This very momentous fact is brought before us in an impressive way
in the New Testament, where, in the epistles to the Seven Churches
of Asia {Revelation 2,3} it is "the angel of the church," the
presiding officer of the church in each city, who is held
responsible for the spiritual state of those committed to his
charge. No wonder that the Apostle James wrote: {Jam 3:1} "Be not
many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier
judgment." Well may every true-hearted minister of Christ’s Church
tremble, as here in the law of the sin offering he reads how the sin
of the officer of religion may bring guilt, not only on himself, but
also "on the whole people"! Well may he cry out with the Apostle
Paul: {2Co 2:16} "Who is sufficient for these things?" and, like
him, beseech those to whom he ministers, "Brethren, pray for us!"
With the sin of the high priest is ranked that of the congregation,
or the collective nation. It is written (Lev 4:13-14): "If the whole
congregation of Israel shall err, and the thing be hid from the eyes
of the assembly, and they have done any one of the things which the
Lord hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty, then the
assembly shall offer a young bullock for a sin offering."
Thus Israel was taught by this law, as we are, that responsibility
attaches not only to each individual person, but also to
associations of individuals in their corporate character, as
nations, communities, and-we may add-all Societies and Corporations,
whether secular or religious. Let us emphasise it to our own
consciences, as another of the fundamental lessons of this law:
there is individual sin; there is also such a thing as a sin by "the
whole congregation." In other words, God holds nations,
communities-in a word, all associations and combinations of men for
whatever purpose, no less under obligation in their corporate
capacity to keep His law than as individuals, and will count them
guilty if they break it, even through ignorance.
Never has a generation needed this reminder more than our own. The
political and social principles which, since the French Revolution
in the end of the last century, have been, year by year, more and
more generally accepted among the nations of Christendom, are
everywhere tending to the avowed or practical denial of this most
important truth. It is a maxim ever more and more extensively
accepted as almost axiomatic in our modern democratic communities,
that religion is wholly a concern of the individual; and that a
nation or community, as such, should make no distinction between
various religions as false or true, but maintain an absolute
neutrality, even between Christianity and idolatry, or theism and
atheism. It should take little thought to see that this modern maxim
stands in direct opposition to the principle assumed in this law of
the sin offering; namely, that a community or nation is as truly and
directly responsible to God as the individual in the nation. But
this corporate responsibility the spirit of the age squarely denies.
Not that all, indeed, in our modern so-called Christian nations have
come to this. But no one will deny that this is the mind of the
vanguard of nineteenth century liberalism in religion and politics.
Many of our political leaders in all lands make no secret of their
views on the subject. A purely secular state is everywhere held up,
and that with great plausibility and persuasiveness, as the ideal of
political government; the goal to the attainment of which all good
citizens should unite their efforts. And, indeed, in some parts of
Christendom the complete attainment of this evil ideal seems not far
away.
It is not strange, indeed, to see atheists, agnostics, and others
who deny the Christian faith, maintaining this position; but when we
hear men who call themselves Christians-in many cases, even
Christian ministers-advocating, in one form or another, governmental
neutrality in religion as the only right basis of government, one
may well be amazed. For Christians are supposed to accept the Holy
Scriptures as the law of faith and of morals, private and public;
and where in all the Scripture will anyone find such an attitude of
any nation or people mentioned, but to be condemned and threatened
with the judgment of God?
Will anyone venture to say that this teaching of the law of the sin
offering was only intended, like the offering itself, for the old
Hebrews? Is it not rather the constant and most emphatic teaching of
the whole Scriptures, that God dealt with all the ancient Gentile
nations on the same principle? The history which records the
overthrow of those old nations and empires does so, even
professedly, for the express purpose of calling the attention of men
in all ages to this principle, that God deals with all nations as
under obligations to recognise Himself as King of nations, and
submit in all things to His authority. So it was in the case of
Moab, of Ammon, of Nineveh, and Babylon; in regard to each of which
we are told, in so many words, that it was because they refused to
recognise this principle of national responsibility to the one true
God, which was brought before Israel in this part of the law of the
sin offering, that the Divine judgment came upon them in their utter
national overthrow. How awfully plain, again, is the language of the
second Psalm on this same subject, where it is precisely this
national repudiation of the supreme authority of God and of His
Christ, so increasingly common in our day, which is named as the
ground of the derisive judgment of God, and is made the occasion of
exhorting all nations, not merely to belief in God, but also to the
obedient recognition of His only-begotten Son, the Messiah, as the
only possible means of escaping the future kindling of His wrath.
No graver sign of our times could perhaps be named than just this
universal tendency in Christendom, in one way or another, to
repudiate that corporate responsibility to God which is assumed as
the basis of this part of the law of the sin offering. There can be
no worse omen for the future of an individual than the denial of his
obligations to God and to His Son, our Saviour; and there can be no
worse sign for the future of Christendom, or of any nation in
Christendom, than the partial or entire denial of national
obligation to God and to His Christ. What it shall mean in the end,
what is the future toward which these popular modern principles are
conducting the nations, is revealed in Scripture with startling
clearness, in the warning that the world is yet to see one who shall
be in a peculiar and eminent sense "the Antichrist"; {1Jn 2:18} who
shall deny both the Father and Son, and be "the Lawless One," and
the "Man of Sin," in that He shall "set Himself forth as God"; {2Th
2:3-8} to whom authority will be given "over every tribe, and
people, and tongue, and nation." {Rev 13:7}
The nation, then, as such, is held responsible to God! So stands the
law. And, therefore, in Israel, if the nation should sin, it was
ordained that they also, like the high priest, should bring a
bullock for a sin offering, the most costly victim that was ever
prescribed. This was so ordained, no doubt, in part because of
Israel’s own priestly station as a "kingdom of priests and a holy
nation," exalted to a position of peculiar dignity and privilege
before God, that they might mediate the blessings of redemption to
all nations. It was because of this fact that, if they sinned, their
guilt was peculiarly heavy.
The principle, however, is of present day application. Privilege is
the measure of responsibility, no less now than then, for nations as
well as for individuals. Thus national sin, on the part of the
British or American nation, or indeed with any of the so-called
Christian nations, is certainly judged by God to be a much more evil
thing than the same sin if committed, for example, by the Chinese or
Turkish nation, who have had no such degree of Gospel light and
knowledge.
And the law in this case evidently also implies that sin is
aggravated in proportion to its universality. It is bad, for
example, if in a community one man commit adultery, forsaking his
own wife; but it argues a condition of things far worse when the
violation of the marriage relation becomes common; when the question
can actually be held open for discussion whether marriage, as a
permanent union between one man and one woman, be not "a failure,"
as debated not long ago in a leading London paper; and when, as in
many of the United States of America and other countries of modern
Christendom, laws are enacted for the express purpose of legalising
the violation of Christ’s law of marriage, and thus shielding
adulterers and adulteresses from the condign punishment their crime
deserves. It is bad, again, when individuals in a State teach
doctrines subversive of morality; but it evidently argues a far
deeper depravation of morals when a whole community unite in
accepting, endowing, and upholding such in their work.
Next in order comes the case of the civil ruler. For him it was
ordered: "When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any of the
things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is
guilty: if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him, he
shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish" (Lev
4:22). Thus, the ruler was to bring a victim of less value than the
high priest or the collective congregation; but it must still be of
more value than that of a private person; for his responsibility, if
less than that of the officer of religion, is distinctly greater
than that of a man in private life.
And here is a lesson for modern politicians, no less than for rulers
of the olden time in Israel. While there are many in our Parliaments
and like governing bodies in Christendom who cast their every vote
with the fear of God before their eyes, yet, if there be any truth
in the general opinion of men upon this subject, there are many in
such places who, in their voting, have before their eyes the fear of
party more than the fear of God; and who, when a question comes
before them, first of all consider, not what would the law of
absolute righteousness, the law of God, require, but how will a
vote, one way or the other, in this matter, be likely to affect
their party? Such certainly need to be emphatically reminded of this
part of the law of the sin offering, which held the civil ruler
specially responsible to God for the execution of his trust. For so
it is still; God has not abdicated His throne in favour of the
people, nor will He waive His crown rights out of deference to the
political necessities of a party.
Nor is it only those who sin in this particular way who need the
reminder of their personal responsibility to God. All need it who
either are or may be called to places of greater or less
governmental responsibility; and it is those who are the most worthy
of such trust who will be the first to acknowledge their need of
this warning. For in all times those who have been lifted to
positions of political power have been under peculiar temptation to
forget God, and become reckless of their obligation to Him as His
ministers. But under the conditions of modern life, in many
countries of Christendom, this is true as perhaps never before. For
now it has come to pass that, in most modern communities, those who
make and execute laws hold their tenure of office at the pleasure of
a motley army of voters, Protestants and Romanists, Jews, atheists,
and what not, a large part of whom care not the least for the will
of God in civil government, as revealed in Holy Scripture. Under
such conditions, the place of the civil ruler becomes one of such
special trial and temptation that we do well to remember in our
intercessions, with peculiar sympathy, all who in such positions are
seeking to serve supremely, not their party, but their God, and so
best serve their country. It is no wonder that the temptation too
often to many becomes overpowering, to silence conscience with
plausible sophistries, and to use their office to carry out in
legislation, instead of the will of God, the will of the people, or
rather, of that particular party which put them in power.
Yet the great principle affirmed in this law of the sin offering
stands, and will stand forever, and to it all will do well to take
heed; namely, that God will hold the civil ruler responsible, and
more heavily responsible than any private person, for any sin he may
commit, and especially for any violation of law in any matter
committed to his trust. And there is abundant reason for this. For
the powers that be are ordained of God, and in His providence are
placed in authority; not as the modern notion is, for the purpose of
executing the will of their constituents, whatever that will may be,
but rather the unchangeable will of the Most Holy God, the Ruler of
all nations, so far as revealed, concerning the civil and social
relations of men. Nor must it be forgotten that this eminent
responsibility attaches to them, not only in their official acts,
but in all their acts as individuals. No distinction is made as to
the sin for which the ruler must bring his sin offering, whether
public and official, or private and personal. Of whatsoever kind the
sin may be, if committed by a ruler, God holds him specially
responsible, as being a ruler; and reckons the guilt of that sin,
even if a private offence, to be heavier than if it had been
committed by one of the common people. And this, for the evident
reason that, as in the case of the high priest, his exalted position
gives his example double influence and effect. Thus, in all ages and
all lands, a corrupt king or nobility have made a corrupt court; and
a corrupt court or corrupt legislators are sure to demoralise all
the lower ranks of society. But however it may be under the
governments of men, under the equitable government of the Most Holy
God, high station can give no immunity to sin. And in the day to
come, when the Great Assize is set, there will be many who in this
world stood high in authority, who will learn, in the tremendous
decisions of that day, if not before, that a just God reckoned the
guilt of their sins and crimes in exact proportion to their rank and
station.
Last of all, in this chapter, comes the law of the sin offering for
one of the common people, of which the first part is given Lev
4:27-35. The victim which is appointed for those who are best able
to give, a female goat, is yet of less value than those ordered in
the cases before given; for the responsibility and guilt in the case
of such is less. The first prescription for a sin offering by one of
the common people is introduced by these words: -" If any one of the
common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of thethings which the
Lord hath commanded not to be done, and be guilty; if his sin, which
he hath sinned, be made known to him, then he shall bring for his
oblation a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath
sinned" (Lev 4:27-28).
In case of his inability to bring so much as this, offerings of
lesser value are authorised in the section following, {Lev 5:5-13}
to which we shall attend hereafter.
Meanwhile it is suggestive to observe that this part of the law is
expanded more fully than any other part of the law of the sin
offering. We are hereby reminded that if none are so high as to he
above the reach of the judgment of God, but are held in that
proportion strictly responsible for their sin; so, on the other
hand, none are of station so low that their sins shall therefore be
overlooked. The common people, in all lands, are the great majority
of the population; but no one is to imagine that, because he is a
single individual, of no importance in a multitude, he shall
therefore, if he sin, escape the Divine eye, as it were, in a crowd.
Not so. We may be of the very lowest social station; the provision
in Lev 5:11 regards the case of such as might be so poor as that
they could not even buy two doves. Men may judge the doings of such
poor folk of little or no consequence; but not so God. With Him is
no respect of persons, either of rich or poor. From all alike, from
the anointed high priest, who ministers in the Holy of Holies, down
to the common people, and among these, again, from the highest down
to the very lowest, poorest, and meanest in rank, is demanded, even
for a sin of ignorance, a sin offering for atonement.
What a solemn lesson we have herein concerning the character of God!
His omniscience, which not only notes the sin of those who are in
some conspicuous position, but also each individual sin of the
lowest of the people! His absolute equity, exactly and accurately
grading responsibility for sin committed, in each case, according to
the rank and influence of him who commits it! His infinite holiness,
which cannot pass by without expiation even the transient act or
word of rash hands or lips, not even the sin not known as sin by the
sinner; a holiness which, in a word, unchangeably and unalterably
requires from every human being, nothing less than absolute moral
perfection like His own!
THE SPRINKLING OF THE
BLOOD
Lev 4:6-7; Lev 4:16-18; Lev 4:25; Lev 4:30; Lev 5:9
"And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle
of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the
sanctuary. And the priest shall put of the blood upon the horns of
the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tent of
meeting; and all the blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the
base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the
tent of meeting And the anointed priest shall bring of the blood of
the bullock to the tent of meeting, and the priest shall dip his
finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord,
before the veil. And he shall put of the blood upon the horns of the
altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tent of meeting, and
all the blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt
offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting And the priest
shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put
it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and the blood
thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering
And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and
put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and all the
blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar And he
shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the
altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of
the altar; it is a sin offering."
In the case of the burnt offering and of the peace offering, in
which the idea of expiation, although not absent, yet occupied a
secondary place in their ethical intent, it sufficed that the blood
of the victim, by whomsoever brought, be applied to the sides of the
altar. But in the sin offering, the blood must not only be sprinkled
on the sides of the altar of burnt offering, but, even in the case
of the common people, be applied to the horns of the altar, its most
conspicuous and, in a sense, most sacred part. In the case of a sin
committed by the whole congregation, even this is not enough; the
blood must be brought even into the Holy Place, be applied to the
horns of the altar of incense, and be sprinkled seven times before
the Lord before the veil which hung immediately before the mercy
seat in the Holy of Holies, the place of the Shekinah glory. And in
the great sin offering of the high priest once a year for the sins
of all the people, yet more was required. The blood was to be taken
even within the veil, and be sprinkled on the mercy seat itself over
the tables of the broken law.
These several cases, according to the symbolism of these several
parts of the tabernacle, differ in that atoning blood is brought
ever more and more nearly into the immediate presence of God. The
horns of the altar had a sacredness above the sides; the altar of
the Holy Place before the veil, a sanctity beyond that of the altar
in the outer court; while the Most Holy Place, where stood the ark,
and the mercy seat, was the very place of the most immediate and
visible manifestation of Jehovah, who is often described in Holy
Scripture, with reference to the ark, the mercy seat, and the
overhanging cherubim, as the God who "dwelleth between the
cherubim."
From this we may easily understand the significance of the different
prescriptions as to the blood in the case of different classes. A
sin committed by any private individual or by a ruler, was that of
one who had access only to the outer court, where stood the altar of
burnt offering; for this reason, it is there that the blood must be
exhibited, and that on the most sacred and conspicuous spot in that
court, the horns of the altar where God meets with the people. But
when it was the anointed priest that had sinned, the case was
different. In that he had a peculiar position of nearer access to
God than others, as appointed of God to minister before Him in the
Holy Place, his sin is regarded as having defiled the Holy Place
itself; and in that Holy Place must Jehovah therefore see atoning
blood ere the priest’s position before God can be reestablished.
And the same principle required that also in the Holy Place must the
blood be presented for the sin of the whole congregation. For Israel
in its corporate unity was "a kingdom of priests," a priestly
nation: and the priest in the Holy Place represented the nation in
that capacity. Thus because of this priestly office of the nation,
their collective sin was regarded as defiling the Holy Place in
which, through their representatives, the priests, they ideally
ministered. Hence, as the law for the priests, so is the law for the
nation. For their corporate sin the blood must be applied, as in the
case of the priest who represented them, to the horns of the altar
in the Holy Place, whence ascended the smoke of the incense which
visibly symbolised accepted priestly intercession, and, more than
this, before the veil itself; in other words, as near to the very
mercy seat itself as it was permitted to the priest to go; and it
must be sprinkled there, not once, nor twice, but seven times, in
token of the reestablishment, through the atoning blood, of God’s
covenant of mercy, of which, throughout the Scripture, the number
seven, the number of sabbatic rest and covenant fellowship with God,
is the constant symbol.
And it is not far to seek for the spiritual thought which underlies
this part of the ritual. For the tabernacle was represented as the
earthly dwelling place, in a sense, of God; and just as the defiling
of the house of my fellow man may be regarded as an insult to him
who dwells in the house, so the sin of the priest and of the
priestly people is regarded as, more than that of those outside of
this relation, a special affront to the holy majesty of Jehovah,
criminal just in proportion as the defilement approaches more nearly
the innermost shrine of Jehovah’s manifestation.
But though Israel is at present suspended from its priestly position
and function among the nations of the earth, the Apostle Peter {1Pe
2:5} reminds us that the body of Christian believers now occupies
Israel’s ancient place, being now on earth the "royal priesthood,
the holy nation." Hence this ritual solemnly reminds us that the sin
of a Christian is a far more evil thing than the sin of others; it
is as the sin of the priest, and defiles the Holy Place, even though
unwittingly committed; and thus, even more imperatively than other
sin, demands the exhibition of the atoning blood of the Lamb of God,
not now in the Holy Place, but more than that, in the true Holiest
of all, where our High Priest is now entered. And thus, in every
possible way, with this elaborate ceremonial of sprinkling of blood
does the sin offering emphasise to our own consciences, no less than
for ancient Israel, the solemn fact affirmed in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, {Heb 9:22} "Without shedding of blood there is no remission
of sin."
Because of this, we do well to meditate much and deeply on this
symbolism of the sin offering, which, more than any other in the
law, has to do with the propitiation of our Lord for sin. Especially
does this use of the blood, in which the significance of the sin
offering reached its supreme expression, claim our most reverent
attention. For the thought is inseparable from the ritual, that
blood of the slain victim must be presented, not before the priest,
or before the offerer, but before Jehovah. Can anyone mistake the
evident significance of this? Does it not luminously hold forth the
thought that atonement by sacrifice has to do, not only with man,
but with God?
There is cause enough in our day for insisting on this. Many are
teaching that the need for the shedding of blood for the remission
of sin, lies only in the nature of man; that, so far as concerns
God, sin might as well have been pardoned without it; that it is
only because man is so hard and rebellious, so stubbornly distrusts
the Divine love, that the death of the Holy Victim of Calvary became
a necessity. Nothing less than such a stupendous exhibition of the
love of God could suffice to disarm his enmity to God and win him
back to loving trust. Hence the need of the atonement. That all this
is true, no one will deny; but it is only half the truth, and the
less momentous half, -which indeed is hinted in no offering, and in
the sin offering least of all. Such a conception of the matter as
completely fails to account for this part of the symbolic ritual of
the bloody sacrifices, as it fails to agree with other teachings of
the Scriptures. If the only need for atonement in order to pardon is
in the nature of the sinner, then why this constant insistence that
the blood of the sacrifice should always be solemnly presented, not
before the sinner, but before Jehovah? We see in this fact most
unmistakably set forth, the very solemn truth that expiation by
blood as a condition of forgiveness of sin is necessary, not merely
because man is what he is, but most of all because God is what He
is. Let us then not forget that the presentation unto God of an
expiation for sin, accomplished by the death of an appointed
substitutionary victim, was in Israel made an indispensable
condition of the pardon of sin. Is this, as many urge, against the
love of God? By no means! Least of all will it so appear, when we
remember who appointed the great Sacrifice, and, above all, who came
to fulfil this type. Goal does not love us because atonement has
been made, but atonement has been made because the Father loved us,
and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
God is none the less just, that He is love; and none the less holy,
that He is merciful: and in His nature, as the Most Just and Holy
One, lies this necessity of the shedding of blood in order to the
forgiveness of sin, which is impressively symbolised in the
unvarying ordinance of the Levitical law, that as a condition of the
remission of sin, the blood of the sacrifice must be presented, not
before the sinner, but before Jehovah. To this generation of ours,
with its so exalted notions of the greatness and dignity of man, and
its correspondingly low conceptions of the ineffable greatness and
majesty of the Most Holy God, this altar truth may be most
distasteful, so greatly does it magnify the evil of sin; but just in
that degree is it necessary to the humiliation of man’s proud
self-complacency, that, whether pleasing or not, this truth be
faithfully held forth.
Very instructive and helpful to our faith are the allusions to this
sprinkling of Blood in the New Testament. Thus, in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, {Heb 12:24} believers are reminded that they are come
"unto the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better than that of
Abel." The meaning is plain. For we are told, {Gen 4:10} that the
blood of Abel cried out against Cain from the ground; and that its
cry for vengeance was prevailing; for God came down, arraigned the
murderer, and visited him with instant judgment. But in these words
we are told that the sprinkled blood of the holy Victim of Calvary,
sprinkled on the heavenly altar, also has a voice, and a voice which
"speaketh better than that of Abel"; better, in that it speaks, not
for vengeance, but for pardoning mercy; better, in that it procures
the remission even of a penitent murderer’s guilt; so that, "being
now justified through His blood" we may all be saved from wrath
through. {Rom 5:9} And, if we are truly Christ’s, it is our blessed
comfort to remember also that we are said {1Pe 1:2} to have been
chosen of God unto the sprinkling of this precious blood of Jesus
Christ; words which remind us, not only that the blood of a Lamb
"without blemish and without spot" has been presented unto God for
us, but also that the reason for this distinguishing mercy is found,
not in us, but in the free love of God, who chose us in Christ Jesus
to this grace.
And as in the burnt offering, so in the sin offering, the blood was
to be sprinkled by the priest. The teaching is the same in both
cases. To present Christ before God, laying the hand of faith upon
His head as our sin offering, this is all we can do or are required
to do. With the sprinkling of the blood we have nothing to do. In
other words, the effective presentation of the blood before God is
not to be secured by some act of our own; it is not something, to be
procured through some subjective experience, other or in addition to
the faith which brings the Victim. As in the type, so in the
Antitype, the sprinkling of the atoning blood-that is, its
application God-ward as a propitiation-is the work of our heavenly
Priest. And our part in regard to it is simply and only this, that
we entrust this work to Him. He will not disappoint us; He is
appointed of God to this end, and He will see that it is done.
In a sacrifice in which the sprinkling of the blood occupies such a
central and essential place in the symbolism, one would anticipate
that this ceremony would never be dispensed with. Very strange it
thus appears, at first sight, to find that to this law an exception
was made. For it was ordained (ver. 11) that a man so poor that "his
means suffice not" to bring even two doves or young pigeons, might
bring, as a substitute, an offering of fine flour. From this, some
have hastened to infer that the shedding of the blood, and therewith
the idea of substituted life, was not essential to the idea of
reconciliation with God; but with little reason. Most illogical and
unreasonable it is to determine a principle, not from the general
rule, but from an exception; especially when, as in this case, for
the exception a reason can be shown, which is not inconsistent with
the rule. For had no such exceptional offering been permitted in the
case of the extremely poor man, it would have followed that there
would have remained a class of persons in Israel whom God had
excluded from the provision of the sin offering, which He had made
the inseparable condition of forgiveness. But two truths were to be
set forth in the ritual; the one, atonement by means of a life
surrendered in expiation of guilt; the other, -as in a similar way
in the burnt offering, -the sufficiency of God’s gracious provision
for even the neediest of sinners. Evidently, here was a case in
which something must be sacrificed in the symbolism. One of these
truths may be perfectly set forth; both cannot be, with equal
perfectness; a choice must therefore be made, and is made in this
exceptional regulation, so as to hold up clearly, even though at the
expense of some distinctness in the other thought of expiation, the
unlimited sufficiency of God’s provision of forgiving grace.
And yet the prescriptions in this form of the offering were such as
to prevent anyone from confounding it with the meal offering, which
typified consecrated and accepted service. The oil and the
frankincense which belonged to the latter are to be left out (Lev
5:11); incense, which typifies accepted prayer, -thus reminding us
of the unanswered prayer of the Holy Victim when He cried upon the
cross, "My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me?" and oil, which
typifies the Holy Ghost, -reminding us, again, how from the soul of
the Son of God was mysteriously withdrawn in that same hour all the
conscious presence and comfort of the Holy Spirit, which
withdrawment alone could have wrung from His lips that unanswered
prayer. And, again, whereas the meal for the meal offering had no
limit fixed as to quantity, in this case the amount is
prescribed-"the tenth part of an ephah" (Lev 5:11); an amount which,
from the story of the manna, appears to have represented the
sustenance of one full day. Thus it was ordained that if, in the
nature of the case, this sin offering could not set forth the
sacrifice of life by means of the shedding of blood, it should at
least point in the same direction, by requiring that, so to speak,
the support of life for one day shall be given up, as forfeited by
sin.
All the other parts of the ceremonial are in this ordinance made to
take a secondary place, or are omitted altogether. Not all of the
offering is burnt upon the altar, but only a part; that part,
however, the fat, the choicest; for the same reason as in the peace
offering. There is, indeed, a peculiar variation in the case of the
offering of the two young pigeons, in that, of the one, the blood
only was used in the sacrifice, while the other was wholly burnt
like a burnt offering. But for this variation the reason is evident
enough in the nature of the victims. For in the case of a small
creature like a bird, the fat would be so insignificant in quantity,
and so difficult to separate with thoroughness from the flesh, that
the ordinance must needs be varied, and a second bird be taken for
the burning, as a substitute for the separated fat of larger
animals. The symbolism is not essentially affected by the variation.
What the burning of the fat means in other offerings, that also
means the burning of the second bird in this case.
THE EATING AND THE
BURNING OF THE SIN OFFERING WITHOUT THE CAMP
Lev 4:8-12; Lev 4:19-21; Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31; Lev 5:10; Lev 5:12
"And all the fat of the bullock of the sin offering he shall take
off from it; 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 loins, and the caul upon the liver, with the
kidneys, shall he take away, as it is taken off from the ox of the
sacrifice of, peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon
the altar of burnt offering. And the skin of the bullock, and all
its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and
its dung, even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the
camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it
on wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt
And all the fat thereof shall he take off from it, and burn it upon
the altar. Thus shall he do with the bullock; as he did with the
bullock of the sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the
priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.
And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it
as he burned the first bullock: it is the sin offering for the
assembly. And all the fat thereof shall he burn upon the altar, as
the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall
make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be
forgiven. And all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat is
taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest
shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord and
the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.
And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering according to the
ordinance: and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning
his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven. And he shall
bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it
as the memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, upon the
offerings of the Lord made by fire: it is a sin offering."
In the ritual of the sin offering, sacrificial meal, such as that of
the peace offering, wherein the offerer and his house, with the
priest and the Levite, partook together of the flesh of the
sacrificed victim, there was none. The eating of the flesh of the
sin offerings by the priests, prescribed in Lev 6:26, had,
primarily, a different intention and meaning. As set forth
elsewhere, {Lev 7:35} it was "the anointing portion of Aaron and his
sons"; an ordinance expounded by the Apostle Paul to this effect,
{1Co 9:13} they which wait upon the altar should "have their portion
with the altar." Yet not of all the sin offerings might the priest
thus partake. For when he was himself the one for whom the offering
was made, whether as an individual, or as included in the
congregation, then it is plain that he for the time stood in the
same position before God as the private individual who had sinned.
It was a universal principle of the law that because of the
peculiarly near and solemn relation into which the expiatory victim
had been brought to God, it was "most holy," and therefore he for
whose sin it is offered could not eat of its flesh. Hence the
general law is laid down: {Lev 6:30} "No sin offering, whereof any
of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement
in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire."
And yet, although, because the priests could not eat of the flesh,
it must be burnt, it could not be burnt upon the altar; not, as some
have fancied, because it was regarded as unclean, which is directly
contradicted by the statement that it is "most holy," but because so
to dispose of it would have been to confound the sin offering with
the burnt offering, which had, as we have seen, a specific symbolic
meaning, quite distinct from that of the sin offering. It must be so
disposed of that nothing shall divert the mind of the worshipper
from the fact that, not sacrifice as representing full consecration,
as in the burnt offering, but sacrifice as representing expiation,
is set forth in this offering. Hence it was ordained that the flesh
of these sin offerings for the anointed priest, or for the
congregation, which included him, should be "burnt on wood with fire
without the camp." {Lev 4:11-12; Lev 4:21} And the more carefully to
guard against the possibility of confounding this burning of the
flesh of the sin offering with the sacrificial burning of the
victims on the altar, the Hebrew uses here, and in all places where
this burning is referred to, a verb wholly distinct from that which
is used of the burnings on the altar, and which, unlike that, is
used of any ordinary burning of anything for any purpose.
But this burning of the victim without the camp was not therefore
empty of all typical significance. The writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews calls our attention to the fact that in this part of the
appointed ritual there was also that which prefigured Christ and the
circumstances of His death. For we, {Heb 13:10-12} after an
exhortation to Christians to have done with the ritual observances
of Judaism regarding meats:-"We," that is, we Christian believers,
"have an altar,"-the cross upon which Jesus suffered, -"whereof they
have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle"; i.e., they who
adhere to the now effete Jewish tabernacle service, the unbelieving
Israelites, derive no benefit from this sacrifice of ours. "For the
bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the Holy Place by
the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned without the
camp"; the priesthood are debarred from eating them, according to
the law we have before us. And then attention is called to the fact
that in this respect Jesus fulfilled this part of the type of the
sin offering, thus: "Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify
the people with His own blood, suffered without the camp." That is,
as Alford interprets (Comm. sub. loc.), in the circumstance that
Jesus suffered without the gate, is seen a visible adumbration of
the fact that He suffered outside the camp of legal Judaism, and
thus, in that He suffered for the sin of the whole congregation of
Israel, fulfilled the type of this sin offering in this particular.
Thus a prophecy is discovered here which perhaps we had not else
discerned, concerning the manner of the death of the antitypical
victim. He should suffer as a victim for the sin of the whole
congregation, the priestly people, who should for that reason be
debarred, in fulfilment of the type, from that benefit of His death
which had else been their privilege. And herein was accomplished to
the uttermost that surrender of His whole being to God, in that, in
carrying out that full consecration, "He, bearing His cross, went
forth," not merely outside the gate of Jerusalem, -in itself a
trivial circumstance, -but, as this fitly symbolised, outside the
congregation of Israel, to suffer. In other words, His consecration
of Himself to God in self-sacrifice found its supreme expression in
this, that He voluntarily submitted to be cast out from Israel,
despised and rejected of men, even of the Israel of God.
And so this burning of the flesh of the sin offering of the highest
grade in two places, the fat upon the altar, in the court of the
congregation, and the rest of the victim outside the camp, set forth
prophetically the full self-surrender of the Son to the Father, as
the sin offering, in a double aspect: in the former, emphasising
simply, as in the peace offering, His surrender of all that was
highest and best in Him, as Son of God and Son of man, unto the
Father as a Sin offering; in the latter, foreshowing that He should
also, in a special manner, be a sacrifice for the sin of the
congregation of Israel, and that His consecration should receive its
fullest exhibition and most complete expression in that He should
die outside the camp of legal Judaism, as an outcast from the
congregation of Israel.
Accordingly we find that this part of the type of the sin offering
was formally accomplished when the high priest, upon Christ’s
confession before the Sanhedrim of His Sonship to God, declared Him
to be guilty of blasphemy; an offence for which it had been ordered
by the Lord {Lev 24:14} that the guilty person should be taken
"without the camp" to suffer for his sin.
In the light of these marvellous correspondences between the typical
sin offering and the self offering of the Son of God, what a
profound meaning more and more appears in those words of Christ
concerning Moses: "He wrote of Me."
|