It has been the profoundest joy to me that the truth giving the scope and true character of Christianity, and the special truths which compose it, learned from Scripture because it was there and was the truth about man, and the truth as to God and His ways, learned for its own sake in grace, has met every part of the system, infidel and erroneous, which has sprung up in these last days. How it shows, and makes one feel it was divine teaching! May one be kept simply there. -- 1878.
If I open the Old Testament anywhere -- the Gospels, the Epistles -- what different atmospheres I find myself in at once. In the old -- ways -- dealings -- government -- man, though man and the world governed by God -- piety no doubt, but piety in that scene; and even in the Gospels and Epistles the difference is quite as great -- in certain respects, more important. In the Epistles (so the Acts) one active to gather -- souls devoted to Christ, valuing Him and His work above all -- power shown more than in Christ on earth, as He promised -- it is gathering, then caring power. I get back, though now in the power of the Holy Ghost and grace in a saving, gathering way, to man, and it soon fails. But in the Gospels I find a Centre where my mind reposes, which is Itself, always Itself, and nothing like It -- moves through a discordant scene, attracting to Itself through grace (what no Apostle did or could do) and shining in Its own perfection, unaltered and unalterable in all circumstances. It is the thing about which all service is occupied, as its point of departure, and to which all under divine influence is attracted, for it is God. I was struck with this on the wide Atlantic, my head weary with long storms, on turning to my title -- that blessed Book.
It is a blessed thought that Christ will Himself introduce us into the Father's house -- into heaven. What an entrance will that be, when He leads us in, the fruit of the travail of His own soul -- His own -- and glorified according to His worth -- and all His heavenly company there! And we await that day.
As witnesses of what God is to a sinner, it is evident the Christian should be at peace, and in the consciousness of grace, as well as righteous in his ways, for thus he is, to sinners, an evidence of what God is to sinners, for he was one himself; and he is witness of the efficacy and enjoyment of that grace.
As the Pharisees opposed the intrinsic righteousness of Christ, and the Sadducees the doctrine of His resurrection, so the principle of Pharisaism became anew the great source of public trouble in the Church, and sought to add to, and to legalise the truth which it could not deny, so that Christianity should cease to be grace.
Had the saints of apostolic times waited for the fulfilment of various events, before the coming of the Lord, they must have waited for the dispersion of the Jews, and a whole series of events, of long duration, connected with that dispersion, as well as their bringing back again. It would have come in as an historical event, in a series, not as a living expectation; but they were the Church -- not Jews -- and the Lord was precious to them.
Promises, precious promises there are for the wilderness way, and indeed the glory at the end, but properly for the way. But without promises we know God in redemption -- rejoice in what He is, through what He has done, "We joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have received the reconciliation". This is perfect blessedness, not what He has given, but what He is; this was the ground of the Syrophenician woman -- He would have had to deny Himself. We get not at promises, but at God Himself, and that by what is manifested and wrought in Christ. Promises are things given to us, but this is the Giver -- this runs all through Christianity in its nature.
Christ is perfect enough to be always good; and as absolutely and infinitely perfect, is always absolutely and infinitely good.
I think the fact, that we have no Psalms in the New Testament, but a direction to sing them, is very significative of the presence of the Holy Ghost. The Church sings its own -- has its own joys, and its own relationships.
Note that the angels, not sang, but shouted for joy at the Creation; then at the birth of Jesus, not then man; and in Revelation 5 the saints praise, the angels celebrating the Lamb outside.
I have noticed incidentally, but not sufficiently, that the sealing is connected with the Gospel of our salvation; this makes what has perplexed many pretty clear. It is when the Gospel of simple salvation is received that we are sealed -- so indeed with Cornelius; Acts 10.
I apprehend that practically, the sealing of the Spirit connects itself, in Ephesians 1, with the calling, i.e., stamps us and marks us out, and consciously so, for it; while, as earnest, it is connected with the inheritance. The anointing would connect itself with verses 17, 18.
There is that in which the Cross stands alone. In Christ's glory I shall participate, and though God is One, and above all, so that there can be no comparison, yet in divine excellency in Person, Christ participates in the divine nature with the Father and the Spirit, and They are one with Him; but in the Cross, though the Father's love is revealed in it, and that He offered Himself through the Eternal Spirit, yet in the suffering proper to the Cross He was alone -- wholly alone. It is in this sense, morally, more than the glory -- that others can have -- on the Cross what was excellent and glorious, none had share in accomplishing with Christ. He is the Lamb slain above -- we reap the fruit, but He accomplished this glorious work Himself, and was alone in accomplishing it.
The full bringing out of good and evil on the Cross is very striking. God (speaking reverently, for the expression is incorrect, it was manifestation, yet to make myself understood), God was fully tested, and He was above sin, and there was absolute righteousness against it, and perfect love. Man was tested, and he was enmity against God -- that was all his history, unless we add details of evil fruits. Christ, blessed be His name, was tested, and it was a perfect savour of love and obedience -- there remained nothing to bring out (for faith); all was fully -- good and evil -- perfectly brought into the light; even Satan was there fully manifested, against the manifestation of love in Christ, and as god of this world.
That it was indeed necessary that the death of Christ should intervene, in order that the love of God could satisfy itself in flowing out in unhindered blessing, is easily understood in grace; but what depth of love is in the expression "how am I straitened till it be accomplished!"
What endless wondrous outgoing of love in all the life and actings of Jesus! We should think it infinite, for it never failed; but He -- such was the depth, the power, the divine fulness of that which was within that He was straitened -- His love wrought in such power, in such necessity to itself to bless, that to Him, His heart was straitened till all that saving power, in which God was fully revealed and glorified, could go forth to bless. This tells us clearly what He was. It is a wondrous expression -- and such was the work upon the Cross; it was sufficient to let flow out all this love -- wondrous work too!
There is a danger of being disheartened and "vexed" through the prevalence of evil, "Because of the abounding of iniquity, the love of many shall wax cold". How perfect the blessed Lord was in this! All was iniquity around Him, yet, in perfect communion with God, His spirit walked in peace, so that He could notice and recognise even all that was naturally lovely -- the lily of the field -- God's care of ravens -- all that was of God here. But this is because He was perfectly near God (I speak of His mind as Man), but, for the same reason He judges perfectly man and all his thoughts and intents of heart.
But marriage is owned from the beginning -- a child, in which simplicity, confidence and undistrusting readiness of heart to believe, guilelessness as not having learnt the world nor its vanity -- beauty of character, when He looked on the young man, who had displayed that character, He loved him; this is lovely, but the presence of God must try man -- where was his heart? He went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. With the best dispositions and readiness to be taught, and plenty to make good use of, the state of the heart is found; "who then can be saved?" With man it is impossible, but then with God all things are possible. At the very outset, the Lord had shown him he was all on the wrong tack, seeking goodness in man -- God only was good; the heart was detected -- the Cross alone would do, those who follow Him must take it up -- death to what man was, the only path. But then there was a blessed starting point for this, "He came to give his life a ransom for many", Mark 10.
The Cross was first redemption, then the death of the flesh; and we are, for ourselves, to take up the Cross, and, for others, to serve as Christ did. He had in this character, as now calling souls, only the cup to give -- His baptism and His cup, though there was large, ample reward for those for whom it was prepared.
Then comes the reference of this question to the disciples' path. Where the flesh is not crucified, the world and Satan have power -- they followed trembling, when He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem. There can be sincerity and blessing -- Christ, the Son, revealed and holding fast by Him, but the flesh not subdued to the measure of that which we really believe, then there is fear and weakness, and it goes
even to the point of being called Satan by the Lord. See the difference of Paul by the Holy Ghost -- his righteousness which was a gain to him, was loss to him, he needed it not; had he anything of this world? It was dung and dross, and followed -- this one thing I do. If he had forty stripes save one, or despaired of life, he had the sentence of death in himself; he looked to a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory -- a bright example of the power of grace and the Spirit, so as to have an undivided and so undistracted heart, and power with him as in Christ, a perfect example of the good which Paul had to imitate -- a heart perfectly free in its own self; tested indeed, but perfect, and so perfect with God that it could, as above all the evil around it, deeply as it was felt, see and recognise all that was of God.
It is wondrously full of instruction to see man's heart sifted, yet all good of God owned; that edge of the divine word, of the word of Christ, which can run its edge through all that to us is so mixed up; nature and fallen nature -- nature from God, and nature from man -- and in perfect goodness in the midst of all, yet tell us plainly of the needed Cross, and the grace of a needed redemption.
Leviticus, though connected with Sinai, quod nota, in the wilderness of it, is spoken from the Tabernacle -- this is its character. Then, after the offerings in order, of which sin-offering is special, the covenant and worship was founded on burnt-offering -- sin-offering found to be needed, and then the law, manner of use and order of them; then comes Aaron's consecration, according to Exodus 28 and 29. In chapter 9 their hands are filled, but note here no blood is brought into the holy place for sin; though there might be evil to be atoned for, relationship is not yet supposed to be broken. But all went wrong; first in Nadab and Abihu, and then in not eating the people's sin-offering by the others, and though Moses was content, yet it altered all the order of approach. Then -- though there had been failure -- from chapters 11 to 15 inclusive, clean and unclean are to be discerned by the anointed, consecrated priests. Chapter 16 on the fault of Nadab and Abihu, etc., the necessity of reconciliation, and that the way into the holiest (Moses, the heavenly man, always went there) was not yet made manifest, was declared, and the manner of entrance there by Aaron prescribed in atonement. Thereon, i.e., after chapter 16, defiling wickednesses are gone through, connected with the people's relationship with God; this to chapter 20 inclusive.
Then the holiness of the priests in separatedness to God, and in approach to Him; then of the people's offerings. Chapter 23 contains the whole course of feasts, chiefly of joy, typical feasts, the history of the Lord's ways, the whole period of dispensation with them -- a long gap, or interval left where the Church comes in. We have then what belongs to the holy place, save the altar of incense, which in effect was for the most Holy, the passing of the mind out of the holy place, i.e., we have the perfectness of the connection, of Christ's connection with Israel, and of the Spirit's (in this latter we know the Church has a place) -- the double mystic perfection of 12 and 7. Twelve loaves, Christ's incarnate connection with Israel I believe, and then the sevenfold perfection of the Spirit shining on the candlestick that was of beaten gold (compare also Numbers 8:1 - 4) but here it was before the Lord. This is the full mystic perfection of Israel; for us the
Lord has taken it up into a higher sense. Then the Word reverts to the terrible legal sanction of all on which it actually stood, noticing any connection with a Gentile, a profane person, and the spurious offspring. Then, having given the people's mystic place in God's design and purpose, with the sanction of their present standing in it, the Land's portion as God's is mentioned -- the sabbaths and the jubilee, and the portion of the people as the Lord's servants in it; chapter 25: 23 and 55. In chapter 26 His warnings and threatened dealings with them, as to the Land, first in it -- then in turning them out of it -- and restoration on Abraham's covenant, verse 42; this the Law. In chapter 27 are voluntary vows; up to chapter 26 are statutes the Lord made between Him and the children of Israel.
Numbers is their history in the wilderness -- written, too, for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come -- and what was connected, in God's dealings with that.
NOTE. -- The three first chapters of Leviticus go together under the same "the Lord spake unto Moses"; the sin-offerings are another category of offerings. The meat-offering was most holy, and for the males only among the priests, as the sin- and trespass-offerings.
In the offerings it is formally the sons of Aaron to whom the sacrifices were brought, not to Aaron. I do not call to mind any sacrifices Aaron or the anointed priest offered (save for personal sin) except the great day of atonement, and his consecration -- indeed in public service only the former. It was Christ's one great sacrifice. But the estimate of Christ, the handling of Him in the soul can only be by those who are priests, who are Christians. One only can do the work, and represent us, but we are with God, and in certain cases feed on, and that as priests, according to what Christ has been and has done when here -- in Himself solely offered to God, glorifying Him, as made sin for us, but fed on in His perfectness and death. The unfolding of this in Leviticus is most precious.
The day of consecration was the day of the acceptance of the whole service by God, but as to the sacrifices, did not go within the veil. Aaron was in his garments of glory and beauty -- he offers a sin- and burnt-offering, the two essential kinds; the people, every kind. Sin- and burnt-offerings are that in which Christ is accepted of God for us. It was the great general public act, and fire came out from God and consecrated and
accepted both. The people enjoyed all that Christ was in life, and death besides, founded on the sin and burnt-offering. On the great day of atonement, he had special garments, and the service referred essentially to sin which was there; but to God's very nature within -- the blood was carried within the veil. Before he offered anything else, he changed his garments, the burnt-offering was subsequent and consequent on the other. The service of Leviticus 9 was not consequent on actual sin and defilement. It gave the full character of Christ's sacrifice and Israel's part in it, or ours as regards responsibility. The day of atonement was in view of actual sins and defilement, and that in a twofold way -- God's throne and guilt. The rest was apart. In this sense it was only a sin-offering and sin-bearing. In both cases, i.e., chapters 9 and 16, it was in view of men, not intrinsic and its own character with God; hence the sin-offering comes first, as the burnt-offering in chapter 1. They were for us, but Christ came to put away sin; God's character and majesty and love and righteousness and holiness called for its putting away according to them. It was necessary that it should be put out of the universe, and Christ stood, who knew no sin, as made sin before God; it was about sin, man's sin, as he stood before God. This was the great fact which stands alone in eternity's history, and is finished.
So in the meat-offering, the perfect, proved man; then communion, and as a distinct thing, the sin-offering. But in the burnt-offering, the man brings it; it was on the part of man, sin being there, in view of sin in man, but the priestly estimate of all that it was to God. It was what it is for faith. Both that and the meat-offering are complete in themselves (compare John 6, only there we eat) under God's eye, not for actual sins to bear them and clear us. In the day of atonement this was so, even Godward it was a sin-offering, the goat, and because of iniquities -- compare Hebrews 9, "put away sin", "bear the sins of many". Hence in this estimate of divinely taught faith, it is not the High Priest, but Aaron's sons. He gives too the reason why these two are the occasions on which Aaron offers. There remains the special case of Eleazar the priest, with the red heifer, which, though done once, was not in the sanctuary. In the post-consecration services, there was no going into the sanctuary in connection with the sacrifices, they were at the altar. Then Moses and Aaron, king and priest, go in and come out.
Leviticus 9 only refers typically to Israel. The work does not go within, though effectual to forgive according to the judgment of God; and its efficacy is revealed only when the king and priest come out -- when Israel sees the Lord. The priest may bless from the sacrifice before manifestation, and so it is, but the worship is when Christ is seen, and the worth of His sacrifice known. For us, the Holy Ghost is come out while He is within; the fact of going in and coming out, only, is noticed here. On the day of atonement, the blood is carried within.
There is a difference in our enjoyment of Christ, our enjoyment of blessings in communion, sha-lom (peace) founded on the blood and fat being offered to God, (and this was eaten by every clean Israelite) and the enjoyment of the perfectness of Christ in Himself, which is for us of course through the blood of the holocaust, and, as a rule, accompanied it -- we read of its meat-offering. This was in the meat-offering only for priests. This was offered to God intrinsically in its own perfection, not atoningly for others without; this last, man could not eat, but it was its own perfectness, as suited to God -- all the incense offered to God -- the expression of pure unleavened human nature, presented to God and burned for a sweet savour, but human nature expressing what was divine, but in a man; kneaded with oil, and anointed with oil as a whole, and in all its parts. Here, while the incense was all burned to God, priests, there consecrated to God, eat of it.
In the peace-offerings, there was, whether thanksgiving or voluntary, joy in the effect of Christ's work, and connected with it (if separated, it was not accepted) and fellowship one with another. In the light as God is, cleansed from all sin by the blood, we have this fellowship. But in the meat-offering, there was no fellowship with others; it was the enjoyment of Christ Himself, that of which the sweet savour is gone up to God, as a memorial, but of which I eat by grace. In the peace-offering too, there were leavened cakes. In the meat-offering it was not to be heard of -- John 6 does not, I think, go with this; it is all manwards as in general. No doubt when so come, He was all this in perfect blessing, but here it is His incarnation and death that we might have life, blessed truth too, but not the offering of what He was in Himself towards God. Indeed this is only seen in Christ, when actually so in result, John 6:62; and our share in it also actually, verses 39,
40, 44, 54 -- only John is individual and receptive faith for eternal life, not common enjoyment, when the sacrifice is known as a saving work.
We must not confound the yak'riv (he shall cause to draw near) part of the offering with the rest -- the dealing with the presented, offered thing. It was Kor'ban (oblation). The word "offer" is used for this part, and ish-sheh (a sacrifice made by fire), and O-lah (holocaust); Christ offered Himself through the Eternal Spirit -- this was yak'riv -- but He thereon became an O-lah, an ish-sheh, and even a khat-tath (sin-offering) by the coming in, and acting of God. The offered Victim was laid on the altar, the fire of the divine nature and judgment proved Him so as to show there was nought but sweet savour, and consumed, and dealt with the sin He bore. But in Christ the separation is moral -- He gave Himself up to death -- He was proved in His giving up to the fullest extent of death, and therein shewn to be perfect; so, as to sin laid on Him. But His giving Himself up, and His proving and suffering were distinct -- the consuming the sacrifice and the death were distinct -- yet it is clear the consuming the parts, after death, has no literal place in Christ; but the death work and the altar work were distinct -- the altar, consumption, was not Kor'ban, but the fire dealing with the Kor'ban -- yet in Christ it went on clearly before, and so up to death.
The Kor'ban was the offerer's, or, when the blood and slain animal was dealt with, priest's work -- one, the absolute surrender, the other, presenting to God -- but it was presenting, offering up, bringing to God.
There were then two things -- the proving by fire, and consuming by fire (this, without the camp) and the accepted blood; when the blood is considered, the Victim is clearly looked at as One perfect, and proved so to the end -- it is sprinkled, as of known, complete value. And so indeed as the burning by fire, and hence it came after death in the type -- it was burned for a sweet savour, or without the camp as made sin (then not yak'riv); and this is important, and hence after death, which we by faith can apply to Christ, all went up as a sweet savour. No doubt He went through the proving, but the type presents the sweet savour of the proved thing after death. Historically, in the antitype, the fire was
applied to the crucified One, but it goes up, a sweet savour from thence as the sole result of that fire -- it is equally important that, looked at as sin, this was all consumed outside the camp.
The priest's part then comes in; it was not the yak'riv part, save as already slain He brought the blood nigh, and caused the sweet savour to ascend -- Christ offered Himself in His own perfectness, and He presents the blood for us. But then the High Priest represented the people as such, and in this character, when He has personally, not as priest, offered Himself to God, He acknowledges the people's sins -- He becomes that khat'tath, but in conscious confession first, not in judicial suffering -- that follows. But the sins are laid on Him -- the Lord has laid them on Him, and He, willingly bearing them, confesses them in perfectness before God for reconciliation being made. This the high priest does as representing the people, but it is not high-priestly in the proper sense, though the high priest's service -- the priest's was with the blood, but then the sacrifice was finished -- had the high priest not done this, there could have been no priestly service at all; even this was not done on earth, but as lifted up from it. Earth was connected with flesh, there was no reconciliation for it, and, as long as Christ was alive upon it, He presented Himself to men in the flesh; when that is done with, He begins His lonely work, where none could enter while it was going on -- and, as representing the people, He makes reconciliation. Hence, no priesthood in any sense was exercised on earth, for the reconciliation work in which the High Priest was engaged, was as lifted up from it, and, though not in heaven, no longer on earth (see footnote).
I think I see a difference between the burnt-offering and the blood on the mercy-seat, which had exercised me, more clearly. The latter is what is presented to God as contrasted
with confessing sins on the scape-goat; still it was a sacrifice for sin. This latter was presented to God as a satisfaction for sin, not merely measured by man's responsibility; that was the altar of burnt-offering, and sin-offerings connected with it, but met what God was, with us, on His throne, where He Himself was -- what He required, not from man as responsible as man, but for His holy and righteous nature. God in that nature was satisfied, so peace was made. It was a question settled, but there was no question of sweet savour.
But in the burnt-offering, we have the perfectness of Christ Himself in doing it; blood was shed, atonement was made; but it was what Christ was, and His perfectness in doing it when He was made sin. "That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, so I do". The Victim spotless and perfect; the motive -- love to the Father -- perfect; obedience perfect. It was when He was made sin (hence blood-shedding) that the perfect opposite of sin was shewn, perfect obedience and love to the Father in absolute self-giving-up, instead of self-seeking. Through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God; hence, when the fire came, all was perfect sweet savour, and went up to God. Christ's soul in this directed all there -- His absolute thought was the glory of God, and obeyed His will at all cost to Himself, yet perfect in doing it. "My God, my God" was perfect faith when abandoned -- "Thou continuest holy", no disturbance of mind in calling upon God an instant in question, like Job, but the contrary, in far other sorrow. Hence in being made sin, and just then, all was sweet savour to God. Nor could aught else have brought out the glory of God; not in Adam's innocence. No redemption love, no righteousness, no holiness, no setting in grace His purpose in love in a creature. He enjoyed sweet blessing in innocence; but nothing had or could come out of what God was, save goodness and wise power in creation. It was not satisfying God -- His righteous exigence -- but a perfect sweet savour in the thing itself, though the cross did also satisfy Him in righteousness, and our sins were borne there too. Still it is here as shedding blood and making atonement, because sin was here, and God had to be glorified, when it was in respect of it.
In the burnt-offering, sin being come in, death, in the perfect self offering-up of Christ, could rise as a sweet savour and
perfect satisfaction to all that God's nature and authority was and claimed, and more than glorify it. Hence it was l'ka-pher (to make an atonement) for the man who brought it. It was not merely bearing his sins, though that was needed, but meeting all the moral nature and character of God. It was the perfect offering-up of Christ in the place where sin had placed man -- perfection in giving Himself up to God, even to death.
-- 2. We must not confound here the kor'ban (oblation) and the yak'riv (he shall cause to draw near), with the consumption of, or dealing with the thing offered, the hik'tir (he shall cause to burn as a sweet savour); this is important in understanding the work of Christ.
We must carefully distinguish between the offering here kor'ban, yak'riv and the offering made by fire ish-sheh (a sacrifice made by fire), O-lah (burnt-offering) etc. The one is being presented to God, the other the dealing with the kor'ban in sacrifice. Save when he went in to present the blood after death, the former was not the priest's work, unless in the case where the high priest himself stood personally as the representative of the whole people.
-- 3. Lir'tso-no (for his acceptance). See chapter 22: 18 - 20.
There is more than one aspect in which we must look at sacrifices, and learn from them as to Christ. The Passover arrested the exercise of the judgment of God, where the blood was sprinkled; the whole burnt-offering was for propitiation lir'tso-no (for his acceptance or favour) the bringing of favour upon him, and for atonement ka-phar (cover). But though death came in, as it must, for those who were in sin, in man's fallen estate, yet it was death as a whole free-will offering to God -- a sweet savour.
-- 4. It is not only ka-phar (cover) has the sense of forgiveness, but ka-sah (hide) also. The force of forgiving is to be noted -- it is not per se atonement, but between the soul and God. It is ka-sah (hide) in Proverbs 10:12. "Charity shall cover", as in Psalm 32:1. The atonement was needed that God might righteously forgive or cover sin. Men would unrighteously cover it up in conscience -- with his brother, in wrong to self, he may, and through love; it is not out before God in government; there may be a question of conscience remaining for the individual.
There seems to be an evident difference between ka-sah (to hide) and ka-phar (to cover) as to covering sin. As far as I can see, the former is covering over in or as to the person in question -- he is covered with hair, with leprosy, the latter is addressed to the person in whose sight it is covered, hence it is satisfaction, atonement -- my sins are k'suy (hidden away, Psalm 32:1); but Christ ka-phar (atoned for) my sins. See this chapter as well as chapter 5. See Genesis 32:20 (I will appease), 1 Samuel 12:3, and Exodus 21:30.
Sa-lakh (forgiven) seems to be removing sin from the person, to take it away in the sight of the person to whom he is responsible, and so forgiveness -- I set it aside, and it is gone instead of holding you still responsible for it. Na-sa (bear) is to bear, and so lift up and take away, something of aphesis (remission) and airo (to lift up), only airo is not to carry or bear, and would quite as much answer to Sa-lakh. Hence in that sense it is also used of the person himself for being under sin, chapter 5: 1. "He shall bear his iniquity". One who bears my burden takes it away from me; but it is used for lifting up from off a person his burden, as well as for carrying oneself, and hence for forgiving.
In Greek airo is to lift up or take away -- never to bear on oneself; anaphero is to bear, but as a sacrifice on the altar; upophero is never used for this; prosphero is to offer to. So he offered Himself without spot, ka-rav (offered). Kha-ta (to err, in Piel, to offer as a sin-offering) is the wrong direction of the mind; A-sham (guiltiness) what is displeasing, offensive to God, though man through carelessness may do it unwittingly; but when he knows he has done what is offensive, then he is positively guilty if he does not turn to God, making confession, and it be repaired or set right. But it is taken ordinarily for guilt or trespass, and it is evident that if I have done something offensive to my father unawares, if I come to know it, if I have right feeling as to him I shall set it right; otherwise it becomes, i.e., the state of my mind as to it, positive sin -- and so I hold it when I find it out, and hence am right -- only it needs atonement.
-- 13. The burning of the burnt-offering, and the fat of the peace-offering, and when so ordered, of the sin-offering, is not expressed by the same word as the burning of the sin-offering but by the same word as "incense" and "burn incense"; so it was for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire.
It is so much the clearer that the mercy-seat was a place of approach, not judgment, that there was no fire as on the altar. The fire was the fire of the altar, was always burning upon it, and judgment is according to works, man's responsibility, though God's righteous judgment.
In this respect, therefore, the burnt-offering was, perfect as it was, inferior to the sin-offering in its highest sense. It was not an offering for particular faults as the common sin-offerings. It was a perfect voluntary free-will offering, the consecration of man to God even unto death, and where sin and death were around, so as to make it more perfect dying unto all here, and self-surrender to God of life in the place of sin, so that there was none here where sin and its fruit was, but the contrary, and the rather -- "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again". But it is Man who offers Himself, divinely no doubt, completing in fact Psalm 40, and through the Eternal Spirit, to God, without spot. Still it was as a sin-offering that the blood was put upon the mercy-seat. No doubt that implied the previous offering of Himself to God, and that up to death absolutely, so that the sweet savour went to God, but it was meeting what God was in His nature as refuting sin (not the scape-goat which accompanied it -- that was sins confessed), a sin-offering of which the blood was put on the mercy-seat. The burnt-offering was Man offered, perfect in the place of death; the day of atonement was God glorified in His nature, so that He was propitious, and could freely bless, which is His nature. But it was Himself glorified, so that we become the righteousness of God, and grace reigns through righteousness. But the point is, God is glorified, not merely man perfect, divinely perfect. It is not without importance to see that it was a sin-offering that was put upon the mercy-seat.
All the school of teaching, which makes it a filling up self-devotedness, though to death and in the place of condemnation, and not a true sin-offering, is proved false -- i.e., perfect man, and perfect man right, not God when everything was contrary -- but it was man, and there, consequently, they stop in their estimate of the character of the offering. But this was not what went within the veil, nor what was the ground of approach to God. This is just the question with some; hence they never get beyond man and the world.
In the meat-offering so-called, we have the perfectness of that which was offered -- both perfection in nature, sinlessness, and the Holy Ghost, so, as led divinely, all had perfect savour; in the burnt-offering, the perfectness of the act of offering, though the victim was perfect too, as the min'kha (meat-offering) was a kor'ban (oblation) too.
It is admitted, I suppose, that lir'tso-no (verse 3, chapter 1) is "for his acceptance". The others were not Adam kiyak'riv (when a man shall have caused to draw nigh) but m ... yekh'te ... v'hik-riv (if ... he has erred ... he shall cause to draw near) not "if he bring", but "if he sin, he shall bring".
NOTE. -- In the meat-offering, it is never said: "to make an atonement for him"; the offering here is food rather than atonement. At the same time it was the food of the priest eaten in that character, not the ordinary communion of the peace-offering. A memorial only was burnt; the mass was eaten by Aaron and his sons. At the same time the memorial and all the incense was devoted to the Lord.
The great first elementary statement as to the meat-offering is fine flour, and oil (and frankincense) put upon it; that is, the fact of a pure human nature, and the anointing of the Holy Ghost. Then there is brought out, as an additional teaching, the unleavened cakes mingled with oil. When the substance of the cake was formed with oil, which was, as it were, penetrated with oil, and it was unleavened, i.e., in the formed actual subsistence, not merely the nature absolutely as such in idea, but the dough made had no leaven in it -- Christ as a living Person had no sin, and was in human nature born of, and lived by the Holy Spirit in fact in the world: "according to the Spirit of holiness". To this was added unleavened wafers anointed with oil, i.e., the actual sinless Man, who knew no sin, was anointed; for the anointing after John's baptism was distinct from what He was in His Person as Man. In the last case it is mingled with oil, unleavened, and the pieces anointed, i.e., we have the knowing no sin, the spiritual nature and power of His life, combined with purity of nature; and every distinct act of His life, every part of it in the power of the Holy Ghost -- "If I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils". I was led to this by the expression of "mingled with oil" and "dry" in Leviticus 7:10, where "dry" is opposite to
"mingled", for "dry" was anointed whether flour or unleavened cake.
I have spoken elsewhere of this chapter in reference to Christ in His life; this is true, but it is more in His nature, how He was constituted as a living Man. Of course death cannot come into this idea as such, but it does as the fire of the altar which perfectly tries what was in Christ, and only brings forth the sweet savour.
The first thought presented is simply the positive constituent parts, fine flour -- perfect humanity as such -- anointing with the Holy Ghost, and the graces of a soul wholly offered to God, without the smallest distracted or aberrant motive -- mark this.
Then when Christ is looked at as a whole, as a living concrete Man on the earth, we have details of His being constituted a Man in His place of service and trial on earth, fine flour mingled with oil, i.e., perfect human nature, and formed by the Holy Ghost in the womb, or actually sinless human nature anointed with the Holy Ghost.
In the meat-offering baken in a pan, we have all brought together. It is fine flour -- simple perfect humanity in itself -- unleavened, knows no sin, sinless, mingled with oil, formed in its constituted being by the Holy Ghost, and then in every part penetrated by the anointing of the Holy Ghost.
-- 4. b'lu-loth (mingled). It cannot, I think, be doubted that this is more than, and meant to be other than m'shu-khim (anointed), mixed, mingled is the sense of the word; see Psalm 92:10. It is not merely anointed as consecration, but His whole system invigorated and strengthened by it -- it formed His strength; hence it is fresh oil there -- the thick perforated cakes were so prepared; the r'ki-key (wafers) or these ones were simply anointed, but this doubtless penetrated all; still the difference is evidently intentional here.
-- 5, 6. I have been led to fully enquire as to these verses. There are three kinds of meat-offerings -- two baked in the oven (tannur) and one baked on a frying-pan; of these, the first was mingled with oil -- the second, anointed with oil -- the third (that baked on a pan) was mingled with oil, and then, being broken in pieces, oil was poured on it, it had both ways of the oil being applied. The first two have been heretofore noted elsewhere -- the human nature of Christ formed by the
Holy Ghost, and then He anointed with the Holy Ghost; but the last case has not been so much examined into.
I apprehend that we have first, as in the first kind of all, the divinely conceived human nature of Christ -- He was conceived of the Holy Ghost; but then He was, at the close of His life, broken to pieces -- every element of His nature was broken up by trial -- desertion of friends on which a heart could lean, and worse than desertion -- giving up what He loved, the Jerusalem He would have gathered -- the compassion He looked for refused by every eye -- denial by one He dearly loved -- exposure to ignominy and shame before a heartless world -- sleep, the refuge of His friends, when He would have one to watch by Him; but where, in every pang, in laying bare every feeling, was the power of the Holy Ghost, spiritual perfectness and power, not shewn? He was poured out like water, all His bones out of joint, but never was the power and action of the Holy Ghost so shewn -- every part was anointed -- and this breaking up was only the occasion of shewing it.
In the three first Gospels, in general, we have more of the breaking in pieces -- in John, of power, though not exclusively, for in Luke we find the power too. In Luke, He states to the thief, he shall be with Him in Paradise -- in Luke, He commends His Spirit to the Father; yet in Gethsemane, in John, we have only the manifestation of the anointing. This I cannot here pursue further, but waiting on Scripture for it, it is full of interest -- was not the suffering of His obedience, the display, or occasion of the display, of His spiritual power, and in a much more intimate manner? His life, though both were necessarily and always true, gave the whole cake -- the outward, and, in this sense, superficial or outwardly manifested power of the Holy Ghost; but the breaking up every element of His nature in death -- and it was absolute -- shewed every inward part, all His moral nature, as the complete exhibition of the power of the Holy Ghost in inward perfectness. Hence, more than miracles -- a creature imperfect at other times can work them; but who could have been what Christ was, when the fountains of the great deep were broken up over His soul? I can here only imperfectly suggest it.
-- 7. This is more the character of a mass, and the constituent parts merely are given, not its concrete state as a whole, but its nature as so formed, supposing there was no anointing, nor the frankincense brought into view.
-- 14. This was not the offering of first-fruits of chapter 23. That was national, and a fixed day of the year -- this a voluntary offering.
I think this gives another character of Christ as Man, and full of instruction. In the previous part, we have Christ as conceived and anointed of the Holy Ghost -- "that holy thing". Here, it seems to me, though sinless, He is viewed as in Luke's Gospel, as born of human race, a descendant of Adam, not according to a natural way, but still as it is seed of another character of his, "born of the seed of David according to the flesh" -- so of man in nature, he is ge-resh kar'mel (grain of the earlier, finer growth), but as such He had to be put fully to the test, and pass through the fire ka-hey ba-esh (roasted or parched with fire), and so offered. Every fiery trial came on Him -- all that could try Him by faith -- and such should be, if He stood as Man before God, but He could be offered, and as such anointed with oil and incense. This is not the offering of chapter 23; that was a fixed offering at a prescribed yearly epoch -- this, voluntary from an individual; that, a waved sheaf -- this, grace is rubbed out of the ears of corn.
In the meat-offering, we have the personal human perfection of Christ, fully tried up to the fire of death -- proving by God's holy nature, and sweet savour the result; not leaven, not honey or nature in its sweetness, but perfect unleavened humanity, begotten sinless by the power of the Holy Ghost, anointed with it, sinless humanity moved by the Holy Ghost absolutely towards God, and never swerving till the last cup was drunk, which could test its perfectness of nature, motive and objects, and then His soul remitted into His Father's hands. The burnt-offering was devoted humanity, the meat-offering tested humanity; the one with sin in view about it, the other proving there was none in it, perfectly tried and every grace absolute in its perfection as offered to God.
The peace-offerings were not to make propitiation either. It was communion in joy together, not simply priestly with the Lord.
The fat of the peace-offerings was burned on the burnt-offering, consumed with the burnt-offering. Compare chapter 6: 11.
-- 5. This connected the peace-offering with the burnt sacrifice.
-- 9. In the peace-offering, when it was a lamb, the whole rump was burned; I know not whether it was an intentional difference -- the sin-offerings always refer to the fat of the peace-offerings taken away; compare verses 3, 4.
-- 10, 11, Another character of this offering; it was the le-khem ish-sheh (the food of the offering made by fire) to the Lord. Compare Numbers 28:2.
This chapter begins a new subject revealed or ordained of God by the words vay' dab-ber Y'ho-vah el-Mo-sheh (and the Lord spake unto Moses).
-- 3 - 12. There is no express statement in the sin-offering for the priest, that it made atonement for him, whatever be the reason of this.
-- 13. I apprehend edah (congregation) is more the persona -- the congregation looked at as a moral whole, a corporate person before God; and ka-hal (assembly) is the actual subsisting congregation composed of all its members. Compare chapter 8: 3.
-- 15 V'sha-khat (and one shall kill) I do not know that it is more precise in verses 4 and 24. It has interest in respect of the point where self-offering and mediatorial work begins. It was not the ko-hen (priest) unless he were the guilty one, and then it is not as ko-hen. But I suppose hak-ko-hen ham-mashiakh (the priest that is anointed) of verse 5 is the same.
-- 31. Here only the sin-offering is called a sweet savour, and it identifies the perfectness of Christ in sacrifice to God, with the bearing of sins in the same act.
The sin-offering was a putting-away of sin. Whether Azazel on the great day of atonement, or the ordinary sin-offerings, the victim was charged with sins, bore them and took them away from the person, and put them away out of God's sight, by a perfect vicarious work. But there is another and very important character of the sacrifice, and in which its full perfection as to its effect consists. It introduces into God's presence -- we are brought to God in His holy presence -- the
holiest -- by it, as set on the mercy-seat. God has been glorified by it perfectly in His nature and glory, and we are brought into His presence in holiness by it. We come to the gold within, as the evil, measured by what man ought to be for God, has been put away on the brazen altar -- one purges the conscience, the other brings into the light of God Himself. But in fact there is no separation now, because the veil is rent, and Christ gone within. That in which Christ suffered, bore, and so set aside for us the judgment, bore the sins and so purged our conscience, met the evil and so brought us into the presence of the glory -- the light as God is in the light -- but perfectly acceptable, agreeable to it. Righteousness sets us there.
It seems to me that a-sham (guiltiness) is more fault towards God, what a man is guilty of. Kha-ta (error) that in which he has erred from the right way, as the force at least of the word itself.
-- 35. What is ish-shey Y'hovah (the sacrifices offered unto the Lord)?
NOTE. -- In the sacrifice, the burning was not the priest's, but the fires, i.e., the proving effect of God's judgment producing on the altar the sweet savour. The altar was not the cross, but, I apprehend, the active sustaining righteousness of the divine nature. Further, in the case of the sin-offering, the body was not burned on the altar, but, when burned, burned without the camp. The priest's work at the altar, as to the sacrifice, was only occasional, and, so to speak, represented divine ordering of all, not acting for man -- man did not in any way arrange the pieces, etc., on the altar. But all that was done with the blood was priest's work properly; only Christ did so offer Himself, not merely to become a Victim, but as a Victim that is in the fire of judgment on the altar, His will tried was in perfect self-offering found so under the fire -- but this was needed and found, not done. He did formally offer Himself up, and so far there was a priestly act, only of a different nature; I do not think His offering Himself through the eternal Spirit without spot to God was priest's offering -- it was the bringer of the victim's work; nor was the actual consuming of the victim, so as to leave a sweet savour -- that was, so to speak, put into God's hands as the consuming fire; nor the fact of His dying, for that was not priestly work at all. The only priestly work I can see there is what the priest did, not as in peace between God and the people, but as representing
them -- only that Christ was Victim as well as Priest, and having offered Himself for it without spot, He offered Himself as it, i.e., gave Himself up to death as sin-bearer, confessing, therefore, all our sins on Himself as Victim; but this preceded, I apprehend, this offering, for He offered Himself personally as a spotless Victim, i.e., spotless to be one -- then the Lord lays the sins on Him -- He is made sin for us. Instead of charging it on others as Adam did, He owns them as His own, and knowing the just rights of God as regards sin and sinners, offers Himself up to death and judgment -- but I doubt whether this was not more as Victim than as Priest -- to secure the divine glory and save God's beloved; this the Priest did, and this was arranging all on the altar, but it was entirely between God and the Priest. The wrath and death which followed was not a priestly part -- that brought out the sweet savour as perfectly effectuating the offer, and was in itself, as coming from God the fruit of sin-bearing.
It is evident that the holocaust and sin-offering were, both at the same time in Christ. Note, in Hebrews 9:28, as to the two parts of the offering, the prosenechtheis -- eis to ... anenegkein -- the visitation of wrath upon Him as sin-offering brought out, by the trial, the sweet savour of His perfectness as burnt-offering.
NOTE. -- I apprehend that the gold on the mercy-seat, referred to elsewhere as intrinsic proper divine righteousness, and the brazen altar governmental righteousness in connection with sin, is connected with the character of acceptance in Christ. God has on the Cross judged and put away sin -- He has dealt with sin, so that we are free; but then in Christ's death God was perfectly glorified, and the reception before the throne is in the perfection of this -- Christ Himself is there in consequence of it, and we are there in Him, the righteousness of God in Him. This is not dealing with sin, but what God delights, can and must delight in. The blood no doubt is witness of the putting away of sin on the mercy-seat, according to the exigencies of that perfection; but there is more than that -- Christ is sitting there. On the altar sin is righteously dealt with -- on the throne of gold divine righteousness is delighted in.
-- 1. The v' (and) before hu (he) in the sentence "and he is a witness" has the force of "because" practically. The conclusion (German Nachsatz) is in verse 6, and from v'sha-m'ah (and he hear) to the end of verse 5 are the things in which he is guilty and has to make an offering for.
I have noted before a-sham is guilty as regards one we are responsible to -- here God, of course. Kha-ta is departure from the right.
-- 6. It is not that the trespass might not be a wrong thing, but as such it is treated, not as a thing morally wrong, contrary to the nature and will of God, but as a matter, relatively to Jehovah, offensive -- when in holy things it was desecration, then as in consecration, a ram; but always, I think, a thing done against the Lord. Here it is also called a sin-offering; but he had defiled his conscience, gone against God's authority in the adjuration of the judge or himself (verses 1 and 2) and failed in an oath. In chapter 6 the wrong is more than made good as satisfaction of wrong, but it was also dishonouring to the Lord, and he brings a ram.
Here we see the use of ka-phar (cover). It is a thing done for him towards God, so that God's character is met, and his conscience, so that he is cleared, purged from his sin. It is not sprinkling, washing, nor exactly propitiation, though that be nearer, but there was guilt on him, a moral offensiveness that had to be removed out of God's sight, and which his conscience must feel if in God's sight. It ought to enter into God's estimate of sin, and must, if it was to be with Him. God must put out of His sight it or the man, and so it was in the offering. It was really bringing his trespass in the offering, but in the way of a given atonement for it, but the entering into it, as his to God. "He shall bring his trespass (offering) which he hath sinned". For the burnt-offering which was also ka-phar (cover), see chapter 1.
-- 2, 3. We have an important principle, verse 2: the thing known to God is actually unclean, and the man guilty; the evil was before God, and He cannot bear it (here figurative, but that changes nothing). Then in verse 3, the man becomes guilty in his own conscience when he knows it. Both are true. Then kha-ta (sin or sin-offering) is the general word in contrast
with o-lah (burnt-offering); the latter corning as an offering, though involving death -- the former a necessity consequent on evil, propitiates, and as we know, not a sweet savour. Hence the a-sham (guiltiness) is a kha-ta (error) but looked at as responsibility, not as departure from what is right, though that be true too. We have defilement, uncleanness or a bad conscience, personal failure, not a wrong to another -- then a wrong against God or one's neighbour, which is against God a ma-al (treachery, perfidy). All this is not crime "what ought not to be done" but wrong to God or man. All is called kha-ta (error) but from verse 1, is a-sham (guiltiness) -- only when there is wrong, there is amends also, sha-lam (he restored).
-- 13. Here nis' lakh lo (it shall be forgiven him) is the effect of ka-phar (cover). The latter is towards God -- the effect, that the sin is put away from the man out of God's sight; it does not remain on the man, he is free from it, pure in God's sight.
-- 14. New ordinance. It is wrong against the Lord.
-- 15. Ma-al (to act covertly, to act treacherously).
-- 17. This is not sinning knowingly against the commandment, but God is dishonoured, and maintains His necessary righteousness before men.
-- 21 (English Version, chapter 6: 2). The wrong is a ma-al (trespass) against Jehovah.
It is suggested to me at the end that we must remember that God always looks at things according to His nature; He may count us guilty by reason of them, but He sees good and evil, and judges them necessarily because He does, and is perfect.
NOTE. -- The fire on the altar was burning all night, and this is the night -- divine judgment according to holiness always here, but here where it is on an altar with a sacrifice of perfect sweet savour, Exodus 29:42, and Leviticus 1 to 5; such is the place of our having to say to God -- God's meeting with us in this world. In heaven no need of such, though this is the ground of our being there -- all is holiness and love in itself, hence is rest, we of and conformed to it.
But for our hearts here, as sinners in ourselves in the world, our meeting place with God is where there is this perfect glorifying of what God is in Himself, taking the character
suited to this world -- the fire of judgment, but that holiness and righteousness, yet love -- in a sacrifice perfectly agreeable to God in the nature of what He is; and there we meet God.
But when Christ stood as (made) sin before God, then obedience was perfect, and that is the altar -- the sacrifice; its essence is burnt-offering, though all the others were associated with it, and part, as testimony of it, burnt there. But its wonderfulness is in itself -- such a sacrifice in this world, yet lifted up out of it, though we have acceptance in it with God. The court was not within, nor was it out in the world of selfish strangers to God; it was in the court -- the heart went from the world to it; Christ was lifted up from the earth to draw men -- so the offerer went in, but it was not within where the worship was, nor even where the laver was; it was Christ rejected by the world, put out from it, but perfect to God, and the heart, as coming out of world, as one who had belonged to it, and in that altar meeting God. But what God is in righteousness and holiness, fulfilled in unmingled blessing above -- perfect love having its fruits there -- is a consuming fire down here, "Our God is a consuming fire", He always is it. It never goes out -- but then in Christ this is a perfect sweet savour, perfect love and infinite being known there -- but, though not a sin-offering, which is another thing, yet in view of sin, then glorifying God in that place, so that it is atonement but for God's glory. It is a wonderful meeting place -- all accomplished, yet in ever abiding efficacy; as I have said, in the place of sin, as made it, perfect obedience and love to His Father -- Man therefore in the glory of God; and this we have now.
When He says "lifted up" from the earth (John 3:14), He is no longer of or on it, but then it is in connection with it, lifted up from it -- has to say to men as they are on it, only as leaving it to come to God from the far country, to God in the perfection of His nature, and in a love to us which is also His very nature and Being, but shewn in what He is to us. It is not in the world, but the meeting between God and men in it (compare John 12:31 - 33; John 13:31, 32). What a blessing that God never changes His character, but then, in judgment, finds the sacrifice which perfectly glorifies it, and therein shews infinite love, and all this in Christ!
-- 5 (Hebrews 5:24). "To him shall he give it in the day of his trespass-offering" -- I apprehend. The offering itself was brought to the Lord.
-- 8 (Hebrews 6:1). New ordinance.
-- 9 (Hebrews 2). The English and universal ancient versions (Septuagint and others more or less precise) give "burning" not "place of burning", which Gesenius and the other dictionaries give. If these be right then al (upon) must be taken as upon the place (or mass) of burning (stuff) on the altar all the night. Arias Montanus gives super ustionem. The sense would be the same; it would affirm the fact; "this is" (or I mean "that is" as often) the burnt-offering on the burning pile or place on the altar all the night, and it may be so. It is the only place the word is found. I know not that bo (upon it, in the masculine) instead of bah (upon it, in the feminine) would make any real difficulty; also it might be the altar.
-- 22 (Hebrews 15). Christ Himself was wholly offered; He had no nourishment in this sense, but doing the will of His Father; we have Him to feed on.
-- 23 (Hebrews 16). It shall be wholly an offering, burnt no doubt, but it gives its character by the word ka-til (wholly).
-- 26 (Hebrews 19). Note that the court of the O-hel Mo-ed (tabernacle of the congregation) is called here a holy place.
-- 30 (Hebrews 23). The force of b' (in) here. The accents, I suppose, make it to make propitiation in the Holy place. De Wette joins it with "shall not be eaten"; but surely that is not so. Once (chapter 17: 11) we have b' (for) after ka-phar (to cover, atone) but this is, I think, abstract for souls; i.e., in the case or matter of souls. The English version would be right. Is bak-ko-desh (in the Holy place) ever used for holy place? We have had b'ma-kom ka-dosh (in the holy place) as verses 26 and 27 (Hebrews 19 and 20).
-- 7. When once it came before God a-sham (guiltiness) and kha-ta (error or sin) were the same -- and this for us is connected with an evil nature. They were not the same as to
the act in this, that the kha-ta (error or sin) was a moral thing, of which the natural conscience and God's moral law took notice. But there are points as to this further on.
-- 9. Though it is said that the meat-offering is for all the sons of Aaron, one as much as another, yet it would seem that in each particular case the offering priest ate it. Compare for the sin-offering chapter 6: 29 and 26. In the peace-offering, both are found: "Aaron and his sons" gives the character of the thing; it was a priestly portion and act.
-- 10. Note this; one was incarnation, perfect manhood, all in the power of the Spirit, ultimately tried by fire; the other stood for a sin-offering.
-- 15. "Shall not lay aside any of it until the morning".
-- 19. This marked a distinctively holy character in the thing eaten.
-- 22. New ordinance. This seems to be on a different ground from the fact of life, save so far as that what were life and its energies were offered to the Lord.
-- 30. It would seem the worshipper brings the fat, and the shoulder for a wave-offering; then the priest burns the fat -- but who waved it? And could the worshipper be said to yak-riv (cause to approach) the separated fat and breast? The victim he can, but y'vi-en-mu (he shall bring it) is different. But even if he eat with others, he must be directly connected with Jehovah in it -- his hand must bring it. The fact merely is stated here; in two places they are put upon the hands of the offerer, yet another is said to wave them (Exodus 29:24, 25; Leviticus 8:27), but in Leviticus 9, Aaron waves what he is to have for himself -- but he was alone here. The idea is presenting it to God, as consecrated. The Levites were waved (Numbers 8). I suspect here the priest waved it; the contrast is with burning the fat.
There is a characteristic difference between this chapter and chapter 14. The anointing was the first thing, the object here, though as to the sons, blood was needed for it, and it was only properly on the high priest. The blood-sprinkling was the main point in the latter, the anointing followed it and
was applied where the blood was -- not in the case of the priests. In the consecration of the priests, Aaron is anointed by the oil being poured on his head, alone and without blood.
-- 7. Note, there were two girdles, one on the tunic or shirt, and one, the girdle of the ephod; this is to be remembered. Ha m'il (exterior tunic or robe) is called in Exodus 29:5, the Ha m'il of the ephod. It appears from Exodus that lo (unto him) is the high priest, not the ephod, "Thou shalt bind him with it" (the curious girdle); but I apprehend his binding the ephod to him with it, though qua clothed with the ephod, it was a loose cloak, but thus bound to him by a girdle, which bound him, though not the first under-girdle. But another question arises: what does bo (therewith) refer to? Several refer to the ephod, and I am disposed to think it right -- it gives greater force to the girdle, for the practical force there is as Piscator gives it: "And thus he clothed him (legte um) with it" the ephod, i.e., he had the ephod as a close clothing bound on him by means of the khe-sheb (curious girdle).
-- 10. Here as to places, and Aaron by himself, all is anointed without blood.
Hebrews 9 speaks of sprinkling all with blood too, but here the tabernacle, vessels and Aaron are anointed without blood -- it is viewed in another light. Josephus states the same fact in his Antiquities (iii, 8, 6. T. i, 162, Hav). But if this tradition be correct, as Hebrews 9 shows it is, the leaving it out here gives a more full typical intention to this passage. Hence why was the altar?
-- 12. The oil is poured on his head -- this was not done, even after the blood, with the sons. The mingled blood and oil was sprinkled on all.
-- 10 - 12. The tabernacle and all the things in it were anointed, the altar seven times, and then Aaron -- pouring of the oil on his head to sanctify him. This was the whole thing complete -- all was devoted, consecrated to God, not merely created good, but entirely sanctified to Him in a divine power of consecration, but more especially the altar. In the whole universe when absolutely consecrated to God, there is nothing like the Cross in its character of divine power of sanctification to God. With that goes the application of death in purifying in its efficacy, and its basis in Christ's work and God's decree as the one way of righteousness. It is not said the laver seven times, but it goes with that which was seven times anointed --
the perfect and full power of the Eternal Spirit. Then Aaron is anointed by pouring of the oil on his head; He takes His consecrated place as consecrated priest, perfect in Himself and in the power of the Eternal Spirit, Priest to God in the scene consecrated to God. This was Christ, and that in which He served in itself; blood was not in question, nor sin (compare Ephesians, end of chapters 3 and 4).
-- 13. Then the sons are brought, yet not now separated from Aaron -- now all is looked at as having sin and defilement on it. The simple consecration which precedes will not do when we are brought into the scene. It was in a certain sense holier and higher, but now blood was needed -- not merely an altar, which meant absolute consecration to God such as Christ's, but blood sprinkling, and this was done.
-- 15. Y'khat-te (he made expiatory purification).
Although the tabernacle and all its furniture was sprinkled with blood on the great day of atonement, thus marking the reconciliation of all things by redemption, yet, on the setting up of the tabernacle, it was anointed along with and even before Aaron, without any blood, when the garments for glory and beauty were put upon him. Although, as regards the entrance of sin, the purifying by blood was needed, and hence, even at the time of consecrating, the altar where men came in respect of sin, was purified with blood -- yet it is very sweet to think that as regards Christ's Person (for in the beginning of this chapter Aaron is taken alone -- when the altar is purified, it is Aaron and his sons) and the title and perfection which He has, the whole scene of all things is filled with the blessedness and claim and power of Christ, according to the excellency of His Person, by the power of the Holy Ghost asserting and making it good -- divine excellency!
As Christ's manhood was anointed by the Holy Ghost without measure, that He might divinely act by it in the manifestation of this grace, and every movement of the Man be the effect of the energy of the Holy Ghost, so that He spoke the words of God, and worked the works of God -- these of course personally united -- so, according to the manner of such a claim over it, and dwelling in it as can be in the mere universe, the divine excellency fills it in connection with the Person of the great High Priest Jesus; the power of the Holy Ghost, of which the savour and fulness is in Him whose title and glory the Holy Ghost makes good, fills and claims the universe.
Note, too, in verse 12 of chapter 21, the high priest was never to go out of the tabernacle. So indeed is it with Jesus; but then, in both these cases, we must remark that in connection with man, these figures have never had their simple fulfilment. In the Person of Christ we can contemplate them in indefeasible title, but He never wore, after He had historically to do with man, the garments of glory and beauty, nor went into the holy place in them, but only on the day of atonement, and then in linen garments. Hence, as we have seen, on that day the tabernacle and all was sprinkled with blood.
Further, on the day of atonement, the blood was brought within the veil, because if Christ had not done this, Israel could not, after all, have been blessed. The goat was primarily and properly for Israel, but in the priestly application of blessing, the blood is shed on the altar, and the priest blesses from the altar as outside.
In verse 15 it is not, I believe, reconciliation upon it, but of it; that is the sense of l'kap-per a-lav (to make propitiation of it) as elsewhere.
-- 23. Then Aaron who is now identified with his sons, is sprinkled with blood on his ear, hand, and foot as they are, and they offer a wave-offering, which Moses burns on the purified altar -- purified by the blood of the ram of consecration, as of the sin and burnt-offering -- and then he took of the anointing oil and of the blood on the altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron and his garments, his sons and his sons' garments with him.
The blood was the blood which was upon the altar, not standing on it, but upon it. They were consecrated according to the efficacy and power and character of that blood sprinkling, in which, not merely sins were cleansed, though that were true, but God was glorified in His own nature and glory in the sacrifice of Christ, in which His holy and righteous claim was satisfied, and His glory made good. And though it is evident that Christ had nothing to be cleansed from, and needed no blood-shedding, as verses 10 - 12 indeed express it, yet He is in His present place in the virtue and power of that blood. He is raised from the dead en aimati (in the power of the blood) of the everlasting covenant. Having taken our sins, He is entered in as Priest in the power of that blood, which He Himself shed for us. It is not only that we are sprinkled with it, blessedly true as that is, but He is entered into the exercise
of priesthood in the power of it, for us indeed, but in the measure of His divine glory, for in that work God Himself was glorified -- all He is, displayed and made good in revelation in it.
Christ was consecrated to God in blood, not surely because He needed it, but that His obedience, by which we are saved, was unto death, and He is to God and loved of the Father according to the sacrifice of Himself -- His laying down His life, yet it was only for us, yet withal for God's glory.
-- 27. My impression is that t'nu-phah (wave-offering) is more "consecration" T'ru-mah (heave-offering) more "offering".
-- 30. Note, the anointing oil was poured on Aaron's head, alone by himself, in verse 12. After washing all (himself and his sons) together (verse 6) -- now, in verses 23, 24, he puts the blood on the three places, on Aaron by himself, and the sons by themselves but on all. Now he takes of the oil and the blood and sprinkles of it on him, his garments -- them and their garments "with him".
There is no pouring the oil now on Aaron's head, Christ in fact was anointed with the Holy Ghost alone, the holy, righteous and obedient One; hence, when the blood comes in, He is not anointed with the pouring of oil on Him, nor was oil poured on the head of the sons, but as Christ received the Holy Ghost (Acts 2) from the Father for us when He went up having accomplished the sacrifice, and by Himself purged our sins, and so associated us with Himself -- when the oil and the blood is sprinkled on Aaron, his garments, and his sons and sons' garments with him. It is not his personal consecration -- that was a fact and done apart without blood -- but the bringing in the sons into the place (though subordinately) with him, and then the blood (He having been obedient unto death in all) on ear and hand and foot comes in, that we may be associated with Him, and He exercise the priesthood, in the power of that blood-shedding, towards God, and for us. In Christ it was the measure of perfectness -- in us of cleansing -- in both of consecration to God; none of the sons receive it on the head independently, they are associated with Him. So the washing of Aaron and his sons was the same, for in water -- cleansing, death to sin and life to God -- the measure is alike. He died to sin -- we reckon ourselves dead to it, have died. In that He lives, He lives to God, and we are alive to God through Him --
He is our life, and has died for us, and we have to arm ourselves with the same mind.
All the tabernacle and its vessels are anointed when Aaron is, without blood as he is, and so the altar and vessels to sanctify them. Then, when Aaron and his sons are to be anointed, he sprinkles the altar with blood -- the altar was sprinkled with blood to sanctify it, to make reconciliation upon it (of it) -- this before putting any on Aaron and his sons. Aaron's sons are brought (not Aaron and his sons) and then Aaron and his sons put their hands on the head of the bullock, and so on the burnt-offering before the ram of consecration. But this subject requires more investigation.
In Exodus 29, directions are given for anointing Aaron with oil alone, and then him and his sons when sprinkled with blood -- but not to anoint the tabernacle with oil; otherwise it is what is carried out here in this chapter. Its object is the priests; the direction to anoint the tabernacle is in Exodus 30:26 - 29. But when the tabernacle was set up, it was not then anointed -- the cloud filled it, so that none could enter it, not even Moses. Then in the Hebrews, where the Holy Ghost had another object, the tabernacle and all the vessels are said to have been sprinkled with blood. In the chapter before us, the object is service connected with sacrifice, these last having been fully gone into in chapters 1 - 7. The altar therefore is here sprinkled with blood in connection with Aaron's sons, after all had been anointed with oil in connection with Aaron alone. And then Aaron and his garments, his sons and their garments anointed with him, but here the blood was, as it seems, mixed with it. It is this last chapter which must arrest our attention, first in itself, next, in connection with Hebrews 9.
This anointing is first of the tabernacle and all vessels, but also the altar seven times, and the laver and its foot; I suppose Christ in Person, the heavenly things He was connected with as come in flesh, and, above all, that on which the victim was to be consecrated and offered -- His Person as that on which sacrifice was founded, and that especially was consecrated in the power of the Holy Ghost, so as containing that from which purification flowed. He must be all this for blood and for water, though death comes in for us to have a part in them; so as Son of Man who is in heaven, all was pure and in the power of the Spirit as so said, though divinely true, but to be so must be true in the Man and as it. And this was to be
carefully maintained -- nothing true for us could be true without it. Then when others are brought in, blood of course is immediately needed, and the full efficacy of sacrifice in every aspect in order to anointing.
But then Christ has to enter in as Man according to the efficacy of this; it is not of course that He needed anything, but that He must be on high when connected with us, according to the title the blood gave Him -- the whole glory of God made good and conferred on Him as Man, and us with Him. Hebrews 9 takes it up here, it begins with our exclusion, the way into the holiest not yet made manifest, and then shews eternal redemption, and eternal inheritance -- a new state of things, and place, and relationship for us obtained by the blood. Hence in our chapter the blood off the altar and the oil go together, because now the anointing, the consecration -- the link formed by the Holy Ghost between us -- nay the place Christ has taken on high as High Priest, is in virtue of the blood -- as One in the presence of God for us, He is so in the virtue of that blood -- He is the righteous One, and propitiation (accomplished) there.
The blood has a positive value with God (besides our sins being put away), in the character and power of which Christ has His place as Man on high, and the whole heavenly place as subject of mediation has its standing in it, as the new heavens and earth will. Hebrews 9 has its starting-point in sin, and the way into the holiest not open, but then it unfolds, in every respect, the efficacy of the sacrifice as leading into the new condition through the rent veil, and what, as founded on the cross, that new state and condition is. Hence we have the tabernacle and all its vessels sprinkled with blood -- a defiled condition of things did not suit this new estate, any more than unpurged consciences could enter. This makes the first part of Leviticus 8 so much the more important, but the results of sacrifice are not entered into as in Hebrews, because it is not applied, only the efficacy of blood and oil mixed passes on all.
The "for us" should in no way be in Hebrews 9:12, though indeed in result it be for us -- it leads away from the intrinsic efficacy of the work. The point is, it is an eternal redemption; He has settled the matter according to God's nature, and nothing can be called in question again, or that nature must change, which cannot be. In verses 13, 14
(Hebrews 9) we have application. But the word "eternal" here is emphatic; it was not a putting away merely of an incurred sin or penalty, but in the power of the Eternal Spirit dealing with the whole question of free access to God in the holiest according to what He was -- a conscience purged for it -- and consequently an eternal place, redemption and inheritance before Him -- necessarily such, for we are before Him by a once finished work according to what He is. Hence there is a passing away of the first, which typically was founded on blood shedding; the Testator dies -- thus the transgressions which ever subsisted under the first covenant were by death cleared, and all connection with the living Testator -- once the whole first system -- was passed and gone, but gone in the putting away of sin, and we get remission of all which attached to us as alive in flesh (do not so exist before God, for Christ does not as so come in flesh -- we know Him so no more) for Christ, the sinless One has died, the heavenly things defiled by sin are purged, and Christ (the Mediator Man) is entered into the true holy place -- heaven itself -- to appear in the presence of God for us.
Nor was it, of course, as often suffering; He appeared when the whole moral question was brought to an issue, His death the full proof of man's state of sin, and He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The whole question in the universe was settled to the glory of God; and as we sinners were subject to death and judgment, He also, in particular application, bore the sins of many, and appears the second time, having no more to do with sin (for He put it away) for them that look for Him, to salvation. Leviticus 8 goes further, for it takes up first Christ alone, spotless, sinless, heavenly, the Son of man in heaven, what He was and is in Himself (and so owned by the anointing of the Holy Ghost as Man). Hebrews 9 takes up man as incapable of entering, the way into the holiest not open, and the way the High Priest entered shewing this state of things; and then by death the whole old state of things and ground of relationship done away -- sin put away, our sins borne -- and Christ, Man appearing in the heavenly place, in the presence of God for us.
In our chapter we have the altar anointed seven times, the full divine and perfect sanctification so marked; in Hebrews, He offers Himself through the Eternal Spirit -- thus Christ enters through blood -- He could have entered without but had
so abode alone. But entering through blood in the efficacy of His own sacrifice, in which God was glorified and sin put away, He introduces us as Himself, through and according to the value of that blood, into His own place and standing, and now appears for us there -- our present state which we are in and know by the Holy Ghost. But Hebrews is more representative, not our being in Him; and the testator question is of importance here, for the old state of things subsists while the testator lives. When he is dead, that is wholly gone, and the object of the will gets into a new place according to it -- thus, through verses 17, 18, come in by the bye, they are of all importance. The new covenant is founded on death, its efficacy, but also as ending the old and bringing in the new thing, for death closes all that man lived in.
Notice also here that the tabernacle and altar were anointed with Aaron before the sin-offering, which is not in Exodus 29. It was anointed before Aaron, which shews further that it was not characterized by redemption and priesthood.
NOTE. -- In the consecration of Aaron, there is no incense nor blood upon, nor approach to the altar of incense, but the bullock was burned without the camp, as if the blood had been carried into the holy place. Aaron and his sons abode in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation; and note that, though the altar stood first, Aaron was washed before he offered the sin-offering on the altar. They abode now where the Lord met the congregation, and where blood was sprinkled for them, as in the red heifer. All this was done outside the outer veil even. There was nothing of Aaron's place within yet, in any sense, nor association of the people with him there -- neither for him, nor the people. The veil or sanctuary was entirely closed, he offers for the people, and blesses them from the offering, i.e., the altar, before he comes down; and then he goes in with Moses, but it is only his being hid -- nothing appears of what took place within -- he comes out with Moses, and they bless the people, and the glory appears; chapter 9: 23. All they had to say to the sanctuary was to go in and be hid there. But note in chapters 9 and 10 nothing is said but of his acting as previously except in chapter 10; this is (chapter 10: 17) I apprehend, a mistake -- it is (not blame, but) Moses' reason why he ought to have eaten it. Had it been brought into the holy place, it ought to have been burnt with fire, but it was not, and hence ought to have been eaten;
this would make it appear that their conduct (chapter 9: 11) was wrong.
Aaron and his sons are all washed together. Then Aaron is anointed, the oil poured on his head, verse 12, alone, without blood. Then as to persons, verse 23, blood on the tip of Aaron's right ear, hand and foot; then verse 24, on those of Aaron's sons; then oil, verse 30, and blood (of the ram of consecration) from off the altar, sprinkled on Aaron, his garments, his sons and sons' garments with him, it-to (with him). In the leper, the blood was placed on each part, and then the oil on each part.
The moral purity of Christ and the Christian, as such, is the same, for Christ is his life, and he is to walk as He walked. But in fact, I need not say, He only was absolutely pure; so he (Aaron) was anointed alone on the head with oil -- so Christ was anointed alone, with the Holy Ghost, of course therefore without blood.
Hence, too, the obedience is the same, though we follow Him -- His ear, hand and foot were touched with the blood of the sacrifice. His obedience and whole acts and conversation were always in the perfectness of obedience unto death. We follow, apart, on this principle -- we reckon ourselves dead -- arm ourselves with the same mind, because He has actually died. Then comes union, Aaron and his sons, his garments and his sons' garments were anointed with him -- this with oil and blood together, because the value of the blood is known in the power of the Holy Ghost, and here it is not only obedience, but the title and earnest of a heavenly and priestly place along with Christ -- though under Him, with Him. The value of the blood of Christ, inasmuch as He has glorified God, is to bring us into the presence and glory of God, and of this the presence of the Holy Ghost is the earnest and power. It is not for spiritual service here, but with Him there. There may be more in it, but I think there is this.
Note that the anointing of the tabernacle was quite a distinct thing from the sprinkling it with blood, and when it was sprinkled with blood, there was no question of anointing. This is of capital importance as to the application of this to the heavenly things themselves. In the consecration of men, the aspersion with blood preceded anointing, while the sacrifice as noted in a previous note was a peace-offering, not a sin-offering -- in cleansing the leper, it was a trespass-offering, but
the man was anointed after it -- in the tabernacle, we have an anointing at the same time as Aaron without blood, and an aspersion with blood without any anointing after it. This last had, as is evident, a proper exclusive character of expiation or atonement.
Note also, that in this chapter the consecration being in connection with the Jewish relationship with God, the vessels of the court only are particularly mentioned, whereas in Exodus 30, all are mentioned in detail (verse 26 - 29). This consecration of all, independent of blood, in connection with the person of the high priest, is to be noted.
Note, the double way in which the priest approached; first, the perfect savour of the whole burnt-offering arose to God -- he drew nigh in the power of that. Afterwards, consecrated by the blood sprinkled on them, their hands were filled with the oiled cake, the unleavened bread and the fat that was to be burned, i.e., Christ anointed, sinless, and dying, offered as a sweet savour. We approach in the infinite and perfect savour of the whole burnt-offering, i.e., Christ as offered up by Himself, so that the acceptance is infinite in its character. For I might find my thoughts of Christ, in recalling His name before the Father, so imperfect that I was more faulty and guilty than acceptable in it. But I approach in the perfection of Christ's sacrifice of Himself; yet it is my privilege to bring Christ, and present Him in memorial before the Father, so as to know the sweetness of communion with the Father in the common sense of the excellence of Christ offered, and I take His estimate of the excellence of the Object as the real one, though I cannot reach it. I know that He is before Him in that perfect savour, and I learn not to think of the imperfection of the degree of my appreciation, but of the excellency of the Object in God's sight. It is a sweet view of the manner of our drawing near to God.
NOTE. -- Aaron was not washed alone at all, i.e., only the saints are washed as priests as well as sprinkled to be anointed. Note also that the tabernacle was anointed with Aaron to sanctify them (the altar seven times). Does this connect the priesthood with Christ as filling all things, ascending up on high, in which He became, or took at least, the place of priest? If so, then why the altar seven times?
-- 34. I do not know whether I have sufficiently noticed it, but surely l'kapper alav is to make atonement or reconciliation
"for it" (see chapter 1, etc.) not "upon it". I think it very notable the altar being sprinkled seven times, and all the tabernacle being anointed with oil to begin with before the Wood, for the heavenly things thus are so -- and Christ as place and altar of offering perfectly so with divine perfection. Then when connected with his sons, the altar already perfect and perfectly holy is, so to speak, made sin; and even He comes from the dead through (in the power of) the blood of the everlasting covenant, i.e., having taken the sin, He must put it away to take His place and bring them into the new estate prepared for man and God's glory. But the thought is not "if He needed it" -- it is in the power of en aimati as long ago remarked, perhaps alluding to Zechariah 9:11, b'dam b'rithe'kh (by the blood of the covenant). Still having taken the sin on Him, He had to put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, not only for us, but for God's glory, as a part of the counsels of God whose glory He came to make good in love. We have, too, kip-per b'ad (make atonement for, forgive).
NOTE. -- The burnt-offering and consecration-offering are alike, in this chapter. The consecration of the believer is as absolute as the dedication of Christ to God, just as Joshua's shoes had to be off before the Captain of the Host -- as Moses at the bush. In another analogy, the sin-offering and burnt-offering are one.
This chapter in all its aspects refers to the earthly blessing of the world to come, and that in virtue of the sacrifice of Christ in all its aspects, and, at the end, in virtue of His royalty. Hence remark that the blood of the sin-offering, though the body was burned without the camp, was not carried into the sanctuary -- it was sprinkled where God met the people. The efficacy as to bearing away sin is the same, but there is not entrance within the veil, nor properly call to go outside the camp. The sacrifice is referred to in all its parts, and viewed as meeting man, or used by him -- sin-offering, sin-borne-burnt-offering, the perfect savour of Christ's offering up Himself -- the communion of the peace-offering, the real, proper apprehension of Christ, such as He was down here, comes last, for so indeed it does, when we are brought into
communion, as the result of the sin and burnt-offering; we then afterwards are occupied with, and estimate the personal perfection of Christ.
Here the priest's eating the meat-offering is not noticed -- it is enjoyed, not feasted on in connection with priestly service. In the bringing it into action, this order is not observed -- we have the sin-offering, the burnt-offering, the meat-offering, and then the peace-offering, because in fact Christ is all these first for them (Israel) before they have the communion. When Aaron blesses as Priest he does so not from the Sanctuary, He does so for us through the Holy Ghost -- but from the sacrifice; this concerns what is noticed above -- we have the efficacy of the sacrifice, but no entrance within the veil, nor relationship with Christ as there. It shews also the source and character of the blessing of Israel in the latter day -- they get it from the sacrifice. But the public recognition of the value of the sacrifice in the world, and so by Israel, is by Jehovah's appearing in glory, i.e., Christ Himself, and so the people own it. In virtue of their having blessing through Christ's priesthood, and of course sacrifice, Jehovah appears to bless, but it is Christ, King and Priest, who appears. Historically their repentant cry brings Jehovah down to them -- but this turns out to be Christ, and they look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn finding that it is the Lord their Redeemer, the Messiah whom they had rejected and crucified. We know Him within the veil through the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. The eighth day is the beginning of a new system.
-- 2. As far as I see, rams are consecration or because of desecration; they may be burnt-offerings, but as having a specific character, they are as above. If for trespass, it is for desecration or defilement, and so in the priest's consecration. Bullocks are representative as of people or priest, and hence also may come in as measure either of the party or of the faith. Thus as a sin-offering a bullock for Aaron and his house -- for the people -- for the priest -- so of the largeness of faith in a burnt-offering. This (imperfectly expressed) assists, I judge, in explaining some feasts in chapter 23, which were the circle of feasts on earth; we have in Pentecost two wave-loaves -- so there were one bullock and two rams, because they were offered up as one body in Christ, but there were two distinct parties consecrated. In Numbers where the offerings, not the circle of dispensational feasts are considered, we have
not yet the full offering up of both representatively, but the nature of the consecration one; because it is not here the dispensational circumstances on earth, but the power of the offering to God. There was a remnant of Jews, and there was the offering-up of the Gentiles, but their consecration in Christ was one. In the seventh month, in the beginning of months, which was in general restoration, the same, because in fact there will be the double offering-up. In the seventh month, which is specifically Israel's restoration, one bullock and one ram -- on the tenth day, the same, for that was clearly Israel. This was besides the sin-offering, considered elsewhere, and which was rather the heavenly saints, as Aaron and his family, and Jewish, and in principle all saints in Azazel (scape-goat).
This aids in Tabernacles. There we have thirteen bullocks, not full perfection doubled. The whole circle brought in Jews and Gentiles all complete, still all lost; and then we have a double consecration here, the two rams -- the power of the earthly completeness declines. The fourteen lambs are Christ's perfection in representative efficacy as a Victim, itself never changing, and with the two rams including, I suppose, heaven and earth, though I have hesitated if it was not the difference of Jew and Gentile. On the eighth day, we get out of the Jewish circle into an extraordinary resurrection day, and then we have unity in all save the lambs -- the Church one offered in Christ to God, and the consecration one. How far this eighth day would include the perfect time after the millennium I do not say, but it is possible, for they get into such a state indeed. The seventh day would then have to be considered which maintained the double perfectness of Christ as Victim, and double consecration which representative completeness maintained its perfectness only in singleness. Is it earthly only?
NOTE. -- The burning of the burnt-offering and the fat was a distinct thing. Moses had done it in the ordinary way "according to manner". This was a special act of the Lord. They were burning on the altar, when this took place publicly as a testimony of the Lord's acceptance of them.
-- 4. The min'khah (meat-offering) was to be b'lu-loth (mingled or tempered). This was the main essential thing, what Christ was personally, though also anointed.
-- 7. Is there any reason why Aaron by the offering for
himself made an atonement for the people also, or does it refer vaguely to what follows?
-- 9. Not here within the veil, though burned without the camp. No doubt the blood had to be carried within for Israel, or for any, for God was thus glorified. But as to application to Israel, the blood was on the altar without, quod nota bene. But the goat of the sin-offering for the people ought to have been eaten (chapter 10: 17, 18); compare chapter 4, the sin-offering for priest and people.
-- 11. This chapter, as I have said, refers in all its aspects to the earthly blessing to come, in virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, and of His royalty. Yet note, the flesh and skin of Aaron's sin-offering was burned without the camp, but no blood was carried within the veil, nor indeed further than the altar. Nor is this blamed -- the not eating the sin-offering for the people is -- nay, the place of blood-sprinkling is "as the Lord commanded Moses"; the people were included, verse 7, u-v'ad ha-am (and for the people).
-- 17. Is not mil-l'vad "besides"?
-- 20. The yak'tir (burned) is not, I think, necessarily here the actual consumption by Aaron's putting the fire -- he may have put it no doubt -- but the ceremonial order of his doings; the actual consuming may have been by verse 24. It has been said it was the evening sacrifice there, but that seems to me to be getting away from the mind of the chapter. The fire from the Lord did not necessarily first set fire to the wood, but it consumed the sacrifice. The fire consumes the sacrifice, and the fire consumes the two sons of Aaron; in both te-tseesh (a fire went out), quod nota. To-kal (devoured) is repeated too.
-- 23. With regard to the offerings at Aaron's and his sons' consecration, blood was not brought into the holiest or holy place, the bullock was burnt outside the camp; so with the red heifer, and these sacrifices when the cloud had filled the tabernacle. The people were not to go in, and the priests could not go in till they were consecrated; here Moses and Aaron go into the tabernacle for the first time. The first thing must be every bearing of Christ's sacrifice, before any approach within -- the revelation of God here below required this. Christianity comes in a different shape, because Man (Christ) is gone in, consequent on the accomplishment of the sacrifice in every character of it, and the Holy Ghost comes
out as a witness of it, and that is the way of the presence of God on the earth now (see footnote). There was only anointing in its first setting-up, so even of Aaron and his sons, Exodus 40.
For the full consecration we must go to our previous chapter (8). But the offerings were only on the altar, though burned without the camp; it was culpability, not propitiation. The whole of this is Israelitish to the end, when the Lord comes out. The Holy Ghost not only anticipates this, but comes from within when Christ (Man) is gone in there according to the glory of God. There was no proper propitiation but on the great day of atonement -- no going within the veil; but I must look into this further.
-- 24. This consuming was not setting fire to, but God's testimony of His acceptance of what was offered. There is no sign of the original lighting, by fire from heaven, in the case of the tabernacle.
-- 3. In both to have His first place -- for sanctified is here giving Him His highest glory; so glorified before the people.
-- 8. Is not this the first time the Lord speaks to Aaron, now consecrated?
-- 9. A disordered internal state -- the excitement of flesh, and absence of the sober sense of the presence of God is as fatal as, perhaps leads to, strange fire; they are closely connected. The priests' sense of divine presence, and godly sobriety is needed to our senses distinguishing between sacred and profane, unclean and clean -- the former what is fit for God, or the opposite -- the latter for the saint, and the opposite; and to teach in the word; so ever.
-- 14. Here "a clean place", not "holy"; the daughters eat of it. It was not a priestly eating, but provision, though due to the priests as offering. It is evident that the eating of the t'nu-phah (wave-offering) and t'ru-mah (heave-offering) was not a priestly act. They were consecrated and eaten by the priest's family, but in a clean place, not in the holy place as the rest of the min-khah (meat-offerings). Here the t'nu-phah and t'ru-mah were peace-offerings founded on, but not a
proper sacrifice. They were communion on a sacrifice itself, though identified with it -- but the fat was always burned.
I have looked into the Levites elsewhere -- they were a t'nu-phah and were waved before the Lord.
In the case of the leper, it is different from the consecration of the priests. This is not consecration to God primarily, though blood be needed for us, and Christ, who needed of course none, yet associates us with Himself according to the power of it, exercising His priesthood in that power before God. The first thought is cleansing, consecration from defilement, though we reach up to the anointing oil, and here it is poured on the head of the cleansed one -- he is viewed individually as partaker of the Holy Ghost before God.
First note he is become intrinsically clean, as we are when born of God, but he has to be cleansed and consecrated to God to be with Him, in communion with Him judicially, and in respect of his responsibility -- first the work of Christ Himself, His death and resurrection, and the perfect and complete sprinkling with His blood, shed in the power of the Holy Ghost. The bird is killed, over running water in an earthen vessel -- the power of the Spirit working in a human body. This is identified with the shed blood, and with this the man, clean as to disease, is sprinkled, and is pronounced clean. He clears himself from everything that could carry the remains of corruption with it; and then the various offerings are offered after seven days, but first the man is consecrated to God by blood and oil. The last kind of sacrifice, that for actual trespasses, is slain, and the blood is put upon his ear, thumb, and great toe. In this it is analogous with chapter 8, but there it is what is needed to the sons, having a part with the personally holy priesthood of Christ, the sinless anointed Man -- cleansing consecration by blood. Here it is the quickened sinner who is restored to God, and cleansed and consecrated by blood that he may be, and then he gets his own portion, i.e., the knowledge and enjoyment by anointing -- his mind, acts, and walk cleansed by blood, and he in all of them consecrated to God, according to its value.
Nothing as we have heretofore seen is to have a place in
thought, act, or way, which does not suit the blood sprinkled on the organ of each; we are wholly thus consecrated morally to God, according to the price of Christ's blood.
Then the anointing takes place, and the power and action of the Spirit of God is operative in the man's consecration; but first note, it is its action before and in the presence of the Lord -- not, so to speak, a prophetic action, coming out from Him with a partial revelation, a light shining in a dark place, but the full present unction and action of the Spirit of God before God Himself. The oil was sprinkled seven times before the Lord, not merely a person holily consecrated to a function, but the Holy Ghost (the Comforter) present, and in its fulness present, and acting towards the Lord. It was then besides put where the blood had been put -- we are no more to grieve the Spirit of God in these things than we are to admit or do anything inconsistent with Christ's blood -- His holy intelligence of God is to govern our thoughts and acts and ways; and then the rest of the oil is poured on the man.
Thus, consequent on the blood-shedding, the full presence and power of the Holy Ghost is developed, as with men. First, the Comforter is come -- present, but before the Lord; John 16. He is there Himself in His fulness, He who fills all things, but present as sent or given, here before the Lord. Next, it follows the work of Christ in the individual, i.e., as wholly consecrated to, and cleansed for God in all his thoughts and ways, giving the holy, active, intelligent consecration, and, owing to the value of this blood-shedding, cleansed from sin, and to God according to the putting away of sin, and redemption to God by death, the death of Christ.
Then further, the Holy Ghost is given to give the full, conscious place of blessing and relationship to the believer -- the oil is poured on his head, he is anointed -- the love of God shed abroad in his heart -- knows he is a son, is in Christ and Christ in him -- is at liberty in this new place, has not merely the thought and walk of a holy man, but is an anointed man -- has the Spirit of adoption, knows his place, a place angels never had, they were never sealed with the Holy Ghost. We know thus God dwells in us, and we in Him; this is more complete than the official anointing, and it is for personal fellowship, and personal relationship, but a divine one, and of sons in its nature. It is a wonderful thing that God should dwell in us for our enjoyment of Him; we dwell in God, and God in
us -- but then the Father and the Son are the objects of our fellowship and our faith. The Holy Ghost is the power of it, dwelling in us, and that in the power of a new life. Chapter 8 was priesthood, and the blood needed to bring in and fit us for it, and associate us spiritually with Christ, so that we might be priests with the perfect One; in the chapter before us it is our place as redeemed in the power and intelligence of the divine Spirit of God.
-- 6, 7. In cleansing the leper, the bird was killed over the running water, the other bird was dipped in his blood and so the man sprinkled, and then the man was to wash; in the case of a house, the bird is dipped in the running water also, and the house is sprinkled with it.
There is no burning on the altar nor outside -- death must come in, but the object is purification; it is sprinkling with water, though with all the efficacy of the blood. It is the action on the conscience, not the presenting of the efficacy to God, though the work was needed to purify the conscience. Further, it was a trespass-offering, of which the blood was taken to sprinkle the ear, hand, and foot; that is, first the sinner had to be occupied with his actual evil -- what affected his conscience -- not abstractedly with the sacrifice of Christ for sin. That is needed, because God must see all sin put away, even that which we see not, and sin as such; but this will not do as regards the conscience -- practically it comes afterwards, and is all-important in its place, but the conscience to be purified must be occupied with its sin; there is reality and personal humiliation in that. Thoughts, acts, and walk must be put under the efficacy and safeguard of the blood of Christ, and then its absolute efficacy as to all sin in God's sight can be entered into -- after that, His perfection in devotedness to God, and life of holy grace and service as Man; the trespass was wrongs done to God or man in things forbidden, or violating a right, but here I judge the full sense is that which I have given. The former part was without, to purify and render capable of approaching God, in coming under the intelligent efficacy of the work of Christ; he is not at home in the camp to worship; but he can come into the camp as cleansed, so as to enter into the full relief and peace and drawing nigh of conscience. He that is cleansed by the water comes in the efficacy of the blood, but he does not yet know in his conscience the applied efficacy that he finds progressively when he draws
nigh, so as to enter into the full appreciation of Christ's offering of Himself to God, and to draw nigh to God according to the acceptability and acceptance of Christ Himself, having so offered Himself for God's glory.
Christ has given Himself that we may come -- the water brings us, dead to all creature condition and human glory, into the camp in consequence of this; there we realize all the efficacy and importance of the death which Christ has suffered, not merely to bring us in by purifying us, but its proper value before God. The detail seems repeated to show the impossibility of a sinner, not thoroughly purified according to the purification of the sanctuary of God's presence, coming into that presence in peace.
-- 25, etc. The leper was cleansed by the blood of a trespass-offering being put upon his ear, etc. -- the priest was consecrated by that of an offering of sweet savour which was in effect a peace-offering of which Moses had his part, and Aaron and his sons ate the rest.
In this chapter sin is entered -- man's sin is shown -- so that the free intercourse with glory in connection with flesh is impossible. But this brings in the connection with Israel in a new way -- atonement, the full savour of Christ in connection with death, and the total putting away of sin (not merely bearing sins, and forgiveness of them) so that there was an absolute standing on that ground before God. Then an actual subsequent bearing away the sins of Israel, and a cleansing of the heavenly things also -- a wider work than blessing without in virtue of sacrifice.
Christ is presented in the double character, for the nation and for Aaron and his house, and as to Israel as with the bullock for the Lord's lot, and then the bearer away of the people's sins -- so it was Christ was offered, and died for the nation, but for the gathering of the Church also; afterwards the sins of Israel will be practically removed. When the bullock is offered for Aaron and his house, the whole and perfect atonement is made, and for it the whole personal savour of Christ's offering ascends up, and the blood for others is presented in connection with that, "He has put away sin
by the sacrifice of himself" -- no doubt bearing our sins, but the truth intimated here is not so much the forgiveness of particular sins, as the total abolition of sin as between us and God by atonement, so that we stand on this blessed ground with God -- it is the only one on which a sinner can -- though in an inferior order, the goat, not the bullock. It is the same for Israel -- Christ has made atonement, or they could not be blessed.
Then further, the whole scene is purged; this is a new feature, connected with Christ's going through the heavens in the virtue of His blood, and purifying the whole scene, to make it the place of His universal dominion and display of glory -- not merely suffer that Israel might be blessed -- but that blood be carried within, and the redemption of the Church, the purifying of all things wrought out, and the blessing of Israel flow from that height and be in connection with it.
Then afterwards when Aaron comes out, the people's actual sins are administratively removed, and they can be freely blessed. This diminishes the direct application of the scapegoat to us; but besides that, we enter into and anticipate all that is true of Israel, as grafted into the tree of promise, and that Christ's bearing of sins is thus applied, yet I believe only positively spoken of in Peter and the Hebrews, where the Jew is first; yet it is as propitiation formally, in general, extended to the whole world; 1 John 2. This gives a much fuller character to the work of Christ for us, while it leaves not the smallest cloud on the truth that He washed us from our sins in His own blood, for sin is totally put away -- our standing-place is without it before God. It is not merely sins administratively removed at a given epoch when Christ comes out, but we enter into the holiest completely purged. It is a full, heavenly, sinless qualification we now possess, "made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light". No doubt fundamentally the same work is done for Israel, or they could not be blessed, but we go within with Aaron; their sins are, as I have said, administratively removed when he comes out.
The purification in the sanctuary was a distinct part of the great day of atonement; the cleansing of the outer sanctuary distinct. The burnt-offering came afterwards quite distinct; nobody was to be in the outer sanctuary, when the high priest went through the cleansing of the inner -- that was the
essential substantive thing, the blood being brought to the throne, as the Lord's lot, and that was done for himself and his house (the priest's) and all the congregation of Israel. Verse 16 comes in by the bye. There was to be a cleansing of the place -- that had been done for the most Holy when the blood was brought in, and it was to be done for the tabernacle -- outside there was no such cleansing. In verse 18 he comes to the cleansing of the outer sanctuary, so that what was cleansed was the sanctuary itself, the blood being sprinkled before God Himself and on His throne, for Aaron, his house, and all the people, and during this time, no one was to come into the outer. Then he went out of the sanctuary, and cleansed the altar of incense, i.e., all was cleansed when man approached to God -- not when man was cleansed by God. The tabernacle as the place of approach was cleansed; then came the putting the sins out of sight, quite another matter but connected. And then as a distinct service, in other garments, the service of offering outside. Nor was there any specific cleansing of the candlestick and table -- they were not approaching-places.
I notice with much interest lately that cleansing, on the great day of atonement, referred only to the tabernacle itself and what was in it -- not to the court or what was there. Here only the blood was carried into the holiest of all. But as to cleansing, the heavenly places alone are in view -- this is full of interest; there was a cleansing away of sins on Azazel, but that was a distinct part (not as to Christ, separated in His work -- the goats were one Christ) but it was a different subject -- sins put away, but no approach in that to the sanctuary. And as to the holy of holies, the witness still there that the way was not open. Still, though only the shadow not the image of the things to come was there, the principle of entrance in peace into the presence of God was there -- the blood was on the propitiatory. This was a thing wholly apart from all regular Jewish offerings, none of which contemplated entrance there. But what was done, was cleansing everything within, because God was there; it was apart, unconnected with any other sacrifices. When it was complete, the high priest offered burnt-offerings -- but they were no part of this service. This, too, was not available for an occasion -- it was effectual for God Himself, here only for
a year no doubt, but cleansed all around Him for Himself, for what He was, and when all was revealed was an eternal redemption, an eis to dienekes.
But the point I am now upon, is that it applied only to what figured the heavenly places. The red heifer was apart as a sacrifice, and was connected with approach to God, but for those who could still defile themselves where death was, and in this sense outside; but it was for particular defilement of man, which his conscience must take notice of as approaching God, but was of water to restore communion, though founded on blood and the consuming of sin, but blood only sprinkled where the people met God, outside. It was for the actual defilement of man, not what affected God's presence where He was; it came in, in a supplementary way, for man in his relationship to God where he could defile himself, hence is found in the book of Numbers -- the wilderness journey. It was an outside thing, though of course referring to our relationship with God. Hence it is found in the Hebrews, just alluded to as a supplementary thing.
In Hebrews we are always weak individuals, in the wilderness, with access to God in the holiest where the High Priest is, only sitting down there.
The scape-goat referred to actual clearing and putting the sins away, so that they were not found again, hence applied to Israel (though of course it was for us). But it is only the outer part -- we are looked at as responsible, according to our Adam standing in this world -- our intercourse with God as human beings. But within was where God's presence was -- not exactly our Father's house, but being where God reveals Himself -- where all is according to His nature, and what is in heaven is revealed to us, "What eye hath not seen, God has revealed unto us by his Spirit", indeed, now there is no veil; as to our entering in, it is the ta agia. But this is properly our place, and note here that there was no Azazel bullock. No doubt our sins are put away -- Scripture, thank God, is full of it -- but our characteristic relationship is cleansing for God, for His presence. Christ has spoken what He knew, and testified what He had seen, and by the Holy Ghost we follow Him there where He is gone, not without blood too; and that is what we belong to, and what belongs to us. We start with learning what God is for us down here, and all is forgiven, and we are redeemed out of this world, though in it, and we
belong, by the purchase of Christ, to the place where He is.
Thus I would remark first that the cloud of sweet incense and the bullock seem our proper way and ground of acceptance -- the two goats, Israel's, though we come in, as regards our guilt, in the same way, but the other is our own proper ground, i.e., the personal acceptance of Christ, and God perfectly glorified in His offering -- not merely bearing our sins away. That meets need, and blessed it is that it does, still there is that which glorifies God as to sin, and divine favour in which Christ stands, and in which we are accepted, and this is where we are before God, the sweet savour of Christ, and God glorified as to sin, as only through the sacrifice of Christ, not bearing sins, but according to John 13 -- this part the Jews have not. Their blessing, no doubt in a general sense, is founded on it, and the blood of the goat was put on the mercy-seat, as well as the sins carried away; but though Christ must be there that they may be blessed, they are not in His blessing -- standing before God in the virtue of it, as He does.
-- 8. As regards Azazel -- the word is pretty plain I think, I have heretofore noticed it; Ez, the goat -- Azal (to depart) in whom the sins fail and disappear -- and this is practically, I suppose, the force of eretz g'zerah (a land of separation), to fail, to be removed, perish, excluded. The sins disappeared wholly -- they were sent off, and so gone to the land where no man was -- they were lost. The use of the two words, only thus used here, is remarkable, for the total disappearance of sins, never to be found -- there was no one there to seek for or find them. Just as in the Jewish idea, death removed man from this world, and then there was no remembrance, it was a non est as to this world -- so the sins, they were gone, and were not, not to be found, like Rachel's children though not longed for.
The fact that there is no scape-bullock seems to me to depend upon the fact that they were priests. Hence, though in the necessarily imperfect shadowing of the law, it was only approach that was in question, quâ priests we are not guilty sinners -- for such, the actual sins must be cleared away -- as priests we draw nigh, and that with boldness into the holiest now, because Christ has perfected the work which brings us there -- for us once for all, and we have no more conscience of sins.
It seems to me that though I doubt not that the blessed
Lord in bearing our sins held the place of Aaron as representing the people and confessing their sins on Azazel -- not properly a priestly but a representative office (for priestly was in ability to approach God when others could not, and here he took their place as sinners) -- yet Hebrews 5:9, 10, points out distinctly that He was established as High Priest, only after His sufferings, "being made perfect", i.e., having been passed through His consecration by the things which He suffered, He became, and is thus and then saluted of God a High Priest -- God publicly owns Him thereon.
I certainly think, as to the strict application of it (for as to efficacy, whatever efficacy there is in Christ's offering we have, and what is true of the Jew we have) yet as to the letter, the bullock for Aaron and his house is for us, the scape-goat is for the Jews. Aaron and his house were atoned for by themselves by the bullock, as directed indeed in chapter 4. The sacrifice was of greater value, of weightier import than that for Israel. But this is not all -- this was complete before there was any purifying of things and places -- Aaron and his house are purified by themselves; and in the case of the goat the blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat, and atonement made for Israel also before the cleansing began. Then, in the Lord's lot, begins the putting the blood on places, before Azazel. It makes atonement, and purifies the holy place and altar, defiled by the uncleanness of Israel. It was Godward, the nature of sin as uncleanness in His sight; with this the places were all cleansed (the heavenly with better sacrifices) but the only thing mentioned in the first goat is the places -- no doubt in respect of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, as affecting God and His presence. No doubt thus death had come in and a sin-offering, but it met God, and after the reconciliation of the heavenly saints, the places were reconciled; and then last of all, when the high priest had confessed Israel's sins, Azazel was taken to the land not inhabited. And this confirms the order of power -- first the Church received, then the heavenly places cleansed, and then Israel reconciled; there is the Church, the reconciling the heavenly things, and Israel. There are other precious differences elsewhere noticed, but this as to the proper order of application.
-- 14. Notice that on the great day of atonement, the blood was sprinkled seven times on the mercy-seat, and upon the altar (verse 19) -- as of the red heifer at the door of the tabernacle
of the congregation, once as far as appears on the mercy-seat.
NOTE. -- The blood of the offerings for sin for priest and congregation was sprinkled before the veil; on the great day of atonement it was on the mercy-seat; in ordinary cases on the altar of burnt-offering. This would make it communion, but it puts the people (through the priests) in the holy place. At any rate the congregation must be fit to be represented there by them -- fit for that place. Personally they came no nearer than before the altar of burnt-offering; there consequently their sin-offering was offered.
NOTE. -- We have in fact the blood on the mercy-seat, and the scape-goat in Romans 3 and 4; only the Lord's lot is set out in testimony for us as guilty to come, an hilasterion (mercy-seat) through faith in His blood -- the scape-goat is as delivered for our offences (and raised again for our justification) and propitiation, though in view of God's glory (among whom I dwell), still is for sins as 1 John 2. The Lord's lot was a sin-offering, though not for particular acceptance or restoration, but, in general, for God who was there.
-- 15. The sprinkling on and before the mercy-seat had its own efficacy before the Lord, but the cleansing then began with the holy place, etc. It may be they were sprinkled, with blood certainly, if Hebrews 9:21 applies to this, but that may be doubted; otherwise it is said only of the mercy-seat and of the altar before the Lord, i.e., the altar of incense. Atonement was made for the places, but specific mention of blood could perhaps only be on the mercy-seat and altar.
The altar of incense was to be sprinkled (Exodus 30:10); but when the tabernacle was set up it would seem it was not sprinkled with blood (Exodus 40:9; chapter 30: 26, etc.); the brazen altar seems to have been cleansed with blood; Exodus 29:36. The sprinkling with blood and cleansing leads to the judgment that it was so done with all (the altar of incense certainly) on the day of atonement. Moses' doing it would not mean more than its being done under the law; but the connection with Sinai (Hebrews 9:19) tends to show that it was then, and not recorded in the Old Testament. Still Hebrews 9:21 gives no clear judgment that it was at the setting up; verse 22 clearly generalises it, so that we may suppose he was already beyond Sinai.
-- 18. The question then arises, what is the altar here? In verse 20 the tabernacle of the congregation is said positively
to be reconciled. The altar cleansed was the altar of incense, the altar before the Lord (see chapter 4: 6, 18). This changes the character; this reconciliation (ka-phar) to make atonement, was of the places where they went to God (only by priests). It was the holy place or sanctuary, the tabernacle and the altar. Aaron was to sprinkle the blood on the mercy-seat and before it; He makes atonement for himself and for all Israel -- he makes atonement for the brazen altar before the Lord, i.e., reconciles it, but it is not said of the mercy-seat. In verse 17 he makes atonement for himself and house, and for all Israel; he makes atonement in it (verse 16) for the holy place, but not for the mercy-seat, but he does specifically for the altar; it was the idea of the people approaching. The altar without was not the place of approaching, save as under sin; the atonement was made there -- the sacrifice, whose blood was to work thus efficaciously, was offered there -- but it was distinctly the place of approach that was cleansed. The place of approach and of offered incense -- the mercy-seat -- was what they approached, blood was put on it and before it for them. The altar without was the place where, when offering was made, the thing, as far as man was concerned, to come there with was sin. Hence we have blood put on the mercy-seat, atonement for Aaron and Israel, the cleansing of the holy place, tabernacle, and altar; then putting Israel's sins on Azazel.
It gives an absolute character to our reconciliation which Israel's has not, though in substance it is just the same. Christ was made sin for us -- the whole thing is put away. It is not a question of dealing with sins -- that of course would have been, if this work had not been done; but Christ intercepts this, and God's righteousness is now declared, in which we stand to start with, by faith, and are always in. No doubt we are made to feel our sins as a means of discovering our state, but this is only the way of getting at it -- we are all under sin, in this condition before God. I learn it by my sins, or much more deeply by my sinfulness, and then find I am made the righteousness of God. In Israel there is a dealing with particular transgressions. No doubt if Christ had not atoned for all our sins we could not have been the righteousness of God in Him -- He did, Scripture says it, abundantly, thank God, but He was made sin and glorified God as in, and about it. But it is done, and we stand in righteousness in the efficacy of His work.
But Israel has to meet God about the transgressions they have been guilty of -- suffer about them -- feel Reuben to be guilty about their brother -- transgressors, and God dealing with them as His people about their transgressions. It is surely practically true of us, yet not as His people who have sinned as such, but as merely and wholly sinners, and nothing else. Hence Israel has to feel in a special way that their sins, when they had to say to them, had been laid on the head of the scape-goat. My whole place is changed to be owned as righteous in Christ before God -- Christ my righteousness; of course if He had not done the work on the cross I could not be, still I come in from a place of utter sin and alienation into divine righteousness. The truth is the same -- the manner and circumstances are different. Indeed we have the bullock of atonement, they the goat -- yet Christ for both, and Christ ever perfect in His work.
The question whether the altar before the Lord which was sprinkled was that of incense or of burnt-offering does not affect the general teaching of the passage. See verse 12, also Exodus 30:10. My impression is that verse 12 is the altar of incense, see Exodus 30:10; but it does not affect what is the important part of the question, I only add some fruits of further research.
The distinction of judicial righteousness connected with responsibility, and our approach to God according to what He is, is of all moment. This last connects itself with the purpose of God, Christ's delight in the sons of men before the Creation, and before the responsibility; but it is not that side that is treated here, but the nature of God, and access to Him as such. Israel stood formally in the place of responsibility, the law being the perfect rule of it; it was their standing as to the present government of, and relationship with God (see footnote). That could not be, it is true -- that is, forgiveness and purgation from sins -- if what God was had not been glorified; and the Lord's lot was offered (in this case only the blood was brought into the holiest) and our responsibility is also met as we know, thank God. He gave Himself for our sins, "died for our sins
according to the Scriptures"; but it was Israel's place as such, though in spirit we get the good of the new covenant, but then what characterises us more is our approach to God within, not merely being in Christ, but as regard's God's nature and presence, the bullock marks our place -- we have died with Christ, are not, in faith, in the old creation; it is not our politeuma (citizenship). It is more than the needed basis of forgiveness -- it is justification of life. The bullock-offering is our whole position and present relationship, our calling is heavenly, and we have boldness to enter into the holiest by the new and living way. It is "quickened together with him, having forgiven us all trespasses", though here it is not the life, but the ground of acceptance -- but it is in death and resurrection, beyond and out of the old creation. He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Hence too remark that, when the blood was carried into the sanctuary, the bodies were burned without the camp, a religion of man, as in this world, did not consist with it. It is death to the world -- and heaven. This is a most immensely important point. The Epistle to the Hebrews is just leading them from one to the other; till then they had united both -- served the tabernacle -- it could not be.
The putting the blood on the mercy-seat was meeting God in respect of sin in the essence of His Being in death the fruit of sin -- a wondrous truth! It was when made sin and bearing its curse, forsaken of God and dying that Man's obedience was perfect, and love to the Father in Jesus, and that wherein God's righteousness against sin, and supreme love to sinners was manifested. In the place of sin, as made it (and God Himself was perfectly glorified, John 13),(see footnote) obedience was perfect. Then the sprinkling seven times before the mercy-seat was the perfection of its effect for our approach. This sevenfold sprinkling therefore was done on the altar of incense -- God was not seated there. The scape-goat met responsibility and judgment founded, of course, on the blood of the other, but the first part gave access to God as He is, and the fitness of incense service, and this is truly blessed. The scape-goat was, first of all, Israel as an earthly people on earthly ground, in the flesh, but of course applicable to us (as Isaiah 53), but to us as having been on this ground, guilty as
sinners in the flesh by what the flesh produced; but now out of it, all that gone, not in the flesh, and as to that perfected for ever; and so now standing on the ground of the blood within, with "boldness to enter into the holiest" -- not justified without merely, but "made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light" -- so that while the positive preciousness of the blood remains for God Himself, yet it is not contrast with a state of guilt, but positive joy and worship where there is none.
Peter does not go beyond redemption out of where we were, and bearing our sins, and so dead to sins, man suffers in the flesh, is not dead -- he has the Red Sea fully, blessed perfectness of work too, but not I think the Jordan. 1 Peter 1:3 is the Red Sea, but we are in the wilderness, though with a lively hope; hence of course the appearing is what is before us. Christ is ready to judge, and God's government on the earth is treated of; he reaches the "Day-star" as an extreme point of hope, and "the day of the Lord will come".
John, i.e., in his Epistle (see before as to his Gospel), is a different class of teaching -- it is Christ's, or rather the Son's Person, and life and that reproduced in us. Still he refers to the other, but puts it all together, "His blood cleanseth from all sin" -- we are on earth, but Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, as well as for Jewish believers. Man is not looked at in the flesh; it is not exactly, therefore, bearing sins, but then we are in this world as Christ is before God, so as to have boldness. It is, what He is we are; and, in this, love is perfected. It is all what suits God, though the cleansing blood be necessarily there. But we are in the light, as God is in the light. It is what divine love has done for us, and the place it has put us in.
Paul, though he be essentially the same, does not give us Peter's form of it, "He gave himself for our sins", "died for our sins according to the Scriptures" -- Hebrews gives us both sides, but the first more in view of the general result; "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" and, in correspondency to death and judgment, "bore the sins of many". Paul, I think, brings it more from God's side -- Peter more Christ's work "that we might live to God". In Paul, God sets Christ forth a propitiatory "that he might be just in justifying". "He gave himself for our sins". "God commends his love
to us". He reasons more downward from grace, though both meet in the one act, and are substantially the same as to this. "He was delivered" in Paul "for our offences", "God made him to be sin for us" -- God is for us in it. In Peter, He dies and is raised in glory "that our faith and hope might be in God". The truth is the same, but in Peter it is more our need and judicial. Hence, too, we never get sin in Peter, only sins. You get "the God of all grace" as a title, and referred to our present walk, but you never get the love of God, or love as in Him presented in Peter -- what we know as the fruits of it are, but it is not presented as such. All this is not clearly put, but profoundly interesting.
-- 18. As to kip-per (the piël form of ka-phar to cover), and kip-per al (expiate for). Al (for) follows the natural sense of kip-per (expiate), as the Lexicons say, though other prepositions be occasionally used. But it seems to me that kip-per must be very much taken alone in the sense of reconciling or appeasing, and the al merely gives the object about which the kip-per takes place. We may have it as "reconcile", with no preposition, as Genesis 32:20, "I will appease, reconcile his face", Daniel 9:24 with a-von (iniquity), Leviticus 6:30. But we have kip-per al (expiate upon) the scape-goat. We have also Exodus 30:10 in English "atonement" upon it. Then Leviticus 8:15 "sanctified, to make reconciliation upon it". In all al (for, etc.). Here the altar of burnt-offering. Now al must have different senses here -- no atonement was made on the altar of incense; and it does not answer in the case of the scape-goat (in English "with"); with persons al is common. We have also l'kap-per al ... min (to make expiation for) with al of the person, and min (from) of the sins. In Psalm 79:9, we have al with sins. In Leviticus 16:17 we have b' (in) the holy place. If "in" be right absolutely the b'ad (about, or for) himself, his house, and all the congregation (a l'addresse de), not the object of the act, but as that which has its part in what is done, Exodus 8:24; in verse 33, we find kip-per without a preposition for the places and things, and al for the priests and people of the congregation. The only real difficulty is the scape-goat, but I apprehend it comes under the general rule. As to the altar of incense -- it is only "on it" so far as it was defiled by the sins of the people. It was the object of the ko-pher (atoning work) made; so in verse 33 the places were reconciled, but the expiation had to
be made about the priests and people as the object -- b'ad (in reference to) offers no difficulty.
In chapter 8: 15 I am disposed to take l'kap-per a-lav (to make expiation for it) as meaning "in making reconciliation for it" -- He sanctified it -- in this, ko-pher (atoning) for it. It was the object of the ko-pher (atoning) here, as in Genesis 2:2. As to Leviticus 16:10 "to make an atonement with" gives substantially the sense, though "with" may be too precise. The instrumental "with" is b' as in Genesis 32:21; Exodus 29:33; 2 Samuel 21:3 -- but the scape-goat is the object as to which the l'kap-per (to make atonement) takes place, is before the mind as where sin is in question, requiring the ko-pher. In the passages with b' (in), this has nothing particular to do with the word kip-per, it is the common use of it, but here the scape-goat presented the sin as needing l'kap-par (to be expiated), but those were the sins on the goat -- the goat was as to itself identified in idea with the other, and on it the sins were carried into a land where none could find them, and so peace was made; so that "with" gives the general sense, though too precise. As having the sins laid upon him, atonement was made in respect of him, not of the goat, but what was on him, and the blood being shed, all the sins carried away into the land where they are no more found. All was cleared away and removed -- Christ bore our sins on the cross, then atonement had to be made for the sins that were upon Him, and there it was made in the same act, in His dying. For Himself, clearly no propitiation was made -- He was making it; still He was the scape-goat, as well as the Lord's lot, and the actual sins that were there had to be atoned for. What He stood as, and what He carried was the object of the propitiation He made. In Leviticus 19:22 we have al, both for the person, and for the sin.
(Dated 1874.) I turn to this great day of atonement a little more clearly, or rather precisely and definitely. The blood of the bullock and of the goat were sprinkled on and before (for I suppose this applies to the goat too) the mercy-seat, and on the altar; so that as God was glorified by the blood, so access was given by it, "boldness to enter by the blood" -- God glorified, and we able to draw nigh. But then the altar of incense (as I have supposed it) also sprinkled, i.e.,
communion, when not actually in heaven but only in heavenly places, according to what glorified God; and this is all we have of the blood on the great day of atonement. The bullock for Aaron and his sons -- the fullest value of Christ as an offering -- ours, though what was essential was done for Israel as regards God. Azazel was the actual putting-away of sins; then there was the burnt-offering, and fat of the sin-offering burned on the altar -- the perfect value of Christ's sacrifice as a sweet savour to God, by which He is glorified in Christ's perfection in His sacrifice, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again". But the blood is here all within for God Himself, approach to Him and communion; see the difference of the sin-offerings even when the blood was brought into the holy (not most holy) place. The blood was sprinkled seven times before the veil -- the place of approach in worship; then on the altar of incense, and then all the rest at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering, and, as to the people at any rate (nothing said as to the high priest) there was forgiveness. It was according to God, but it was not the foundation of all the rest; nor for God, the Lord's lot. Even the scape-goat was the removal of the sins, not exactly the forgiveness. In particular or individual sin-offering, it is evident -- but in all there was restoration of communion, not foundation for it. Hence we have not forgiveness in chapter 16 -- cleansing we have, and sins put out of God's sight.
The more it is weighed, the more important does the great day of atonement become. It is not a burnt-offering to be accepted according to a sweet savour, nor a sin-offering to restore a soul by priestly intervention, or the people and priest in sprinkling before the veil and on the altar of incense, so that communion might be restored to them. It is in no sense application consequent on failure in responsibility. It was a sin-offering, and of course in respect of the priest and his house, and the people, but not application and restoration -- God was in view. No doubt that the sins were carried into a land not inhabited, but it was not personal restoration nor access; as the blood on the mercy-seat, it laid the ground for it, though in another way. It was substitution, doing the work which bore the sins away out of God's sight. So in sprinkling the tabernacle, it was "because of the iniquities of the children of Israel among whom I dwell". The blood was
brought in in respect of sin no doubt, but as meeting God‘s own nature. The sins were gone, but no blood was put on the brazen altar; it was not measured judicially by man's responsibility. The sins did not suit God's presence, and cleansing was effected on God's throne and before it, and on the altar of incense. We go into the holiest -- the veil is now rent. Burnt-offerings were offered afterwards, and the fat of the sin-offering, and the rest was burned outside the camp. A religion for the sanctuary is not a worldly religion -- it goes outside the camp or earthly relationship with God. When the priests were consecrated, they belonged as such to what was within; hence the offerings were burned outside the camp; till after they were consecrated, they of course could not go in -- not inside the brazen altar; they needed the judicial atonement. This was a special case; hence the blood was poured out at the brazen altar (for they were taken as sinners to be priests), and the body, etc., burned without the camp. In the case of the sin-offering for the anointed priest or congregation, the communion of all was interrupted, and the blood was sprinkled before the veil and on the altar of incense, for there it was needed to re-establish it, but the blood was put at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, for they were guilty -- the bodies burned outside the camp, the blood having gone into the sanctuary. It was not God's nature met, but communion re-established with it, and judicially met withal at the altar of burnt-offering. Individual cases got their place back where communion subsisted. For Aaron himself there was no offering.
What makes the absence of a scape-bullock easily understood is, that it was for priests, persons already within as such. What concerned them was approach within, or rather God's nature or character within, for they would not have been there without it -- it was done, in fact, when they were consecrated; but it gives strongly the true character of worship. In point of fact we were sinners just as Jews will be, or were, on the earth, and hence have needed the scape-goat, when our responsibility was in question as they do; just the same exactly as we anticipate the use of Isaiah 53, or even the blessing of the new covenant, but it does show what our worship in the priestly character is (compare Deuteronomy 16).
NOTE. -- The new covenant does not go beyond forgiveness, and remembering sins no more. No doubt all depends, to the
eternal blessing, in Christ having carried the blood once for all into God's presence, but the effect in the new covenant is only forgiveness, quod nota. How this shows too where the Evangelical Church is, though with their knowledge of sin they have not even this!
-- 7. Lass 'irim (to wood-demons) from sa-ir, that which is hairy. The English Bible has "unto devils".
-- 11. It has been thought that atonement "for the soul" should be "with the soul" ban-nephesh; but I doubt. It is not huper (for) but "in respect of", "in the matter of". But note, only what is on the altar makes atonement.
Remark how in this Book, when the details of evil are judged, Jehovah puts Himself personally forward as the One whose character at once rejects, and makes all these things impossible to His people -- "I am the Lord". The people were in relationship with Him -- He sanctified them. See also the two following chapters.
-- 5. Ye shall offer it for your acceptance.
-- 11. "One to another" seems to apply to all these words.
Feasts of the Lord, mo-ed (a set time), feast of unleavened bread, Khag (a holy feast).
Note the Sabbath, passover and unleavened bread were not dependent on their coming into the land.
-- 9. Introduces a new ground of the feast.
-- 10 - 14. This is an offering of obligation, and connected with the whole people -- one of the regular feasts of the Lord, Christ's resurrection, to which Pentecost was subsidiary, though one of the great feasts, while that in chapter 2: 14 - 16, seems a
personal free-will offering. It was not in itself a mo-ed (set time) feast; but it comes under a "the Lord spake unto Moses saying"; in verse 15 (chapter 23) Pentecost is attached to it, so to speak. Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were gathering feasts; the Sheaf, the new Moon, and the day of Atonement were not. They were actings of God of whatever character, the basis of gathering perhaps, or leading to it, but not the gathering itself; Christ's lifting up did gather -- "draw all men" -- Pentecost was the actual power that did it. Tabernacles, not yet fulfilled, will be the great congregation when all Israel will be brought home from their wanderings -- for us the heavenly assembly of all saints. But then resurrection presented the accepted sheaf in resurrection to God -- it was Christ, first fruits of them that slept.
In the new moon Israel re-appears. The great day of atonement was not only the Lord's lot for His glory, but the actual putting away of the people's sins, and their knowing it through the appropriation of it in confession -- so of us anticipatively by faith through the Holy Ghost.
The Sabbath, God's rest, stands by itself -- the great Promise that overrides all.
Then the Passover, the basis of all, founded on which we have the feast of unleavened bread, the general result also in the sinless character of our association with God; verse 4, therefore begins afresh as the grand basis of all, unleavened bread being connected with it. The rest are special and actual dealings of God, and states and terms of relationship with Him; hence verse 9 starts with a new "the Lord spake", and that begins the ways of the Lord in the resurrection of Christ, first fruits from the dead presented to Him. Sabbath -- Passover -- and Unleaven are the general great truth of our being assembled to God, verses 1 - 8.
Then I get resurrection of Christ -- the gift of the Holy Ghost -- present dealings -- then Israel recalled -- their humiliation, and owning of sins, and the atonement made (Isaiah 53), which we anticipate as first fruits of His creatures -- and finally the feast of tabernacles, which comes after the fruit of the land is gathered in, and the fulfilment of all promise is celebrated in blessing. The divisions are thus marked by "the Lord spake", verses 1, 9, 23, 26, 33.
As to the offerings, some points are to be observed. The Lord's Passover we know -- it is the grand basis; hence in the
feast of unleavened bread, the sacrificial worship is commanded, but there are no special sacrifices. In Pentecost, a full perfect sacrifice is introduced of perfect satisfaction to God, also a bullock and two rams -- consecration or failure in it -- and, leaven being in the cakes, a sin-offering, and two lambs for a heave-offering. All kinds were introduced with the Spirit, the full knowledge of what Christ's sacrifice is in every form, seven being full worship in Christ acceptable to God. In Tabernacles none but the general sacrificial worship. They are all really connected with the Passover. In the Sheaf of first fruits only a burnt-offering -- it was Christ; with the two cakes a sin-offering (only here) there was leaven. In the blowing of trumpets, only the usual sacrificial worship, on which all is based, i.e., Christ's sacrifice, blessing being only in connection with this; it is calling God to remembrance in Israel, when they reappear. On the day of atonement also, only the usual sacrificial worship -- it is Israel's confession of their sin, afflicting their souls. There were, we know, offerings showing the whole work of Christ for sin, but here it is the historical aspect, so to speak -- whoever of Israel does not humble himself and mourn, recognizing what Christ's Cross (now come in glory) was, will be cut off -- fulness expressed, as I have said, in Isaiah 53. Verse 22, I suppose, presents the remnant called out and, as sacrificed by the beast, belonging to the Spirit's time of work, but only exceptionally left, but not the offering up of the Gentiles, but not the bread of the first fruits yet gathered in an inferior way, so to speak.
-- 11, is not rat-zon, "for your acceptance?" The wave-sheaf and the first fruits go together, and are connected with the land -- resurrection and the Holy Ghost -- and these with the non-riddance of the corners of the land form a complete whole. The offerings which were complete are spoken of elsewhere.
-- 18. This seems to be a special offering, "with the bread". Numbers 28:24 on the Passover, the then prescribed offering was daily, it seems, implied in verses 26 - 31, but it is not said. Here it is specially with the bread, for otherwise the number of offerings is not prescribed. (Compare Josephus', The Antiquitaries of The Jews, chapter 3: 10.) The seven lambs -- a perfect sacrifice; the one bullock -- the plain measure of the worth of Christ's sacrifice, without question of its estimation by piety, or in its effect on the heart; the rams -- always consecration; two -- full
witness of it. The sin-offering as meeting the leaven, and two lambs for communion; hence two, as adequately witnessed -- it was here in its natural completeness and simply itself.
-- 24. The feast of trumpets is a distinct feast, nor is this directly connected with the land; there was an offering made by fire -- God was acknowledged in the sacrifice -- but the blowing of trumpets characterises it;
-- 25, what sacrifice is not said.
-- 27. The day of atonement is again distinct -- it is a covering out of God's sight (kippurim atonement);
-- 34, etc., so is the feast of tabernacles.
NOTE. -- While leaven is met in the feast of weeks by the sin-offering, as needed to the actual relationship of the people, in none of the others it is so -- we have "an offering made by fire" -- not even in the day of atonement is any sin-offering mentioned; in the feast of weeks, the sacrifices are fully noticed, and the wave-sheaf -- this is remarkable. When, if not in the Church and by the Holy Ghost, are they known? In the rest there is worship (the Passover speaks for itself by itself) and by an offering made by fire -- that is all;
-- 37 and 44, it is the same. It is always the mo-ed in the meetings with God, not the way of reception. So here, in this part of Tabernacles, it is specially characterised as to the character of appointed meeting with God; so as a Khag (holy feast) to the Lord, their former part, wanderings, are celebrated, and in verse 37, in general, worship-offerings are mentioned but not sin-offerings -- offerings made by fire, no servile work, and on the tenth of the seventh month afflicting their souls. Then we have, but save the feast of weeks, no sin-offering nor any specified, though in Numbers those of Tabernacles are very remarkable. But in the feast of weeks we have the full intelligent appreciation, in worship, of sin in ourselves (though presented sinless) and of all that Christ has done, and of our presenting before the Lord; t'nu-phah (wave-offering) -- t'ru-mah (heave-offering) seems to me to be more absolutely "offered up", as we say "given up" to God; though t'nu-phah was "consecrated" in general, t'ru-mah belonged to the priest who offered. The Levites however were a t'nu-phah, and they were (Numbers 8:16) n'thunim n'thunim (wholly given; literally 'given given') to Jehovah; for nuph (offer or wave) see verses 10, 13 and 15. Still it was for service as wholly consecrated, and that we all are as a prosphora
(offering up, sacrificing), Romans 15:16; but I still doubt this was a t'ru-mah. The t'nu-phah Aaron and his sons ate, just as the Levites were given to them -- the t'ru-mah was in the intimacy of priestly communion; one was blessedly useful in service, and consecrated to it -- the other in the mind of Christ. There were I think three steps, Aaron, sons and daughters, all clean in the house -- Aaron and his sons -- and the offering priest; but see Numbers 18:11 - 13 -- but this hardly abrogates the distinction of Leviticus 7:31 and 33, certainly not chapter 6: 26. However, here I only refer to them for t'ru-mah and t'nu-phah; see Leviticus 6:18, also verse 29, and chapter 7: 6 - 9; there is "the priest's that offereth" (verse 9) and (verse 10) distinction, "all the sons of Aaron", or in verse 10 merely general, contrasted with the people, and verse 9, appropriative -- I mean distinction as to the kind of offering. If so, this would make an interesting difference in Leviticus 2 -- the flour, dry or with oil, generally for the priests, that baked in the oven or pan for the priest that offered it. For the general idea of Aaron and his sons, as contrasted with the people, or burning it, see Leviticus 2:3, 10, and chapter 7: 9. What is "one as much as another" in verse 10? For each one who did it, or for all? See verse 14. Verse 33 seems decisive as to the difference of t'ru-mah, even if daughters ate it, which I doubt, in the court of the tabernacle.
-- 42. The Jews, it appears, hold that none but an Israelite-born could keep the feast of tabernacles, i.e., dwell in booths, whatever the common joy might be. This has an intelligible reason, Israel having been, as such in the wilderness, as now strangers and wanderers. In Exodus 12:44, bought servants were to be circumcised and keep the Passover -- they were redeemed members of the household, and separated to God by circumcision. Now in Zechariah 14:19, the Gentiles are to go up and keep the feast of tabernacles. The sin of Jews was they would not own mercy to Gentiles. Gentiles must bow, and join in the joy of mercy to Jews; if they do not, this shall be their sin -- they will be dealt with in judgment about it -- they would not submit to Israel's grace.
The candlestick and the shewbread seem a kind of appendix to the Feasts. These are the gathering of Israel in connection
with Christ, and the privileges granted to them through Him. The candlestick and shewbread seem to be their estate according to God's purpose as in their normal condition before God, and in connection with Christ as Man, but full of grace and the Holy Spirit, or at any rate and rather the light of testimony by it.
The atonement is laid as the great central ground of all God's ways in righteousness. God is perfect love to us there -- He is Love; but then, where no hiding, excusing or patience with sin because of weakness was in question, where One who could bear it was, was made sin, all God was, in His necessary antagonism, horror of, judgment against sin, went out against sin, as such, in Him who was able to bear it. God being glorified, purpose, government, as death or chastening His children, can all come out and have their place.
The worth of that, according to which righteousness is obtained, is such that the purpose of God righteously unites us to Christ, and gives a place where He is in glory like and with Him -- we are children, holy and without blame before Him in love. He gives to the Jews a place on earth, and deals with them for the display of His government down here; so with us as His children -- God deals with us in chastisement and discipline, but all this supposes righteousness and non-imputation. There could be no government without this -- God's forbearance before the Cross was justified by this.
It is evident there are two kinds of righteousness -- justice as against evil, and adequate appreciation and even recompense of good. "Vengeance is mine, I will recompense saith the Lord" is a different thing from "The righteous Lord loveth righteousness, his countenance beholds the upright"; though both are abstractedly the just estimate of good and evil.
As regards the former, and the controversy we have had, when God has the character of a Judge, my adversaries are all wrong, because God's righteousness as Judge is in Scripture connected with blood, as in Romans 3; so in the Passover. But as to the principle, no man could ever plead a part in the second dealing of righteousness save Christ Himself, for "all are sinners"; Christ, even as a Man down here, could be accepted as perfectly agreeable to God. But then Christianity, and even Judaism in its figures, goes a great deal further -- for grace reigns through righteousness, and sinners were to be justified or accounted righteous.
To be justice, in the common sense of the word, it must be the just estimate of conduct itself, or adequate satisfaction for the fault -- thus, a man serves me in a thing, renders due service, I am just in recognising this, I own him in the place
wherein he stands; if he owes me money and another pays it, or has done a wrong and another repairs it, he is also clear. In the case of material service, another's doing a man's duty may suffice, though, if the service be owed by the man, I am not bound to accept it; still, in material service, if the service only be due, and the man not in responsible relationship to me, I may be justly satisfied. But in relationships and moral right and wrong, this is not so, I cannot accept another's doing what my son owes me and be satisfied with my son; righteousness here requires the duty to be fulfilled, or is not satisfied. To be atoned for and put away as guilt can be rightly, because the guilt is owned, but not a doing the work or duty so that there should be no guilt. The latter weakens the personal obligation, sets it aside, the former owns and atones for it.
But in Christianity there is more, for God is to be displayed, grace reign, and man to be brought to God Himself. Hence the measure is God's glory and in itself unveiled, not man's duty -- of this anon. But any attempt to meet responsibility in relationship by another's fulfilling the claims, tends to destroy the sense of guilt in it, and is morally heinous -- if another has done my duty, and it is as if I have done it, or better, the claim satisfied, then I have done it as to justice and I am not guilty.
If it does not meet the case thus, the idea turns what is due into a material debt and destroys the moral nature of failure -- becomes doing, not conduct. I ask if another's doing my child's duty would in any way affect the relationship of my child to me?
This I see in the figures -- reconciliation must have an altar and blood-shedding; wrongs may be repaired toward man or toward God, and so it was ordained under the law, but in questions of obedience and relationship not so. There is guilt, and atonement must come in; omission or commission is all one here. Do I fail in worship to God -- can another worship for me? Now all our questions with God are questions of obedience and relationship. But then according to principles I have noticed before, though all be done according to the glory of God, for indeed it is one act -- the death of Christ -- yet the application of the work to man is different; the brazen altar met man's sin coming as such -- the mercy-seat was introduction into the presence of God. It was a golden throne; it was judgment against sin, and righteousness to enter into
His presence. So Christ -- He was both -- He made propitiation for our sins, He is our righteousness in the presence of God in virtue of His sacrifice in which God was perfectly glorified. There is the firmness of God's judgment against sin, and perfect access to Him in light and glory. But then note, it is in either case grace -- God acting sovereignly for Himself, and hence all must have the value of that. Our very forgiveness is God‘s righteousness, "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins". Hence God shews His righteousness in forgiving -- is righteous and justifies, according to this, the believer. God's righteousness is upon all that believe. But we do not think of repaying God now -- nor may we now -- "if thou hast sinned what doest thou unto him?"
The blood of Christ, i.e., the moral power and meaning of His blood-shedding, is the absolute perfection of the divine nature in connection with sin, as putting it away -- it leaves no blot, no stain, nothing contrary to its Holiness. It maintains, speaks of, tells out that Holiness, and yet not alone simply, but perfect love in it. It is the acting of God in the perfection of His own nature that is Love; for the spring of God's activity is love because it is His nature -- what He is in purpose, will, what shows His nature -- but it maintains what is necessary to it, i.e., Holiness, and this at the cost of the perfect devotedness of Christ to it, to both, i.e., to God, and that was perfection in its place too. But Godhead is perfectly, fully revealed, and indeed in nothing else; it is known, Christ knew it, others in some measure, but here it is all displayed, not in what God does in power, i.e., what He produces, but what He is and does in His own nature in the display of Himself. It is an exhaustless theme, as such a display of God, as such alone could be, must be. The Cross of Christ is the centre, as to what is displayed, of all glory -- the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him; all the details only bring it out, but into these I do not enter -- it is the great thought I desire to dwell in, I should not say "on", though that in mercy and grace and privilege too.
People have talked much of smiting, but the truth is it is not applied in Scripture to atonement itself. It is no harm that the mind associates atonement with it -- nay, it is useful -- because it is the great and essential thing of the Cross where Jesus, the Blessed One, was smitten. But atonement was a far deeper and unfathomable act of suffering, and wrath drank into the soul -- forsaking, not smiting.
Smiting is used as to the setting aside by death all the Messiah privileges, though we may, and it is all well, associate the other deeper work, done at the same time, with it. It is only used in Zechariah 13:7, and quoted thence in Matthew 26:31, Mark 14:27, and Psalm 69:26, referring in all to the relative position He took, contrasted with an accepted Messiah -- the Shepherd was smitten and the disciples scattered. This is not making His soul an offering for sin, and the Lord laying our iniquities on Him; it refers to His position, and being Shepherd of Israel's faithful ones in this world -- He was, in this character, smitten. The effect was the scattering of the sheep, not forgiveness and atonement. Hence we see it applied when they come to take Him, and the disciples fled. No doubt the actual blow was in his death -- I speak now of na-chah (to smite) -- it is any blow; ne-ga (stroke, plague) is used in Isaiah 53:8 (margin), when the thing is explained, not na-chah, "For the transgression of my people was the plague, or judgment, stroke upon him". And so we know it was; but this is the explanation, blessed explanation of a fact which had also an outward aspect. Na-chah is the simple act of smiting; ne-ga goes, I think, further. This is seen when both are used as participles, "Yet we did esteem him na-ga (stricken)" -- thus absolutely, the plague of God on Him; smitten of (mu-keh) (see footnote) God and afflicted. The truth was He was made a plague for the transgression of His people. But Messiah was cut off as such, and took nothing, and the sheep that were with Him then as Shepherd were scattered, and hence, as we have said, it is applied already in Gethsemane.
But there was, I am persuaded, in the atoning work a much deeper element. The forsaking of God in respect of sin, that no thought of ours can reach, though, blessed be God, it has
reached us, for every sorrow was to meet there. I judge it is the want of deep apprehension of what atonement is -- of what Christ suffered in His soul for it, which leads to cavils about other sorrows, and the application of passages to them. Every sorrow was there, but there was one which only the spiritual mind can in any sense understand. Isaiah 53 shews that this was the case that, as they esteemed Him outwardly under God's judgment -- and He was, in a far deeper sense, for their transgression -- "With his stripes they were healed". But by this act, in which atonement did take place, there was, besides the atonement, the setting aside all His earthly Messiahship, and the taking away His life from the earth; and all this the Lord felt and entered into as to the setting aside of the people by their own wickedness.
Nothing is more striking than the extreme care as to the defilement of leprosy in Leviticus 14, as to the details.
We find first that the man is cured, he has no longer the disease, the will of sin -- he is converted. Then comes the cleansing -- first Christ Himself given in humiliation, but in the power of the Spirit according to God known in the Word, in a poor earthen vessel but over running water. All this world's glory and nature -- what man knows naturally, from the cedar to the hyssop -- all is stamped with death, and the man sprinkled seven times -- he comes under the absolutely perfect efficacy of Christ's death; this, outside the camp. It is essential efficacy of Christ's work, what is necessary for him to have to say to God; then he comes into the camp, but he must then be cleansed to have his place, and worship with God's people according to His presence among them, his own conscience and all taint of sin must be purged and removed. He shaves, and washes his clothes and himself with water and so is clean. There is the washing of water, regeneration, a change of condition, of habit and thought according to the Word, in order to his being amongst God's people; the washing of regeneration, not I think merely being born again, though involved in it.
But he is still out of his tent, his regular dwelling among God's numbered people -- there he waits seven days; on the eighth, he again shaves all with scrupulous detail, not noticed before, for he is now nearer God, and washes clothes and body again, and is clean -- v'taher (and he shall be clean), what had been said of his previous washing, and so he was, but that was cleansing from known sin, cleansing from the evil which he had come to know, what in his previous state affected his conscience, in fact what he was defiled by, so that he could come into the camp. Now he must be cleansed for the sanctuary, according to the purification of the sanctuary -- the seven days complete, and a wholly new state and era beginning, which is really resurrection and divine.
Then he brings all kinds of sacrifices, save peace-offerings which are communion. The blood of the trespass is put upon his ear, hand and foot -- he is cleansed and consecrated to God in thought, act and walk, according to the value and worth of Christ's blood. He is here before the tabernacle of the Lord --
has to do with God in His sanctuary. The blood being thus on him, the oil is put on it -- the Holy Ghost is given in consequence and as a seal of perfect cleansing by the blood -- and he has to walk and think according to the power of the Spirit as according to the value of the blood. And then the oil is poured on his head -- the Holy Ghost is given, that it may lead, guide, give him liberty, communion, and all that He brings by His presence in the soul.
Then the sin-offering and the burnt-offering -- Christ bearing sin, and Christ offering Himself without spot by the eternal Spirit to God -- are offered to Jehovah, and the man is clean. Cured first he was after the sacrifice of the birds -- the charged bird gone away into the desert -- sins put away when washed clean, and so entered -- next, when washed in the camp, clean -- next when the offering was offered to God, clean for Him in the sanctuary.
We learn the difference between the efficacy of Christ's works, so that being regenerate by the Word we are clean, and the application of Christ's blood to all we are according to our place in the sanctuary, and its own infinitely perfect nature, so that we are dead to sin, not merely forgiven -- a state of heart and conscience, or, when the heart, as risen, goes with the conscience, according to Christ's death unto sin once and now living to God in that He liveth. Then we come before God according to the efficacy of Christ's offering before God, or rather its value to God, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again".
Forgiven, cleansed from what we were, we enter the camp; in it we are cleansed as dead to sin, and the Spirit life, and given to us also -- before the Lord according to the value to Him of Christ's offering, and so cleansed to be before Him and for ever, according to what His presence is, and Christ's worth -- accepted in the Beloved.
In the consecration of Aaron it is to be noted that there is in no place a carrying of blood within the veil; this is very notable. Yet there was a burning without the camp for Aaron, see Leviticus 8 and 9 -- this for the people was wrong; note this, for Christ did indeed and necessarily suffer Himself without the gate, even in respect of that which had no connection with going into the holy place -- as the Jewish people and others in the millennium -- but He bore the sins of Israel, not merely Himself in that way expiatorily, but as feeling them and
bearing them as burden in sympathy, in respect of governmental judgment of a received people. We have seen the same truth in connection with the sufferings of Christ -- His distress in connection with Israel as suffering under displeasure in the last day (or any one under law), besides suffering for love and righteousness, and suffering as expiation.
Leviticus 16 is thus quite apart on another ground from the consecration of Aaron which was properly Jewish. Chapter 8 gives this regularly in consecrating Aaron in connection with them, in which there was no entering in within the veil, though the bodies of the sin-offering were burned without the camp; and then, in the application, there is the same as to Aaron, but then Aaron should, as to application to Israel in respect of God's dealings, have eaten the goat of the sin-offering which indeed he had not done.
But I question whether chapter 16 did not put Israel in connection with the most holy place in blessing from thence through a priest who had entered in there, though the veil subsisted and none but Aaron went in; and this in connection with judgment for sin -- Nadab and Abihu, i.e., the failure of blessing on any other ground in any case. Hence, even on the inauguration day, Moses and Aaron go in and come out -- King and Priest -- and bless the people, and the glory appears, and then the fire consumes the sacrifice as from within, i.e., its acceptation by God as within, in respect of judgment, is publicly known to the people. This is, I apprehend, the position and doctrine of the Hebrews, only adding the heavenly calling, and abiding peace, and going within, i.e., the contrast of our present place, as we have already seen, but then reserving Israel's place in the last days.
It is evident that a priest, so minded, would have had profound joy in the thought that in virtue of Christ, the grace of God by a sacrifice of perfect reconciliation and expiation, the Israelite who had failed was placed in perfect acceptance with God. The eating of the sacrifice was thus in spirit the sense that one, beloved of God, was brought back morally and according to God's glory, to His favour through the perfect work of Christ.
This is the joy that belongs to our occupation about the fallen, though it be sorrow and humiliation, still, by Christ's coming in between, God is glorified and the heart comforted and lifted up in love. It is another thing to partake of the
offerings as the fruit of the land, and free-will offerings all heaved up, or even waved. This is the joy of the fruits of the Spirit of the heavenly country in others, a true and, in one sense, more unmingled joy but less deep. Besides this there was the feeding on Christ properly speaking for oneself, though in communion. This indeed had a double character -- priestly and common joy -- joy which flowed from and was enjoyed in communion (but which might become mere common natural joy in the things enjoyed, and so profane in what referred to God) this was the peace-offering and what was immediate enjoyment of and with Christ. The Lord give us to know the service of gift -- all this belongs to us in Christ.
The external course of events tells us nothing of what is really going on -- that is inside it all. If the external plannings of men or Satan further God's plans they succeed, if not, they come to nothing; but what is really going on is still inside them all. Thus they would not have taken Jesus on the feast day, not to have an uproar, but He was to be the Paschal Lamb and He is taken. The Jews would have often taken Him, but His hour was not yet come; when it was, they take Him -- their wicked plans succeed. When the heartless superstition of the Jews had the malefactors' legs broken, what was really doing in the one case was sending the man into Paradise.
To the outward eye what happened to Job were raids of Arabs and Chaldeans -- ordinary predatory raids, and a violent storm blew down the house; Satan was in it all, and behind him God arranging the purifying of Job's heart and our instruction in all ages.
The political plans of Augustus, as to the census of the Empire, brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus, and then it was not carried out for nine years, when Cyrenius was Governor.
All we have to do is to discern God's will, and have by faith the courage to do it. All His strength is power to carry us forward. It may seem all to turn out ill, or be a cross -- it may be so, but we shall have the result of God's counsels and blessing by the way. Man succeeded in crucifying Jesus because however wicked the act on their part, it was just carrying out God's plans. He knew His Father's will -- sought only to glorify His Name -- had faithful obedience to act upon it, though to man's eye it was the ruin of everything, every religious hope even, and so it was in man and in flesh, but the birthplace of all counsels in glory, of that new thing in man wherein He will be glorified for ever, that wherein He was glorified in all He is essentially. The outside was wicked men's success, the end too of pious men's hopes -- the inside what all blessing that ever was, or could be really and permanently, is entirely founded upon, and that wherein alone God is fully glorified. Christ learned and did His Father's will, Satan's power and man's wickedness were there, triumphed as nowhere else. It was the foundation of all true and eternal blessing.
How beyond all our wonder and praise is the Person of the blessed Lord! As an Apostle could say, and more because he knew it better, "Great is the mystery". But in one respect He was one with us all, great as His revelations were. No man knows the Son, yet He lets us see that He is that which no man knows. Who could say but there "God is known in death?" Is it not there love, God's love is known, never known really till known there? Yet it is weakness, and, as to His place as man, the very end of man. But in Himself God is known in love by His being down here with sinful men -- by that love reaching even to us. He made Himself of no reputation, emptied Himself -- not that He could be other than God -- there is the mystery -- but as to the form of God He did. Hence having taken the form of a servant, He is always such -- receives all. Even when He takes the kingdom, He goes a long journey to receive a kingdom, and, when by His perfection in power He has subdued all, He gives it up to God even the Father. He gives up His own spirit when the time comes, but recommends it to His Father -- raises up the temple of His body, but is raised by the glory of the Father -- grows in wisdom, speaks what He knows, but He is the wisdom of God; He can do nothing of Himself -- is obedient, but He is the power of God, and quickens too whom He will; created all things and upholds them by the word of His power. And this was His perfection, with the whole power of evil against Him, never to go out of the path of dependence and obedience -- never to use power by His will. Thus He bound the strong man as in the wilderness -- in death how much more even -- He could have had, even in dependence, more than twelve legions of angels, but it would not have been obedience fulfilling the Scriptures.
But what an emptying that was when He who was God could come into death, though suffering, though obeying, bring all that God was in His moral perfection into death, and then when it was needed, in man's extremity through sin, in man's weakness, in the place of Satan's power, there glorify it -- love, righteousness, majesty, truth, all found glorified there. God is glorified in Him, yet it was in death, and because it was death in all it meant for God; but it was all the power of love, i.e., God, in the emptying. I do not turn to John's writings here, already elsewhere spoken of, where the divine nature of the
Lord is so distinct,(see footnote) where He comes out as God -- not genealogic from takes the place of receiving everything. It is contemplation of the wondrous and unsearchable fact I seek, not Adam or Abraham or David -- and yet, as made flesh, always proofs which are everywhere where He is.
But I would weigh some facts in the Gospels as to the manifestation of God in Him. When the blessed Lord had to do with unbelievers whom He knew and had to treat as adversaries, though His being God comes out -- save His knowing all men, as yet not judging -- what God is does not come out at all; it is only when driven, by the wilful blindness and hostility of the human heart, to speak of things as they are, that forced and driven to the necessity of it, so to speak, the fact of His being God comes out, "Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him, but Jesus hid himself". There is no revelation of Himself in John 8. He does not come to judge, and the woman is not condemned -- she is to go and sin no more. He gives divine power to the law, or rather He is, by His word, divine power in the conscience -- no grace is in question, and they all go away one by one -- divine power in the Word awakes the conscience. He is the Light of the world, and he who follows Him does not walk in darkness. But here there are none such; it is simply the Light shining in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.
But Christ is divine -- He can bear witness of Himself, yet He says "as the Father has taught me", as ever, in John, receiving all. Nothing inconsistent with grace, but the simple absence of all contrary to it. He could not contradict Himself, but He is only Light in darkness. As Man He hardly appears here, for that is grace; other cases present themselves where grace is at work. We may first take the woman of Samaria -- but here away from Jerusalem, where with the Jews (not the people) He is always in judgment -- where the great change of leaving them and having to do with the world, and bringing men to have to do with the Father and with God spiritually, and that by life in the power of the Spirit, are brought out, and where Christ is the rejected Man and feels it, but is thereby thrown into the consciousness that He is the divine Giver of eternal life in the power of the Spirit. But here we have the Lord fully as a Man; the Jachin and Boaz of Christian truth
had been set up in chapter 3 -- Man or Jew was naught, must be born again, and the Son of Man must be lifted up. God had loved and had given. Christ was a rejected Christ -- He left Judea where the Pharisees were jealous and would none of Him. Christ must be a rejected Christ for us to have part with Him -- sad thing to say, but so it is -- if it die not it abides alone. No doubt He could always quicken whom He would, but without His death we could not righteously see God, and if a man received a new nature without His death, there would be no putting away of the old; we must be risen as well as quickened -- a new place as a new life -- and that is only by His death. But He was rejected, felt it, afterwards wept over the city, felt it deeply as none of us could feel -- we see Him comforted, as rejected by His own to whom He came, by fields white to harvest.
He was weary with His journey and sat alone in the world -- Oh, wondrous place! The world He had created, but more, into which He was come in love: and here only a weary Man feeling the rejection of His love, but, as to the place He had taken, dependent for a drink of water -- He who had made it -- upon this poor sin-wearied woman. But He had come where He could only come in grace; salvation was not of Samaria but of the Jews -- promises were theirs, but they had rejected all -- grace had its work outside, but then it was humiliation and on rejection he must needs pass through Samaria. He submits to human circumstance and conditions -- He acts in divine grace. Here therefore where grace, free grace works, we find Him fully Man -- a weary rejected Man, bound in spirit on a way He must needs take, and waiting on the kindness of another for a drink of water. Grace is in the humbled and obedient Man -- there it is that what God is shines out. It is not "before Abraham was, I am", but "if thou knewest the gift of God", i.e., grace, "and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink". It is not the supreme God forced, so to speak, to say He is so to heartless adversaries without conscience, but God revealed in what He was in a lowly Man, and by His being a lowly Man; and surely if grace is, that is grace.
What heart is in the words! What a need to win the confidence of a weary soul! Yet the simple expression of what His own heart was full of, of God as goodness and brought out, as to circumstances, by the pressure on that heart of the
rejection by His beloved people which he was suffering under! How wonderful to hear him saying just then "Salvation is of the Jews!" Perfect owning of God's counsels and ways! But in His rejection in them, grace flowing freely out -- the natural expression of what He was full of, but as that was love, love which seeks to bring a weary soul to confidence in God by bringing that love down to lay its wants at the feet of such an one, to win confidence in a love that could do it. "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith" -- there He was -- "give me to drink" -- come even there -- "thou wouldest have asked" -- He would have given, for He was the giver. What a scene! Such a lowly place! And to learn what God is in it! Yea, what he is by it!
There is no feeling like that of the perception of the Person of Christ, and His words and He are one -- He was what He said, always. Yet it is thoroughly in human nature I look at Him here, yea, that is the way and here I learn it. With adversaries He is simply God -- in grace He is a Man yet God, and only precious as a Man because He is, and, as a Man, dependent. Yet we have seen the Father in Him.
I do not go into the state of the woman, that is another part of the question of the chapter. But He is the object of adoration for eternity.
I turn then to the Syrophenician; here it is "He could not be hid". It was not the flowing out of a pressed heart to sorrow and need, but what God, so to speak, must be where faith is -- Himself -- He cannot not deny Himself. Still grace rises above all promise and curse, and God is revealed. It is not as in John 4 where the pressure on His heart of the rejection of His beloved people, and all it implied, had brought out what was in that heart; deeper still, the divine overflowings of goodness not meeting promise, but finding its comfort in going out in free grace to need where no promise, no title was -- rejected love making new channels for itself; God giving, and hence naturally where need, not where promise was, and giving eternal life and bringing to God in Spirit and in truth, for God, as He is was revealed, and so the Father seeking worshippers. This was John 4, and hence we find the opened heart of the Samaritans wider than promise, knowing more than appropriating pride, own Him as the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
But in the Syrophenician woman it was different; He
goes to the borders of His earthly mission, retires to be alone (Mark 7) and would not have it known. Here it is not His own rejection, He labours among the poor of the flock -- His mission according to prophecy, and as to Israel the designs of God -- He is servant of this mission, nothing more, as to the place He takes; He is not rejected by proud Jerusalem, but sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But He is in His mission, but in His divinely traced, not free path, He goes out of the sphere of active service to the borders of the curse without.
Meanwhile moral truths had come largely out; ceremonial observances contrasted in Israel with divine commandments, but, still further, the heart of man, called in question in contrast with all such mere ordinances, lost in importance, not merely in contrast with divine commandment, but in their nature as merely external; God looked at what came from the heart, not what went into the belly -- a simple truth, but which for man is hard to learn. God goes to the true nature of things in respect of man -- what comes out of the heart -- what he is; but what did come out of it? Murders, evil thoughts, all manner of evil, and the Lord had no more to say. Then He leaves this scene of labour, is alone personally -- as Man in position He would not have it known; but it was. Then we come to what was known; He goes, as I have said, to the borders of the curse -- the place which served Him as an example of hard-heartedness -- the people on whom God's curse rested as compared with Israel. What wondrous elements are all brought together here! But He sought to be alone, i.e., out of His sphere of labour; His mission, as a sent one, a servant, He insists on. But a want was there, a want which sought goodness in power, and God was there; the poor woman drawn by it, though purposely repelled to prove her faith (the disciples would have got rid of her -- neither owned promise, nor in fact exercised love as above all promise) draws out what is above all promise, what recognizes fully the right to possess where promise was, but appeals to goodness as, after all, reaching over it, fully recognizing man's complete misery and wretchedness without a title -- a vile dog, which there was saying everything that was unclean and vile, but appealed to a riches in goodness which could reach in mercy even to that. Could Christ say "No! God is not that"?
No! God was there manifested and faith had all it sought
-- it had found Him; there was no need of claim or goodness, but the confession of worthlessness and absence of all title -- a need whose resource was in the goodness of God. The Servant who held Himself to His mission, as service He had to do, was after all the God of all grace, and God revealed in Him, and while owning God's ways in Israel, standing alone in the presence of the curse and the absence of all claim, what faith owned, but therein found God and infinite goodness -- Israel's servant was God manifest in the flesh, was goodness, above all evil, above all curse, was God and God manifested. What God is is known in His being revealed in Man -- being a Man; for that was infinite love.
But there was more than the revelation of His Person and the exercise of His power; I turn to another case, Luke 8, the Pharisee and the Sinner. Here we have not the rejected state of man and free grace rising above it all, but actual degrading sin in contrast with human righteousness -- a legal condition as man stands in it, and what this blessed One was for sinners. Three hearts -- man as he stands in his own righteousness -- God's in Man -- and the poor and degraded sinner touched by grace and won, in a certain sense unconsciously (i.e., with no dogmatical knowledge) by what was manifested in the Lord, what He was in blessed love first, then forgiveness. The legal man thought to judge, by human competency, if the Lord, this Preacher going about the country, were really a prophet, but he judged according to human righteousness -- what man should be for God, but only in an outward way; his own heart, God's heart and light, and even this poor woman's heart unknown -- light and love, light and conscience, and love in the heart, i.e., God, alike wholly unknown. God was in his house, in light, as He showed, and love, and he never found it out -- despised Him -- had no civilities or courtesies for Him -- and judged from his own heart -- while He was not like it He could be no prophet. Here self-righteousness, divine grace and sin come together in fullest juxta-position and contrast, and divine light which makes all things manifest too, and that in the Person of the lowly Preacher, the Son of God. The Pharisee is wholly blind -- says he sees judges from his own heart, and sees neither the manifestation of God in Christ, nor the work of grace in the woman. Light and love are alike wholly foreign to him.
The Lord shews fully that He is the light that makes all manifest -- knows what is in the Pharisee's heart -- knows the woman's sins -- and what the Pharisee was thinking of Him and her. But more -- His grace, the grace that was in Him had attracted the heart of this poor sinful woman -- her need was great, her shame great, her sin deplorable, to no human eye could she turn that would not scorn her but One, and that was God; there her heart found confidence -- the more she was distressed and brought low, the more was her comfort in finding that heart; there, in that mercy, her shame could hide itself, for it was grace to her -- scorn was not there. But all this, through grace, had won her to hate and own her sin. It was the meeting point of sin and grace, confession of a convicted heart through confidence in goodness in Jesus -- sin seen and God seen, and because God was seen in love. Divine sight was there, not blindness, divine love had brought in divine light, so that God and sin in self were both known, and God trusted, and a guileless heart produced because grace was trusted. How deep a work to bring a soul to God, and have sin judged and God known! And then Christ was all -- she thought little of Simon and his guests save One, Jesus was there and that absorbed her, she was delivered from her shame even as to all the rest, but not her shame before God. Then a silent heart wept, and washed His feet with her tears. There was boldness in her confidence, yet lowliness and thanksgiving in the boldness, she kissed His feet too, and spent what she had of precious on Him. Then as He had occupied that heart with Himself in grace, He occupies Himself with that heart -- He has done with Simon and the rest -- to such a heart He must give peace. But first He takes her part in that which shows not only that He knew Simon's heart and all about it, but there was that of which Simon knew nothing -- besides blindness as to His Person -- forgiveness. God, happily for her, knew all her sins and had forgiven them -- wondrous revelation! The grace that revealed love and goodness, had brought forgiveness with it -- relief, full and perfect, from God -- when sin had confounded the soul before God, was seen as sin because God was seen and in grace, the grace could tell that it was all gone -- before God forgiven.
The Person of Christ had drawn -- she loved much. The grace of God in Christ had forgiven -- of that, of God, Pharisaism knows nothing. The Lord takes up the woman's case in
presence of the Pharisee's contempt, and shows what he was -- what she was -- what God was -- what He was in Himself. Then He occupies Himself with the woman alone, "Thy sins be forgiven thee"; their remarks do not arrest Him, "Thy faith hath saved thee -- go in peace". He had sounded the Pharisee's heart, sounded and brought to light hers -- revealed God's, and conferred forgiveness -- confession of sin and forgiveness of sin (and that is the cross for us) are the meeting place of the sinner in truth and God in love. Here again we have God revealed in a Man, but specially in respect of sin.
In the first case He does not come to judge, but He is simply with adversaries, and is simply in result "I am". In the woman of Samaria, He is rejected of the Jews and grace flows out giving life, going up to eternal life above, bringing to the Father -- God known as a Spirit -- and this by grace going out where promise gave no salvation and no claim to righteousness, but sin and need.
In the Syrophenician, where faith comes, grace rises where grace is gone above all barriers -- God is revealed to faith, and must be above them all, must be what He is in grace, cannot deny Himself, and faith pierces through all barriers, urged by need to appeal to what God is in Himself, in grace, and He cannot but be what He is, or be kept in by the barriers when that was reached, though He was there in One serving as sent where promise was; still God was there.
Luke 7 goes deeper and Light is there -- Pharisaism and sin brought fully to light; the utter and deplorable blindness of Pharisaism manifested what man in self-righteousness is -- no perception of God at all, nor of anything in Him. Then to the sinner a deep true perception of what He was as grace meeting need, and hence brought to God according to the power of His presence, and the grace of His nature, He being known, humbled fully before Him, but brought to Him according to what He was, the bond of the heart with Him formed, with Him known, and forgiveness, peace, and salvation received. It is deeper, because it goes into the full moral question of the state of man with God -- light in the heart and soul of man as he was.
The case of the palsied man in Matthew 9 is somewhat different. It is not God revealed in His nature of goodness, what He is in Christ for men; it is relative -- Jehovah of Psalm 103 manifested in Israel, His ways in Israel in grace,
but relative -- what He was, of course, but according to promise and prophecy.
I do not again enter into the full bringing out of the three hearts in Luke 7:36 -- to end, the Pharisee's, the sinner's looking to Christ, and, blessed be His grace and name, God's own heart already spoken of; light and love were there, neither the least known to Simon -- he was blind, thinking he saw. Christ, in whom it is revealed, is the subject of our adoration. I only notice now "Thy faith hath saved thee" -- how God owns, as that which He sees in the heart of the poor convicted believer, what He has wrought. Tears and repentance were there, true love to the Saviour, excellent fruits of faith, but faith by grace, gave her Christ; hence faith saved her -- God's work in the heart, by which Christ was seen and appreciated. Her heart was thus shown, what God indeed had wrought in it, but in it; but then it was what it was fixed it wholly on another, it was not objectively itself nor reflectively -- it knew Christ only. It produced lovely fruits, most lovely, which the Lord owns, but it saved because it saw Christ only. But what is lovely here, that Christ owns, attaches value to what was in her heart, wrought there surely, but was in it; its action on Him as its object gives us to see divine appreciation of the state of the heart thus having Him for its object. He does not say, "Grace has saved thee", though true, "My work, my blood-shedding has saved thee" -- that would have been speaking of something in God, of His own work; but He speaks to her of divine value for something in the heart of the poor woman. This is unspeakable goodness, divine tenderness and favour. If it be a wonderful picture in presence of Pharisaism, we have to leave the Pharisaism to itself, as the Lord did, and see the Lord owning what was of God in the heart that turned to Him. The poor, desolate, and lonely woman could go away and say, "I have His approbation on what is in my soul" -- the comfort of His approbation, yet thinking of Him still, not of herself, for thinking of approbation, a father's approbation, is not thinking of what is approved, or of self. Faith had saved her, and she could go in peace -- she had it from Christ -- and her faith in His Person gave divine weight and grace to His words.
The fullest moral teaching of the Old Testament has a peculiar character natural to the character of the then relationship to God, but in that goes most pure and deep, indeed I think has it more fully and deeply than the New -- it is that of responsibility, but going to entire integrity and purity of heart. In the New Testament we get far more grace and fruits of love, no doubt the other is supposed or laid as a subjective ground, and out of which divine fruit is to grow, as Christ who was in nature and person holy -- was the winning display of love and grace among men; the Holy One came down, He was holy, He lived in grace (of course not ceasing to be holy, I need not say) so holy that He could be in love without stint in the midst of all, and thus go down to the vilest. But the Old Testament looking from Adam upward was to enquire how man could draw near, not the display of God to man in man; I think in the Sermon on the Mount, with the exception of merciful which God showed Himself -- and the opposite is hard selfishness and cruelty -- it will be found that Old Testament principles in this are pursued to their full inward power, only, I think, with more calmness as became Christ, not so much in requirement and exercise of heart, as in the Psalms, as a model and perfect expression of what it is in its blessedness. The government of God with the Christian applies itself fully to this subjective state, and it is (as it was perfectly so in Christ) that subjective condition in which, as in unhindered communion with God, the other flows forth from Him whom I know in love; see, for example, Colossians 3:12 - 14. This is the natural consequence of the distinction of position -- the Old Testament was the new life of a sinner with whom the question was "How shall I come to God?"; the Christian is come to God, and is of God then in the world.
Of Cyprian's treatise on unity I have not much to say. It is all declamation, and that is all. Whether Novatian was wrong is a question on which historical facts must be known and judged by Scripture. But Cyprian tells us nothing. There is a good lot of false doctrine as far as it goes, and the visible Church is all episcopal unity -- the ark and no safety out of it; that is all, so he says. But there is nothing grave and serious in it; he had his idea, and quotes Scripture and Old Testament as the fathers do.
Genesis 2:2, 3. -- First mentioned.
Exodus 16:5, 22, 30. -- Given as a gift in grace to the people while under grace before the law.
Exodus 20:8. -- Given as a commandment among the ten; this however associated with the rest of creation, as the whole system was.
Exodus 31:12, 17. -- Given at the close of the order of the setting up of the sanctuary, as a sign of the covenant established by priesthood, in the mercy-seat a perpetual covenant.
Exodus 34:21. -- Given as part of the covenant founded on supremacy and intercession after breach of the law -- covenant in connection with their portion in the land by that covenant.
Exodus 35:2. -- So imposed in connection with the setting up of the Tabernacle thereon.
Leviticus 19:3, 30. -- The comeliness of their association one with another and with God in the land -- all that became them as a nation liable to sin, but consecrated to God there.
Leviticus 23:3. -- Prescribed as the characteristic beginning and sum of all the feasts in which they were called to appear before the Lord in pledge of rest.
Leviticus 24:8. -- The shew bread was to be ordered from sabbath to sabbath.
Numbers 15:32. -- Expressed as an obligation during their journey which this book traces the principle of in the wilderness.
Deuteronomy 5:12. -- Ordained in connection with Creation rest, but as a memorial given as a remembrance of the grace of deliverance from Egypt, and thus of rest afforded to servants.
Nehemiah 9:14. -- Remembered as made known to Israel as their special privilege.
Isaiah 58:13. -- Prophecy looks at it as understood as a privilege in grace -- my sabbath.
Ezekiel 20:12. -- Given as a sign between God and them -- His sabbaths.
-- 25. The door of the tabernacle of the congregation, i.e., the entrance of the court to get at the tabernacle. The altar is elsewhere said to be at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, there only, the people came. The laver was only priestly washing.
-- 42, 43. Those only, I apprehend, who were as such in their fathers' houses unmarried.
-- 46. As regards the change of number in Levites and first-born -- Israel was numbered the first day of the second month, the people started on the twentieth, and as far as appears, the numbering of the Levites was the very next thing to the numbering of Israel, and of course that numbering was taken. Certainly many things passed between the numbering of Israel and the twentieth day when the camp moved.
-- 3. Host, tzava, as in verses 23, 30, etc.; see Exodus 38:8, and 1 Samuel 2:22, tza-va (to assemble by troops); but in Numbers 8:25, it should be "service" as in verse 23 of this chapter.
-- 14, for "censers" read "shovels" or "pans", it is from kha-thah (to remove), as ya-im (shovels) from ya-ga to take away. Which was shovel and which was pan I cannot say, but I apprehend the first were shovels, and the second pans, from the analogy of the word.
NOTE. -- The laver is not found in the vessels carried in the desert, and covered with different cloths, and the reason is, I think, evident, and confirms the sense I judge to be that of these ordinances. The laver, though a means of approach, was no manifestation of the divine character which produced a corresponding result in the believer; it was merely a means of the purification of man needed in his drawing nigh to God.
I take it this chapter applies properly to Israel. The remnant even, though not wilfully, is under the sin of the
dead, and must own this to begin again; his first separation is all lost. This has been done by faith in those that owned, as in Acts 2, their guilt in it -- they are separate, but the time of separation is not closed, nor the time to drink wine begun. The remnant at the end will enter into this in a peculiar manner, and through deep affliction, because of their long infidelity; still they will have learned their entire dependence on the Lord, and, in the way of repentance, the death of Christ, after long remaining unclean. They will be anew separated to God; when all that is closed, they will have their proper liberty, strength and joy in communion and power. Hence, with this is connected the blessing through the High Priest and His sons at the close of the chapter -- Christ, Head of his own family is introduced in that character, as bringing the blessing of Jehovah on Israel, "They shall put".
The hair is sign of neglect of self for the Lord, and dependence on Him -- power on the head, hence a sign of subjection in him that wears it, but subjection in devoted abstraction from self. Christ will drink the wine with them; it will not then be dependence by faith, the energy of faith in an absent Lord, restraint on self, though power through grace may accompany this strength made perfect in weakness.
-- 27. This closes a division of the book. The people and camp are numbered and formed, their purity, and that even in consecration to the Lord, secured.
Up to the end of this chapter is evidently the establishment of Israel as the people consecrated to God for the journey, and the type of the Levites as having service, but service dependent on the priesthood.
This chapter presents the case of consecration, not of will, in an individual case hindering the bond of union with the congregation where God was; withal the presence of God for direction in the journey, to stop, to go on, or to abide.
-- 11 and 12. On the twentieth day of the second month they leave Sinai and rest in Paran.
-- 13. From this verse to chapter 12: 16 is in the journey; it is all we have of detail in journey, for there, in Kadesh in Paran, they refuse to go up to possess. They are ordered to turn to the wilderness by the Red Sea, and then go up presumptuously and are discomfited. All that is said of the journey is in Deuteronomy 2:1, "we compassed Mount Seir many days". There were thirty-eight years from Kadesh to the brook Zered; Deuteronomy 2:14. They had been a good while in Kadesh before the Amorites discomfited them; the spies were forty days absent after; after the twentieth day of the second month they had gone to Kibroth Hattaavah Hazeroth, from thence they came to Paran; on the return of the spies they were at Kadesh. Chapters 11 and 12 are in connection with this chapter in the journey; in chapter 13 comes the realisation of promise in hope, and chapter 14 closes completely this portion of the book of Numbers.
The chapter before us is the order of march, different already from what had been instituted, and with more grace also; as chapters 11 and 12 are the failure in the journey, weariness, complaint, discontent and lusting, and then the prophet and priest rising up against the royalty of Him who is face to face with God, Aaron alone as priest making intercession. Thus the Church is in this guilt in refusing the supremacy of Christ as King taking sovereignly in grace whom He will. This is especially against Christ in grace, for this principle is also presented, that Moses, type of Christ in sovereignty and proximity to God, was also type of sovereign grace -- he had married an Ethiopian woman. Here the Lord is, where He was with Moses in grace when Israel fell, without the camp, but then He is with Aaron and Miriam in judgment, who claim grace to exalt themselves. Miriam, who is in the position of testimony, for such is the place as prophetess, is covered with sin.
-- 36. Here we have another division of the book; the freewill offerings, and charge of the Lord, and the journeying -- the two parts of the wilderness life. But the ark went sovereignly forth.
Note, the spirit of Moses had got away from God, not only he says, "How can I bear this people", but when the Lord says "You have despised the Lord among you", Moses says immediately "The people among whom I am". All return to the world in heart is really slighting the redemption which has delivered us out of it; but what is really important is this, that Moses as well as the people shows this want of confidence -- the thought of want of power in God. God shows that there was not merely in Himself, but in the midst of them, the power in abundance which they had not faith on the one hand to trust, on the other to exercise, for, in order to governing and leading up the people, the Lord takes of the spirit which was on Moses and puts it on seventy elders, who should effect with him this task, and to draw the attention of the whole camp, for Joshua knew of it by the display of power in the midst of it. Such is unbelief!
How deep the instruction in this chapter! "The Lord heard" -- if we knew always how to leave it to Him! "The man Moses was meek" (poor in spirit) "above all the men on the face of the earth" -- he left it all there -- "The Lord heard". It is all beautiful.
-- 10. The Lord, so to speak, spat in her face -- how terrible! Yet there was much grace mixed with it all.
-- 11. Miriam comes first in speaking against Moses (verse 1) -- Aaron is the first to confess, and owns his own fault with her in it. It is the same word in Deuteronomy 8:2, "he humbled them and proved them, to know what was in their hearts".
This chapter is the revolt of the people despising the pleasant land, the fear of the difficulties setting aside faith, and in consequence producing a disparaging report of the land itself -- they were gathered together against the Lord.
Besides the general instruction, I have this to remark that
Caleb just brings in what the rest all leave out -- the Lord; and then, note, the effect is the heavenly good and joyful blessing is full before his mind -- it is a good land, and the difficulties which absorbed the others disappear. "They are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, the Lord is with us: fear them not". Blessings and heavenly joys cannot sustain faith when the Lord is not looked to. The grapes of Eshcol were forgotten, as though they were not, for the others, and if faith be not in exercise, how should heavenly things be seen?
Note too in Exodus 3, we have full grace -- here government. There Abraham, Isaac, Israel; hence "My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest", and as we have often noted, the ground of consuming, grace and power comes in, the ground of looking for God to be with us, for He does not impute, but is with us against the sin. Here it is the principles of government there announced, not original absolute grace; hence there is government, judging, chastening. The rest, as far as I am aware, I have noticed elsewhere. But what perverseness, that while they forget the Lord entirely as to the path and difficulties of faith, they remember how to charge Him with bringing them into their present condition when they are discontented with it.
-- 32. Shall pasture -- be nomads.
-- 34. Not "my breach of promise", but my turning against them, my hostility -- t'nuati (my hostility, my alteration) only found here and in Job 33:10, "He findeth occasions against me". They would learn what it was to have God thus dealing in anger with them. It is to be in a position which brings anger and judgment from God; "My turning away and being hostile to them" is "You shall experience what it is to have Me against you".
-- 44, presumed, i.e., proudly of their own will, see Deuteronomy 1:41.
Here we have grace which after all secures the land and joy and communion therein, the stranger being also admitted to this; error supposed when in enjoyment of the promises and atonement; presumptuous sin condemned; the memorial of the fringe of blue, the marks of heavenly-mindedness in
communion, which recalls the commandment and gives force in the conscience to the first deliverance. Blue was next the gold always in the tabernacle.
Note how after the various forms of rebelliousness or unbelief, complaining, lusting, self-righteous exaltation of prophetess and priest against the king (who held immediate intercourse with the Lord) and despising the promise, the absolute certainty of the promise in grace, comes in before the apostasy of Kore, in which the perishing comes. After this, it is brought out that priestly grace alone -- Aaron's rod before and laid up by the tabernacle of witness from which the righteous judgment had come forth on Kore -- could take away the murmuring and lead them through the wilderness. The special place and privilege too of priesthood then comes out most instructively, and here alone, chapter 18: 10, is eating in the most holy place spoken of, which must be communicatively from office; I cannot think it is among the most holy things.
The order of these chapters is very interesting.
-- 15. Hak-ka-hal (as for the congregation). Does this make the sojourner a part of the congregation?
-- 23. From the day that the Lord commanded (began to command) and onward to your generations.
Here we have Levites, ministers of service, who will be priests between God and the people, and the famous men who rebel against the authority of Moses. The direct judgment consumes these, and the fire of the sanctuary they would approach consumes them. Korah acted on all the congregation, but Moses in judgment, and Aaron in intercession afterwards, when their hearts rise against the judgment or Moses as cause of it, preserve the people. The supremacy of Christ as Priest is established as being near to God, but thereon the priests, and He especially in the day of atonement, but the priests every day being thus brought nigh, have to bear the iniquity of the sanctuary. This is an important principle, it is not sin against the commandment of the law, but the iniquity of the sanctuary; but the communion of the sanctuary, chapter 18: 10, is theirs, and everything that the Lord takes as His, but this as priests.
Remark how for the history of Korah is a point by itself, the coming into the land being fully assured in grace, at the end of the failures in faith of Israel, in the previous chapter. Korah, etc., is positive rebellion against the authority of God in the royalty and priesthood.
Note the contrast between Aaron's formal self-exaltation along with Miriam against grace, sovereign grace, and God's exaltation of the priestly position as alone holding the burden and enjoying the communion and God's food of the sanctuary -- all was polluted to all unless cleansed by this consecration; chapter 18: 32. Thus the world, alas! through the Church firstfruits.
Note prophecy and priesthood never reach the place of sovereign grace even in the Church. The Church's own place is in Moses marrying the Ethiopian, and face to face with God, because it enters into the mind of God where Christ is.
Note the difference of priestly and family communion, all depending on Aaron in verses 9, 10 and 11 - 13.
Note too, that the first three verses of Leviticus 2 are the ordinary meat-offering, from verse 4 the baked meat-offering -- the latter dry, or mingled with oil, was for all the males of the family -- the baked ones entirely the priest's that offered it; one was isolated offering in Christ alone, the other was general Church communion.
Note, in passing, the wave-breast was for Aaron and his sons; the heave-shoulder for the offering priest. This, however, would seem to be only in the case of the peace-offerings; the trespass-offerings and sin-offerings were for the males only, the heave- and wave-offerings for all the family, see also Leviticus 10:14. However, in heave-offerings there seem to be more decided consecration, not for service as presented merely but entirely given up; the Levites were a wave-offering. The heave-offering was an offering of gift, save the heave-shoulder; the heave-offering of dough, Numbers 15:19 - 21. Leviticus 7:14, I apprehend, must be one of the unleavened cakes.
The wave-offering seems rather presented to the Lord, and
then to subsist for whatever service or use; the heave-offering to have been more offered to the Lord. It is a common word for everything offered to God and given up, so to speak, to Him.
We have here the provision for defilement by sin, the principle of death in the desert, by death accomplished -- long since applied by the power of the Holy Ghost.
This chapter is the restoration of worship. And so it is as to the Spirit, it is not forgiveness as acceptance, but a needed process in which the soul, and defilement on it, is brought sensibly connected with Christ's death by the power of the Spirit to be able first to worship, and then to serve.
It is well to take first the offering in itself in connection with Jehovah and then its application.
In the case of the red heifer the Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron; several are so. Moses receives what is necessary for God as such -- the law between Him and man. When Aaron comes in, i.e., is addressed by God as in already, of course it refers to God, but it is priestly service, where we have to say to God. The red heifer was both. Intercourse with God refers to His holy nature (1 John 1) -- compare Joshua 5:15, and the bush -- as much as reconciliation, but still this is supposed in it. Here the blood was where the people met God, the efficacy of the great day of atonement is supposed, the individual is restored. Where he meets God, the perfect and abiding efficacy of the blood always is. It is purely a sin-offering all burnt without the camp. There was no imputation, the ashes proved that all that was settled long ago, but the man could not come to the tabernacle, though the blood was there. His communion and worship were interrupted; the sense of the sin, according to the death of Christ, was brought upon Him by the Spirit and Word. Hence the address was to Moses and Aaron; it was necessary according to what God was, but it was also restoration to one who was defiled, the atonement being a settled thing. It was not a simply priestly service. Then it would have been "the priest shall take", etc. Moses and Aaron give the heifer to Eleazar, he represented Aaron, but Aaron received the command, to give it its true
and full character. The sprinkling with the water was by any clean person, not a priestly act, but none but a priest could take the blood. It refers to the wilderness, our path here, hence does not go within the veil, though, as burnt outside the camp, having all the efficacy of that which did, based itself on it, only applied to the journeying state, to man with God, not abstractedly to God in His nature. It is the High Priest, but as such, in atonement, he must for the full character of it go within the veil, but that is not the point here. It is a high priestly service, but refers to the administrative restoration in our walk here. Hence we have Eleazar to represent Aaron, but Aaron receives the command; it is not, or only as restoring relation with it as far as the people could go, sanctuary work. That was Aaron's part, separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens. It is high-priestly, but not the High Priest's proper place. That meets the eye of God, and represents the people and is perfect once for all. The command to Moses and Aaron meets this, but the work itself, while based on a perfect sin-offering is journeying restoration, based on what is perfect, but applied administratively to restore the man's cleanness, in order to come.
We have to consider here the analogy of our walk down here under the government of God, and Israel's place. Peter's epistle connects these two. Query, does Israel, in the millennium even, go further? I suppose not. His place then does rest on Christ having carried the blood within, but his relationship is at the door; they had in the fullest way touched death in crucifying Christ, even if it were atoned for.
The red heifer gives us a wonderful picture of God's estimate of sin in respect not of judgment but of holiness and any defilement. Its starting point and basis is the blood sprinkled seven times where the people met God, but showed that that had been wholly settled. Further the great day of atonement is supposed; there the blood was within the veil, so that God had been perfectly glorified as to sin, and the sins also put away. All that was a settled point, and for the approach of the people the basis laid in the seven times sprinkled blood; the question of personal state and defilement hindering communion remained, and to this the ashes of the red heifer applied. What I here note is, how in this respect, defilement and communion, the least defilement is intolerable to God. Every one that touched was unclean, the priest, the man that gathered
the ashes, that sprinkled the water, all that was exposed in the house, the man that touched. Then I have the measure of uncleanness, the death of Christ, the Spirit and the Word, for the water is the Word in the power of the Spirit; the ashes were there, proof that sin as such before God, imputable guilt, was all consumed in the death of Christ, but it was measured by that in the heart. It was God's measurement, the true one of it, the Word discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart, as the eye of God -- whatever is not of the life of Christ in us grieves the Holy Spirit.
We know, by the ashes, that the sin was all consumed and put away, and that enables us to estimate it as a question of holiness and our state. Thus the death of Christ, sin against His holy grace, the Spirit and the Word, are the measure of sin to the heart, but as we learn first its evil, we learn grace is above the evil and communion is restored -- we judge ourselves, not having to be judged for it, and then return into deeper sense of the sunshine of God's favour.
But there is more; the glory of the world, all nature was cast into the burning of the heifer, and, when the water is applied to our souls, all this is gone and we are simply with the sole state of the soul in question with God. There is a natural life in which we live from day to day, even where rightly; here the soul is alone, such as it is, with God, according to what He is -- revealed in the Cross, by the Spirit and the Word -- and nothing else there. This makes it an absolute searching out, at least as to all that is then in question, as to its then state. We are manifested to God, and there is nothing to veil it, or interrupt the direct revelation of God to the soul, alone itself with God, naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. It is wonderful how there we are in the inner world, and not in the vain show of the fashion of this world which passes away.
Note, the Levites were not washed but only sprinkled. The only other case of the use of the word is the red heifer and Ezekiel from niddah (separation) chapter 36. Perhaps it is because it is only service as offered in life, and not dying and renewal or new nature and life in order to be oneself with God, and that before Himself in heavenly places. The priests were washed.
Moses acted not on the grace, but with "his rod" and "we", and was shut out, which note well, blessed as he was. May our souls be subject to His Word, His blessed Word!
-- 14. This is not the same as Deuteronomy 2:3. This was a proposal to cross Edom at once, but Edom would not consent, and they wander there a long time; at last God says, "Ye have compassed this mountain long enough".
-- 1. The "when" is wrong here; he heard sometime or other, and when they came into his neighbourhood, he attacked them; see chapter 33: 40.
-- 13 - 15. Verses 14, 15 alone present any question. I see no reason why they could not have been written at the time, but my impression is that these two were added when the book was edited. This it surely was, traditionally by Ezra. It may have been by Samuel, or even Jeremiah when found in the days of Josiah, but by divine prophetic care owned by Christ Himself.
These references to Jasher and the book of the wars of the Lord, or legendary songs occur several times. They are appeals to common history as recognising an unexampled wonder, or some alleged right for which their own testimony or faith would not avail -- thus Jephthah. It seems to me quite uncertain whether "Is not this written in the book of Jasher" (Joshua 10:13) is by the author of the book of Joshua. It may be prophetically inserted as a witness to the truth of the account, as a phenomenon patent to all. It may have been a series of received history, a compilation so called, containing a notable number of passages in their history, compiled and added to at various times, just as I avow I do not know the date of the phrase in the book of Joshua. It is added as confirmation, and no change of what was originally written. It is even a question with me if the previous part of the verse be from Joshua. 2 Samuel 1:18, clearly comes in parenthetically, whatever its source.
In Balaam's prophecies, the first three are the actual state, the fourth is the future.
The ark taken, and the priestly relationship broken, the royalty substituted fails also. Nehemiah does not attempt the crowning of Zerubbabel, there is no re-establishment of the fallen system, the Gentile slavery is acknowledged. What rested on man's responsibility was gone irreparably; but this did not touch what God had substituted in His own sovereignty to maintain communication with His people according to His own fidelity when they were unfaithful. In Samuel ordinance is there, and Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi are there as prophets, and though that closed the canon up to John the baptist, yet we have, even at the end, Anna a prophetess who speaks to all who waited for redemption in Israel. Nor did the unfaithfulness of Israel touch the looking of faith to the resources which were in God, nor to the supply of that which was needful for the present exigencies of His people. This gives a clear idea of the position.
The great principle of the Balaamic history is that God was the unsolicited Guardian and Blesser of His people. The machinations of enemies go on, and that unknown to Israel, who consequently seeks nothing from God, but He is active for His people from His own grace to them, and nothing escapes Him. "Who are these men that come to thee?" says God to Balaam. God began as He did with Satan in Job's case, "Hast thou considered my servant Job?" On the other hand, Balak is in entire and all-perverting darkness. First Israel was forbidden to touch Moab, next he says, "He whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed", and he was seeking to bring the curse on Israel when God had said, "Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee", so that he was just bringing it on himself.
This interest that God takes in His people, for Israel knew nothing that was going on, is of the profoundest interest; it was between God and the adversary, see Zechariah 3, not between God and Israel -- then He judges evil.
-- 23. Note here it is said concerning Jacob and Israel, "What hath God wrought?"
-- 25. Hatred and unbelief think of circumstances, and
Balak, having been frightened by the sight of Israel, seeks in the folly of unbelief to withdraw Balaam from the influence of what he dreaded himself, for unbelief never thinks of the thoughts of the Lord, from whom surely the people was not hidden. His perseverance in seeking the curse enlarged the blessing; it is always thus. He does not know God, and God could not merely repeat the blessing already given, thus it is continually developed.
Note, after his justification Israel rises up as a lion, and does not lie down until after having seized the prey. When seen in his beauty, having pillaged the nations, he lies down and who shall stir him up? And note verse 16 (chapter 24) when prophecy is brought out he has the knowledge of the Most High, which is not of in verse 4.
It is interesting to see the terms that Balaam uses; "Jehovah" and "Elohim", and only in the two last prophecies when he did not seek enchantments. In the two first he uses only "Jehovah" and "Elohim"; and mark how in verse 3 "Jehovah will come to meet me", and "Elohim met Balaam", and "Jehovah put a word in Balaam's mouth". "How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed, and how shall I defy whom Jehovah hath not defied?" Verse 16, "And Jehovah met Balaam". ... "Balak said, what hath Jehovah spoken". ... "Elohim is not a man". ... "Jehovah his Elohim is with him". ... "Elohim brought him out of Egypt". ... "What hath Elohim wrought". ... "All that Jehovah speaketh that must I do". All this is clearly Jehovistic, though Elohim is used, because Jehovah is Elohim. So in the next chapter, "And when Balaam saw that it pleased Jehovah to bless Israel", we are here clearly on Jehovistic ground -- "then the Spirit of Elohim came upon him, and he heard the words of Elohim, and saw the vision of Shaddai" ... "they are like the lign aloes which Jehovah has planted" -- he could not go beyond the commandment of Jehovah. Again in verse 16 we have "heard the words of God, knew the knowledge of the Most High, saw the vision of Shaddai". In this last prophecy which is a continuation without his going to meet again or Jehovah's meeting him, but which is introduced by the commandment of Jehovah, it is the distinct assertion that Jehovah, the Elohim of Israel, took the place of -- was Shaddai the Almighty, yea Elion, who would order the whole world as He pleased, and of this Balaam warns Balak; compare Psalm 91, "He that
dwelleth in the secret of Elion (Most High) shall abide under the shadow of Shaddai". "I", says Messiah, "will say of Jehovah, He is my refuge, my fortress, my Elohim, in him will I trust", i.e., He takes Jehovah, the God of the Jews, for protection, for the shadow of His wings. Hence He is protected by Almighty power -- Shaddai. Hence Israel says, "because thou hast made Jehovah even the Most High" (for He is so, above all Elohim) "my refuge, thy habitation", He would be protected, and then in verse 14 Jehovah owns His knowing His name. Now Balaam shows this prophetically -- Jehovah, whose name is all through in question, is Shaddai, is the Most High; Elohim, God Himself wrought for Israel, and there was no enchantment against Him, Jehovah met Balaam and declared Himself Shaddai and Elion in favour of Israel, taking the last name when He was setting the world aright in judgment, as He does in the mouth of Melchizedek, adding, "Possessor of heaven and earth".
All this makes clear what I have noticed a hundred times for edification before any controversy, "Jehovah" is the name of relationship taken with Israel, as "Shaddai" with the Patriarchs. No man could have given a name used just as frequently as "Elohim", as unknown in point of fact. But God revealed Himself specifically to the Fathers as "El Shaddai;" and they were to walk in the faith of that name, as Jehovah to Moses and Israel, and they were to walk in the faith of that; to us as Father, and so we are to walk. "I am El Shaddai, walk before me and be thou perfect", "Thou shalt be perfect with Jehovah thy God", "Be ye therefore perfect as your Father who is in heaven is perfect". "So ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" -- Jehovah Shaddai.
-- 3. Terrible thing to have the eyes open when we have no part in what we see. But it is a wonderful scene to see this man forced of God to give unwillingly God's testimony in favour of His people, rebellious and perverse as they were. God insisting on His own mind, a true prophet is in the midst of and reproves the people, a false one is forced by, taken by God above them all, and has God's sovereign mind of grace and purpose above them all; he is not fit to reprove them --
is a holy work. But the scene is wonderful -- God's mind all blessing. Compare Deuteronomy 9 for testimony in the camp; and note here it was after all their history.
-- 16. The second point(see footnote) is added, and points to the latter days and millennium, when the Most High is the name God takes. But further, the first two prophecies are the present relationship and mind of God towards Israel; Jehovah is there in the power of God, a Deliverer who has taken the people to Himself. That was God's present testimony. But in the third we get by the Spirit, Abraham's God (verse 4 and 9) and so far that closes it -- Jehovah their God is God; but the blessing of the Almighty is there. Then in the fourth the millennium and Christ. In one sense the third closes as to Israel and Elohim Jehovah Shaddai's blessing; in the fourth Elohim the Most High takes up the world, the latter days, and "thy people", and Asshur and the ships of Chittim.
-- 17. I should think, certainly from Jeremiah 48:45, that Gesenius is right in his interpretation of kol-b'ney sheth (all the children of Sheth) children of noise, i.e., tumultuous war.
-- 59. For the omission of subject to "bare", see 1 Kings 1:6 and 1 Chronicles 7:14, whatever the difficulty connected with it; compare Exodus 6:16 - 20. This verse (59) is the greatest difficulty of all as to the counting 430 years of captivity. I do not see that the 430 years of Galatians 3 is so much so, because it must, if strictly taken, refer to Israel's offering, for the covenant was kekuromenen (confirmed), i.e., some forty years after the arrival in Canaan; and the term here "begat to him in Egypt" implies, it would seem, it was one (i.e., Levi himself) who had come down, so that it might have been otherwise. Jacob was one hundred and thirty on coming into Egypt; Genesis 47:9. Joseph was thirty when he stood before Pharaoh. Jacob came down nine years (seven of plenty, two of famine) afterwards. Joseph was about seven when he arrived in Canaan, seventeen when he was sold. Thus Jacob was 10 + 13 + 9 years from his arrival from Padan to his going down to Egypt, i.e., thirty years, i.e., ninety-eight when he left Padan, and about seventy-eight when he went there;
he had remained some thirty-eight after Esau's marriage. It is remarkable these late marriages of the first Patriarchs -- Isaac was forty and had no child till he was sixty, Abraham none of promise till he was an hundred. Now Judah was about fifteen when he married and had children then. The moment of transition was the end of Jacob's life; he goes down, sixty-six souls of his family. They were to be as heavenly strangers till then, now to multiply for the earth; they could hardly have been had they so multiplied, they must have settled somewhere as Esau. Yet while at ease and princes, they were yet but a few of them and they strangers in the land, and when oppressed and ill-treated they multiplied and grew. In these were God's ways.
-- 2. Query as to this, "for my sacrifices made by fire", and compare Leviticus 3.
-- 11. It is no doubt here l'ishshay (for my offerings by fire); but "and" is put in. "Bread" here is "food", there lekhem (food, bread); it may not exclude the min'khah (meal-offering), but the main object is the slain victim. See also Leviticus 21:6.
-- 19. Both "yonder side" and "this side", are meever (beyond, from beyond).
As regards this chapter and Deuteronomy 10, the supposed difficulty is the proof, whatever we judge of the position of Deuteronomy 10, that the writer wrote from a knowledge of facts which hindered his supposing any liability to have his account attacked by difficulties which arose from ignorance -- the best proof of real competency and integrity. First I remark that, after two years, arriving at the mount of the Amorites, they failed in going up and compassed mount Seir many days, thirty-seven years; they went backwards and forwards in this neighbourhood. Now we have three journeys backward and forward from Moseroth or Mosera to the Red Sea -- Ezion-gaber point, when at length they turned round to go
northward by the south of Seir -- and from the Red Sea to Mosera.
-- 31, etc., they go from Moseroth by Bene-jaakan, Horhagidgad to Ezion-gaber. Thence they go to mount Hor, and Aaron dies. It was in that country that Arad attacked them; his destruction is related between Aaron's death in mount Hor and their journey back again to the Red Sea. So that we have the journey from Moseroth to Ezion-gaber by Benejaakan and Gudgodah or Hor-hagidgad, from Ezion-gaber back to Hor, and, in chapter 21, back from Hor to Ezion-gaber before they turned round to go northward the other side of Edom to Moab.
Mount Hor is a district in the western edge of Edom, for the Israelites "pitched in mount Hor in the edge of Edom" before they turned Edom to go northward; but we have, in compassing Edom, a journey from Mosera to Ezion-gaber, from Ezion-gaber to Hor (the same side of mount Hor -- more or less on the same identical route) and from Hor to Ezion-gaber. Now the first time they pass from Mosera by Benejaakan and Hor-hagidgad, i.e., a part of Hor designated by Gilgal. They returned on their steps to Hor by Kadesh. In Deuteronomy we find them going in the inverse direction, as might be expected on their return going from Bene-jaakan to Moseroth, which thus proves the general course of their journeys must have been towards Hor, for on the return journey we know they were going there at the time Aaron died, so that Moseroth is an encampment in the district and neighbourhood of Hor; from the encampment he went up into the mountain itself to die.
Then in Deuteronomy 10:7, they return, as we have seen they certainly did, by Gudgodah and Jotbatha, which, according to verses 32, 33 of our chapter, is on the road from Mosera to Ezion-gaber, thus: -- (see Map below).
The left line through the dots, verses 30 - 35; the middle line as in verses 36, 37, and Deuteronomy 10. Aaron dies in Mosera in mount Hor where Israel pitched, and would have passed on through Edom but could not; then comes the right hand line. They come back to the Red Sea (chapter 21), pass up the other side of Edom, and cross the Jordan beyond the Dead Sea; now chapter 21 connects itself with chapter 33, compare chapter 21: 10 and chapter 33: 43.
So that it is a great confirmation of the accuracy of the
account, and only shows that Mosera is in the district of Hor, and that it was from this station Aaron went up to die. We have the three journeys positively stated, yet no one would have thought in reading, the two verses alone gave the two journeys, and that they returned on their steps, i.e., from Bene-jaakan to Moseroth, and then back by Gudgodah to Jotbatha. Yet the full accounts of Numbers prove they did, and the places in Deuteronomy are found exactly in the order of going and returning. We have positively in Numbers Mosera to Ezion-gaber, Ezion-gaber to Hor (chapter 33), Hor to the Red Sea, i.e. Ezion-gaber, and this by the stations which in Deuteronomy are mentioned, one in the order going to Mosera, and the two others on leaving Mosera in the order coming from towards Ezion-gaber, which we know to have been from Hor where Aaron died.
-- 4, 5. Two solutions have occurred to me, each side being 2,000 cubits; but that allows nothing for the size of the city thus:-
The other, which I suppose must be the meaning, is verse 4, the pomoerium,(see footnote) and verse 5 the fields round. In verse 5, the pomoerium is reckoned to the city itself, hence not said from the wall; it was merely mikhutz la-ir (outside the city). The only question would be, if the whole would be only 2,000 cubits, but then there is no mention of the second 1,000 by itself.
We may, I suppose, put aside some passages where this word occurs, as furnishing the explanation in themselves, and giving its application to something special.
"Behold I shew you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed". This may have place at the summing up and accomplishment of the mystery of Christ, but it is a special mystery revealed; so 1 Corinthians 4:1, "Let a man so account of us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God". So Babylon is called "Mystery"; and the "mystery of iniquity", though it has its connection with the mystery in way of contrast, evidently is another thing apart.
There is nothing very precise here -- it is the character rather of his testimony, and the wisdom which he spake; it was not the public, common-place wisdom wrought out of man's wit, but the wisdom of God in mystery -- things which never would have been known but for God's communicating them, and which were of His counsels in Christ, hidden, while His government even was of this age, for a time but revealed by the Holy Ghost to those who are based upon the risen Man, whom God has made the Centre of His counsels and of the mystery. It is this wisdom of this place, these counsels of God before the worlds for our glory, known therefore only by revelation and by the Spirit, and this is what he goes on to speak of to the end of the chapter. Here then "mystery" is not the subject of the revelation, but the character of the wisdom which the Apostle by the Spirit spake.
We may also put this aside -- it is the special mystery, ancillary to the prosecution of the great mystery, of setting aside Israel as blinded for a time, "in part", until the fulness
of the Gentiles was come in. This was a peculiar plan of God, which was not exactly the Church nor the kingdom, but a temporary displacement of the earthly part, not its establishment under the new covenant, nor Messiah, but the setting aside of Israel in part, under blindness, until the fulness of the Gentiles should be come in. Then this preparatory thing being accomplished, the blessing of Israel, as such, would take its course according to the enlarged scope of the counsels of God, which embraced the heavens also. It was a subordinate special mystery, for naturally Israel would have been continued placed under the new covenant, and the Gentiles blessed with God's people; but all this is for the moment set aside, that the Gentiles, as a special thing, according to the counsels of God, to whom all His counsels are known from the foundations of the world, may come in. This then also is a special mystery, though serving in its place to the development of the great mystery of God's will in result.
We have here the mystery without being told in what it consists, "The preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of (the) mystery, as to which silence was kept in all ages" (in the times of the ages) "but now manifested, and by prophetical Scriptures according to the commandment of the eternal God of ages, made known for the obedience of faith to all the Gentiles; the only wise God through Jesus Christ to whom be glory for the ages. Amen".
Here however we have much, as suits the Epistle to the Romans in which is revealed that "there is no difference, for that all have sinned", that Christ is set forth as the mercy-seat through faith in His blood, the righteousness of God being the only one for all, and upon all that believed, Jew and Greek, i.e., Christ risen -- Object of faith and Power of life in resurrection, which was in effect the basis of the mystery. Its result was not stated here, i.e., revealed rather than preached; we have here what is preached as the basis of hope to bring in souls into that which was revealed. Further, we have seen in this epistle a special mystery subordinate and ancillary to this, that is that blindness in part is happened to Israel till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; indeed this was, in a sense,
necessary to it -- impossible to preach no difference through a risen Christ while the Jews maintained their privileges. The Gentiles brought to light by a risen Saviour -- sufficient Object between them and God, without the intervention of the Jews -- such is the face of the mystery presented here, and proclaimed to the Gentiles for the obedience of faith. No difference is proclaimed; the unity of the Body is not yet brought out, but we have creation groaning till the manifestation of the sons of God, the joint-heirs of Christ who suffer with Him and will be glorified together. See chapter 1: 16, 17, also verses 2, 3, 4, 5; compare also Acts 15:7 - 19.
These still remain and here we have the substance and sum of the mystery.
Ephesians 1:7 - 12
God has made the riches of His grace abound towards us in all wisdom and understanding, "having made known to us the mystery of his will according to his own good pleasure, which he purposed in himself, for the administration of the fulness of times, to head up all things in Christ, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, in him in whom we also have received [our] inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his own will, that we should be to the praise of his glory, who have pre-trusted in Christ".
Here we have evidently the mystery in its general scope according to the counsels of God, that is, to gather together and head up in one all things in Christ, in heaven and in earth, for the administration of the fulness of times; they also among the Jews who had believed anticipatively in Him, and the Gentiles also, being to the praise of the glory of His grace as taking inheritance with Him, and in the meanwhile sealed with the Holy Ghost until the redemption of the purchased possession.
Ephesians 3:3, 4, 9
Here we learn that the mystery was made known to him by revelation. It is the mystery of Christ (a Messiah accomplishing the earthly promises of God is no mystery) that was committed to Paul, to make known what was the dispensation of the mystery, hidden during the ages in God, Creator of all things, that thus by the Church might be made known to principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God, for it was a new thing. Here we have then added that the preaching of the fulness of Christ, and making known the dispensation of this mystery, brought the Church into the position of testimony of the variousness of God's wisdom to the heavenlies.
In Ephesians 5:32, "This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and the Church". Here we have a special part only, that is the union of the Church with Christ, as of His body, His bones and His flesh, which set the Church in its own special and wonderful place when all was headed up in Christ in heaven and earth. It is a special mystery to itself.
This merely takes up in general the idea of that which was thus specially revealed -- the mystery of the Gospel. It was not the good news of evident import, as of old -- the accomplishment of promises which belonged to the aion or aionoi of this world, but the mystery which none of its princes knew, or they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Colossians 1:26, 27
In Colossians, after naming Christ as the Image of the invisible God -- the headship of creation -- the headship of the Church -- the reconciliation of all things -- the present reconciliation of the Church -- comes the ministry of the Gospel to every creature under heaven, and then the ministry of the Church to fulfil the word of God gives i.e., all its fulness, to wit, the mystery hidden from ages and generations, but now manifested to His saints, to whom God has willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among
the Gentiles, which is Christ in you the hope of glory. Here we have another face of this revelation, unknown through the ages -- suited to the subject of the Colossians, the bringing in Christ Himself as the fulness, so that they had no need of Judaising; thus it is "among the Gentiles", Christ is in them the hope of glory. It was the practical realisation of the unity of the Church with Christ, not in the height of its privilege, but in its preservative power, still being really the mystery, i.e., no Messiah accomplishing in person the age, but a Christ among the Gentiles, source and power of hope. This then gives the present power of the mystery here below.
We have here the mystery of God in which are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge -- this in order that they should not be going to seek fantastic notions elsewhere, evidently implying both the whole extent of God's counsels, long time hidden, and the position and interest of the Church in them by its unity with Christ, centre of all these counsels.
The Apostle here speaks of the mystery of Christ, for which he was in bonds. In general this is the same Gospel of a Christ for the Gentiles according to that which was now revealed, for the first time, of God and formed in part of conscious knowledge, and which was specially entrusted to Paul, that he might make it manifest as he ought to speak. These passages give the just idea of the mystery, that is Romans 16, Ephesians and Colossians, alluded to in 1 Corinthians 2:7.
There is yet another passage which bears on the same subject, though it treats it in another way, it is:
1 Timothy 3:14 - 16
The Apostle speaks of Timothy's conversation in the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church is thus in the world, the sustainer of truth, and what is this?
The mystery of piety or godliness. And this is what Christ was among the Gentiles -- Object of Angels' gaze -- believed on in the world, and received up into heaven; in virtue of all which the Church existed. She sustained, as united to Christ and thus the centre and body of the mystery in the world, the knowledge of all that He was to whom she was united. God manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels -- thus incarnate and owned -- preached among the Gentiles (not again a Messiah present among the Jews), believed on (not seen) in the world, received up into glory -- thus the necessary Centre of all things -- so by counsel also in the accomplishment of this ordained glory which identified itself with that inherent, which found itself, in Him by whom and for whom all was created. The Judaising Gnostics are again set in contrast by the Apostle. This, I think, quite shows and confirms the force of the expression.
This passage remains; here there is more apparent difficulty, and that partly from the word musterion. The word etelesthe seems always to mean something brought up to its completeness, hence often necessarily the end of a thing, because, if I am accomplishing a task, finishing it is arriving at the completeness of the task, but if it is something in progress, or which develops itself, then it is its full existence which finishes, if you will, the development. And this word musterion carries its own dissolution, because the moment the subject of it is brought to pass, it ceases to be a musterion -- when labours are complete, one ceases to labour; when the work is complete it exists in its perfection -- thus teleo may mean "beginning to exist" or "ceasing", because in either case it is the completing of something. But here taking the words chronos ouketi estai (time shall be no longer) I think we must take etelesthe musterion, not as if the subject matter of the mystery had ceased to exist, but that the mystery is accomplished and ceased to be an unaccomplished mystery. It was no longer a mystery spoken of, and only circumstances working out to that which was contained in the mystery as a revelation; this would now take place and be accomplished. This gives its usual sense to mystery, but supposes that God, having only revealed certain
things in hope -- Christ in us, the hope of glory -- His power in the proper exercise of government, so that evil has not been allowed to rise, has not been exercised.
There is also in 1 Timothy 3:9, the general expression "holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience".
It is a striking expression of the state of things in which we are that Christ, not simply works miracles and sets aside the power of Satan wherever he is, but gives power to His disciples to do it -- yet John Baptist is put to death and it is not hindered. And He would not do any mighty work in "His own country"; Mark 6.
Note the absoluteness of Christ's gathering out of the world, and being a separative and positive Centre, is shown in this, that He received even those who were with John Baptist. The whole passage has a character of unworldliness which it is well to note in the elements already given. He gathers round Himself -- God Himself -- as a new gathering to Himself out of a world which is thus judged and left as evil, a way wholly new and divine through it, following Christ (none in and of it), and heaven opened here on Christ, but to us now through the rent veil. All is taking (not the body yet) out of earth and associating it with God on a new footing with Christ and with heaven through the rent veil -- oh! what a blessing.
I cannot but see the book of Deuteronomy as standing on quite a different ground in the purpose of God than the four books. It is more than questionable if a single ordinance of these books, after their first establishment, was perfectly fulfilled in the wilderness -- their children were not circumcised.
It is an elaborate system formed after the pattern shown in the Mount, and as to events "they happened unto them for types, and are written for our admonition". It is an immense typical system, the facts historically true, but selected and given with ulterior and spiritual intention, often unknown to the author. Where, as in Deuteronomy, there are instructions for the practical living state of things in the land, and where this order was in no way carried out, the general provision is for the state of Judges. They are referred to, and the case is put of their having a king, but it is a practical state of things prophetically seen from the time of going over Jordan till the final restoration of Israel -- the secret things. The notion of its subsequent composition is absurd -- if the Pentateuch existed, no one would have connected another contradictory system; both being composed together subsequently is equally absurd. But the abstract typical system, and the directions for an actual disordered state of things, pursuing the great elements and introducing moral principles of a more general character, are perfectly intelligible. Had Moses, instead of being inspired, made both as an arranged composition, it would have been equally difficult. It is true inspiration, which is the key of it all. It is, in the main, a general direction for order in the country, and provision for an unformally ordered state. The types, when there are any, as in chapter 16, are of a more general spiritual bearing The four books are a systematically ordered system, in many respects indeed, only fitted for the wilderness. Tabernacles was not, and that was never regularly kept.
The Lord quotes from Deuteronomy in His temptations. The moral motives for obedience are chiefly there.
In this book, holiness, grace and communion are much more remarkable; and note also the people are entirely anew placed in covenant with the Lord, see chapters 26: 17, 18, and 27: 9, 10. And remark here the new form of the dictation of this covenant; it anticipatively supposes them to be in possession
of the land, and in worship and in joy before the Lord, and Moses and the priests the Levites. He who mediates, as revealer, the blessing, and they who minister its maintenance by a sacrifice and communication of worship, place them as "this day become the Lord's people", and therefore insist on keeping the commandments commanded. This is altogether a new covenant from Sinai, as it is said "the covenants", see also chapter 29: 1. It is a new base; it is not now "if ye shall be", but "avouched to be" -- worshipping in joy, supposed in the Land, "This day ye are become", "Thou shalt therefore keep". Yet as the endurance, quod nota, of the blessing rests on the perseverance of the people in fidelity, it fails in result, though there be room for patience, as well as if it were based on the "If ye will obey, ye shall be".
-- 1. b'e-ver (on this side); in Numbers 32:19, it is me-e-ver (beyond, on yonder side, on this side).
-- 10 - 12. These three verses are a parenthesis and should be so marked.
-- 10 - 12 and 20 - 23, are both of them evidently parenthetical. "The children of Lot for a possession" ... "now rise up" ... "unto the children of Lot for a possession" ... "rise ye up, take your journey". These accounts of the country are graphic notices of great value, not only historically (the surest we have) but of God's ways and men's in peopling the earth, violence, war, etc. The only question is as to "as Israel did unto the land of their possession". To say that "go in and possess the land" proves it means only Canaan west of Jordan is folly; whatever was their possession, they entered into it on dispossessing the inhabitants. Nor is there the least difficulty in supposing Moses wrote it. He had partly entered into
possession by casting out the Amorites; and what is stated is the way Israel entered in, not the history of an event. Hence Moses could say, in an Aorist sense, Israel entered in in the same way, but from the way it comes in I am strongly disposed to consider it as added, because we have an exactly analogous passage, I may say word for word without this addition, "destroyed them and dwelt in their stead", only that in verse 22, we have "even unto this day". This may be Moses, as it had long taken place. It is to be noted that the Horims are twice spoken of, verses 12 and 22. My impression is the passages are a divine prophetic addition. I do not think it is simply to encourage the Israelites, though it would do this in showing the ways of God -- "the Lord destroyed them". But it showed important history -- these giant races, and their pride, and removings, and destructions when God so willed.
The early history of man, found only with certainty in Scripture, is of much importance in judging of what short-lived man is. The characters of men of God may be given by their own mouth by inspiration. Paul does so speak of himself, only when forced to do it, largely; in the more familiar style of the New Testament says they made him a fool in speaking so much of himself. The question is, if it be inspired we should lose immensely if we had not these passages, and God has put them in for our instruction, without consulting the incompetent judgment of man happily for us. A part of the whole picture of truth would be wanting if this were not here.
-- 13. "Said I" is wrong, and should be omitted.
-- 20. b'e-ver; clearly "beyond"; see also verse 25 and chapter 4: 46, 47, 49; also chapter 11: 30.
-- 34. How "war"? see Exodus 15.
-- 15. This is motive, not the thing celebrated.
-- 28, 29. It is not the intention or desire to obey which was presumptuous -- that was all right, and there is no allusion to what was said in Exodus, which was after all this. God had spoken out of the midst of the fire, and then Moses went up. The presumptuous point was taking all the blessings and covenant on the specific ground of "If ye will obey my voice, ye shall be". They might have said "We fear to have all our blessings depend on our own obedience, for fear we lose them". In the covenant of Sinai, the being God's people, and getting the blessing was "if"; and, I repeat, it is the whole point, when, after the terror of God's appearing, they said "We will obey" -- it was a natural effect of terror, and a right intention. But they begged to hear no more, and no covenant was based on it -- on Moses going up and bringing the "if" tranquilly down, they tranquilly undertook it as the base of blessing. Bound to obey they were -- intention to obey was right -- but a covenant of blessing on that condition was the grossest ignorance of self and was presumptuous.
The reason why God did all this was to teach men that, on this ground, no flesh could be justified. Nothing could be more important. The promise to Abraham had not raised any question of righteousness -- it was a simple promise on God's part, certain to be fulfilled. But here the question of righteousness was raised as it ought to be and must be, and first on man's part for God, according to what was rightly required of man; when that point was cleared, and flesh proved what it is, then the righteousness of God was revealed through the promised Seed. We should not have had half Romans and all Galatians but for this.
As to delusion in the people, clearly there was, as the golden calf proved. The law was never given to man, as such, as God's way of blessing, but to a peculiar people called to Himself, and brought to Himself, to have flesh tested. It was given as exacting obedience as the prior and indispensable condition of life and joy. It was positively "If ye obey, ye shall" ... "Do this and live". To Abraham, further, it was unconditioned promise, and the uncircumcised was cut off from blessing which remained to others -- at the law the covenant was absolutely based on the condition of man's obedience as its first principle.
Continual access to God did not lay open to them -- individual faith in promise might go to God, but the law, tabernacle and all said, "Death if ye come near". God did not come out -- man could not go in. In Christ God did come out, and, blessed be God, Man is gone in; the Holy Ghost signified this by the veil -- "We have boldness to enter into the holiest, by a new and living way, consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh", and we draw nigh. And even in the sacrifices, they were in contrast with Christ, a remembrance of sins still there -- now "perfected for ever", never to be remembered.
In this chapter we have the consecration of the people to God.
Not to lose sight of it, I mark that the infidel argument from this chapter and Ezra 9:11 is wholly without force, and, as usual, superficial. The same language as that of this chapter is found in Exodus 34:12 - 17. The use of the word "prophets" proves nothing at all -- Abraham was a prophet; and Ezra in this verse speaks of their then going into the land when the prophet spoke, and so said "by the prophet speaking". All the objections are nonsense and worse.
Here we have the discipline and exercise in the way.
Note here, the strength of the Lord with them in conflict with power greater than their own, but the history of the rebellion of their heart.
-- 15 - 24. This goes by itself -- a kind of parenthesis. Verse 25 takes it up from verse 14; verse 15 takes up Exodus 32:15, adding other cases of rebellion. There is a vast deal more as to Moses with God at the door of the tabernacle in Exodus, and above chapter 32: 31.
-- 18. This is the second time, speaking simply historically,
in reasoning with them about their sins; it alludes directly to Exodus 34:28.
-- 25. I think that here, "because the Lord said he would destroy you", leads him back to the first time, with which he then goes on.
-- 1 - 9. I take these verses to be all a parenthesis, and verse 10 to connect directly with chapter 9: 29, showing that after the apostasy of Israel, the law (but now in the ark), the priesthood, and a land of rivers of waters, and levitical service with no inheritance but the Lord, was set up a system of patient grace in Israel. The death of Aaron showed, through Eleazar taking his place, that the priesthood continued, as did the service of Levi in the land which is the subject of this book, not merely in the wilderness in which all this was set up.
-- 1 - 11, takes up the standing of the restored people. The basis of it all is laid in Exodus 34:1 - 9, which stands by itself, passing on (verse 28) to Moses, with the people -- a mediatorial condition and government, see verse 27.
-- 6, 7. Compare Numbers 33:37, 38. There is no difficulty here.
The subject here is the one place of resort where Jehovah's name was. "Ye shall not do so" refers to this, "ye shall not have high places". They might eat flesh anywhere, clean or unclean, only consecrated things were to be eaten where Jehovah had placed His name. Who was to eat it is not in question I think here at all, only the Levite was not to be forgotten. It would apply to the priests as others; whatever of this kind was to be eaten, and whoever was to eat it, it was to be eaten there. Priests are swamped in the whole mass of Israel.
-- 5, 6, 7, 16 - 20, see also chapter 14: 22 - 27, the people are to eat the tithes and firstlings; whereas in Numbers 18:17, they are specially the priest's as the tithes were the Levites';
also the tithe is at the end of three years, see chapters 14: 28 and 36: 12, 13. In chapter 14: 72, the tithe seems to be yearly, see also Numbers 18:21.
-- 5 - 14. One thing is quite clear, that the leading thought is "the one place" to which they were to go; for things are spoken of, of which no man ate anything.
-- 17, 18. But here there is more difficulty, for here it is they are not to eat within their gates; still we find again this point of the place prominent, and the eating spoken of vaguely -- they might eat of any (clean) beast, only pouring the blood on the ground. But what belonged to God, sacrifices, vows, etc. (verse 26), they were to take to the place where Jehovah's name was; and then it was left to apply the eating to what it legally applied to.
-- 27. They were to offer their burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of Jehovah, and the blood of the sacrifices was to be poured out on the altar of Jehovah their God, and they would eat the flesh. Now this referred strictly, according to the law, only to the peace-offerings -- of sin and trespass-offerings the priests ate, and parts of the peace-offerings, and that is recognised in this book. But the point is offering was to be made here, in what referred to divine worship, to God, not to what the soul lusted after -- here he might eat in communion with the altar, with God, but here only. Sacrificial eating was at the chosen place only. Hence what the soul lusted after, the unclean could eat of (verse 22). It is to be remarked that there was no payment of tithes by the people to the priests, nor at Jerusalem -- they paid tithes of all to the Levites, then the tithe of their tithes to the priests, and then ate their tithes at home as if they were the, now, sanctified fruit of their fields. With regard to Numbers 18:24 - 32, it is possible this may have dropped through disorder and carelessness; but the carrying up tithes to Jerusalem was a distinct thing. All nations have god-festivals, and Israel was to have theirs in connection with Jehovah according to the rudiments of the world.
As regards our chapter, it would thus, as noticed, offer no difficulty -- offerings were carried up and they ate the part which was to be eaten according to the law; nor does chapter 14: 22, 23, etc. offer any difficulty as to this distinct or second tithe -- they ate it before the Lord, or took up money and bought what they liked. Only firstlings, first-fruits, and all
vows, heave- and wave-offerings remain, see Numbers 5 and Numbers 18; these all belong to the priest. These reh-sheeth (first-fruits), so far as males went, some think they were all other firstlings except the males (Rosenmüller), or firstlings generally, not the priest's. But it is wrong as to the priests having the worshippers to eat with them; some, only the clean males of their house could eat, others all the family. But they must be a second set of firstlings as there was a second set of tithes, which there clearly was, see Tobit 1:1, where the second tithes are very distinctly brought forward, and the third, so that this was a known ordinance in Israel. As regards the firstlings; the first-fruits were given to the priests, so in chapter 18. Tobit speaks only of the second tithes, but these or their worth he spent in feasting in Jerusalem every year. We must leave, I suppose, the directions of Numbers, etc., where they are; they are not the main object of Deuteronomy, but the people's going up with their festal joy to Jerusalem to connect it with Jehovah, and the firstlings and the like to be such as they might otherwise have eaten at home, but, according to Deuteronomy, were to go to Jerusalem with.
The first males, if the first born, would remain to the priests. The immediate object was to identify all their common joy with Jehovah by the place. Next, the character of worship, and all these services and directions, is common enjoyment of the blessings promised -- not approach to God in the holiest. As to this, see Deuteronomy 16, Deuteronomy 26, and Leviticus 16.
-- 1. Compare with this Galatians 3 and Matthew 5.
-- 9 - 12. The day of Pentecost was evidently thus -- whatever day the first handful could be had, it was offered on the day after the Sabbath (Sunday); thence to the seventh Sabbath was forty-nine, and then on the fiftieth (Sunday) Pentecost was celebrated. In itself it had no connection with the previous feast of unleavened bread -- historically it was so, but they were distinct ordinances. See also Leviticus 23:15, 16.
The main points are noticed in the Synopsis, but I note the whole here as important. The worship is characterised by the open declaration, and founded in its nature and character of the present possession of and standing in the blessing which grace and redemption had brought the people into, and this it is I note as important. They are in the land, as we "in Christ" in heavenly places, "blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ", and we come with the joy, thanksgiving and praise, the worship that is, the first-fruits of that. It is the rising up by the Spirit of the return and effect of being in and enjoying the fulness of God's blessing. Then it is in the place where God is fully revealed, and where He dwells -- the place in which He has put His name, which He has chosen to this end. He gathers the people, and so the soul with its first-fruits -- the first-fruits of its privileged blessings -- into the place which He has chosen to dwell in, and where He fully reveals Himself; we know where and the way. For us it is the Father's house, "My Father and your Father, my God and your God". Then not as without, hoping to get it, but as within, in the enjoyment of all spiritual blessings, as that in which we are, we offer our first-fruits to God. What we were surely comes in and greatly enhances the blessing, as redemption necessarily does, and such a redemption! But it enhances it, not alters or diminishes it, "A Syrian ready to perish was" -- not "is". The first principle is the present full enjoyment of the blessing itself, and that is sufficient -- characterises it -- only we do remember how grace has given us such a place.
Next, thanksgiving to the Giver goes before enjoyment of the gift; so ever.
Then, we rejoice in every good thing.
Next, there is not only blessing, but an estimate of what heaven -- the Land -- is, as God estimates it in itself, not merely its fruits for us, but what is the glory of all lands -- what makes it precious; this is a blessed privilege.
Then grace flows out, the necessary effect of enjoying the love of God.
Note too, that while the personal consciousness of being in the place of blessing is the first and personal feeling, yet in the worship the whole people of God are taken in verse 9, "He hath brought us"; so, ever the Holy Ghost says "loved
us, washed us, saved us"; though I know it for myself and say "we", yet, as often noted, I comprehend "with all saints".
Then comes obedience, "I have not transgressed ... have not forgotten"; the last a special test of the spirit of obedience. Then diligent care to avoid defilement or turning anything away from God to self -- purity and consecration to God.
Then blessing is prayed for on the whole people of God and on the land; i.e., as for us, as belonging to heaven itself, and the sense of its nature and excellency is repeated. In all, in and by this worship, and all brought out in it, we belong to God, and have God as our God.
Here note, on the one hand the altar is put on the mount of cursing, on the other it is not here a threatening of excision of the body, but a malediction on the individual who did not observe what was contained in the law; so that they are supposed in possession, but evidently on untenable ground. The public dealings of God with the nation in His right of government and righteous government are in the chapters which follow.
Remark how not only here the curses alone, not the blessings, are recited (as alluded to surely in Galatians 3), but in chapter 28, where the governmental dealings are unfolded, how largely, though in a manner characteristically correspondent, the curses are developed and insisted on compared to the blessings. This stamps necessarily a peculiar character on the relationship between God and the people. It gives to us, accustomed to perfect and unwearied love, a somewhat painful feeling, not as to the rightness of it, but as to being in such a relationship. It is just what ought to be under law, indeed blessing must be always simpler, for the blessing itself, the favour is the great thing, and on a hard state of mind more positive and lower motives must (i.e., may) be brought to bear, but it makes us see what the position of law for man's heart is.
-- 21 - 23. Note the way in which the Lord passes from the individual, separated out of the tribes of Israel, to the whole land as a natural consequence which follows certainly; compare the use of it in Hebrews.
There is much encouragement and comfort that the exhortation and charge to Joshua is given in the same time as the prophetic song which announces the failure of the people. Our present work and duty, whatever it may be in the Church, hangs from the charge, and is sustained by it, whatever we may know of the results as regards man's unfaithfulness. Note this well.
-- 25 - 30, compare Acts 20:17, 29, and following verses. The analogy is very remarkable.
The connection of this chapter with Exodus 6, already noticed elsewhere, is exceedingly striking, as showing the place that these prophetic revelations hold. At the end here, they are returned and stand in the house celebrating Jehovah who has blessed. That is the place of these Psalms.
-- 8, He set the bonds of the "peoples" not "people".
As regards the development of principle in the Scripture history of the world; first, Innocence which precedes the ways of God, then man left to himself in sin (though not without testimony), but without governmental restraint. Then the principle of government in man's hand in Noah. After this, the sources of blessing and governmental interference being by man attributed to, and so morally fallen into the hands of the enemy, the separation of Abraham takes place by the revelation of the glory of the true God, and election, calling, promise, and we may add faith, are brought out fully to light as public principles of dealing, for without doubt God has acted on them ever since the fall. Then the establishment of a people, by redemption and deliverance, under the law and
immediate government of God are introduced -- a people of God in the world. Within this come priesthood, prophecy, and subsequently royalty.
After this, the government of the world trusted to man -- one man as head of empire and sovereign authority in the world -- replacing a people in relationship with God, centre of other nations, who ought to have owned Him. After the rejection of Christ, who came under this state of things, the government is left externally unchanged, only the Jews are set aside; various historical changes take place, but the age remains unclosed, and the Church is called out for heaven, and then, God resuming His dealings with Jews and Gentiles as guilty of rejecting Christ as Head of all, and in Him all is substantially resumed. The Law -- a people by redemption -- Israel, centre of nations -- universal dominion in Man -- royalty in Israel -- and the results of calling, election and promise; the Church being in its own place apart, i.e., associated with Christ. Babel may be noticed, by the way, as introducing the formation of nations, of which Israel was to be the centre.
The book of Deuteronomy then contains the terms of the responsible possession of the land with Jehovah there, so that their enjoyment of it should be inseparably connected with Him where He placed His name. Chapter 26 gives the expression of this and closes the book. It does not go beyond Jacob and redemption out of the ruin he had got into by going down into Egypt, and enjoyment of the blessings brought into by it. This is not approaching God, nor sure promises given to Abraham, etc.; the latter are not the subject of the book, for he was a stranger and a pilgrim, and the former gave rise to there being nothing, save a few circumstances to secure their and the people's enjoyment, about priestly action. Chapter 16 gives another character, God's work by which He gathers round Himself, and the condition of the people so gathered around Himself. Every male was to come to the place where He had put His name.
The three feasts are well-known, prefiguring the work of the deliverance of the soul based on Christ's blood, its state in connection with it -- the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that there is a free-will offering, and the common joy of grace, yet warning -- and the full enjoyment as no longer pilgrims but blessed in everything. The wilderness is not Deuteronomy. There it is properly typical, and the question was approach to God
Himself in the holiest; hence it is heavenly, though the heavens were not yet opened, the veil unrent, and no one able to go in. Hence in this book there is no eighth day to the feast of tabernacles, nor are the sacrifices before as in Leviticus, and still more Numbers, but gathering round Jehovah and the spiritual state connected with that which did it.
L'amour de Christ est un amour qui est au dessus de toutes nos misères, mais qui s'adapte à toutes nos misères, et qui n'est froissé ni refroidi par aucune de ces misères.
The love of Christ is a love which is above all our wretchednesses, but which adapts itself to all our wretchednesses, and which is not repelled nor chilled by any of these wretchednesses.
Le tombeau dans lequel nos péchés sont ensevelis est le monument de la grace éternelle de notre Dieu.
The tomb in which our sins are buried is the monument of the eternal favour of our God.THE CROSS
POWER IN THE MIDST OF EVIL
LEVITICUS
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 1
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 2
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 3
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 4
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 5
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 6
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 7
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 8
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 9
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 10
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 14
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 16
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 17
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 18
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 19
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 23
LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 24
ATONEMENT
SMITING
CLEANSING
FAITH NOT SIGHT
THE PERSON OF THE LORD
THE OLD TESTAMENT
THE SABBATH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 3
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 4
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 6
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 8
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 9
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 10
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 11
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 12
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 14
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 15
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 16
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 18
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 19
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 20
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 21
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 23
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 24
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 26
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 28
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 32
NUMBERS - CHAPTER 33
THE MYSTERY
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS
DEUTERONOMY
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 1
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 2
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 3
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 4
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 5
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 7
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 8
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 9
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 10
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 12
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 14
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 16
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 26
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 27
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTERS 27, 28
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 29
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 31
DEUTERONOMY - CHAPTER 32