re 
 ra) 
 ant 
 © 
 ort 
 G4 
 ord 
 $4 
 © 
 re) 
 YQ 
 cD) 
 S 
 oe 
 
 Christ in 
 
 Offerings 
 
 
 
eS 
 
 Petit 
 
 2, 
 oF ae 
 
 Pte 
 
 Sas 
 Ys h ee 
 aii ; 
 
 AS 
 ae fy 
 
 GaN 
 
 § 
 sa Moe 
 ; De nf 
 
 ue 
 salt 
 - My " 
 
 
 

 
 . 4 A 
 ' ay t t t 
 F ‘ i) ' f 
 ; 4 x 7 : 
 ; 4 
 ee Oe , f he 
 . ‘ i 
 at ‘a; - 4 . , 
 H ~ 4 Ps , «! 
 7 yt i 
 He, A y i 
 j i : : 
 Foe + . : 
 5 , nb ‘ i 
 2 6 d 
 Bi : ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fle 
 
 me 
 is 
 &? 
 i ae.t ‘ ton 4 ‘ aA : 
 ye Hy f Aer x 
 } ‘ y " : eae 
 ee 4 
 
 y 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 i 5 ‘ : ; ix 
 i é 
 
 
 
 i 
 = i 
 4, , 
 » 4 > 
 si he 
 7) Pie ’, 
 % 
 i x - 
 ‘ 4 4 
 : 
 ‘ j 
 tat } 
 a i: 
 2, ‘3 
 py ‘ I ts 
 ot bs 
 ic : 
 4b - 
 7 ‘fr 
 : ¥ Dy 
 Fj 4 ye 1 f 
 ¢ ye 
 F \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; : 7 
 kee ee. b ; ty 
 
 JAMES 
 
 be ’ 
 
 M. GRAY, B. D. » 
 
 
 
 Christ in the Sacrific 
 
 ee | 
 
 t 
 ) 
 yet - 
 , : 
 i, . 
 a : 
 VW 
 
 
 
 ial 
 
 En 
 

 
' 
 
 Christ in the Sacrificial a eas 
 Offerings 
 
 Bible Studies in Leviticus 
 
 BY 
 JAMES M. ‘GRAY, D. D. 
 
 Minister in the Reformed Episcopal Church; President of the Moody Bible Institute 
 of Chicago; Consulting Editor of the Scofield Reference Bible and the Tercentenary 
 (1911) Edition of the King James Version; Author of Christian Workers’ 
 Commentary, Great Epochs of Sacred History, How to Master the English 
 Bible, Primers of the Faith, Synthetic Bible Studies, etc. 
 
 CHICAGO 
 THE BIBLE INSTITUTE COLPORTAGE ASSOCIATION 
 826 North La Saile Street 
 

 
 J 
 
 Copyright, 1924, 
 By 
 The Bible Institute Colportage Association 
 of Chicago 
 
 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
~~ 
 
 + 
 a 
 % 
 
 Christ in the Sacrificial Offerings 
 
 Bible Studies in Leviticus 
 
 PREFATORY NOTE 
 
 follow the method and be guided 
 mainly by the treatment. of the 
 subject in The Book of Leviticus, 
 Berkey, o. tt. Kelloge,; DD, LLY Di, 
 one time professor of theology in the 
 Presbyterian Seminary, Allegheny, Pa., 
 missionary to India, and author of The 
 Jews, or, Prediction and Fulfilment; The 
 Light of Asia and the Light of the World; 
 Handbook of Comparative Religion, etc. 
 Of course, there are many other com- 
 mentaries on the book of Leviticus as 
 well as books ably treating of different 
 portions of it. We mention a few in the 
 event of readers desiring to go further 
 into its study as it is hoped may be the 
 case. Some of the following are out of 
 print and some are English publications 
 which may be a little difficult to obtain, 
 but any of them may be occasionally 
 picked up in a second-hand book store, 
 and are well worth having in any pastor’s 
 library and for home reading: 
 
 ik THESE studies it is intended to 
 
 - it may yet be reprinted again. 
 
 The Typology of Scripture, by Patrick 
 Fairbairn, 2 volumes; Holy Types, by 
 Joseph A. Seiss; The Study of the Types, 
 by Ada R. Habershon; The Law of the 
 Offerings, by Andrew Jukes; Studies in 
 the Mosaic Institutions, by W. G. Moore- 
 head; Studies in Leviticus, by Herbert 
 Brooke, and Thoughts on Leviticus, by 
 B. W. Newton. 
 
 More than any of the above however, 
 Kellogg is to be preferred for the 
 thoroughness and saneness of his treat- 
 ment of the difficult and mysterious 
 themes, and the order and simplicity of 
 his style. That his volume should be out 
 of print, originally part of the Expositor’s 
 Bible (Armstrong), is a great disappoint- 
 ment, but the hope is entertained that 
 Mean- 
 while these studies, limited and inade- 
 quate as they are, may serve to keep the 
 name of the book alive as well as stimulate 
 a deeper interest in the portion of revela- 
 tion with which it deals. 
 
 LESSON 1 
 
 Introductory 
 To some persons it is quite impossible 
 to understand the book of Leviticus, and 
 to not a few it seems to have no living 
 
 relation to present day 
 1. questions of Christian be- 
 Origin and lief and practice; for which 
 Authority reasons it is difficult for 
 
 them to believe in its 
 
 divine authority and much less in its 
 divine inspiration, 
 
 Nevertheless, the opening words of the 
 
 beok clearly affirm its authority by speak- 
 
 Bos) 
 
 ing of its Mosaic origin and the fact 
 that it came to Moses as a revelation 
 from God. ‘And the Lord called unto 
 Moses, and spake unto him out of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, saying 
 * * *)’ Furthermore, these same 
 words or their equivalent occur some 
 fifty-four times in the twenty-seven 
 chapters of the book. Therefore, when 
 they and their immediate context are 
 eliminated from the book, scarcely any- 
 thing is left. 
 
 It is to be noted further, that our 
 
4 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ endorsed this affirma- 
 tion in the book by endorsing the whole 
 Pentateuch, of which the book is a part. 
 See for examples, Matthew 5:18; Luke 
 24:44 and John 5:46, 47. In these 
 passages, he speaks of ‘“‘the law’’ and 
 “the law of Moses’’ by which his con- 
 temporaries understood him to mean the 
 Pentateuch, or the first five books of the 
 Bible. 
 
 But not only did our Lord endorse the 
 Pentateuch in general, but the book of 
 Leviticus in particular. In Matthew 
 8:4 and John 7:22, as well as in other 
 places, he quotes certain revealed laws 
 which are found only in Leviticus. 
 
 Of course it is easy to say, as the 
 destructive critics do say, that Jesus was 
 only a man like his contemporaries, 
 and knew no better than they; that 
 Moses was not the author of the Penta- 
 teuch, and that it was not inspired. Or, 
 if this be seriously objected to, they 
 would say that while Jesus knew better, 
 yet He accommodated Himself to the 
 limitations of His hearers and did not 
 think it necessary to correct their ignor- 
 ance on that point. 
 
 The best answer we can make to the 
 above, however, is to point to the New 
 Testament, and especially the four 
 Gospels, which reveal the person of 
 Christ to us. The person there revealed 
 was not a man like His contemporaries, 
 but the God-man who knew whereof 
 He spake, and whose word is accepted 
 at least by the author of these studies, 
 as absolute authority. 
 
 To refer once more to the opening 
 words of the book, ‘‘And the Lord said,’’ 
 they very closely connect it historically 
 
 with the preceding book, 
 Le, Exodus, just as that book 
 Occasion and is connected with Gene- 
 Content sis. 
 Quoting Brooke here, 
 “This intimate relation between the 
 opening books of the Bible serves not 
 only to tell us that they are given in 
 proper order for an intelligent grasp of 
 their history and meaning, but suggests 
 also that their spiritual use and purpose 
 must be apprehended in the same order. 
 
 They are the a bc of religious knowl- 
 edge.” 
 
 Genesis shows man’s ruin by sin, and 
 makes it plain that in every condition 
 of trial he only comes out a failure— 
 in Eden, before the flood, after the flood, 
 and in the chosen family of Abraham, 
 still man fails. 
 
 The chosen family of Abraham are 
 found, in the last chapter of Genesis, in 
 the land of Egypt, the emblem of a world 
 that knows not God. Exodus takes up 
 their story there and proceeds to reveal 
 how God redeems and delivers them out 
 of their hopeless bondage, separating 
 them unto Himself, and appropriating 
 them as His people. Its closing chapter 
 signifies the accomplishment of the first 
 stage of this redemption, and shows 
 God dwelling among them and manifest- 
 ing His presence in the tabernacle, or 
 ‘“‘the tent of meeting.”’ 
 
 Now comes Leviticus, which is entirely 
 occupied with the condition of those who 
 are thus redeemed, delivered, brought 
 nigh, and possessed by God. 
 
 The book may be sub-divided into 
 several sections, but Brooke limits them 
 to four. 
 
 The first section comprises the first 
 seven chapters and is marked by the 
 
 repetition of the words ‘‘sacrifice,’’ 
 “‘offering,’’ and ‘“‘oblation.’’ In other 
 words, we have in this section what 
 
 some identify as ‘‘the law of the offer- 
 ings.” 
 
 The next section comprises chapters 
 8 to 10, and is occupied with the con- 
 secration of Aaron and his sons. 
 
 The third section covers chapters 11 
 to 16, and is distinguished by the words 
 ‘“‘clean’’ and ‘‘unclean’’ and their com- 
 pounds—the keynote to which is, there- 
 fore, purity. 
 
 The fourth section covers chapters 17 to 
 25, with an appendix of two closing chap- 
 ters. This is marked by the words “‘holy”’ 
 and “sanctify,’’ which, with their com- 
 pounds, give the subject of holiness as 
 the keynote to this portion of the book. 
 
 The appendix is a supplementary 
 revelation on voluntary vows and dues, 
 and also speaks of the blessing or cursing 
 
INTRODUCTORY 5 
 
 which will fall upon the people, as they 
 obey or disobey what Jehovah has thus 
 revealed to them as His will. 
 
 In general terms the purpose of 
 Leviticus is to give directions to the 
 people of Israel how to live as a holy 
 
 nation in fellowship with 
 Bs God—the keynote of the 
 Purpose of whole being ‘‘HOLI- 
 the Book NESS TO JEHOVAH.” 
 
 But in particular, the book 
 furnishes to the theocracy (for that is 
 what Israel is meant to be—a govern- 
 ment under the immediate sovereignty 
 of God), a code of laws to secure their 
 physical, moral and spiritual welfare. 
 And yet, all this is merely a means to an 
 end, the end being to make Israel a 
 blessing to all the nations of the earth, 
 mediating to them the redemption of 
 God through Christ Jesus His Son. 
 
 To accomplish this blessing for the 
 nations, certain things were necessary 
 in the history of Israel. 
 
 (1) It was necessary to keep Israel 
 separate from the heathen nations round 
 about, and as a matter of fact, even the 
 imperfect obedience to these laws which 
 Israel has rendered, has made that nation 
 unique among all the other nations to 
 this day. 
 
 (2) It was necessary to reveal in and 
 to Israel the real character of God, par- 
 ticularly His unapproachable holiness. 
 
 (3) This revelation of God’s holiness 
 was made in the first place by means of 
 the system of sacrifices, the outstanding 
 lesson of which was that ‘‘without shed- 
 ding of blood is no remission.’’ It was 
 made also, by means of the precepts of the 
 law and the severity of its penalties. 
 
 (4) But the sacrificial system and the 
 law were not only to reveal God’s holi- 
 ness, but also His mercy, because in the 
 shedding of blood there is found to be 
 remission for all who will accept the 
 offer. 
 
 (5) The sacrificial system and the 
 law were adapted to reveal God in His 
 holiness and mercy, and equally adapted 
 to train Israel for her mission by sug- 
 gesting to every thoughtful! Israelite 
 
 that there must be a secret of redeeming 
 mercy yet to be revealed. 
 
 In other words, the sacrificial system 
 and the law were so ordered as to be 
 directly typical and prophetic of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ and His great redemp- 
 tion. Cf. Luke 24:27; John 5:46; He- 
 brews 8:5; 9:23, 26. 
 
 In the study of this book, it is import- 
 ant to keep in mind, 
 
 (1) That as a revelation of the char- 
 
 acter of God, it is of as 
 4, much use to us as it was 
 Present Day to Israel. The present 
 Use writer can testify that 
 
 he obtained his first true 
 knowledge of God from the Old Testa- 
 ment rather than the New, and that 
 Leviticus was a factor init. In one sense, 
 he knew Jehovah before he knew Jesus, 
 and he well remembers the day and the 
 place when it first dawned upon his deeper 
 consciousness that the two were one. 
 
 (2) But this book reveals to us not 
 only the character of God, but the funda- 
 mental condition of pure and undefiled 
 religion, namely, that there is for sinful 
 man no citizenship in the kingdom of 
 God apart from a high priest and a 
 propitiatory sacrifice. 
 
 (3) Inasmuch as the book is a body 
 of civil law for the theocracy, it suggests 
 principles for the guidance of all human 
 legislators today,—their guidance as to 
 the relation of civil government to re- 
 ligion, the rights of labor and capital, 
 land holding and taxes, marriage and 
 divorce, the social evil, and the punish- 
 ment of murder and other crimes. Dr. 
 Kellogg makes this very clear, and his 
 commentary would be a valuable text- 
 book in college classes on civil govern- 
 ment. 
 
 (4) It reveals Christ in type as the 
 sinner’s Saviour, and the One who exalts 
 him to future dignity as a redeemed man. 
 
 (5) It reveals things yet to come in 
 the Messiah’s kingdom as foreshadowed 
 in the feasts of Pentecost, the Trumpets, 
 the Day of Atonement, and the Jubilee 
 and Sabbatic years. All of these will 
 be realized for corporate Israel in the 
 fullest sense in the millennial age, and 
 
6 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 ‘through Israel all the earth will thus be 
 
 blessed. 
 
 This present series of studies does not 
 contemplate anything beyond the sac- 
 rificial offerings, but if, in God’s provi- 
 
 - dence, we should go further, there would 
 
 be “things new and old’’ to be brought 
 out of the sacred text down to the very 
 end. 
 Review Questions 
 
 1. What evidence of its divine author- 
 ity does the book of Leviticus contain? 
 
 2. How does the New Testament con- 
 firm that evidence? 
 
 3. Show the distinctions among the 
 first three books of the Pentateuch from 
 the spiritual point of view. 
 
 4. Divide Leviticus into four parts. 
 
 5. For what two purposes was Leviti- 
 cus revealed, so far as Israel is concerned? 
 
 6. What was the end in view? 
 
 7. What five things were necessary to 
 accomplish this end? 
 
 8. How many of the New Testament 
 
 references in this lesson have you exam- 
 
 ined and compared? 
 9. What are the five present day uses 
 of this book? 
 
 LESSON Ii 
 
 The Burnt-Offering 
 Leviticus 1:1-17;6:8-13 
 
 E SHOULD not attempt to 
 
 interpret the Levitical offer- 
 
 ings by our own fancy as to 
 
 what they may symbolize or 
 by our thought as to what the Israelites 
 might have considered them to mean. 
 Our guide must be the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testaments so far as they 
 interpret them. 
 
 For example, Leviticus 21:6 tells us 
 that the offerings are the “‘bread”’ of God, 
 not material bread of course, as we may 
 
 learn from Psalm 50:8- 
 1. How to 15, but representing 
 Interpret what that Psalm speaks 
 the Offerings of, namely, thanksgiv- 
 
 ing, fidelity, confiding 
 trust and praise. This is the bread, or 
 food, that the obedient Israelite offered to 
 Jehovah in the sacrificial offerings. He 
 acknowledged, in other words, that these 
 things were God’s due from him, and that 
 he, because of sin, had never rendered 
 them unto God. Therefore, because he 
 had not rendered them, his life was for- 
 feited, and he was now by faith presenting 
 unto God the innocent life of another asa 
 substitute for his own guilty one. 
 
 Of course, it is inconceivable that the 
 
 life of an animal could in itself be a suffi- 
 cient and proper substitute for human 
 guilt, hence the victim must have sym- 
 bolized a greater substitute, and as we 
 shall see from other scriptures, that 
 substitute was our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 He is the only bread that can satisfy 
 God, and in Him alone is God wel! pleased 
 (Isa vari acMattes - isp: 
 
 In further proof that the offerings were 
 substitutionary in character, compare Le- 
 viticus 17:10-14, which teaches that the 
 life of the soul is in the blood, and that it 
 is poured out upon the altar to make 
 atonement. In the Revised Version the 
 last clause of verse 11 reads: ‘‘For it is 
 the blood that maketh atonement by 
 reason of the life,’’—that is, the life that 
 is yielded up makes atonement for the 
 one who offers it. For the application to 
 Christ in the premises, see Matthew 
 26:28; John 1:29; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 
 L:f8, 19 Satoh hele 
 
 It is essential, therefore, to the right 
 
 interpretation of the offerings, that each. 
 
 of them is seen as typilying our Saviour 
 in some aspect of His work. What these 
 aspects are, we shall learn later. 
 
 “And the Lorp called unto Moses, 
 and spake unto him out of the tabernacle 
 
 ay 
 
THE BURNT-OFFERING 7 
 
 ~ 
 of the congregation, saying, Speak 
 unto the children of 
 
 2. Nature and Israel, and say unto 
 Characteristic them, If any man of 
 of the Burnt- you bring an offering 
 Offering unto the Lorp, ye shall 
 
 bring your offering of 
 the cattle, even of the herd and of the 
 flock. If his offering bea burnt sacrifice 
 of the herd, let him offer a male with- 
 out blemish; he shall offer it of his own 
 voluntary will at the door of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation before 
 
 the Lorp ’’(Lev. 1:1-3). 
 
 (1) Note the place from which Jehovah 
 now speaks, namely, the Tabernacle or 
 the ‘‘tent of meeting’’ (R. V.). It is not 
 Sinai, because there the law was given, 
 and there Israel had entered into coven- 
 ant with Him, which covenant Moses, 
 their mediator, had sealed with the 
 sprinkling of the blood on the book and 
 the people (Exod. 24:7,8; Heb. 9:19-21). 
 There they had taken Jehovah for their 
 God and He had taken them for His 
 people. Therefore, He had now appoint- 
 ed this tent of meeting where He might 
 dwell among and manifest His will to 
 them as His people. 
 
 Quoting B. W. Newton here: 
 
 “The redeemed people of God only 
 know God in the Tabernacle and none 
 except those who belong to that Taber- 
 nacle or what it represented on earth, 
 can belong to God in heaven; that is, 
 only those who have by faith sprinkled 
 the blood of and have fed on the Passover 
 lamb. Egypt is the type of the position 
 of all others. How important to remem- 
 ber this today when so many efforts are 
 being made to destroy the distinctions 
 which redemption has constituted and to 
 speak of man’s natural condition as hav- 
 ing in it the elements of a right relation- 
 ship of God. Men wish to sweep from 
 the earth the Tabernacle and its lessons 
 and to sanctify Egypt in the name of 
 God!”’ (Thoughts on Leviticus, page 28.) 
 
 (2) Note that the carnivora are ex- 
 cluded from this offering, doubtless be- 
 cause animals which live by the death of 
 others could not typify Him who came to 
 give life. And only domestic animals are 
 permitted, doubtless, because of the sub- 
 mission and obedience they represented 
 in comparison with other animals taken 
 
 captive in the chase (Isa. 53:7; John 
 10:17, 18). Also, as Kellogg and others 
 think, because domestic animals were 
 endeared to their owners by the cost of 
 labor and care. 
 
 (3) Note that the word translated 
 “burnt offerings’’ means ‘‘that which 
 ascends,’’ and is thus designated because 
 it was wholly lifted up upon the altar, 
 
 or because it was wholly burned on the ~~ 
 
 altar and thence ascended in sweet 
 smelling fragrance before Jehovah. To 
 Him it was altogether devoted, no part 
 of it was reserved except the skin. In 
 other words, not only does God receive 
 it all because He is well pleased with it 
 all, but also absolutely nothing is reserved 
 for the one who offers it 
 to God 
 
 (4) Note that the victim was to be a 
 male, the strongest and best of its kind, 
 and also without blemish, for only such 
 could be a true type of the holy victim, 
 Jesus Christ (Mal. 1:6, 13; Heb. 9:14). 
 
 (5) Note that the Israelite himself and 
 not the priest, offers or presents the vic- 
 tim, and he does it ‘‘that he may be ac- 
 cepted before the Lord’’ (R. V.). The 
 teaching here is that each one of us must 
 take the Lord Jesus Christ for himself, 
 and present Him by faith unto Jehovah 
 as his own offering for his own accep- 
 tance. It is not enough for us to praise 
 Christ or to seek to imitate Christ in 
 order to be saved or to please God, but 
 we must offer Him to God by faith as the 
 substitute for our forfeited life on account 
 of sin. 
 
 (6) Note that “at the door of the 
 tabernacle’’ the substitute must be 
 offered. In other words, publicity is 
 demanded (Rom. 10:9, 10). And then 
 again, idolatry must be guarded against, 
 as in the worship of false gods in the 
 groves and on the hills after the manner 
 of the heathen. The teaching for us is 
 that there must be no self-will in our 
 worship, but that the Christ whom we 
 confess and present to God as our sub- 
 stitute, must be the One whom God has 
 revealed to us in the Gospels as His only 
 begotten Son. 
 
 ‘‘And he shall put his hand upon the 
 
 His all belongs 
 
8 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 head of the burnt-offering; and it shall 
 be accepted for him to make atonement 
 for him. And he shall kill 
 3. Killing the bullock before the 
 the Victim Lorp: and the priests, 
 Aaron’s sons, shall bring 
 the blood, and sprinkle the blood round 
 about upon the altar that is by the 
 door of the tabernacle of the congrega- 
 tion. 
 ‘‘And he shall flay the burnt-offering, 
 and cut it into his pieces’’ (Lev. 1:4-6)° 
 (1) Note that the offerer lays his hand 
 on the head of the offering, signifying his 
 identification’ with it and his trans- 
 ference to it of that which he himself 
 deserved. Compare the instance of the 
 scape-goat (Lev. 16:21), and also the 
 substitution of the Levites in the place of 
 the first-born of Israel (Num. 8:10,11). 
 
 (2) Note the phrase ‘‘to make atone- 
 ment for him.’’ The Hebrew word means 
 ‘“‘to cover,” and is first used when Noah 
 is commanded to cover the ark with pitch 
 (Gen. 6:14). Indeed the Hebrew for 
 ‘“‘pitch’”’ is derived from this verb, be- 
 cause pitch covers that over which it is 
 spread, and not only conceals but pro- 
 tects it. By the atonement, the offerer’s 
 sins were covered, hidden from God’s 
 sight, and he himself was protected from 
 their consequences (cf. Ps. 32:1; Isa. 61: 
 10). Newton from whom the above is 
 taken, also calls attention to the Hebrew 
 of the word ‘‘accepted,’’ where the 
 thought is not merely of the offerings 
 being received, but received as grateful 
 and excellent in the sight of Jehovah 
 (cf. Ps. 149:4; Isa. 42:1; 1 Pet. 2:7, R. V.) 
 ~ (3) Note that the offerer himself 
 kills the victim; in other words, every 
 sinner must regard himself as having 
 caused the Saviour’s death. 
 
 ‘‘My sins were laid on Thee, 
 Thou stoodest in the sinner’s stead, 
 Didst bear all ills for me.” 
 
 And he kills the victim “before the 
 Lorp,’”’ as if to say, ‘Against thee, 
 thee only have I sinned and done this 
 evil in thy sight’’ (Ps. 51:4). 
 
 (4) Note that the priests and not the 
 offerer ‘‘present and sprinkle the blood.”’ 
 As Kellogg says, we who have offered 
 Christ as our substitute, must leave Him 
 
 to present the offering before God (Heb. 
 Zeh7 i t7sZ5y) 
 
 (5) Note however, that the flaying and 
 cutting was done by the offerer and not 
 the priest. Why? Kellogg passes over 
 this lightly, but Newton thinks, and one’s 
 heart agrees with him, that the offerer 
 needed to possess a minute appreciation of 
 the excellency of his offering in itself.’ 
 So do we need to learn Christ. See also 
 the comment on Verse 8. 
 
 ‘‘And the sons of Aaron the priest shall 
 put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood 
 in order upon the fire: and the priests, 
 
 Aaron’s sons, shall lay the 
 
 4. The parts, the head, and the fat, 
 Burning in order upon the wood that 
 is on the fire which is upon 
 
 the altar: but his inwards and his 
 
 legs shall he wash in water: and the 
 
 priest shall burn all on the altar, to 
 
 be a burnt-sacrifice, an offering made by 
 fire, of a sweet savour unto the LorpD”’ 
 
 (Lev. 1:7-9). 
 
 It is one of the great objects of Leviti- 
 cus to teach us to discriminate, to teach 
 us how rightly to divide the Word of 
 truth (2 Tim. 2:15), and Newton points 
 to the minute specifications of verses 7 
 and 8 as an illustration. of it. The 
 various parts are all carefully distinguish- 
 ed from each other before they are laid 
 on the altar, bringing before us in the 
 type the importance attached in Scrip- 
 ture to a knowledge of what Christ really 
 was while living and acting on the earth, 
 His intelligence, healthfulness and activi- 
 ty of thought and feeling. 
 
 Persons and things intended to be 
 types of Christ were frequently washed 
 also, as in this case, that they might be 
 fitter representatives of His essential 
 purity. An exception of note as we shall 
 see, was the sin-offering (Lev. 4), whose 
 inwards were not washed, prefiguring 
 our Lord who knew no sin, being smitten 
 as if sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). 
 
 The Hebrew word for “‘burn’’ here 
 means ‘‘to burn as incense.’’ A different 
 word is used in the case of the sin-offering 
 burned “without the camp.’ There 
 Christ is seen bearing the devouring 
 wrath of God, but here as ‘‘a sweet 
 savour unto the Lorp.”’ “A _ sweet 
 
Pa 
 
 THE BURNT-OFFERING 9 
 
 savour of rest’’ is the way some translate 
 it, recalling the margin of Genesis 8:21, 
 where in the case of Noah’s offering, 
 “the Lorp smelled a savour of rest.” 
 ‘‘Noah”’ means rest (Gen. 5:29, margin), 
 typifying the new creation into which 
 Christ will finally bring His redeemed 
 people. Compare also Hebrew 4:9 
 (R. V.) for the rest into which His 
 people are brought even now. 
 
 We thus perceive the special meaning 
 of this offering. To the believing Israel- 
 
 \ite it meant that complete consecration 
 
 unto God is essential to right worship, 
 inasmuch as the fire consumed the whole 
 beyond the offerer’s recall forever. To 
 the more thoughtful worshiper, however, 
 it must have occurred that it was not him- 
 self nor his gift that thus ascended in 
 full consecration to God, but a substi- 
 tuted one whom God had in mind though 
 at that time unrevealed. 
 
 Thus whether understood or not, the 
 offering pointed to a Victim of the future 
 in whose person and work it should re- 
 ceive its full explication. That one, we 
 repeat, is our Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
 here representing His believing people in 
 perfect consecration and _ self-surrender 
 to His God and Father. For the New 
 Testament application of the offering, 
 compare such passages as Luke 2:49; 
 John 4:34; Matthew 26:39; Hebrew 
 10:5-10, and many others. 
 
 Therefore, as Kellogg says, we are to 
 plead not only the atoning death of Christ 
 but also the transcendent merit of His 
 life. Only we must not argue that as in 
 the case of His atoning death. He died 
 that we might not die, so He surrendered 
 Himself to God in life that we might be 
 released from the same surrender. In- 
 deed, the exact opposite is the truth as 
 we learn from His own words in the pray- 
 er offered just before His death, ‘‘For their 
 sakes, I sanctify myself, that they also 
 might be sanctified through the truth” 
 (John 17:19). He procured our salva- 
 tion by His death and became our per- 
 fect example in His life (Eph. 5:2). 
 
 ‘“‘And if his offering be of the flocks, 
 namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, 
 
 for a burnt-sacrifice; he shall bring it a 
 male without blemish. 
 
 “And he shall kill it on 
 the side of the altar 
 northward before the 
 Lorp; and the priests, 
 Aaron’s sons, shall sprinkle his blood 
 round about upon the altar. 
 
 “And he shall cut it into his pieces, 
 with his head and his fat: and the priest 
 shall lay them in order on the wood 
 that is on the fire which is upon the 
 altar: 
 
 “But he shall wash the inwards and 
 the legs with water: and the priest shall 
 bring it all, and burn it upon the al- 
 tar: it is a burnt-sacrifice, an offering 
 
 made by fire, of a sweet savour unto 
 the Lorp”’ (Lev. 1:10-13). 
 
 Note the variation here from a bullock 
 (v. 3) to a sheep or goat, and for its reason 
 or explanation compare 5:7 with 2 Cor- 
 inthians 8:12. In these places we are~ 
 taught that poverty was no plea for not 
 bringing a burnt-offering. Thus we see 
 mercy mingling with justice in this case, 
 inasmuch as the lesser offering under the 
 circumstances would be equally accep- 
 table with the greater one. And so anti- 
 typically considered, there ought to be 
 in Christian believers sufficient enlarge- 
 ment of faith to form a proper concep- 
 tion of Christ as our burnt-offering, but 
 if this be wanting, even a partial appre- 
 hension of faith is not without value. 
 Compare the faith of the apostle John 
 with that of the Jewish ruler Nicodemus 
 as an illustration of this. 
 
 “And if the burnt-sacrifice for his 
 offering to the Lorp be of fowls, then 
 he shall bring his offering of turtle- 
 doves, or of young pigeons. 
 
 ‘‘And the priest shall bring it unto 
 the altar, and wring off his head, and 
 burn it on the altar; and the blood 
 thereof shall be wrung out at the side 
 of the altar: 
 
 ‘‘And he shall pluck away his crop 
 with his feathers, and cast it beside 
 the altar on the east part, by the place 
 of the ashes: 
 
 ‘“‘And he shall cleave it with the 
 wings thereof, but shall not divide it 
 asunder: and the priest shall burn it 
 upon the altar, upon the wood that is 
 upon the fire: it is a burnt-sacrifice, an 
 
 5. Variations 
 in the 
 Offerings 
 
10 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 offering made by fire, of a sweet savour 
 
 unto the Lorp’”’ (Lev. 1:14-17). 
 
 (1) Provision for the poor is still 
 further illustrated here, and the anti- 
 typical application may be carried further 
 also. For example, in the bullock we see 
 Christ represented in His service for God 
 and man, in the lamb we see Him in 
 His unmurmuring submission, in the dove 
 we see Him in His mourning innocence. 
 Each of these qualities is equally true so 
 far as Christ is represented by it, equally 
 precious and equally acceptable, but no 
 one of them brings out the complete char- 
 acter of our perfect offering which it 
 requires all three to do. 
 
 (2) Here the offering was killed but 
 not divided, doubtless because so small 
 a creature did not require it in order to 
 its entire consumption. But from the 
 anti-typical point of view it illustrates 
 the Christian who fails to see in Christ 
 all that others see of His daily walk and 
 thoughts and feelings. Discriminative 
 apprehension is thus almost wholly 
 wanting in this offering as it isin the faith 
 of many Christians, but yet they are 
 accepted in Christ for all that, just as the 
 Israelite who brought a fowl to the altar 
 was as fully accepted as he who brought 
 a lamb or even a bullock. 
 
 (3) In this instance the offerer does not 
 kill the victim, which is done by the priest, 
 a circumstance which gives occasion to 
 bring out another principle of the offer- 
 ings not yet mentioned. For example, 
 Christ has been spoken of as represented 
 by the offering and represented by the 
 priest, but as Jukes points out more 
 clearly than some others, He is also repre- 
 sented by the offerer. Indeed so manifold 
 are the relations in which Christ has stood 
 for man and fo man, that no one type or 
 set of types can adequately represent the 
 fulness of them. 
 
 ‘In the selfsame type the offerer sets 
 forth Christ as the One who became man 
 to meet God’s requirements; the offering 
 sets Him forth as the victim by which 
 the atonement was ratified and the priest 
 sets Him forth as the appointed mediator 
 and intercessor. Therefore, when we 
 have a type in which the offering is most 
 prominent, the leading thought is of 
 
 Mediator. 
 
 Christ the victim, while in one in which © 
 the offerer or the priest predominates, 
 it will be respectively Christ as man or 
 Christ as mediator’’ (The Law of the 
 Offerings, pp. 36, 37). 
 
 In the present instance, the priest 
 does nearly everything, setting before us 
 in type the truth that to some believers 
 Christ is chiefly known not in His blessed 
 person, but chiefly in His office as the 
 But nevertheless, the offer- 
 ing is still acceptable as a sweet savour 
 unto the Lord. 
 
 ‘“‘And the Lorn spake unto Moses, say- 
 ing, Command Aaron and his sons, say- 
 ing, Thisis the law of the burnt-offering: 
 It is the burnt-of- 
 fering, because of 
 the burning upon 
 the altar all night 
 
 unto the morning, and the fire of the’ 
 
 altar shall be burning in it. 
 
 ‘And the priest shall put on his linen 
 garment, and his linen breeches shall 
 he put upon his flesh, and take up the 
 ashes which the fire hath consumed 
 with the burnt-offering on the altar, 
 and he shall put them beside the altar. 
 
 ‘‘And he shall put off his garments, 
 and put on other garments, and car- 
 ry forth the ashes without the camp 
 unto a clean place. 
 
 “And the fire upon the altar shall be 
 burning in it; it shall not be put out; and 
 the priest shall burn wood on it every 
 morning, and lay the burnt-offering in 
 order uponit; and he shall burn thereon 
 the fat of the peace-offerings. 
 
 ‘‘The fire shall ever be burning upon © 
 the altar; it shall never go out’’ (Lev. 
 6:8-13). 
 
 (1) Note that this law is addressed not 
 to the individual Israelite as such but to 
 the priests, Aaron and his sons. 
 
 (2) Note that the design was that the 
 fire of the burnt-offering should be con- 
 tinually ascending unto God. Compare 
 Exodus 29:38-46 where provision is made 
 for the offering of a lamb for the whole 
 people every morning and evening, 
 symbolizing the constant renewal of 
 Israel’s consecration unto the Lord. 
 
 (3) Note that the regulations in this, 
 case are intended to provide for the unin- - 
 terrupted maintenance of this fire; 
 i. e., the regular removal of the ashes 
 
 6. The Continual 
 Burnt- Offering 
 
A 
 A 
 eee 
 
 which otherwise would smother the fire, 
 and secondly, the supply of fuel. 
 
 (4) Note that even the removal of the 
 ashes is a priestly function as indicated 
 in the garments which the priest must 
 put on, and which also must be put off 
 again when the ashes are removed from 
 beside the altar to a place outside tue 
 camp; this for the reason that it was for- 
 bidden to wear the priestly garments 
 except within the tent of meeting. 
 
 (5) Note that during the day when any 
 Israelite brought an offering, the fire was 
 thus ready to consume it and that the 
 smoke thereof continually ascended unto 
 the Lord. 
 
 As Kellogg says: ‘The significance of 
 
 this can hardly be missed—signifying to 
 
 Israel and also to us, that the consecra- 
 tion which the Lord desires from His 
 people is not occasional but continuous.”’ 
 
 Each morning we should put away all : 
 
 that might dull the frame of our devo- 
 tion, and each evening before we retire, 
 we should by a solemn act of self-dedi- 
 cation, give ourselves anew unto the 
 Lord. 
 
 Of course, we must not forget that here 
 as in the other instances, we are pointed 
 to Christ. He is our burnt-offering who 
 continually offers Himself to God in our 
 
 THE MEAL-OFFERING 11 
 
 behalf. In a later lesson, we shall see 
 that this is not true of the sin offering 
 which our Lord presented once for all, 
 but as our burnt-offering His full conse- 
 cration to God for us never ceases and 
 never shall cease. 
 
 Review Questions 
 
 1. By what guide should we interpret 
 the Levitical offerings? 
 
 2. How does Leviticus 17:11 prove the 
 substitutionary character of the offer- 
 ings? 
 
 3. What is the significance of the “‘tent 
 of meeting’’? 
 
 4. Why must the Israelite present his ,/ 
 own offering? 
 
 5. What is the two-fold significance of” 
 the laying on of hands? 
 
 6. What double meaning does the word 
 atonement convey? 
 
 7. What did the burnt-offering mean 
 to the believing Israelite? 
 
 8. How is mercy mingled with justice 
 in this offering? 
 
 9. State how Christ is set forth by the 
 offerer, the offering, and the priest. 
 
 10. What is the spiritual significance” 
 
 of the whole burnt-offering? 
 
 11. How many Scripture references are 
 found in this lesson, and to how many 
 have you carefully referred? 
 
 LESSON III 
 
 The Meal-Offering 
 Leviticus 2:1-16; 6:14-23 
 E ADOPT in this case the re- 
 vised rendering of ‘‘meal’’—in- 
 stead of ‘‘meat’’ offering. The 
 word in the Hebrew 
 1. Interpretations means primarily, a 
 present, and so it is 
 sometimes translated (Gen. 32:13; Ps. 72: 
 10; Isa. 39:1). The fundamentalidea of the 
 offering seems to be a gift brought by 
 the worshiper to God in recognition of 
 His authority and expressing a desire for 
 His favor. 
 
 It is noticeable that while in the burnt- 
 offering a life was given to God, here it 
 was simply the products of the soil. 
 There also we have the laying on of 
 hands, transferring the obligation of 
 
 death for sin, but here there is no shed- 
 ding of blood. In other words, while 
 the conception of a gift to God is of course 
 dominant in the burnt-offering, yet 
 there is not the only thing expressed, 
 while here it is. 
 
 The above is Kelloge’s way of looking 
 at it, but Newton presents a somewhat 
 different idea which has perhaps greater 
 merit. In either case, we must re- 
 member, the anti-type is Christ. It is 
 really He who is being presented to God 
 in the meal-offering; but Newton tuinks 
 that while in the burnt-offering we see 
 Christ in His devotion to God, in the 
 meal-offering we see Him in His perfect 
 character. Both His devotion and His 
 character are set forth in each offering, 
 but the one is dominant in the burnt- 
 
12 
 
 offering and the other in the meal- 
 offering. We regret that we have not 
 space to enlarge upon Newton’s dis- 
 tinction between perfectness of devoted- 
 ness as he expresses it, and perfectness 
 of character. The first may owe its origin 
 to circumstances, but the latter is possible 
 only where every inward feeling as well 
 as outward action is in habitual con- 
 formity with God. Such was the per- 
 fectness of character of the Lord Jesus, 
 and how it is expressed in the meal- 
 offering will be touched upon as we 
 proceed. 
 
 Jukes has still another interpretation 
 of the meal-offering, going back to man’s 
 beginning in Eden where God gave to him 
 the fruit of the ground as his portion, 
 and reserved life for Himself. It was not 
 till after the flood that man was permitted 
 to eat flesh, and even then the life, the 
 blood, was prohibited to him (Gen. 1:29; 
 9:4). Life as an emblem therefore, repre- 
 sented what the creature owes to God, 
 while the fruit of the earth as an emblem, 
 represents what the creature owes to his 
 fellow-creature, what man owes to man. 
 Thus in the burnt-offering, the surrender 
 of life to God represents the fulfilment 
 of man’s duty to God, yielding to Him 
 the portion that satisfies His claim. And 
 in the meal-offering, the gift of the fruit 
 of the earth represents the fulfilment 
 of man’s duty to his neighbor. In the 
 latter offering man is surrendering him- 
 self to God of course, but doing so that 
 he may give man his portion. The first 
 of the two fulfills the first table of the 
 law, and the second fulfills the second 
 table. Of course, in both cases, the offer- 
 ing is but one, viz., Jesus Christ, in one 
 case fulfilling for fallen man his duty to 
 God and in the other his duty to man. 
 Oh, what a wonderful Saviour! 
 
 Finally, before we leave the interpre- 
 tation of the meal-offering, let it be noted 
 that while its object is not to direct atten- 
 tion to the infliction of death on the great 
 Substitute but to the character of Him 
 who met death, yet as Newton is careful 
 to point out, death is nevertheless im- 
 plied. Whenever any offering typifying 
 Christ either in His character or in His 
 work was burned on the altar for a sweet 
 
 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 savour, as in this case, there is necessarily 
 a reference to the cross, and therefore 
 to His death. Moreover, the meal- 
 offering may virtually be considered only 
 as an appendage to the burnt-offering 
 which expressed death (Num. 15:3, 4). 
 The words ‘‘burnt-offering and his meal- 
 offering’’ are of continual occurrence, 
 thus showing that they go together, and 
 as there was a perpetual burnt-offering so 
 also as we shall see, was there a perpetual 
 meal-offering. 
 
 ‘“‘And when any will offer a meal- 
 offering unto the Lorp, his offering 
 shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour 
 
 oil upon it, and put frankin- 
 2. Nature cense thereon”’ (Lev. 2:1). 
 of the 
 Offering here, fine flour, oil, frankin- 
 cense. The first is one of the 
 
 Three things are mentioned © 
 
 OS pete 
 
 strongest types of meek subduedness that — 
 
 it is possible for nature to supply. There 
 
 is absolutely no unevenness in fine flour. — 
 
 All of Christ’s actions were subordinate 
 to the will of His Father, in other words, 
 and all were according to the Holy Spirit ; 
 everything He said or did was said or 
 done in the power of the Spirit. This 
 was typically recognized by the offerer 
 (though unknown to him as a matter of 
 experience) when he poured oil, the em- 
 blem of the Spirit, on the fine flour. 
 
 And the frankincense also was typical. 
 This gum of snowy whiteness was the 
 emblem of purity, a purity which, when 
 searched into by the fire, went up in 
 grateful fragrance. (Cf. here also Ps. 
 141°:2: Luke °1:10; “Rev. 4S<8): 
 
 ‘‘And he shall bring it to Aaron’s 
 sons the priests: and he shall take 
 thereout his handful of the flour there- 
 
 of, and of the oil thereof, 
 
 3. Its with all the frankincense 
 
 Presentation thereof; and the priest 
 
 shall burn the memorial 
 
 of it upon the altar, to be an offering 
 
 made by fire, of a sweet savour unto 
 the Lorp: 
 
 “And the remnant of the meal- 
 offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons: 
 it is a thing most holy of the offerings 
 of the Lorp made by fire”’ (Lev. 2:2, 3). 
 Note first, that as in the burnt-offer- 
 
 ing, the offerer must bring the offering 
 himself, it is his own voluntary act. 
 
THE MEAL-OFFERING 13 
 
 Secondly, he (or the priest?) takes out 
 only a handful of the flour to be burned, 
 but the handful represents the conse- 
 cration of the whole (Rom. 11:16). 
 Thirdly, the priest burns ‘‘the memorial 
 of it on the altar.’’ Thus the heavenly 
 High Priest must always act on our be- 
 half with God. Fourthly, ‘the remnant 
 shall be Aaron’s and his sons.” The 
 priest thus obtains the larger portion be- 
 cause as God’s servant, he needs it for 
 his support in the work of God’s house. 
 It is the way God took to supply him 
 with his daily bread. He could not 
 work for it as others did. But just here 
 a very assuring and beautiful spiritual 
 truth is brought to light, viz., that while 
 the meal-offering by its perfectness sat- 
 isfies God, it also provides something to 
 comfort, feed and strengthen man. That 
 is to say, unless the excellency of Christ’s 
 character had been presented and ac- 
 cepted for us, we would have been without 
 hope, but when we know that it has been 
 thus presented and accepted, we feed on 
 it and give God thanks, 
 
 This is the way Jukes expresses it: 
 Christ as performing man’s duty to God 
 in the burnt-offering, was wholly the 
 food of God, wholly consumed by Him. 
 But Christ as performing man’s duty to 
 man in the meal-offering, becomes also 
 man’s food. The offering in other words 
 is offered for us to God, but also given 
 to us as the priests of God, for all Christian 
 believers are priests. The Gospels are 
 full of this aspect of Christ’s work for us, 
 since they so constantly show us that 
 while His meat was to do the will of Him 
 that sent Him, yet in the doing of that 
 will He was ever the devoted servant 
 of all around Him (Acts 10:38). 
 
 “And if thou bring an oblation of a 
 meal-offering baken in the oven, it 
 shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour 
 
 mingled with oil, or un- 
 4. The Baked leavened wafers anointed 
 Variety with oil. 
 
 “And if thy oblation 
 be a meal-offering baken in a pan, it 
 shall be of fine flour unleavened, 
 mingled with oil. Thou shalt part it in 
 pieces, and pour oil thereon: it is a 
 meal-offering. 
 
 ‘And if thy oblation be a meal- 
 
 offering baken in the frying pan, it 
 shall be made of fine flour with oil. 
 
 “And thou shalt bring the meal- 
 offering that is made of these things 
 unto the Lorp: and when it is pre- 
 sented unto the priest, he shall bring 
 it unto the altar. 
 
 ‘‘And the priest shall take from the 
 meal-offering a memorial thereof, and 
 shall burn it upon the altar: it is an 
 offering made by fire, of a sweet savour 
 unto the Lorp. 
 
 “And that which is left of the meal- 
 offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’: 
 it is a thing most holy of the offerings 
 of the Lorp made by fire’”’ (Lev. 2:4-10). 
 In certain cases the meal-offering might 
 
 be baked in the oven, in a pan (a flat 
 plate), or a frying pan. This signifies, 
 as did the less costly varieties of the 
 burnt-offering, that the poverty of the 
 people was considered. The law accom- 
 modated itself, so to speak, to the differ- 
 ent material resources of the worshipers. 
 
 But as Newton shows, there is such a 
 thing as poverty of faith, a more limited 
 apprehension of the character of Christ 
 on the part of some believers than others. 
 This is symbolized in the making of the 
 flour into cakes and in the different 
 methods employed. 
 
 To illustrate, there were certain prin- 
 ciples in the character of Christ which 
 made that character what it was in its 
 own excellency; and then there were cer- 
 tain circumstances in His life, His suffer- 
 ings for example, in which that essential 
 excellency was developed and made 
 manifest to men. The first class of the 
 meal-offering, i. e., the fine flour in its 
 uncooked state, directs our attention to 
 His essential excellency, the other varieties 
 to the circumstances of its development. 
 ‘We may see Jesus as our ‘bread,’ or even 
 as God’s bread, without entering into the 
 thoughts suggested by the emblem of the 
 fine flour and the frankincense. The 
 perfect absence of all unevenness, and 
 the precious savour of the offering, these 
 are not our first views of Jesus, they are 
 the most perfect apprehensions, and so 
 are they generally the last’’ (Jukes). 
 
 The action of the fire in the cases of 
 the oven and the frying-pan, especially 
 the latter, presents to the eye a vivid 
 
14 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 picture of palpable suffering, teaching us 
 apparently that where faith is weakest 
 or dullest and the scope of apprehension 
 most narrowed, then the thought of the 
 suffering displayed becomes the most 
 prominent or exclusive one (Newton). 
 “No meal-offering, which ye shall 
 bring unto the Lorn, shall be made 
 with leaven: for ye shall burn no 
 leaven, nor any honey, in 
 5. Leaven, any offering of the Lorp 
 Honey made by fire. 
 and Salt ‘‘As for the oblation of 
 the first-fruits, ye shall offer 
 them unto the Lorp: but they shall 
 not be burnt on the altar for a sweet 
 savour. 
 “And every oblation of thy meal- 
 offering shalt thou season with salt; 
 neither shalt thou suffer the salt of 
 
 the covenant of thy God to be lacking. 
 
 from thy meal-offering: with all thine 
 offerings thou shalt offer salt’’ (Lev. 
 241-13). 
 
 The symbolism here is familiar. Leav- 
 en is a principle of decay, and without a 
 single exception in Scripture it symbol- 
 izes spiritual corruption (1 Cor. 5:7). 
 Honey also tends to promote fermenta- 
 tion and decay in that with which it 1s 
 mixed. Hence from all our works which 
 we present to God, wickedness in every 
 form must be eliminated. This includes 
 our religious work for, as Kellogg re- 
 marks, it is sadly possible to call Christ 
 ‘“‘Lord,’’ and in His name do many won- 
 derful works, which are not really done 
 unto Him. (Read here 1 Cor. 10:31). 
 How much therefore we need Christ as 
 our meal-offering! 
 
 Speaking further of the honey, Paul 
 reminds us how the corruptible, honey- 
 like sweetness of nature insidiously in- 
 fuses itself into the highest development 
 of Christian graces, when he says to the 
 Philippians, ‘‘I pray that your love may 
 abound yet more and more in knowledge 
 and in all judgment (i. e. discrimination), 
 that ye may approve things that are ex- 
 cellent’’ (1:9, 10). Private predilections, 
 in other words, must not determine our 
 ‘ preferences. This is honey if the prefer- 
 ence is the result of a natural amiability 
 of character that shrinks from giving 
 pain. The affection of Christ for His 
 
 mother, for example, was perfect. tle 
 was not without affection, but he never 
 exercised it apart from God, and like 
 every other element of His character, it 
 was fit to be presented on the altar. It 
 had no ‘“‘honey”’ in it. . 
 
 “‘Salt’’ here is set over in contrast with 
 honey. If the latter gives to character — 
 an earthly sweetness, the former gives to 
 it a heavenly savour (Col. 4:6). Salt is 
 the preservation against corruption, the 
 emblem of perpetuity. 
 
 We are told that in India and other 
 eastern countries the usual word for 
 perfidy and breach of faith is, literally, 
 “‘unfaithfulness for salt’’; and a man will 
 say, ‘‘Can you distrust me? Have I not 
 eaten of your salt?’’ (Kellogg). So in 
 the meal-offering, as in all offerings made 
 by fire, the thought was that Jehovah 
 and the Israelite, as it were, partake of 
 salt together, in token of the eternal 
 permanence of the holy covenant of sal-. 
 vation into which the offerer has entered 
 with God. 
 
 “And if thou offer a meal-offering 
 of thy first-fruits unto the Lorp, thou 
 shalt offer for the meal-offering of thy 
 
 first-fruits green ears of 
 6. The corn dried by the fire, 
 First-Fruits even corn beaten out 
 of full ears. ; 
 
 “And thou shalt put oil upon it, 
 and lay frankincense thereon: it is a 
 meal-offering. 
 
 ‘‘And the priest shall burn the me- 
 morial of it, part of the beaten corn 
 thereof, and part of the oil thereof,’ 
 with all the frankincense thereof: it 
 is an offering made by fire unto the 
 Lorp”’ (Lev. 2:14-16). 
 
 Parched grain as an article of food was 
 more or less used by all, as it is still used 
 in the East, by even the poorest of the 
 people. They might be too poor to own 
 so much as an oven or a frying-pan, but 
 they could obtain parched grain. 
 
 The green, fresh, tender ear was to be 
 dried (parched or roasted) by fire, a 
 Hebrew word expressing great intensity 
 of suffering when applied to a living per- 
 son, (see for example Jer. 29:22). “Full 
 ears’’ meant fruit of the earliest and finest 
 quality. A clear type in every particu- 
 lar of the excellency of Christ, as well as 
 
s THE PEACE-OFFERING 15 
 
 the intensity of His sufferings on behalf 
 of His people. 
 
 Verse 12, which seems to be paren- 
 thetic in its location, really belongs to 
 this part of the chapter, and raises two 
 questions. First, What is the signifi- 
 cance of ‘“‘first-fruits’’? And, why should 
 it not be burnt on the altar for a sweet 
 savour? ‘The answers to these questions 
 will have to be postponed until we reach 
 a later chapter dealing particularly with 
 first-fruits. ‘ 
 
 For the Scripture text in this case, the 
 reader is referred to Leviticus 6:14-23. 
 It teaches us that as in the law of the 
 burnt-offering there 
 was not only the offer- 
 ings of the individual 
 Israelites, but also the 
 daily or perpetual 
 burnt-offerings of the priests, so it was 
 also in the case of the meal-offering. 
 Even the amount was prescribed, ‘‘the 
 tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, half 
 of it in the morning, and half thereof in 
 the evening” (v. 19). This apparently 
 was the amount regarded as a day’s 
 portion of food. 
 
 The daily burnt-offering presented by 
 Aaron and his successors typified our 
 heavenly High Priest offering His person 
 in daily consecration unto God in our 
 behalf. And so in the daily meal-offer- 
 ing we see Him offering unto God in per- 
 
 7.. The 
 Continual 
 Meali-Offering 
 
 fect consecration day by day, perpetu- 
 ally, all His works for our acceptance. 
 
 To the Christian believer often op- 
 pressed with the imperfection of his own 
 consecration of his daily works, often 
 oppressed because his heavenly Father 
 is not glorified by him as He should be 
 glorified, how exceedingly comforting is 
 this view of Christ! That which even 
 at our very best we do so imperfectly and 
 interruptedly, He does for us perfectly 
 and with never failing constancy. Thus 
 He perfectly glorifies the Father and 
 through the boundless merit of His con- 
 secration, He constantly procures for us 
 daily grace unto life eternal (Kellogg). 
 
 Review Questions 
 
 1. What is the fundamental idea of 
 the meal-offering? 
 
 2. Can you state the three different 
 interpretations of it given by Kellogg, 
 Newton and Jukes? 
 
 3. Which do you regard as the most 
 satisfactory? 
 
 4, What is meant by “poverty of 
 faith’’ and how is it symbolized in the 
 varieties of this offering? 
 
 5. How would you apply to Christian 
 character the absence of honey from 
 this offering? 
 
 6. What does the presence of the salt 
 signify? 
 
 7. What does the daily meal-offering 
 typify as to Christ’s work for us? 
 
 LESSON IV 
 
 The Peace-Offering, Leviticus 3:1- 
 17; 7:11-34 
 
 HE main object of this offering, 
 
 distinguishing it from the two 
 
 preceding, is that of a sacrifice 
 
 ending in a sacrificial meal. This 
 meal expresses the idea of peace and fel- 
 lowship with God secured by the blood 
 atonement. 
 
 “‘And if his oblation be a sacrifice of 
 peace- -offering, if he offer it of the herd; 
 whether it be a male or female, he 
 
 shall offer it without blemish before the 
 
 Lorp. 
 
 ne Deas “And he shall lay his hand 
 Offering Upon the head of the offering 
 and kill it at the door of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation: and 
 Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle 
 the blood upon the altar round about. 
 ‘And he shall offer of the sacrifice of 
 the peace-offering an offering made 
 by fire unto the Lorp; the fat that 
 covereth the inwards, and all the fat 
 
 that is upon the inwards, 
 
 “And the two kidneys, and the fat 
 
16 
 
 that is on them, which is by the flanks, 
 
 and the caul above the Jiver, with the 
 
 eas it shall he take away” (Lev. 
 
 The first differentiating feature is that 
 a female victim as well as a male was per- 
 mitted, carrying out the idea of the vari- 
 ous grades in the offerings, as previously 
 illustrated. Another reason why a fe- 
 male was permitted here was because 
 unlike the burnt-offering, the whole of 
 the victim was not burned on the altar 
 in consecration to God. Quoting Kel- 
 logg: ‘‘The idea of representation and 
 expiation had a place in the peace-offer- 
 ing as in all bloody offerings, but here it 
 was subordinate to the chief intent of the 
 offering, which was to represent the vic- 
 tim as food given by God to Israel in the 
 sacrificial meal. Thus we have a hint 
 that the dominant thought in the peace- 
 offering is not so much that of Christ as 
 the holy Victim, our representative, but 
 that of Christ, the Lamb of God, as the 
 food of the soul through partaking of 
 which we have fellowship with God.’’ 
 
 In this offering that which was burned 
 on the altar was only ‘‘the fat that cov- 
 ereth the inwards,” ‘‘the two kidneys,”’ 
 and ‘‘the caul’’ (vv. 3, 4), the best and 
 the richest parts. Quoting Newton: 
 ‘‘No types could be chosen more strongly 
 expressive of inward being. They are 
 often mentioned in Scripture under the 
 general expression ‘reins and heart,’ and 
 as portraying Christ, our Substitute, 
 they show Him as the one inwardly as 
 well as outwardly perfect.” 
 
 Where the victim was of the flock 
 rather than the herd, to ‘‘the fat thereof”’ 
 was added ‘‘the whole rump’”’ or rather 
 “the fat tail entire’ (v. 9, R. V.). The 
 reference is to a special eastern breed of 
 sheep, whose tail grows to an immense 
 size and consists almost entirely of a rich 
 substance between fat and marrow. For 
 the spiritual application of the fat parts 
 of the victim, compare Psalm 36:8; Isaiah 
 25:6; ‘Romans 11:7. 
 
 The third chapter concludes with a 
 prohibition against the eating of either 
 fat or blood. The reason for the pro- 
 hibition of the blood was pointed out in 
 the law of the burnt-offering. And the 
 
 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 reason for the prohibition of the fat is 
 similar, namely, its appropriation for 
 God upon the altar. Thus the Israelite 
 as often as he partook of his daily food 
 was reminded of two things: (1) that the 
 only ground of his acceptance before God 
 was that of atonement by the blood, and 
 (2) that God’s claim on the man redeemed 
 by the blood was a claim for the conse- 
 cration of his best. 
 
 Kellogg reminds us that nothing is of 
 more importance in the present day than 
 to keep in mind the principles underly- 
 ing these regulations. Many professed 
 preachers of the gospel now refuse to 
 recognize the place which propitiatory 
 blood holds in that gospel. And on the 
 
 other hand, many easy-going Christians | 
 
 Tie ie 
 
 seem satisfied to give the lean to God and | 
 
 keep the fat, the best fruit of their life 
 and activity for themselves (Heb. 10:26- 
 31). 
 
 Referring again to the law, it appears 
 that this prohibition of the eating of fat 
 referred only to the fat of such beasts as 
 were used for sacrifice. With these, 
 however, the law was absolute, whether 
 the animal was presented for sacrifice or 
 only slain for food. It held good with re- 
 gard to these animals even when, be- 
 cause of the manner of their death, they 
 could not be used for sacrifice. In such 
 cases, though the fat might be used for 
 other purposes, still it must not be used 
 for food (Kellogg). 
 
 ‘‘And this is the law of the sacrifice 
 of peace-offerings, which he shall offer 
 unto the Lorp. 
 
 “Tf he offer it for a thanks- 
 
 2. Kinds giving, then he shall offer 
 of with the sacrifice of thanks- 
 Offerings giving unleavened cakes 
 
 mingled with oil, and un- 
 leavened wafers anointed with oil, and 
 cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, 
 fried. 
 
 ‘Besides the cakes, he shall offer for 
 his offering leavened bread with the 
 sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace- 
 offerings. 
 
 ‘And of it he shall offer one out of the 
 whole oblation for an heave-offering 
 unto the Lorp, and it shall be the 
 priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the 
 peace-offerings. 
 
 Rove s.0 
 
THE PEACE-OFFERING 17 
 
 ‘‘And the flesh of the sacrifice of his 
 peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall 
 be eaten the same day that it is offered; 
 he shall not leave any of it until the 
 morning. 
 
 “But if the sacrifice of his offering 
 be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it 
 shall be eaten the same day that he 
 offereth his sacrifice: and on the mor- 
 row also the remainder of it shall be 
 eaten: 
 
 “But the remainder of the flesh of 
 the sacrifice on the third day shall be 
 burnt with fire. 
 
 “‘And if any of the flesh of the sac- 
 rifice of his peace-offerings be eaten 
 at all on the third day, it shall not be 
 accepted, neither shall it be imputed 
 unto him that offereth it: it shall be 
 an abomination, and the soul that 
 eateth of it shall bear his iniquity’’ 
 (Lev. 7:11-18). 
 
 Here we perceive (1) that peace- 
 /offerings might be of three kinds, a 
 “sacrifice of thanksgiving,’ a ‘‘vow”’ ora 
 “free-will offering.’”’ The first was of- 
 fered in gratitude for mercies received 
 (Ps. 116:16, 17); the second also for 
 mercies received, but where the offer- 
 ing had been promised in advance upon 
 that condition; the third was merely a 
 spontaneous expression of the offerer’s 
 love to God and his desire to live in fel- 
 lowship with Him. 
 
 (2) With the peace-offering a meal- 
 offering of three kinds of unleavened cakes 
 was to be offered (cf. Num. 15:2-4). 
 Besides these ‘‘leavened bread”’ also was 
 permitted (v. 13), but this was not to be 
 placed upon the altar as for God, but to 
 be eaten before God by the offerer, his 
 family and friends. Of each of these 
 cakes, leavened and unleavened, one was 
 to be presented as a ‘“‘heave-offering to 
 the Lord, and it shall be the priests.”’ 
 “‘Heave-offering’’ is so called from its 
 being heaved or lifted up on high, ‘‘in 
 token that it was thereby directed to the 
 God of heaven and devoutly proffered 
 to His acceptance’’ (Bush). 
 
 (3) If the peace-offering were a sac- 
 rifice of thanksgiving, the flesh of the 
 offering must be eaten the same day. 
 If it were a vow or a free-will offering a 
 part might remain until the second day, 
 
 but the remainder if any, must be burnt 
 with fire on the third day. 
 
 Doubtless the reason for this was that 
 there might be no possible beginning of 
 decay, a thought which reminds us that 
 it was written of the Antitype, ‘‘Thou 
 wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see cor- 
 ruption’”’ (Ps. 16:10). Furthermore, the 
 extreme limit of time allowed reminds us 
 also that it was precisely on the third day 
 that Christ arose from the dead in the 
 incorruptible life of the resurrection so 
 that He might forever continue to be the 
 Living Bread of His people (Kellogg). 
 
 This is a good place to pause and en- 
 large upon the main object of the peace- 
 offering as distinguishing it from the 
 burnt and the meal-offerings. In the 
 burnt-offering the burning ended the 
 ceremonial, but in the peace-offering, 
 after the burning of the part which be- 
 longed to God, there followed the cul- 
 minating act in the eating of the sac- 
 rifice by the offerer and his household. 
 
 At Home With God 
 
 The chapter before us gives no direc- 
 tions as to how this sacrificial eating 
 should be done, but these are found in 
 Deuteronomy 12:6, 7; 17, 18. The eat- 
 ing was to take place not at the offerer’s 
 home but before the Lord at the tent of 
 meeting. This was to show that the 
 feast was not given by the worshiper to 
 God, but given by God to the worshiper 
 and partaken of in His house. In the 
 first instance indeed, the offerer had 
 brought and given the victim to God in 
 expiation of his sin. But God, after re- 
 ceiving the offering, indicates what use 
 is to be made of it. A part is burnt on 
 the altar, God’s portion; a part is given 
 to the priests as their appointed susten- 
 ance from God’s table whom they served, 
 and a part is to feast the worshiper him- 
 self, 
 
 ‘“‘Profoundly suggestive and instruc- 
 tive is the contrast between the heathen 
 custom in this offering and the Levitical 
 ordinance,’’ says Kellogg. For the cus- 
 tom was widely spread among heathen 
 peoples to observe a sacrificial feast 
 where a victim was first offered to a deity 
 and then its flesh eaten by the offerer 
 

 
 18 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 and his friends. But in the case of the 
 heathen feasts it was men who feasted 
 the god, while here it is God who feasts 
 man. The idea of the natural man has 
 always been, ‘‘I will be religious and 
 make God my friend by doing something 
 for Him or giving something to Him.’’ 
 But God teaches us the reverse. We 
 become truly religious by first of all tak- 
 ing what He has provided for us. Inthe 
 peace-offering in other words, where 
 antitypically we have presented the Lamb 
 of God as our peace, and the Priest has 
 sprinkled for us the precious blood, not 
 only is our sin pardoned, but in token 
 of friendship thus restored, God invites 
 the penitent believer to sit down at His 
 table in joyful fellowship with Himself. 
 The prodigal has returned and the Father 
 is giving him the best He has. 
 
 Nor is this all. What is ‘‘the best He 
 has’ which the Father thus gives the 
 prodigal? It is the same Victim whose 
 blood was shed and sprinkled in atone- 
 ment for his sin! The sacrifice of the 
 altar and the food of the table are one 
 and the same. He who offered Himself 
 for our sins on Calvary is now yiven to 
 the believer as his spiritual sustenance. 
 Does the imagery seem strange and un- 
 natural? ‘‘So,’’ says Dr. Kellogg, ‘‘did 
 it seem to the Jews in Christ’s day, who 
 wonderingly inquired: ‘How can this 
 man give us his flesh to eat?’ (John 
 G52) 
 
 How the light begins now to flash back 
 from the gospel to the Levitical law, and 
 from this again back to the gospel! 
 
 ‘‘And the flesh that toucheth any 
 unclean thing shall not be eaten; it 
 shall be burnt with fire: and as for the 
 
 flesh, all that be clean shall 
 3. The One eat thereof. 
 Condition “But the soul that eateth 
 of the flesh of the sacrifice 
 of peace-offerings, that pertain unto 
 the Lorn, having his uncleanness upon 
 him, even that soul shall be cut off 
 from his people. 
 
 ‘‘Moreover the soul that shall touch 
 any unclean thing, as the uncleanness 
 of man, or any unclean beast, or any 
 abominable unclean thing, and eat of 
 the flesh of the sacrifice of peace- 
 offerings, which pertain unto the Lorn, 
 
 even that soul shall be cut off from 
 
 his people’’ (Lev. 7:19-21). 
 
 This teaches us that there was one 
 condition without which the Israelite 
 could not have communion with God in- 
 the peace-offering. He must be clean,’ 
 that is to say, there must be in him noth-. 
 ing which should interrupt fellowship 
 with God. So also must the peace-offer- 
 ing itself be clean. There must be 
 nothing in the type to make it an unfit 
 symbol of the Antitype. Thus by the 
 spirit of these commands are we like- 
 wise warned not to presume upon God's 
 grace in providing a Lamb for us by liv- 
 ing carelessly. To use and enjoy Christ 
 as our peace-offering, we must keep our- 
 selves ‘‘unspotted from the world” 
 (James 1:27) and hate “even the gar- 
 ment spotted by the flesh’’ (Jude 23). 
 Compare also 1 Peter 1:15, 16. ) 
 
 Nothing can be more important for 
 the right comfort of our hearts than to ~ 
 meditate well on the relation of God to 
 us as expressed in this offering. Being 
 therefore justified by faith, let us have 
 peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ (Rom. ‘531, R.). V.ji 3baeeoeee 
 words, being at peace with God, let us 
 enjoy the peace which He has thus pro- 
 vided, let us feed on the peace sacrifice. 
 The offerer seated at the table spread 
 by the grace of God, is a type of the con- 
 dition of every believer in Christ, how- 
 ever feeble he may be in apprehending 
 the blessings that are his. Whenever 
 the great day of eternity breaks, he will 
 be recognized as one who is in fellowship 
 with God at the table of peace sacrifice. 
 The sin of our nature, that which of all 
 things is most depressing and terrifying 
 to an awakened heart, is met forever by 
 this grace. Our sorrow thus. is turned 
 into joy and the cry of helpless despair 
 exchanged for the voice of thanksgiving. - 
 The Lord hath done great things for us; 
 whereof we are glad (Ps. 126:3). He 
 hath given us the garment of praise for 
 the spirit of heaviness (Isa. 61:3) (Kel- 
 logg). 
 
 Review Questions 
 
 1. What is the main object of the 
 
 peace-offering? 
 
Sa —— Ss _ 
 peer 
 yo) ia - a 
 
 C THE SIN-OFFERING~ . 19 
 
 2. What is its dominant thought? 
 
 3. What is the significance of the 
 “fat’’ being burned oa the altar? 
 
 4, Of what two things was the Israel- 
 ite reminded as he partook of his daily 
 food? 
 
 5. How many kinds of peace-offer- 
 ings might there be? 
 
 6. Define the ‘‘heave-offering.”’ 
 
 7. Describe the contrast between the 
 heathen custom in this offering and the 
 Levitical ordinance. 
 
 8. What was the absolute condition 
 for communion with God in the peace- 
 offering? 
 
 9. What great truth in the Epistle 
 to the Romans does this offering illum- 
 inate? 
 
 LESSON V 
 
 The Sin-Offering 
 
 Leviticus 4:1-35; 5:1-13 
 
 BSERVE that the law of the 
 
 sin-offering is introduced  dif- 
 
 ferently from any of the pre- 
 
 ceding offerings. In their cases 
 the phraseology is thus: “If any man 
 of you bring an offering unto the Lorpb”’ 
 (1:2); ‘‘When any one will offer a meal- 
 
 offering’? (2:1); ‘If his oblation be a 
 sacrifice of peace-offering’’ (3:1). But 
 in this case, “If a soul shall sin : 
 then let him bring for a sin- 
 
 offering” (4:2, 3). 
 
 In the first three the language im- 
 plies, so Kellogg and others think, 
 that the Israelites were familiar with 
 the offering before its incorporation 
 into the Levitical system, while the 
 sin-offering is introduced as a new thing. 
 
 This. agrees with facts. Each of the 
 other offerings had been known and 
 used by other nations, as well as by 
 the patriarchs before 
 Moses’ time, but noth- 
 ing -had been heard 
 of a sin-offering. The 
 significance of this 
 is that now in Israel the spiritual train- 
 ing of mankind “entered on a new 
 stadium.’ The race is now to have 
 developed within it a sense of sin and 
 guilt it had never before experienced. 
 The sin and guilt were there, but they 
 had been inadequately known and 
 felt. In this offering therefore, the 
 idea of expiation by blood shedding 
 
 1. The Reason 
 for the 
 Sin-Offering 
 
 is almost the only thought represented. 
 Moreover in the order prescribed for 
 the different sacrifices, the sin-offering 
 was always the first in cases where the 
 others also were offered. In the others, 
 Israel was taught that fellowship with 
 God depends upon atonement for sin, 
 but here that is the dominant thought. 
 
 As Jukes expresses it, the sweet- 
 savor offerings (burnt, meal, peace) 
 were for acceptance, this for expiation. 
 In those the faithful Israelite was seen 
 satisfying Jehovah, here his offering 
 is altogether charged with his sin. 
 In the sin-offering as in the burnt- 
 offering, Christ is the offerer as repre- 
 senting the Israelite, but here He does 
 so as the one under the imputation of 
 sin. Here He is taking up His people’s 
 sins as His own, and saying, ‘‘My sins, 
 O God, are not hid from thee”’ (Ps. 69: 
 5); “Innumerable evils have compassed 
 me about; mine iniquities have taken 
 hold upon me” (Ps. 40:12). Here He 
 is “being made a curse for us’ (Gal. 
 3:13). Oh, wondrous mystery of grace! 
 
 It might be well at this point to add 
 a further thought from Jukes, as to 
 the reason why the sin-offering was 
 unknown before this time. He obtains 
 his idea from the word ‘‘command- 
 ments’”’ (v 2). 
 
 As Paul says in Romans 7:9, “I was 
 alive without the law once, but when 
 the commandment came, sin revived 
 and I died.’’ Israel had no law till 
 Sinai. Burnt-offerings and meal-offerings 
 
20 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 were offered by the patriarchs, but the 
 law convicted men of sin and made 
 necessary the sin-offering. Or to put 
 it better, ‘‘the law entered that sin 
 might abound’’ (Rom. 5:20). That is 
 to say, the law was not given either 
 to make or to prove men holy, but 
 rather to prove us to ourselves to be 
 what God has known us to be ever since 
 the fall, i. e., sinners in His sight. 
 
 ‘‘And the Lorp spake unto Moses, 
 saying, 
 
 “Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 
 saying, If a soul shall 
 
 2. Graded sin through ignorance 
 
 Responsibility against any of the 
 
 commandments of the 
 
 LorD concerning things which ought 
 
 not to be done, and shall do against 
 any of them: 
 
 “Tf the priest that is anointed do 
 sin according to the sin of the people; 
 then let him bring for his sin, which 
 he hath sinned, a young bullock 
 without blemish unto the Lorp for 
 a sin-offering. 
 
 “And he shall bring the bullock 
 unto the door of the tabernacle of 
 the congregation before the Lorp; 
 and shall lay his hand upon the 
 bullock’s head, and kill the bullock 
 before the Lorn” (Lev. 4:1-4). 
 
 (1) Note that the sins for which this 
 sacrifice was appointed were those of 
 ignorance, showing the absolute equity 
 of God. He is just, but He takes notice 
 of any palliating circumstance. (Cf. 
 Matt. 26:41; Luke 12:48; Heb. 5:2). 
 
 But the necessity of this offering shows 
 that palliation of sin does not nullify it. 
 It must be atoned for. This bears on the 
 responsibility of the heathen, whose 
 ignorance where it is not wilful and 
 avoidable diminishes their guilt, but does 
 not cancel it. 
 
 But some one may say, the Israelite 
 was obliged to bring his sin-offering only 
 when he came to a knowledge of his sin! 
 Yes, but that does not mean that his sin 
 was passed over, as we shall see when we 
 come to the law of the Day of Atonement 
 (Lev. 16). Once every year a sin-offering 
 was presented by the high priest for all 
 the sins of Israel not atoned for in the 
 
 sin-offerings of every day (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4, 
 Re Va 
 
 There is a prevailing feeling in human 
 hearts that sins of ignorance are not sins. 
 To act conscientiously, they think, 
 is the same as to act blamelessly. It is 
 for this reason that some do not desire to 
 know more than they do. Light is dis- 
 quieting and convicting. 
 
 But the heinousness of sins of ignorance 
 is in the condition of heart which is 
 capable of committing sin without know- 
 ing that it is sin. No one can ever doubt 
 this after seriously pondering the signifi- 
 cance of the sin-offering. 
 
 (2) Note the graded responsibility of 
 sin in the application of the law to the 
 priest who must bring ‘‘a*young bullock’”’ 
 for his offering (4:3). »This was the most 
 valuable of all the varieties or grades of 
 the offering, being the same indeed as 
 must be offered “if the whole congrega- 
 tion of Israel sin’”’ (4:13,:14). A ruler 
 might bring a he-goat (4:23), and “‘one of 
 the common people’”’ might bring a female 
 goat (4:28), or if unable to do that, 
 “two turtle doves or two young pigeons’”’ 
 (5:7) or other substitutes (5:11). 
 
 As Kellogg says, ‘‘No one can well miss 
 the meaning of this. The guilt of sin is 
 proportioned to the rank and station of 
 the offender (cf. James 3:1; and also Rev. 
 2 and 3 where ‘the angel of the church’ 
 in every case is held responsible for the 
 spiritual state of those committed to © 
 his charge).’’ The greater our privileges, — 
 the nearer we are brought to God; the 
 more intimately we are connected with 
 Him in service, the more terrible must 
 
 be the consequences of transgression.— 
 B. W. Newton. 
 
 (3) Note that according to this God 
 holds nations, communities and ail asso- 
 ciations of men under obligation in their 
 corporate capacity to keep His laws, and 
 will not count them guiltless if they vio- 
 late them even through ignorance. 
 There is a universal tendency in Christen- 
 dom to repudiate such responsibility, 
 and what it shall mean one of these days 
 is revealed in Scripture with startling 
 clearness in the warning concerning the — 
 
THE SIN-OFFERING 21 
 
 Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3-8; 1 John 2:18; 
 REV Loti). 
 
 (4) Note that the !aw concerning the 
 common people is expanded more fully 
 than any other part of it, reminding us 
 that none is so lowly in station as to 
 have his sins overlooked. There is no 
 respect of persons with God. 
 
 “And the priest that is anointed 
 shall take of the bullock’s blood, 
 and bring it to the tabernacle of 
 
 the congregation: 
 3. The “And the priest shall dip 
 Ritual his finger in the blood, and 
 sprinkle of the blood seven 
 times before the Lorp, before the 
 vail of the sanctuary. 
 
 “And the priest shall put some 
 
 of the blood upon the horns of the 
 altar of sweet incense before the 
 Lorp, which is in the tabernacle 
 of the congregation; and shall pour 
 all the blood of the bullock at the 
 bottom of the altar of the burnt- 
 offering, which is at the door of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation’’( Lev. 
 4:5-7). 
 Here we have the ritual of the sin- 
 offering. It differs in some respects from 
 that of the other offerings, but the varia- 
 tions have all one intent. They fasten 
 the mind of the offerer on the thought of 
 expiating sin through the substitution 
 of an innocent life for the guilty. 
 
 (1) In the other offerings where the 
 idea of expiation had a secondary place, 
 the blood of the victim, by whomsoever 
 brought, might be applied to the sides of 
 the altar only, i. e., the altar in the outer 
 court commonly spoken of as the altar 
 of burnt-offering. But here in the case 
 of the priest, it must be sprinkled seven 
 times before the Lord before the vail of 
 the sanctuary, also upon the horns of the 
 altar of incense before the Lord in the 
 Tabernacle and “all the blood of the 
 bullock shall he pour out at the bottom 
 of the altar of burnt-offering.’’ This 
 must be done as well where the offering 
 was for ‘‘the whole congregation,”’ i. e., 
 the nation (4:13-18). 
 
 When a ruler sinned it would be suff- 
 cient to sprinkle the blood on the horns 
 of the altar of burnt-offering, and pour 
 out the blood at the bottom of the altar 
 
 , 
 
 a 
 
 (4:25). The same in the case of one of the 
 common people (4:30), except when the 
 latter was too poor to bring more than 
 two doves or two pigeons, in which cir- 
 cumstance the blood was to be sprinkled 
 only upon the side of the altar and the 
 rest ‘“‘wrung out at the bottom” (5:7-9). 
 
 (2) In these distinctions we see the 
 blood brought ever nearer and nearer 
 into the presence of God. The horns 
 of the altar were more sacred than the 
 sides; the altar before the vail was more 
 sacred than that in the outer court; 
 while the Most Holy Place was within the 
 vail where the ark stood covered with 
 the mercy seat. Here the blood was 
 sprinkled once a year on the great Day 
 of Atonement (Lev. 16). 
 
 Why these distinctions? A ruler or 
 one of the common people had access 
 only to the outer court, hence there the 
 blood must be exhibited for the sin which 
 defiled it. The priest ministered in the 
 holy place, and for the same reason the 
 blood must be exhibited there when he 
 sinned. And the same principle held 
 when the sin atoned for was that of the 
 whole nation, for the priest represented 
 the nation, and Israel in its corporate 
 unity was a ‘“‘kingdom of priests.”’ 
 
 The last remark applies to Christian 
 believers who are a “royal priesthood’’ 
 (1 Pet. 2:9). Hence how much more evil 
 a thing it is for Christians to sin in com- 
 parison with other people! 
 
 (3) The blood must be presented not 
 before the offerer, not before the priest, 
 but before the Lord (cf. Ps. 51:4). 
 
 Some are teaching today that the need 
 of the atonement is found only in man 
 and not at all in God. God could have 
 pardoned sin without it, they say. Why 
 then, was it called for? Their answer 
 would be that man’s heart was hard and 
 rebellious and distrusted the divine love. 
 Therefore, some stupendous exhibition 
 of that love was necessary to disarm 
 man’s enmity and win him back. 
 
 If that were all that was intended by 
 the atonement, why then this constant 
 insistence as to where the blood should 
 be presented? This does not minimize 
 the love of God when we remember that 
 
22 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 He appointed the sacrifice and that He 
 Himself in the person of His Son accom- 
 plished it. 
 
 But if the shedding of blood were so 
 essential in the putting away of sin, 
 why, it may be asked, was there one case 
 in which an exception might be made 
 es BOs 
 
 The exception here was that of an 
 extremely poor Israelite, and had it not 
 been made there would have remained 
 that class of persons in Israel whom God 
 had excluded from the provision of the 
 sin-offering, and yet He had made that 
 offering the inseparable condition of for- 
 giveness. As Kellogg puts it, here was a 
 case very evidently in which something 
 must be sacrificed in. the symbolism 
 since both of these truths could not be 
 set forth with equal perfectness. 
 
 And yet even in this case, the pre- 
 scriptions were such as to prevent any 
 confounding of the sin-offering with the 
 meal-offering which typified consecrated 
 and accepted service. For example, the 
 oil and the frankincense were both to be 
 left out. Also, while the meal-offering 
 had no limit as to the quantity to be used 
 here, the amount is particularly pre- 
 scribed ‘‘the tenth part of an ephah,’’ 
 representing the sustenance of one full 
 day. Thus the support of life for one 
 day was given up as forfeited by sin. 
 
 Here again we quote Jukes on the 
 import of hese varied symbols, who re- 
 marks that in the sin-offering as in the 
 burnt-offering they show us the different 
 characters under which the offering of 
 Christ may be apprehended by men. 
 One saint has one view and another 
 another. In the preceding offerings 
 there was found an indistinctness in 
 what was called the lower views of the 
 offering—a mixing up of one aspect with 
 another. And so it is here, until the 
 thought of the sin-offering is seen to be 
 very little different fron) that of the meal- 
 offering. But though of ‘flour’ it is 
 still designated a ‘“‘sin-offering.”’ 
 
 How exactly this peculiarity in the 
 type describes the way in which some 
 apprehend our blessed Lord! Some see 
 the pain and sorrow He had in service, 
 
 the grinding and scorching of the meal- 
 offering and they think this was His sin- 
 bearing, being unable to distinguish be- 
 tween the trials of service and the curse 
 of sin itseif. 
 
 Jukes carries the thought forward to 
 the matter of the blood-sprinkling on the 
 different altars, which is unintelligible to 
 those who have never considered the 
 typical import of the relative parts of the © 
 Tabernacle. An atonement has been 
 made for sin, this much people see, and 
 it is enough for them and they are thank- 
 ful, and go no further. 
 
 The same spirit, says Jukes, which 
 makes the fool say, ‘‘There is no God,” 
 tempts even some Christians to say, 
 “there is nought in much that Christ 
 wrought for us.’’ 
 
 ‘“‘And he shall take off from it 
 all the fat of the bullock for the sin-- 
 offering; the fat that covereth the 
 
 inwards, and all the fat 
 4. The that is upon the ‘inwards, 
 Burning ‘“‘And the two kidneys, and 
 
 the fat that is upon them, 
 which is by the flanks, and the caul 
 above the liver, with the kidneys, 
 it shall he take away, 
 
 ‘‘As it was taken off from the bul- 
 lock of the sacrifice of peace-offerings: 
 and the priest shall burn them upon 
 the altar of the burnt-offering. 
 
 ‘‘And the skin of the bulleck, and 
 all his flesh, with his head, and with 
 his legs, and his inwards, and his 
 dung, 
 
 “Even the whole bullock shall he 
 carry forth without the camp unto 
 a clean place, where the ashes are 
 poured out, and burn him on the 
 wood with fire: where the ashes are 
 Sra out shall he be burnt’”’ (Lev. 
 4:8-12). 
 
 As in the peace-offering, so in this case 
 all is not burnt upon the altar but only 
 the choicest part, and for the same 
 reason as in the other case. The peculiar 
 variation in the offering of the two young 
 pigeons (5:7-10) is explained in the 
 nature of the victims. The fat of a dove 
 would be so small in quantity and so 
 difficult to separate with thoroughness 
 that a second bird must be taken for 
 
eat 
 ./.- 
 
 ‘- 
 ~~ 
 
 sf THE SIN-OFFERING 23 
 
 burning as a substitute for the fat of 
 larger animals. What the burning of 
 the fat meant in the other offerings, the 
 burning of the second bird meant in this 
 offering. 
 
 (1) Note that because of the solemn 
 relation into which the expiatory victim 
 had been brought to God, the offerer was 
 not permitted to eat of its flesh for it was 
 ‘“‘most holy.’”’ The priest might eat a 
 portion (6:26) as contributing to his own 
 maintenance (1 Cor. 9:13), but even he 
 was prohibited from doing so when he 
 himself was the offerer, either as an 
 individual or as included in the congre- 
 gation. 
 
 (2) Note that the flesh must be burnt 
 
 ‘not upon the altar but ‘without the 
 
 camp.’ Not only, as some think, to 
 distinguish it from the burnt-offering 
 whose symbolic meaning was so different, 
 but because in one sense it was ‘‘unholy.’’ 
 That is to say, the offering was so identi- 
 fied with the sin for which it was offered, 
 that it was looked upon as sin, and as 
 such cast out into the wilderness. The 
 ‘fat’? was burned on the altar to show 
 that the offering though made a sin- 
 
 bearer, was itself perfect, but the body 
 
 of the victim was cast forth. Compare 
 here Hebrews 13:12, which shows Jesus, 
 the only spotless offering this world ever 
 witnessed, not only afflicted of man, but 
 judged of God and smitten. And why? 
 For the answer read Isaiah 53:10; 
 veGorinthians 5:21, and. 1. Peter 2:24. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Hebrews our 
 attention is called to the fact that this 
 part of the ritual prefigured Christ and 
 the circumstances of His death very 
 particularly (Heb. 13:10-12). As Dean 
 Alford interprets this passage in Hebrews, 
 it means that Jesus suffered outside the 
 camp of legal Judaism and thus fulfilled 
 the type of the sin-offering. In other 
 words, His consecration of Himself to 
 God found supreme expression in that 
 He voluntarily submitted to be despised 
 and rejected of men, even of the Israel of 
 God. In the light of these marvelous 
 correspondences between the type and 
 the antitype, what a profound meaning 
 more and more appears in those words of 
 
 Christ concerning Moses, ‘‘He wrote of 
 me’’ (Kellogg). 
 
 It remains to add that notwithstanding 
 the inclusiveness of the cases for which 
 the sin-offering was provided, there still 
 remained some sins for which no offering 
 was available. In other parts of the 
 Pentateuch, the Israelites were taught 
 that no satisfaction should be taken for 
 the life of a murderer, or a blasphemer, 
 or an adulterer. This was intended 
 not only to emphasize the aggravated 
 wickedness of such crimes, but also to 
 develop in Israel the sense of need for a 
 more adequate provision, a better sacri- 
 fice, as the Epistle to the Hebrews re- 
 veals (Heb. 8). 
 
 Review Questions 
 1. What difference do you observe in 
 the introduction of the law of the sin- 
 offering? 
 2. What is implied in this difference? 
 3. What is Jukes’ explanation that this 
 offering was unknown before? 
 
 4, Why was the law of Sinai given to 
 men? 
 
 5. How is God’s equity illustrated in 
 the sin-offering? 
 
 6. Does ignorance cancel guilt? 
 
 7. What shows that guilt is propor- 
 tioned to knowledge and responsibility? 
 
 8. What shows that God is no respect- 
 er of persons? 
 
 9. What deep significance attaches to 
 the fact that the blood must be sprinkled 
 before Jehovah? 
 
 10. Express Jukes’ idea of the import 
 of the varieties in the symbols. 
 
 11. Apply Jukes’ idea of the varieties to 
 the Christian’s apprehension of Christ. 
 
 12. Why was the victim here burned 
 ‘without the camp’’? 
 
 13. Did the sin-offering avail for all 
 acts of sin absolutely? 
 
 14. What was emphasized by its limi- 
 tations? 
 
 15. More than twenty passages of 
 Scripture are referred to in this lesson 
 outside of the lesson text itself; how: 
 many of them have you examined? 
 
24 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 LESSON VI 
 
 The Trespass-Offering 
 Leviticus 5:14-19; 6:1-7 
 N ITS broad principle the trespass- 
 offering is closely allied to the sin- 
 offering and yet it differs from it in 
 some particulars. The sin-offering 
 represents sim in our nature, while the 
 trespass-offering represents the frutts of 
 sin in our nature. In the first no par- 
 ticular act of sin is named, but the person 
 who has sinned is seen confessing him- 
 self as a sinner; while in the second the 
 acts are enumerated and the person who 
 committed them is rather in the back- 
 ground. The word ‘trespass’? always 
 has reference to an invasion of the 
 rights of others in respect of property 
 or service. 
 
 Andrew Jukes who brings out the dis- 
 tinction between the 
 sin and the trespass- 
 offerings very clearly, 
 expresses the convic- 
 tion that many persons 
 see the spiritual truth of the trespass- 
 offering who have very imperfect ideas of 
 Christ as the sin-offering. Nor is he 
 thinking of unconverted people either 
 when he says this, to whom, of course, 
 acts of trespass are the only things dis- 
 cernible. But he is thinking of young 
 Christians, who have much less percep- 
 tion of sin than of trespass. They speak 
 of having done this evil or that, but 
 seldom think of themselves as being evil. 
 Not so the man who has grown in grace, 
 who is sorry not so much for what he 
 does as for what he ts (Rom. 7:14-24). 
 To such a man, what a joy to learn that 
 Christ has died for what he is as well 
 as for what he does! 
 
 “And the Lord spake unto Moses, 
 saying, If a soul commit a trespass, 
 
 1. Compared 
 with the 
 Sin- Offering 
 
 and sin through ignorance, in the 
 holy things of the 
 2. No Variety Lorp; then he shall 
 
 or bring for his trespass 
 
 Gradation unto the Lorp a ram 
 
 without blemish out of 
 
 the flocks, with thy estimation by 
 
 shekels of silver, after the shekel of the 
 sanctuary, for a trespass-offering. 
 
 And he shall make amends for the 
 harm that he hath done in the holy 
 thing, and shall add the fifth part 
 thereto, and give it unto the priest: 
 and the priest shall make an atonement 
 for him with the ram of the trespass- 
 offering, and it shall be forgiven him” 
 (Lev. 5:14-16). 
 
 The law of the trespass-offering really 
 begins here, although the word ‘“‘tres- 
 pass” is found in the preceding part of 
 the chapter (vv. 6, 7). The King James 
 Version is in error there however, as the 
 Revised Version points out. See also 
 verse 12 where it is clear that the sin- 
 offering is still in mind. 
 
 (1) Note that one may commit even 
 a trespass through “‘ignorance,’’ showing 
 as Jukes says, how little man’s judgment 
 can be trusted respecting not only what 
 he is but what he does (cf. Ps. 119:9, 11). 
 
 (2) Note that the trespass here 
 spoken of is in “the holy things of the 
 Lorp.’’ What things? Read Malachi 
 1:6-14 for an answer in part. (Also see 
 Josh. 7:1; 2 Chron. 28:22-25)293PhGse 
 who live nearest to God will confess 
 that which to others may seem incredible, 
 that often there has been unwitting 
 trespass in the holiest acts of work and 
 worship. As Jukes says, there is no act 
 of praise, or prayer, or any kind of min- 
 istry which may not, through Satan’s 
 cunning, prove an occasion to the flesh. 
 
 (3) Note that the trespasser must 
 bring ‘‘a ram out of the flocks’ as an 
 offering in every case. Unlike the sin- 
 offering for example, there is no variation 
 either on account of the rank or the 
 ability of the offender. The obligation 
 of plenary satisfaction and reparation 
 for the trespass committed could not be 
 modified in any way. The man who 
 has defrauded his neighbor, whether of a 
 small or a large amount, abides as his 
 debtor before God under allsconditions 
 until restitution is made. 
 
 The ram was a valuable offering as 
 compared with a dove or pigeon or even 
 a ewe or a lamb, but it was not a bullock, 
 which might be quite out of the reach 
 of many a poor man. The idea of value 
 
: THE TRESPASS-OFFERING 23 
 
 must be represented, and yet not so 
 represented as to exclude a large part 
 of the people from the provisions of the 
 trespass-offering. 
 
 Furthermore, the value must be ac- 
 cording to God’s standard, not man’s. 
 It must not fall below two shekels, and 
 the shekel must be that of the sanctuary 
 (Kellogg). 
 
 (4) Note that in the trespass-offering 
 something additional is required to the 
 sacrificial ram. The life must be laid 
 down, but the value of the trespass must 
 be paid to the injured party also. For 
 the victim merely to die for trespass 
 would leave the injured party still a 
 loser, the death would not repair the 
 trespass nor restore the rights of which 
 another had been robbed. Yet till this 
 was done perfect atonement or satis- 
 faction could not be rendered. 
 
 ‘May one be pardon’d and retain 
 the offense? 
 
 In the corrupted currents of this world 
 
 Offence’s gilded hand may shove by 
 justice, 
 
 And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize 
 itself 
 
 Buys out the law; but ’tis 
 above.” 
 
 —The King of Denmark, in Hamlet. 
 
 Therefore, a “fifth part’’ more than 
 the cost of trespass must be added in the 
 indemnity. Jukes traces the idea asso- 
 ciated with the ‘‘fifth 
 part’’ back to the 
 days of Joseph and 
 the famine in Egypt 
 (Gen. 47:13-26), where 
 we cannot follow him just now. But 
 we may say that the “fifth part’ is a 
 witness not only that the sum or the 
 object yielded up has been so yielded 
 up as a debt, and not as a free gift, but 
 that the whole of that of which the fifth 
 was paid, was the right and the property 
 of the one to whom it was thus rendered. 
 Moreover, the guilty person is not 
 allowed to gain even a temporary advan- 
 tage from the use of that which he has 
 now restored. “The fifth part more’’ 
 would quite over-balance it. 
 
 Wonderful, indeed, are the ways of 
 God! How exact is His justice, and 
 
 not so 
 
 3. Significance 
 of the 
 “Fifth Part’’ 
 
 how perfectly adapted was the trespass- 
 offering to educate the conscience of 
 both the rich and poor! 
 
 “And if a soul sin, and commit any 
 of these things which are forbidden to 
 be done by the commandments of the 
 Lorp; though he wist it not, yet is he 
 guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. 
 
 And he shall bring a ram without 
 blemish out of the flock, with thy esti- 
 mation, for a trespass-offering, unto 
 the priest: and the priest shall make 
 an atonement for him concerning his 
 ignorance wherein he erred and wist 
 it not, and it shall be forgiven him. 
 
 It is a trespass-offering: he hath cer- 
 tainly trespassed against the Lorp”’ 
 (Lev. 5:17-19). 
 
 In the former section the law provided 
 for cases in which, though the trespass 
 had been done unwittingly, yet the 
 offender afterward came to know of it in 
 its precise extent, so as to give exact 
 basis for the restitution ordered in such 
 cases. 
 
 But here he was in complete ignorance 
 of it. He was aware ofa trespass, in 
 other words, but did not know just how 
 much it was. A fifth part could not be 
 applied in such a case, yet none the less 
 he must bear his iniquity, the ram must 
 be offered. The reference is still, doubt- 
 less, to a trespass ‘‘in the holy things 
 of the Lorp.’’ If it had been a trespass 
 against a neighbor, the exact cost might 
 more readily have been ascertained. 
 
 ‘‘And the Lorp spake unto Moses, 
 saying, If a soul sin, and commit a tres- 
 pass against the Lorp, and lie unto his 
 
 neighbor in that which 
 
 4. What was delivered him to 
 Constitutes keep, or in fellow- 
 Trespass ship, or in a thing 
 
 taken away by vio- 
 lence, or hath deceived his neighbor; 
 
 Or have found that which was lost, 
 and lieth concerning it, and sweareth 
 falsely; in any of all these that a man 
 doeth, sinning therein; 
 
 Then it shall be, because he hath 
 sinned, and is guilty, that he shall 
 restore that which he took violently 
 away, or the thing which he hath 
 deceitfully gotten, or that which was 
 delivered him to keep, or the lost thing 
 which he found. 
 
26 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 Or all that about which he hath 
 sworn falsely: he shall even restore it 
 in the principal, and shall add the 
 fifth part more thereto, and give it 
 unto him to whom it appertaineth, in 
 the day of his trespass-offering. 
 
 And he shall bring his trespass- 
 offering unto the Lorp, a ram without 
 blemish out of the flock, with thy 
 estimation, for a trespass-offering unto 
 the priest: 
 
 And the priest shall make an atone- 
 ment for him before the Lorp: and it 
 shall be forgiven him for any thing of 
 all that he hath done in trespassing 
 therein’”’ (Lev. 6:1-7). 
 
 These verses are quoted not because 
 they present serious difficulties, but 
 because they offer an opportunity for 
 some very practical teaching in spiritual 
 things. They recite some of the things 
 which constitute trespass against one’s 
 neighbor, but for which the same offer- 
 ing must be presented and the same 
 restitution made. 
 
 What are the things? (1) Dealing 
 falsely with a neighbor in a matter of 
 deposit (R. V.). 
 ed to a man and he sold it or used it 
 unlawfully as if it were his own. (2) Deal- 
 ing falsely in a’ bargain (R. V.). A man 
 sold some goods or a piece of land and 
 represented them to be better than they 
 were, or asked a larger price than they 
 were worth. (3) Robbery, ‘“‘a_ thing 
 taken away by violence,’’ even perhaps 
 under color of legal forms as we might 
 now say. (4) Oppression, taking ad- 
 vantage of a neighbor’s.circumstances to 
 extort from him to his disadvantage. 
 (5) Finding and keeping a lost article 
 belonging to some one else. 
 
 In all these cases the prescription is 
 the same as in analogous offenses in 
 the holy things of Jehovah. First, the 
 guilty man must confess the wrong 
 which he has done (Num. 5:5-7), then 
 restitution must be made of that of 
 which he has defrauded his neighbor, 
 and then one-fifth additional. But while 
 this may set him right with man, it does 
 not yet set him right with God; hence 
 the trespass-offering completes the law. 
 
 Of course, like all the others, the 
 trespass-offering pointed to Christ who 
 
 Something was entrust- | 
 
 is ‘‘the end of the law unto righteousness’’ 
 
 (Rom. 10:4). As our 
 5. Pointing burnt-offering He became 
 to Christ our righteousness in full 
 
 self-surrender; as our 
 peace-offering He became our life in 
 fellowship with God; as our sin-offering 
 He became the expiation for our sins, 
 and as our trespass-offering He made 
 satisfaction and full reparation on our~ 
 behalf to the God on whose rights in 
 us we had trespassed by our sins without 
 measure. See Isaiah 53:10 where the 
 Hebrew word for ‘‘an offering for sin’’, 
 is the same which through all this Levit- 
 ical law is rendered trespass, or ‘‘guilt’’ 
 offering. In the New Testament also, 
 as the correlate of the trespass-offering 
 we find sin frequently set forth as a 
 debt owed from man to God (Matt. 6: 
 12; 18:23-35; Luke 7:41, 42). 
 
 Kellogg reminds us that this repre- 
 sentation of Christ’s work has in all 
 ages been ‘‘the offense of the Cross,’’ 
 for which reason there is all the more 
 need for us to insist that Christ is our 
 trespass-offering, whose death affects our 
 salvation not merely through its moral 
 influence but by its expiation and repara- 
 tion. This truth is ever to be set forth 
 against all Modernisnt, Liberalism or 
 Unitarian theology in any other name. 
 
 Review Questions 
 
 1. In what fundamental way does the 
 trespass-offering differ from the © 
 sin-offering? 
 
 2. What is involved in the meaning of 
 the word ‘‘trespass’’? 
 
 3. In which of the two offerings is the 
 spiritual truth more easily dis- 
 cerned? . 
 
 4. What are meant by the holy things 
 of the Lord? 
 
 5. Why was something additional re- 
 quired to the sacrificial ram? 
 
 6. Name some of the things constituting 
 trespass against one’s neighbor. 
 
 7. To whom does the trespass-offering 
 point? 
 
 8. State the different ways in which 
 Christ is our substitute, as repre- 
 sented by the different offerings. 
 
 9. Is sin ever spoken of in the Bible as 
 a debt to God? If so, where? 
 
sight” (Col. 1:22). 
 
 ‘THE OFFERINGS AS A WHOLE 
 
 bo 
 ~“ 
 
 LESSON VII 
 
 The Offerings as a Whole* 
 
 HE essential thing which consti- 
 tutes a Christian is union with 
 Christ. Not a visionary or a 
 changeful thing is this union, but 
 a reality wrought in and for the true 
 believer by the Holy Spirit. Every 
 reader of the New Testament is familiar 
 
 with the phrase so frequently employed 
 
 by the apostle Paul, ‘‘in Christ Jesus,” 
 meoree cis. Gal. 1322; Boh. 3; 
 Thess. 4:16). This phrase expresses the 
 union, and it is illustrated for us by such 
 figures as the vine and the branches 
 (John 15:1-8), the bridegroom and the 
 bride (John 3:29; Rev. 9:1; Eph. 5:30-32), 
 and especially the human body (Rom. 
 Macey out Gor. 12:12-14; Eph. 1:22, 23). 
 
 These figures we ourselves could never 
 have conceived of or have dared to 
 appropriate, but they have been given 
 to us by God’s grace in His holy Word, 
 and they are sealed in our hearts as 
 true by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, so 
 entirely one is the believer with Christ, 
 that in God’s mind and purpose he died 
 when Christ died and rose again when 
 He arose (Rom. 6:3-11; Col. 2:12; 3:1-4; 
 1 John 4:17). 
 
 II 
 
 Now this fact establishes what it has 
 become accustomed to call our standing 
 or position before God in Christ. That 
 is to say, Christ as our substitute has 
 met all the claims of God upon us as 
 
 ‘sinners in His sight and violators of His 
 
 law. He has reconciled us to God. In 
 Him we are now presented “holy and 
 unblameable and unreproveable in His 
 The Head of the 
 
 body being holy, all the members are 
 
 holy, the Head being without blame and 
 without rebuke, all the members of the 
 
 b body are, in the Head, without blame 
 
 and without rebuke. The recognition of 
 this judicial fact, or rather the faith of 
 it, gives peace (Rom. 5:1, 2). 
 
 But the believer’s union with Christ 
 
 *A bridged with a few changes from The Law of the 
 Offerings. by Andrew Jukes, First American Edition. 
 
 os Sidi) aaa od 
 
 not only affects his standing or position 
 before God, but also what the apostle 
 Paul calls our walk; i. e., our character 
 and conduct (Eph. 4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15). 
 
 Of course, our walk, or conduct, is 
 constantly very far short of that which 
 it ought to be. It was so with Paul 
 himself, who wrote to the Philippians 
 that he had not ‘‘already attained,’’ but 
 that he followed after, if that he might 
 apprehend that for which also he was 
 apprehended of Christ Jesus (3:12). 
 
 Our walk is a matter of experience, 
 the measure of our spiritual life or power, 
 and that depends upon the measure in 
 which we truly apprehend our standing 
 or position in Christ, and endeavor to 
 live up to the standard which it implies. 
 That standard is the walk of Christ 
 Himself. ‘He that saith he abideth in 
 Him, ought himself also to walk even 
 as He walked’’ (1 John 2:6), and it is 
 the work of the Holy Spirit to verify in 
 the members of Christ’s body that which 
 is already true for them as well as of 
 them in their Head. It all depends on 
 how far their own will would have it so 
 by yielding themselves to the operation 
 of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 This shows us, therefore, that what is 
 true of Christ as our Head cannot be 
 looked at alone in its connection with 
 our standing. If we are Christ’s, then 
 what is true of Him as our Head must 
 necessarily take us further. It must lead 
 us to know what should be the measure 
 of our walk, it must teach us what is 
 unbecoming to our calling, what is con- 
 trary to our life in Him, and it must 
 urge us on to be conformed to Him in 
 all things. 
 
 Here is where Christians seem very 
 seriously to differ, some seeing one part 
 of the truth but incapable apparently of 
 seeing both parts. Some press that 
 which bears upon our standing and some 
 that which bears upon our walk, whereas 
 both are to be pressed as it were, alike. 
 And where they are not pressed alike, 
 there is always some kind of spiritual 
 
28 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 deformity and weakness. Those who 
 see the standard for our walk in Christ, 
 but do not see our place, our position 
 before God in Him, may try to appre- 
 hend, they may try to attain unto the 
 walk, but there will be an awful absence 
 of that joy and strength which come 
 only from the knowledge of our position. 
 And because of the absence of that joy 
 and strength, there will be on their part 
 an ever lowering of the standard of their 
 walk, and a seeking only of so much of 
 the fruit of the Spirit as will prove them 
 to be Christians and no more. 
 
 On the other hand, they who see their 
 standing or position in Christ, but who do 
 not see that this implies a daily dying with 
 Him, and a daily rising again, are suscepti- 
 ble, alas! to very serious temptation on the 
 other side, to continue in sin, as it were, 
 that grace may abound (Rom. 6:1). This is 
 to speak of union with Christ in name, 
 but to deny it in fact. 
 
 it 
 
 Now to connect this with the offer- 
 ings. These set forth Christ. We see 
 in them how man in Christ has made 
 atonement. In the sin and trespass- 
 offerings the sin of man has been fully 
 borne, and in the burnt and meal-offer- 
 ings all God’s requirements are satisfied. 
 Christ has been ‘‘without the camp”’ for 
 us and has been laid upon the altar for 
 us. ‘By one offering He hath perfected 
 forever them that are sanctified’’ (Heb. 
 10:14). This is our standing, or position, 
 as believers in Him. 
 
 But now comes the other aspect of 
 the truth. His offering, as our example, 
 sets before us the model and the standard 
 for our self-sacrifice. His sacrifice, as 
 we saw in our previous lessons, had 
 varied aspects, as satisfying God, as 
 satisfying man, and as bearing sin, and 
 so must our self-sacrifice, though in a 
 lower sense, so far as it is conformed to 
 His, have the same aspects. Not as 
 though, by our self-sacrifice we could 
 make Christ’s offering for us more 
 acceptable, certainly not, but as the 
 consequence of our acceptance in Him 
 and as the fruit of our union with Him 
 through the Holy Spirit (Phil. 3:10). 
 
 It was wholly burnt, teaching us the 
 obligation of entire self-surrender. ‘‘Thou 
 shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
 thine heart.’’ We 
 cannot do this 
 without its cost- 
 ing us something. 
 
 But not only was the burnt-offering 
 wholly burnt, but consider the nature of 
 the offering itself. The bullock, the lamb, 
 the turtle-dove, each brought out typic- © 
 ally some distinct particular in the char- 
 acter of sour blessed Lord, setting us a 
 particular example, however far we may 
 be from attaining it. In them we see 
 patient service, unmurmuring submis- 
 sion, gentleness and innocency of life. 
 In other words, self-sacrifice in Christ, 
 and for Christ, will not make us heroes 
 in the world. Service, submission, meek- 
 ness gain no earthly crowns. 
 
 Here, as man for men, Christ offered 
 Himself as man’s meat. He gave Himself 
 to God with special reference to man and 
 as meeting man’s 
 claim on Him. That 
 is to say, man hasa 
 claim upon his fel- 
 low-man, one which God ratified in the 
 second table of the law, saying: ‘“‘Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” 
 
 It was in the meal-offering that Christ 
 met and satisfied this claim, by giving 
 Himself to God as man’s portion. How 
 far therefore, in the light of His sacrifice, 
 may we do the same, i. e., yield ourselves 
 to God as man’s meat? 
 
 In reply, consider the nature or char- 
 acter of the meal-offering, the bruised 
 corn, the oil, the salt, the frankincense. 
 Consider also that as in the case of the 
 burnt-offering, the whole of it was con- 
 sumed. Then let us ask, has man ever 
 complied with this, or has he ever been 
 conformed to this pattern? 
 
 In Acts 4:32-35, we find something 
 approaching it in the history of the 
 apostolic church. As Jukes says, in that 
 day men were living who for the gospel’s 
 sake had “‘lost all things,’’ and yet were 
 willing to suffer more, even to give their 
 own lives to God for others. Compare 
 also Paulin Philippians 2:17 and Phoebe, 
 
 1. Take the Burnt- 
 Offering 
 
 2. Take the Meal 
 Offering 
 
‘THE OFFERINGS AS A WHOLE 29 
 
 Romans 16:1, 2. The opportunity and 
 the need for this self-sacrifice on behalf 
 of our fellow-man still continue, and just 
 in the measure that the disciple is like 
 his Master, will he ‘‘do good unto all 
 men, especially unto them who are of 
 the household of faith’? (Gal. 6:10). 
 “Hereby perceive we the love of God, 
 because He laid down His life for us; 
 and we ought to lay down our lives for 
 the brethren”’ (1 John 3:16). 
 
 In this we saw that God was fed, the 
 priest was fed and the offerer also. They 
 all were represented as seated at one 
 
 table in God’s house. 
 3. Take the In what sense is God 
 Peace-Offering fed by our offerings, it 
 
 may be asked? In 
 what sense is He satisfied by them? 
 Romans 12:1; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Philip- 
 pians 4:18 and Hebrews 13:16 answer 
 that question. The works of the flesh 
 are indeed dead works, useless, and 
 worse than useless. They cannot be 
 acceptable to God. But in our zeal 
 against salvation by works, let us be 
 careful to discriminate. There is such a 
 thing as ‘‘the fruit of the spirit’’ to be 
 produced in us, and this witnesses of 
 His grace and is an offering to His 
 praise. 
 
 The priest who was fed by the peace- 
 offering represented Christ Himself, and 
 poor as our offerings are, Christ finds 
 joy in them. “I was an hungered, and 
 ye gave me meat, I was thirsty and ye 
 gave me drink’”’ (Matt. 25:35). As Jukes 
 says, if we only realized His gladness in 
 some work or labor of love, forgotten it 
 may be by the feeble doer, but treasured 
 in the book of life, we could not have 
 the narrow, selfish, grudging hearts that 
 many of us have. 
 
 And the peace-offering fed the offerer 
 himself. Strangers to self-sacrifice have 
 we been, if we need to be told the joy it 
 imparts to him who sacrifices. ‘Yea, 
 and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and 
 service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice 
 with you all’? (Phil. 2:17). See also 
 Col. 1:24. “It is more blessed to give 
 than to receive’’ (Acts 20:35). 
 
 IV 
 
 Thus far only the sweet-savour offer- 
 ings have been considered in their appli- 
 cation to the Christian’s walk, but what 
 about the sin-offering? If it applies, of 
 course it can be only in a secondary way, 
 for a saint cannot atone for himself. 
 But may it apply in a secondary way? 
 Jukes thinks that it may, using 1 Peter 
 3:18 and 4:1 in illustrating the point. 
 
 The first of the above passages shows 
 us Christ as once suffering for sin, ‘‘the 
 just for the unjust, that He might bring 
 us to God,” while the second says: ‘‘For- 
 asmuch then, as Christ hath suffered for 
 us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise 
 with the same mind; for he that hath 
 suffered in the flesh hath ceased from 
 sin.”’ 
 
 In other words, the saint, knowing 
 that for him Christ has borne the Cross, 
 follows on by that Cross to judge and 
 put to death all that he finds in himself 
 still contrary to his Lord. That is to 
 say, instead of making Christ’s Cross 
 the reprieve for that which is still in him 
 of the old nature, he will use that Cross 
 to slay it, he will not plead it as an ex- 
 cuse for carnal and careless walking. 
 See Romans 6:6; 1 Corinthians 11:31; 
 Galatians 6:14; Philippians 3:19. 
 
 How full of teaching is the sin-offer- 
 ing, viewed even in this lower light, 
 merely as an example to us! 
 
 But the trespass-offering, what of 
 that? In this, restitution was made for 
 the wrong; the original claim with an 
 added ‘‘fifth’’ was paid by the trespasser. 
 This was fulfilled for us in Christ, at 
 whose hands God received all of that of 
 which man had robbed Him. He made 
 a full atonement for us. 
 
 But now how should this offering affect 
 our walk, our character, and conduct? 
 
 Of course, we can make no restitution 
 to God in the sense in which Christ made 
 it. If all the rest of our lives were wholly 
 spent for God, it were only our duty in 
 the premises, and could not atone for 
 the omissions and transgressions of the 
 past. Each day would bring its own 
 proper claim. 
 
30 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 
 
 And yet, there is a sense, as Jukes 
 points out, in which the saint in fellow- 
 ship with Christ will make restitution, 
 a sense in which as a Christian he will 
 act in grace toward others, a sense in 
 which he will add the ‘‘fifth.’”?” He will 
 fulfill Christ’s command, ‘‘Do good to 
 them that hate you, and pray for them 
 that despitefully use you and persecute 
 you” (Matt. 5:38, 44). Cf. also Mark 
 11:25, 26 and Luke 6:32-35. 
 
 REVIEW QUESTIONS 
 
 1. What is the essential thing consti- 
 tuting a Christian? 
 
 2. How is it illustrated in Scripture? 
 
 3. What does it establish in the Chris- 
 tian’s relationship to God? 
 
 . What else does it affect? 
 . What is the Christian’s standard of 
 
 character? 
 
 . How or by whom is this effected in 
 
 the Christian? 
 How do Christians seem to differ on 
 this point? 
 
 . What does the burnt-offering teach 
 
 us as to our ‘‘walk’”’ in Christ? 
 The meal-offering? 
 The peace-offering? 
 
 . The sin-offering? 
 . The trespass-offering? 
 . How many New Testament scrip- 
 
 tures are quoted or referred to in 
 this lesson? 
 
 . How many have you personally ex- 
 
 amined? 
 
Burnt-Offerings - - 
 
 ‘ 
 
 eulavah AY O28 
 
 Continual Burnt-Offering /- -° - 10 
 Continual Meal-Offering - - - - 15 
 
 First-Fruits | Peay kes - - - - 14 
 
 Honey - eae cl sila mien Baath Jr 
 
 Leaven Beh SAID ye Ph 
 Leviticus, Book of - - - 
 
 Meal-Offering en eRe ead oe VET by, 28 
 
 Offerings as a Whole fT aa Ae Aiton 
 Origin and Authority - - - - - 3 
 
 Peace-Offering ' - 
 
 Salita one 
 Sin-Offering 
 
 Trespass-Offering, - + - +--+) - 24, 29 
 
 s 
 
 
 
By Dr. JAMES M. GRAY 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN WORKERS COMMENTARY on the Old and New Testa- 
 ments. A better single-volume commentary on the whole Bible, by chapters, 
 for Suntan needs of inquiring Christians, cannot be had. 8vo, cloth, 
 net UY. 
 
 SYNTHETIC BIBLE STUDIES (Enlarged, revised, completed). Affords a 
 mastery of Bible by books. Most excellent as a Whole Bible Course lesson 
 help. 8vo, cloth, met $2.25. 
 
 PRIMERS OF THE FAITH. How we know that the Bible is Genuine, Credible, 
 and Divine. 16mo, cloth, net $1.25. 
 
 A TEXT BOOK ON PROPHECY. Written that every Christian may know and 
 understand “‘what shall be hereafter.”” 12mo, cloth, net $1.25. 
 
 PROPHECY AND THE LORD’S RETURN. The What, When, Why, and How 
 of Christ’s second coming. 12mo, cloth, net 75¢. 
 
 HOW TO MASTER THE ENGLISH BIBLE. An inspiration to adopt the only 
 method that leads to power. 18mo, cloth, net 50c. 
 
 THE ANTIDOTE TO CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. Rom. VI, Gal. V, Eph. I, 
 Col. III, 2 Thess. II, Heb. VI and 1 John IV are the "basis of ‘this most 
 effective treatise. 12mo, cloth, net 75c. 
 
 SPIRITISM AND THE FALLEN ANGELS. Man’s experience with the powers 
 of darkness in all ages and God’s Word dealing with it comprehensively set 
 forth. 12me, cloth, $1.25 net. 
 
 PROGRESS IN THE LIFE TO COME. What God has revealed respecting 
 ee righteous dead from Abel to the millennium and after. 12mo, boards, net 
 C. 
 
 A PICTURE OF THE RESURRECTION. Gives full value to the fifteenth 
 chapter of First Corinthians. 12mo, boards, net 50c. 
 
 BIBLE PROBLEMS EXPLAINED. Important questions of wide range 
 scripturally clarified. 16mo, paper, 30c; cloth, net 75c. 
 
 SATAN AND THE SAINT. Satan’s systematic efforts to deceive exposed, and 
 aon will paves before and when Christ comes again. 16mo, paper, 30c; 
 cloth, net /5c. 
 
 GREAT EPOCHS OF SACRED HISTORY. The frst twelve chapters of Gene- 
 sis expounded, with present-day relationships. 16mo, paper, 30c; cloth, net 75c. 
 
 SALVATION FROM START TO FINISH. How lost sinners become glorified 
 ae set pore in eight evangelistic Bible expositions. 16mo, paper, 30c; 
 cleth, net ee 
 
 ONENESS WITH CHRIST. An exposition of Colossians, by W. R. Nicholson, 
 edited by Dr. Gray. 12mo, cloth, net $1.25. 
 
 “CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS. peable Studies in Leviticus. 
 
 8vo, art stock covers, net (35c. 
 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE BELIEVER. A help to the right understand- 
 ing of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the believer, and a call to receive the 
 deeper work of the Spirit in the heart. 16 pp., 4c; doz., 40c; 100, $2.00. 
 
 THE ERRORS OF “MILLENNIAL DAWNISM”. A valuable booklet with 
 which to meet the fallacies of the pernicious teaching of “‘Russellism.’’ 24 pp., 
 each 5c; doz., 50c; 100, $3.00. 
 
 ‘rHE FUTURE RETRIBUTION OF THE WICKED. As shown in the story of 
 the Rich Man and Lazarus. 16 pp., each, 3c; doz., 30c; 100, $2.00. 
 
 mca enieta: ANSWERS CONAN DOYLE. 8 pp., each, 5c; doz., 50c; 
 100, 75, 
 
 WHY WE BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST. 14 pp., 7c 
 each; doz., 75c; 100, $5.50. 
 
 THE OUTPOSTS OF THE CITADEL OR WHY I BELIEVE THE BIBLE 
 WILL STAND. 14 pp., 7c each; doz., 75c; 100, $5.50. 
 
 Tue Bistz InstiruteE CoLeorTace Ass’N 
 826 North La Salle Street Chicago, Illinois 
 

 

 
Syracuse, N. Y. 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 , 5 
 vem 
 1% 
 Lay 
 
 
 
iil 
 
 1 1012 00035 2544 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 G77 
 
 8 
 
 | 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminar 
 
 | 
 
 4) 
 no 
 c 
 % 
 ¥ 
 ye 
 o 
 s 
 = 
 = 
 as. 
 vo 
 ba) 
 “nn 
 wv 
 <= 
 » 
 c 
 ~ 
 2) 
 = 
 <= 
 oO 
 
 BS1255