Tag Archives: acceptance

The Burnt Offering: Part 3

THE BURNT OFFERING:  PART 3

CONTINUATION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE SINLESSNESS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

This truth of the sinlessness of Christ is of tremendous importance, for the requirement of old was nothing less than perfection, for God said, “it shall be perfect to be accepted” Leviticus 22:20-22.  Anything less than this rendered the animal disqualified.  God does not alter His requirements at all.  Who cannot see that if there were any trace of sin in Christ, whether of heart or hand, thought or word, then He would not be suited to the task of going into death sacrificially?  How can He be a saviour who himself needs to be saved?  Drowning men are not rescued by drowning men, but by those who stand secure upon the rock and throw them a lifeline.

Of course the temptation of the Lord Jesus may present problems to us in this connection, but the answer to those problems is, as ever, to accept the plain statements of Scripture.  We must not tamper with one doctrine to try to make another more easy to understand, nor should we allow what we do not know, to rob us of what we do know.  There are those who wish to teach that the Lord Jesus, whilst not actually sinning under temptation, nevertheless could have done so.  Otherwise, they say, His temptation was not real.

The writer believes that these are wrong notions concerning the person of Christ and come about because of a wrong understanding of the word “tempt”.  The word translated “tempt” means ‘to make an experience of, to pierce or search into, to try with the purpose of discovering what of good or evil was in a person or thing’ (Trench’s New Testament Synonyms).  So the predominant idea is one of testing and assessing. Failing the test is not inevitably involved.

Because believers still have the capacity to sin and because, too often, we do sin when tested, we have come to think of temptation as always, or nearly always, connected with sinning.  When we think of the temptation of Christ, there is absolutely no reason to immediately think of sin as an inevitable consequence.  In fact, when the writer to the Hebrews speaks of the temptation of Christ, he expressly rules out the matter of sin in connection with it, “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin”  Hebrews 4:15.  The last phrase “yet  without  sin” qualifies and restricts “in  all  points”, and  therefore  is  not to be understood as meaning that the end result of the temptation was that He did not sin, although that is in fact true, but that His temptation came only from without, not from a sinful nature within.  After all, the context is dealing with the ability of Christ our High Priest to sympathise with us in our trials on the earth, He having passed this way before, returning to heaven fully qualified to bear our burdens.  He cannot sympathise with sin, for He does not know what it is to sin.  But He can sympathise with us in our trials, having been tried in all points as we are.

Even in circumstances where the temptation, if succumbed to, would have resulted in sin, such as the temptation by the devil in the wilderness, Christ is seen to be triumphant, for having been led of the Spirit into the wilderness He returns in the power of that same Spirit into Galilee Luke 4:1,14.  Nothing that had taken place in between had resulted in the Spirit being grieved.  There had been no independent action, (such as turning stones into bread without a word from His Father), no deviation from the Father’s will, (such as casting Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple), no seeking glory and splendour, (such as coveting the kingdoms of the earth), but rather a humble reliance on His Father.

It was precisely because the Lord Jesus was unable to sin, that the pressure of the temptation was felt by Him so keenly.  Imagine a length of sea wall, built with the purpose of keeping back the raging sea.  One section is constructed by a competent engineer, with the very best materials, whilst the adjoining section is of faulty construction, using second-rate materials.  Which section will feel the pressure of the waves the most?  Surely the well-constructed section will, as it resists the force of the waves hurled against it.  The faulty section soon gives way under trial and no longer feels the pressure of the water.  Shall we be so foolish as to say that because the good wall did not give way, then it was not tried?  Shall we also foolishly say that because Christ did not give way under trial and temptation, that He therefore was not really tested?  This would fly in the face of the Scriptures which say that Christ suffered, being tempted, Hebrews 2:18.  To Him, temptation meant suffering, as He resisted that temptation to the utmost.  Too often, with us, temptation means enjoyment, as we give in to the temptation and allow the flesh to gratify itself.

Besides these considerations, we must remember that in the one person, Jesus Christ, there were two natures, manhood and Deity, brought together in union which is complete and indissoluble, so that every act and thought is of One who is both God and man.  He does not do some things as God and some things as man, but His person is one.  For example, He slept during the storm on the lake, for He was God manifest in flesh; and He rebuked the winds and the waves because He who was manifest in flesh is God.

So that those who suggest that Jesus Christ could sin, are suggesting that He who is God manifest in flesh could sin.  Now there are certain things that God cannot do, for they would undermine the very nature of His Being, and one of those things is to sin.  We conclude therefore that Christ was unable to sin.

There is a passage in the Old Testament, in Numbers chapter 4, which illustrates the point we have been trying to make as to the purity of Christ.  This chapter gives instructions for the transporting of the holy vessels of the tabernacle through the wilderness.  Brought out from the sacred confines of either the Court or the Sanctuary, they were carried through the desert with its sandstorms and dusty ways until the next stopping place was reached.  Yet no mention is directly made to the laver, that which held the water for the washing of the feet of the priests before they entered the Holy Place.  Is there not in this the suggestion that Christ, a true “vessel unto honour” who emerged from the Heavenly Courts to tread a path through this wilderness-world, was pure and undefiled, needing not the washing of water by the word as a remedy for defilement, but was ever “the undefiled in the way” who is “blessed,” Psalm 119:1?

How different are the Lord’s people, who although washed all over at conversion to fit them for their new state of regeneration John 13:10; Titus 3:5, nonetheless need the habitual application of the Word of God with its cleansing power, to deal with defilement contracted during daily life in this polluted world through which they pass, Ephesians 5:26.  The Eastern traveller, although starting out on his journey as one who had bathed, nevertheless needed to wash his dusty feet at the end of the day’s journey John 13:10.

Before passing from the consideration of the four parts which are specially mentioned as being laid upon the altar, we must note some practical lessons which may be learnt at this point.  The apostle Paul beseeches us to present our bodies to God as a living sacrifice, Romans 12:1.  It follows therefore that the head, (our mind), the fat, (our energies), the inwards, (our hearts’ affections) and the legs, (our walk) must all be in an holy and acceptable state if we are to truly be something for God.

Hence the apostle exhorts the Philippians to let the same mind which was in Christ be in them, Philippians 2:5; he speaks of glorying in infirmities, that the power of Christ might rest on him, 2 Corinthians 12:9; of the love of Christ constraining him, 2 Corinthians 5:14; and of his ways in Christ, 1 Corinthians 4:17.  Thus the believers’ mind, energy, love and movements, if like Christ’s, will all co-ordinate together and be for the delight of God  Then his mind will be governed by God’s word, so that his energies may be put forth with intelligence; and his love for Christ will ensure that he goes where He leads.

At last the moment has come for which such careful preparation has been made, and the fire can begin its work.  Note that all is to be placed upon the altar, reminding us of the total and unreserved commitment of the Lord Jesus to the work given Him to do.  Nothing of what He was or did was in any way unacceptable to God, for the testimony from heaven was, “well-pleased” and He did always those things which pleased the Father, John 8:29.  The word from heaven in Malachi’s day was that God found no pleasure in His people Malachi 1:10, nor would He accept an offering at their hand.  At last there is One upon the earth who is different and unique and this totally acceptable person willingly presented Himself to God in His entirety, withholding nothing.

Under the action of the fire, the sacrifice was transformed into a cloud of incense (such is the meaning of the word for burn in verse 9), which in God’s estimate was of a sweet savour, or a savour of rest.  How unsavoury this world must be to God; the best of nations was likened to a defiled leper, with putrefying sores neither tended nor dressed, Isaiah 1:6.  What of the rest of men who are described by God as being filthy? Psalm 14:3.

How refreshing therefore it must have been to God to see One whose person, given up in sacrifice, resulted in nothing but a pleasurable aroma, with no admixture of the stench of sin.  The idea involved in this sweet-savour was that of complete complacency.  At last God has reached His long sought-for goal, even pleasure in man.  He had rested after His work of creation, for all had been completed and could be pronounced “very good”, but He could not use those words of man after sin had come in.  On the basis of the person and work of Christ there is joy and refreshment for God in the new creation made possible by His sacrifice and in this new creation all things are of God and in conformity with His desires.  What a tremendous privilege and blessing it is to be part of that new creation in Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:17, and to be involved in that which gives God pleasure.  We might well heed the exhortation of the apostle to not receive the grace of God in vain, but rather to act in the light of that grace which has brought us such rich and eternal blessing, and live lives which in practice are taken up with new things and dispense with the old.

Here we come to the end of the first division of the chapter and we have seen in type One who moved on earth and died on the Cross, only for the sake of His Father’s interests  Whose first recorded words are “Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?” Luke 2.49 and who could say a few moments before He died “It is finished,” John 19:30.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS CHAPTER 1, VERSES 10 TO 13

1:10  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.
1:11  And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.
1:12  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:
1:13  But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.

SECTION 2    VERSES 10-13        THE OFFERING FROM THE FLOCK

1:10  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.

We come now to that section which deals with the sheep or the goat brought for sacrifice.  Since much of what is found in verses 10-13 is identical to the first section, we shall concentrate on the sheep and goats themselves and the statement of verse 11 “he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward”.

The animal which we tend to think of first in relation to sacrifice is the lamb.  The well-known words of Genesis 22:8 could be cited, “My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering,” or of Isaiah 53:7, “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,” (although the word “slaughter” is not regularly used for sacrifice, yet verse 10 shows Calvary is in view), or of John the Baptist in John 1:29,36 – “Behold the Lamb of God”.  All these passages bring before us the idea of the lamb for sacrifice, and Christ is that lamb.  Note that in each of the passages referred to there is the idea of movement, for it is said of Abraham and Isaac, that “they went both of them together.  And Isaiah speaks of Christ being led, and John refers to Jesus coming, and walking.  With these statements we might contrast a further reference to the lamb, this time in Revelation 5:6, “stood a Lamb”.  Clearly the movement and what was involved in that movement are both over.

In Genesis 22 the father and the son go together to the place of sacrifice, the one to offer, the other to be offered.  How wonderfully this has been repeated in the New Testament, for did not the Lord Jesus say the night before He died, “I am not alone, the Father is with Me”? John 16:32.  This remark is made in the Gospel which does not record those words of the Saviour when upon the Cross, “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?”  The Lord may be forsaken of His God upon the Cross when made sin, but the fact remains that He and His Father are One and nothing can alter that eternal condition.

There is movement further on in Genesis 22:19, where we read of the father and the young men going together to Beer-sheba.  Abraham’s young men, having seen the place of sacrifice afar off, verses 4 and 5; and knowing that on Moriah death and resurrection have, in figure, transpired, Hebrews 11:17-19, are able to go with the father to dwell where he dwelt.  So likewise, believers of this age who look back to Calvary and see the place of sacrifice afar off, now press on in fellowship with the Father to dwell at last in the Father’s house, 1 John 1:3; John 14:2,3.

When we turn to Isaiah’s reference to the lamb, we find that he presents us with a contrast between the erring, wandering nation, like a flock of sheep gone astray, and the Lord Jesus, never straying but always “before Jehovah” Isaiah 53:6,2.  Never did He deviate from the path of righteousness, Psalm 23:3, nor walk in the counsel of the ungodly, Psalm 1:1.  Note how Mark records His progress towards Jerusalem, the place of His crucifixion, for he writes, “they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid,” Mark 10:32.  Well might the disciples be amazed at the sight, for even though He knew the cruel death of the Cross lay before Him, yet not for one moment does He hesitate, but presses forward.  As they followed, they were afraid, for they were beginning to realise the solemn implications of being a true follower of Christ, with the duty of taking up one’s cross and following Him.

If in Genesis 22 we have fellowship in connection with the lamb, and in Isaiah 53 and Mark 10 following the lamb, and not straying, then in John 1 we have the fulfilment of Scripture through the lamb.  “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John” were the words of the Lord Jesus Himself, Matthew 11:13.  So when in the first chapter of John’s Gospel we find that John “seeth Jesus coming unto him” he is simply doing what all other true prophets in Old Testament times had done, as they anticipated and awaited the coming of the Messiah.  When he cries “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”, he is gathering together the testimony of the centuries concerning the Person and work of the Saviour.  For as we have already noted, Abraham assured his son that God would provide Himself a lamb and here at last on the banks of the Jordan was the Lamb of God.

The second book of Moses had spoken of the Passover lamb as “the” lamb, Exodus 12:4, and this also finds its echo in the words of John “Behold the Lamb”.  Again the ritual of the Day of Atonement involved a goat which bore away sins and Christ is the fulfiller of that type too, for He is the bearer away of sin, says John.  So much for extracts from the law of Moses, but what of the prophets?  Let the one that the Lord Jesus described as “the” prophet be our guide, even Daniel.  He is engaged in prayer in Daniel 9, because of the condition of his nation and its royal city, now in ruins.  He prays at the time of the evening oblation, but no sacrifice burns on Israel’s altar as he prays, for the Temple is in ruins also.  Who can remedy such a situation?  Only Messiah the Prince, who will make an end of sins, the sins that brought the desolation of City and Temple, and bring in everlasting righteousness.  He alone can purge the earth of its ingrained sin and introduce the reign of right which shall never be over-thrown.  No wonder John announces Him as the One who will take away the sin of the world!

Thus in closing these few remarks on passages relating to the Lamb of God’s providing, we notice that in Genesis 22 it is the father that takes the initiative.  Yet the son, who to all intents and purposes was the lamb, is willingly involved.  In Isaiah 53 wicked men take the initiative and the lamb is prepared to be taken by them to the place of slaughter.  Whilst in John 1 the initiative is Christ’s Himself, as He comes into the world.  So as we think of the lamb and goat section of Leviticus 1, we are assured that the One of whom it speaks went to the place of sacrifice in fellowship with His Father, in fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and even if men counsel together to slaughter Him, we know that they only bring to pass the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

What is the difference between a sheep and a goat, considered typically?  The word used for sheep here, namely “keseb”, means a he-lamb.  Not a “taleh,” a sucking lamb, nor yet a stout he-lamb, a “kar”; and certainly not a “kabsah,” a she-lamb.  Yet the word is not the same as is used in Genesis 22:7,8, a “seh” a young lamb of either the sheep or the goats.  Thus the emphasis seems to be upon the fact that it is a male.  As for the word for goat, “ez”, it has for its meaning a goat or she-goat.  In fact the word is translated “she-goat” 5 times.  Yet we know that the goat of Leviticus 1 must be a male.  Thus again the emphasis seems to be upon the maleness of the animal, for even though the usage of the word allows the idea of a she-goat, the regulations expressly exclude anything but a male.

It was not enough for the would-be offerer to bring the first animal he chanced upon as he entered his flock.  Apart from the vital necessity of freedom from blemish, the animal must of necessity be a male, neither ewe or she-goat would be acceptable.  The idea lying behind the male in Scripture is that of activity, not passivity, as with the female.  This is not to say, of course, that females either amongst the animal kingdom or the race of mankind are inactive.  But they are active in a different sort of way.

There is presented to us in the male sheep an illustration of the active, deliberate and resolute subjection of Christ to the Father’s will.  He is not simply the meeting-point of influences outside of Himself, such as the enmity of Satan and the world, but one who deliberately sets out to actively do the will of His Father.  His words in Gethsemane will serve to bring out the contrast between active submission and passive submission. They are as follows, as found in the Synoptic Gospels:

Matthew 26.39 “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt”.
Mark 14.36 “Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from Me: nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt”.
Luke 22.42 “Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me: nevertheless not My will, but Thine, be done”.

How the reality of the manhood of Christ shines out here!  Sincerely and definitely seeking that the awful cup of Divine wrath which was being extended to Him, might in some way be allowed to pass.  Yet only if it be the will of His Father so to intervene.  Mark’s account makes clear that “the cup” to which the Saviour refers, is the same as the “hour” of His sufferings upon the Cross.  Compare Mark 14:35 with verse 36.  Such were the horrors of that time that the holy soul of Christ shrank from the enduring of its agonies.  Yet, for all that, He expresses His passive submission to the will of His Father.

By contrast, in John’s Gospel that submission is active, the male offering is in view there.  Again the scene is Gethsemane, but this time there is no falling to the ground in agony by Christ, overwhelmed by the prospect of the bitter experiences so soon to be His portion.  In fact, it is the band of men that have come to arrest Him that fall to the ground, though not in prayer, but in fear.  Nor is there any mention of the cup being allowed to pass from Him undrained, but on the contrary there is a rebuke for Peter who by his sword seeks to prevent Him from drinking it.  Note the decisive and majestic words, “The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it”? John 18:11.  This is active submission, deliberately setting out to be subject to the will of the Father and it is this aspect of things which is emphasised throughout John’s Gospel.

But if the sheep was to be a male, so was the goat, so wherein lays their difference?  The goat is a more rugged animal than the sheep, the better able to survive under adverse circumstances.  It is said that the ancestors of the wild goats that may be found on some of the mountains in Wales were let loose there by the Welsh shepherds.  For the goats were able to penetrate into places which would be dangerous to a sheep, and would crop the grass so that the sheep would not be tempted to venture there and then be unable to return.  In the Scripture, the goat is associated with adverse circumstances Leviticus 16:22, and adverse decisions, Matthew 25:32,33,41.

We suggest therefore, that the male goat presents to us the idea of active subjection which takes the initiative despite adverse circumstances, whereas the male sheep gives the idea of active subjection which accepts circumstances as they develop, knowing them to be the will of God.

See how this unfolds in John’s Gospel.  In chapter 18.4 Jesus went forth to meet the hostile band with their swords and staves and lanterns.  This is the ‘goat’ aspect, facing hardship and opposition with determination and resolve.  But then we see the ‘sheep’ aspect of His active subjection in verses 12 and 13 as the band took Jesus, bound Him, and led Him away.  Thus beginning the fulfilment of the words of Isaiah as quoted in Acts 8:32, “He is led as a lamb to the slaughter”.  At one moment He is seen actively taking the initiative, going forth to meet the foe, the next He is allowing Himself to be bound.

What irony lays in the probable fact that the route taken by the soldiers with their prisoner was via the ascent by which Solomon went up to the House of the Lord to offer his ascending offering 1 Kings 10:5, which was one of the sights which caused such wonderment in the heart of the Queen of Sheba.  Are not our hearts likewise filled with amazement when we see the ascent by which Christ went up to the place of sacrifice?

Thus He was led to the palace, John 18:12-15; led to the Praetorium, (judgment hall), 18:28; and finally led to ‘the place’, which in fact was Golgotha, “the place of a skull” 19:16, 17.  But notice that He goes forth before He is led away in chapter 18, and then in 19:17 He goes forth after He is led away.  He shows Himself to be the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last; always in command of the situation, confident in the execution of His Father’s will, despite the tremendous cost.  Truly He is the he-goat that goeth well and is comely in going, Proverbs 30:29,31.

1:11  And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

Only of the sheep and the goat is this said, although surely we may assume that it pertained to the other sacrifices also, the bullock and the dove.  We have seen already in this chapter the way in which contrasting and yet complementary things are put side by side, and such is the case here.  For “the side of the altar northward” suggests one thing, whilst “before the Lord” suggests another.  But one that not only harmonises with the first, but enhances it.

All of the points of the compass have certain associations.  For instance, the east suggests expectation, for it is the place of the sun’s rise, with all the hopes of the light of day.  The west would suggest expansion and enlargement, for it was the furthest extent of the sun’s course and was also the predominant direction in which the Gospel travelled from Jerusalem, in large part amongst the sons of Japheth, whose name means ‘enlargement’ Genesis 10.1-4.

But the north seems to be the place of exposure to danger.  It was from the north that danger threatened Israel so often.  As Jeremiah said “out of the north an evil shall break forth” 1:14.  Then Proverbs 25:23 says “the north wind driveth away rain”.  We might think this to be a good thing, but the rest of  the verse says “so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.”  Again Job 37:22 says “fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.  Again, Psalm 75:6,7 says “promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south.  But God is the judge: He putteth down one, and setteth up another”.

The underlying thought behind these references to the north is of fore-boding, of terribleness, of exposure to danger, of judgement.  Couple with this the fact that the north side of the altar would necessarily be in the shadows, and we have a picture built up of a place of ominous portent.  It was this sort of experience that the Lord knew when He was found on the north side of Jerusalem on a cross.  Did the enemy come and destroy the Temple in olden times?  Then Christ prophesies that the temple of His Body will be destroyed at the cross, John 2:19.  Was the ensign lifted up by the tribe of Dan, camped on the north side of the Tabernacle, a serpent?  Then Christ would be lifted up in the same way, in accordance with the type of another uplifted serpent, that of Numbers 21.  See John 3:14-16.

Whilst the foregoing was true, that the enemy would come, that He would be lifted up, yet there was in the heart of the Son of God the consciousness that He was ever in personal favour with the Father.  For in John 2 there is a clear contrast made between Herod’s Temple, defiled and profaned, and the temple of His Body, pure and holy.  So whilst the Temple of Old Testament times was destroyed because of the failure of the people, Christ’s Body was brought into the dissolution of death for several reasons, but certainly not for failure on His part.

Whilst it is true that He was lifted up as both the brazen serpent, and the serpent-ensign had been, yet He was never personally anything less than holy.  Truly made sin, yet never made to become a sinner or sinful.  Always “before the Lord”, even during the three hours of darkness which veiled His deepest anguish; ever the delight of the Father’s heart.  A possible hint of this is found in Psalm 22:20.  The psalm is in character a sin-offering psalm, beginning as it does with Christ’s experience of being forsaken of God because of sin.  But then in verse 20 Christ is heard to say “Deliver my soul from the sword, my darling from the power of the dog”.  To what is He referring here?  Is it to His own soul, previously mentioned in the verse?  Or is it that the Son is speaking of Himself in the language that He knows the Father uses of Him?  For the word translated “darling” is elsewhere in the OT translated as “only son”.  Its first use is in Genesis 22:2,16 of Isaac, Abraham’s only son, his only-begotten, as Hebrews 11:17 describes Him.  Its last use is in Zechariah 12:10, a prophecy of the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus.  Thus sensing deeply His relationship with the Father, He speaks as He knows the Father would speak.  Just as the fat of the sin offering was not burnt with the rest of the animal upon the ground, but rather was burnt as incense upon the altar of burnt offering, so the fragrance of the devotion and faithfulness of Christ in dealing with sin was associated with His work in gaining acceptance for His people.  Thus there is suggested by the thought of the north, and also “before the Lord”, not only the perseverance of Christ under the most severe testing, but also the fact that during all the time of that testing, He was personally delightful to the Father in heaven.

1:12  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:
1:13  But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.

One further point of difference, although perhaps a slight one, might be mentioned, as we bring these remarks on the sheep and goat section to a close.  In the case of the bullock, “the priest shall burn all”, but in the case of the sheep or goat, “the priest shall bring it all”.  Of course, all the sheep was burnt and all the bullock was brought, but special mention is made of burning on the one hand and bringing on the other.  Thus the expressions used fit in with the particular emphasis in each section.  The bullock tells of One wholly given up to God’s interests, therefore it is “burn all”.  Whereas the sheep and the goat tell of One who pressed towards the place of sacrifice, and would not be turned back, hence, “bring all”.  It is well with the Lord’s people when they are wholly given up to their Father’s interests and walk in ways that give Him pleasure.  See 1 Thessalonians 4:1.

.

The Burnt Offering: Part 2

THE BURNT OFFERING:  PART 2

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS CHAPTER 1, VERSES 4 TO 9.

 1:4  And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.                                                                                                                         1:5  And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: 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 congregation.
1:6  And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
1:7  And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
1:8  And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
1:9  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 Lord.

1:4  And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 

Two grand truths are made known in this verse, namely, identification with the sacrifice, and acceptance by means of the sacrifice.  The identification is suggested by the laying on of the hand.  We see this in principle in Acts 8:14-17, where Peter and John make the journey from Jerusalem to Samaria expressly to lay their hands upon those who had recently believed in that country, and thereby to publicly associate with them on behalf of the Jewish Christians.  The Jews as a nation had no dealings with the Samaritans, John 4:9, but in Christ national barriers and prejudices are broken  down.  So we read of Peter, the apostle to the Jews, going down to Samaria to lay hands upon the Samaritans, to show that there remains no historical enmity.  And John goes with him to show that there is no personal enmity; for it was John and his brother James who had wanted to call down fire upon the Samaritans in Luke 9:51-54 because of their hostility to the Lord.  Now this attitude was gone, and instead of fire from heaven, there is the Holy Spirit from heaven as the apostles lay hands upon the Samaritans.

The same idea of identification is found in Acts 9:17, where Ananias lays hands upon Saul of Tarsus and his sight is restored.  Saul would have laid hands on Ananias in a very different way before he was saved!  But now they are brothers in the Lord, and the one is identified with the other.

Thus it is that the offerer, as he lays his hand upon the head of the offering, is identified with it.  The result being that the acceptableness of the offering is credited to the offerer.  In the case of the sin offering the process was reversed, for then the sinfulness of the offerer was attributed to the offering, which was then slaughtered and consumed out of God’s sight, together with its burden of sin.

Paul brings these two thoughts together in 2 Corinthians 5:21, 6:1,2.  He writes, “God hath made Him to be sin for us”, and then declares, “now is the accepted time”, or time of acceptance.  Those who personally identify themselves with the Lord Jesus, have attributed to them all the acceptableness of Christ in the sight of His Father.  Contrariwise, they find that all their sin, which made them so unacceptable in the sight of God, has been attributed to Christ when upon the cross, and He has finally dealt with that sin to God’s entire satisfaction. 

But how is this identification, with its blessed  results,  brought  about?  The clue is found in the meaning of the word “put”, for it means to lean; thus faith is suggested, a leaning upon the sacrifice, a reliance upon it, for blessing.  Romans 5:2 declares that believers have access by faith into the grace wherein they stand, and this way of faith is the only avenue to blessing, being God’s appointed way for men.  But how hard it is for man to realise this; how much rather would he seek to rely upon himself and his own efforts.  But this is an impossible task, as the following Scriptures make clear:
 “Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin”, Romans 3:20.
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ”, Galatians 2:16.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast,” Ephesians 2:8,9.
For we ourselves were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving diverse lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.  But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy he saved us,” Titus 3:3-5.

Not only is it an impossible task, but it is one which God has cursed, for He has said “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,” Jeremiah 17:5.  Despite this, man would rather lean upon good works, church-going, sincere intentions and suchlike, but fulness of blessing is only found in the sacrificial work of Christ at the cross of Calvary, where, concerned for the honour of God, and the salvation of the sons of men, He gave up His life in sacrificial death.  May the writer of these pages urge any one of his readers who does not personally know God’s Son and the salvation that is available through Him, to earnestly consider these matters in the light of the Scriptures.  Rest assured that the Lord is “rich unto all that call upon Him.  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” Romans 10:12,13.

Note the result of being identified with the person of Christ and His sacrifice.  It is nothing less than full acceptance in the sight of God.  Ephesians 1:6 speaks of believers as being “accepted in the Beloved”.  The inspired apostle does not say “accepted in Christ”, or “in the Lord Jesus”, although that would be a precious thing, but rather “in the Beloved”.  This title emphasises the love that exists between the Father and the Son and it is in that sort of atmosphere of love that the believer finds acceptance with God.  And not only so, but all that the Father finds delightful about His Son is attributed to the believer, in the gracious dealings of God.

The word “accepted” as used in Leviticus 1:4, may also very well be translated “be pleased with”.  Hence when the word came from heaven to Christ as He emerged from the waters of the Jordan, “this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased,” Mathew 3:17, He was marked out by God as the One He fully accepted.  The words came to distinguish Him from all others, even though they had come to John to repent and be baptised.  It is not to these that the word from heaven comes, even though God had said through the psalmist “the saints that are in the earth…in whom is all my delight,” Psalm 16:3.  There is One who is fairer than these and He receives the Divine approval of thirty private years, as the word from heaven comes to Him, and to Him alone.

In Matthew 12:14-21 the Beloved is found amongst the Pharisees who criticise His work.  But Matthew is able to quote God‘s words through Isaiah, “Behold My servant,” for He is doing the works of Him that sent Him.  If they seek to drag Him down, God says “whom I uphold”.  If men vote for His death, God says “Mine elect”, and if they condemn and complain, God says, “In whom My soul delighteth”.  Thus His Father counteracts and contradicts the wicked dealings of scornful men with regard to His Beloved.

Another instance of God’s relationship with His Beloved is found in Luke 9.28-36.  There upon the Mount of Transfiguration, the Lord is found amongst the saints, both of the Old and New Testaments.  Each of them had a strong character, Moses being renowned for his meekness and faithfulness, Elijah for his determination and persistence, Peter for his zeal and energy, James and John, the sons of thunder, for their strong feelings and their patience in suffering.  To none of these does the word “I am well pleased” come, only to Christ, who excelled them all in these characteristics.  Each of them had unusual features about their death.  Moses, for instance, (who should have taken the people into the land), had died and been buried by God outside the lan, because of his disobedience to the command of God, Deuteronomy 34:5,6.  But Christ died in obedience, John 10:18; Romans 5:19 and subsequently entered in to the place to which He shall at last bring His people, even heaven itself.  Elijah had a remarkable exodus from this world, for “there appeared a chariot of fire…and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven,” 2 Kings 2:11.  But still it remains true, that “no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven,” John 3:13.  For there is all the difference between being rapt to heaven by Divine power, as Elijah, and ascending of one’s own authority, as Christ.  Then again, the death of Peter was described by the Saviour Himself in John 21:18,19, as the death of an old man, and unwilling, in contrast to His own, which, although in the midst of His years, was one to which He pressed willingly.  And as for James and John who declared they could drink of the cup of suffering that Christ would drink, and be baptised with His baptism, they could certainly be the first to say that their Saviour suffered much more than they could have endured.  No wonder it was His decease that they spoke of upon the mountain!

Then again, Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the prophets through whom God had spoken in the Old Testament, whilst Peter, James and John represent the writers of the New Testament.  But despite their importance in this connection, the command, “Hear Him” comes from heaven with regard to Christ alone, for the voice of the prophets in both Old and New Testaments, and the voice of the Law are His voice.  No wonder that when Peter sought to put the Lord on the same level as Moses and Elijah by making them each a tabernacle, the bright cloud overshadowed them and “they saw no man, save Jesus only,” Matthew 17:8.

In the instances cited, then, the Beloved is separated from either the saints or the scorning sinners by the approving word from heaven.  In Ephesians 1:6, however, He is deliberately associated by God with His people.  They find themselves sharing the acceptance that God’s Son enjoys with His Father.  And all this as a result of His sacrificial death on their behalf, for the apostle goes on to write of “redemption through His blood”, Ephesians 1:7.

1:5  And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: 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 congregation.

The idea behind the word atonement is that of cover or shelter  Thus the animal sacrifice is said to cover or shelter the one who offers it.  Having sinned, Adam and his wife realised that they were no longer what they had been, or what they might have been, for they sought to cover themselves with aprons of fig leaves and to shelter amongst the trees of the garden.  But they were taught of God that there was only one way to be covered and sheltered, as He made for them two coats from one skin, sacrifice having been made, Genesis 3:7,8,21.  In this way they learned that only by means of a life laid down on their behalf could they be acceptable in the Divine Presence.  But the coats of skin are only an illustration of the character and excellencies of Christ which were manifested perfectly in His life, and attributed to believers because of His death for them.

There were three vital parts to any animal sacrifice, and they find their counterpart in the sacrifice of Christ.  There was the killing of the animal, the consequent shedding of blood, and then the burning in the fire.  Because of his shortcomings, (and all come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23), the life of the offerer had been forfeited, and he had no right to continue to live upon the earth.  He therefore needs to bring an animal that will die instead of him, that he might continue upon the earth  The man’s past, however, has still not been dealt with, for although the animal has died his death, his shortcomings are still on God’s record and “God requireth that which is past” Ecclesiastes 3:15.  Hence blood needs to be shed in atonement on his behalf.  But if the animal victim is to be accepted as his substitute, then it must be able to endure the fiery test of the flames of Divine Holiness; for if God is going to accept the offering, and through it the person of the offerer, then He must do so on a holy basis.  We often forget the intensity of Divine Holiness, that infinite separateness from all that is evil.  In Isaiah’s vision, in chapter six of his prophecy, just the mention of the subject of God’s holiness by one seraph to another was enough to make the posts of the doors of the temple move.  If then those flames of holiness can feed upon the parts that have been laid upon the altar, and if the smoke of the burning is one of sweet-savour, with no noxious fumes intermingling, then indeed Divine holiness is satisfied, and Divine requirements have been met.

Now what was foreshadowed at the altar, was fulfilled at Calvary.  For Christ has died, his blood has been shed, and He has been exposed to the fires of God’s Holiness.  And not only so, has risen again to impart the blessings of His death to those who believe.  Christ has died on behalf of His people, so that instead of being swept away from the earth as sinners in Adam, they might continue before God as believers in Christ.

In addition, the blood of Christ has been shed.  And that pure and holy soul of the Lord Jesus has been poured out unto death, without reserve, Isaiah 53:12 declared it would.  The life (soul) of the flesh is in the blood Leviticus 17:11, and at last there was One found who was without fault, and whose life given up in sacrifice on behalf of others could be acceptable in the sight of God.

But there is more still, for the Son of God was subjected to the searching flame of Divine Holiness, with the result that there ascended to God an odour of a sweet smell, delighting His heart, and with which He could be satisfied.  Strange it is, but nonetheless true, that even whilst the Saviour was accomplishing the work of sin-bearing, He was still the object of His Father’s deepest affection, continuing to be the Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father, with nothing changed as to His eternal relationship to God.

We must not think that because the Lord Jesus is said by the Scriptures to have been made sin, that this means He became a sinner, or sinful.  Far be the thought!  The sin-offering is expressly said to be holy; in fact, “most holy,” Leviticus 6:25,29.  These words are also used to describe the innermost sanctuary of the Tabernacle.  If the animal sacrifice was holy, how much more so the One who it prefigured.  There was never a moment when the Lord Jesus was personally unholy, even when He was bearing the heavy load of others’ sins.  So whilst God’s fiery anger consumed the sin-offering together with its accompanying sin, yet it is also true that the same fire, searching and penetrating as it was, only served to bring out the acceptableness of the burnt offering.  The same fires of Divine holiness which burnt against Christ at Calvary, also served to bring out the acceptableness of His person.

Notice that the three things we have mentioned are all said to have taken place under the close scrutiny of the Lord.  For the killing is “before the Lord”.  The blood is said to be “sprinkled round about upon the altar,” and the parts are laid upon the altar to be consumed by the flame, and this altar is “before the Lord,” Leviticus 16:18.  How reassuring to the offerer as he looked back to the occasion when he brought his  sacrifice, that all had met the approval of the Divine gaze, and all had been found acceptable when tested. And how reassuring also to the believer who looks back to Calvary and sees a work which in all its aspects was acceptable in the sight of God.  He need not fear that some matter has been overlooked, and when noticed will be dealt with in the future.  The Scripture is clear about the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary, that “by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” Hebrews 10:14.

With the burnt offering everything was upward in its tendency.  The parts of the animal were lifted up upon the altar, the blood was sprinkled round about upon the altar, (and the altar being about three cubits high, this would be at eye-level), and the smoke and savour arose heavenwards.  Interestingly, the altar of burnt offering was three cubits high, and three times in John’s gospel the death of Christ is spoken of as a lifting up, John 3:14: 8:28; 12:32.  But with the sin-offering things were different, for the animal was burnt upon the ground, the blood was poured out upon the ground, and the flame descended to consume out of sight the offending article, sin.  So there were these two aspects to the death of the Lord Jesus.  In one sense His death was part of the journey back to heaven, His leaving of the world to go to the Father, John 16:28.  And in another sense He was “brought into the dust of death,” Psalm 22:15, and “laid in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps,” Psalm 88:6.

1:6  And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

Next the offerer is commanded to skin the animal, and later we learn that the skin is to be the portion of the priest that offers the sacrifice on the part of the Israelite, Leviticus 7:8.  The skin of the sin-offering was burnt with the rest of its flesh, so that apart from the fat that was burnt upon the altar, all was done away.  In the case of the burnt offering, on the other hand, there is that which remains to be used by the priest subsequently, so that the desire of the individual offerer to present a sacrifice not only gratifies God and is the means of the man’s acceptance, but it goes towards the maintenance of the priesthood.  We note from 1 Peter 2:5 that all who are born again are priests to God, so in the present era the offerer and the priest are one and the same person, engaged in the presentation of spiritual sacrifices, not animal ones.  We can easily see from these things that the spiritual exercises and desires of the individual believer all tend to the maintenance and development of priestliness, so that, when met together as a holy priesthood, the sense of having a share in what has satisfied God’s heart so fills the soul with gratitude, that true and fervent worship is fostered.  May it be that our personal exercises result in something which we can value as priests, and which we may make our own. To think that we are allowed to share God’s thoughts about His Son! 

Note that the priest took to himself only that skin which was from the animal he had dealt with, as we learn from Leviticus 7:8.  Spirituality is not contagious.  Nor can it be developed by another on our behalf.  It can and must come only through intense and disciplined exercise of heart, as 1 Timothy 4:6-16 indicates.  One of the reasons why there may be barrenness at the gatherings for worship, is that there has not been during the previous days the development of spiritual qualities.  Let us not think that godliness is some sort of mantle that may be put on at the entrance to the meeting-place.  We may assume pious attitudes and use pious expressions, but the God with whom we have to do reads the heart.  He hates hypocrisy, the putting on of a mask of respectability and pseudo-spirituality, and His word to the hypocrite now is the same as it was in the days of Christ’s flesh “Woe unto you…hypocrites!” Mattew 23:13.

The word used for “flay” in Leviticus 1:6 is the same as that which is used of the “stripping” of Joseph’s coat of many colours from him, Genesis 37:23.  Alas, there have been, and are, those ready to strip the coat of many colours from the Greater than Joseph.  They have no appreciation of the varied features of the character of Christ, which like Joseph’s coat, mark Him out as the firstborn, the beloved of His Father, Genesis 37:3; 48:22; 1 Chronicles 5:2.  There were those like this at Colosse, calling themselves Gnostics, “knowing ones”, who sought to deprive Christ of His distinctive glories and unique character.  Paul responds positively to their evil threat by reminding the Colossian believers of the titles which belong exclusively to the Lord Jesus, such as God’s dear Son, Image, Firstborn, Creator, Upholder, Head, The Beginning, the Pre-eminent One, the One in Whom dwells all fulness, Colossians 1:12-19.  A coat of many colours indeed!

But it was with different intentions that the offerer stripped the hide from his bullock.  This action began the process of exposing the inner perfections of the animal, so that every part might be tested by the flame of the altar.  If all met with Divine approval, then the man was accepted in the value of his substitute.  We may be sure that what was true of the man’s bullock, is also gloriously true of the Lord Jesus, for no part of His person needs to be hidden from view, no part of His life fails to meet with God’s full and unreserved approval.  There were no aspects of the person of Christ that were unacceptable, and it is in the value of such an offering that the believer has God’s full and unreserved approval too.

1:7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:

Next we come to a part of the ceremony needing a considerable degree of intelligence and skill, to so separate the parts of the offering that they might be exposed to view upon the altar for the eye of God.  By this means the inner excellence of the animal was revealed.  Externally there must be no blemish, but there must be corresponding perfection internally also.  Whilst there might be many animals able to stand this test, there was only one person.  Only He could utter the words of Psalm 139:23,24 with perfect freedom. The psalmist had said, “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:”  All, including the psalmist, would have to admit to grievous shortcomings after such an examination, but not the Lord Jesus.

What a privilege to come as worshippers to the Father and “rejoice in Christ Jesus,” Philippians 3:3; to have that spiritual intelligence to speak to Him concerning the varied aspects of His matchless person.  Not that God does not already know, of course, but He delights to have the appreciation of His people.  As Joseph said, “Ye shall tell my father of all my glory,” Genesis 45:13.  Laban’s sons reckoned glory in terms of what a man had acquired for himself Genesis 31:1.  (The only other mention of glory in the book of Genesis which covers over two thousand years of human history). But Joseph’s glory lay in what he was able to be and do for others, as the ‘saviour of the world’, the meaning of his name in Genesis 41:45.
This exercise cannot be carried out mechanically, but must be spontaneous, and the outcome of a life lived in the enjoyment of what Christ truly is.  Contemplating Him with holy wonder, we shall develop in the heavenly art of appreciating His varied features, each one of which is finely balanced and perfectly integrated with the other.  We shall never find a flaw or a short-coming in Him of whom the Father said, “in whom I am well-pleased”.  Looking within, the Father saw everything that He sought for in the way of moral excellence.

The fire of the altar was never to go out, Leviticus 6:13.  So what are we to understand by the putting of fire upon the altar?  Is it not that the priest was to bring burning embers onto a vacant space on the altar ready for the burning of the sacrifice?  Exodus 27:3 speaks of the fire-pans and the shovels by which this may have been done.  This was a holy exercise, to handle fire which had originally come down from heaven from God.  It was not something to be done lightly, with a careless attitude.  Even the seraphim in God’s presence cannot directly handle the fire of the altar, but must needs use tongs, Isaiah 6:6.  Should not the Christian priest therefore fear lest he become over-familiar in the presence of God?  Let us remember that He who is equal to the Father ascribed holiness to God in the words, “Holy Father,” John 17:11.  Is this not the prime example of the way to handle the fire of Divine Holiness?  Christians should respond to that word, “Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire,” Hebrews 12:29.

Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, found that God was indeed a consuming fire, for when they offered that which was strange in the presence of God, then “there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them,” Leviticus 10:2.  They had erred in the use of fire and paid the price for so doing.  And let us not think that because we live in an age marked by grace, that we may abuse our priestly position by not giving God the reverence due to His Holy Name.  Our God is, (not just was in the law-age), a consuming fire.  A case in point is the use of “You and Yours” in addressing Deity.  If there were no alternative in the English language whereby the Person of God could be sanctified in our speaking, then there might be an excuse.  But in fact the practise of addressing God with the words “Thee and Thou” is one which is easily learned, and presents no real difficulty to the spiritual mind.  The same principle applies to the use of so-called translations of the Scriptures which adopt the modern form of address to God.  For this reason, and for other strong reasons besides, they should be whole-heartedly jettisoned by all who wish to sanctify the Lord God in their hearts.  Of course, patience may have to be exercised with regard to those newly saved, or those who have previously met with those who are not particular about these things, but patience must not be allowed to degenerate into indifference.

But if the fire came down from heaven, the wood grew up on the earth.  Nonetheless it was valued by God, for in Nehemiah 10:34 it is described as a wood offering.  May we suggest that the wood represents those spiritual thoughts of Christ that are available when worship in engaged in, so that the fires of true devotion may be kept burning?  There were those in Israel who were known as hewers of wood Joshua 9:27.  May the Lord increase the number of their spiritual counterparts, who consider it their duty to see that the fire continually burns.  Such will need to renounce worldly ambitions and hopes of financial gain, but may be assured that nothing which they do to further God’s interests will be forgotten by Him “who is not unrighteous to forget,” Hebrews 6:10.

After his humbling experience when he had proudly numbered Israel, David reared up an altar on the threshing-floor of Araunah, 2 Samuel 24, where the hand of the destroying angel was stayed, and he sacrificed the oxen to the Lord, using the threshing instruments as wood for the fire.  These he refused to accept as a gift from Araunah, but said, “neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing”.  An important principle this, and one we would do well to follow, by ensuring that a sacrifice is really a sacrifice.

Proverbs 26:20 says that “where no wood is, there the fire goeth out”, and how sadly this may be true in the lives and gatherings of the Lord’s people.  It will not be the case if there is a constant and diligent study of the Scriptures, our only source of material if our minds are to be stocked with that which will please our Father as we draw near in worship.  The adoption of a regularised ritual, and of man-appointed ‘leaders of worship’, or extensive singing, is surely no substitute for the fresh thoughts of Christ which the Spirit of God is so ready to impart to the one desirous of such things, John 16:14.

1:8 And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

Note the reversal of the order of the words in the mention of the priests in verses 7 and 8.  In the one instance it is “the sons of Aaron the priest”, whilst in the other they are described as “the priests, Aaron’s sons”.  In the one their descent as sons is in view, in the other their dignity as priests is emphasised.  These two things are presented to us by the apostle Peter as he writes about the Christian priesthood in his first epistle.  He uses various expressions which lead us to think of these two aspects of the believer as a priest.  For instance, in the first chapter, he writes of “being begotten again,” verse 3, of “obedient children,” verse 14, of “calling on the Father,” verse 17, of “being born again, not of corruptible seed (offspring), but of incorruptible,” verse 23, and in the second chapter of “new-born babes,” verse 2, and of a “chosen generation,” verse 9.

We learn from these phrases, coming as they do in the context which deals with Christian priests, that all who are truly born again are priests unto God, without exception.  How successful has Satan been for so long!  Centuries of the Christian era have rolled their course and the generally accepted idea amongst the ranks of professed believers has been that priesthood is the reserve of the clergy, who act for the laity in the presence of God.  This is not Christianity in action, it is Judaism, with pagan overtones.  No doubt through the age there have always been those who have appreciated the truth, and have enjoyed ministering to the heart of God in private, but the public image of Christianity has been one of a priestly class acting vicariously for others.

There is no need for any of us in our day to follow the trend.  We need to clear our minds of any notion that the ordinary believer is under-privileged and has no right to act in God’s presence without assistance.  As believers we need to ensure that the circumstances in which we meet for worship do in fact foster the free exercise of our birthright.

As we have suggested, priesthood is not only a matter of descent, but of dignity also.  So we find Peter describing priests as “laying aside all malice,” 1 Peter 2:1, as “chosen”, “royal” and “holy”, and as “a peculiar people,” (that is, a people for God’s own possession), and as those who “show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light, 1 Peter 2:9.  Darkness surrounded the top of Sinai when the Law was given, Hebrews 12:18, but believers have not been called by God into darkness, but rather, have been invited to draw near into the marvellous light of His glorious presence.  What more dignified position could possibly be given them?  And not only this, they have the holy privilege of seeking to display His excellencies.  Priests under the law wore garments of glory and beauty, Exodus 28:40.  How much more should priests under grace “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Romans 13:14, having “put off all malice,” 1 Peter 2:1.  So shall His glory and beauty be displayed in this world of shame and dishonour.

So it is that in the full dignity of their office the priests handle the sacrifice and lay the parts in order.  The two parts mentioned in this verse being the head and the fat.  The head is that member which controls the rest of the body and therefore speaks of the mind and the intelligence, whereas the fat of an animal constitutes its stored-up reserves of energy.  The word used for “fat” is not the same word as is used in connection with the peace offering, where particular concentrations of fat in the body of the animal are in view, but rather, the grease which occurs throughout the entire body.  So we have in these two items that which affects the whole of the rest of the body.  The mind governing the action and reaction of every part and the fat supplying reserves of energy to the whole.
Do we not see in Christ the perfect combination of intelligence and energy?  His was no “zeal without knowledge” Romans 10:2, but He was ever governed by an intelligent insight into the will of His Father.  How often we read in John’s Gospel of “Jesus knowing” and such references as John 2:24; 3:11; 4:1; 5:6; 6:15; 7:29; 8:14; 11:42; 13:1,3; 13:11; 18:4; 19:28, would well repay further study.  The basis of this awareness was His knowledge of the Father Himself.  John’s testimony was that “no man hath seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” John 1:18.  The verb John uses means to see with the eye or with the mind and both these meanings find their place here.  For it is certainly true that no man has physically seen God at any time, nor has gained full insight into the nature of God, but this Christ claims to have, as the Only-begotten of the Father.  In His earthly ministry He imparted this knowledge through the words He spoke, telling men things about God of which the Law could never have informed them, see John 1:17.  As the Only Begotten in the Father‘s bosom He tells out the heart of God, and as the Word, He tells out God‘s mind.  It is this knowledge of the Father that governed the activities of the Lord Jesus, as in the language of the type we are considering, the head and the fat were together.  May the Lord grant that as His people, in our measure, we may combine knowledge with action, that Mary-like, we may sit at His feet and learn of Him, and Martha-like, may busy ourselves in service for Him, Luke 10:38-42.

Let us never despise knowledge.  It is true that the apostle Paul wrote “knowledge puffeth up,” 1 Corinthians 8:1, but the context will show that he meant knowledge without love.  May the apostle’s prayer for the Ephesians be answered in us too, that the Spirit of God in His character as the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, may so affect us, that the eyes of our understanding may be enlightened, as we develop in the knowledge of Himself, Ephesians 1:17,18.  The word the apostle used for “enlightened” is the one from which the English language derives ‘to photograph’.  Just as light passes through the ‘eye’ or lens of a camera onto the sensitive film at the back, producing an impression of the object focussed upon, so believers, as they concentrate on the things of God and as they allow the Spirit to do His work of revealing Divine things, 1 Corinthians 2:9,10, will find that their souls are flooded with the light of the knowledge of God, and permanent impressions are thereby produced.

A further lesson is apparent from the verse under consideration, for we read that the head and the fat were to be laid in order.  Does this not mean, in the absence of any indication otherwise, that these items were to be arranged on the altar in the same way as they were distributed through the animal’s body?  Thus there was a Divine order about the sacrifice as it lay upon the altar, for the Creator of the animal had distributed the parts as He willed, and now they are found in that same order in sacrifice.  It is well for Christian worshippers if they are able to intelligently review the person of Christ in God’s presence so that He is reminded afresh of those features in the life of Christ which were found there in an order and arrangement which satisfied His desire.  This order was never disturbed, not even in death, for whilst all around there was uproar and turmoil, there was a calm repose about the bearing of the Lord Jesus, even when He was under the most extreme pressure of abuse, injustice and pain.  Never at any time were Divine principles jettisoned, or Divine commands flouted.  Always there was an energetic accomplishment of the will of His Father, in accordance with His perfect insight into that will as the Son.

Thus the fat that the animal would ‘burn up’ to supply it with energy during life, is now burnt up upon the altar to assist the action of the fire. Correspondingly, the energy of the life and ministry of Christ are matched by the enthusiasm of His sacrificial death.  In fact, one of the words used in the New Testament for sacrifice is “thusia”, from which comes the English word for enthusiasm.

Again two parts of the animal are mentioned together, one being internal, the other external.  In this respect they are like the head and the fat.  Every aspect of the person of Christ was alike pleasing and acceptable to His Father, whether during thirty largely secret years or three and a half years of public ministry.  Whether days of preaching and healing, or nights of praying.  Whether closeted with His own in the Upper Room, or discoursing amongst the throng in the Temple Courts.  Whether welcomed by the multitude with their hosannas, or hounded to death with their blood-thirsty cry.  The ‘unseen years’ were pleasing to God, for at the end of them the word of approval came to Christ on the banks of the Jordan.  And the public years were alike satisfying to God’s heart, for again there came the word from heaven to the Lord when He was upon the “holy mount”.  His death too, met with Divine approval for He was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, Romans 6:4.  The Father’s glory demanded that such a person be raised from the dead.

1:9 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 Lord.

What are we to glean from the fact that the water needed to be applied to both inwards and legs in the burnt offering, thus cleansing away any defilement that would make it unfit to offer?  Was there defilement with Christ that needed to be washed away before He was acceptable as a sacrifice?  Far be the thought!  The reverse is the case, for He was “ready to die from His youth up,” Psalm 88:15.  John the Baptist could look upon Jesus as He walked and say “Behold the Lamb of God!” for He was fit and ready even then, although the right time had not come.  Peter, John and Paul when they allude to the sinlessness of Christ, do so in connection with His sacrificial work.  “Who his own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree”, “Who did no sin” 1 Peter 2:24,22.  “And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin” 1 John 3:5.  “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin,” 2 Corinthians 5:21.  So the writers of the New Testament are united in their testimony regarding the sinlessness of the appointed sacrifice.

So what is the washing indicating to us, since it is not the idea that Christ had defilement needing to be purged?  It is the lesson of contrast.  When the animal provides a comparison with the person of Christ, then we may draw the comparison, but when a certain detail, because of the nature of things, supplies contrast, then the lesson must be drawn from contrast.  We see this done constantly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its inspired commentary on the Levitical system.  For instance, Aaron and Christ are both spoken of as priests, and as such are compared.  But they are also contrasted, for whilst Aaron was of the Levitical order, Christ’s priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek.  Again, both the bodies of animals and the body of the Lord Jesus are spoken of as sacrifices, thus affording interesting comparisons, but they are also seen in sharp contrast, both in nature and effect.

Applying this principle, what do we learn?  The ceremonial washing of the animal was to make it typically, what Christ was actually.  He alone of all men that have walked upon the earth was both inwardly and outwardly pure.  He was no whited sepulchre, appearing beautiful outwardly, but within  full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness, Matthew 23:27.  No defilement found its rise in His heart, nor could the pollution of this wicked world gain an entry from without.  Conceived in the virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit, He was free from that fallen nature which all other men inherit from their federal head Adam.  Free also from the state of sin which possession of that fallen nature entailed, and free from its tendency to sin.

So it was that the “Holy thing” which was born of Mary was called the Son of God, being totally separate from this world, Luke 1:34,35.  Whilst all other men are “of this world,” He was “not of this world,” John 8:23,  not sharing its corrupt life, not “of it” in any sense at all.  This truth has its implications for believers as well, for the Lord Himself described believers as “not of the world, even as I am not of the world,” John 17:14.  Crucified with Christ to cut them off from the life of Adam’s world, and born from above to give them a share in the life of heaven, they have the joy of fellowship with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ, Romans 6:6; Galatians 2:20; 1 John 1:1-4.

The Burnt Offering: Part 1

“For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”    Hosea 6:6.

“And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.”     John 17:3.

INTRODUCTION
“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” 

These are the words of the apostle Paul to Timothy, his son in the faith, as recorded in 2 Timothy 3:14-17. The Scriptures referred to in particular are those of the Old Testament, which the Lord Jesus explained to His disciples on the road to Emmaus- “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Luke 24:27.  Such was the effect of the unfolding of the Scriptures, that with hearts burning with love to Christ, they retraced their steps with a resolve to communicate their new-found knowledge and understanding to those of like mind.

Thus whether it be to make wise unto salvation, to instruct the unlearned, to fully equip the man of God, or to rejoice the heart, the Scriptures are truly profitable.  May it be that the Christ of whom they testify, John 5:39, may become increasingly precious to all who may read these words.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS CHAPTER 1, VERSES 1 TO 3

1:1  And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
1:2  Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
1:3  If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.

SETTING OF THE CHAPTER
Leviticus chapter 1 is the beginning of a book in which God set out the way in which He desired the nation of Israel to serve Him.  In chapters 25-40 of the preceding Book of Exodus, God had given details to Moses as to the construction of a Tabernacle, a holy building in which Israel’s priests were to function before Him.  It is from this now-completed tabernacle that the Lord speaks to Moses, who, as the people’s representative and mediator, was responsible to pass on God’s requirements.  This he did in the form of the Book of Leviticus.

STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTER
This is very simple, for the passage may be divided into three.  The first section, verses 1-9, is concerned with the offering of bullocks, the second, verses 10-13, with the offering of sheep and goats, the third, verses 14-17, with the offering of doves and pigeons.

SECTION 1    VERSES 1-9    THE OFFERING FROM THE HERD

1:1  And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,

Thus begins this most important and instructive portion of Scripture.  The nation of Israel was described as God’s son, Hosea 11:1, and when He was about to call that son out of Egypt, He said to Pharaoh through Moses, “Let My son go, that he may serve Me,” Exodus 4:23.  Having been called out of Egypt by blood and by power, the aspiration of Israel was expressed in the words of their song, “He is my God, and I will prepare Him a habitation,” Exodus 15:2.  They made good their intention, and the tabernacle was built, and the glory of the Lord filled the place.

It was from such a glory-filled sanctuary that God called Israel again, this time for worship.  If they respond to this call, it must be in a way which satisfies God’s glory, for there is no room left in the tabernacle for man’s glory.  As the psalmist would say centuries later, “in His temple doth every one speak of His glory”, Psalm 29:9.  Only by taking heed to the Divine instructions will Israel offer “an offering in righteousness”, Malachi 3:3.

Christians too, have been “called out.”  Not from a particular country, as Israel was, but from the world-system into which they were born, that they might offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 2:5.  The epistle to the Hebrews describes Israelites as they came near to the altar with their sacrifices, as worshippers, 10:1,2.  Thus there is a very real connection between sacrifices and worship.  The Lord Jesus Himself said “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.” John 4:23.  It ought to be the concern of every true believer therefore to seek to satisfy this desire of His Father’s heart.  The Lord still calls; this time from the heavenly sanctuary, that His purged worshippers may bring to Him their appreciation of His Son.  Let us remember that solemn word from the Lord: “None shall appear before Me empty,” Exodus 23:15.

1:2  Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

We must acquaint ourselves, when considering this and subsequent verses, with the differing characters of the offerings detailed in Leviticus chapters 1-7. Their order is significant.  First of all comes the Burnt Offering, of which no part was eaten, and then follow the Meat or Meal Offering, the Peace Offering and the Sin Offering.  Standing at the head of the list, therefore, is the offering that did not build up the offerer, but which was wholly for God.  And thus an important lesson is emphasised, for God’s demands must be paramount in all Christian activity, whether worship, walk, or work.  He alone has the right to dominate the affairs of the believer, to impose Himself, to accumulate honour, to draw attention to Himself.  No saint, however well-known, has the right to do these things, and he attempts to so assert himself at his spiritual peril, for “pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” Proverbs 16:18.
All of our intentions and actions must be governed by the truth expressed by God in the words, “My glory will I not give to another” Isaiah 42:8.  He is a jealous God; jealous for His people’s allegiance and their full attention.  He has the right to claim all for Himself, and this He did in olden times in the burnt offering.  All, that is, except the skin of the animal.  And the exception proves the rule.  For what is the skin of an animal if it is not the outward display of inner excellence?  Did not the gloss, the sheen, the rich texture of the coat of the animal indicate inner well-being, glowing good health, freedom from infirmity?  Truly the perfection of the animal found its expression in the skin.  So even when a priest took the skin of the burnt offering, as we read he did in Leviticus 7:8, he was not really taking anything for himself; he was, on the contrary, acknowledging his own personal inadequacy, which could only be remedied by an acceptable offering and its death.  This reminds us of the Christian’s duty to “show forth the praises (virtues, excellencies) of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light,” 1 Peter 2:9.

But what is the offerer saying when he brings one of the prescribed offerings?  In the burnt offering is declared the fact that the offerer is personally unacceptable to God, and therefore must bring an offering for his acceptance.  The meal offering declares that the mans life is unsatisfying to God, and hence he must bring flour, the support of life (see Deuteronomy 24:6), as a meal to satisfy God.  Man is by nature uneasy in the presence of God, Genesis 3:8, but when that uneasiness has been dealt with, he may bring a peace offering.  Man is unrighteous, by nature and by practice, and therefore stands in need of a sin offering.  What he is, and what he has done, both call forth the fiery anger of a sin-hating God, but Divine mercy makes provision, so that the fire consumes the sin offering and not the sinner.

Can it really be that God is fully satisfied with the presentation to Him of the bodies of beasts?  Is this His final word on the matter?  Do not these verses point to a more wonderful offering?  Even to the one offered by Him who said as He came into the world, “Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure.  Then said I, Lo I come (in the volume of the book it is written of Me,) to do Thy will, O God,” Hebrews 10:5-7.  The animal sacrifices were God’s will for the time then present, but His ultimate and final will is to bless men on the established basis of the offering consisting of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, Hebrews 10:10.  So when Christ came into the world He is presented to us by the writers of the four Gospels as the only one fit and qualified to go to the place of sacrifice, and to give God the utmost pleasure in so doing.

John records that purging of the temple which took place near the beginning of Christ’s public ministry, when He expelled the oxen, the sheep and the doves from the temple courts.  These being, of course, the same three classes of offering that might be brought as burnt offerings.  Thus is seems as though the Lord is saying at the very outset that He will “take away the first, and establish the second,” Hebrews 10:9, knowing full well that in those burnt offerings God had no pleasure.

We must note the significance of the fact that in Leviticus chapter one we have three distinct parts to the ritual, namely (i) the part played by the offerer, (ii) by the offering and (iii) by the priest.  Why, we may well ask, are they all needed?  In seeking to answer this question we must remember that the Divine ideal was that the whole of the nation of Israel, in covenant relationship with God, should be a kingdom of priests, Exodus 19:6.  However, that covenant, like the tables of stone, was broken at the foot of Mount Sinai, and instead of bringing a bullock to God in worship, they bowed down to a golden calf in idolatry.  Thus they “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen,” Romans 1:25.

As a consequence, Aaron and his sons were appointed to act as intermediaries, being ordained of God “for everything of the altar, and within the veil,” Numbers 18:7.  The Israelite, then, whilst he brings his offering, and does certain things to it near the altar, is not allowed to officiate at the altar.

Does not this plainly indicate to us that the Levitical system was imperfect?  Or as the writer to the Hebrews puts it, weak and unprofitable, Hebrews 7:18.  The common Israelite can neither attend to the altar, nor enter within the veil.  The very fact that he needs a priest to stand between himself and God is a pointer to the shortcomings of the law-system, “for the law made nothing perfect,” Hebrews 7:19.

Summarising, we may say the following:
The offering was suitable, but did not willingly come to the altar, being an unintelligent animal.  The offerer was willing to come to the altar, but was unsuitable.  The offerer, although willing to come to the altar, is barred from officiating there, and his deficiency in this respect is made up by the mediating priest.  Thus the deficiencies that are found in the man, are made up by the offering, and by the priest.

How different is Christ to all this!  Unlike the animal offering, He is intelligent with regard to God’s requirements, and willing as well.  He needs not to be driven to the place of sacrifice, but “offered Himself without spot to God”, Hebrews 9:14.  Those words “without spot” tell so clearly that He is suitable as well.  Nor does He need a priest to interpose between Himself and His God, for He presented Himself for sacrifice.

How different to the Old Testament procedure is the way a believer of this age is able to approach God!  A better prospect is placed before him, by which he draws nigh to God, Hebrews 7:19.  He does not hover anxiously at the gate of an earthly sanctuary to see if the sacrifice he brings is acceptable, and then approach just a little nearer to the presence of God to stand beside the altar, and then retrace his steps to the outside world again.  Rather, he is able to enter with boldness into the very presence of God in virtue of the accepted sacrifice of Christ, and to draw near to God to offer the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips which confess His Name, Hebrews 10:19; 13:15.  How foolish to be satisfied with the altars, priests and sanctuaries, so-called, of earth, when such a prospect is opened up to view, and the exhortation “let us draw near”, comes to us, Hebrews 10:22.

Not only were there the three elements of animal, offerer and priest in the ceremony in Leviticus 1, but there was opportunity given to bring one of five classes of sacrifice.  That of oxen occupies a section on its own, then sheep and goats are grouped together, and finally, pigeons and doves.

Looking at the prescriptions in general, we may surely believe that they have something to teach us regarding Christ, for the Saviour on the Emmaus Road began at “Moses and all the prophets, and “expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself,” Luke 24:27.

Shall we be content with thinking that the bullock, being presumably a rich man’s offering, was of more value than the poor man’s offering of doves?  Does not this view tend to disparage the dove offering as being of little account?  How may we apply that sort of idea to the sacrifice of Christ?  Who will dare to suggest that there is inferior and superior with Him who doeth all things well?  We are warned against this line of thought by the Lord’s estimate of the widow’s two mites, for He said she cast in more than those who cast in much, for He saw how the rich gave, as well as what they gave Mark 12:41-44.  She gave in faith, and God hath chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, James 2:5.

Rather than setting one class of offering against another, it is surely better to think that in these different offerings there are presented different aspects of the sacrifice of Christ.  So that in the bullock section we find an emphasis on the doing of God the Father’s will.  In the sheep section there is emphasis on the will of Christ, and in the dove section, the mind of the Spirit is worked out.  So that the words of Christ “I come to do Thy will, O (Triune) God” are anticipated in this chapter.  It is suggested, then, that the three persons of the Godhead and their attitude to the sacrifice at Calvary are hinted at in these verses. We shall find that in each of the three sections there are things said which are not repeated in the other two, and these distinctive features will perhaps take on new meaning when considered in the light of the foregoing suggestion.

1:3  If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

We must notice, first of all, as we begin our consideration of the details in these verses, the different expressions that are used for “offering”.  When the word is used by itself, then the idea is that of an approach offering, that which is brought by one who draws near to God.  The word is found in verses 2 (twice), 3, 10, and 14, (twice).

When the word offering is linked with the words “made by fire”, as in verses 9,13 and 17, then the thought is of what happened to the sacrifice after it had been brought near.  And when the expression “burnt sacrifice” is used, as in verses 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 17, then there is emphasised what happened to the offering after it had been brought near and subjected to the action of the fire, for there ascended to God what is described as a sweet savour, and thus the words “burnt sacrifice” may equally well be translated “ascending offering”.

Perhaps this is a suitable juncture to notice a fundamental difference between the burning of the burnt offering, and the burning of the sin offering, for the words employed in each case are different, and are also instructive.  We might summarise the difference between the two by saying that whereas in the case of the burnt offering the fire made the offering, for it is described, as we have seen, as “an offering made by fire”, in the case of the sin offering the fire may be said to unmake, or destroy the offering.  In the former, the fires of Divine holiness only served to enhance and draw out the excellence latent in the offering, whereas in the case of the sin offering the fires of Divine anger against sin utterly consumed the sacrifice as it was burnt up without the camp.

In the case of the burnt offering the word means “burn as incense”, emphasising that the odour of the sacrifice as it was subjected to the action of the fire was a sweet savour to God, a smell from which He derived satisfaction, and in which He could rest.  The burning of the sin offering on the other hand was a burning designed to dispose of the offending article, in this case sin, which God cannot tolerate in any way.

Praise God! there is One, even His Own Son made flesh, Who, when subjected to the Divine fire at the Calvary, not only yielded to God the incense of utmost moral worth, but who, at the same time, could satisfy the righteous demands of God against sin.

To return to the Burnt offering, however, with its progress of thought from the initial approach, then the fire causing a sweet savour, and then that savour ascending to God in heaven.  In John’s Gospel there is a three-fold mention of ascending to heaven.  Each time it is the Lord Jesus speaking.  In John 3:13 He says, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.”  In the expression “which is in heaven”, the Lord Jesus indicates that His proper dwelling place is in heaven, and even whilst found here upon the earth as the Son of Man (a title which connects Him with the earth), heaven is His home.  Hence He can tell Nicodemus, from direct and present experience, of “heavenly things,” John 3:11,12.  See also John 3:31,32; 5:19; 8:38.  There may also be an allusion to the words of Daniel 7:13, where the Son of Man is viewed by the prophet as being in heaven, and receiving universal dominion from the Ancient of Days, as He is brought near before Him.  Thus the Lord Jesus, whilst speaking to Nicodemus, is conscious of acceptance in God’s presence in heaven, and is confident that, when the time comes, the heavens will receive Him.

The second reference is found in that chapter which contains Christ’s discourse on the Bread of Life, prompted by the miraculous feeding of the 5,000, with its reminders of God’s provision of the manna when Israel were travelling through the wilderness.  Just as the Israelites, when they came out of their tents on the first morning the manna came, had said “What is it”? so in John 6:42, when Christ the true Bread had come down from heaven, they said “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know”?  thus betraying the fact that they did not really know who He was.  In response, the Lord Jesus asks, in John 6:62, “What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?” And if they had not believed Him when He spoke of having come down from heaven, what would they do if He ascended back to where He came from?  They would not believe that either, for these things are spiritually discerned, and man cannot profit from the flesh and its reasonings, John 6:63.  During Israel’s wilderness days, a pot of manna was laid up in the presence of God, unseen by the majority of the people of Israel, so the Lord Jesus would be “laid up” in the presence of God, unseen by the majority of men.  For only the believing few can say “We see Jesus”, Hebrews 2:9.

The third reference has to do with the then-future, when the Lord Jesus, having risen from the dead, was about to ascend to His Father and God.  “Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father,” John 20:17.  “Go to my brethren”, said He to Mary, reminding us of the quotation that is found in Hebrews 2:12, “I will declare Thy name unto my brethren”.  Reminding us also of His declared intention in John 17:26 of making known the Father‘s name to His own, that they might enter into the good of what that name reveals.

What do Christ’s brethren learn about the character of God ?  Firstly, the Lord says, “My Father and your Father”, indicating that the loving relationship which the Lord Jesus enjoyed with His Father whilst here upon the earth, may also be known by those who can call Him Father also.

Secondly, “My God and your God,” indicating that the strength and resources which were available to Christ when here below, are guaranteed to those who follow Him in the path of faith and dependence.  For did He not say, “I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly”, Psalm 22:10?  Thus from the very first moment of conscious existence as a man, the Lord Jesus is said to be absolutely dependent upon God, with no suspicion of the independence and self-sufficiency which are the hallmarks of Adam and his race.

What a privilege to pass through this world in an attitude of dependence upon God, even as Christ did. The apostle Paul knew something of this when he wrote to the believers of his day, “My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus”, Philippians 4:19.  May the Lord grant that His people know increasingly the love of Christ’s Father and the support of Christ’s God.

But why should these things be linked to the ascension of the Lord Jesus?  Is not one reason the fact that He ascends to act as advocate with the Father 1 John 2:1, maintaining us in the good of our relationship with our Father; and He ascends, also, to act as High Priest in the presence of God for us Hebrews 9:24, to maintain us as those who confess that they need Divine resources?

This three-fold mention of “ascending” is all the more remarkable when we remember that John does not give to us any historical record of the return of Christ to heaven, but in the place where we might expect to find it, we find the Lord Jesus referring to His return.  It is as if His going away was a foregone conclusion.  At all times the Lord was suited for the presence of God in heaven, and if He went away, it would be followed by His sure return, that those made fit for heaven by His sacrifice, might be escorted there also.  For His “touch Me not”, indicates that His people of this present age are linked to Him, not in any earthly way, but rather are joined to Him as He is in heaven, as expressed in Ephesians 2:5,6- “quickened together”, “raised up together”, “seated together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”.  His coming for us guarantees that just as we are in heavenly places in Him now, so we shall be in heavenly places with Him then. 

Psalm 50.9 indicates that the bullock is taken out of the house, so it is a domesticated animal, not a wild one.  There was nothing permanently suitable in the houses of the men of Israel, so out of the Father’s house in heaven comes One who will satisfy Him infinitely.  His words were, “I came forth from the Father” John 16:28.  And He pressed ever onward and upward to the Father again, via the place of sacrifice, and by His work at that place made it possible for His own to occupy the “many abiding places” in the Father’s house on high.

Significantly enough, the symbol for the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is an ox, and that for the last letter, a cross; thus the greatness and scope of His work are enshrined in the very letters used in the writing of the Old Testament.  Just as the greatness of His person is enshrined in the letters used in the New Testament, for He is the Alpha and the Omega, beginning all, and Himself the Beginning, Colossians 1:18, and consummating all, and Himself the Consummation. Revelation 22.13.

Something of the determination of the Lord Jesus is indicated by the stipulation that the sacrifice must be a male, emphasising energy, and the active side of things.  Those who breed animals have a saying that “the ram is half the flock, the bull is half the herd,” for the nature, character and productive capacity of these two animals has far reaching effects on the rest of the flock or herd.  Consider then, how great a sacrifice is involved in giving up this animal.  Indeed, in verse 5 the word for bullock is literally “son of the herd”, an expression indicating an animal deserving of special notice, one that all the cows in the herd would be proud to own as her son.  What an act of devotion on the part of an Israelite to give up this “son”.

But this is but a faint picture of the sacrifice which God the Father made when He “spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,” Romans 8:32.  The sacrifice by Abraham of his only-begotten son Isaac, in the land of Moriah, (the word Moriah means “the vision of the Lord”), gives us vision and insight into what God was minded to do centuries later at Calvary.  Well might Abraham call the place “Jehovah Jireh”, a name which can mean either “The Lord will see”, or, “The Lord will provide”.  For the Lord could see in Abraham’s act of devotion a rehearsal of what He Himself would later do, when He would provide the required sacrifice.  And Moses adds the inspired comment upon all this in Genesis 22:14 when he says “as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen”.  He envisages that others would look back to the sacrifice and think of Moriah not as the mount of Abraham, but of the Lord.  Just as believers today look back to Calvary to see the Father’s love and the Son’s willingness.

Calvary is remembered not so much for what men and Satan did, although their dread conspiracy is not forgotten, but rather as the place where God was active and where every attribute of God was brought out into its full display, John 12:28; 13:31.  May it be that as believers we have an increasingly deeper insight into the meaning of Calvary, that we might be prompted to a life of sacrifice ourselves.  For this is the practical lesson the apostle draws from his mention of the mercies of God in Romans 12:1,2.  The penning of the parenthetical chapters 9-11 has not caused the apostle to forget the tender mercy of God when He gave up His Son so freely.  Nor should we forget our personal responsibility to present our bodies a living sacrifice to God.

But to return to the text of Leviticus chapter one.  The male must be “without blemish”, a phrase used of the Lord Jesus in the New Testament in 1 Peter 1:19.  And this introduces us to a very important, and indeed vital feature of the person of Christ, namely His absolute sinlessness.  He was blamed by men for several things, such as law-breaking, John 5:18; deceiving the people, 7:12; untruthfulness, 8:13; demon-possession, 8:48; blasphemy, 10:33, but, although He was blamed, He was in fact without blemish and the Father could say from heaven on more than one occasion that Christ was the One in whom He was well-pleased.  Who will dare to reverse the verdict of heaven?

Isaiah had prophesied beforehand of the attitude of the Lord Jesus in the face of all this, His attitude would be, “He is near that justifieth Me…the Lord God will help Me,” Isaiah 50:8,9.  Whilst He was cursed by men, the psalmist spoke beforehand of Christ ascending to the hill of the Lord and receiving God’s blessing, and instead of the unrighteous dealings of men with the Lord Jesus upon the earth, He would be righteously vindicated in heaven, Psalm 24:3,5.

The phrase “without blemish” signifies to be perfect (everything being present) and complete, (nothing being absent).  And how fully the New Testament bears out this feature of the Lord’s person.  Since He Himself is perfect and complete, all He does is perfect and complete also.  Indeed, unless this were so, His sacrificial work is invalid, for Leviticus 22:21 gives the Divine Law, “it shall be perfect to be accepted”.  How important then is this matter of the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus, for apart from anything else, it affects the work which He did in sacrifice.  If that work is in any way defective, the results are likewise defective, and there is no possibility of a standing in the presence of God for man.

True it is that the word “perfect” is used of men in the Old Testament such as Noah, Genesis 6:9, and David, but they had been made perfect by the grace of God, as David himself said, “It is God that…maketh my way perfect”, Psalm 18:32.  God’s Son, on the other hand, is essentially perfect.  Certainly He is described as being made perfect in Hebrews 2:10; 5:9, but these references have not to do with His personal character.  The life and sufferings of the Lord Jesus have perfected or fully-equipped Him to serve His people still.

When the apostle Peter writes to servants, exhorting them to bear suffering patiently, 1 Peter 2:18-25, he reminds them of the example of Christ, Jehovah’s suffering servant, and he does so by using words taken from one of the Songs of the Servant in Isaiah’s prophecy.  Isaiah had written concerning Christ, “He had done no violence”, Isaiah 53:9; but borne along by the Spirit of God, Peter extends the scope of this statement and says “Who did no sin” whether violent or otherwise.  As such, it was fitting that He should not be given a grave at the foot of the cross, where doubtless the transgressors who were crucified with Him, (who had done violence), were unceremoniously flung, but rather in a clean and new tomb, amidst the fragrance of spices lovingly prepared.

Peter then, emphasises the sinless activity of the Son of God, the one-time fisherman being a man of action himself, (even if sometimes his actions were violent, as when he wielded a sword in Gethsemane!).  Paul, however, the man of intellect, dwells on the working of Christ’s mind, and writes “He knew no sin”, 2 Corinthians 5:21.  The Lord Jesus had no experimental or practical knowledge of what it was to sin.  He knew what sin was in others, and exposed that sin, as the Gospel records abundantly show, but He was totally separate from it.  The apostle John was the man of deep insight, and He probes the mystery of the person of Christ, and concludes by the Spirit, that “in Him is no sin” 1 John 3:5 and “He is righteous” 3:7, and again “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all”, 1:5.  Note John uses the word “is”, for he is writing of the being and the essence of the person of the Son of God.  He does not say, “in Him was no sin”, for then we would be led to limit our thinking to a particular time.  But when he writes “is” we are taken beyond a particular period to think of His person.

John wrote in a day when there were those who suggested that Jesus Christ had not come in the flesh, but only seemed to be a real man.  They also taught that matter was evil, and a holy God could not have any dealings with material things on that account.  John refutes this double error, for he speaks of “handling” the Lord Jesus, and labels those who deny Jesus Christ come in the flesh as anti-Christian, 1 John 1:1; 4:3. He asserts that despite His real manhood in flesh and blood, the Lord has no taint of evil, for in Him is no sin. And since He is God, John 1:1, and in God there is no darkness at all, then there is in Christ no darkness at all either.

Thus these three inspired writers urge upon us the important truth that God’s Son had no sin at all in His record, His mind, or His being, but in all things and in all ways pleased the Father well.  The prince of this world came, as Christ said he would, John 14:30, and derived no satisfaction at all from Him, for Satan delights only in evil.  The Father, on the other hand, who delights only in good, found everything He sought for in His Son, for He is righteous, 1 John 3:7; pure, 1 John 3:3; and holy, Acts 2:27.

Exodus 29:42,43 describes the place of the burnt offering as marked by four things.  Firstly, Divine scrutiny, for it was “before the Lord”; secondly, Divine contact, for God said “meet you”; thirdly, Divine communion, for God undertook to “speak with thee”; and fourthly, Divine glory, for God said the tabernacle would be “sanctified by My glory”.  What noble ideas surround the place of the altar; ideas only fully realised at Calvary.  There, Christ the supreme sacrifice was subjected to the penetrating scrutiny of a God who demands perfection.  Having passed this test, He offered Himself in sacrifice to enable contact to be made between the repentant sinner and God, contact that would be followed by communion.  For let none think that God can be contacted or communed with on any other basis than that of sacrifice.  And there, too, God’s glory was brought out in fullest display, that His nature might be openly apparent.