Tag Archives: forgiveness

MATTHEW 18

MATTHEW 18

We hope you will find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end of this article. We would be pleased to hear from you.

Survey of the chapter
After the seven parables of the kingdom in chapter 13, we learn in Matthew chapters 14 to 18 what the character of those in the kingdom of heaven must be like if they are to enter the kingdom of God. Remember that the kingdom of heaven is the sphere of profession, whereas the kingdom of God is the sphere of reality.

Structure of the chapter

(a) Verses 1-6 The need for humility
(b) Verses 7-14 The need for consideration
(c) Verses 15-20 The importance of harmony between brethren
(d) Verses 21-35 The duty of forgiveness

(a) Verses 1-6
The need for humility

18:1
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus- we know from Mark 9:30-34 that the disciples had been disputing among themselves about who was greatest, and when they were inside the house in Capernaum the Lord confronted them. Matthew does not mention this, but he does tell us about the conversation with Peter in the house about the tribute money.

Is he linking the need for humility with the fact that the Lord had associated Himself with Peter in the matter of paying the tribute money? The coin that Peter took up from the fish was for “me and thee”, and this, coupled with the fact that the disciples had been arguing about who should be greatest whilst they were travelling along to Capernaum, brought things to a head. Did some of them resent that the Lord paid with the same coin as Peter did, as if he had some sort of equal status?

Saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? They had clearly not come to a decision about this matter, so agree to let the Lord settle the it. This question is most inappropriate, for the Lord has just told them that He is going to be betrayed and killed, 17:22,23. They had been exceeding sorry about this, but He had also said that He would be raised again, so perhaps they still thought there was hope of an imminent setting up of the kingdom. There should be no room for pride in the hearts of those who follow the rejected Man of Calvary. By going there He took the lowest place of all.

18:2
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them- it is said traditionally that this was a child of Peter. It is probable that the house they were in was Peter’s, (since the collectors of the tribute money seem to have come to the door of the house), and that the Lord Jesus made it His base when He was in Galilee, see Luke 4:38.

The child is put in the place of prominence to teach a lesson about not seeking prominence. It is safe to do this because a child will not normally seek position.

Notice that the child is happy to respond to the Lord’s invitation. In fact, Mark tells us that the Lord took him into His arms, Mark 9:36. The Lord Jesus was very interested in the welfare of children, and was most severe on those who ill-treat them, as we shall see in verse 6.

Child-abusers should be handed over to the civil authorities, even if they claim to be believers. To cover up their sin may be successful for a time, but the eventual scandal will be far more damaging to the testimony.

18:3
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven- they were already converted in the sense that they believed in Him, but they need a further conversion from the attitude of pride and self-seeking evident in their striving to be greatest. Although he had been set in the midst, we may be sure that the child did not seek that place of prominence, and was pleased when he was allowed to go. Children are valued members of the family, but their proper place is in the background. It is not in order for them to rule the household, and certainly should not be allowed to hold their parents to ransom.

18:4
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven- this is the other side of the truth. Not only is self-seeking condemned, but self-abasement is commended. They learn that the way to show themselves to be converted is to show humility. This solves their dispute as to who was the greatest. The answer is who is the most humble. This is still the answer.

18:5
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me- He so identifies Himself with the welfare of children, that to receive a child, (meaning to have its best interests at heart), is as good as receiving Him. In Mark’s account He adds, “and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me”, Mark 9:37. This elevates the care and welfare of children to a very high level, and should encourage greatly those who have the care of children, either their own or other’s.

18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me- this is the opposite of receiving a child. To cause a child to stumble so that he takes a wrong path may mean that he is astray the rest of his life. Children are very impressionable, and great care must be taken to introduce them only to the truth of God’s word, and not the ideas of men.

It is not just the child the Lord selected to illustrate His point that is in view. “These little ones” may be a reference to Peter’s family, for they are said to believe in Him.

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea- we understand the strong feeling behind this statement, for the Lord is angry when children are harmed, whether physically, emotionally or spiritually. He is not laying down the precise penalty for child abuse, but is using a graphic metaphor to express extreme displeasure. There were two sorts of millstone, one being turned by hand, and the larger one, turned by an ass. It is the latter here. It would be better for him to be drowned in this way, never to be buried with honour, so as to cut short his evil works, and preserve little children from his wicked attentions, than to continue to accumulate sins.

(b) Verses 7-14
The need for consideration

18:7
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Woe unto the world because of offences! The sins against children He has just spoken about are just a sample of the ways in which men sin against one another. As He surveys the scene, the Lord assesses the world as a place of misery and woe, and men’s offences are the cause.

For it must needs be that offences come- this supposes that the manifest kingdom of Christ has not yet been set up, since when He reigns offences will be dealt with immediately. It is necessary for evil to manifest itself so that the need for Him to reign becomes more apparent. It is also necessary so as to expose the wickedness of men to the full.

But woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! The woe is not now general but specific, “that man”, for each offence will be judged individually, unless, of course, it has been genuinely repented of and therefore forgiven.

18:8
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee- in view of the foregoing statements, (hence the “wherefore”), drastic action must be taken. Again a strong metaphor is used, but it must not be taken literally. A similar statement is found in the passage in Matthew 5:27-32 where the Lord speaks of divorce. There it is only the eye that lusts after a woman and the hand that writes her a bill of divorcement that is mentioned, the foot not being relevant in that situation. Here it is the hand that performs an action and the foot that takes the person to perform the action that is in view.

A person may be offended by his own hand or foot in the sense that he can be enticed to sin by the thought of what that hand or foot can do.

It is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire- the Old Testament views everlasting life as life under the Messiah’s rule in the kingdom. It is better to be halt (lame), or maimed, (with one hand cut off) when the Messiah comes to set up His kingdom, than to be entire, (with both hands and feet, none having been cut off, metaphorically, meaning the tendency to offend has not been dealt with), but destined for the lake of fire, because the failure to deal with sin is a sign of an unconverted person.

18:9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire- in Matthew 5 it was the eye that saw a woman that began the process which ended in adultery, but here the teaching is more general. Having had suggestions made to her by the Tempter, Eve “saw the tree that it was good for food”, so the lust of the eyes led her astray, Genesis 3:6. She was promised that her eyes would be opened, and indeed they were, but in the wrong sense, for she realised that she was no longer fit for the presence of God, verses 7 and 8.

The hand, foot and eye are not only to be dealt with initially, but are to be cast away, so that they are not used in a wrong way any more.

18:10
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones- children should be valued, and not lightly esteemed. Those who do not value them are likely to abuse them in some way. We despise children when we think that sinning against them is of little account.

For I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven- what better indication could there be of the value of children than to say that their guardian angels are ever present before the Father? This is the complete opposite to despising them. This is a great comfort for the children, and an encouragement to treat them with care. It is also a warning to those who might be tempted to despise them, (or worse), for their angels give account before their Father.

18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost- whilst this is a general statement of the grace of Christ in coming to save the lost, the particular context is that His love for children is so strong that it brought Him down from heaven to save them. It is a wonderful thing that angels are in the presence of God on their behalf; it is a more wonderful thing that the Son of God should become the Son of man in order to go to Calvary to save them.

18:12
How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

How think ye? In case such thinking is strange to them, the Lord gives them an illustration.

If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray- some might be tempted to suggest that to lose one per cent of the flock is of little account.

Doth he not leave the ninety and nine- these sheep are safe in the fold, and can be left.

And goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? No matter the hardship or the difficulty, the true shepherd will persevere in his search, such is his concern for just one sheep which is in danger.

18:13
And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

And if so be that he find it- such is the folly of some sheep that they stray so far that the most concerned shepherd cannot find them, so it is “if so be”, not “when”.

Verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray- it is not that he rejoices because the one sheep went astray. The rejoicing is because he was able to find it.

18:14
Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish- we may measure the concern of the Father for the little ones by the trouble the Son of Man took to find it so as to rescue it from perishing. This does not mean that all shall be saved from perishing, (for it is “if”, not “when” in verse 13, as we have noticed), but it does show the desire of the Father for all. The desire of the Father may be disappointed through the wilfulness of the child.

(c) Verses 15-20
The importance of harmony between brethren

Survey of the section
Whilst it has a broadly different subject to the first half of the chapter, the word “moreover” which begins this section does alert us to the connection between the passages. For those who lack humility, and are full of themselves, are very likely to trespass against their brethren. In that situation those trespassed against must take righteous steps to deal with the matter, whilst themselves maintaining humility in that they do not remedy the situation by their own resources, but by God’s.

In the passage we have:

Verse 15(a) A sin committed
Verse 15(b) A sin condemned
Verse 15(c) A sin confessed
Verse 16 A sin continued
Verse 17 A sin confirmed on earth
Verse 18 A sin confirmed in heaven

 Structure of the section

(i Verses 15-18 The process to deal with trespasses
(ii) Verses 19,20 The prayer for wisdom
(iii) Verses 21-35 The parable about forgiveness

(i) Verses 15-18
The process to deal with trespasses

18:15
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Moreover- as noted, this word suggests a link with the foregoing, but also a fresh aspect of truth. There is more, over and above what has already been said. The word also carries the idea of “but if”, so if it should come to pass that a brother does more than stumble another, (the subject of the previous verses), then the next line of approach should be adopted.

If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone- Matthew’s gospel is the gospel of government, and order and righteousness must prevail amongst those who are in the kingdom of God. Since he claims to be a brother, he will be one of those who hears the word of God and does it, and will respond to the charge against him in a responsible way. The word trespass is translated sin in verse 21. Trespass is a crossing of a clearly-marked boundary. The word trespass, being in the aorist tense, is looked on as a definite act, not an imaginary one. We should remember the word of 1 Corinthians 8:12- “When ye sin so against the brethren, ye sin against Christ”.

There are those who are proud, and feel that they should always be pandered to, and when they feel that they have been deprived of their rights, they sulk, or get angry. Such will sometimes feel that they have been sinned against, when it is only their pride that has been hurt.

Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone- the first stage is to confront the brother with his sin. The word for “tell” here is not simply to inform, but convict and rebuke. The fact that this is the first step will prevent flippant matters being raised, since there will be an awareness that those who bring light-weight charges are themselves liable to be examined.

There is nothing here about discussing the problem, or “praying it through”, or coming to an arrangement. If the matter is so clear-cut that a brother is free to meet another about it, then there is nothing to discuss, and repentance and forgiveness can follow. One genuinely repentant will want to make amends, in the language of the parable which follows, “I will pay thee all”, verse 29. The trespass offering included an element of recompense for the offended party, Leviticus 6:4,5.

Of course, if the other brother claims that he has been misunderstood, then righteous dealings will require that his case should be put forward.

If he shall hear thee that is, if he takes note of the brother who has been sinned against, and responds to what he has to say.

Thou hast gained thy brother- he has been temporarily lost to fellowship, for two cannot walk together if they are not agreed, Amos 3:3. If he repents, however, he has been recovered for fellowship.

18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

But if will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more- the next stage in the process. The brother who has been sinned against should persist, and not give up on this prescribed process halfway.

That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established- if the brother takes one other, there are two witnesses, if he takes two, then there are three witnesses. Note that the brother sinned against is allowed as a witness. The position of these others is not specified, for they are present only to testify to what is said; they have no mediating role. Not have they necessarily witnessed the event which caused the rift between the two brothers. They simply witness to the admission or rejection of the accusation, so that they can bear testimony to what was said on both sides. This, in itself, is a curb to any tendency for one party in the dispute to brow-beat or intimidate the other, knowing that words spoken and attitudes adopted are all noted by credible witnesses.

18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church- the double refusal of the offender now means that the matter is made more public, but only in the assembly. The law-courts of men are not the place to settle such matters. The Corinthian believers were making the mistake of taking one another to the law-courts, and the apostle had to rebuke them, see 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.

But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican- clearly the church of chapter 16 is not available to deal with this matter. The Lord Jesus at this point introduces the idea that there will be a company in a locality that also can be named the church. This is developed in the epistles of Paul, to whom was entrusted the task of being a minister of the church, “to fulfil the word of God”, Colossians 2:24,25. In other words, the truth the apostle made known about the church finalised God’s revelation to His people.

This church is the final court of appeal in a locality, and no council, gathering of brothers from afar, or consultation with any supposed earthly headquarters is envisaged in this or any other situation. We should be clear, however, that if the offender has committed some crime that comes under the civil law of the land, he must be handed over to the authorities.

A heathen man is a pagan, who has no knowledge of God. A publican would be of the class that were notorious for their false dealing. Whether it be an unbeliever by nature, or one by practice, the unrepentant one is not now to be reckoned a believer at all, since he has not responded to the process laid down for believers to follow. This is why in 1 Corinthians 5:11 the apostle speaks of one who is “called a brother”. Whether he is or not is determined by whether he responds to the word of God by repentance.

18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:- note the “ye”, indicating that it is not the single brother who was sinned against, but all the church. If the man does not repent, then his sin is to be bound upon him until such times as he does turn from his sin. The decision, if arrived in accordance with scripture, has the sanction of heaven. This is why no earthly law-court needs to be involved in church matters, for civil courts have not the competence or right to deal with church matters. If it is a question of a civil offence, then it should be reported immediately to the appropriate authorities.

And whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven- when he does repent, the sin is loosed from him in the eyes of the church, with the assurance that this is the view of heaven too. The Jews had a saying that whatever was decided in the Sanhedrin was decided in heaven.

(b) Verses 19,20
The prayer for guidance

18:19
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Again I say unto you- we should note the relevance of the word “again”. Matthew uses this word seven times in a special sense. The references are as follows: 5:33; 13:44,45,47; 18:19; 19:24; 22:1. When these passages are examined it becomes clear that “again” in those settings means more that simply “another thing”. There is a continuation of a theme, but with a difference of emphasis. For instance, when the Lord says, “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time”, 5:33, He then goes on to cancel what was said, rather than deepening the meaning of what was said of old time, which is what He does in the other examples He gives in His address on the mount.

So with that in mind we can say that the Lord is introducing a fresh idea, but one which has some connection with what has gone before. So the fresh idea is guidance during the process set out in verses 16-18. The connection is found in the mention of the two and the three of verses 19 and 20.

That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask- this promise is especially relevant to the two or three witnesses that were involved in the procedure of verse 16. They have carried out the instructions of that verse, and the man who has trespassed has failed to hear them. (This could be either by refusing to meet them, or rejecting what they had to say if he did meet with them). They now need wisdom as to how to proceed righteously.

They meet together to discuss the matter, and because of the promise the Lord will give them in verse 20 they are able to come to a right decision as to how to proceed.

It shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven- the Lord assures them even if there are only two acting in the matter, yet if they carry out His instructions correctly, then when they agree on a decision, the thing is duplicated in heaven, the “done for them” referring to the binding or loosing in heaven he spoke of in verse 18.

Notice the further reference to “on earth…in heaven”. The kingdom has not yet come in manifestation, and the King is not present, so meantime His righteous government is carried out through His subjects on earth, and is ratified in heaven.

18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name- this verse contains a very special promise which has been laid hold of by believers as they meet together. Without taking away from its general application, we should note its significance in the context. The verse begins with “for”, and is giving to us the reason why the two persons of verse 19 may count on help in the matter on which they are agreed they need help. In verse 19 only two are mentioned, for even that minimum number may count on the Lord’s help. Here it is two or three, for the man who had been trespassed against had the option of taking either one or two others with him as he dealt with the matter, verse 16. Clearly the two or three are the one or two witnesses plus the offended brother.

They come together with the express purpose of acting in Christ’s name, and with His authority, He being absent from them in heaven.

There am I in the midst of them- so whilst He has ascended bodily to heaven, and in that sense, as He Himself said, “I am no more in the world”, John 17:11, He does promise to be in the midst of these two or three as they gather together to act for Him. The apostle Paul was not able to be present when the Corinthian believers met together to deal with evil in their company, but he was present in spirit, 1 Corinthians 5:3,4. This meant that he was wholly with them in what they were doing.

So it is here, with the added thought that the Lord is not just present in spirit, fully in harmony with what they are doing, but is in the midst, not on the fringe. He associates Himself completely with what they are doing, for they have gathered in His name, intent on serving His interests.

The verb used in the expression “gathered together” is the basis of the word synagogue, a collecting or convening together of people. So it is different to the word used in verse 17 for the church, which means “a called out company”.

(d) Verses 21-35
The duty of forgiveness

18:21
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Peter’s question has to do with a situation prior to that of verses 15-20. He rightly judges that it would be preferable to deal with possible problems early, before the drastic action detailed in those verses needs to be carried out.

Till seven times? Peter’s solution to the problem is inadequate, and fails to reflect the character of the King.

18:22
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven- notice how high the standard of forgiveness is, being modelled on the attitude of God. We read in Ephesians 4:32, “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you”. God forgave us in view of all Christ is to Him, and all He did for us. Those who have been forgiven by God should be the special objects of our care, for this is Christ-like, and is the mark of a worthy walk before God.

Peter no doubt thought that to forgive seven times would be commendable; the Lord raised the standard from seven times seven, making forty nine, to seventy to the power of seven, which is eight million, two hundred and thirty five thousand, four hundred and thirty. This is a lifetime of forgiveness, for if we divide the number of days in seventy years into that large number, it comes to three hundred and twenty two. So if the same man came to Peter three hundred and twenty two times every day for seventy years, (that is every three minutes during his waking hours for the whole of his lifetime), and asked his forgiveness, then he was to forgive him. And so are we.

It is worth remembering that genuine forgiveness on the part of the one sinned against can only follow genuine repentance on the part of the one sinning. In Luke’s parallel passage this is emphasised- “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him”, Luke 17:3,4.

So both grace and truth are to be in exercise; truth which rebukes and requires repentance, grace which grants that forgiveness when these conditions are met. So it has been with God. His rich grace has forgiven us for the sake of Christ. His truth demanded that we repent before we knew that forgiveness.

18:23
Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants- as in so many of the parables, the kingdom of heaven is not so much like the main character in the parable, but like the main theme of the parable. So here, the main theme is forgiveness, and it is the king that first of all shows forgiveness, and then assesses whether his subjects have displayed that same attitude of forgiveness.

18:24
And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents- we here learn what “take account of his servants” means. The king is bringing his accounts up to date and in order. He finds one of his servants still owes him a vast sum of money.

18:25
But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

But forasmuch as he had not to pay- the servant had run up a debt which he would never be able to pay off, just as we as sinners were in debt to God, but could never discharge ourselves.

His lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made- the only way of man’s devising was for the man, his wife and his children to be sold as slaves, so that the money raised could begin to pay off the debt. Notice it is not “clear the debt”, but “payment to be made”, so only part of the vast debt would be paid back by this means.

18:26
The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all- human remedies demand that the man be sold, but what will grace say? The man is honest enough to admit his debt, and sincerely desires to pay it off. This is the equivalent of repentance.

18:27
Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt- compassion now comes into the reckoning, and on that basis the man is completely forgiven.

We may now apply this in a spiritual sense. Man is under obligation to God, and he can never pay off his debt, for he has sinned against an infinite God. But those who admit their debt, and show suitable contrition for building up the debt, may come into the good of God’s compassion. We are not told the grounds on which the king showed compassion to his servant, but we have already noted the language of Ephesians 4:32, and that God forgives men on the basis of what He sees in His Son.

18:28
But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence- the contrast between the attitude of the king and this man could not be more marked. The servant is owed a pitiful sum, but instead of learning compassion from his own experience, he acts with cruelty and heartlessness.

And he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest- he seems to not know the meaning of grace, which delights to bestow free favour.

18:29
And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all- this is the promise that the first servant made, but how different the response to the promise in this case!

18:30
And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt- if he had shown patience, he might have received his one hundred pence sooner. How is the man going to work to pay the debt if he is in prison? The servant is heartless, but also witless.

18:31
So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done- the other servants have a commendable sense of what is right and fair, and also the desire that the wrong be righted.

18:32,33
Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

The parable began with a day of reckoning, when the lord of the servants assessed what their position was. Now for this unforgiving servant there is another day of reckoning, as he has to face the consequences of his actions. Note the servant should have had compassion “even as” his lord had with him. There should have been the same attitude. This is the main point of the parable, which comes after Peter’s question about forgiveness, and how far we should go in forgiving.

18:34
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him- so he who would not forgive an hundred pence debt, but threatened the debtor with prison, now finds he is in prison himself, and the compassion of his lord turns to anger, and he demands that the ten thousand talents be repaid. He finds that the refusal to show grace and compassion has its consequences.

18:35
So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses- again the Lord shows His knowledge of what the verdict will be, for in fact it will be administered by Himself in harmony with His Father’s mind on the matter. He said that “I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me”, John 5:30.

We should remember that this parable is about the kingdom of heaven, the sphere of profession, and the man claims to be a brother but in fact is not, hence the severe judgment. In a similar situation the apostle Paul spoke of “a man that is called a brother”, 1 Corinthians 5:11. That he was a true brother, or in other words, a genuine believer, is shown in that he repented of his sin, as we learn from 2 Corinthians 2:6-10. There is no possibility of a true believer being “delivered to the tormentors”, verse 34. Whilst this is the case, true believers should not be complacent by manifesting an unforgiving spirit.

1 JOHN 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE

Emphasis of the epistle
John and Peter were with the Lord Jesus when He ministered amongst men.  They emphasise that believers have eternal life.  The moment they are born again, they begin to share in the life of God.  The Son of God gave full expression to eternal life when He lived on earth.  So much so, that John calls Him “that Eternal Life”, He perfectly made it known, both by word and by deed. 
The apostle Paul, however, emphasises the consequences of the resurrection life of the Lord Jesus, hence he mainly writes of life as resurrection life, which is lived the other side of death.  This is the way Paul came to know God, through a risen and glorified Christ, therefore he writes about matters from that angle.  There is no discrepancy between these two approaches, for the life lived by the Lord Jesus when here in the flesh was a life suitable for His resurrection state.  We see this illustrated in the meal offering, which brings before us features of Christ that marked Him in His life down here.  One aspect of the meal offering is that of the first-fruits, which tells us that the Man who lived on earth was fit to live in resurrection too, Leviticus 2:12-15. 
The apostle Peter combines these two ideas when he writes that believers are “begotten again to a living hope by the resurrection from the dead”, 1 Peter 1:3.  The resurrection of Christ enables the life of God to be infused into the souls of those who believe.  The Lord Jesus must die to deal with Adam and his life as it is duplicated by unsaved men, so that when they believe they may be introduced to God’s life.  Of course, Old Testament saints must have had eternal life or else they could not have had communion with the living God, but they were given it in anticipation of the death and resurrection of Christ.

Purpose of the epistle
John tells us that he wrote his gospel so that we “might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and believing might have life through His name”, John 20:31.  He wrote his epistle, however, to those “that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye might know that ye have eternal life, and that ye might believe on the name of the Son of God”, 1 John 5:13.  He writes to achieve two ends.  The first, “that ye might know ye have eternal life”.  The second, “and that ye might believe on the name of the Son of God”.  So John’s gospel is written so that we might believe and receive the gift of eternal life, the epistle is written so that we might know we have eternal life.  Having come to know, we keep on believing on the name of the Son of God.  We shall never discover anything subsequent to initial faith which will give us reason to not believe on Him any more.  John needs to speak of believing, because their faith would be under attack, and they must not falter in their faith.
Before he can assure his readers, however, he must test them as to their profession.  This is the character of the books of the New Testament from Hebrews onwards; they test whether their readers are genuine believers.  So it is that John applies two sets of three tests.  The first set, 1:6-2:2 is for those who claim to be in relationship with God, to see whether they are or not.  The second set, 2:3-11, is for those who seem to pass the first tests, and is designed to confirm the genuineness of their claim.  The first tests begin with “If we say”, 1:6,8,10, a statement of profession, and is countered by “if we walk”, 7; “if we confess”, 9; “and if any man sin”, 2:1.  The second tests begin with “He that saith”, in verses 2:4, 6, and 9.  In the first tests the apostle includes himself, emphasising that no-one, not even an apostle can avoid the test.  (After all, Judas was an apostle, but proved to be unreal).  The second tests do not include the apostle, for he is content to now teach his readers and instruct them, as they show themselves to be genuine.  They assure themselves of their genuineness, however, by living lives in fellowship with God.

STRUCTURE OF THE CHAPTER

(a) Verse 1 Eternal Life personified
(b) Verse 2 Eternal Life manifested
(c) Verse 3 Eternal Life shared
(d) Verse 4 Eternal Life enjoyed
(e) Verse 5 Eternal Life’s message- God is light
(f)  Verse 6 False profession
(g) Verse 7 True position
(h) Verse 8 False declaration
(i) Verse 9 True confession
(j) Verse 10 False estimation

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN CHAPTER 1, VERSES 1 TO 4:

1:1  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1:2  (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
1:3  That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
1:4  And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

(a)    Verse 1    Eternal Life personified

Note: Verses 1-3 are one complicated sentence, with the main verb being the word “declare” in verse 3.

1:1  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

1:1 That which was from the beginning- in the first verse of the Bible Moses takes us to the beginning of the universe, and then in subsequent verses brings us forward through time.  In the first chapter of his gospel John also takes us to the beginning of the universe, and then in the same verse takes us backward into eternity.  Then he proceeds to show in verses 4-14 how the One who inhabits eternity manifested Himself in different ways in time, culminating with the Word becoming flesh, and dwelling amongst men. 
In this epistle, however, that same apostle shows the results of that manifestation.  Christ came into flesh at His conception, but the beginning of the public manifestation of eternal life through Christ began on the banks of the Jordan, as He emerged from the waters of baptism.  Acts 13:24 refers to John the Baptist preaching before the coming of Christ, which cannot mean before He was born, but rather before He was introduced to the world.  This introduction was by way of the word from heaven declaring Him to be God’s beloved Son, and the testimony of John the Baptist to the same effect, John 1:32-34. 
Isaac, Abraham’s only-begotten son, had three manifestations to the world; at his birth, Genesis 21:1-7, at his weaning when he was presented to the world of men as Abraham’s son and heir, Genesis 21:8, and then on Moriah, as the appointed sacrifice, Genesis 22.  So Christ was born, was baptised, (at which point the word came from the Father that He was His Beloved Son), and went to the place of sacrifice, all to manifest Himself, and His Father, to the world.
Just as the ark of the covenant introduced the people of Israel into the promised land where their lives could be lived to the full, and have “as the days of heaven upon the earth”, Deuteronomy 11:21, so Christ the true ark has crossed the Jordan in baptism, and introduces His people to heavenly truth, enabling them to have meaningful fellowship with God.
Moses wrote of the beginning of all things, and then spoke of seven days of formation and filling.  John wrote in his gospel of the one who was responsible for the beginning of all things, then spoke of seven days of fellowship he had with the Son of God, culminating in the wedding at Cana of Galilee.  John is now writing this epistle so that we may share in the fellowship he enjoyed from the beginning, so that just as Christ brought the wine of holy joy to the guests at the wedding in Cana, so we may have full joy through fellowship with Him. 
It was the prime qualification of an apostle that he should have been with the Lord Jesus for the whole time of His public ministry.  As Peter said, when a replacement for Judas was needed, “Wherefore of these men that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection”, Acts 1:21,22.
The apostle uses the impersonal pronoun “that”, rather than “He”, because he tells us at the end of the verse he is writing concerning, or about, the word of life.  Since the words “word” and “life” are abstract and not personal, he must use the impersonal word “that” at the beginning of the sentence.
Which we have heard- the apostle is telling us of the word of life, or in other words, one who in His capacity as the Word, spoke words that were “spirit and life”, John 6:63. As the Word, He is the embodiment of all that God has ever had to say.  John the Baptist was a voice, John 1:23, but he announced the one who is the Word, the expression of God’s thought.  His ministry may be summed up as “words and works”.  In other words, what was to be heard, and what was to be seen.  And what was seen by way of miracles was of deep significance, (hence John calls the miracles signs), and furthered and complemented the doctrine. 
This is one reason why the Lord Jesus could claim to have done works that none other man did, John 15:24, for His works were accompanied by unique and ground-breaking teaching.  This could not be said of any other, whether prophets in the Old Testament, or apostles in the New Testament who worked miracles.  For them, miracles were simply acts of power by which Christ was glorified; the miracle drew attention away from themselves and towards Christ.  As Peter said after the healing of the lame man, “why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power of holiness we had made this man to walk”, Acts 3:12.  And he went on to make it clear that it was by the name of Jesus, God’s Son, that the man was made strong, verse 16.
Another reason why Christ’s works were unique was because He was acting of His own will, as the Son of God.  As He Himself said, “The Son quickeneth whom He will”, John 5:21.  This does not mean independence on His part, but rather the reverse, for He did what He saw, (in the sense of “had full insight into”) the Father doing.  He did the same, in like manner, as equal with Him, John 5:19.
So John is speaking for the apostolic band when he uses the word “we”.  Luke tells us that many had undertaken to write some sort of account of the life of Christ, Luke 1:1.  But only the four gospels have been preserved.  Luke does not disparage honest attempts by sincere believers to record the things they saw.  Who would not want to preserve the impressions gained about Christ?  But even these have disappeared. 
But what shall we say of the fantasy-writings of wicked men who wrote what are known as the Apocryphal gospels?  There are those who believe these writings have equal weight with Scripture.  They must have forgotten that the Lord Jesus promised His apostles that they would be led into all the truth, so we may rest assured that nothing that is outside of the canon of Scripture, as these writings are, had the approval of the apostles.  John is writing as the last-surviving apostle, and in the wisdom of God he was allowed to live for a long time, so that the last writings of the New Testament were completed by the time he passed from this scene.  In fact, as he closes the canon of Scripture he records the curse that the Lord Jesus pronounced on any who added to or took away from the word of God, Revelation 22:18,19.  Those who wish to elevate spurious writings to the level of Scripture would do well to take note and be warned, for it is not a matter of indifference to God. 
Which we have seen with our eyes- John does not write of a mystical Christ, who only seemed to have a body, (which is what some heretics, called Docetists, were teaching in John’s day), but one who was really to be seen with the human eye.  But there was more than this, for He performed miracles which John calls signs, being acts of great significance, and a visible expression of the truth He taught. The Lord rebuked those of His day who did not believe even though they were able to see and hear, declaring that many prophets and righteous men had desired to see the things they were seeing, and to hear the things they were hearing, but had not done so.  Eternal life was manifesting itself in the world of men, and they refused to see and hear, Matthew 13:14,15.  As a result, judicial blindness descended upon the nation, Romans 11:8,25.  This blindness is only in part, however, for some individuals of the nation of Israel have seen and heard, but it is only a remnant, and it is by grace.
Not only does John refer to his eyes because Christ was physically present to view, but also to emphasise that he was not using his imagination to construct a scenario, but was recording what he actually saw.  As he said of his record of the crucifixion, “And he that saw it bear record, and his record is true:  and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe”, John 19:35.  It is a great mercy that we have the eye-witness record of sincere, honest and sane men, so that we may know the certainty of the things we most surely believe. 
John has told us so far of what he heard by way of teaching, and what he saw by way of miracles under-girding that teaching.  The signs were doctrine in action, and the words were His person in manifestation, for He is the Word, and they were also His Father in manifestation, for the Word is the expression of His thought.
Which we have looked upon- John now changes from the perfect tense for “seen” and “heard”, (emphasising that these were real-life historical events), to the aorist tense for “looked upon” and “handled”, (emphasising the deliberate action which is needed to gain the benefit of what Christ came to manifest).  The word for look means to contemplate, to gaze upon, denoting a sustained and earnest appraisal on the part of one who has been attracted to the one in view.  It is possible to hear and see things accidentally, (although that was not the case with John), but is not possible to contemplate and handle anything without purposing to do so.  And this is what John is encouraging us in.  He had “looked upon Jesus as He walked”, John 1:35-39, and impressed with the sight, desired to abide with Him to know more.  John wants us to be like him in this.
And our hands have handled- again there is the mention of the physical action of handling with the hands, reinforcing the lesson as to the reality of the body of the Lord Jesus.  The mention of hands reminds us of the meal offering, and the offerer taking his handful of the offering and putting it upon the altar so that God might be satisfied, Leviticus 2:2.  The extent of the satisfaction depended on the measure of the man’s grasp.  So the more we get to know about God’s Son, the more we shall be able to offer to God in worship.
Hands speak of fellowship and identification in Scripture, and what John had fellowship in and identified with is available to God’s people as a whole.  This is emphasised in verse 3.
The ark of the covenant could not be seen, for the veil covered it from sight when it rested, Exodus 40:3, and when it moved through the wilderness it was out of sight beneath its coverings.  It was not to be touched, either, hence the provision of staves by which it was to be carried.  And the blood-sprinkled mercy seat covered over the tables of the law, so that their condemning voice was not heard.  But because the one the ark typified has come in grace, we can see, hear and handle Him.
Just as seeing and hearing involved more than physical actions, but included the seeing and the hearing of the significance of what was seen and heard, so with the word handled.  The Lord in resurrection said to His disciples “handle Me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have”, Luke 24:39, but we do not read that the disciples actually did this.  Even Thomas, when invited to put his fingers into the nail-prints, and thrust his hand into the spear-wound, does not seem to have needed to do so, for he immediately exclaimed, “My Lord and My God”, John 20:28.  In fact, the Lord said to him, “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed”.  So he seems to have believed without physically touching, just as many others have done.  But for all that, they could have handled Him, and by this know that His resurrection body was also real.  It is a spiritual body, but not a spirit-body.
Of the word of life- the word “of” is the preposition otherwise translated “concerning”, indicating that life and its communication through Him who is the Word, is John’s theme. 
In John’s Gospel, the Son of God is simply the Word, who was with God, equal with God, and was made manifest in flesh, 1:1,14.  So the focus is upon His person.  In the epistle, the focus is upon His people, and these are they who have life from Him initially, and who need to grow in the knowledge of Him continually, hence He is the one in view when John writes about the word of life.  In the Book of the Revelation, He is called the Word of God, 19:13, for all that He spoke when here the first time, (which men either rejected because they did not believe it was the Word of God, or rejected because they knew it was the Word of God but were not prepared to believe it as such), will be vindicated when He comes the second time to the world that rejected Him.

(b)    Verse 2    Eternal Life manifested

1:2  (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

1:2 (For the life was manifested- this verse is in a parenthesis, as John pauses to make clear that the “that” of verse 1 refers to the one who is eternal life personified.
John was privileged to be one of Christ’s chosen apostles, and to see and hear Him at close quarters.  This is why he was able to see, hear, look upon and handle.  His desire is that we might do the same.  He wrote, “And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth”, John 1:14.  So he saw one who dwelt amongst men full of grace and truth.  There was no deficiency with Him; He was full of grace, and equally full of truth.  Grace is an expression of love, and truth is an expression of light.  The reason there was fullness was that all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in Him, Colossians 2:9. 
And we have seen it- John and his fellow apostles saw with calm and detailed scrutiny the glory of Christ, He giving them ample opportunity to do so.  With this we may compare the experience of Moses when he requested a sight of the glory of God.  He was put in the cleft of the rock, covered with God’s hand, and only saw the back parts or afterglow of God’s glory, Exodus 33:12-23.  There were no views of Christ’s glory barred to the apostles, however, for the knowledge of the glory of God is in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 4:6, and that face is not veiled.
If an earthly only begotten son and his father were to manifest their relationship in an ideal way, there would be a glory about that relationship.  How much more so when the Son and the Father are both Divine persons.  And this is precisely the glory that John saw and wrote about.  As God’s only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus is deeply loved of His Father, and stands in dignified and intimate relationship with Him.  This relationship is expressed in mutual affection, complete unity of intention, and absolute confidence.  These features are glorious, and John was privileged to see the glory of them.  Thereafter he recorded what he saw and heard, so that others might have a share in the sight of the glory too.
And bear witness- John is careful to tell us he writes as an eye-witness of the things he saw and heard.  Witness is one of John’s keywords, sometimes translated “testimony”, or “record”.  He is emphasising that he is not writing as a casual bystander, but a chosen testimony-bearer, who took note of what he saw, and was infallibly guided by the Spirit of God to record what he saw.  The promise of the Lord Jesus to His apostles in the upper room was that the Spirit of truth would guide them into all truth, John 16:13, and this He has done.  He also brought things to their remembrance, John 14:26, so that the gospel records are not guesswork, but the result of the Spirit working to ensure that all was true and accurate.
And shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)- the word shew does not mean to demonstrate, but has the idea of announcing, so not only did the apostles bear witness to what they saw and heard, but ensured that we are aware of it by announcing it.  The reason there is something to announce is because He who is eternal life personified has come out from His eternal place with the Father, and has been manifested in the world of men.  If He was with God as Father, then He must have been the Son before He came.  It was the Son of God who was sent when the fulness of the time was come, Galatians 4: 4.  God is love, but love must have an object.  Who was it that the Father loved in eternity?  Let the Son Himself give us the answer, “For Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world”, John17:24.  And since He spoke as the Son of the Father in that chapter, then it was as the Son of the Father that He was loved. 

(c)    Verse 3    Eternal Life shared

1:3  That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you- we now come to the main verb of John’s complicated sentence which consists of verses 1-4.  The two major acts on John’s part are the seeing and hearing. The looking upon and handling are developments of this, and all believers, having “seen and heard” through the writings of the apostles, can go further, and look upon and handle.  They become involved by taking an interest in the writings of the apostles. 
That ye also may have fellowship with us- the purpose of the granting of eternal life to those who believe is that they might not only initially know God, but that they might progressively know Him too. The word “that” in John 17:3 involves both thoughts.  Seeing and hearing what the apostles saw and heard is the same as having fellowship with the apostles.
And truly- because this concept might seem incredible, the apostle assures us it is true and real. 
Our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ- all believers have a share in the eternal life which Divine persons possess eternally, and which is granted to those who believe. This gives them the capacity to enjoy the things which Divine persons enjoy.  That which the Father and the Son enjoy between themselves, we may now share. 
The believers of the Day of Pentecost and after, continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, Acts 2:42.  Note that both “doctrine” and “fellowship” are governed by the word “apostles”.  So they continued to believe what the apostles taught, and they continued to share in what the apostles had fellowship with.  This made their lives very simple.  They had only to ask themselves the question, “Do the apostles believe this?”, and “Do the apostles have fellowship in this?” 
John had spoken of the Word in abstract terms in John 1:1-3, and did not refer to Him in personal terms until verse 17.  It is the same here, for he has referred to the Son as the Word, and “that eternal life”, and now, without explanation, refers to Him as the Son.  For John it goes without saying that the one who was with the Father must be the Son.

(d)    Verse 4    Eternal Life enjoyed

1:4  And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full- in the Old Testament, the burnt offering was accompanied by the meal offering and the drink offering, see Numbers 15:1-10.  The drink offering was an expression of holy joy, Psalm 104:15.  However, the amount of wine to be brought was to be commensurate with the size of the sacrifice offered, but never exceeded half a hin of wine. This is typical of circumstances under the law, which could not make perfect, Hebrews 7:19.  There was no possibility of full joy under the law. What Christ brings in, however, is fulness of joy, a “full hin of wine”, so to speak.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN CHAPTER 1, VERSES 5 TO 10:

1:5  This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.
1:6  If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1:7  But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1:8  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1:9  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10  If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 

(e)    Verse 5    Eternal Life’s message- God is light

1:5  This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

This then is the message which we have heard of Him- having set out his purpose in writing, the apostle now develops his theme, hence the “then”.  Nowhere in the gospel records does the expression “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” occur, but John is not quoting a sentence uttered, but is summarising a deep impression gained.  That general view which comes over through the manifestation of Christ to His own is that God is light, so this is the message that came to the apostles.
And declare unto you- so the message Christ brought was declared by the apostles, and they did it not only orally, but by writing.  So we have in the pages of God’s word the very message of Christ.  If we are to have fellowship with Him, therefore, it will be through reading what is written.  Fellowship is not a mystic thing, open only to dreamers.  Current thinking in the New Age movement is the same as with the Gnostics of John’s day, who despised written revelation.  True fellowship with God involves the reading and assimilation of the written word, given by inspiration of God for our learning and encouragement.  The fact that it is written means it is settled, and no development is to be expected.
That God is light- this is one of the two definitions John gives us of God, the other being, “God is love”, 1 John 4:8.  Now light and love are the expression of the life of God, so the three-fold emphasis of the epistle is coming into view here.

Light does at least four things:
Light radiates.  So God beams forth His glory for those enabled to see it.  Christ is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person or essence, Hebrews 1:3, and is uniquely fitted to display God, and this He has done.  So by seeing and hearing God’s Son when He was here, those who had an interest could see the glory of God.  An illustration of this is His very first miracle, for John writes that “Jesus manifested forth His glory; and His disciples believed on Him”, John 2:11.  When Moses asked to see God’s glory, God expressed His glory in words telling of His character, Exodus 34:5-8.  Only a partial view of that glory was seen by Moses however.  But believers see the full glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 4:6.  What God expressed Himself to be to Moses could be summed up in the words grace and truth, and the Lord Jesus was full of grace and truth, expressing them, not just in words, but deeds and attitudes too.
Light illuminates.  As the Lord Jesus said, “I am the light of the world”, John 8:12.  This was spoken after the great lampstands in the temple had been dismantled, another Feast of Tabernacles over.  They represented the pillar of fire that had led Israel through the trackless desert.  Now Christ presents Himself as the one the pillar of fire typified, which would never be dismantled.  Those who believe may have the light of life, and walk in the light of His presence now and for ever. 
Light investigates.  When light shines, things become apparent.  Men loved darkness rather than light, and refused to come to the light, lest their deeds should be exposed.  Those who sought after God, however, and in that sense did the truth, came to Christ, and still do, John 3:19-21.
Light discriminates.  When light was caused to be in Genesis 1:3, then immediately there was a division between day and night.  As the Saviour said, “For judgement I am come into this world, that they which see not may see; and that those which see might be made blind”, John 9:39.

And in Him is no darkness at all- there is no darkness with God, so He is not a mixture of light and dark.  He does not compromise with the unfruitful works of darkness, as the false professors John will address in the next verses seemed to think.  If we have fellowship with God then sin in its entirety must be thoroughly dealt with.  His nature must be satisfied.  After all, as Amos said, “Can two walk together unless they be agreed?”, Amos 3:3.  Those who have any sin upon them at all are disqualified from walking with God, whatever they may claim. 
So Christ was manifest here as one in whom there was no sin at all, to provide the test.  He is the standard by which God judges men; if they come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23, it is because they are not in harmony with the character of Christ.  In Old Testament times the test was whether men had kept the law.  Now it is whether they are like Christ.  By nature and practice they are not, which is why the apostle will go on to speak of the blood of Christ and propitiation.  These are the means whereby men may come into harmony with God and be fitted for the light.

The tests the apostle applies may be summarised as follows:

First test
FALSE PROFESSOR, verse 6                           
Claims to have fellowship with God.   
Walks in darkness.       
Lies, does not the truth,
Continues uncleansed.       

TRUE BELIEVER, verse 7
Walks in the light
Has fellowship with the Father and the Son.
The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses from all sin.

Second test
PHILOSOPHER, verse 8
Says he has no sin.
Deceives himself.
The truth is not in him.
Continues unforgiven.

TRUE BELIEVER, verse 9
Confesses he has sin.
God is faithful and just to forgive his sins, and to cleanse from all unrighteousness.

Third test
INFIDEL, verse 10
Says he has not sinned
Makes God a liar
Shows God’s word not in him.
Has not gained the benefit of the propitiation and the advocacy of Christ.

TRUE BELIEVER, verses 1,2 of chapter 2
If any man sin.  The apostle, by not offering a real contrast to the infidel’s position, treats with contempt the idea that no-one has sinned.
We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.  And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only.

(f)    Verse 6    False profession

1:6    If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth

If we say that we have fellowship with Him- the apostle now begins to test whether his readers do in fact have fellowship with God.  He does not do this by asking if they have believed, although that would have been one way, but he insists that the claim to be in fellowship with God will be shown by being comfortable in His presence, who is the light.  Not only will a believer be comfortable in the presence of God, but will enjoy being there.  It was a feature of Adam that, having sinned, he no longer wanted to be in God’s presence.  In fact, the prospect caused him to be afraid, Genesis 3:10.  He was full of fear, whereas before, when walking with God, he must have been full of joy.
And walk in darkness- to have fellowship with the God who is light, and to walk in darkness, are mutually exclusive positions. Darkness is ignorance, and in this setting the very worst ignorance of all, namely ignorance of God.  This leads to the works of darkness. 
Since there is no darkness with God, as John has made clear, a person walking in the darkness cannot be walking with God.  God does not come into our darkness to walk with us, but we have to go into His light, but on His terms.  The man in this verse is trying to set the conditions for fellowship with God.
We lie, and do not the truth- note that to make the claim, “we have fellowship with Him”, and not do so really, is to lie, and is also an offence against the truth. What we say and what we do must be in harmony. Those who walk in darkness are unbelievers, who have never gone to Christ for eternal life, and are not fit therefore for fellowship with God.
Just as the One who expressed the light of God not only spoke the truth but acted it out to perfection, so here we have the reverse, the speaking of a lie and the acting out of a lie.  Both are contrary to the light.  Notice that the apostle includes himself in these tests of genuineness.  After all, one of the apostles had gone out, “and it was night”, John 13:30.  Judas went out from the apostolic band because he was not of them, not a genuine believer.  If he had been, he would have remained with them, as John wrote later about those like him, 1 John 2:19.  Peter denied his Lord, but he remained with the apostles, showing that his lapse, although sad, was not the lapse of an unbeliever.  When Mary Magdalene came with the news of the empty tomb, both John and Peter ran together to the tomb, showing where their interests lay. 
It is important to see that John is writing about great principles here.  He is not commenting on the degree of spirituality of a person, though that will come later in the epistle once he has made it clear what marks a true believer and what marks a false professor.  He is not dividing between different sorts of believers, but between professed believers who are not real, and genuine believers.  The contrast is between light and dark, not between shades of grey.

(g)    Verse 7    True position

1:7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.

But if we walk in the light- that is, govern our lives by what God has shown Himself to be in Christ, namely, light.  John is now writing about a true believer. 
As He is in the light- God dwells in the light of what He is in Himself, in all His glory.  He does not need an external light to reveal Him, least of all to enhance Him..  And the Son has revealed Him to perfection when here.  We simply have to move, with repentance and faith, into the light.  Having done so, we then live in that light, allowing it to govern our lives and conduct.  We are to walk in the light as He lives in the light.  In other words, just as God is consistently in the light, and never moves out of it, then we should constantly live as those who are in the light.
We have fellowship one with another- instead of making a false claim about having fellowship with God, the true believer really does have fellowship with God.  Before, John had spoken of believers having fellowship with the apostles, whose fellowship was with the Father and the Son, verse 3, as they enjoyed the contemplation of the life of Christ.  Now the emphasis is on the direct fellowship that a true believer has with God.  It might seem a very bold statement to say we and God have fellowship “one with another”, for that might seem to suggest that the fellowship is between equals.  But then to say we have fellowship with the apostles is a bold claim too, because although we have the same faith as they do, they had the privilege of being with the Son of God when He was earth, and so have that advantage over us.  So it is not presumption to say we have fellowship with God on a “one with another” basis, for we are sharing together in a mutual interest in God’s Son.  The believer is doing the same thing as the Father; but of course the Father’s appreciation of His Son is complete, whereas ours is not.
And the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin- it is the common condition of all who believe, whether apostles or not, that they are constantly kept fit for the light of God’s presence by the blood of Christ.  It is not that the blood needs to be constantly applied.  There is no such idea in the New Testament that the blood of Christ needs to be re-applied; that every time we are conscious of failure we need to “go back to the blood” as some speak.  If that were the situation, we would be in no better position than men under the law, who feared lest they died before they could offer a fresh sin offering. 
No such legal fears need torment the minds of God’s people, for God has seen to it that there is provision so that His people are kept right in His sight.  It is grace wherein we stand, Romans 5:2, and not law.  The very Jesus Christ who came to give the message that God is light, is the one who has gone to Calvary to ensure that His people are kept fit for that light after they have believed.  And He is God’s Son, so we can rely on the work He did, for He has Divine competence.  He purged sins in full knowledge of God’s mind about the matter, and has sat Himself down at the right hand of God in all His Majesty, confident that the demands of the Majesty of a sin-hating God have been fully met, Hebrews 1:3.
On Israel’s Day of Atonement we read that “on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord”, Leviticus 16:30.  The only conditions were that the national cleansing that the high priest made that day would be forfeited by individuals if there was not cessation from work, (in other words, faith), and affliction of soul, (or in other words, repentance), Leviticus 23:26-32.  Now these two vital things were missing in the hearts of the false professors John is concerned about in these verses, and as a result they were outside of the blessing the cleansing blood of Christ brings. 
The fact is that the blood of Christ is here said to have particular character, namely that it cleanses.  The time of cleansing is not in view; it is the constant virtue of the blood that the apostle is emphasising.  Far from being effective for only a year, as was the case with the blood of the Day of Atonement, the blood of Christ has eternal efficacy, and at any moment is preserving God’s people in a state of cleansing. 

(h)    Verse 8    False declaration

1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we say that we have no sin- having been presented with the fact that nothing contrary to God can be in His presence, and therefore sins must be answered for, the false professor now claims that he has no sin of the sort that bars Him from God’s presence. He persists in His claim that he is walking in the light, but has a distorted view of sins which deludes him into thinking that some sins are not serious enough to need to be forgiven.  He thinks fellowship with God is possible without a thorough dealing with sins.  Perhaps he is a religious person, who attends “Christian” services, and thinks he is thereby having fellowship with God, without having had dealings with God about his sins.
Part of Christendom teaches that some sins are not so serious as others, and do not need the same severity of judgement.  This is foreign to the Scriptures, for all sin is obnoxious to God.  It is true that judgement will be in proportion to the severity of the transgression, but all sins will be dealt with severely.
The Gnostic heretics of John’s day were teaching that knowledge was everything, and the body was worthless, and could not get any worse than it was.  So they taught that the body may engage in anything, however sinful, so that further experiences, and hence further knowledge, might be acquired.  They believed that the soul could not be polluted.  We can see how that a person, infected by these errors, might cling on to them, whilst at the same time professing to be a Christian.  He would deny that the sins he had committed were sinful, since they were committed for the worthy end of gaining knowledge, and in that sense would say “I have no sin”.
We deceive ourselves- even if an apostle said that, he would be deceiving himself, for God’s word clearly states that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23.  He may deceive himself, (for the human heart is “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked”, Jeremiah 17:9), but he does not deceive his fellow-men, and least of all does he deceive God.
And the truth is not in us- it is not only that the specific truths in God’s word about sins are not in us, but the truth as a mode of thinking is not in us.  We have gone over to lies and deception, and begun to think in a perverted way.

(i)    Verse 9    True confession

1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we confess our sins- John now turns to the opposite attitude.  Instead of denial of sins, there is confession that they exist.  This is one of the characteristic features of a true believer, that he does not deny sins, but confesses to having them.  There was no mention in verse 7 of confession being the condition on which cleansing from sin is known.  There was the assurance in that verse that if we are true believers, (that is, walk in the light), then the cleansing is ours.  Building on that, we may say that confession is not the itemising of a list of sins in the presence of God so as to confess them one by one.  If that were the situation, what if we miss one?  Just one sin is enough to render us unrighteous, for “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all”, James 2:10.  To confess our sins therefore means the opposite of saying “we have no sin”; it is a constant attitude of mind that admits to failure, thinks the same as God does about sins, (as explained in the Word of God), yet rests on the precious blood of Christ.
After all, when a sinner turns to God, he is not expected to list his sins one by one, stretching back, it may be, for many years.  It is the attitude of mind which readily confesses to having sinned that matters.  God knows each sin, even though we may have forgotten. 
He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins- God’s attitude to those who admit that their failures do amount to sin, (and who thereby show that they are believers), is one of forgiveness.  He forgives the moment the sin is committed because He is faithful to His promise that “their sins and iniquities I will remember no more”, Hebrews 10:17.  The New Covenant is unconditional, and does not depend on any input on the part of the believer, for Christ is the surety or guarantee of its blessings, Hebrew 7:22.  It is the blood of Jesus Christ His Son that enables God to forgive in this way.  As the Lord Jesus said to His disciples, referring to the cup of the Lord’s Supper, “this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins”, Matthew 26:28.  And in Luke’s account He adds, “shed for you”, Luke 22:20.
He is also faithful in the sense that even whilst forgiving, He is true to Himself.  The apostle Paul wrote, “He abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself”, 2 Timothy 2:13.  This assures us that God is always faithful to what He is in Himself.  He is true to Himself even when forgiving.  For God to have fellowship with one whose sins had not been confessed and forgiven would be to undermine His very Being, and this is something He cannot do, for He is unchanging.
He is also just when He forgives.  He behaves righteously to the believer, for He does not condone sin because it is one of His children committing it.  Would we want it otherwise?  Would be easy in our minds if we thought for a moment that our sins were not taken account of righteously? So the sin is forgiven, and the relationship with the Father is maintained, in full recognition of what Christ did at Calvary.   
There is no suggestion here that the relationship a child of God has with his Father is broken by sin, or else it would be all over as far as security is concerned.  What if the believer dies in that state?  The truth is that the apostle Paul can write of any believer, without qualification, (and without mentioning confession), that he has, (in the present), “redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins”, Ephesians 1:7. 
Notice that God is faithful and just to forgive.  The idea is that He is faithful and just in order that He may forgive.  It is not that He forgives despite His faithfulness and justice, but because of them.  He has found a means whereby He may maintain His justness, and yet justify and forgive the sinner.  As Paul wrote, “that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus”, Romans 3:26. 
The blessing of the forgiveness of sins, like all the other blessings listed in that chapter, is vested in Christ.  So the apostle goes on to write that we are forgiven for Christ’s sake, Ephesians 4:32.  What God thinks of the blood, and what He thinks of His Son, are the determining factors.  The apostle John can write without reserve later on, (once he has established he is writing to believers), “I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake”, 1 John 2:12.
And to cleanse us from all unrighteousness- not only is there need for forgiveness when a believer sins, there is also need for cleansing, for sins defile us, as well as offend God.  God said about sinners, that “they are altogether become filthy”, Psalm 53:3.  This cleansing is found in the blood of Christ.  Just as forgiveness is based on it, cleansing is done by it.  John himself wrote, as he ascribed praise to Christ, “Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests to God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever Amen”, Revelation 1:6.  Just as water has the power to wash away literal defilement, so the blood of Christ has the power to wash away moral defilement.  Dirt is washed in water, sin is washed in blood.
God dwelt in the midst of the camp of Israel as they travelled to the land of Canaan.  He did not dwell on the perimeter of the camp, but in the centre.  This raised a question.  How could He do this, considering that the people were constantly sinning?  What did this tell onlookers about the character of God?  In order to defend His honour, God ordained that once in the year there should be a Day of Atonement, the purpose of which was to “make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgression in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness”, Leviticus 16:16.  And again, “And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year”, 16:34.  Notice it is “for” all their sins; in other words, because of their sins.  The presence of their sins, and the presence of God, were incompatible, hence the need for blood to intervene and cleanse.
We might have expected John to write, “cleanse us from all unholiness”, but he uses the word unrighteousness.  This alludes to the fact that God is just to forgive sins, as the beginning of the verse states, so sins are described in relation to the righteousness of God in His forgiving capacity.  Despite the sins being an offence to His righteousness, they are nonetheless righteously forgiven. 
None of this should make the believer complacent about sin.  Just because forgiveness is ongoing does not excuse sin, or make committing it of no account.  Far from it; the believer has an enhanced sense of the heinousness of sin to God, and will do his best to avoid committing it.  Should he do so, then the attitude of confession should be sustained.  So the forgiveness and cleansing are in the present, and so should the confession be.  This is reinforced in the first verse of the next chapter, where the apostle assures us he is writing so that we sin not, not that we regard sinning as of no importance and seriousness. 
We should beware of thinking in a legal way about sin.  By giving the law in awe-inspiring circumstances, God brought fear into their hearts so that they feared to sin, Exodus 20:20.  Christians should fear to sin, also, but not because of the law of God, but the grace of God.  Impressed with the grace of God expressed through Christ at Calvary, we have the greatest possible incentive to not sin. 

(j)    Verse 10    False estimation

1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

If we say that we have not sinned- those who deny that they have done anything to offend divine righteousness, must have a gravely faulty view of what sin really is.  They have never considered it in the light of God’s glory. 
We make Him a liar- it is God’s estimate of actions that matters, and He has clearly set out the truth about sin.  To go against that is to reckon God to be a liar.  Of course, no-one can make God a liar in fact, but a man may so speak that he makes God out to be a liar.  He has made His thoughts about man and his sin very clear in the gospel, yet this man rejects that testimony, and by so doing sets his opinion against God’s word.  He clearly is not a believer.
And His word is not in us- the thinking is contrary to the Word of God, plainly set out.  First the practice is wrong, “we do not”, verse 6; then the thinking is wrong, “the truth is not in us”, verse 8; then the very means of regulating our practice and thinking is lacking, “His word is not in us”, verse 10.  If we do not allow God’s word its rightful place in our hearts, then our thinking will be astray.  If our thinking is astray, then our practice will be too.

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.

Propitiation

We should never underestimate the importance of that aspect of the work of the Lord Jesus at Calvary which is known as propitiation.  This is because the honour of God, the blessing of men, the introduction of Christ’s millenial kingdom, and the new heaven and the new earth, all depend upon it. When thinking of this vital matter, we need to be clear as to what propitiation actually is.  It may be defined as follows: “Propitiation is the covering of sins to God’s satisfaction”.
There are seven references to this subject in the New Testament, and they are as follows-  Luke 18:13, (“merciful”);  Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17, (translated “reconciliation”); Hebrews 8:12, (“merciful” means propitious); Hebrews 9:5, (“mercy-seat” means place of propitiation); 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10

As we consider this subject in the light of the Scriptures, we could ask ourselves three main questions-

1. Why was propitiation necessary?
2. How was propitiation achieved?
3. What are the results of propitiation?

1. WHY WAS PROPITIATION NECESSARY?
Because sins offend God.  As God is the Absolute Standard of righteousness and holiness, all deviations from this standard are highly offensive to Him.  Such is the intensity of His holiness that the simple mention of it is enough to make the posts of the doors of the temple in heaven move, Isaiah 6:4.  His reaction to sin and iniquity is to turn from it, for He is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and who cannot look upon sin, Habakkuk 1:13.  The very presence of sin in the universe is a grief to God. 

Because as Moral Governor of the universe, He must be seen to deal with sins.  God has enemies, both devilish and human, and He must be clear of any charge which they may level against Him that  suggests He has ignored sins, or at least, ignored some sins.  Eternity must not be allowed to run its course without this matter being settled.  God deals with some sins instantly, but the majority seem to have gone unpunished.  Sentence against an evil work has not been executed speedily, Ecclesiastes 8:11, since God is longsuffering, and waits to be gracious.  This situation might give rise to the charge of indifference to sins, and so God must act to defend His honour.

Because God must have a just basis for continuing to have dealings with sinful men.  One of the main purposes of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement in Israel was that God might continue to dwell amongst them despite their uncleanness, Leviticus 16:16.  So also when Christ was down here.  It was only because God was not imputing trespasses so as to instantly judge them, but rather was working to reconcile unto Himself, that He was prepared to have dealings with men in the person of His Son.  See 2 Corinthians 5:19.

Because if men are to be shown mercy, have their sins forgiven, and be reconciled to God, there must be a solid basis upon which these things can happen.  God declares Himself to be a Saviour God- He cannot be fully satisfied solely by judging men .  The fact that “God is light” demands that this be done, but “God is love” too, and delights to manifest Himself in grace.

Because the cycle of sin must be broken.  In other words, if there is not to be an eternal succession of creations, falls, remedies for fall, and new creations, then there must be that established which is once for all, giving the complete answer to the question of sin.  Unless this complete answer is given, the new heaven and earth will not be safe from disturbance.

We may now ask our second question:
HOW WAS PROPITIATION ACHIEVED?
The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement as described in Leviticus chapter 16 will help us here.  We need to be very careful in our interpretation of them, however.  We should remember two things. First, that the Old Testament teaches by way of comparison as well as by contrast.  Second, that Christ’s ministry is in connection with a sanctuary which is “not of this building”, Hebrews 9:11.  That means it is not part of the creation of Genesis chapter one. So even whilst acting on earth, He was operating in relation to a sphere that is not subject to the limitations of time, space, or matter.

For instance, the writer to the Hebrews indicates that the going forth of the Lord Jesus outside the camp, was the counterpart of the carrying of the carcase of the sin offering from the altar, where it had been slain, to a place of burning outside the camp.  But this particular ritual took place almost at the  end of the Day of Atonement proceedings, whereas the Lord Jesus went outside the camp before He died.  We may say then that in one sense time is irrelevant as far as the work of Christ was concerned.
Again, what took place at the altar in the court of the tabernacle; before the ark in the Holiest of All; outside the camp at the place of burning, and in the wilderness where the scapegoat was taken and let go, all typified some aspect of the work of Christ.  Place is irrelevant, too.
And so is matter irrelevant.  Christ needed no visible ark to enable Him to convince His Father that His blood had been shed.  When the repentant man of Luke 18 appealed to God to be merciful to him, (or, to be gracious towards him on the ground of propitiation made), he went down to his house justified, despite the fact that there was no ark in the temple. 
With these cautionary remarks in mind, we look now at Leviticus 16, and note those major parts of the ceremonies of that day which contribute towards making propitiation, the great end for which they were carried out.

A SUITABLE SIN OFFERING WAS BROUGHT NEAR 
We must remember that the word “offer” that is used in Leviticus 16:6 means to bring near.  A sacrifice must be offered before it can be laid on the altar.  The blood that purges the conscience of God’s people is the blood of One who “offered Himself without spot to God”, Hebrews 9:10.  That is, He presented Himself for sacrifice in all the spotlessness of His person, confident that He met the approval of His God.   We are reminded of the words of the psalmist when he said, “Search me O God, and try my heart”, Psalm 139:23.  The Lord Jesus is the only one who could utter such words in the confidence that nothing contrary to God would be found in Him.  In this He is so different to Aaron, or as the writer to the Hebrews puts it, He is “separate from sinners”, for Aaron could not present himself to God, he must present a substitute, Hebrews 7:27.  Nor could that substitute bring itself, having no consciousness of God’s demands.  Christ has no such limitations, however, for He offered Himself, as Aaron could not do, and as an animal would not do.

AN OFFERING WAS MADE FOR SIN 
In Leviticus 16:9 a different word for offer is used, one which simply means to make.  So the animal, having had the sins of Aaron and his household figuratively transferred to it, is by that act made to represent those sins.  Whatever happens to the animal subsequently happens to the sin.  The apostle Paul takes up this thought in 2 Corinthians 5:21 when he declares that “God hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him”.  It is exceedingly solemn to think that whatever God’s reaction to our sin was, became His reaction to Christ as the sinner’s substitute.  So we may learn in the fullest sense what God’s reaction to sin is by looking to the cross where He forsook His Son and poured out His wrath upon Him.  Such is the intensity of God’s hatred of sin, and such is his determination to deal with it, that “He spared not His own Son”, not shielding Him at all from the fury of His anger; not lessening the penalty, nor relieving the pain.  Who can tell the agony of Christ’s soul when He was dealt with by God as if He were sin!  Of course, He remained personally what He always had been, pure and holy, just as the sin-offering is said to be most holy, Leviticus 6:17, but He was made sin as our representative.

THE OFFERING WAS SLAIN AND ITS BLOOD SHED                                                    “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul”, Leviticus 17:11.  Such are the words of God to His people, teaching us that the shedding of blood is vitally important, for “Without shedding of blood is no remission”, Hebrews 9:22.  Accordingly, that sins might be dealt with, Christ “poured out His soul unto death”, Isaiah 53:12.  He willingly laid down His life in accordance with His Father’s commandment, John 10:18.

THE CARCASE WAS BURNT
Having been presented to God as a living animal at the altar, and having been slain and its blood retained, the animal’s corpse must be taken to the outside place, that it may be subjected to the fires of Divine holiness until nothing is left.  How significant the contrast to Christ.  For He was subjected to the Divine Fires whilst still alive, on the cross.  How He must have suffered!  Can we begin to take it in?  Will not all eternity be needed to set forth what He was prepared to endure in love for our souls?  But endure He did, and exhausted the fire of God’s wrath against our sins.

THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED 
We come now to the central action on the Day of Atonement, the sprinkling of the blood both of the bullock for Aaron and his house, and the goat for the nation of Israel, on the mercy-seat, or “the place for the covering of sin”.  If God covers sins, then they are put completely out of His sight.  We ought not to think of this covering as a temporary thing, or else we shall have difficulty understanding why God declared that Israel was cleansed from all their sins that day, Leviticus 16:30.  It is true that the Scripture says that “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins”, Hebrews 10:, but what that blood symbolises, even the blood of Christ, can.  And that not only after Calvary, but before as well.

Now when the writer to the Hebrews referred to this mercy-seat, he used the Greek word which means propitiatory, the place where God is propitiated in regard to sins, and where those sins are atoned for. This makes clear that he did not see a distinction between covering and propitiating.  There was a two-fold significance to this, however, as indicated by the two-fold sprinkling of each kind of blood, that of the bullock and of the goat.  The blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat was to satisfy the demands of God, so that instead of anger because of sins, He could be merciful in dealing with them. This was because the blood was a reminder to God that a suitable sin-offering had been slain, and burnt in the fire.  The blood sprinkled before the mercy-seat was to meet the needs of the Israelites, for it established a footing for them in the presence of God based upon the shedding of blood.
So with the work of Christ.  He has fully met every demand that God could make about sins.  As one of the Persons of the Godhead, He has Divine insight into God’s requirements, and He has fully met those requirements.  We are assured of this because He has set Himself down with confidence at the right hand of the Majesty on high- He purged sins in harmony with the Majesty of God.  But He has also established a sure footing in the presence of God for those who believe, so that the apostle Paul; can speak of the grace wherein we stand, Romans 5:1.  So dominant is the idea of grace with regard to that position, that the apostle uses the word grace to describe it.  Only those who have “received the atonement”, Romans 5:11, are in that secure place before God.

THE SINS WERE CONFESSED AND CARRIED AWAY
The sin-offering for the people consisted of two goats, one for the Lord’s interests, and one for theirs.  One, as we have seen, was slain so that blood could be sprinkled on the mercy-seat.  The other was called the scape-goat, or goat that was dismissed and went away.  There was no double sin-offering for Aaron and his house, for he had seen the blood on the mercy-seat, and since he had not died, he knew it had been accepted, and his sins were gone.  The rest of Israel did not have that experience, however, and so to reassure them, they were able to see Aaron lay his hands on their goat, confess over it their sins, and then watch the goat, which carried its dreadful load of their sins, disappear into the wilderness, guided by a man whose fitness lay in his ability to take the animal to a place from which it could not return.  The writer to the Hebrews takes up these things in Hebrews 9:25-28, where he speaks of Christ appearing to “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”- this is the counterpart of the blood on the mercy-seat.  Then he speaks of Christ “bearing the sins of many”, and now he is thinking of the scapegoat.  When the Lord Jesus was forsaken of His God upon the Cross, He was in a moral position equal to that of the scapegoat, which was accepted as an offering, but rejected because of the load it bore.

Just as there are two goats for the people, so there are two men acting on their behalf.  There was Aaron, who went into the sanctuary with the blood of the slain goat, and there was the fit man, going into the wilderness with the live goat.  The return of Aaron from the presence of God signified that sins were dealt with satisfactorily Godward, for he had not died.  The return of the fit man, without the goat, signified that the burden of sin was removed from the people.  An alternative rendering of the expression “fit man” is “a man standing ready”. So before John the Baptist announced the Lord Jesus to be the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, he described Him as “one standing among you”- He was standing ready to do the work of Calvary at the time of His Father’s appointment. 

WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF PROPITIATION?

THE DEMANDS OF GOD WERE FULLY MET
To satisfy God as the Moral Governor of the universe, an adequate and final answer must be found to the question of sin.  The demands of His holiness and righteousness are such that every sin must be responded to.  Only Christ is adequate for this situation.  He it is who has “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”, Hebrews 9:26.  To put away in that verse means to abolish.  As far as God is concerned, and in this context, sin is not.  No charge can henceforth be made against God that He has ignored the presence of sin.  On the contrary, He has taken account of each and every sin through his Son’s work at Calvary.  John wrote, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”, 1 John 2:2.  Of course “the sins of” is in italics in that verse.  But the words must be supplied because they are implied in the “ours” of the previous statement.  If John had written “not for us only”, then he could have continued “but also for the whole world”.  Since, however, he uses the possessive pronoun “ours”, then “the sins of” must be inserted.  Now the apostle will write later that “we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness”, 1 John 5:19.  He sees mankind divided into two clearly defined sections, believers, and the whole world.  The same whole world whose sins God took account of at Calvary. 

GOD’S DEALINGS WERE VINDICATED
In Old Testament times God blessed men by reckoning them righteous when they believed in Him.  Romans 3:24,25 indicates that the propitiatory work of Christ vindicates God for so acting.  In can be seen now that God was blessing anticipatively, crediting believers with the results of Christ’s work before they had been achieved.  He also remitted, or passed over, their sins in forbearance, holding back from judging those sins in virtue of what His Son would do at Calvary. 

GOD’S GLORY IS FULLY DISPLAYED
There is no attribute of God which has not been fully expressed at Calvary.  This is why the apostle Paul speaks of rejoicing in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement, Romans 5:11.  Atonement in this verse means reconciliation, one of the effects of propitiation.  By His sacrificial work at Calvary Christ has brought the character of God out into full and glorious display.  Those who are brought by faith into the good of that work are enabled to behold that display, and rejoice in it.  Would we know Divine holiness, or righteousness, or love, or wrath, or any other aspect of the Person of God?  Then we must look to the cross for the sight of it.  We shall not be disappointed.

GOD’S MERCY IS AVAILABLE
The repentant sinner who called upon God to be merciful to him, is the first person in the New Testament to use the word propitious- “God be merciful to me on the basis of propitiation”.  He went down to his house justified, Luke 18:13,14. Under the terms of the New Covenant, God promises that “I will be merciful (propitious) to their unrighteousness, Hebrews 8:12. The mercy-seat was the same width and breadth as the ark, telling us that the ark (the person of Christ) and the mercy-seat, (the work of Christ), were perfectly matched. But we are not told the thickness or depth of the gold of the mercy-seat, for there is an infinite supply of mercy for those who believe, enough to keep them secure for all eternity.

GOD’S FORGIVENESS IS ASSURED 
In Hebrews 10:5-8 we have the Spirit of Christ in the psalmist telling of His work of sacrifice. Then we have the Spirit’s testimony telling us of the results of that work, Hebrews 10:15-17.  God promises emphatically that He will not remember the sins and iniquities of His people any more, since He brought those sins into remembrance at Calvary, and Christ dealt with them effectively there. “No more” means in no way, nor at any time.  Note that God pledges to positively not remember, not negatively to forget. We may forget, and then remember again, whereas God promises never to remember for ever.

GOD’S PEOPLE ARE PRESERVED
The Lord Jesus spoke in the Upper Room of His brethren, then indicated that He was about to “ascend to My Father, and your Father, to My God, and your God”, John 20:17.  Thus He would still be the link between his people and God, maintaining them in His dual role of Advocate with the Father, and High Priest in things pertaining to God.

The basis of His advocacy is two-fold.  His person, for He is Jesus Christ the righteous, and His work, for He is the propitiation for our sins, 1 John 2:1,2.  The apostle John was concerned about believers sinning.  The sins of believers are just as obnoxious to God, and just as deserving of wrath, as those of unbelievers.  But we are “saved from wrath through Him”, Romans 5:9, as He pleads the merits of His work.  He is, says John, the propitiatory offering for our sins.  Not was, but is.  In other words, the one who acts for us in heaven as our advocate, is the very same one who hung upon the cross as a sacrifice for our sins.

He is also our High priest.  The language of Hebrews 2:17,18- “Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.  For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted”.  These verses form a bridge between chapter two, with its emphasis on the reasons why the Lord Jesus took manhood, and the way in which Israel were tempted in the wilderness.  Note in particular the word “for” which begins verse 18-too little attention has been paid to this word, and hence the connection between verses 17 and 18 is often lost.  The reason why we have a high priest who is merciful and faithful is that He has been here in manhood and suffered being tempted.  When His people pass through temptation, then He undertakes to deal with their cause.  Because He has been here, and has been tempted in all points like as we are, He is able to help us when we cry to Him for help.  The word for succour is used by the woman of Canaan in Matthew 15:25 when she cried out, “Lord, help me”.  He is able to point us to the ways in which He overcame in the wilderness temptation, and thus we are strengthened to resist temptation.

But what if we fall, and sin?  In that case He comes to our aid in another way.  We see it typified negatively in Leviticus 10:16-20.  The priests were commanded to eat the sin-offerings, if the blood thereof had not been brought into the sanctuary.  But at the end of the consecration of the priesthood, Moses was angry on God’s behalf, for the priests had failed in this.  Moses said, “God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord”, Leviticus 10:17.  One of the functions of priesthood, then, was to personally identify with the sin-offering by eating it, and by so doing bear the iniquity of the congregation, taking responsibility for their failure, but doing so safeguarded by the fact that a sin-offering had been accepted by God.  As they did this the scripture explicitly says they made atonement for the people, Leviticus 10:17.  We see then what the writer to the Hebrews means when he talks of Christ making reconciliation or propitiation for the sins of the people.  He is indicating that Christ personally identifies Himself with His sin-offering work at Calvary, and thus takes responsibility for the failures of His people under temptation.  This is acceptable to God, and His people are preserved, despite their failure.

GOD’S PURPOSE FOR THE EARTH IS FURTHERED 
When Adam the head of the first creation fell, all creation had to be subjected to vanity, or else a fallen man would have been head over an unfallen creation.  Now that He has obtained rights over the earth by His death, the Lord Jesus is able to bring in new conditions for God.  He can now righteously deliver the present creation from the bondage of corruption that the fall of man brought it into, Romans 8:19-23.  Colossians 1:20 assures us that on the basis of the blood of His cross, all things, whether in earth or in heaven, can be reconciled to God, for that alienation between God and His creation which took place at the Fall, can be remedied.

GOD’S INTENTION TO CREATE A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH CAN BE REALISED                                                                                            Unless the sin which has marred the first creation is dealt with, God cannot righteously introduce an eternal earth and heavens, for it would not have been evident that He was able to deal with the fall of the first creation.  Having dealt with it through Christ, He is able to bring in new things that will never be spoiled.  Daniel was told that Messiah the Prince would bring in “everlasting righteousness”, Daniel 9:24, and this He will do, on the basis of His death.  It only remains for God to announce “Behold, I make all things new”, Revelation 21:5, and a “New heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness”, will be established, 2 Peter 3:13.  At last there will be a settled and congenial place for righteous to dwell in, after all the turmoil brought in by Adam’s sin.  At last those profound words spoken by John the Baptist will be fully brought to pass- “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”, John 1:29.

Trespass offering for a sin offering

When we come to Leviticus 5:1-13, we have no “the Lord spake unto Moses”, despite the fact that the offering in this portion is a trespass offering. It is a special sort of trespass offering, however, for it is called a trespass offering for a sin offering, verse 6. We have already noted that the sin offering had to do with offence to the nature of God, and the trespass offering to do with offence against the government of God. This particular section must bridge these two ideas, having elements of both.

The four categories of trespass dealt with are as follows:

  1. Failure, when put under oath, to declare what is seen and known.

  2. Touching an unclean animal without knowing it.

  3. Touching the uncleanness of man without knowing it.

  4. Swearing to do good or evil in a rash way.

In the last three categories the matter was hidden from the offender, and then came to light. At that point he must act by first of all confessing his sin, and then by bringing a trespass offering.

So the first and last sin listed had to do with oaths, and the second and third to do with uncleanness contracted. We can see that both the integrity of a man’s word, and the purity of his flesh, were of concern to God as the Supreme Governor of the nation. No civilised society can flourish if honesty and hygiene are not preserved. The one affects the moral fibre of the nation, and the other its physical well-being.

So in one sense these acts are contrary to God’s ideal for the nation, and are therefore trespasses, but they also involve contraventions of God’s moral code, (in the case of oaths), and God’s medical code, (in the case of uncleanness of beasts and men). So they are sins as well. But they are sins that, in the case of the last three, are for a time hidden from the one committing them, and this is perhaps what marks the difference. The trespass offering proper, in its manward aspect, had to do with two main matters, which both involved property, whether entrusted to a person or found by a person, so the damage was easily quantifiable, and hence the valuation of the damage could be easily made. In the cases before us here, this was not so- who could estimate the cost of spreading germs? Or failing to be honest?

Looking at the trespasses a little more closely, we come to chapter 5:1.

1. FAILURE, WHEN PUT UNDER OATH, TO DECLARE WHAT IS SEEN AND KNOWN

The first category has to do with sin on the part of one who has seen or heard a crime committed, and who, having been put on oath, (hear the voice of adjuration), refuses to testify. Such a one is guilty, bears his iniquity, and needs to bring a trespass offering to the Lord. The orderly government of the nation is undermined if witnesses refuse to testify to what they know. This is why the Lord Jesus, when put on oath by the high priest, responded immediately, and testified, Matthew 26:62-64. He had previously refused to respond to questioning for various reasons, but now that He has heard “the voice of adjuration”, (as “voice of swearing” may be rendered), the situation is different. He will magnify the law and make it honourable, Isaiah 42:21, for He came not to destroy the law and prophets but to fulfil them, Matthew 5:17.

The Lord Jesus not only bore testimony when put on oath, but He was “the faithful and true witness” throughout His ministry. He did not have to be sworn-in to tell the truth. He could say to Nicodemus, “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our witness”, John 3:11.

This should be the attitude of all believers, too. All have an obligation laid upon them to witness for their absent Lord. The apostle wrote, “Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel”, 1 Corinthians 9:16.

Of course the apostles were witnesses in a special sense, for the Lord had said to His own in the upper room, “And ye shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning”, John 15:27. In the strictest sense, only those who have actually seen and heard a matter can bear testimony regarding it. If we had been at the garden tomb 2000 years ago on an Sunday morning in April, and had seen a man standing near a sepulchre, we would have concluded it was the park keeper about his duties. And this is what Mary Magdalene thought at first. But when this person spoke her name, then everything was different. Now she could relate this person to what she had already known of Jesus of Nazareth; something about His voice told her everything. Those who had not known Him before would not have seen the significance, but she certainly did. Her personal knowledge of Him beforehand gives her testimony special significance.

So it is that Peter declares that he and his fellow apostles are witnesses to Christ, because they had been with Him all along, and were familiar with Him, so they would not mistake Him for someone else. They had been chosen beforehand to be witnesses, for the Lord had selected them from the crowds who followed Him from the time He had been baptized until He was crucified, see Acts 1:21,22.

It is the case, then, that believers cannot now bear testimony in the original sense; but they can, and should, bear testimony regarding that which the original witnesses have left on record in the scriptures. Paul exhorts Timothy not to be “ashamed of the testimony of our Lord”. 2 Timothy 1:8. That which had been passed on to him by way of testimony about the Lord, he should not be ashamed of, but rather share in the telling of it forth to others, even if that meant suffering and persecution. In that connection, it is well for us to remember that the Greek word for witness is the one from which we get the English word martyr. We should be prepared to die for what we believe, if necessary. Not forgetting that we should live for what we believe, too.

The other three classes of these special trespass offerings have two things in common. First, the fact that the trespass was temporarily hidden from the one committing it, and then came to light. The passage of time did not rectify the matter, for no matter how long ago the trespass had been committed, there must still be the bringing of a guilt offering. In our situation, it is far better to deal with an outstanding trespass, however long ago it was committed, rather than have it dealt with at the judgement seat of Christ.

Second, the fact that there must be confession, for this emphasizes in a public way that at last the sin has been recognized, and something is being done about it. The apostle John is careful to tell us that it is when we confess our sins to God that God “is faithful and just to forgive us the sins”, 1 John 1:9. This confession being in direct contrast to the denial of sins in verses 8 and 10.

2. TOUCHING AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL WITHOUT KNOWING IT

The first of these hidden sins concerns the touching of any unclean thing, whether it be unclean beasts, cattle or creeping things. This would constitute a hazard to the health of the nation, especially in desert conditions, and with a great number of people camped close together. The trespass happens unwittingly, and then there is realisation that a sin has been committed. Perhaps a disease breaks out amongst the cattle, and the man realises he may have been instrumental in the spread of the disease. Confession is made, not only to absolve the offender, but also to alert others of a possible danger to their herd or flock. No doubt God’s promise to not put the diseases of Egypt upon the people ensured that that there was God’s merciful intervention preventing the rapid spread of the disease in these circumstances. The promise to keep Israel free from disease was conditional upon their obedience, however, Exodus 15:26, so it was necessary that the commands set out here with regard to a trespass offering be carefully followed.

Just as there was great danger that disease could be spread in Israel’s camp, so there is also a great danger that the evils in the world around us may be introduced amongst the people of God, with disastrous consequences. It is our duty to be watchful and prayerful with regard to this world. Using it for legitimate and necessary purposes, as guided by Scripture, but not abusing it, which involves using it as the men of the world use it, to pander to their lusts and pleasures, 1 Corinthians 7:31.

We should remember that the apostle Paul quotes from Isaiah 52:11 in 2 Corinthians 6:17, and reminds believers of their duty to “come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” The exhortation he bases on this quotation is, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and the spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord”, 2 Corinthians 7:1.

It is important that when defilement is contracted in this way, confession is made to the Lord as a matter of urgency. Remember the words of the apostle John, that “if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us the sin, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”, 1 John 1:9. This being in direct contrast with those who say they have no sin, or who have not sinned, verses 8,10. When David sinned in the matter of Bathsheba he kept silence at first, Psalm 32:3. But God’s hand of discipline was heavy upon him until he was brought to say, verse 5, “I acknowledge my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquities have I not hid. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord’: and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah”.

 3.  TOUCHING THE UNCLEANNESS OF MAN WITHOUT KNOWING IT

The third category concerns the uncleanness of a man. This would most likely be of a fellow Israelite, so that which is distinctive of the professed people of God is in view here.

The believers at Corinth were very liberal in their attitude to the moral evil represented by the man mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5. Instead of putting away from themselves the one who was sinning, they condoned his sin, and condemned themselves by continuing to have fellowship with him. The saints not only displease the Lord and discourage faithful brethren by such an attitude, but they in fact act against the best spiritual interests of the offender. Instead of the matter being dealt with in discipline, so that the offender, if a true believer, (for notice that the apostle is careful to use the expression “if any man that is called a brother”, verse 11), might repent and be restored, the Corinthians were refusing to act.

The Galatians acted similarly, except that the men defiling them were law teachers, set upon the overthrow of the gospel of God’s grace. These must be purged out too, commands the apostle, Galatians 5:12. We do not know the response of the Galatians to the exhortation of the apostle, but we do know that of the Corinthians. Paul can write in his second epistle, “Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter”, 2 Corinthians 7:9-11. Instead of allowing defilement in their midst, they had recognised it for what it was, dealt with it to God’s glory, and when the man repented, (as, happily, he did), brought him back into the fellowship of the assembly, 2 Corinthians 2:6-11.

4. SWEARING TO DO GOOD OR EVIL IN A RASH WAY

The fourth form of trespass dealt with here involved rash speaking, for this is the force of the word “pronouncing” in verse 4. A man rashly puts himself on oath to perform a certain deed, and it is not apparent to him at the time that he is being rash. He may have committed himself to do some evil thing, or even some good thing, but without due thought and consideration. Afterwards it becomes evident that he was speaking rashly, and at that point he becomes liable. The orderly government of the nation of Israel would be compromised if such things were allowed to go unpunished. It must be possible to trust what a man says he will do, or society breaks down. Similarly amongst believers now. “Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay”, is the command of James 5:12. Rash speaking of any sort and in any circumstances is not acceptable.

Some of the Corinthians were accusing the apostle Paul of speaking lightly, promising to come to them but, in the event, not doing so, 2 Corinthians 1:15,16. He defends himself in verses 17-24 by asserting that his word was not “yea, yea”, solemnly promising to come, and then “nay, nay”, just as strongly refusing to come. To behave like this would be to deny the gospel he preached, for Jesus Christ the Son of God was not marked by indecision, “yea and then nay”, but always with definiteness, “yea”. We expect this from one who is the Son of God, for when His Father promises things in Christ, then those promises are not “yea”, making a promise, and then “nay”, going back on His word. Rather, His promises are “yea and amen”, promising and then confirming the promise. This being so, definiteness and reliability should mark the people of God, who are the recipients of God’s promises as believers in His Son. May the Lord deliver us from rashness, and enable others to rely on what we say and promise. But let our word be neither rash nor considered, when it comes to doing evil, for we are followers of Him “who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth”, 1 Peter 2:22. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers”, Ephesians 4:29.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DEALING WITH TRESPASSES

Something of the importance of having these trespasses dealt with is seen in the fact that even an offering of flour was allowed, if a person was very poor. No excuse was permitted in this matter. The offerings allowed were as follows: A female lamb or goat; two turtle doves, or two young pigeons; or a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour. If a man has no lamb, he may bring a goat; if he has no goat he may bring a pair of turtle doves; if the turtle doves have not arrived from their migration, he may bring young pigeons; if the pigeons are not yet nesting, then he may bring flour, which he would have all the time, and however poor he was. God graciously makes allowance for every circumstance, but by the same token, insists that an offering must be brought.

The allowance of flour as a sin offering, which obviously did not involve the shedding of blood, might suggest that the man had a limited appreciation of the seriousness of his sin. Over against this we may put the fact that the effort the man would need to put into grinding the flour was considerable. There is a saying that “time is money”, so on that reckoning the man has put the value of his own time into the offering. Couple this with the fact that the amount required, the tenth of an ephah, is a whole day’s ration for him, (for the daily provision of manna from God was this amount, and this ensured they were “filled with bread”, Exodus 16:12,18,36), and we begin to see that the bringing of flour was not of little consequence after all. He can survive without eating lamb or goat, but not without bread, the staff of life.

There must be no oil or frankincense added to this offering. By this the man is brought to realise that he has not been acting in a spiritual way; nor has his life been marked by dependence upon God and prayer as it should have been, (for frankincense was an ingredient of the incense, that represented prayer). “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation” is the Saviour’s word to us, Matthew 26:41.

As for the animals and birds, they all had features of passivity about them. The female represents the passive side of things; the turtle dove is the gentle bird; the pigeons were young and defenceless. There is a conformity between the character of the sin and the offering for that sin, for the trespass was hidden for a while, and only came to light after the passage of time. It is the delay in dealing with the matter that constitutes the trespass, or else a normal sin offering would be required. Perhaps the passive offerings are in order since it is simply the delay that is being dealt with.

There are five particular trespasses listed, and five categories of offering allowed, culminating in the offering of the very poor. This suggests a line of thought. Scripture says that “God hath chosen the poor of this world rich in faith”, James 2:5. Couple that with the words of 2 Corinthians 8:9 concerning Christ becoming poor for our sakes, and we may see in the five classes of offering a progression, as follows:

The female lamb would remind us of the way the Lord Jesus, the “lamb foreordained before the foundation of the world”, 1 Peter 1:20 was prepared to passively accept the will of God that He should be the sacrifice for the trespasses of men. “The meekness and gentleness of Christ”, 2 Corinthians 10:1, as He accepts joyfully the will of His Father, is most marked in the gospel records.

In the female goat we could see the vigour and determination characteristic of that animal, manifesting itself in His pathway here, for the he-goat is comely in going, Proverbs 30:29,31, and the she-goat is surely not far behind, if at all. Fit symbol of Him who “goeth well” as He comes out from His Father’s presence, and “comely in going”, as He went back to heaven via Calvary.

The turtledove was a migratory bird, like the crane and the swallow, and all three “observe the time of their coming”, Jeremiah 8:7. So Christ came forth in the fulness of the time, and not only knew His hour of suffering lay ahead, but also knew when it had arrived- “Father, the hour is come”, John 17:1.

The pigeon, however, was native to the land of Israel, and reminds us that the land belonged to Christ, as Abraham’s seed, Genesis 12:7, and he had come as son of Abraham to “save His people from their sins”, Matthew 1:21. Not only this, the world as a whole is His in virtue of His Deity, Psalm 24:1. That world had been spoiled by the sin of Adam, resulting in creation being made subject to vanity, Romans 8:20; but Christ came to “restore that which He took not away”, Psalm 69:4. Another consequence of the fall is that children born into the world simply perpetuated his trespass. Because of this, mothers in Israel were required to bring either a lamb for a burnt offering and a turtle dove or pigeon for a sin offering, or alternatively, two turtle doves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. This would indicate to us that the offering of the mother was a trespass offering, since no other offering made provision in this way. But it is the category of trespass offering that makes provision for what we could call passive sins. After all, the mother has only been carrying out her God-given duty to bear children. No blame attaches to her for the fact that the child has a sinful nature when born, and perpetuates the sin of Adam in the race.

It is interesting to notice that Mary brought the class of trespass offering that the poor were allowed to bring. No doubt if the wise men from the east had visited her in the inn at Bethlehem, she would have had resources to buy a lamb. But they came up to two years later, as is seen in fact that Herod slaughtered the babies up to two years old, “according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men”, Matthew 2:16. In other words, the visit of the wise men was after the birth of Christ, but they were able to inform him of when it happened, probably by taking account of the time the star appeared, verse 7.

Of course, in the case of the birth of Christ, no sin offering was needed for Mary, since she had not brought a sinner into the world. He was “made under the law”, however, as well as being “made of a woman”, Galatians 4:4, and as such would submit to the requirements of the law. God was manifest in flesh, but He was also justified in Spirit, 1 Timothy 3:16. So to justify or vindicate Christ’s character, and preserve it from the wrong thoughts of unbelieving men, the Spirit was on hand in the temple when Christ was presented there. Note what is said about Simeon. In Luke 2:25 it is said that the Holy Spirit was upon him, in verse 26 matters are revealed to Him by the Holy Spirit, and in verse 27 he came by the Spirit into the temple to prophesy regarding Christ and His mother. Thus was vindicated the honour of God’s Son.

So there is a sequence suggested by the animals and birds allowed for a trespass offering. From being in the Father’s presence eternally as the foreordained lamb, to knowing the time of His coming; to taking His place as a resident in the land, and to being marked out as having arrived by His presentation in the Temple, accompanied by the bringing of a trespass offering; at all these stages He is shown as fit to be the true and final trespass offering, so that those who believe in Him may know the complete forgiveness of their trespasses against God. Because they are in the good of His sacrifice, the people of God will be very careful to avoid behaviour which harms others, and ready to make amends as is appropriate.

Let us remember the solemn words of the Lord Jesus, “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift”, Matthew 5:23,24.

LEVITICUS CHAPTER 4- THE SIN OFFERING

We come now to a very solemn passage of Scripture in which the matter of sin comes to the fore.  If we use the idea of the Lord speaking unto Moses as that which divides up chapters 1-7 of Leviticus, we shall see that the first mention of this is in 1:1, and the second is in the passage before us.  Subsequently, we find the expression in 5:14; 6:1; 6:8; 6:19; 6:24; 7:22, and 7:28.  When we consider later passages we shall discover that the division is not a simple one, for sometimes a particular aspect of an offering is signalled by the use of the phrase, highlighting its importance.
We see from this that the sin offering is presented to us in 4:1-5:13, and that section includes a form of trespass offering.  Then comes the trespass offering proper in connection with the holy things of the Lord, in 5:14.  Finally, in 6:1-7 there is the trespass offering for a sin against one’s neighbour.  There follows the law of the offerings.

THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, AS FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS CHAPTER 4

4:1  And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

4:2  Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:

4:3  If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering.

4:4  And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the Lord.

4:5  And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation:

4:6  And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.

4:7  And the priest shall put[some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

4:8  And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,

4:9  And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away,

4:10  As it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering.

4:11  And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,

4:12  Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.

4:13  And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;

4:14  When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.

4:15  And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord.

4:16  And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock’s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation:

4:17  And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the veil.

4:18  And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

4:19  And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar.

4:20  And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

4:21  And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it  is a sin offering for the congregation.

4:22  When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;

4:23  Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:

4:24  And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.

4:25  And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.

4:26  And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

4:27  And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

4:28  Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.

4:29  And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

4:30  And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.

4:31  And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

4:32  And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.

4:33  And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.

4:34  And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:

4:35  And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. 

Coming to Leviticus chapter 4 in more detail, we note the four categories of sinner: 
In verses 1-12, the priest brings a young bullock, and the blood is sprinkled before the vail and upon the horns of the altar of incense.
In verses 13-21, the whole congregation provides a young bullock, and the blood is sprinkled before the vail and upon the horns of the altar of incense.
In verses 22-26, a ruler brings a male kid of the goats, and the blood is sprinkled upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering.
In verses 27-35, one of the common people brings either a female kid of the goats or a female lamb, and the blood is sprinkled on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. 
After the sprinkling of blood, the remainder is poured out at the base of the altar in every case.

A fundamental truth we must notice at the outset is that there is the closest of connections between sin, and the death of the sinner or a suitable substitute.  Ezekiel 18:20 makes it clear that “the soul that sinneth it shall die”.  The emphasis is on “soul” and “it”, or in other words the soul or person that sins is the one who dies, and not another.  See also Deuteronomy 24:16.  God had declared that it was part of His glory that He would “by no means clear the guilty”, Exodus 34:7.  By this statement He signified that it was only in a substitute that a man could be cleared from his sin; his guilt must be borne by another.

The fact that a sin offering is here demanded of an individual, shows that the Day of Atonement was a national provision so that God could continue amongst the people.  Individual sins must still be dealt with, and this chapter tells how.  Note that the sin offering was for sins of ignorance against the law of God, reminding us of the words of the apostle John that “sin is the transgression of the law”, or lawlessness, and as such is rebellious in character, 1 John 3:4. 

(We cannot help noticing that when the apostle John says “if any man sin”, 1 John 2:1, he does not go on to say, “let him bring a sin offering”, but rather, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”.  In other words, there is one in heaven who pleads our cause, who was Himself the means of dealing with sin at Calvary, and this has powerful appeal with God.  There is no suggestion that another sacrifice of any sort should be made.  In fact, Hebrews 10:18 informs us that there remains no more offering for sin. 
Not that John implies that we may sin carelessly, for he writes to believers that they sin not.  The law was given so that Israelites sin not, Exodus 20:20, but whereas the law frightened men into not sinning, grace frees men to not sin, Romans 6:14,18.)

The first class of persons noticed is the priesthood, and the seriousness of this matter is shown by the mention of two things.  First, he is anointed, which means he is not only specially selected and approved of by God, but also that he has been brought into great privileges.  Second, that he sins according to the sin of the people.  The people were “ignorant”, and “out of the way”, Hebrews 5:2, but “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and the people should learn the law at his mouth”, Malachi 2:7.  How serious, then, for such a privileged person to sin. 
We see this illustrated in John 19:11, where Christ declares that the one who delivered Him to Pilate had greater sin than Pilate.  That one being Caiaphas the high priest, who should have known how to distinguish between righteousness and unrighteousness, and hence should have released Christ, not deliver Him to the governor to be executed.

All believers are priests by virtue of their new birth, and even those who are little children in the family of God are said to “know all things”, 1 John 2:20. Not in the sense that they know every fact there is to know, but that they are able to discern between that which is of God and that which is not.  Even newly saved ones therefore have a great responsibility with regard to sin.  They have an instinctive distaste for it, for they have been made partakers of the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4, and therefore should hate sin as God hates sin.

Once he has realised he has sinned, the priest must deal with the matter.  Instead of being in a position to minister to both God and man by the exercise of his priestly office, he is defiled, and must have recourse to the provision God has made for him.  He cannot make amends himself, even though he is a priest, but must come the way the ordinary Israelite comes, and deal with the matter before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.  How humbling this would be!  No longer may he enter the tabernacle to function before God, but another has to do enter in for him as we see from verse 5.

He must bring an offering which is without blemish, or in other words, as nearly like the character of Christ as it is possible to be.  The animal has no moral sense, and so cannot be said to have sinned.  It is vitally important that the sacrifice be free of all trace of fault if it is to be a fit illustration of Christ.  When John tells us that Christ was manifest to take away our sins, he is quick to add, “And in Him is no sin”, 1 John 3:5.  When Peter tells us “He bare our sins in His own body on the tree”, 1 Peter 2:24, it is not before he has written, “who did no sin”, 1 Peter 2:22.  When Paul writes that “He hath made Him to be sin for us”, 2 Corinthians 5:21, he is careful to say, “who knew no sin”.  So whether it be John the man of insight telling us what He did not have, or Peter the man of intention telling us what He did not do, or Paul the man of intelligence telling us what He did not know, the lesson is clear, there is no fault in Christ, and this fits Him for the work of dealing with sin.

In full public view, and before God, the priest must lay his hand upon his offering and personally own up to what he has done.  But as he does this, the sin that he has committed is transferred to the animal, and from that point on the offering is held responsible for the sin, and not the offerer.

Since this is so, and because the consequence of breaking any of God’s commandments was death, the animal is killed.  But it is killed by the man who has sinned, so that the seriousness of his sin may come home to him- he realises that it should have been he that lay lifeless on the ground beside the altar.  The priest’s death becomes the animal’s death by direct substitution.  The apostle Paul assures us in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and Leviticus chapter 4 would be one of the scriptures he would have in mind.  “Christ died” informs of an event; “Christ died for our sins” instructs with an explanation; but “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” invites an exposition.

Liability to death has been passed on to us through what Adam did in disobedience when he transgressed a known commandment, Romans 5:12,14.  That death has been passed on to us is seen in the fact that we all have sinned- the nature we inherit from Adam has worked itself out in practice.  By man came death, and that because we have inherited a sinful nature, but by man, (even the Lord Jesus), comes the resurrection of the dead.  Since the consequences of Adam’s sin have been taken on by Christ, the believer is brought clear of sin and its consequences by association with Him in His death, burial and resurrection.  The fact that He is risen shows that His work on the cross to deal with sins has been successful, as Romans 4:25 makes clear.

We can easily see then that Christ has brought in far more than animal sacrifices ever could, for a mere animal could not emerge in resurrection and bring those who relied on it to the far side of death, and into a state of righteousness.  Believers, however, are “made the righteousness of God in Him”, 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Attention is now drawn to the blood which, because it is the soul or life of the animal, (Leviticus 17:14), is tremendously important.  A bowl of blood is the sign that a death has taken place; the death, moreover, of a suitable substitute.  But notice it is not the quantity of blood that is important, but the quality, for the priest who acts for his fellow-priest only needs to dip his finger in the blood.  Nonetheless he must do this seven times, for the Hebrew word for seven means “to be full, or satisfied”.  Thus there is a full and satisfactory answer found to the question of sin.

The sprinkling on behalf of the priest is done before the vail.  So the animal is killed before the first vail of the tabernacle, and then its blood is sprinkled before the second vail, as Hebrews 9:3 calls it.  Both spheres in which he normally operated have been affected by his sin, so both spheres must be affected by the blood.  Sin on a Christian priest affects his ministry both Godward and manward, and must be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.  Until that happens, priestly ministry is hampered and ineffective.  The believer of this present age is able to enter the very Holiest of all, the immediate presence of God- how careful we should be therefore to only enter with “hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience”, Hebrews 10:22.

Note the expression “before the Lord”, denoting not only that the one sinning must have direct dealings with the God who is sinned against, but also that sin must be dealt with in a manner which bears Divine scrutiny.  Only so can a priest be restored to usefulness.

A prominent part of the priestly ministry was to offer incense, so the altar of incense is to be sprinkled too.  The apostle Paul was insistent that prayer to God on behalf of men must be done only by those who lift up holy hands, 1 Timothy 2:8.  Hands stained with sin are in no fit state to be lifted up in the presence of God.

The blood has done its work, and is now poured out at the base of the altar.  This will ensure three things at least.  First, that it is not used for another sin, for each sinner must be personally identified with his own sin offering.  Second, that all realise that the foundation of everything is the shed blood, so the blood is poured out at the foundation of the altar.  Third, that the blood is not drunk, for that was very definitely prohibited by God, Leviticus 17:14.  Life is very precious to God, and He always retains ultimate control over it.  He signifies this by banning the drinking of blood.

Now instructions are given regarding the fat of the animal, which is removed from the animal in the same way as it is from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and burnt on the altar as a sweet savour.  The inwards of the animal represent feelings and emotions of the heart, for the Hebrews believed that a man’s emotions were centred in the lower part of the body.  We are reminded by this that the heart-feelings of Christ were deeply affected by His work in dealing with sin.  Immediately before the cross He could say, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”, Matthew 26:38.  So deep and strong were His sorrows as He anticipated the cross that He was brought nearly to death by them.  How much more agonising must the actual bearing of sin be, if just the prospect of it caused Him such distress!  Yet there is another side to this.  The burning of the fat as a sweet savour meant that the personal integrity of Christ was maintained, for His dealing with sin did not alter His acceptableness to the Father.  Furthermore, the fat assisted the burning of the sweet savour offerings, and so this thought is reinforced still further.

This arrangement means that the fat is burnt at the same time as the carcase, so two sorts of fire are burning at once.  Which is what happened at Calvary, for the fire which fed upon Christ as God’s well-beloved, and found all that was satisfying, was also the fire that burned in wrath against sin, and consumed it out of the way.
We are left in no doubt as to the meaning of the burning of the carcase of the sin offering, for the words of Hebrews 13:11,12, are as follows, “For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.  Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate”.  Fire outside of the camp denotes suffering for Christ.  The apostle Peter speaks of this, too, when he writes, “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God”, 1 Peter 3:18.

This burning is done outside the camp in a clean place, where the ashes are poured out.  Once again, the personal integrity of Christ is preserved, not only by the sin offering being burnt in a clean place, but also by being burnt in association with the ashes of sweet savour offerings.

We may notice briefly the other categories of offering, although much of what is said is a repetition of the regulations for the priest’s offering.  The whole congregation when it sins as a company must bring the same offering as a priest, and the blood is to be sprinkled in the same way as the blood for a priest.

The horns of the altar of incense must be sprinkled with the blood of the priest’s offering, not only to restore the vessel after association with a priest that had sinned, but also to restore to him his power of intercession, for in scripture horns speak of power.

They must be sprinkled with the blood of the offering for the congregation, to ensure that their prayers and intercessions are able to freely rise to God again.
With the ruler and the individual it is the horns of the brazen altar that are sprinkled.  However prominent a position a man may have in Israel, or, on the other hand, however lowly he may be, it matters not.  The altar of burnt offering is the place where all in Israel are equal before God, for that is their common meeting-place.  Instead of the sinner needing to flee to the altar, and lay hold of it and ask for mercy, (as later happened in Israel, 1 Kings 50,51; 2:28), the blood takes his place there, and ensures mercy and forgiveness.

The apostle Peter was forthright on the Day of Pentecost when he charged the men of Israel with having crucified and slain their Messiah, Acts 2:22.  And later he again accused them of killing the Prince of Life, yet he goes on to say, “I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers, Acts 3:15,17.  Then again he addressed the rulers, elders, scribes, Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, and others, and accused them of crucifying their Messiah, but he goes on to preach salvation to them, “for there is none other name given among men whereby we must be saved”, Acts 4:10,12.  So priests, the whole congregation, and rulers, are all charged with the sin of crucifying Christ, and yet also have preached to them the possibility of forgiveness through what He did at Calvary.  In Acts chapter 8 it is Saul of Tarsus, one of the rulers of the people, being a member of the Sanhedrim, who is addressed by Christ Himself, and asked why he was persecuting Him, Acts 9:4.  He later testified that he had obtained mercy, because he had done it ignorantly in unbelief, 1 Timothy 1:13.
So whether it be priests, the nation, rulers, or individuals, all may find forgiveness through the blood of Christ shed for sin.  And so it is today, in the goodness and longsuffering of God.  “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses”, Acts 13:38,39.

ROMANS 4

We hope you find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the e-mail address martin_margaret3@yahoo.co.uk We would be pleased to hear from you.

The apostle now proceeds to illustrate the principles he has just now been stating at the end of chapter three.

Structure of the chapter

6(d)

4:1-5

The boasting of the natural man excluded

6(e)

4:6-8

The blessedness of the forgiven man explained

6(f)

4:9-12

The blessing for any man ensured

6(g)

4:13-22

The behaviour of the believing man examined

6(h)

4:23-25

The belief in the Risen Man expected


Special note on Abraham
It might be helpful, (since the apostle is going to use the experience of Abraham to illustrate his case), to list the events in Abraham’s life that are singled out for mention by New Testament writers.

1. The God of glory appears to Abram in Ur, Acts 7:2, and he responds in faith, Hebrews 11:8.

2. He reaches Canaan and lives there in faith, Genesis 12:5, Hebrews 11:9.

3. God promises him a son, and Abraham believes God, Genesis 15:5,6; Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6.

4. Abraham listens to Sarah’s suggestion, and fathers a son, Ishmael, by Hagar, Genesis 16:2,15.

5. Thirteen silent years pass, Genesis 16:16; 17:1.

6. God promises Abraham that he will be the father of many nations, Genesis 17:4. His name is changed from Abram, meaning “exalted father” to Abraham, “father of a multitude”, in remembrance of this promise, Genesis 17:5, Romans 4:17.

7. Abraham and Sarah are both strengthened in faith, and despite their old age Isaac is born, Romans 4:19-21, Hebrews 11:11.

8. Abraham offers Isaac on Moriah, as an act of faith, Hebrews 11:17; obedience, Genesis 22:18; and righteousness, James 2:21-24.

Special note on circumcision
Considered literally and physically, circumcision was an operation performed on male children. God required this to be done on the eighth day of their lives in normal circumstances, for He, as Creator, had so made us that it is on that day we are least likely to bleed to death.

This operation is said to have some medical advantages, but the main point about circumcision is its spiritual significance. Because it was a procedure where the flesh was cut round, (hence the “circum”), and then cut off, (hence the “cision”), it became a sign of being cut off from others and separated off or sanctified to God. We may think of it in the following ways, as the doctrine develops in the Scriptures:

1. Circumcision and Abraham
After he had believed God and been reckoned righteous as a result, Abraham was commanded by God to be circumcised, even though he was an old man. He obeyed God, and circumcision became for him a seal or confirmation of the faith he already had, Romans 4:11.

2. Circumcision and Ishmael
At the same time, God required Abraham to circumcise his son Ishmael, so that he had a mark on his body signifying that God’s covenant was with Abraham, Genesis 17:26.

3. Circumcision and Isaac
When Isaac was born Abraham circumcised him on the eighth day, and he was thereby marked out as Abraham’s true seed, Genesis 21:4.

4. Circumcision and Moses
The rite of circumcision seems to have lapsed after Israel went into Egypt, for when Moses was returning from the desert of Midian it was found that his two sons were not circumcised. The account is in Exodus 4:18-20; 24-26.

When the law was given at Sinai, circumcision was required, as Leviticus 12:3 informs us. This is why the Lord Jesus, when referring to circumcision, said “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers:) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?” John 7:22,23. His point was that if a boy was born on a Friday, they would have no problem in circumcising him on the sabbath day, for that was eight days after he was born. Why then should they complain if He healed a man on the sabbath?

When a Hebrew parent circumcised a male child, there was a physical aspect, and a moral one. The physical aspect was that he now bore the mark of an Israelite on him. He was now of The Circumcision, the nation of Israel. But the moral side was that he was now committed to keeping the law of Moses. So important were these two aspects, that God sanctioned the work of circumcising on the day of rest, if the child had been born eight days before. After all, He who controls the timing of everything, even the birth of children, did not ordain that no Hebrew son should be born on a Friday.

Now no one was angry at a Hebrew parent who did this. Nor did they seek to kill him. Rather, they would applaud that he had kept the law. All this being the case, and they felt free to “break” the sabbath in this God-appointed way, then surely the Lord Jesus should not be persecuted for making a man entirely whole, and not merely ceremonially whole, on the sabbath.

For the healing of the impotent man did make him entirely whole. He was healed as to the body, so that he was able to rise at Christ’s bidding. He was healed as to the soul, for the misery of the last thirty-eight years was for ever gone, symbolised by his taking up his bed, for he would not need it again. And he was healed as to the spirit, for as he walked at Christ’s command, he went straight into the temple to praise God. Thereafter the moral implications of Christ’s words to him would be uppermost in his mind, “sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee”.

The Jews should ask themselves, which was better, to be miserable and powerless at the Pool of Bethesda, or to be in the temple with renewed body and spiritual joy? The law required that Israel “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Exodus 20:8. But that holiness was not merely a negative idea, keeping the day as a special one, different to the rest of the week. It had its very important positive side, to set the day apart for spiritual purposes. And this Christ had done. He had enabled a man to sanctify the sabbath day in a way he could not have done all the while he was impotent.

So we could summarise the argument as follows: if the people who were angry with Christ to the extent of wishing to kill Him, were free to do a lesser thing on the sabbath in order to obey God’s law, surely He could do the greater thing. They did the lesser thing at God’s commandment, He acted likewise at the command of God His Father.

As a result of this connection between the law of Moses and circumcision, it became a sign of being under the law, so that the nation of Israel were the Circumcised, and the Gentiles all around were the Uncircumcised, even if the latter were in fact physically circumcised out of national custom. We have already seen these distinctions in Romans 2:24-29.

5. Circumcision and Joshua
We learn from Joshua 5:2-9 that those who had died under the judgment of God during the wilderness journey had not circumcised their male children. This was not surprising, since those who fell in the wilderness were not believers, Hebrews 3:17,18. The crossing of the Jordan represents a new beginning for Israel, so God commanded that the children be circumcised so that the “reproach of Egypt”, should be “rolled away” from them, Joshua 5:9. This introduces a third aspect of circumcision, for just as a portion of flesh was rolled away from the child, so association with Egypt was rolled away also, since this had not been done in the wilderness. Those who refused the land were also those who longed to return to Egypt. It is no surprise then that an operation that signified separation from Egypt did not appeal to them, and they allowed it to lapse. Centuries before, their ancestors had sold Joseph into Egypt, and eventually the rest of Jacob’s family followed. So they left Canaan and went to live in Egypt. Now whilst this was a fulfilment of prophecy, Genesis 15:13, nonetheless it was failure, and so it seems that this was called the reproach of Egypt, meaning the reproach and shame that came to them for going into Egypt. When they crossed the Jordan with Joshua, this was reversed, and their circumcision signified it.

6. Circumcision and Christ personally
When He was eight days old, Joseph and Mary had Christ circumcised, Luke 2:21, for He had come into the nation of Israel under the law. As the apostle Paul puts it, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”, Galatians 4:4. He was thereby committed to keeping God’s law, which He did perfectly. Unlike other Jews, however, He was not under the law to force Him to obey God. Rather, He obeyed God and thereby kept the law.

7. Circumcision and Christ doctrinally
The apostle Paul wrote to the Colossian believers to warn them of the evil influences in the world around them which would seek to harm them. He tells them that they are “circumcised with the circumcision made without hands”, Colossians 2:11. Not only are believers complete in Christ, verse 10, but they are separated unto Him from the sphere where error flourishes. Christ cannot link sinners with Himself, so He must cut them off from their links with Adam so as to join them to Himself. This He did at the cross, where He dealt with all that Adam represented. This is the circumcision made without hands, for it is not physical, but moral and spiritual. The cross has cut off believers from the world, including the philosophy-world that was attacking the Colossians.

When God made a covenant with Abraham, He made physical circumcision the sign of that covenant. Abraham was now special to Himself, and had the mark on his body to prove it. Such a rite is no longer relevant, so that the apostle described physical circumcision as “concision”, a cutting along and a maiming, Philippians 3:2, whereas believers are now the true circumcision, properly cut off by God from their links with Adam’s world. This means they are cut off from the sphere where heretics operate, for such men are of the world, being unbelievers, and as such have no contact with the things of God.

When he is dealing with the case of the Jew in his epistle to the Romans, the apostle shows that true circumcision is a heart matter, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.” Romans 2:28,29. This is why Stephen was justified in calling the Jews who were about to stone him, “uncircumcised in heart and ears”, Acts 7:51.

True circumcision is now “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ”, Colossians 2:11, and this happens at conversion. What is cut off is the body as the vehicle by which sins of the flesh are conceived and committed, the flesh being the sinful self, which is resident in the body. Paul calls the body “the body of sin” in Romans 6:6. He is there concerned with the sin-principle within, whereas here it is the sin-practice that is in view; nonetheless the idea is that the body is the base of operations from which sins proceed. As far as God is concerned, that body has been cut off so that it may be brought over into resurrection conditions to be used for God. That which is called “the body of sin” in Romans 6:6 can be presented to God in Romans 12:1, for God has wrought upon it to His glory.


6(d)   4:1-5
The boasting of the natural man excluded

4:1
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

What shall we say then that Abraham, our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? Abraham’s original name was Abram, meaning “exalted father.” God changed this to Abraham, meaning “father of a multitude” after He had promised to make him the father of many nations. The teaching of the chapter revolves around various aspects of the fatherhood of Abraham.
The literal order of the words is, “Abraham our father has found according to the flesh”. In other words, we should connect “according to the flesh” with “found”, and not with “father”. It is not the natural fatherhood of Abraham that is in view, because Gentile Christians do not have him as their natural father. The question on the mind of the apostle is what discovery did Abraham make as a natural man?

4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory- if, as a natural man, Abraham had been able to earn justification, then he would have had reason to glory or boast in his achievement.
But not before God- such a theoretical justification would not be valid before God, for, as the apostle goes on to show, God’s dealings with Abraham were not on that basis.

4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

For what saith the scripture? Paul had stated in 3:21 that the righteousness of God was witnessed by the law and the prophets. He had appealed to the prophet Habakkuk in 1:17, and now he appeals to the law, (meaning, in this context, the writings of Moses), by quoting Genesis 15:6. Note the present tense of “saith,” for the apostle believes in the living, up-to-date voice of the scriptures, being God’s word, which “liveth and abideth for ever”, 1 Peter 1:23.
Abraham believed God- this is a reference to Genesis 15:6, after Abraham had declared that he was an old man who was soon to die childless. In response God showed him the multitude of the stars in the sky, and promised “So shall thy seed be”. Abram accepted what God said, even though it was naturally impossible for him and Sarah his wife to have a son. This is the essence of faith, the acceptance of God’s word without reserve, even though it goes beyond natural reasoning. The apostle deliberately uses an incident in the life of Abraham which does not involve him in any activity, such as moving from Ur in faith, Hebrews 11:8, or building an altar, Genesis 12:7.
Note that the apostle refers to the expression found in Genesis 15:6, “believed in the Lord”, and quotes it as “believed God”. To believe in the Lord is to have trust and confidence in the Lord as the one who keeps His promises. This was appropriate in Abraham’s situation, since God had just given Him a promise. This is not the context in Romans 4, where the apostle is dealing with the imputation of righteousness. To believe God is to accept that what He says is true, and the logical outcome of this is to believe Him. The inspired apostle is bringing out different aspects of the truth.
And it was counted unto him for righteousness- God was prepared to count or reckon Abraham to be a righteous man on the basis of his faith. It was not that Abraham was now perfect, but rather that God was prepared to think of him as a righteous man. The basis on which God did this was the then-future work of the Lord Jesus at Calvary, as the apostle has explained in 3:25. He was counted righteous because God anticipated Calvary.

4:4
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Now to him that worketh- the apostle gives an everyday illustration to show the difference between justification (being reckoned righteous) by works, and by grace. He had said in 3:24 that justification is by God’s grace, and now he shows this by using a practical example.
Is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt- during the working week the workman puts his employer under obligation, and he discharges that obligation by paying the appropriate wages (reward). God cannot be placed under obligation by any of His creatures however, so any benefit He gives must be on the basis of grace, that is, His free favour. To try to earn justification by works is pointless, since if God were to bless on that basis it would be at the expense of His own honour as the God of grace. Needless to say, God will never dishonour Himself in this or any other way.

4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

But to him that worketh not- the “but” introduces the alternative to working for righteousness. “Worketh not” involves a man renouncing all idea of being able to earn salvation by works.
But believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly- the opposite of working is resting, and this is what faith does as it relies on the promises of the God who blesses in grace. The ungodly are the impious, those who act contrary to God. We might be surprised that the apostle uses this strong word here, but he is preparing the way for the next example, that of David, in whose case it was a question of forgiveness for hideous sins. When David confessed those sins in Psalm 51 he spoke of having sinned against God, which is the essence of impiety. By using this severe word, the apostle assures us that the grace of God is not limited at all, for even daring rebels may be justified.
His faith is counted for righteousness- even an ungodly, (albeit repentant), man’s faith is valid, and finds a response from God, since the point about faith is in whom it rests. Of course, the ungodliness goes when he believes.

6(e)   4:6-8
The blessedness of the forgiven man described

4:6
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man- to be reckoned righteous is a great blessing, but Abraham does not describe it, so the apostle brings in David to do it for him. With Abraham it was a question of God imputing righteousness when he believed. In the case of David it was God not imputing sin when he repented.
David sinned badly in the matter of Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, and 2 Samuel 11 records the sorry incident. Sadly, however, David remained silent, refusing to confess his sin, but at last he was brought to the point of acknowledging his sin, and confessing his transgressions unto the Lord. Then he began to know the blessedness of sins forgiven, and wrote Psalm 32 and Psalm 51 to describe that blessedness.
Note that although David’s sin was personal to him, he speaks of “the man”; in other words, this forgiveness is not limited to David, but is available to all who repent. Perhaps there is also an allusion to Nathan’s accusation of David using the words “Thou art the man”, 2 Samuel 12:7. The man who is convicted by the word of God and repents, is the same man who is forgiven.
Unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works- after he had repented, David wrote, “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Psalm 51:16,17. David shows deep insight into the ways of God, and realises that God looks for a broken spirit on the part of sinners, not their so-called good works. Thus David was forgiven by God apart from the work of bringing a sacrifice.

4:7
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered- in Psalm 32:1, quoted here, the word blessed is in the plural, signifying most blessed. This contains the idea of being spiritually prosperous. Instead of the misery of unconfessed sins, David now experiences the bliss of sins forgiven.
Iniquities are lawless acts, and David had been guilty of breaking the sixth commandment of the law by having Uriah slain; the seventh by taking Bathsheba whilst her husband was still alive; the eighth commandment by stealing another’s wife; the ninth commandment by deceiving Uriah into thinking he was in favour with the king; and the tenth commandment by coveting his neighbour’s wife at the outset.
Not only are iniquities or lawless acts forgiven by the One against whom they were committed, but the sins are covered, indicating that they were no longer under the eye of God. If God covers sins, they will never be uncovered. The lawlessness of David was in marked contrast to the concern of Uriah for the welfare of the ark, which contained the tables of the law, 2 Samuel 11:11.

4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin- not only was David forgiven, but by the grace of God he was still reckoned to be a righteous man. His fall, although extremely regrettable and dishonourable, had not altered his standing before God. So Abraham illustrates the principle of the imputation of righteousness, whereas David illustrates the principle of the non-imputation of sin, whether past sins, or sins in the future, (note the “will”). The fact that both Abraham and David were believers before these events took place does not alter the principle.

6(f)   4:9-12
The blessing for any man ensured

4:9
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only? Does the use of David, a circumcised Jew, as an illustration, mean that the blessedness of having one’s sins forgiven is only available to Jews?
Or upon the uncircumcision also? Can Gentiles know this forgiveness?
For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness- the apostle reverts to Abraham, his principal example in this passage, and restates the substance of verse 5, after which he had referred to David. He needs to go back to considering Abraham because of the matter of circumcision, which did not come up with David.

4:10
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? This is the critical question. At what point in his career did Abraham believe God, and was reckoned righteous?
Not in circumcision- the apostle puts this first so that his denial might be unmistakeable. Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised.
But in uncircumcision- which means that those who are not circumcised, (that is, are Gentiles), may come into blessing as Abraham did. The apostle comments on this by writing, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Galatians 3:14. The personal blessing granted to Abraham was the gift of a son. The blessing that Gentiles receive when they believe is the gift of the Spirit, who guarantees all other spiritual blessings.

4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

And he received the sign of circumcision- that is, the sign consisting of circumcision.
A seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised- the rite of circumcision was required by God as a sign that Abraham was in covenant relationship with God. But he only had this covenant relationship because he was a believer. So the circumcision became a seal or confirmation of the reality of his faith. As far as Abraham’s physical descendants were concerned, circumcision was simply a sign that they were of Abraham’s line; it said nothing about whether they had a personal relationship to God.
That he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also- Abraham was not the first man to exercise faith, but he is specially taken up by God as an example to those who believe. In this way his characteristics have been passed on, and in this sense he is their father, even though they are neither descended naturally from him, nor circumcised. Of course the apostle, by saying “all them that believe, though they be not circumcised” does not imply that all those who believe were formerly uncircumcised. He is emphasising that Abraham is even the father of those who were not circumcised before.

4:12
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

And the father of circumcision- not only is Abraham an example of faith, but he also demonstrates the principle of separation, the idea behind circumcision, a cutting off from the things of man to be involved in the things of God. The family of faith looks up to Abraham as a role-model.
To them who are not of the circumcision only- he is this example to all who believe, whether they were physically circumcised before, or not.
But who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised- believing Jews and Gentiles may find in Abraham one to follow, as he marks out the pathway of faith and separation.

6(c)   4:13-22
The behaviour of the believing man examined

The apostle has asked “Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles?” and had answered his own question in 4:1-12, by the use of two Old Testament worthies, Abraham and David. Now he highlights the character of the God of Abraham and David, by further references to the life of Abraham.

4:13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world- in Genesis 15, the passage the apostle has referred to, God promised Abraham the land of Canaan. But now the idea is extended to include the whole earth. In the final sense the seed of Abraham is Christ, Galatians 3:16,17, and He will inherit the earth, Psalm 2:8; Psalm 72:8.

When God made a covenant with Abraham, Abraham was asleep, so did not pass between the pieces of the covenant victim. But a burning lamp did, and Isaiah looks on to the time when Israel shall be restored to God, and at that time the salvation of Jerusalem shall be “as a lamp that burneth”, Isaiah 62:1. The word used for salvation there is “yeshuah”, the equivalent of the New Testament name Jesus. We can see why the apostle Paul wrote that the covenant was “confirmed…in Christ”, for He was the one who passed through the pieces that night, whilst Abraham was asleep. Abraham’s link with Christ will ensure that he and his seed, will inherit the world, for Christ will inherit the world. Note that the promise is not said by Paul to be to inherit the land of Israel, for that is reserved only for the spiritual seed of Abraham who are descended from him physically.
Was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith- God gave promises to Abraham because, having believed God, he was now righteous by faith. As the apostle points out in Galatians 3:17, the promise to Abraham was four hundred and thirty years before the law was given.

4:14
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

For if they which are of the law be heirs- if the inheritance is on the basis of merit, then all is lost, because as soon as we seek to gain merit by works, the law confronts us as those who are transgressors unfit to inherit.

Faith is made void- if we introduce works, faith is robbed of its relevance, and is virtually cancelled, for works implies dependence on self, whereas faith implies dependence on God.

And the promise made of no effect- if no-one inherits, (either because they opt for law-works but cannot do them perfectly, or reject faith), the promise has not achieved its purpose.

4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Because the law worketh wrath- far from enabling man to inherit, the law exposes man’s failure, which merits Divine wrath. The reason for this is next given.
For where no law is, there is no transgression- the law shows up man’s transgressions, not his merit. Only in the absence of law is there absence of transgression, which in turn means absence of wrath. But since the Jew has the law on tables of stone, and the Gentile has the law written in his heart, then both are exposed to wrath as transgressors, being unable to keep the law.

4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace- the line of thought regarding the promise resumes from verse 13 after the explanation of verses 14 and 15. God’s promise that Abraham and his seed would inherit the world was on the basis of grace (favour shown), not works (merit demanded).
To the end the promise might be sure to all the seed- because the promise is by grace, not law, it is sure to all those who believe. The spiritual seed of Abraham is considered as being of two origins, as is next said, but to both classes the promise is certain.
Not to that only which is of the law- meaning those believers who were formerly Jews. He is not saying that the promise originates from the law, but that some of the people who make up the seed originate from a nation under the law.
But to that also which is of the faith of Abraham- meaning Christians who were formerly Gentiles. As previously explained, this faith of Abraham’s was exercised when he was not circumcised, and therefore no different to a Gentile. The apostle is not speaking of two groups of people, Jews under law and Gentiles under faith, because that would contradict his former statement that those under law do not inherit, verse 13.
Who is the father of us all- that is, of all who are believers. Whether they were Jews or Gentiles formerly is not relevant in this connection.

4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations)- the promise here mentioned was given to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, after which God commanded him to be circumcised as a token of the covenant He had made with him. Paul no doubt chooses this promise because of its connection with circumcision, and also because it implies that Abraham would have a son, or else he could not be the father of many nations. So that is the initial meaning of the promise. But Paul also sees in this promise the fact that people from many nations will call Abraham their father in the faith. Abraham’s original name of Abram, “exalted father”, was changed by God to Abraham, meaning “father of a multitude”. It is Abraham’s reaction to the promise of a son that is developed in the next verses.
Before him whom he believed- in Genesis 17:1 God commanded Abraham to walk before Him and be perfect, which suggests that he had not walked before God wholeheartedly (perfectly) after Ishmael was born. It is only as he walks before God in faith that he is an example.
Even God, who quickeneth the dead- Abraham is now acting in the light of the fact that God is able to quicken his body, and that of Sarah, so that they may have a child. See Hebrews 11:12, where he is described as “him as good as dead.” Perhaps it was because of this that Abraham, in a later incident, believed God could raise Isaac from the dead if he offered him as a sacrifice, Hebrews 11:17-19.
And calleth those things that be not, as though they were- so sure is the birth of a son to Abraham that he can be called or named by God before his conception, Genesis 17:19.

4:18
Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

Who against hope- when all natural hopes of having a child were gone, and when natural reason said the situation was hopeless.
Believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations- his faith in God was exercised on the sure basis of the hope God’s promise gave him. Hope is not the object of his faith, but rather, God’s promise gave him a sure hope, and he believed on that basis.
According to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be- his faith as he believed in God’s promise of a son, can be expressed in terms of his initial faith in Genesis 15:6, so the one exercise of faith was according to the other. His intervening lapse of faith is over.

4:19
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb:

And being not weak in faith- as temporarily he seems to have been when he fathered a child by Hagar.
He considered not his own body now dead, when he was about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb- before this he seems to have considered these obstacles to be insurmountable, for when he was told that he would have a son, “he laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? And shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? Genesis 17:17, but now he thinks these doubts not worth taking into consideration.

4:20
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief- he did not doubt God’s word, implying he did before, when he laughed, Genesis 17:17. Compare also Sarah’s reaction, Genesis 18:12,13, then her return to wholehearted faith, Hebrews 11:11.
But was strong in faith, giving glory to God- this is the secret of his restoration, for he has captured again the sight of the God of glory who appeared to him in Ur of the Chaldees at the first, Acts 7:2.

4:21
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform- this is the proper response that should be made to the promises of God. Compare Mary’s response to the news that she, a virgin, would have a son, Luke 1:38, with Abraham and Sarah’s response in Genesis 17:17 and 18:12. Mary was fully persuaded, and Elizabeth, her kinswoman believed also, for she said, “there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord”, Luke 1:45, but Abraham and Sarah were unconvinced initially.

4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness- this seems to make his being made righteous in Genesis 15 dependant on what happened 13 years later, which cannot be the case. Rather, the apostle is indicating that the faith of Abraham became strong again, after his temporary lapse when he laughed. He has now returned to the sort of faith that he manifest in Genesis 15. The apostle’s purpose is to return to the subject of being reckoned righteous, not only to apply it to us today, but also to prepare the way for the teaching found in 5:1-11.

6(h)   4:23-25
The belief in the Risen Man expected

4:23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him- the account in Genesis of Abraham’s faith is not just for historical interest, or just so that we might admire his faith.

4:24
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

But for us also- the principles involved are just as relevant today.
To whom it shall be imputed- the sense of “shall be” is “shall certainly be”. The “it” refers to the rightousness of verse 22.
If we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead- the same God that brought life out of death when the “dead” bodies of Abraham and Sarah produced a living son, has brought Jesus our Lord from the sphere of death. Abraham believed the birth of Isaac would happen, and Christians believe the resurrection of Christ has happened.
Note that faith is placed in Divine persons, not just in events. We are not only expected to believe the resurrection has taken place, but to believe on the One who performed it. Notice the title “Jesus our Lord”, reinforcing the previous statement, for if He is truly our Lord, then there is personal faith like Abraham’s, and if He is truly our Lord, then we have submitted to His authority by repenting, as David did.

4:25
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification- the apostle implies two questions, and then answers them. It is as if he asks, “Why was He, Jesus our Lord, delivered by God to death?” The answer is “Because of our offences”. His second question is, “Why was He raised from the dead?” The answer, “Because of the justification which His death secures”. Thus the resurrection of Christ is God’s indication to us that the work of Calvary satisfies His every demand against our sins.
The mention of offences reminds us we were like David, having sinned. The mention of justification reminds us that the believer is justified, like Abraham. The apostle has now brought us back to the idea of justification, and so prepares for the truth of chapter 5, which begins, “Therefore, being justified by faith”.