The Typology of Scripture

By Patrick Fairbairn
Published by Smith & English, 1854

BOOK THIRD.

CHAPTER III.

SECTION SEVENTH.

P. 334-364

THE OFFERINGS AND SERVICES CONNECTED WITH THE BRAZEN ALTAR IN THE COURT OF THE TABERNACLE SIN-OFFERINGS — TRESPASS-OFFERINGS — BURNT-OFFERINGS — PEACE OR THANK-OFFERINGS — MEAT-OFFERINGS.

We found it necessary, before entering on the consideration of the particular apartments and furniture of the tabernacle, to examine the relation in which the whole stood to the altar of burnt-offering in the court, and this we found it impossible properly to explain, without investigating the fundamental idea of sacrifice, as expressed in the more important acts and operations connected with it. What was said there, must here be presupposed and kept in recollection. It was common to all sacrifices of blood that there was in them, on the part of the offerer, a remembrance of sin, and, on the part of God, a provision made for his reconciliation and pardon. The death of the animal represented the desert due to him for sin, the wages of which is death. God's appointing the life-blood of his own guiltless creature to be shed for such a purpose, and afterwards sprinkled on his altar, denoted that he accepted this symbolically as an atonement or substitution for the life of the guilty offerer, and typically implied that he would in clue time provide and accept a real atonement or substitution in Christ. In so far as the ancient believer might present the blood of his sacrifice according to the manner prescribed, and in so far as the believer now appropriates by faith the atoning blood of Christ, in each case alike the blessed result is—he is justified from sin, and has peace with God.

But it is evident on a moment's consideration, that while the things now mentioned form what must have been the fundamental and most essential part of every sacrifice, various other things, of a collateral and supplementary land, were necessarily required to bring out the whole truth connected with the sinner's reconciliation and restored fellowship with God, as also to give suitable expression to the diversified feelings and affections, which it became him at different times to embody in his acts of worship. If anything like a complete representation was to be given by means of sacrifice of the sinner's relation to God, there must, at least, have been something in the appointed rites to indicate the different degrees of guilt, the sense entertained by the sinner, not only of his own sinfulness, but also of his obligations to the mercy of God for restored peace, his several states of comparative distance from God and nearness to him, and the manifold consequences, both in respect to his condition and his character, growing out of his acceptable approach to God. This could no otherwise be done than by the institution of different kinds of sacrifice, suited to the ever varying circumstances of the worshipper; or by the different kinds of victims employed in the same sacrifice, the particular actions with their blood, the use made of their several parts, or the supplementary services with which the offering of them was accompanied. In these respects, opportunity was afforded for the symbolical expression of a very considerable variety of states and feelings. And it was, more particularly by its minute prescriptions and diversified arrangements for this purpose, that the Mosaic ritual formed so decided an improvement on the sacrificial worship of the ancient world. Before the time of Moses, this species of worship was comparatively vague and indefinite in its character. There appear to have been at most but two distinct forms of sacrifice, and these probably but slightly varied—the burnt-offering and the peace-offering. That such distinctions did exist, as to constitute two kinds of sacrifice under these respective appellations, seems unquestionable, from mention being made of both at the ratification of the covenant (Ex. xxiv. 5), prior to the introduction of the peculiar distinctions of the Mosaic ritual; and also from the indications that exist in earlier times of a feast in connection with certain sacrifices, while it was always the characteristic of the burnt-offering, that the whole was consumed by fire. But the line of demarcation between the two was probably restricted to the participation or non-participation on the part of the offerers of a portion of the sacrifice, leaving whatever else might require to be signified respecting the state or feeling of the worshipper, to be either expressed in words, or to exist only in the silent consciousness of his own mind.

It is apparently on account of this greater antiquity and more general character of the burnt and peace-offerings, that they take precedence in the prescriptions given in Leviticus concerning the sacrifices. The priority in point of order, after the Mosaic ritual was introduced, belonged, however, not to them, but to the sin-offerings; and accordingly on those occasions, when a series of offerings was presented, the sin-offerings invariably came first (Ex. xxix; Lev. v., viii., ix., xvi., &c.) The change introduced by the giving of the law was the cause of this. The law necessarily brought with it the knowledge of sin. It did not, indeed, originate such knowledge; but it imparted much clearer views, and produced a far deeper consciousness of sin, than generally existed before its promulgation. And as consciousness of sin is the foundation and starting-point of all sacrifice, that kind of sacrifice in which the ideas of sin and atonement were brought most prominently out, was fitly regarded as holding the first place in the sacrificial system. It was the kind of offering suitable for those who had either not attained to a covenant-standing, or had by transgression fallen from it. It has, therefore, properly to do with the beginning of all true religion, and may most fitly be taken first.

THE SIN-OFFERING.

This species of sacrifice has so peculiarly to do with sin, that its very name is identified with it (***); in Hebrew, the common term for sin, is also the term for sin-offering. This clearly indicates, that it has specially to do with sin, and aims at atonement, in the most express and definite sense. This, we have already seen, was peculiarly the case with the sin-offerings presented on the day of atonement for the priesthood and the people. And in respect to ordinary occasions, they primarily differed from the other sacrifices, by their being connected with some special acts of sin (Lev. iv.- v. 13). [1] But in the description given of these occasions, there are two peculiarities, from which the opponents of a vicarious atonement have often sought to invalidate that vital doctrine. The first peculiarity has respect to the prominence given to merely bodily and external defilements: such as touching the carcase of an unclean person, or beast. But that these are far from being alone, or even chiefly intended-—that the notice taken of them rather forms a supplementary direction, lest the people should think such comparatively small offences were not included, must be evident to every one who reads attentively the whole section, and compares the portion v. 1-13, where alone such sins are specified, with the preceding chapter, where there is no specification of particular sins, and where the only description given, repeated each time in regard to the priest, the congregation, the ruler, and the private individual, is of sins committed "against any of the commandments of God." In an economy, which had the Decalogue for the root and basis of all its legislation, it is impossible but that, under such a description, transgressions of a religious-moral nature must have been, not only included, but even mainly and primarily intended. And even in regard to the ceremonial institutions, when their symbolical character is correctly understood and taken into account, nothing remains simply ceremonial; there is a moral element embodied in it, and for the sake of that alone was it appointed.

The other peculiarity has respect to the manner in which the sins have been committed, described as "through ignorance," (***, bishgagah), unawares, or unwittingly. This has been thought by some to imply, that the sins referred to could scarcely be transgressions in the strictly moral, but only in a kind of accidental or ceremonial sense, and that sin-offerings being appointed only for such, it argues nothing as to the mind of God regarding transgressions of a properly moral nature. But this view proceeds on an entire misapprehension of the proper force of the original expression. It does include sins, indeed, committed in the ordinary sense through ignorance, while the transgressor, as it is said, "wist not" that he was transgressing. But even in such cases, the ignorance for the most part must Itself have been culpable, arising from that want of care and watchfulness, which those were strictly bound to exercise, who had God's law revealed to them, that they might avoid all occasions of offence. Hence even the fearful sin of the Jews in crucifying our Lord, is said to have been "done ignorantly" (Acts iii. 17); and the lusts of a corrupt and depraved nature generally are called in I Peter i 14, "the lusts in ignorance." The expression, therefore, as Archbishop Magee justly infers, [2] "besides sins of ignorance, includes likewise all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully or otherwise. It stands opposed to sins committed "with a high hand" (Numb, xv. 22—31), that is, deliberately and presumptuously, for which no atonement was admitted. So that the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins, which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature; and was withheld only from those which sprang from a deliberate and audacious defiance of the divine authority. This view is also abundantly confirmed by the examples given of the particular sins which called: for the atonement, and among which fraud, lying, rash swearing or perjury, licentiousness, are to be found." It was expressly on account of such sins being excluded from the province of forgiveness and atonement, that the house of Eli was appointed to excision (1 Sam. iii. 14).

But still, perhaps, it may be thought, that even when the limits are thus extended within which provision was made for the atonement and pardon of sin, the provision was greatly deficient, and gave but a feeble exhibition of the mercy and goodness of God— since all, who had gone in the course of transgression beyond the limits in question, had the fearful doom pronounced against them, "they shall be cut off from their people." But it must be remembered, the whole had respect to a people in covenant with God; the mercies he provided for them in his institutions of grace, were covenanted mercies, such as by the handwriting of God they had a right and privilege to claim. And if the boon had been extended beyond the limits specified—if the deliberate and audacious offender had been included in the provision for pardon, what a license would inevitably have been given to transgression? How would the sinner have encouraged and hardened himself in his ways of iniquity, if he could have reckoned on the forgiveness of God, on presenting what he could so easily procure, a kid of the goats for a sin-offering? Indeed, the grand aim and scope of the whole dispensation, "be ye holy, for I am holy," would speedily have gone into oblivion, unless the covenant had excluded presumptuous sins from the benefit of its provisions of mercy. It is certainly possible, that persons, who had been guilty of such sins, might sometimes actually obtain mercy, and be brought to repentance and peace. But in so far as this might be the experience of any, their case lay without the circle of God's ordinary dealings; the mercy extended to them was not covenanted, but peculiar, extraordinary in its nature, and we may reasonably infer singularly rare also in its exercise; for their state of mind was that which God usually abandons to its own lusts, the state of him, of whom it is written: "He that hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."

The principle, on which this part of the divine procedure was based, was by no means peculiar to Judaism, but reappears in Christianity, and, indeed, in a still more severe and awful form: "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" "There is a sin unto death, I do not say, that ye shall pray for it"—the sin, namely, of a wilful, obstinate, heaven-daring opposition to the ways of God, and the demands of righteousness, and which, under a dispensation of grace, can usually belong only to such as have grieved the Spirit of God, till he has finally left them:—A sin, therefore, which lies beyond the province of mercy and forgiveness. There are miracles of grace, which God may possibly work even upon such, without giving any account of his matters; but we may rest assured, they are as rare in their occurrence, as they are singular in their character, and it were the height of presumption to expect them.

That there was to be, in this respect, no essential difference in principle between the Old and the New Testament dispensations, was rendered manifest at the commencement of the latter, by the judgment inflicted on Ananias and Sapphira for their deliberate sin regarding the purchase-money of their possession. This may fairly be considered to parallel the case of the presumptuous Sabbath-breaker, at the commencement of the former dispensation (Numb. xv.),—viewed as an expression of the mind of God respecting the desert of transgression. But with the change of dispensation, a corresponding change was introduced as to the part which the church was to take in dealing with such cases. In Old Testament times, when all was ordered with the view of presenting an outward and symbolical representation of a perfect state—the land, the Lord's inheritance, and all its inhabitants his redeemed, covenant-people—the presumptuous offender could not be suffered to live; and if he did not himself make his escape from the sacred territory, the congregation must with their own hand make good his excision from their number by the punishment of death. But that punishment, under such a dispensation, was the image of eternal death, which is the full and proper recompense of the presumptuous and impenitent transgressor. And the New Testament church having this future judgment clearly disclosed to it, as ready to be executed by God himself upon such, she is justly withheld from the execution of that outward image of the doom; in so far as it may still at times fitly come into execution, the bolt of Omnipotence itself must give the stroke. But the church has no longer to wield the carnal sword. Her part is simply to bring sinners into the fold of Christ, and for those who may sin wilfully after having come there and received the knowledge of the truth, she has simply to cast them out from her pale—thus delivering them over, as irrecoverable by the ordinary means of grace, to the region where Satan, not the Spirit of God works, that they may there wait the execution of God's final judgment—unless, by some miracle of grace, he should still awaken them to repentance (Heb. x. 26; 1 Cor. v. 2-6, 13; 1 Tim. i. 20.) Such, in a few words, is the divine method and order, under both dispensations respectively. But the imperfections connected with their human administration, have in each case alike prevented it from being properly realized. In former times, there would often be a difficulty, even where there was a willingness, to determine exactly whether a transgression was really of the kind for which no atonement was provided; and the spirit of unfaithfulness, which so generally characterized the more influential members of the covenant, would naturally manifest itself in an aversion to execute the sentence written, even when it was obviously due. Hence, in the history, we find so many traces of those being suffered to live, and even to hold a leading place in the counsels of the nation, who, by the terms of the law, should have been cut off from the people of the Lord. And in the church of the New Testament, how extensively a similar spirit of defection and unfaithfulness has prevailed in respect to her correlative department of duty, is unhappily a matter of too flagrant notoriety.

If the view, however, now given were properly weighed, there would be no difficulty in perceiving the mistaken and groundless nature of the contrast so often drawn between Judaism and Christianity, as if the one were all severity, and the other all mercy,—as if a spirit of judgment belonged to the one, to which there is nothing corresponding in the other. Judaism could not in that case have formed a fitting preparation for Christianity. And then, what can be made of such declarations in New Testament Scripture itself, as throw the balance entirely on the other side: "More tolerable for Tyre and Sidon"-—"if every transgression of disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape?" "of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy," &c. There is a real correspondence between the dispensations: in both alike an excision for the deliberate, presumptuous offender—but that manifesting itself in the one case by the infliction of temporal death, in the other by the delivering up of the offender to the judgment of eternal death.

To return now to the sin-offering appointed to be made for such cases of transgression as admitted of atonement—we are met, in the first instance, with a diversity in the victims-—a gradation in value, which was evidently intended to mark the more or less offensive character of the sin to be atoned. When the sin was that of a private member of the congregation, the offering was to be a female kid of the goats (for which in cases of poverty a substitute was allowed of two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, and where the poverty was extreme, a little flour). For a ruler, the offering was to be a male kid; for the congregation and the high-priest, on ordinary occasions, a young bullock; but on the great day of atonement, when the sin-offering of the congregation consisted of two goats, that of the high-priest was a bullock; because, not only representing the people in his official capacity, but also standing in a relation of peculiar nearness to God, his sins possessed a darker and more aggravated character. There was thus perpetually brought out in connection with the means of atonement, the solemn truth, that while all sin is so offensive in the sight of Heaven, as to deserve the penalty of death, it grows in offensiveness with the rank and number of the transgressors; and that so far from there being in God's kingdom any such partiality as might infer a privilege of sinning, the higher always one's standing there, the greater is the divine displeasure and judgment against the iniquity committed. Hence also the word by Ezekiel, ix. 6: "Slay utterly old and young, and begin at my sanctuary."

But the chief and most distinctive peculiarity in this species of sacrifice, was the action with the blood, which, though variously employed, was always used so as to give a relatively strong and intense expression to the ideas of sin and atonement. When the offering had respect to a single individual, a ruler or a private member of the congregation, the blood was not simply to be poured round about the altar, but some of it also to be sprinkled upon the horns of the altar—its prominent points, its insignia, as they may be called, of honour and dignity. When the offering was of an inferior kind, and consisted only of doves, as in the case of very poor persons, this latter action was not prescribed (Lev, v. 9). But if it was for the sin of the high-priest, ("the priest that is anointed," Lev. iv. 3, meaning however, the high-priest, because he had the anointing in a pre-eminent sense, comp. Lev. xvi. 32; Ps. cxxxiii, 2), or of the congregation at large, besides these actions in the outer court, a portion of the blood was to be carried into the Sanctuary, where the priest was to sprinkle with his finger seven times before the inner veil, and again upon the horns of the altar of incense. It was to be done in the Holy Place, before the veil, because that was the symbolical dwelling-place of the high-priest, or of the congregation as represented by him; and upon the altar of incense, in particular, because that was the most important article of furniture there, and one also that stood, as already noticed, in a near relation to the altar of burnt-offering. A still higher expression, and the last, the highest expression which could be given of the ideas in question by means of the blood, was presented when the high-priest, on the day of atonement, went with the blood of his own and the people's sin-offering into the Most Holy Place, and sprinkled the mercy-seat—the very place of Jehovah's throne. In this action the sin appeared., on the one hand, rising to its most dreadful form of a condemning witness in the presence-chamber of God, and, on the other, the atonement assumed the appearance of so perfect and complete a satisfaction, that the sinner could come nigh to the seat of God, and return again, not only unscathed, but with a commission from him to banish the entire mass of guilt into the gulph of utter oblivion.

It is from the peculiar character of the sin-offering as God's special provision for removing the guilt of sin—from what might be called the intensely atoning power of its blood, that the other arrangements arose which were made concerning it. The blood was so sacred, that if any portion of it should by accident have come upon the garments of the persons officiating, the garment "whereon it was sprinkled, was to be washed in the Holy Place" (Lev, vi. 27), it must not be carried out beyond the proper region of consecrated things. The flesh was not consumed upon the altar—the fat alone was burned, as being the most excellent part, the fittest to be set apart immediately for God (Gen. xxvii. 28, xlv. 18; Ps. Ixxxi. 16; Numb, xviii 12, &c.), and though the kidneys and the caul above the liver, or rather, the greater lobe of the liver, which had the caul attached to it, are also mentioned as parts to be burnt, yet it was simply from their being so closely connected with the fat, that they were regarded as in a manner one with it (whence, in Lev. iii. 16, vii. 30, 31, all the parts actually burnt are called simply the fat). [3] But while the flesh itself was not consumed upon the altar, it was declared to be most holy (literally "a holy of holies"), and could be eaten by none but the officiating priests, and by them only within the sacred precincts of the tabernacle. And if the vessel in which it was prepared was earthen, receiving as it must then have done a portion of the substance, it was required to be broken, as too sacred to be henceforth applied to a common use; or if of brass, it was ordered to be scoured and rinsed in water, that not even the smallest fragment of flesh so holy might come in contact with common things, or be carried beyond the bounds of the sanctuary (Lev. vi. 25-29, vii. 6.) This eating by the priesthood of the flesh of the sin-offering, however, is said to have been done, not simply because it was most holy, but "also that they might bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord" (Lev. x. 17.) This cannot mean, that the flesh of the sin-offering still had the iniquities of the people, as it were, inhering in it, and that the priests, by devouring the one, made finally away with the other. In that case, the flesh must rather have been regarded as most polluted, instead of being most holy. But the atonement, in the strict and proper sense, was made when, after the imposition of hands, the penalty of death was inflicted on the victim, and its blood sprinkled on the altar of God. This denoted that its life-blood was not only given, but also accepted by God in the room of the sinful. And the eating of the flesh by the priests as at once God's familiars, and the people's representatives, could only be intended to give a symbolical representation of the completeness of the reconciliation—to shew by their incorporation with the sacrifice, how entirely through it the guilt had been removed, and the means of removing it converted even into the sustenance of the holiest life. The "bearing of the iniquity," therefore, was bearing not in reference to guilt, but in reference to expiation, bearing it away as forgiven, and exhibiting the perfected result of the atonement. It was just doing in another form substantially what was done by the action with the live-goat on the day of atonement. [4] 

But it was only in the case of sin-offerings for the private member, or the single ruler in the congregation., that the flesh was to be eaten by the priesthood; in those cases in which the blood was carried within the sanctuary, that is, when the offering had respect to a sin of the high-priest, or of the congregation at large —with whom, as the public representative, he was nearly identified —then the flesh was appointed to be carried without the camp, and burnt in a clean place (ch. iv. 12, 21; vi. 30). These being sacrifices of a higher value, and bearing on them a stamp of still greater sacredness than those whose flesh was eaten by the priesthood, the injunction not to eat of it here, but to carry it without the camp and burn it, could not, as Bahr remarks (ii. p. 397), have arisen from any impurity supposed to reside in the flesh. It is true that all impure things were ordered to be carried out of the camp, but it does not follow from this, that every thing taken without the camp was impure; and in this case it was expressly provided, that the place to which the flesh was brought should be clean, implying that it was itself pure. The arrangement both as to the not eating, and the burning without the camp, seems to have arisen from the nature and object of the offering. In the cases referred to, the high-priest was himself concerned, directly or indirectly, in the atonement, and could not properly partake of the flesh of the victim, as this would have given it the character of a peace-offering. The flesh, as well as the blood, must therefore be given to the Lord. But it could not be burnt on the altar, for this would have given it the character of a burnt-offering; neither could there in that case have been so clear an expression of the idea which was here to be rendered prominent, viz. the identification, first, of the offering with the sinner's guilt, then the completeness of the satisfaction, and the entire removal of the iniquity. These ends were best served—as in private cases by the priest eating the flesh——so here, by the carrying of the carcase to a clean place without the camp, and consuming it there as a holy of holies to the Lord; for as all in the camp had to do with it, it was thus taken apart from them all, and out of sight of all devoted by fire to the Lord. [5] 

The only additional regulation regarding the sin-offering was, that of no meat or drink-offering accompanying it; and in those cases of extreme poverty, in which an offering of flour was allowed to be presented, instead of the pigeons or the goat, no oil or frankincense was to be put on it, "for it is a sin-offering" (ch. v. 11), The meaning of this is correctly given by Kurtz: "Oil and incense symbolized the Spirit of God and the prayer of the faithful; the meat-offering, always good works; but these are then only good works and acceptable to God, when they proceed from the soil of a heart truly sanctified, when they are yielded and matured by the Spirit of God, and when, farther, they are presented to God as his own work in man, accompanied on the part of the latter with the humble and grateful acknowledgment, that the works are the offspring, not of his own goodness, but of the grace of God. The sin-offering, however, was pre-eminently the atonement-offering; the idea of atonement came so prominently out, that no room was left for the others. The consecration of the person, and the presentation of his good works to the Lord, had to be reserved for another stage in the sacrificial institute." [6] 

[The occasions on which the private and personal sin-offerings were presented, beside those mentioned in Lev. iv. and v., were: when a Nazarite had touched a dead corpse, or when the time of his vow was completed (Numb. vi. 10-14); at the purification of the leper (Lev. xiv. 19-31), and of women after long-continued haemorrhage or after child-birth (Lev. xii. 6-8; xv. 25-30), pointing to the corruption, not only indicated by the bodily disease, but also strictly connected with the powers and processes of generation—the fountain-head, as they might be called, of human depravity. This also accounts for the case mentioned in Lev. xv. 2, 14, being an occasion for presenting a sin-offering; as it does also for the relative impurity connected in so many ways with the same, even where an atonement was not actually required, but washing only enjoined.]

THE TRESPASS-OFFERING.

That the trespass, or as it should rather be called, the guilt or debt-offering (*** asham), stood in a very near relation to the sin-offering, and to a great extent was identified with it in nature, is evident from the description given of the trespass-offering in Lev. v. 14-vi. 7, and, in particular, from the declaration in ch. vii. 7, "as the sin-offering is, so is the trespass-offering, there is one law for them." But great difficulty has been found in drawing precisely the line of demarcation between the two kinds of offerings, and in pointing out, regarding the trespass-offering, what constituted the specific difference between it and the sin-offering. The difficulty, if not altogether caused, has been very much increased, by the mistake adverted to in a preceding note, of supposing the directions regarding the trespass-offering to begin with ch. v., whereas they really commence with the new section at ver. 14, where, as usual, the new subject is introduced with the words: "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying." These words do not occur at the beginning of the chapter itself; the section to the end of the 13th verse was added to the preceding chapter regarding the sin-offering, with the view of specifying certain occasions on which it should be presented, and making provision for a cheaper sort of sacrifice to persons in destitute circumstances. But in each case the sacrifice itself, without exception, is called a sin-offering, v. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12. In one verse, indeed (the 6th), it is said in our version: "And he shall bring his trespass-offering;" but this is a mere mis-translation, and should have been rendered, as it is in the very next verse, where the expression in the original is the same: "And he shall bring for his trespass." Throughout the section the sin is denominated an asliam, that is, a matter of guilt or debt; and all sin is such, viewed in reference to the law of God, so that every sin-offering might also be called an asham, as well as a hattah, or sin-offering. But what were distinctively called by the name of asham, were offerings for sins, in which the offence given, or the debt incurred by the misdeed, admitted of some sort of estimation and recompense, so that in addition to the atonement required for the iniquity, in the one point of view, there might also, in the other, be the exaction and the payment of a restitution.

That this is the real import of the asham, as distinguished from the hattah or sin, is clear from the passage Numb. v. 5-8, where the former is marked as a consequence of the latter, and such a consequence as admitted and demanded a material recompense. "When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit to do a trespass (or deal fraudulently) against the Lord, and that person be guilty (***); then they shall confess their sin which they have done, and he shall recompense his asham with the principal thereof, and add to it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed (literally, to whom he has become guilty). But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the asham unto, let the asham be recompensed unto the Lord, to the priest, besides the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him." The Lord in this latter case, as being the original proprietor of the land, stept into the room of the deceased person who had sustained the injury, and received through his representative, the priest, the earthly restitution, while the sacrifice was also given to the Lord for the offence committed against his authority. The particular cases specified in ch. vi. 1-5, as coming within the law of the trespass-offering, were entirely of this kind; they implied a civil wrong to certain individuals or the commonwealth: False swearing in regard to any pledge or property delivered into one's hands by a neighbour, finding lost property and lying concerning it, violently taking away, or acting with deceit toward a neighbour's goods. Another set of cases are referred to in the preceding chapter, ver. 15, 16, called trespasses in regard to the holy things of the Lord, which, though no specific instances are given, may be inferred to have been offences of a similar nature in the ecclesiastical province: Such as, not paying full tithes, or first-fruits, or withholding in any way from the Lord's representatives some portion of their due gains. In all such cases, a debt was manifestly incurred; and, indeed, a twofold debt: A debt, first of all, to the Lord as the only supreme Head of the commonwealth whose laws had been transgressed, and a debt also to a party on earth whose constitutional rights had been invaded. In both respects alike the priest was to make an estimate of the wrong done: and in the first respect, the debt (whatever might be the valuation) was discharged by the presentation of a ram for the asham or trespass-offering, ver. 15; while in the other, the actual sum was to be paid to the party wronged, with an additional fifth.

The same limitations as to the manner of committing the sins in question, were evidently intended to apply here, as in respect to those for which the sin-offering was presented. They were such as had been done in ignorance, unawares, through the influence of passion or temptation; and it is plain, that those most distinctly specified could not possibly have been committed without a consciousness of sin at the very time of their being done. But the precise aspect under which the sins were considered, was taken from a lower point of view, than in the case of the sin-offering. It was a reckoning for and dealing with sin, not precisely in respect to its own nature, but rather in respect to the evils growing out of it; not in its higher and primary relations, but in such only as were subordinate and earthly, and admitted of a sort of reparation. Hence, also, as an atonement, the trespass-offering appears in quite an inferior place to that of the sin-offering; the blood was only poured around the altar, not sprinkled on the horns, nor carried within the sanctuary; and on those more public and solemn occasions, on which a whole series of offerings was to be presented, we never find the trespass-offering taking the place of the sin-offering, or occurring in addition to it (Ex. xxix; Lev. xvi.; Numb, vii., xxviii., xxix.) So that the trespass-offering may justly be regarded as a kind of appendage to the sin-offering, designed only for such cases as were peculiarly fitted for enforcing upon the sinner's conscience the moral debt he had incurred by his transgression in the reckoning of God, and the necessity of his at once rendering satisfaction to the divine justice he had offended, and making restitution in regard to the brotherly relations he had violated. [7] 

There can be little doubt that this more restricted and inferior character of the trespass-offering is the reason why, in New Testament Scripture, the one great sacrifice of Christ is never spoken of with special reference to it, while so often presented under the aspect of a sin-offering. We find there, however, mention frequently enough made of sin as a debt incurred toward God, rendering the sinner liable to the exaction of a suitable recompense to the offended justice of heaven. This satisfaction it is possible for him to pay only in the person of his substitute, the Lamb of God, whose blood is so infinitely precious, that it is amply sufficient to cancel, in behalf of every believer, the guilt of numberless transgressions. But while this one ransom alone can satisfy for man's guilt the injured claims of God's law of holiness; wherever the sin committed assumes the form of a wrong done to a fellow-creature, God justly demands as an indispensable condition of his granting an acquittal in respect to the higher province of righteousness, that the sinner shew his readiness to make reparation in this lower province, which lies within his reach. He who refuses to put himself on right terms with an injured fellow-mortal, can never be received into terms of peace and blessing with an offended God. And if he should even proceed so far as to bring his gift to the altar, while he there remembers that his brother has somewhat against him, he must not presume to offer it, as he should then offer it in vain, but go and render due satisfaction to his brother, and then come and offer the gift.

But while ample materials exist in New Testament Scripture for bringing out the truth of God under these aspects and relations, the predominant and only direct reference, as regards the relation of Christ's work to these closely affiliated sacrifices, is to the sin- offering. And to this most of all, as we have already seen, in connection with the services of the day of atonement, when the leading ideas symbolized by this. department of the sacrificial rites., obtained their most solemn and striking representation. Having already in an earlier part unfolded that more peculiar and perfect representation, little of an additional nature remains now to be supplied from the general prescriptions regarding the sin-offering. But as each individual, even the most private member of the congregation, as well as the congregation at large and the high- priest, was obliged, on being convicted by his conscience of any particular sin, to come with a sin-offering, we see there impressively disclosed the need in which every sinner stands of the salvation of Christ, and the necessity of making application to it as often as the guilt of sin renews itself upon his conscience. This resort of faith to the perfect sacrifice of Christ is the one way that lies open for the sinner s attainment of pardon, and restoration to peace.

And then in the sacrifice itself there is the reality of that incomparable worth and preciousness, which was so significantly represented in the sin-offering by the sacredness of its blood, and the hallowed destination of its flesh. With reference to this, the blood of Christ is called emphatically "the precious blood," and "the blood that cleanseth from all sin." "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Holy and without blemish in himself, and infinitely dear to the Father as his only begotten and well-beloved Son, he yet became, when he took upon him the iniquities of us all, in the sight of Heaven-—sin, one grand impersonation of guilt—as the sin-offering was, after the offerer had confessed over it, with imputation of hands, the sin of which he had been guilty, and received the infliction of the penalty that was due. But as soon as this awful penalty was borne by the Redeemer, the moment he could say in regard to what was exacted of him, "It is finished," as the curse was then exhausted, so the guilt that deserved it was finally and for ever borne away; the Lamb of God, formerly charged with a world's guilt, is henceforth in every sense "without sin"—his blood so pure and precious that it can avail to the blotting out of all iniquity, his flesh the root and nourishment in the saved, of an immortal life; so that the participation of his merits by the exercise of a realising faith is fellowship with all that is holiest and best; it is the soul's being engrafted into the very purity and blessedness of Heaven. The true believer is made "the righteousness of God in him."

THE BURNT-OFFERING.

The name commonly given in Scripture to this species of sacrifice is olah (***) an ascension, so called from the whole being consumed and going up in a flame to the Lord. It also received the name kalil (***) the whole, with reference also to the entire consumption, and possibly not without respect to its general and comprehensive character.

For in this respect it was distinguished from all the other sacrifices, and raised above them. The sin and trespass-offerings were presented with the view of making atonement for particular sins, and had for their object the restoring of the offerer to a state of peace and fellowship with God, which had been interrupted by the commission of iniquity. But the burnt-offering was for those who were already standing within the bonds of the covenant, and without any such sense of guilt lying upon their conscience, as exposed them to excision from the covenant. We are not, however, to suppose on this account, that there was to be no conscience of sin in the offerer when he presented this sacrifice; for he was required to lay his hands on the head of the victim (with which confession of sin was always accompanied), and it was expressly said "to be accepted for him, to make atonement for him" (Lev. i. 4.) But the guilt for which atonement here required to be made, was not that properly of special and formal acts of transgression, but rather of those shortcomings and imperfections which perpetually cleave to the servant of God, and mingle even with his best services. But along with this sense of unworthiness and sin, which enters as an abiding element into the state of his mind, there is invariably coupled, especially in his exercises of devotion, a surrender and consecration of his person and powers to the service of God. While he is conscious of, and laments the deficiences of the past, he cannot but desire to manifest a spirit of more complete devotedness in the time to come. And it was to express this complicated state of feeling, to which the whole and every individual of the covenant-people should have been continually exercising themselves, that the service of the burnt-offering was appointed.

Hence this offering, combining in itself to a considerable extent what belonged to the other sacrifices, might be regarded as embodying the general idea of sacrifice, and as in a sense representing the whole sacrificial institute. So it appears in Deut. xxxiii. 10, where the office of the priesthood in the presentation of offerings is described simply with a reference to this species of sacrifice: "They shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt-sacrifice upon thy altar." On the same account, it was the kind of offering which was to be presented morning and evening in behalf of the whole covenant-people, and which, especially during the night, when the altar was required for no other use, was to be so slowly consumed that it might last till the morning (Ex. xxix. 38-46; Numb, xxviii. 3; Lev. vi. 9.) So that it was the daily and nightly, the constant and perpetual sacrifice—the symbolical expression of what Israel needed to be ever receiving from Jehovah, as the God of the covenant, and yielding to him again as his covenant-people. Holding such a position in the sacrificial institute, we can also easily understand why the altar of sacrifice should have received its usual designation from this, and was called "the altar of burnt-offering." And in further accordance with the same general view, we find from sacred history, what the nature of the institution might have led us to expect, that it was the kind of sacrifice anciently employed for expressing all sorts of devotional feelings, whether of gratitude for past mercies, in supplicating future blessings, or in deprecating apprehended calamities (Gen. viii 20; Job i. 5, xlii. 8; Numb, xxiii.) [8] 

All the more special directions regarding the sacrifice agree with the view now exhibited. In conformity with its general and comprehensive character, or its connection with the abiding and habitual state of the worshipper, much was left to his own discretion, both as to the kind of victim to be presented, and the particular times for presenting it. It might be chosen either from the herd or the flock-—but in each case must be a male without blemish, the best and most perfect of its kind—or he might even go to the genus of fowls, and choose a turtle-dove or young pigeon. The blood of the victim was simply poured around the altar, the most general form of the atoning-action; and with the exception of the skin, which was all that could be given to the priests without detracting from the completeness of the offering, the whole carcase, after being cut into suitable pieces, and the filth that might adhere to any of them washed off, was laid upon the altar and burnt. (In the case of the pigeons the crop was first removed, as but imperfectly belonging to the bird, not properly a part of its flesh and blood.) In that consumption of the whole, after the outpouring of the blood, for his acceptance, the offerer, if he entered into the spirit of the service, saw expressed his own dedication of himself, soul and body, to the service of God—self-dedication following upon, and growing out of pardon and acceptance with God. And as such consecration of the person to God must again appear, and express itself in the fruits of a holy life, the burnt-offering was always accompanied with a meat and drink-offering, through which the worshipper pledged himself to the diligent performance of the deeds of righteousness (Numb. xv. 3-11, xxviil 7-15.)

That Christ was here also the end of the law, and realized to the full what the burnt-offering thus symbolized, will readily be understood. In so far as it contained the blood of atonement, ever in the course of being presented for the covenant-people, it shadowed forth Christ as the one and all for his people, in regard to deliverance from the guilt of sin—the fountain to which they must daily and hourly repair to be washed from their uncleanness.

And in so far as It expressed, through the consumption of the victim and the accompaniment of food, the dedication of the offerer to God for all holy working and fruitfulness in well-doing, the symbol met with unspeakably its highest realization in Him, who came not to do his own will, but the will of the Father that sent him; wiio sought not his own glory, but the glory of his Father; who said even in the last extremities and in reference to the most appalling trials, "Not my will but thine be done; I have glorified thee on earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do; and now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." But in this the blessed Redeemer did not stand alone; here it could no longer be said, "of the people there was none with him." As bearing the doom and penalty of sin, he is infinitely exalted above the highest and holiest of his brethren. None of them can share with him either in the burden or the glory of the work given him to do. These are exclusively his own, and it is for them simply to receive from his hand, as the debtors of his grace, and enter into the spoils of his dear bought victory. But in the spirit of self-dedication and holy obedience, which animated him from first to last in his high undertaking, he was the forerunner of his people, and the same must breathe and operate in them. As he yielded himself to the Father, so they must yield themselves to him, drawn by the constraint of his love and the mercies of his redemption to present themselves in him as living sacrifices, that they may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. And the more always they realize their interest in his blood for the pardon of sin and acceptance with God, the more are they disposed to yield themselves to the Lord for a ready submission to his righteous will, and to say with the Psalmist, "O Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, the son of thine handmaid, thou hast loosed my bonds."

THE PEACE-OFFERING.

The general name for this species of offering is shelamim (***) and comes from a root which signifies to make up, to supply what is wanting or deficient, to pay or recompense; and hence it very naturally came to express a state, in which all misunderstandings or disturbances having been removed, there was room for friendship, harmony, peace, and prosperity. And the sacrifice, which went by this name, might be employed in reference to any occasion on which such ideas became strikingly displayed.

The peace-offerings appear under three divisions-—the sacrifice of thanksgivings or praise (***), of a vow (***), and of freewill (***). The last of these is marked as being somewhat inferior, by the circumstance that an animal with something lacking or superfluous in its parts might be offered (Lev. xxii. 23), while in both the other sorts the rule, of being without blemish, was strictly enforced (ver. 21.) And again a difference is marked, a measure of inferiority in both of the two last as compared with the first, in that they are treated conjointly, as coming under the same general laws (Lev. vii. 16-21), while the first has a section for itself (v. 11-15), and also that the flesh of those two might be eaten, either on the first or the second day, while the flesh of the thank or praise-offering must be eaten on the first, or else burnt with fire. These are certainly rather slight distinctions; but they are quite sufficient to indicate degrees of excellence or worth in the respective offerings, in which the sacrifice of praise holds the highest, and that of free-will the lowest place. While also the free-will and the votive peace-offering had much in common, and are made to stand under one general law as to the service connected with them, they are not unfrequently presented as in a kind of contrast to each other (Lev. vii, 16, xxii, 21, 23, &c.) This, however, merely arose from the different circumstances in which they were usually presented. Persons, who received some striking interpositions of Providence at a time when they could not make any suitable outward return—or, more commonly, persons who were involved in clanger or distress, and greatly desired the interposition of the divine hand to bring deliverance, were accustomed to vow certain offerings to the Lord in respect to the goodness either actually vouchsafed, or fervently sought. From the moment that the vow was made, they lay under an express obligation to perform what was specified; their sacrifice as to its obligation ceased to be a voluntary service; and if some time elapsed between the promise and the performance, there was considerable danger of the feeling that dictated the vow suffering abatement, and the worshipper either failing to make good his obligation, or doing so under a constraint. Jacob himself, the father of the covenants-people, formed a memorable example of this; having failed in the strict and proper sense to pay the vow he made at Bethel, after he returned to Canaan, until reproved by judgments in his family, and warned by God he repaired to the place (Gen. xxxv. 1-7.) Hence, not only the sort of contrast sometimes indicated between the votive and the free-will offerings, but also the pointed allusions to the necessity of fulfilling such vows after they were made, and the care which pious men took to maintain in this respect a good conscience (Ps. xxii. 25, Ixvi. 13, Ixxvi. 11; Prov. xx. 25; Eccl. v. 4, 5, &c.) When actually presented, such votive offerings must have partaken chiefly of the nature of thanksgivings, as in the mode of their origination they possessed somewhat of the character of a prayer. In ordinary circumstances, however, and when the worshipper was in a condition to give outward and immediate expression to his feelings in an act of worship, it would seem that the free-will peace-offering was the embodied prayer (Judg. xx. 26, xxi. 4; 1 Sam. xiii. 9; 2 Sam. xxiv. 25), as we find peace-offerings presented in circumstances which naturally called for supplication, and which preclude the thought of any other free-will offerings. And the relation of the three kinds to each other, with their respective gradations, may be indicated with probable correctness as follows: The thank or praise-offering was the expression of the worshipper's feelings of adoring gratitude on account of having received some spontaneous tokens of the Lord's goodness—this was the highest form, as here the grace of God alone shone forth. The vow-sacrifice was the expression of like feelings for benefits received from the divine beneficence, but which were partly conferred in consideration of a vow made by the worshipper—this was of a lower grade, having something of man connected with it. And the free-will offering, which was presented without any constraint of necessity, and either without respect to any special acts of mercy experienced, or with a view to the obtaining of such, occupied a still lower ground, as the worshipper here took the initiative, and appeared in the attitude of one seeking after God. [9]

In regard to the offerings themselves, they were all to be accompanied with imposition of hands, and the sprinkling of the blood round about the altar, which implied that they had to some extent to do with sin, and like all the other offerings of blood, brought this to remembrance. The occasion of their presentation being some manifestation of God, of his mercy and goodness, whether desired or obtained, it fitly served to remind the worshipper of his raiworthiness of the boon, and his unfitness in himself to stand before God in peace, when God might come near. It was this feeling which gave rise to the maxim, that no one could see God's face and live, and which so often found vent for itself in the ancient worshipper, even when the manifestation actually given of God was of the most gracious kind. This is well brought out by Bahr in reference to the matter now under discussion, however his defective views have led him to misapply the statement, or to overlook the plain inferences deducible from it: "The reference to sin and atonement discovers itself in the most striking and decided manner, precisely in regard to that species of peace-offerings, which was the most important and customary, and which might seem at first sight to have least to do with such a reference, viz, in the praise-offering. The word (***) comes from a verb, which signifies as well to confess to Jehovah sin, guilt, misconduct, as to ascribe adoration and praise to his name (comp. Ps. xxxii. 4; 1 Kings viii. 33, also Josh. vii. 19.) The confession of sin can only be made in the light of God's holiness; hence, when man confesses his sin before God, he at the same time confesses the holiness of God. But as holiness is the expression of the highest name of Jehovah, the confession of sin with Israel carries along with it the confession of the name of Jehovah; and every confession of this name, as the front and centre of all divine manifestations, is at the same time glory and praise to God. Accordingly, the Hebrews necessarily thought in their praise-offerings of the confession of sin, and with this coupled the idea of an atonement; so that an atoning virtue was properly regarded as essentially belonging to this sacrifice." [10]

It was common to peace-offerings with sin and trespass-offerings, that the fat and the parts immediately connected therewith, as the richer and better portion of the animal, were burnt on the altar to Jehovah, But it was peculiar to the peace-offerings that besides this, certain parts of the flesh were, by a special act of consecration, waving and heaving, set apart for the priests, and given them as their portion. These parts were the breast and the right shoulder. Why such, in particular, were chosen, is nowhere stated, but it probably arose from their being somehow considered the more excellent parts. And in regard to the ceremony of consecration, according to Jewish tradition it was performed by laying the parts on the hands of the offerer, and the priest putting his hands again underneath, then moving them in a horizontal direction for the waving, and in a vertical one for the heaving. It would appear that the ceremony was commonly divided, that one part of it alone was usually performed at a time, and that in regard to the peace-offerings, the waving was peculiarly connected with the breast—which is thence called the wave-breast, Lev. vii. 30, 32, 34,—and the heaving with the shoulder, for this reason called the heave-shoulder. There can be little doubt that the rite was intended to be a sort of presentation of the parts to God, as the supreme ruler in all the regions of this lower world and in the higher regions above: the more suitable in connection with the peace-offerings, as these were acknowledgments of the Lord's power and goodness in all the departments of providence, and in the blessings which come down from above. When those parts were thus presented and set apart to the priesthood, the Lord's familiars, the rest of the flesh, it was implied, was given up to the offerer to be partaken of by himself and those he might call to share and rejoice with him. Among these he was instructed to invite, beside his own friends, theLevite, the widow, and the fatherless (Deut. xii. 18, xvi. 11.)

This participation by the offerer and his friends, this family feast upon the sacrifice, may be regarded as the most distinctive characteristic of the peace-offerings. It denoted that the offerer was admitted to a state of near fellowship and enjoyment with God, shared part and part with Jehovah and his priests, had a standing in his house, and a seat at his table. It was, therefore, the symbol of established friendship with God, and near communion with him in the blessings of his kingdom; and was associated in the minds of the worshippers with feelings of peculiar joy and gladness;—but these always of a sacred character. The feast and the rejoicing were still to be "before the Lord," in the place where he put his name, and in company with those who were ceremonially pure. And with the view of marking how far all impurity and corruption must be put away from such entertainments, the flesh had to be eaten on the first, or at farthest the second day, after which, as being no longer in a fresh state, it became an abomination.

Turning our view to Christian times, we find the ideas symbolized in the peace-offering reappearing, and obtaining their adequate expression, both in Christ himself, and in his people. What it indicated in regard to the presenting of an atonement, could of course find its antitype only in Christ, as all the blood shed in ancient sacrifice, pointed to that blood of his, which alone cleanseth from sin. And inasmuch as all the blessings which Christ obtained for his church were received in answer to intercessory prayer, and when received, formed the occasion also on his part of giving praise and glory to the Father, so here also we see the grand realization of the peace-offering in Him, who in the name and the behalf of his redeemed could say, "My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation, I will pay my vows before them that fear him" (Ps. xxii. 25).

Viewed, however, as a representation of the state and feelings of the worshipper, the service of the peace-offering bears respect, more directly and properly to the people of Christ, than to Christ himself. And so viewed, it exhibits throughout an elevated and faithful pattern of their spiritual condition, and the righteous principles and feelings by which that is pervaded. In the feast upon the sacrifice, the feeding at the Lord's own table, and on the provisions of his house, we see the blessed state of honour and dignity to which the child of God is raised; his nearness to the Father, and freedom of access to the best things in his kingdom; so that he can rejoice in the goodness and mercy, which are made to pass before him, and can say, "I have all and abound." But let it be remembered, that the very place where the feast was held—"before the Lord"—and the careful exclusion of all putrid appearances, give solemn warning, that such a high dignity and blessed satisfaction can be held only by the sanctified mind, and the spiritual delight which is reaped, can by no means consist with the love and practice of sin. Nay, in the prayers, the vows, the thanksgivings and praises, with which those peace-offerings were accompanied, and of which they were but the outward expression, let it be perceived how much the possessors of this elevated condition should be exercised to the work of communion with Heaven, and especially how sweet should be to them "the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of the lips!" (Heb. xiii. 15). And then, in the way by which the worshipper attained to a fitness for enjoying the privilege referred to, namely, through the life-blood of atonement, how impressive a testimony was borne to the necessity of seeking the road to all dignity and blessing in the kingdom of God through faith in a crucified Redeemer! By him has the provision been made, and the door opened, and the invitation issued to go in and partake. Such only as have been covered upon by his precious blood can be admitted to taste, or be prepared to relish the feast of fat things he sets before them; for through him, as the grand medium of reconciliation and acceptance, must their persons be brought nigh, their devotions presented, and their souls prepared for communion and fellowship with God. The unsanctified by the blood of Christ must of necessity be aliens from God's household, and strangers at his table.

THE MEAT-OFFERING.

The proper and distinctive name for what is called the meatoffering, was mincha (***), although the word is sometimes used in a more extended sense, as a general name for offerings or things presented to the Lord. It is not expressly said, that this kind of offering was only to be an addition to the two last species of bloody sacrifices (the burnt-offering and peace-offering), and that it could never be presented as something separate and independent. But the whole character of the Mosaic institutions, and the analogy of particular parts of them, certainly warrants the inference, that it was not the intention of God that the meatoffering should ever be presented alone; as there was here no confession of sin and no expiation of guilt. And accordingly, when the children of Israel were enjoined to bring, on two separate occasions, special offerings of this kind—the sheaf of first-fruits, and the two loaves (Lev. xxiii. 10-12, 17-20), on both occasions alike the offering had to be accompanied with the sacrifice of slain victims, The ordinary employment of the meat-offering was in connection with the burnt and peace-offerings, which were always to have it as a necessary and proper supplement (Numb. xv. 1-13).

The meat-offering, as to its materials, consisted principally of a certain portion of flour or cakes, with which, it would seem, there was always connected a suitable quantity of wine for a drink-offering. The latter is not mentioned in Lev. ii, which expressly treats of the meat-offering, but is elsewhere spoken of as a usual accompaniment (Ex. xxix, 40; Lev, xxiii. 13; Numb. xv. 5, 10, &c.), and was probably omitted in the second chapter of Leviticus for the same reason, that it was noticed only by implication with the shew-bread, viz. that it formed quite a subordinate part of the offering, and was merely a sort of accessory. Being of the same nature with the shew-bread, which has already been considered, we need not enter here on any investigation into the design of the offering; but may simply mention, in respect to this generally, that it was appended to the burnt and peace-offerings, to shew that the object of such offerings was the sanctification of the people by fruitfulness in well-doing, and that without this the end aimed at never could be attained.

This meat-offering was not to be prepared with leaven or honey, but always with salt, oil, and frankincense. Leaven or yeast, is a substance in a state of putrefaction, the atoms of which are in a continual motion; hence, it very naturally became an image of moral corruption. Plutarch assigns as the reason, why the priest of Jupiter was not allowed to touch leaven, that "it comes out of corruption, and corrupts that with which it is mingled." [11] The New Testament usage leaves no room to doubt, that by the leaven was spiritually meant all manner of malice and wickedness, whatever tends to mar the simplicity and corrupts the purity of the people of God—from which, therefore, the symbolical offerings that represented the good works and holy lives of the worshipper must be kept separate (Matt. xvi. 6; Luke xii. 1; 1 Cor. v. 6-8; Gal. v. 9).—The prohibition of honey is variously understood; and is very commonly regarded as interdicted for the same reason substantially which excluded leaven, as being both in itself, and as an article of diet, when taken in any quantity, liable to become sour and corrupt. So Winer, Bahr, Baumgarten, and many others. But this seems rather far-fetched, and has little to countenance it in the references made to honey in the Old Testament. There it almost uniformly appears as of all things in nature the most sweet and gratifying to the natural taste—the fitting representative, therefore, of whatever is most pleasing to the flesh. Hence, as Jarchi says, "All sweet fruit was called honey;" and another Jewish authority, connecting the natural with the spiritual here, testifies that "the reason why honey was forbidden, was because evil concupiscence is sweet to a man as honey." (See Ainsworth on Lev. ii. 11.) As, therefore, the corrupting element of leaven was forbidden, to indicate the contrariety of everything spiritually corrupt to the pure worship and service of God, so here the most luscious production of nature was also prohibited, to indicate that what is most pleasing to the flesh is not pleasing to God, and must be renounced by his faithful servants. [12]

In regard to the ingredients with which the meat-offering was to be accompanied, there is scarcely any room for diversity of opinion. Salt is the great preservative of animal nature, opposing the tendency to putrefaction and decay. It was, therefore, well fitted to serve as a symbol of that moral and religious purity, which is essential to the true worship of God, and on which all stability and order ultimately depend. Hence, also, it is called "the salt of the covenant of God," being an emblem at once of the perpetuity of this, and of the principles of holy rectitude, the true elements of incorruption, for the maintenance of which it was established. When our Lord said to his disciples: "Ye are the salt of the earth," he wished them to know, that it was their part to exercise throughout society the same sanatary, healthful, purifying, and preservative influence, which salt did in the things of nature. And when again asserting, that every one should have "salt in themselves, and that every sacrifice must be salted with salt" (Mark ix. 49, 50), he intimates, that the property, which enters into the lives of God's people, and renders them a sort of spiritual salt, must be within, consisting in the possession of a good conscience toward God.—The oil, symbol of the grace of God's Spirit, with which the meat-offering was to be intermingled, implied that every good work, capable of being presented to God, must be inwrought by the Spirit of God. And that frankincense was to be put upon it, bespoke the connection between good works and prayer, and that all righteous action should be presented to God in the spirit of devotion. So that "the good works of the faithful are represented by the oil, as prompted, quickened, and matured by the Holy Spirit—by the frankincense, as made acceptable and borne heavenwards in prayer—and by the salt, as incorruptible, perpetually abiding signs, and fruits of God's covenant of grace." [13]

Notes

1. The whole of this portion treats of the sin-offerings, and only at v. 14, does the law of the trespass-offering begin. The division of the chapters here is particularly unhappy. That the word trespass is sometimes used in the first part of the fifth chapter, arises from these two kinds of offering having much in common, and in particular from the circumstance that every sin for which a sin-offering was to be presented, might be called a trespass, in the sense meant by the original. But of this afterwards, under the trespass- offering.

2. On Atonement, 37th Note, where this point is very ably and satisfactorily argued; see also Hengstenberg on Ps. xix. 13, and Outran, de Sac. L. i. 13, § 4.

3. This explanation of the fat and adjoining parts, which is now generally adopted, we regard as much more natural and consistent than the one formerly maintained by most Christian divines, and supported by some Jewish authorities, viz. that the fat was the emblem of corruption, and the inward parts of the seat of human depravity. In that case, the whole inwards must always have been burnt, and especially the whole liver and the heart —which was not the case. Why not also the bowels as the seat of feeling and affection? But the interpretation went entirely on a wrong ground—when the animal was killed, the curse was abolished, the relative impurity gone—and not the worst, but the best was fittest to be given to the Lord.

4. The older, and indeed, most also of the recent typologists completely misunderstood this eating of the flesh of the sin-offering, regarding it as a kind of eating of the sin, and so bearing it, or making it their own. See for example, Gill on Lev. x. 17, Bush on jb, and ch. vi. 30; also Deyling, Obs. Sac. i. sect. 65, § 2. It was thought in this way to afford the best adumbration of Christ, whom the priests typified, being made a sin for his people, or taking their guilt upon his own person and bearing it away. But it proceeds upon a wrong foundation, and utterly confounds the proper relation of things: the flesh as holy, and appointed to be eaten, must have represented the accept- ableness or completeness of the sacrifice, not the sinfitlness of the sin atoned. Kurtz, Mos. Opfer, p. 182, 183. By this view also the correspondence is best preserved between the sin-offering and Christ. For, as soon as he completed his offering by bearing the penalty of death, the relative impurity was gone; he was immediately treated as the Holy One and the Just; his spirit passed into glory, and even his body was preserved as a sacred thing and treated with honour, providentially kept from violence, sought for and received by the rich among the people, and committed to the tomb with the usages of an honourable burial. Properly, Christ's exaltation began immediately after his death.

5. The same fundamental error here also pervades most of the typical interpretations, which generally proceed on the supposition of the flesh being still charged with sin, and very commonly regard the consuming of it with fire as representing, either the intense suffering of Christ, or the personal sufferings of the lost hereafter. Besides going on a wrong supposition, this notion is still farther objectionable on account of Its deriving the idea of suffering from what was absolutely incapable of feeling it. The dead carcase was unconscious alike both of pain and pleasure; and then, as it was entirely consumed, if referring to Christ, it must have signified his absolutely perishing under the curse,—if to the lost sinner, his annihilation by the sufferings.—The reference made in Heb. xiii. 11, to the burning of the carcase of the sin-offerings without the camp, is in perfect accordance with the explanation given above. "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin (i, e. the sin-offerings), are burned without the camp; wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate; let us, therefore," &c. It is rather an allusion to the rite than an explicit and proper interpretation of it. The real city, to which God's people belong, and out of which Christ suffered, is heaven, as the inspired writer, indeed, intimates in v. 14. But the overruling providence of God so ordered matters, that there should be an image of this in the place of Christ's suffering as compared with the earthly Jerusalem. In his case it was designed to be a mark of infamy, to make him suffer without the gate— a sign that he could not be the Messiah. But viewed in reference to the ancient type, it proved rather the reverse, as in addition to all the proper and essential marks of agreement between the two, it served to provide even a formal and external resemblance. Though the bodies of those sin-offerings were burnt without the camp, they were still a holy of holies to the Lord; they did not on that account become a polluted thing; and Christ's having, in like manner, suffered without the gate, though certainly designed by men to exhibit him as an object of ignominy and shame, did not render him the less the holy child of God, whose blood could fitly be taken into the highest heavens. But if he suffered himself to be cast out, that he might bear our doom, it surely would ill-become us to be unwilling to go out and bear his reproach. This is the general idea; but the passage is rather of the hortatory than the explanatory kind, and passes so rapidly from one point to another, that to press each particular closely would be to make it yield a false and inconsistent meaning.

6. Mosaische Opfer. p. 192.

7. This view of the trespass-offering is now generally concurred in, also by Hengstenberg in his last treatise, Mos. Op. p. 21, as well as by Bahr; Kurtz, and others.

8. Outram, de Sac. i. c. x. § 5.

9. Kurtz, Mosaische Opfer, p. 138-9. The view given above is substantially the same also with that of Scholl, Hengstenberg, Baumgarten, and in its leading features was already given by Outram, i. 11, § 1. Bahr differs on some points, and is far, indeed, from being a safe guide in any of the sacrifices.

10. Symbolik, ii. p. 379-80.

11. Bib. Cyclop. art. Leaven.

12. The prohibition of leaven and honey was only for the usual meat-offering, and did not apply to the first-fruits, as the first-fruits of everything had to he presented to the Lord; hence the wave-loaves were leavened, Lev. xxiii. 17, and honey is mentioned among the first-fruits presented in 2 Chron. xxxi. 5. These, however, did not come upon the altar, but were only presented to the Lord, and given to the priests,.

13. Kurtz, Mos. Opfer, p. 102. Compare also what was said above on the shewbread, Sec. vi.