BY READING THIS BOOK YOU WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND THE LAWS OF OFFERINGS LIKE NEVER BEFORE. SO DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS BOOK - Keith Hunt
Law of the Offerings #1b
Burnt Offering
by Andrew Jukes THE LAW OF THE OFFERINGS .....And this measure of apprehension may vary, though the work apprehended be the same. Thus, one Christian, with little knowledge of his place in Jesus, sees himself as still in the house of bondage; but there, hiding within the blood-sprinkled door-posts, he waits with girded loins to depart from Egypt. Another by faith sees further, even to the experience of the wilderness, knowing that Pharaoh is judged, and the Red Sea behind him. A third sees further still, even into the land, and knows himself even now over Jordan.; In a word: one sees Exodus, another Numbers, another Joshua. Yet the reality, though differently apprehended is the same - salvation through the blood of Jesus. The difference is in our apprehension of it, and it is this difference that these books, if regarded typically, are so full of. It is, I believe, precisely similar in these types of Christ in His work as offering. The different offerings give us the different aspects of His offering; the different grades in the same offering, the different apprehensions of the same aspect. The truth is, that Christ's work is so manifold, and has so many different aspects, and each aspect maybe so differently apprehended, according to the different measure of light in the believer, that one type or one history, however full, can never fully describe or represent Him. We see this unquestionably in the Gospels, in reference to the person of the Lord. One Gospel does not shew out all the glories of His person the subject requires four distinct presentations. The Gospels are not mere supplementary narratives of Christ in one relation. Each gives a separate view of Him. Not of His work in saving - this we get in the Epistles - but of Himself, His perfect character, His blessed person. I do not here enter into the distinctions of the Gospels, though few subjects of inquiry are more blessed, further than to refer to them in illustration, of our subject, as shewing the way in which the Word is written. Take but Luke and John. In their narratives, as in the offerings, in each, as others have observed, we have a distinct aspect of Jesus. Luke gives Him as Son of Adam: John as Son of God. In the former of these, therefore, I read His "genealogy," His "conception" of Mary, His "birth" at Bethlehem; His "increase in wisdom and stature," and His "subjection" to His earthly parents; His "baptism," His "temptation" in the wilderness, and His "anointing with the Holy Ghost." In John not a word about matters of this sort, but "the Word which was with God, and was God." Take any event narrated by the two Evangelists, not to say the general tone and tenor of their writings, and see how perfectly each narrative will be in keeping with the distinct character of each particular Gospel. Take, for instance, a scene familiar to most of us, the agony in the garden of Gethsemane. In Luke (chap.22:42) we see Jesus, the suffering "Son of Adam," in all points, sin excepted, tempted as we are; saying, "Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from me." An angel appears strengthening Him. In an agony He prays more fervently. He seems to seek sympathy from His disciples: great drops of blood fall to the ground. Now turn to the same scene in John, and mark the striking contrast. Not a word about His prayer or agony; not a word about strength ministered to Him by an angel; not a word of His drops of blood, or of His apparent longing for sympathy in His trial. Throughout He is "the Word " incarnate. "Jesus knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and said, Whom seek ye?" "As soon as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground." Here, instead of weakness and agony, is power appalling His adversaries. Then again, instead of seeking sympathy from His disciples, He is seen rather as possessing the power to protect them. "If therefore ye seek me, let these go their way; that the saying might be fulfilled which He spake, 'Of those whom thou bast given me I have lost none.'" Some saints see nothing of this. Like Israel in Egypt, the only truth for them is redemption. Little distinction can they see either in the work or offices of Jesus. Still less do they see of His character or person. But among those who do see these things, how vast may be the difference of spiritual intelligence. It is this distinction, I cannot doubt, which is brought out, as the subject demands, in the varieties of the Offerings. But it is time that we turn to THE BURNT-OFFERING. Let us examine it, first, in its contrast to the other offerings; and then; secondly, in its varieties. I. IN ITS CONTRAST TO THE OTHER OFFERINGS: at least four points may be enumerated. It was, (1.) A sweet savour offering, and, (2.) Offered for acceptance; in these two particulars it differed from the Sin-offerings, (3.) Thirdly, it was the offering of a life: in this it differed from the Meat-offering,(4.) Fourthly, it was wholly burnt; here it differed from all, and particularly from the Peace-offering. (1.) First, it was a sweet savour offering: "a sweet savour unto Jehovah." (verses 9,13,17). I have already adverted to the difference between the offerings, and that they were divided into two great and distinctive classes, FIRST, the sweet savour offerings, which were all, as we shall find, oblations for acceptance; and SECONDLY, those offerings which were not of a sweet savour, and which were required as an expiation for sin. The FIRST class, the sweet savour offerings - comprising the Burnt-offering, the Meat-offering. and the Peace-offering, were offered on the brazen ALTAR which stood in the Court of the Tabernacle. The SECOND class - the Sin and Trespass-offerings, were NOT consumed on the altar: some of them were burnt on the earth without the camp; others the priest ate, having first sprinkled the blood for atonement. In the FIRST class, sin is not seen or thought of: it is the faithful Israelite giving a sweet offering to Jehovah. In the SIN-offerings it is just the reverse: it is an offering charged with the sin of the offerer. Thus, in the FIRST class - that is, the Burnt-offering, the Meat-offering, and the Peace-offering - the offerer came for acceptance as a worshipper. In the SECOND class, in the Sin and Trespass offerings, he came as a sinner to pay the penalty of sin and trespass. In EITHER case the offering was WITHOUT BLEMISH; for the Sin-offerings required perfectness in the victim as much as the Burnt-offering. But in the ONE the offerer appears as man in perfectness, and in his offering stands the trial of fire, that is, God's searching holiness; and accepted as a fragrant savour, all ascends a sweet offering to Jehovah. In the OTHER, the offerer appears as a sinner, and in his offering bears the penalty due to his offenses. Now the Burnt-offering was of the FIRST class, a sweet-smelling savour; as such in perfect contrast with the Sin-offerings. We are not here, therefore, to consider Christ as the Sin-bearer, but as MAN IN PERFECTNESS MEETING GOD IN HOLINESS. The thought here is not, "God hath made Him to be sin for us," (2 Cor.5:21) but rather, "He loved us, and gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour" (Eph.5:2). Jesus, blessed be His name, both in the Burnt-offering and Sin-offering, stood as our representative. When He obeyed, He obeyed "for us:" when He suffered, He suffered "for us." But in the Burnt-offering He appears for us, not as our sin-bearer, but as man offering to God something which is most precious to Him. We have here what we may in vain search for elsewhere: man giving to God what truly satisfies Him. The thought here is not that sin has been judged, and that man in Christ has borne the judgment: this would be the Sin-offering. The BURNT-offering shews us man going even further, and giving to God an offering so pleasing to Him that the sweet savour of it satisfies Him, and will satisfy Him for ever. With our experience of what man is, it seems wondrous that he should ever perfectly perform his part to God-ward. But in Christ man has so performed it: His offering was "a sweet savour unto the Lord." Here, then, is the FIRST thought presented to us in the Burnt-offering: God finds food, that is, satisfaction, in the offering. In other oblations we have Christ as the faithful Israelite, by His offering feeding and satisfying the priest. HERE He is seen satisfying Jehovah. The altar is "the table of the Lord:" whatever was put upon it was "the food of God" (Lev. 21:6,8,17,22, margin). The fire from heaven, emblem of God's holiness, consumes the offering; and it all ascends as sweet incense before Him ( the word used for the Burnt-offering, literally 'ascending' is the same as that used for burning incense. The burning of the Sin-offering is expressed by an entirely different words). And just as in the Burnt-offering the fire from heaven fell and consumed the sacrifice of the altar - a pledge to him who offered it that there was something in the offering which God found pleasure in, so, typically speaking, did God find food in the unblemished sacrifice of Jesus. His perfect spotlessness and devotedness was a sweet feast to the God of heaven. Here was something according to His taste. Here, at least, He found satisfaction. We too often omit this thought when thinking of the offering of Jesus. We think of His death; but little of His life. We look but little into His ways. Yet it is His ways throughout His pilgrimage, even to the way He laid down His life, which God so delights in. Our views are so selfish and meagre. If we are saved, we seek no further. Most saints, therefore, have very little thought of Christ's offering, except as offered for sin, "delivered for our offenses." God, however, puts the Burnt-offering FIRST: for this was peculiarly His portion in Jesus. And just in proportion as a believer grows in grace, we shall find him turning intelligently to the Gospels; from them adding to the knowledge he has of the work of Jesus, greater knowledge of His ways and person; with earnest desire to know more of the Lord Himself, and how in all things He was "a sweet savour to Jehovah." (2.) But the Burnt-offering was not only "a sweet savour;" it was also an offering "for acceptance," that is, it was offered to God to secure the acceptance of the offerer. So we read, I give the more correct translation, "he shall offer it for his acceptance." To understand this, we must recur for a moment to the position Christ occupied as offerer. He stood for man as man under the law, and, as under law, His acceptance depended on His perfectness. God had made man upright; but he had sought out many inventions. One dispensation after another had tried whether, under any circumstances, man could render himself acceptable to God. But age after age passed away: no son of Adam was found who could meet God's standard. The law was man's last trial, whether, with a revelation of God's mind, he could or would obey it. But this trial, like the others, ended in failure: "there was none righteous, no, not one." How, then, was man to be reconciled to God? How could he be brought to meet God's requirements? One way yet remained, and the Son of God accepted it. "He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took the seed of Abraham;" and in His person, once and for ever, man was reconciled to God. In effecting this, Jesus, as man's representative, took man's place, where He found man, under law; and there, in obedience to the law, He offered, "for His acceptance." * In the common version these words are translated, "He shall offer it of his own voluntary will." (Ver. 3.) The Septuagint, the Chaldee version, the Vulgate, and the Targum Hierosolymitanum, all render this, "to be accepted;" which is confirmed by ver.4: "it shall be accepted for him." The words (Hebrew given here - Keith Hunt) are, and I may add, that the same expression, where it occurs in Lev. xxxiii 11, is in our version also, as well as in those referred to, translated "to be accepted." The question was, could man bring an offering so acceptable as to satisfy God? Jesus as man did bring such an offering. He offered Himself, and His offering was accepted. Even with our poor thoughts of what Jesus was to the Father, it seems wondrous that He, the Blessed One, should ever have thus offered "for His acceptance." But this was only one of the many steps of humiliation which He took, as our representative, "for us." And this explains the word "atonement" in the fourth verse: "It shall be accepted for him to make atonement." These words might suggest to some the thought of sin in connexion with the Burnt-offering. Such a view of the case would be erroneous. The word "atonement" here, as elsewhere, in itself means simply making satisfaction: and satisfaction may be of two sorts, depending on that which we have to satisfy. We may satisfy a loving and holy requirement, or satisfy offended justice. Either would be satisfaction: the BURNT-offering is the former; the Sin-offering the latter. And that the atonement of the Sin-offering is of a very different nature from the atonement here spoken of in the Burnt-offering, will at once be seen by any who will compare what is said of the atonement of the Burnt-offering and of the Sin-offerings: for in the Sin-offering we find it expressly added that the atonement is an "atonement for the offerer's sin." (* See chap.iv.20,26,31; chap.v.6,10,13,16,18; chap.vi.7; where in every case the atonement of the Sin-offerings is expressly connected with sin. There is nothing like this in the atonement of the Burnt-offering, chap.i.4). This is never said in the Burnt-offering: on the contrary, it is said to be "offered for acceptance." The atonement of the Burnt-offering is the satisfaction which God receives from the perfectness which the offerer presents to Him. The atonement of the Sin-offering is expiatory: the offerer by his offering satisfies offended justice. In the Sin-offering the atonement is for sin; the offering, therefore, is not presented for acceptance; but as seen charged with the sin of the offerer, is cast out, the victim of a broken law: thenceforth, as under the imputation of sin, and regarded as unfit for a place among God's people, it is cast out from the midst of Israel, and burnt without the camp. In the BURNT-offering the ATONEMENT is made by one who comes as a worshipper WITHOUT SIN, and in his sinless offering offers for acceptance that which is received as a sweet savour by the Lord. Man is under trial, indeed, and offering for acceptance: but he is seen accepted, as having satisfied God. I need not say that but One ever did this perfectly, and He gave Himself, and was accepted for us. (3.) The third point peculiar to the BURNT-offering was, that a life was offered on the altar: "He shall kill the bullock before the Lord, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar." In this particular the BURNT-offering stands distinguished from the MEAT-offering, which in OTHER respects it CLOSELY resembles. In the Meat offering, however, the offering was "corn, oil, and frankincense;" here the offering is a LIFE. The right understanding of the precise import of this particular will help us to the distinct character of the Burnt-offering. Life was that part in creation which from the beginning God claimed as His. As such - as being His claim on His creatures - it stands as an emblem for what we owe Him. What we owe to God is our duty to Him. And this, I doubt not, is the thought here intended. Of course, the offering here, as elsewhere, is the body of Jesus, that body which He took, and then gave for us: but in giving God a life, in contradistinction to offering Him corn or frankincense, the peculiar thought is the fulfilment of the first table of the Decalogue. Thus the LIFE YIELDED is man's DUTY to God, and man here is seen perfectly giving it. Am I asked what man ever thus offered? I answer, none but One, "the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim.2:5). He alone of all the sons of Adam in perfectness accomplished all man's duty to Godward; He in His own blessed and perfect righteousness met every claim God could make upon Him. Again, I say. He did it "for us;" and we are "accepted in Him." (4.) The fourth and last feature peculiar to the BURNT-offering is, that it was WHOLLY BURNT on the altar. "The priest shall burn all upon the altar; to be a burnt sacrifice unto the Lord." In this particular the Burnt-offering differed from the Meat and Peace-offerings, in which a PART ONLY was burnt with fire; nor did it differ less from those offerings for Sin, which, though wholly burnt, were not burnt upon the altar. The import of this distinction is manifest, and in exact keeping with the character of the offering. Man's duty to God is not the giving up of one faculty, but the entire surrender of all. So Christ sums up the First Commandment - all the mind, all the soul, all the affections. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." I cannot doubt that the type refers to this in speaking so particularly of the parts of the Burnt-offering; for "the head," "the fat," "the legs," "the inwards," are all distinctly enumerated. "The head" is the well-known emblem of the thoughts; "the legs " the emblem of the walk; and "the inwards" the constant and familiar symbol of the feelings and affections of the heart. The meaning of "the fat" may not be quite so obvious, though here also Scripture helps us to the solution (Ps.xcii.10; xcii.14; cxix.70; Deut.xs.15). It represents the energy not of one limb or faculty, but the general health and vigour of the whole. In Jesus these were all surrendered, and all without spot or blemish. Had there been but one thought in the mind of Jesus which was not perfectly given to God: - had there been but one affection in the heart of Jesus which was not yielded to His Father's will; - had there been one step in the walk of Jesus which was taken not for God, but for His own pleasure; - then He could not have offered Himself or been accepted as "a whole burnt-offering to Jehovah:" But Jesus gave up all: He reserved nothing. All was burnt, all consumed upon the altar. I do not know that there is anything more remarkable than this in the perfect offering of our blessed Master. Everything He did or said was for God. From first to last self had no place: His Father's work, His Father's will, were everything. The first words recorded of Him as a child are, "I must be about my Father's business." His last words on the cross, "It is finished," proclaim how that business and that labour were fulfilled and cared for. So entirely was His whole life devoted to spend and be spent for His Father, that in reading the Gospels the thought scarce occurs to us that He could have had a will of His own. Yet Jesus was perfect man, and as such had a human will as we have. In one point only did it differ from ours: His will was always subject to His Father. As a man, His thoughts were human thoughts; His affections human affections. But how much of these did He reserve for self, for His own ease, or credit, or pleasure? What one act recorded of Him was for His own advancement? What one word which was not in entire devotedness to His Father? But it is vain to endeavour to describe His perfectness; words cannot express it: God only knows it. Of this, however, I am fully assured - the more we are in communion with God, the more we shall estimate it. Out of God's presence we see no beauty in Jesus: His very perfectness is so strange to our natural judgments. Had He been less devoted, we should have better understood Him. Nay, had His self-surrender been less complete, we should have valued it higher. Had He, instead of always refusing to be anything here, taken the glory of the world for a season, and then resigned it, we should probably have thought more of His humiliation in becoming the friend and companion of the poor. But so it was, and so it is still; the more humble, the more despised in man's eyes; the more faithful, the less accepted. But the Burnt-offering was for God's acceptance, not for man's. He at least could estimate the full value of the offering. Such was "the whole burnt-offering:" The entire surrender of self to God in everything. How utterly in contrast to what the world thinks wisdom; "for men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself." Nay, how utterly unlike anything which can be found even in believers. With us how many thoughts are there for self; for our ease, our pleasure, our interest. How much of our walk, how much of our affections, is consumed on anything rather than the altar? It was not so with the blessed Jesus. "With all His heart" He lived for God, for "the inwards" were all consumed: with "all His soul and with all His strength," for "the fat and head " were offered. His offering was not the surrender of one part, while He kept what He most valued for Himself. It was not the surrender of what cost nothing, or what cost but little, or what was comparatively worthless. "He gave Himself," in all His perfectness, and satisfied the heart of God. Such is the GENERAL ASPECT of the BURNT-offering, as distinguished from the other offerings. It was a sweet savour, an offering for acceptance, the offering of a life, and wholly burnt upon the altar. Let us now proceed to examine: 2. ITS VARIETIES. that is, the different measures of apprehension with which it may be seen. There were, then, three grades in the Burnt-offering. It might be "of the herd," (verse 3) or "of the flock," (verse 10) or " of fowls." (verse 14). These different grades gave rise to several varieties in the offering, the import of which we shall now consider. ............ TO BE CONTINUED JESUS WAS PERFECT IN HIS OFFERING OF SELF TO TH E FATHER, A SWEET FRAGRANT SMELL. JESUS CAME TO DO THE FATHER'S WILL. HE CAME NOT TO SAY HIS OWN WORDS BUT THE FATHER'S WORDS. HE CAME TO PERFORM THE FATHER'S WAY OF LIFE, WITH PERFECTNESS. THE FATHER SAID HE WAS WELL PLEASED WITH HIS SON. I WAS BLESSED WITH BEING GIVEN A GIFT WHEN I WAS 14 YEARS OLD. A LADY IN CHURCH GAVE ME A RED-LETTER NEW TESTAMENT, THE WORDS OF JESUS IN RED. I'D NEVER SEEN ONE, THEY WERE NEW IN 1956. WOW.... HOW I LOVED THAT NEW TESTAMENT. I WOULD READ SOME OF THE WORDS OF CHRIST EACH NIGHT BEFORE TURNING OFF THE LIGHT AND GOING TO SLEEP. I GOT TO KNOW THE WORDS AND PRACTICES OF JESUS SO WELL. WHAT JESUS SAID, WHAT JESUS DID, WHAT JESUS TAUGHT, WAS INGRAINED IN ME. IT WAS WITHOUT QUESTION THAT JESUS OBEYED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF THE FATHER. IT WAS WITHOUT QUESTION JESUS OBEYED THE 4TH COMMANDMENT; SAID THE SABBATH WAS MADE FOR MANKIND. SAID HE WAS LORD OVER THE SABBATH. HE TAUGHT HOW TO OBSERVE IT. HE SAID IN END TIME PROPHECY OF MATTHEW 24, THAT AT THE END TRIBULATION WOULD COME UPON HIS DESCIPLES, AND WHEN THEY HAD TO FLEE, TO PRAY IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH DAY. IT SEEMED TO ME TO BE VERY EASY TO READ THE WORDS OF JESUS, I THOUGHT ALL "CHRISTIANITY" WAS OBEYING THE 4TH COMMANDMENT. EVERYTHING SHUT DOWN ON SUNDAY; NO PRO SPORTS WAS DONE ON SUNDAY. IT WAS SIMPLE FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND "CHRISTIANITY" WAS OBSERVING THE WEEKLY SABBATH, WELL SO I THOUGHT. WHAT A SHOCK TO ME AT AGE 20 WHEN I LEARNT SUNDAY WAS NOT THE 7TH DAY BUT THE 1ST DAY OF THE WEEK. I WAS DUMB-STRUCK, I WAS SHATTERED. HOW ON EARTH I THOUGHT, COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED. I STUDIED IT ALL AND FOUND HOW THE CHURCH AT ROME MOVED FROM 7TH DAY WORSHIP TO 1ST DAY WORSHIP. AND SO IT IS TODAY........MOST "CHRISTIANS" KNOW THE TRUTH OF WHICH DAY IS THE REAL 7TH DAY SABBATH---- BUT AMAZINGLY FEW WILL CHANGE THEIR THOUGHTS AND WAY OF LIFE TO CONFORM TO OBSERVING THE 7TH DAY WEEKLY SABBATH OF THE 4TH COMMANDMENT. ONE REASON THEY DO NOT IS THEY DO NOT READ THE GOSPELS. THEY KNOW VERY LITTLE OF WHAT JESUS TAUGHT AND OBSERVED. THEY OUTWARDLY TALK ABOUT JESUS, DECLARE HIM AS SAVIOR, BUT WILL NOT FOLLOW HIM, WILL NOT BELIEVE HIS WORDS. JESUS WAS THE BURN-SACRIFICE OF PLEASANT FRAGRANCE TO THE ETERNAL GOD. HE CAME TO DO THE PERFECT WILL OF THE FATHER. HE CAME TO PREACH THE WORDS OF THE FATHER. HE CAME TO WALK THE PERFECT WAY OF THE FATHER. NOW YOU KNOW THE BURNT-OFFERING OF JESUS THE CHRIST. WILL YOU NOW BE ALSO THE BURNT OFFERING TO THE FATHER; A SWEET AND FRAGRANT SMELL OF YEALDING UP ALL TO THE WILL OF THE FATHER. Keith Hunt |
No comments:
Post a Comment