Law of the Offerings #4b
The Sin-offering in typology
by Andrew Jukes SIN-OFFERING: (3.) The third peculiarity we may note in the Sin-offering is, that it was an offering for trespass (chap.4:3,21,24,33, compared with chap.5:13,19, and 6:2,6). This distinction, like all the rest which God has recorded, is full of instruction and of comfort to our souls. It is as definite, too, as any of the other differences which we have dwelt upon. The want of apprehension respecting it only arises from our so little knowing either what man is, or what God is. With our shortsightedness, our inability to see beyond the surface, we naturally look at what man does rather than at what he is; and while we are willing to allow that he does evil, we perhaps scarcely think that he is evil. But God judges what we are as well as what we do; our sin, the sin in us; as much as our trespasses. In His sight sin in us, our evil nature, is as clearly seen as our trespasses, which are but the fruit of that nature. He needs not wait to see the fruit put forth. He knows the root is evil, and so will be the buddings. (This idea - of an evil nature - just wanting to go and do evil ways - is not necessarily so. Job was perhaps the most righteous man who ever lived except for Jesus the Christ. Even God said he was righteous and would find no fault in him but that he had never really seen the Holiness of the true God, hence had never really come to see that comparing himself with God, he was nothing. This he did come to see in chapter 42 of the book of Job. A child is born "neutral" - neither knowing good or evil [see Deut.1:39], and so with the correct guidance in the way of the Lord, does not have to show ANY "root of evil" that some claim is automatically "within" a person, even a child. Samuele would be a fine example. Given to serve the Lord, in the Tabernacle of God and under the Priesthood of God - as a very young child, never had this evil nature "ruling or controlling him." This does NOT mean he was sinless, no, not at all, for Paul was inspired to say that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God, but it does show that the moral free-choice nature, that we have, does NOT have to RULE or DOMINATE us, in evil ways. We can if within a certain "godly" environment, produce from a young age, much good fruit, as obviously Job and Samuele did. EVEN JESUS SAID, Yes it is looking at the heart as mankind would see it, that some from their upbringing, have what we might say is a good heart. So it would have been with Job and Samuel. Yet all have to one degree or another sin within as Paul pointed out in Romans 7 etc. - Keith Hunt) Now the distinction between the Sin and Trespass offerings is just this: - the one is for sin in us, the other for the fruits of it. And a careful examination of the particulars of the offerings is all that is needed to make this manifest. Thus in the Sin-offering no particular act of sin is mentioned, but a certain person is seen standing confessedly as a sinner: in the Trespass-offering certain acts are enumerated, and the person never appears. In the Sin-offering I see a person who needs atonement, offering an oblation for himself as a sinner: in the Trespass-offering I see certain acts which need atonement, and the offering offered for these particular offenses. The details of the offerings, as we examine them, will bring all this before us most remarkably. (The sin-offering then would be for someone especially like Job, who had it would seem just about no outward faults or trespasses. Job over and over enumerates to those talking to him, his righteous ways and acts. Even his mind he kept a close check upon. In one section he tells how he made a covenant with his mind not to even look upon a woman in a wrong way. But Job was still a sinner for he had the sin of self-righteousness and never having come to really see himself next to a Holy and Perfect God - Job still needed the SIN-offering. When he then applied it so to speak, the sin-offering, then he could say the words he said in chapter 42:1-6 of his book. It can be hard sometimes for some who are raised in a "godly Christian home" and have never experienced being on "the wild side" as we say, to come to realize they are still sinners, and need the SIN-offering. For starters, how many of such individuals can even come close to being like a Job, in conduct and in the mind - none I would say - Job was very unique. Hence if "righteous people" "good people" as they have been raised from childhood, will meditate, they will soon find out they are in much need of the SIN-offering in their lives - Keith Hunt) Of course, in the Sin-offering, though the man is seen rather than his acts, proof must needs be brought that he is a sinner. But let it be noticed that this is done, not by the enumeration of certain trespasses, but simply by a reference to the law; which, though no particular transgression is mentioned, is said to have been neglected or broken (chap.4:2,13,14,22,27, etc.). Be it noticed, no particular act is mentioned, though of course it is by particular acts that sin in us is shewn; but the particular acts are not seen in the Sin-offering, for the object is to shew sin, not trespass. And therefore, though it was needful to shew sin, and in doing so to refer to the commandment as exposing it, yet any definite act of trespass is not seen here: for it is "an offering for SIN," not an offering for TRESPASS. In the Trespass-offering, on the other hand, it is exactly the reverse. We have nothing but one detail after another of particular wrongs and offenses; the first class being of wrongs done against God, the other of wrongs against our neighbour. And here, by the way, let me call attention to a point incidentally brought before us respecting the Sin-offering, namely, that the sin was brought out "by the commandment," as it is said, "If he shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments" (verse 2, etc.)..... The law entered (this is the Law Covenant given to Israel under Moses - Keith Hunt) and it proved man a sinner (it AMPLIFIED and REALLY hit home, put in technicolor, we may say, what SIN was, and taught that we are sinners within in some way, even though outwardly we may look very prefect as Job did - Keith Hunt) ... But grace has done what law could not do; grace brought One "in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin" (Rom.8:3) to save us. The truth is, the law given by Moses was given neither to make nor prove man holy; but rather to prove us, what God ever since the fall has seen us, in ourselves sinners and only sinners. Yet how has Satan beguiled man here also: he would have us to prove ourselves holy by that which God gave to prove us sinners. But to return to the distinction between the Sin and Trespass-offering: - the one was for sin in our nature, the other for the fruits of it. In the Sin-offering, the atonement is seen not for trespasses the fruits of sin, but for sin itself within us. I would that all God's children saw this. Sure I am, - and the type proves it, - that many know the Trespass-offering who have but very imperfect views of Christ as Sin-offering. I do not now speak of the unconverted: with them acts of trespass are the only things discernible: sin in them is generally utterly disbelieved; at all events its guilt is always unfelt, unrecognized. With the young Christian, too, but just awakened, how much less perception is there of sin than trespass: he has done this evil, or that evil, or the other; he scarcely has learnt as yet that in himself he is evil. But look at the man who has somewhat grown in grace; not only what he has done; but what he is, is his sorrow. With such it is not so much this or that act of trespass, which leaves the question of guilt on the conscience: but it is the constant sense of indwelling evil, and that "when we would do good, evil is present with us." This or that particular act of iniquity we have confessed, it is past, and we believe it pardoned: but this ever-remaining, ever- struggling sin within us, it is this more than ought else that burdens us. True, "the Spirit in our hearts cries Abba, Father," and "the Spirit in us lusteth against the flesh;" but we find that all this instead of improving the flesh only manifests it, and shews how it "lusteth against the Spirit" (Gal.5:17). To those who are thus painfully learning what they are, what joy to know Christ died for this as well as for trespasses; and that this indwelling sin, as much as our acts of wickedness, was equally confessed and put away by His sacrifice. Nay, had we not been suffering under this very evil, had we been without this sin, He would not have offered a Sin-offering. It was because we were this that He offered; and because He offered, we who trust Him are saved. (The above was so true of Job. He could look at his outward conduct, even his words of mouth, and even his thoughts, and could find no place where he fell short. Why, at this point even God agreed Job was one of a kind in the earth, "perfect and upright man, one that feareth God, and turns away from evil" - Job 1:8 - yet Job was a sinner. In all his righteous upbringing, in all his wonderful conduct in life and towards fellow humanity, and a certain form of what we would call "Christianity" today, Job was a sinner. He had never come to see that compared to a holy and perfect God, all his righteousness was but as filthy rags. He still needed to apply the SIN-offering, to come to understand the sin-offering we can say. He finally did, praise the Lord, and we then have his humble words as recorded in Job 42:1-6 - Keith Hunt) Oh, how little is this apprehended, and, consequently, how little peace is there among saints! Many seem to think that the Spirit's work in revealing to them their sinfulness (He shall convince of sin - John 16:8) should be an excuse for unbelief and doubting; that because God in His mercy has shewn them what they are, sinners, therefore they are not safe. To such I say, - Are we saved by Christ as sinners, or are we saved by being sinless and holy? made righteous - forgiven - Keith Hunt] not by the Spirit's work in us, but by Christ's work for us. The Lord grant us to know more of the Spirit's work in us; but after all, this is not the ground of peace. The type is clear on this: and if it shews anything, it chews that the discovery of sin should not shake the believer's faith of pardon; for faith sees not only that we have sinned, but that the "Holy One" has been made sin for us. To doubt our pardon because we see our sin is just weakness of faith in the Offering: it proves how low is our estimate of Christ, how limited our confidence in God's love and faithfulness. Do I then speak lightly of sin? God forbid! If we want to know how hateful it is, we have but to look at the Sin-offering; to see the Holy One of God, His beloved Son, for sin cast out and broken. Our sin is indeed hateful to God, but it does not alter the value of Christ's Offering. Our sin indeed is most hateful; but I ask still, has not the Sin-offering been offered? If it has not, then we may mourn for ever, for we can never blot out one single trespass. But if it has been offered, what are all our doubts but aspersions on the value of Christ's Offering? Whatever plea we have for them, - be it humility, or fear of presumption, or the amount and evil of our sinfulness, - God judges such pleas for doubt as unbelief, and as a questioning of what He testifies of Jesus. God indeed never forgets we are sinners: we may forget it, He never can: but He never forgets the Offering of Christ, and that by that Offering the Church's sins are cancelled. And the blood of the Sin-offering which is taken within the veil, by the High Priest on the great day of Atonement, remains there where none can approach to hide it, ever present before the eye of God. And even when through the uncleanness of the camp or the wilderness we seem to lose sight of it, it remains there before Him, a witness that sin has been judged, and that the way is open for sinners into the holiest. "He by Himself purged our sins" (Heb.1:3) Yea, He sat not down again in glory till He had purged them. What certainty of salvation is there here for those who trust in Jesus? It is no future work, no promised work, no work to be yet accomplished, but a finished work which is our sure foundation. "He bore our sins:" this is God's testimony: and having borne them "He was raised because we were justified" (Rom.4:25 "He was delivered, because of our sins; and raised because of our justification"). Had we not been justified, Christ could not have been raised. His resurrection, and ours in Him, is the proof that we are justified. If sin has not been already borne, how shall it be borne? Is Christ to die again, is He to be again a Sin-offering? "Christ was ONCE offered to hear the sins of many" (Heb.9:28), and "now there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin" (Heb.10:18,26). If therefore He has not borne our sins, He can never bear them. If He has borne them, why have we not peace? If we think that the Sin-offering once offered on Calvary has not met all sin and every trespass, whatsoever remains, be it small or great, can never be propitiated, never pardoned. But Jesus for His people bore not some sins, but all sins: and "by Him all that believe are justified from all things" (Acts 13:39). "He hath forgiven us ALL trespasses" (Col.2:13). The Cross has cancelled all. May the Lord more fully reveal these things to His chosen ones, that their rejoicing may be, not Yea and Nay, but Yea and Amen. Such is the general character of the Sin-offering, as elicited by comparing the particulars in which it stands in contrast to the other Offerings. We now proceed to consider: THE VARIETIES IN THIS OFFERING, which shew the different apprehensions which may be entertained of this particular aspect of Christ's sacrifice. And HERE there is VERY GREAT variety, far exceeding what we find in any of the preceding offerings. In the Sin-offering there is not only variety seen in the animal offered, and in the details which are given as to the mode of offering it: but a good deal of variety is noticed as to the person of the offerer, a peculiarity not to be found in any of the other offerings. Besides the varieties, are minor ones, in reference to the blood, the fat, the body, and lastly the name, of the offering. Each of these varieties as they are recorded by the Lord, so will they be found worthy of our attentive meditation. I shall do little more here than mark some of the chief outlines, and may the Lord make His people to profit by them. The FIRST variety, then, which is seen in the Sin-offering is the difference in the ANIMAL offered. In the Burnt-offering we observed a similar variety; the purport of which is, of course, the same in both cases. There is, however, far greater variety in the different grades of the Sin-offering than in the Burnt-offering; thus teaching us that Christ's offering for sin maybe apprehended with far greater measures of difference than Christ as Burnt-offering. In the Burnt-offering, the offering though varied was limited, either to a bullock, a lamb, a goat, or turtle-doves. Here in the Sin-offering we have several other grades, ("A male kid," chapter 4:23 - "a female kid," 4:28 - "a female lamb," 4:32 - ending at last with "flour," verse 11) coming down at last to a sin-offering composed of simple "flour." The last grade is this: - "And if he be not able to bring two, turtle-doves or two young pigeons; then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering." We have already considered the import of these varied emblem; I need not therefore do more than just advert to them. Suffice it to say that here, as in the Burnt-offerings, they shew us the different characters under which the Offering of Christ may be apprehended by us. In the Sin-offering as in the Burnt-offering, one saint has one view, another, another view respecting the character of the offering. One sees the willing labour, another the submission, another the innocence, of the Offering which is yielded to Jehovah. But in the Sin-offering we have still lower views, the lowest of which is, as we have observed, very like a Meat-offering. The solution is easy. As in the preceding offerings we found, without exception, that there was an indistinctness, almost like confusion, in the lower views, - a mixing up of one aspect with another, while the distinct thought of each was more or less lost sight of; so is it here: in its lowest grade, (the one we are considering,) the Sin- offering is seen very nearly as a Meat-offering. The thought is almost that of Meat-offing, yet it is seen as offered for sin: this is distinctly noticed: though "of flour," "it is a Sin-offering (chap.5:11). How exactly this peculiarity in the type describes the way in which some apprehend the Offering, will be best understood by those who, going from strength to strength, have learnt how partially Christ may be apprehended, even by those who love Him. Some see the pain and sorrow Christ had in service, the grinding, the bruising, the scorching, of the Meat-offering: and they think that this was His sin-bearing: they cannot distinguish between the trials of service and the curse. They see indeed a life of suffering, but they do not see One accursed for them. Nevertheless, they see a suffering One offered, and though they lose many points in His Offering, they still see it as offered for sin. Yet how much is lost, in such partial views, of the design and character of the work of Jesus. (2.) The next variety we may notice is in the person offering: we have the priest, the congregation, the ruler, and the common Israelite. First in order we have the Sin-offering for the priest! (chap.4:3-12), then the Sin-offering for the whole congregation; (chap.4:13021) then the Sin-offering for a ruler; (chap.4:22-26) then for one of the common people; (chap.4:27-35) and lastly, the Sin-offering for particular sins; (chap.5:1-13) in which last the person of the offerer is lost sight of, and the particular act for which he offers more clearly seen. This last is very nearly akin to the Trespass-offering, and is indeed called indifferently by both names of Sin and Trespass (chap.5:6-9). In this last class, as in the lowest classes of the other offerings, we get the lowest view which can be taken of this particular aspect of the Offering. But what is the import of this variety in the person offering? We have only to remember what these varieties are. They are, as we have sufficiently seen, only different measures of apprehension. In the Burnt-offering, the Meat-offering, and the Peace-offering, we have already become familiar with the varieties in the Offering, and have seen that they represent the different apprehensions which may be, and are, formed of its value and character. So in the Sin-offering, the varieties which are noted of the Offerer, in like manner represent the different apprehensions which are formed of the person who offered. Of course the Offerer here, as elsewhere, is Christ, man under the law, our representative. As such He is here seen confessing sin; but though seen as Offerer in this aspect, He may yet be seen very differently. For example, in the first case the offerer is apprehended as "priest," a person who stands the representative of a family or congregation. In other cases the offerer is seen as "one of the common people," one who stands simply the representative of an individual. In the lowest cases of all, the person of the offerer is altogether lost sight of, neither individual nor congregation are seen, and the sin for which he suffers is almost the only thing apprehended. But let us note here a little more particularly, the exact difference which is intended by these separate views of the Offerer; and that we may see the contrast more clearly, let us for a moment set side by side the higher and lower grades of the Sin-offering. In the first class the offerer is the "anointed priest;" in the next, "the whole congregation;" in a lower grade (how great the contrast) the offerer is "one of the common people." "The anointed priest," and "the whole congregation," are types familiar to the youngest Christian. The "anointed priest," as head of the priestly family, and the appointed mediator between God and man, stands the type of Jesus as head of a priestly family, and also as mediator to God's chosen Church. In this class, Christ, as Offerer of the Sin-offering, is seen either as Head of the Church, or as its appointed Mediator. His Offering is apprehended, not merely as the atonement for this or that individual, but as affecting a whole family or people. In the next class, "the congregation" offer. This congregation represents the Church. Here we lose sight of the priest as under the guilt of sin with Israel; but with this exception, the congregation's offering is almost identical with the preceding one. But the point to be especially noted in both these cases, and where they differ so remarkably from the others, is that the sin, and atonement made, is seen, not as affecting an individual merely, but the whole of Israel. Now, mark the contrast. In the lower classes the offerer is a private individual, "one of the common people:" and his sin, and the atonement made for it, is seen as affecting only himself. Those saints who have the highest views of the Sin-offering, see it as affecting not themselves merely, but the Priest and Israel. Those with lower views only see it for themselves: the High Priest's or Israel's interest in it is unseen and forgotten. Here then is the difference. The apprehension some have of Christ as Offerer of the Sin-offering is One who in His own person represented the whole Church; the Church being seen either as the family of the Priest, or as the whole congregation of Israel. Others again see Him as head of a tribe, "the ruler;" in this case the unity of the Church is lost sight of. Others, far more numerous; never see anything of this. Christ as Offerer of the Sin-offering is viewed as having stood for them individually. Others again, lower still in the scale of intelligence, see only that He stood for sin. These stages in the apprehension and experience of Christians, will be familiar to those who know much of that experience. Such is the variety respecting the person of the Offerer, and such too, if I mistake not, the purport of it. We have only glanced at the outlines, but the details are equally full of interest; requiring indeed a certain measure of intelligence to apprehend them, yet if apprehended, precious to our souls. And just as every difference of the Offering, - the difference, I mean, whether it was a bullock, a lamb, or turtle-dove, - all brought before us some feature of Christ's work or character, in which both God and His saints saw perfectness; so here, in each of these varieties in the Offerer, there is some fresh thought or view of Christ's person for us to glory in. I will not, however, enter further into the consideration of them, not from a doubt of their value, but from a sense of the length to which they would carry me. I only pray that we may be led to feel our need of knowing more of Him of whom these things testify. (3.) A third variety in the Sin-offering has reference to "the blood." In the higher classes the blood was sprinkled on the incense altar; (chap.4:7,18) in the lower classes it was not taken into the holy place, but sprinkled upon the brazen altar in the court (chap.4:25,30,34). ................ TO BE CONTINUED THE VARIETIES OF THE SIN-OFFERING MAY SEEM TO GET SOMEWHAT FINE AND COMPLICATED; IT IS SHOWING THAT ALL SIN, HUMANLY SPEAKING GREAT [LIKE THEFT] OR SMALL [LIKE A WHITE LIE OR DELIBERATE EXAGGERATION]; IS ALL SIN THAT NEEDS TO BE FORGIVEN THROUGH THE PERFECT SINLESS OFFERER FOR US, JESUS SACRIFICE OF DEATH FOR US, OR IN OUR STEAD - Keith Hunt
|
No comments:
Post a Comment