Leviticus

J. N. Darby.

<42004E> 7 {file section a.}

(Notes and Comments Vol. 2.)

Leviticus, though connected with Sinai, quod nota, in the wilderness of it, is spoken from the Tabernacle - this is its character. Then, after the offerings in order, of which sin-offering is special, the covenant and worship was founded on burnt-offering - sin-offering found to be needed, and then the law, manner of use and order of them; then comes Aaron's consecration, according to Exodus 28 and 29. In chapter 9 their hands are filled, but note here no blood is brought into the holy place for sin; though there might be evil to be atoned for, relationship is not yet supposed to be broken. But all went wrong; first in Nadab and Abihu, and then in not eating the people's sin-offering by the others, and though Moses was content, yet it altered all the order of approach. Then - though there had been failure - from chapters 11 to 15 inclusive, clean and unclean are to be discerned by the anointed, consecrated priests. Chapter 16 on the fault of Nadab and Abihu, etc., the necessity of reconciliation, and that the way into the holiest (Moses, the heavenly man, always went there) was not yet made manifest, was declared, and the manner of entrance there by Aaron prescribed in atonement. Thereon, i.e., after chapter 16, defiling wickednesses are gone through, connected with the people's relationship with God; this to chapter 20 inclusive.

Then the holiness of the priests in separatedness to God, and in approach to Him; then of the people's offerings. Chapter 23 contains the whole course of feasts, chiefly of joy, typical feasts, the history of the Lord's ways, the whole period of dispensation with them - a long gap, or interval left where the Church comes in. We have then what belongs to the holy place, save the altar of incense, which in effect was for the most Holy, the passing of the mind out of the holy place, i.e., we have the perfectness of the connection, of Christ's connection with Israel, and of the Spirit's (in this latter we know the Church has a place) - the double mystic perfection of 12 and 7. Twelve loaves, Christ's incarnate connection with Israel I believe, and then the sevenfold perfection of the Spirit shining on the candlestick that was of beaten gold (compare also Numbers 8:1-4) but here it was before the Lord. This is the full mystic perfection of Israel; for us the Lord has taken it up into a higher sense. Then the Word reverts to the terrible legal sanction of all on which it actually stood, noticing any connection with a Gentile, a profane person, and the spurious offspring. Then, having given the people's mystic place in God's design and purpose, with the sanction of their present standing in it, the Land's portion as God's is mentioned - the sabbaths and the jubilee, and the portion of the people as the Lord's servants in it; chapter 25:23 and 55. In chapter 26 His warnings and threatened dealings with them, as to the Land, first in it - then in turning them out of it - and restoration on Abraham's covenant, verse 42; this the Law. In chapter 27 are voluntary vows; up to chapter 26 are statutes the Lord made between Him and the children of Israel.

8 Numbers is their history in the wilderness - written, too, for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come - and what was connected, in God's dealings with that.

NOTE. - The three first chapters of Leviticus go together under the same "the Lord spake unto Moses"; the sin-offerings are another category of offerings. The meat-offering was most holy, and for the males only among the priests, as the sin- and trespass-offerings.

In the offerings it is formally the sons of Aaron to whom the sacrifices were brought, not to Aaron. I do not call to mind any sacrifices Aaron or the anointed priest offered (save for personal sin) except the great day of atonement, and his consecration - indeed in public service only the former. It was Christ's one great sacrifice. But the estimate of Christ, the handling of Him in the soul can only be by those who are priests, who are Christians. One only can do the work, and represent us, but we are with God, and in certain cases feed on, and that as priests, according to what Christ has been and has done when here - in Himself solely offered to God, glorifying Him, as made sin for us, but fed on in His perfectness and death. The unfolding of this in Leviticus is most precious.

The day of consecration was the day of the acceptance of the whole service by God, but as to the sacrifices, did not go within the veil. Aaron was in his garments of glory and beauty - he offers a sin- and burnt-offering, the two essential kinds; the people, every kind. Sin- and burnt-offerings are that in which Christ is accepted of God for us. It was the great general public act, and fire came out from God and consecrated and accepted both. The people enjoyed all that Christ was in life, and death besides, founded on the sin and burnt-offering. On the great day of atonement, he had special garments, and the service referred essentially to sin which was there; but to God's very nature within - the blood was carried within the veil. Before he offered anything else, he changed his garments, the burnt-offering was subsequent and consequent on the other. The service of Leviticus 9 was not consequent on actual sin and defilement. It gave the full character of Christ's sacrifice and Israel's part in it, or ours as regards responsibility. The day of atonement was in view of actual sins and defilement, and that in a twofold way - God's throne and guilt. The rest was apart. In this sense it was only a sin-offering and sin-bearing. In both cases, i.e., chapters 9 and 16, it was in view of men, not intrinsic and its own character with God; hence the sin-offering comes first, as the burnt-offering in chapter 1. They were for us, but Christ came to put away sin; God's character and majesty and love and righteousness and holiness called for its putting away according to them. It was necessary that it should be put out of the universe, and Christ stood, who knew no sin, as made sin before God; it was about sin, man's sin, as he stood before God. This was the great fact which stands alone in eternity's history, and is finished.

9 So in the meat-offering, the perfect, proved man; then communion, and as a distinct thing, the sin-offering. But in the burnt-offering, the man brings it; it was on the part of man, sin being there, in view of sin in man, but the priestly estimate of all that it was to God. It was what it is for faith. Both that and the meat-offering are complete in themselves (compare John 6, only there we eat) under God's eye, not for actual sins to bear them and clear us. In the day of atonement this was so, even Godward it was a sin-offering, the goat, and because of iniquities - compare Hebrews 9, "put away sin," "bear the sins of many." Hence in this estimate of divinely taught faith, it is not the High Priest, but Aaron's sons. He gives too the reason why these two are the occasions on which Aaron offers. There remains the special case of Eleazar the priest, with the red heifer, which, though done once, was not in the sanctuary. In the post-consecration services, there was no going into the sanctuary in connection with the sacrifices, they were at the altar. Then Moses and Aaron, king and priest, go in and come out.

10 Leviticus 9 only refers typically to Israel. The work does not go within, though effectual to forgive according to the judgment of God; and its efficacy is revealed only when the king and priest come out - when Israel sees the Lord. The priest may bless from the sacrifice before manifestation, and so it is, but the worship is when Christ is seen. and the worth of His sacrifice known. For us, the Holy Ghost is come out while He is within; the fact of going in and coming out, only, is noticed here. On the day of atonement, the blood is carried within.

There is a difference in our enjoyment of Christ, our enjoyment of blessings in communion, sha-lom (peace) founded on the blood and fat being offered to God, (and this was eaten by every clean Israelite) and the enjoyment of the perfectness of Christ in Himself, which is for us of course through the blood of the holocaust, and, as a rule, accompanied it - we read of its meat-offering. This was in the meat-offering only for priests. This was offered to God intrinsically in its own perfection, not atoningly for others without; this last, man could not eat, but it was its own perfectness, as suited to God - all the incense offered to God - the expression of pure unleavened human nature, presented to God and burned for a sweet savour, but human nature expressing what was divine, but in a man; kneaded with oil, and anointed with oil as a whole, and in all its parts. Here, while the incense was all burned to God, priests, there consecrated to God, eat of it.

In the peace-offerings, there was, whether thanksgiving or voluntary, joy in the effect of Christ's work, and connected with it (if separated, it was not accepted) and fellowship one with another. In the light as God is, cleansed from all sin by the blood, we have this fellowship. But in the meat-offering, there was no fellowship with others; it was the enjoyment of Christ Himself, that of which the sweet savour is gone up to God, as a memorial, but of which I eat by grace. In the peace-offering too, there were leavened cakes. In the meat-offering it was not to be heard of - John 6 does not, I think, go with this; it is all manwards as in general. No doubt when so come, He was all this in perfect blessing, but here it is His incarnation and death that we might have life, blessed truth too, but not the offering of what He was in Himself towards God. Indeed this is only seen in Christ, when actually so in result, John 6:62; and our share in it also actually, verses 39, 40, 44, 54 - only John is individual and receptive faith for eternal life, not common enjoyment, when the sacrifice is known as a saving work.

_________

11 We must not confound the yak'riv (he shall cause to draw near) part of the offering with the rest - the dealing with the presented, offered thing. It was Kor'ban (oblation). The word "offer" is used for this part, and ish-sheh (a sacrifice made by fire), and O-lah (holocaust); Christ offered Himself through the Eternal Spirit - this was yak'riv - but He thereon became an O-lah, an ish-sheh, and even a khat-tath (sin-offering) by the coming in, and acting of God. The offered Victim was laid on the altar, the fire of the divine nature and judgment proved Him so as to show there was nought but sweet savour, and consumed, and dealt with the sin He bore. But in Christ the separation is moral - He gave Himself up to death - He was proved in His giving up to the fullest extent of death, and therein shown to be perfect; so, as to sin laid on Him. But His giving Himself up, and His proving and suffering were distinct - the consuming the sacrifice and the death were distinct - yet it is clear the consuming the parts, after death, has no literal place in Christ; but the death work and the altar work were distinct - the altar, consumption, was not Kor'ban, but the fire dealing with the Kor'ban - yet in Christ it went on clearly before, and so up to death.

The Kor'ban was the offerer's, or, when the blood and slain animal was dealt with, priest's work - one, the absolute surrender, the other, presenting to God - but it was presenting, offering up, bringing to God.

There were then two things - the proving by fire, and consuming by fire (this, without the camp) and the accepted blood; when the blood is considered, the Victim is clearly looked at as One perfect, and proved so to the end - it is sprinkled, as of known, complete value. And so indeed as the burning by fire, and hence it came after death in the type - it was burned for a sweet savour, or without the camp as made sin (then not yak'riv); and this is important, and hence after death, which we by faith can apply to Christ, all went up as a sweet savour. No doubt He went through the proving, but the type presents the sweet savour of the proved thing after death. Historically, in the antitype, the fire was applied to the crucified One, but it goes up, a sweet savour from thence as the sole result of that fire - it is equally important that, looked at as sin, this was all consumed outside the camp.

12 The priest's part then comes in; it was not the yak'riv part, save as already slain He brought the blood nigh, and caused the sweet savour to ascend - Christ offered Himself in His own perfectness, and He presents the blood for us. But then the High Priest represented the people as such, and in this character, when He has personally, not as priest, offered Himself to God, He acknowledges the people's sins - He becomes that khat'tath, but in conscious confession first, not in judicial suffering - that follows. But the sins are laid on Him - the Lord has laid them on Him, and He, willingly bearing them, confesses them in perfectness before God for reconciliation being made. This the high priest does as representing the people, but it is not high-priestly in the proper sense, though the high priest's service - the priest's was with the blood, but then the sacrifice was finished - had the high priest not done this, there could have been no priestly service at all; even this was not done on earth, but as lifted up from it. Earth was connected with flesh, there was no reconciliation for it, and, as long as Christ was alive upon it, He presented Himself to men in the flesh; when that is done with, He begins His lonely work, where none could enter while it was going on - and, as representing the people, He makes reconciliation. Hence, no priesthood in any sense was exercised on earth, for the reconciliation work in which the High Priest was engaged, was as lifted up from it, and, though not in heaven, no longer on earth.*

{*This is very obscure, but very important for the understanding of Christ's offering of Himself and work; the main point is the difference between the yak'riv and the sacrificial work, obscured by the word 'offering' in the English version.

Leviticus 1

I think I see a difference between the burnt-offering and the blood on the mercy-seat, which had exercised me, more clearly. The latter is what is presented to God as contrasted with confessing sins on the scape-goat; still it was a sacrifice for sin. This latter was presented to God as a satisfaction for sin, not merely measured by man's responsibility; that was the altar of burnt-offering, and sin-offerings connected with it, but met what God was, with us, on His throne, where He Himself was - what He required, not from man as responsible as man, but for His holy and righteous nature. God in that nature was satisfied, so peace was made. It was a question settled, but there was no question of sweet savour.

13 But in the burnt-offering, we have the perfectness of Christ Himself in doing it; blood was shed, atonement was made; but it was what Christ was, and His perfectness in doing it when He was made sin. "That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father has given me commandment, so I do." The Victim spotless and perfect; the motive - love to the Father - perfect; obedience perfect. It was when He was made sin (hence blood-shedding) that the perfect opposite of sin was shown, perfect obedience and love to the Father in absolute self-giving-up, instead of self-seeking. Through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God; hence, when the fire came, all was perfect sweet savour, and went up to God. Christ's soul in this directed all there - His absolute thought was the glory of God, and obeyed His will at all cost to Himself, yet perfect in doing it. "My God, my God" was perfect faith when abandoned - "Thou continuest holy," no disturbance of mind in calling upon God an instant in question, like Job, but the contrary, in far other sorrow. Hence in being made sin, and just then, all was sweet savour to God. Nor could aught else have brought out the glory of God; not in Adam's innocence. No redemption love, no righteousness, no holiness, no setting in grace His purpose in love in a creature. He enjoyed sweet blessing in innocence; but nothing had or could come out of what God was, save goodness and wise power in creation. It was not satisfying God - His righteous exigence - but a perfect sweet savour in the thing itself, though the cross did also satisfy Him in righteousness, and our sins were borne there too. Still it is here as shedding blood and making atonement, because sin was here, and God had to be glorified, when it was in respect of it.

In the burnt-offering, sin being come in, death, in the perfect self offering-up of Christ, could rise as a sweet savour and perfect satisfaction to all that God's nature and authority was and claimed, and more than glorify it. Hence it was l'ka-pher (to make an atonement) for the man who brought it. It was not merely bearing his sins, though that was needed, but meeting all the moral nature and character of God. It was the perfect offering-up of Christ in the place where sin had placed man - perfection in giving Himself up to God, even to death.

14 - 2. We must not confound here the kor'ban (oblation) and the yak'riv (he shall cause to draw near), with the consumption of, or dealing with the thing offered, the hik'tir (he shall cause to burn as a sweet savour); this is important in understanding the work of Christ.

We must carefully distinguish between the offering here kor'ban, yak'riv and the offering made by fire ish-sheh (a sacrifice made by fire), O-lah (burnt-offering) etc. The one is being presented to God, the other the dealing with the kor'ban in sacrifice. Save when he went in to present the blood after death, the former was not the priest's work, unless in the case where the high priest himself stood personally as the representative of the whole people.

- 3. Lir' tso-no (for his acceptance). See chapter 22:18-20.

There is more than one aspect in which we must look at sacrifices, and learn from them as to Christ. The Passover arrested the exercise of the judgment of God, where the blood was sprinkled; the whole burnt-offering was for propitiation lir' tso-no (for his acceptance or favour) the bringing of favour upon him, and for atonement ka-phar (cover). But though death came in, as it must, for those who were in sin, in man's fallen estate, yet it was death as a whole free-will offering to God - a sweet savour.

- 4. It is not only ka-phar (cover) has the sense of forgiveness, but ka-sah (hide) also. The force of forgiving is to be noted - it is not per se atonement, but between the soul and God. It is ka-sah (hide) in Proverbs 10:12. "Charity shall cover," as in Psalm 32:1. The atonement was needed that God might righteously forgive or cover sin. Men would unrighteously cover it up in conscience - with his brother, in wrong to self, he may, and through love; it is not out before God in government; there may be a question of conscience remaining for the individual.

15 There seems to be an evident difference between ka-sah (to hide) and ka-phar (to cover) as to covering sin. As far as I can see, the former is covering over in or as to the person in question - he is covered with hair, with leprosy, the latter is addressed to the person in whose sight it is covered, hence it is satisfaction, atonement - my sins are k'suy (hidden away, Psalm 32:1); but Christ ka-phar (atoned for) my sins. See this chapter as well as chapter 5. See Genesis 32:20 (I will appease), 1 Samuel 12:3, and Exodus 21:30.

Sa-lakh (forgiven) seems to be removing sin from the person, to take it away in the sight of the person to whom he is responsible, and so forgiveness - I set it aside, and it is gone instead of holding you still responsible for it. Na-sa (bear) is to bear, and so lift up and take away, something of aphesis (remission) and airo (to lift up), only airo is not to carry or bear, and would quite as much answer to Sa-lakh. Hence in that sense it is also used of the person himself for being under sin, chapter 5:1. "He shall bear his iniquity." One who bears my burden takes it away from me; but it is used for lifting up from off a person his burden, as well as for carrying oneself, and hence for forgiving.

In Greek airo is to lift up or take away - never to bear on oneself; anaphero is to bear, but as a sacrifice on the altar; upophero is never used for this; prosphero is to offer to. So he offered Himself without spot, ka-rav (offered). Kha-ta (to err, in Piel, to offer as a sin-offering) is the wrong direction of the mind; A-sham (guiltiness) what is displeasing, offensive to God, though man through carelessness may do it unwittingly; but when he knows he has done what is offensive, then he is positively guilty if he does not turn to God, making confession, and it be repaired or set right. But it is taken ordinarily for guilt or trespass, and it is evident that if I have done something offensive to my father unawares, if I come to know it, if I have right feeling as to him I shall set it right; otherwise it becomes, i.e., the state of my mind as to it, positive sin - and so I hold it when I find it out, and hence am right - only it needs atonement.

- 13. The burning of the burnt-offering, and the fat of the peace-offering, and when so ordered, of the sin-offering, is not expressed by the same word as the burning of the sin-offering but by the same word as "incense" and "burn incense "; so it was for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire.

16 It is so much the clearer that the mercy-seat was a place of approach, not judgment, that there was no fire as on the altar. The fire was the fire of the altar, was always burning upon it, and judgment is according to works, man's responsibility, though God's righteous judgment.

In this respect, therefore, the burnt-offering was, perfect as it was, inferior to the sin-offering in its highest sense. It was not an offering for particular faults as the common sin-offerings. It was a perfect voluntary free-will offering, the consecration of man to God even unto death, and where sin and death were around, so as to make it more perfect dying unto all here, and self-surrender to God of life in the place of sin, so that there was none here where sin and its fruit was, but the contrary, and the rather - "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again." But it is Man who offers Himself, divinely no doubt, completing in fact Psalm 40, and through the Eternal Spirit, to God, without spot. Still it was as a sin-offering that the blood was put upon the mercy-seat. No doubt that implied the previous offering of Himself to God, and that up to death absolutely, so that the sweet savour went to God, but it was meeting what God was in His nature as refuting sin (not the scape-goat which accompanied it - that was sins confessed), a sin-offering of which the blood was put on the mercy-seat. The burnt-offering was Man offered, perfect in the place of death; the day of atonement was God glorified in His nature, so that He was propitious, and could freely bless, which is His nature. But it was Himself glorified, so that we become the righteousness of God, and grace reigns through righteousness. But the point is, God is glorified, not merely man perfect, divinely perfect. It is not without importance to see that it was a sin-offering that was put upon the mercy-seat.

All the school of teaching, which makes it a filling up self-devotedness, though to death and in the place of condemnation, and not a true sin-offering, is proved false - i.e., perfect man, and perfect man right, not God when everything was contrary - but it was man, and there, consequently, they stop in their estimate of the character of the offering. But this was not what went within the veil, nor what was the ground of approach to God. This is just the question with some; hence they never get beyond man and the world.

Leviticus 2

17 In the meat-offering so-called, we have the perfectness of that which was offered - both perfection in nature, sinlessness, and the Holy Ghost, so, as led divinely, all had perfect savour; in the burnt-offering, the perfectness of the act of offering, though the victim was perfect too, as the min'kha (meat-offering) was a kor'ban (oblation) too.

It is admitted, I suppose, that lir'tso-no (verse 3, chap. 1) is "for his acceptance." The others were not Adam kiyak'riv (when a man shall have caused to draw nigh) but m ... yekh'te ... v'hik-riv (if ... he has erred ... he shall cause to draw near) not "if he bring," but "if he sin, he shall bring."

NOTE. - In the meat-offering, it is never said: "to make an atonement for him "; the offering here is food rather than atonement. At the same time it was the food of the priest eaten in that character, not the ordinary communion of the peace-offering. A memorial only was burnt; the mass was eaten by Aaron and his sons. At the same time the memorial and all the incense was devoted to the Lord.

The great first elementary statement as to the meat-offering is fine flour, and oil (and frankincense) put upon it; that is, the fact of a pure human nature, and the anointing of the Holy Ghost. Then there is brought out, as an additional teaching, the unleavened cakes mingled with oil. When the substance of the cake was formed with oil, which was, as it were, penetrated with oil, and it was unleavened, i.e., in the formed actual subsistence, not merely the nature absolutely as such in idea, but the dough made had no leaven in it - Christ as a living Person had no sin, and was in human nature born of, and lived by the Holy Spirit in fact in the world: "according to the Spirit of holiness." To this was added unleavened wafers anointed with oil, i.e., the actual sinless Man, who knew no sin, was anointed; for the anointing after John's baptism was distinct from what He was in His Person as Man. In the last case it is mingled with oil, unleavened, and the pieces anointed, i.e., we have the knowing no sin, the spiritual nature and power of His life, combined with purity of nature; and every distinct act of His life, every part of it in the power of the Holy Ghost - "If I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils." I was led to this by the expression of "mingled with oil" and "dry" in Leviticus 7:10, where "dry" is opposite to "mingled," for "dry" was anointed whether flour or unleavened cake.

18 I have spoken elsewhere of this chapter in reference to Christ in His life; this is true, but it is more in His nature, how He was constituted as a living Man. Of course death cannot come into this idea as such, but it does as the fire of the altar which perfectly tries what was in Christ, and only brings forth the sweet savour.

The first thought presented is simply the positive constituent parts, fine flour - perfect humanity as such - anointing with the Holy Ghost, and the graces of a soul wholly offered to God, without the smallest distracted or aberrant motive - mark this.

Then when Christ is looked at as a whole, as a living concrete Man on the earth, we have details of His being constituted a Man in His place of service and trial on earth, fine flour mingled with oil, i.e., perfect human nature, and formed by the Holy Ghost in the womb, or actually sinless human nature anointed with the Holy Ghost.

In the meat-offering baken in a pan, we have all brought together. It is fine flour - simple perfect humanity in itself - unleavened, knows no sin, sinless, mingled with oil, formed in its constituted being by the Holy Ghost, and then in every part penetrated by the anointing of the Holy Ghost.

- 4. b'lu-loth (mingled). It cannot, I think, be doubted that this is more than, and meant to be other than m'shu-khim (anointed), mixed, mingled is the sense of the word; see Psalm 92:10. It is not merely anointed as consecration, but His whole system invigorated and strengthened by it - it formed His strength; hence it is fresh oil there - the thick perforated cakes were so prepared; the r'ki-key (wafers) or these ones were simply anointed, but this doubtless penetrated all; still the difference is evidently intentional here.

- 5, 6. I have been led to fully enquire as to these verses. There are three kinds of meat-offerings - two baked in the oven (tannur) and one baked on a frying-pan; of these, the first was mingled with oil - the second, anointed with oil - the third (that baked on a pan) was mingled with oil, and then, being broken in pieces, oil was poured on it, it had both ways of the oil being applied. The first two have been heretofore noted elsewhere - the human nature of Christ formed by the Holy Ghost, and then He anointed with the Holy Ghost; but the last case has not been so much examined into.

19 I apprehend that we have first, as in the first kind of all, the divinely conceived human nature of Christ - He was conceived of the Holy Ghost; but then He was, at the close of His life, broken to pieces - every element of His nature was broken up by trial - desertion of friends on which a heart could lean, and worse than desertion - giving up what He loved, the Jerusalem He would have gathered - the compassion He looked for refused by every eye - denial by one He dearly loved - exposure to ignominy and shame before a heartless world - sleep, the refuge of His friends, when He would have one to watch by Him; but where, in every pang, in laying bare every feeling, was the power of the Holy Ghost, spiritual perfectness and power, not shown? He was poured out like water, all His bones out of joint, but never was the power and action of the Holy Ghost so shown - every part was anointed - and this breaking up was only the occasion of showing it.

In the three first Gospels, in general, we have more of the breaking in pieces - in John, of power, though not exclusively, for in Luke we find the power too. In Luke, He states to the thief, he shall be with Him in Paradise - in Luke, He commends His Spirit to the Father; yet in Gethsemane, in John, we have only the manifestation of the anointing. This I cannot here pursue further, but waiting on Scripture for it, it is full of interest - was not the suffering of His obedience, the display, or occasion of the display, of His spiritual power, and in a much more intimate manner? His life, though both were necessarily and always true, gave the whole cake - the outward, and, in this sense, superficial or outwardly manifested power of the Holy Ghost; but the breaking up every element of His nature in death - and it was absolute skewed every inward part, all His moral nature, as the complete exhibition of the power of the Holy Ghost in inward perfectness. Hence, more than miracles - a creature imperfect at other times can work them; but who could have been what Christ was, when the fountains of the great deep were broken up over His soul? I can here only imperfectly suggest it.

- 7. This is more the character of a mass, and the constituent parts merely are given, not its concrete state as a whole, but its nature as so formed, supposing there was no anointing, nor the frankincense brought into view.

- 14. This was not the offering of first-fruits of chapter 23. That was national, and a fixed day of the year - this a voluntary offering.

20 I think this gives another character of Christ as Man, and full of instruction. In the previous part, we have Christ as conceived and anointed of the Holy Ghost - "that holy thing." Here, it seems to me, though sinless, He is viewed as in Luke's Gospel, as born of human race, a descendant of Adam, not according to a natural way, but still as it is seed of another character of his, "born of the seed of David according to the flesh" - so of man in nature, he is ge-resh kar'mel (grain of the earlier, finer growth), but as such He had to be put fully to the test, and pass through the fire ka-hey ba-esh (roasted or parched with fire), and so offered. Every fiery trial came on Him - all that could try Him by faith - and such should be, if He stood as Man before God, but He could be offered, and as such anointed with oil and incense. This is not the offering of chapter 23; that was a fixed offering at a prescribed yearly epoch - this, voluntary from an individual; that, a waved sheaf - this, grace is rubbed out of the ears of corn.

In the meat-offering, we have the personal human perfection of Christ, fully tried up to the fire of death - proving by God's holy nature, and sweet savour the result; not leaven, not honey or nature in its sweetness, but perfect unleavened humanity, begotten sinless by the power of the Holy Ghost, anointed with it, sinless humanity moved by the Holy Ghost absolutely towards God, and never swerving till the last cup was drunk, which could test its perfectness of nature, motive and objects, and then His soul remitted into His Father's hands. The burnt-offering was devoted humanity, the meat-offering tested humanity; the one with sin in view about it, the other proving there was none in it, perfectly tried and every grace absolute in its perfection as offered to God.

Leviticus 3

The peace-offerings were not to make propitiation either. It was communion in joy together, not simply priestly with the Lord.

The fat of the peace-offerings was burned on the burnt-offering, consumed with the burnt-offering. Compare chapter 6:11.

21 - 5. This connected the peace-offering with the burnt-sacrifice.

- 9. In the peace-offering, when it was a lamb, the whole rump was burned; I know not whether it was an intentional difference - the sin-offerings always refer to the fat of the peace-offerings taken away; compare verses 3, 4.

- 10, 11. Another character of this offering; it was the le-khem ish-sheh (the food of the offering made by fire) to the Lord. Compare Numbers 28:2.

It is developed in verse 16.

Leviticus 4

This chapter begins a new subject revealed or ordained of God by the words vay' dabber Y'ho-vah el-Mo-sheh (and the Lord spake unto Moses).

- 3-12. There is no express statement in the sin-offering for the priest, that it made atonement for him, whatever be the reason of this.

- 13. I apprehend edah (congregation) is more the persona - the congregation looked at as a moral whole, a corporate person before God; and ka-hal (assembly) is the actual subsisting congregation composed of all its members. Compare chapter 8:3.

- 15. V'sha-khat (and one shall kill) I do not know that it is more precise in verses 4 and 24. It has interest in respect of the point where self-offering and mediatorial work begins. It was not the ko-hen (priest) unless he were the guilty one, and then it is not as ko-hen. But I suppose hak-ko-hen ham-ma-shiakh (the priest that is anointed) of verse 5 is the same.

- 31. Here only the sin-offering is called a sweet savour, and it identifies the perfectness of Christ in sacrifice to God, with the bearing of sins in the same act.

The sin-offering was a putting-away of sin. Whether Azazel on the great day of atonement, or the ordinary sin-offerings, the victim was charged with sins, bore them and took them away from the person, and put them away out of God's sight, by a perfect vicarious work. But there is another and very important character of the sacrifice, and in which its full perfection as to its effect consists. It introduces into God's presence - we are brought to God in His holy presence - the holiest - by it, as set on the mercy-seat. God has been glorified by it perfectly in His nature and glory, and we are brought into His presence in holiness by it. We come to the gold within, as the evil, measured by what man ought to be for God, has been put away on the brazen altar - one purges the conscience, the other brings into the light of God Himself. But in fact there is no separation now, because the veil is rent, and Christ gone within. That in which Christ suffered, bore, and so set aside for us the judgment, bore the sins and so purged our conscience, met the evil and so brought us into the presence of the glory - the light as God is in the light - but perfectly acceptable, agreeable to it. Righteousness sets us there.

22 It seems to me that a-sham (guiltiness) is more fault towards God, what a man is guilty of. Kha-ta (error) that in which he has erred from the right way, as the force at least of the word itself.

- 35. What is ish-shey Y'hovah (the sacrifices offered unto the Lord)?

NOTE. - In the sacrifice, the burning was not the priest's, but the fires, i.e., the proving effect of God's judgment producing on the altar the sweet savour. The altar was not the cross, but, I apprehend, the active sustaining righteousness of the divine nature. Further, in the case of the sin-offering, the body was not burned on the altar, but, when burned, burned without the camp. The priest's work at the altar, as to the sacrifice, was only occasional, and, so to speak, represented divine ordering of all, not acting for man - man did not in any way arrange the pieces, etc., on the altar. But all that was done with the blood was priest's work properly; only Christ did so offer Himself, not merely to become a Victim, but as a Victim that is in the fire of judgment on the altar, His will tried was in perfect self-offering found so under the fire - but this was needed and found, not done. He did formally offer Himself up, and so far there was a priestly act, only of a different nature; I do not think His offering Himself through the eternal Spirit without spot to God was priest's offering - it was the bringer of the victim's work; nor was the actual consuming of the victim, so as to leave a sweet savour - that was, so to speak, put into God's hands as the consuming fire; nor the fact of His dying, for that was not priestly work at all. The only priestly work I can see there is what the priest did, not as in peace between God and the people, but as representing them - only that Christ was Victim as well as Priest, and having offered Himself for it without spot, He offered Himself as it, i.e., gave Himself up to death as sin-bearer, confessing, therefore, all our sins on Himself as Victim; but this preceded, I apprehend, this offering, for He offered Himself personally as a spotless Victim, i.e., spotless to be one - then the Lord lays the sins on Him - He is made sin for us. Instead of charging it on others as Adam did, He owns them as His own, and knowing the just rights of God as regards sin and sinners, offers Himself up to death and judgment - but I doubt whether this was not more as Victim than as Priest - to secure the divine glory and save God's beloved; this the Priest did, and this was arranging all on the altar, but it was entirely between God and the Priest. The wrath and death which followed was not a priestly part - that brought out the sweet savour as perfectly effectuating the offer, and was in itself, as coming from God the fruit of sin-bearing.

23 It is evident that the holocaust and sin-offering were, both at the same time in Christ. Note, in Hebrews 9:28, as to the two parts of the offering, the prosenechtheis - eis to ... anenegkein - the visitation of wrath upon Him as sin-offering brought out, by the trial, the sweet savour of His perfectness as burnt-offering.

NOTE. - I apprehend that the gold on the mercy-seat, referred to elsewhere as intrinsic proper divine righteousness, and the brazen altar governmental righteousness in connection with sin, is connected with the character of acceptance in Christ. God has on the Cross judged and put away sin - He has dealt with sin, so that we are free; but then in Christ's death God was perfectly glorified, and the reception before the throne is in the perfection of this - Christ Himself is there in consequence of it, and we are there in Him, the righteousness of God in Him. This is not dealing with sin, but what God delights, can and must delight in. The blood no doubt is witness of the putting away of sin on the mercy-seat, according to the exigencies of that perfection; but there is more than that - Christ is sitting there. On the altar sin is righteously dealt with - on the throne of gold divine righteousness is delighted in.

24 Leviticus 5

- 1. The v' (and) before hu (he) in the sentence "and he is a witness" has the force of "because" practically. The conclusion (German Nachsatz) is in verse 6, and from v'sha-m'ah (and he hear) to the end of verse 5 are the things in which he is guilty and has to make an offering for.

I have noted before a-sham is guilty as regards one we are responsible to - here God, of course. Kha-ta is departure from the right.

- 6. It is not that the trespass might not be a wrong thing, but as such it is treated, not as a thing morally wrong, contrary to the nature and will of God, but as a matter, relatively to Jehovah, offensive - when in holy things it was desecration, then as in consecration, a ram; but always, I think, a thing done against the Lord. Here it is also called a sin-offering; but he had defiled his conscience, gone against God's authority in the adjuration of the judge or himself (verses 1 and 2) and failed in an oath. In chapter 6 the wrong is more than made good as satisfaction of wrong, but it was also dishonouring to the Lord, and he brings a ram.

Here we see the use of ka-phar (cover). It is a thing done for him towards God, so that God's character is met, and his conscience, so that he is cleared, purged from his sin. It is not sprinkling, washing, nor exactly propitiation, though that be nearer, but there was guilt on him, a moral offensiveness that had to be removed out of God's sight, and which his conscience must feel if in God's sight. It ought to enter into God's estimate of sin, and must, if it was to be with Him. God must put out of His sight it or the man, and so it was in the offering. It was really bringing his trespass in the offering, but in the way of a given atonement for it, but the entering into it, as his to God. "He shall bring his trespass (offering) which he has sinned." For the burnt-offering which was also ka-phar (cover), see chapter 1.

- 2, 3. We have an important principle, verse 2: the thing known to God is actually unclean, and the man guilty; the evil was before God, and He cannot bear it (here figurative, but that changes nothing). Then in verse 3, the man becomes guilty in his own conscience when he knows it. Both are true. Then kha-ta (sin or sin-offering) is the general word in contrast with o-lah (burnt-offering); the latter coming as an offering, though involving death - the former a necessity consequent on evil, propitiates, and as we know, not a sweet savour. Hence the a-sham (guiltiness) is a kha-ta (error) but looked at as responsibility, not as departure from what is right, though that be true too. We have defilement, uncleanness or a bad conscience, personal failure, not a wrong to another - then a wrong against God or one's neighbour, which is against God a ma-al (treachery, perfidy). All this is not crime "what ought not to be done" but wrong to God or man. All is called kha-ta (error) but from verse 1, is a-sham (guiltiness) - only when there is wrong, there is amends also, sha-lam (he restored).

25 - 13. Here nis' lakh lo (it shall be forgiven him) is the effect of ka-phar (cover). The latter is towards God - the effect, that the sin is put away from the man out of God's sight; it does not remain on the man, he is free from it, pure in God's sight.

- 14. New ordinance. It is wrong against the Lord.

- 15. Ma-al (to act covertly, to act treacherously).

- 17. This is not sinning knowingly against the commandment, but God is dishonoured, and maintains His necessary righteousness before men.

- 21. (English Version, chap. 6:2). The wrong is a ma-al (trespass) against Jehovah.

It is suggested to me at the end that we must remember that God always looks at things according to His nature; He may count us guilty by reason of them, but He sees good and evil, and judges them necessarily because He does, and is perfect.

NOTE. - The fire on the altar was burning all night, and this is the night - divine judgment according to holiness always here, but here where it is on an altar with a sacrifice of perfect sweet savour, Exodus 29:42, and Leviticus 1 to 5; such is the place of our having to say to God - God's meeting with us in this world. In heaven no need of such, though this is the ground of our being there - all is holiness and love in itself, hence is rest, we of and conformed to it.

But for our hearts here, as sinners in ourselves in the world, our meeting place with God is where there is this perfect glorifying of what God is in Himself, taking the character suited to this world - the fire of judgment, but that holiness and righteousness, yet love - in a sacrifice perfectly agreeable to God in the nature of what He is; and there we meet God.

26 But when Christ stood as (made) sin before God, then obedience was perfect, and that is the altar - the sacrifice; its essence is burnt-offering, though all the others were associated with it, and part, as testimony of it, burnt there. But its wonderfulness is in itself - such a sacrifice in this world, yet lifted up out of it, though we have acceptance in it with God. The court was not within, nor was it out in the world of selfish strangers to God; it was in the court - the heart went from the world to it; Christ was lifted up from the earth to draw men - so the offerer went in, but it was not within where the worship was, nor even where the laver was; it was Christ rejected by the world, put out from it, but perfect to God, and the heart, as coming out of world, as one who had belonged to it, and in that altar meeting God. But what God is in righteousness and holiness, fulfilled in unmingled blessing above - perfect love having its fruits there - is a consuming fire down here, "Our God is a consuming fire," He always is it. It never goes out - but then in Christ this is a perfect sweet savour, perfect love and infinite being known there - but, though not a sin-offering, which is another thing, yet in view of sin, then glorifying God in that place, so that it is atonement, but for God's glory. It is a wonderful meeting place - all accomplished, yet in ever abiding efficacy; as I have said, in the place of sin, as made it, perfect obedience and love to His Father - Man therefore in the glory of God; and this we have now.

When He says "lifted up" from the earth (John 3:14), He is no longer of or on it, but then it is in connection with it, lifted up from it - has to say to men as they are on it, only as leaving it to come to God from the far country, to God in the perfection of His nature, and in a love to us which is also His very nature and Being, but shown in what He is to us. It is not in the world, but the meeting between God and men in it (compare John 12:31-33; chap. 13:31-32). What a blessing that God never changes His character, but then, in judgment, finds the sacrifice which perfectly glorifies it, and therein skews infinite love, and all this in Christ!

27 Leviticus 6

- 5. (Hebrew 5:24). "To him shall he give it in the day of his trespass-offering" - I apprehend. The offering itself was brought to the Lord.

- 8. (Hebrew 6:1). New ordinance.

- 9. (Hebrew 2). The English and universal ancient versions (Septuagint and others more or less precise) give "burning" not "place of burning," which Gesenius and the other dictionaries give. If these be right then al (upon) must be taken as upon the place (or mass) of burning (stuff) on the altar all the night. Arias Montanus gives super ustionem. The sense would be the same; it would affirm the fact; "this is" (or I mean "that is" as often) the burnt-offering on the burning pile or place on the altar all the night, and it may be so. It is the only place the word is found. I know not that bo (upon it, in the masculine) instead of bah (upon it, in the feminine) would make any real difficulty; also it might be the altar.

- 19. New ordinance.

- 22. (Hebrew 15). Christ Himself was wholly offered; He had no nourishment in this sense, but doing the will of His Father; we have Him to feed on.

- 23. (Hebrew 16). It shall be wholly an offering, burnt no doubt, but it gives its character by the word ka-til (wholly).

- 26. (Hebrew 19). Note that the court of the O-hel Mo-ed (tabernacle of the congregation) is called here a holy place.

- 30. (Hebrew 23). The force of b' (in) here. The accents, I suppose, make it to make propitiation in the Holy place.

De Wette joins it with "shall not be eaten"; but surely that is not so. Once (chapter 17:11) we have b' (for) after ka-phar

(to cover, atone) but this is, I think, abstract for souls; i.e., in the case or matter of souls. The English version would be right. Is bak-ko-desh (in the Holy place) ever used for holy place? We have had b'ma-kom ka-dosh (in the holy place) as verses 26 and 27 (Hebrew 19 and 20).

Leviticus 7

- 7. When once it came before God a-sham (guiltiness) and kha-ta (error or sin) were the same - and this for us is connected with an evil nature. They were not the same as to the act in this, that the kha-ta (error or sin) was a moral thing, of which the natural conscience and God's moral law took notice. But there are points as to this further on.

28 - 9. Though it is said that the meat-offering is for all the sons of Aaron, one as much as another, yet it would seem that in each particular case the offering priest ate it. Compare for the sin-offering chapter 6:29 and 26. In the peace-offering, both are found: "Aaron and his sons" gives the character of the thing; it was a priestly portion and act.

- 10. Note this; one was incarnation, perfect manhood, all in the power of the Spirit, ultimately tried by fire; the other stood for a sin-offering.

- 15. "Shall not lay aside any of it until the morning."

- 19. This marked a distinctively holy character in the thing eaten.

- 22. New ordinance. This seems to be on a different ground from the fact of life, save so far as that what were life and its energies were offered to the Lord.

- 28. New ordinance.

- 30. It would seem the worshipper brings the fat, and the shoulder for a wave-offering; then the priest burns the fat - but who waved it? And could the worshipper be said to yak-riv (cause to approach) the separated fat and breast? The victim he can, but y'vi-en-mu (he shall bring it) is different. But even if he eat with others, he must be directly connected with Jehovah in it - his hand must bring it. The fact merely is stated here; in two places they are put upon the hands of the offerer, yet another is said to wave them (Exodus 29:24-25; Leviticus 8:27), but in Leviticus 9, Aaron waves what he is to have for himself - but he was alone here. The idea is presenting it to God, as consecrated. The Levites were waved (Numbers 8). I suspect here the priest waved it; the contrast is with burning the fat.

Leviticus 8

There is a characteristic difference between this chapter and chapter 14. The anointing was the first thing, the object here, though as to the sons, blood was needed for it, and it was only properly on the high priest. The blood-sprinkling was the main point in the latter, the anointing followed it and was applied where the blood was - not in the case of the priests. In the consecration of the priests, Aaron is anointed by the oil being poured on his head, alone and without blood.

29 - 7. Note, there were two girdles, one on the tunic or shirt, and one, the girdle of the ephod; this is to be remembered. Ha m'il (exterior tunic or robe) is called in Exodus 29:5, the Ha m'il of the ephod. It appears from Exodus that lo (unto him) is the high priest, not the ephod, "Thou shalt bind him with it" (the curious girdle); but I apprehend his binding the ephod to him with it, though qua clothed with the ephod, it was a loose cloak, but thus bound to him by a girdle, which bound him, though not the first under-girdle. But another question arises: what does bo (therewith) refer to? Several refer to the ephod, and I am disposed to think it right - it gives greater force to the girdle, for the practical force there is as Piscator gives it: "And thus he clothed him (legte urn) with it" the ephod, i.e., he had the ephod as a close clothing bound on him by means of the khe-sheb (curious girdle).

- 10. Here as to places, and Aaron by himself, all is anointed without blood.

Hebrews 9 speaks of sprinkling all with blood too, but here the tabernacle, vessels and Aaron are anointed without blood - it is viewed in another light. Josephus states the same fact in his Antiquities (iii, 8, 6. T. i, 162, Hav). But if this tradition be correct, as Hebrews 9 shows it is, the leaving it out here gives a more full typical intention to this passage. Hence why was the altar?

- 12. The oil is poured on his head - this was not done, even after the blood, with the sons. The mingled blood and oil was sprinkled on all.

- 10-12. The tabernacle and all the things in it were anointed, the altar seven times, and then Aaron - pouring of the oil on his head to sanctify him. This was the whole thing complete - all was devoted, consecrated to God, not merely created good, but entirely sanctified to Him in a divine power of consecration, but more especially the altar. In the whole universe when absolutely consecrated to God, there is nothing like the Cross in its character of divine power of sanctification to God. With that goes the application of death in purifying in its efficacy, and its basis in Christ's work and God's decree as the one way of righteousness. It is not said the laver seven times, but it goes with that which was seven times anointed - the perfect and full power of the Eternal Spirit. Then Aaron is anointed by pouring of the oil on his head; He takes His consecrated place as consecrated priest, perfect in Himself and in the power of the Eternal Spirit, Priest to God in the scene consecrated to God. This was Christ, and that in which He served in itself; blood was not in question, nor sin (compare Ephesians, end of chapters 3 and 4).

30 - 13. Then the sons are brought, yet not now separated from Aaron - now all is looked at as having sin and defilement on it. The simple consecration which precedes will not do when we are brought into the scene. It was in a certain sense holier and higher, but now blood was needed - not merely an altar, which meant absolute consecration to God such as Christ's, but blood sprinkling, and this was done.

- 15. Y'khat-te (he made expiatory purification).

Although the tabernacle and all its furniture was sprinkled with blood on the great day of atonement, thus marking the reconciliation of all things by redemption, yet, on the setting up of the tabernacle, it was anointed along with and even before Aaron, without any blood, when the garments for glory and beauty were put upon him. Although, as regards the entrance of sin, the purifying by blood was needed, and hence, even at the time of consecrating, the altar where men came in respect of sin, was purified with blood - yet it is very sweet to think that as regards Christ's Person (for in the beginning of this chapter Aaron is taken alone - when the altar is purified, it is Aaron and his sons) and the title and perfection which He has, the whole scene of all things is filled with the blessedness and claim and power of Christ, according to the excellency of His Person, by the power of the Holy Ghost asserting and making it good - divine excellency!

As Christ's manhood was anointed by the Holy Ghost without measure, that He might divinely act by it in the manifestation of this grace, and every movement of the Man be the effect of the energy of the Holy Ghost, so that He spoke the words of God, and worked the works of God - these of course personally united - so, according to the manner of such a claim over it, and dwelling in it as can be in the mere universe, the divine excellency fills it in connection with the Person of the great High Priest Jesus; the power of the Holy Ghost, of which the savour and fulness is in Him whose title and glory the Holy Ghost makes good, fills and claims the universe.

31 Note, too, in verse 12 of chapter 21, the high priest was never to go out of the tabernacle. So indeed is it with Jesus; but then, in both these cases, we must remark that in connection with man, these figures have never had their simple fulfilment. In the Person of Christ we can contemplate them in indefeasible title, but He never wore, after He had historically to do with man, the garments of glory and beauty, nor went into the holy place in them, but only on the day of atonement, and then in linen garments. Hence, as we have seen, on that day the tabernacle and all was sprinkled with blood.

Further, on the day of atonement, the blood was brought within the veil, because if Christ had not done this, Israel could not, after all, have been blessed. The goat was primarily and properly for Israel, but in the priestly application of blessing, the blood is shed on the altar, and the priest blesses from the altar as outside.

In verse 15 it is not, I believe, reconciliation upon it, but of it; that is the sense of l'kap-per a-lay (to make propitiation of it) as elsewhere.

- 23. Then Aaron who is now identified with his sons, is sprinkled with blood on his ear, hand, and foot as they are, and they offer a wave-offering, which Moses burns on the purified altar - purified by the blood of the ram of consecration, as of the sin and burnt-offering - and then he took of the anointing oil and of the blood on the altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron and his garments, his sons and his sons' garments with him.

The blood was the blood which was upon the altar, not standing on it, but upon it. They were consecrated according to the efficacy and power and character of that blood sprinkling, in which, not merely sins were cleansed, though that were true, but God was glorified in His own nature and glory in the sacrifice of Christ, in which His holy and righteous claim was satisfied, and His glory made good. And though it is evident that Christ had nothing to be cleansed from, and needed no blood-shedding, as verses 10-12 indeed express it, yet He is in His present place in the virtue and power of that blood. He is raised from the dead en aimati (in the power of the blood) of the everlasting covenant. Having taken our sins, He is entered in as Priest in the power of that blood, which He Himself shed for us. It is not only that we are sprinkled with it, blessedly true as that is, but He is entered into the exercise of priesthood in the power of it, for us indeed, but in the measure of His divine glory, for in that work God Himself was glorified - all He is, displayed and made good in revelation in it.

32 Christ was consecrated to God in blood, not surely because He needed it, but that His obedience, by which we are saved, was unto death, and He is to God and loved of the Father according to the sacrifice of Himself - His laying down His life, yet it was only for us, yet withal for God's glory.

- 27. My impression is that t'nu-phah (wave-offering) is more "consecration" T'ru-mah (heave-offering) more "offering."

- 30. Note, the anointing oil was poured on Aaron's head, alone by himself, in verse 12. After washing all (himself and his sons) together (v. 6) - now, in verses 23, 24, he puts the blood on the three places, on Aaron by himself, and the sons by themselves but on all. Now he takes of the oil and the blood and sprinkles of it on him, his garments - them and their garments "with him."

There is no pouring the oil now on Aaron's head, Christ in fact was anointed with the Holy Ghost alone, the holy, righteous and obedient One; hence, when the blood comes in, He is not anointed with the pouring of oil on Him, nor was oil poured on the head of the sons, but as Christ received the Holy Ghost (Acts 2) from the Father for us when He went up having accomplished the sacrifice, and by Himself purged our sins, and so associated us with Himself - when the oil and the blood is sprinkled on Aaron, his garments, and his sons and sons' garments with him. It is not his personal consecration - that was a fact and done apart without blood - but the bringing in the sons into the place (though subordinately) with him, and then the blood (He having been obedient unto death in all) on ear and hand and foot comes in, that we may be associated with Him, and He exercise the priesthood, in the power of that blood-shedding, towards God, and for us. In Christ it was the measure of perfectness - in us of cleansing - in both of consecration to God; none of the sons receive it on the head independently, they are associated with Him. So the washing of Aaron and his sons was the same, for in water - cleansing, death to sin and life to God - the measure is alike. He died to sin - we reckon ourselves dead to it, have died. In that He lives, He lives to God, and we are alive to God through Him - He is our life, and has died for us, and we have to arm ourselves with the same mind.

33 All the tabernacle and its vessels are anointed when Aaron is, without blood as he is, and so the altar and vessels to sanctify them. Then, when Aaron and his sons are to be anointed, he sprinkles the altar with blood - the altar was sprinkled with blood to sanctify it, to make reconciliation upon it (of it) - this before putting any on Aaron and his sons. Aaron's sons are brought (not Aaron and his sons) and then Aaron and his sons put their hands on the head of the bullock, and so on the burnt-offering before the ram of consecration. But this subject requires more investigation.

In Exodus 29, directions are given for anointing Aaron with oil alone, and then him and his sons when sprinkled with blood - but not to anoint the tabernacle with oil; otherwise it is what is carried out here in this chapter. Its object is the priests; the direction to anoint the tabernacle is in Exodus 30:26-29. But when the tabernacle was set up, it was not then anointed - the cloud filled it, so that none could enter it, not even Moses. Then in the Hebrews, where the Holy Ghost had another object, the tabernacle and all the vessels are said to have been sprinkled with blood. In the chapter before us, the object is service connected with sacrifice, these last having been fully gone into in chapters 1-7. The altar therefore is here sprinkled with blood in connection with Aaron's sons, after all had been anointed with oil in connection with Aaron alone. And then Aaron and his garments, his sons and their garments anointed with him, but here the blood was, as it seems, mixed with it. It is this last chapter which must arrest our attention, first in itself, next, in connection with Hebrews 9.

This anointing is first of the tabernacle and all vessels, but also the altar seven times, and the laver and its foot; I suppose Christ in Person, the heavenly things He was connected with as come in flesh, and, above all, that on which the victim was to be consecrated and offered - His Person as that on which sacrifice was founded, and that especially was consecrated in the power of the Holy Ghost, so as containing that from which purification flowed. He must be all this for blood and for water, though death comes in for us to have a part in them; so as Son of Man who is in heaven, all was pure and in the power of the Spirit as so said, though divinely true, but to be so must be true in the Man and as it. And this was to be carefully maintained - nothing true for us could be true without it. Then when others are brought in, blood of course is immediately needed, and the full efficacy of sacrifice in every aspect in order to anointing.

34 But then Christ has to enter in as Man according to the efficacy of this; it is not of course that He needed anything, but that He must be on high when connected with us, according to the title the blood gave Him - the whole glory of God made good and conferred on Him as Man, and us with Him. Hebrews 9 takes it up here, it begins with our exclusion, the way into the holiest not yet made manifest, and then shows eternal redemption, and eternal inheritance - a new state of things, and place, and relationship for us obtained by the blood. Hence in our chapter the blood off the altar and the oil go together, because now the anointing, the consecration - the link formed by the Holy Ghost between us - nay the place Christ has taken on high as High Priest, is in virtue of the blood - as One in the presence of God for us, He is so in the virtue of that blood - He is the righteous One, and propitiation (accomplished) there.

The blood has a positive value with God (besides our sins being put away), in the character and power of which Christ has His place as Man on high, and the whole heavenly place as subject of mediation has its standing in it, as the new heavens and earth will. Hebrews 9 has its starting-point in sin, and the way into the holiest not open, but then it unfolds, in every respect, the efficacy of the sacrifice as leading into the new condition through the rent veil, and what, as founded on the cross, that new state and condition is. Hence we have the tabernacle and all its vessels sprinkled with blood - a defiled condition of things did not suit this new estate, any more than unpurged consciences could enter. This makes the first part of Leviticus 8 so much the more important, but the results of sacrifice are not entered into as in Hebrews, because it is not applied, only the efficacy of blood and oil mixed passes on all.

The "for us" should in no way be in Hebrews 9:12, though indeed in result it be for us - it leads away from the intrinsic efficacy of the work. The point is, it is an eternal redemption; He has settled the matter according to God's nature, and nothing can be called in question again, or that nature must change, which cannot be. In verses 13, 14 (Heb. 9) we have application. But the word "eternal" here is emphatic; it was not a putting away merely of an incurred sin or penalty, but in the power of the Eternal Spirit dealing with the whole question of free access to God in the holiest, according to what He was - a conscience purged for it - and consequently an eternal place, redemption and inheritance before Him - necessarily such, for we are before Him by a once finished work according to what He is. Hence there is a passing away of the first, which typically was founded on blood shedding; the Testator dies - thus the transgressions which ever subsisted under the first covenant were by death cleared, and all connection with the living Testator - once the whole first system - was passed and gone, but gone in the putting away of sin, and we get remission of all which attached to us as alive in flesh (do not so exist before God, for Christ does not as so come in flesh - we know Him so no more) for Christ, the sinless One has died, the heavenly things defiled by sin are purged, and Christ (the Mediator Man) is entered into the true holy place - heaven itself - to appear in the presence of God for us.

35 Nor was it, of course, as often suffering; He appeared when the whole moral question was brought to an issue, His death the full proof of man's state of sin, and He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The whole question in the universe was settled to the glory of God; and as we sinners were subject to death and judgment, He also, in particular application, bore the sins of many, and appears the second time, having no more to do with sin (for He put it away) for them that look for Him, to salvation. Leviticus 8 goes further, for it takes up first Christ alone, spotless, sinless, heavenly, the Son of man in heaven, what He was and is in Himself (and so owned by the anointing of the Holy Ghost as Man). Hebrews 9 takes up man as incapable of entering, the way into the holiest not open, and the way the High Priest entered sheaving this state of things; and then by death the whole old state of things and ground of relationship done away - sin put away, our sins borne - and Christ, Man appearing in the heavenly place, in the presence of God for us.

In our chapter we have the altar anointed seven times, the full divine and perfect sanctification so marked; in Hebrews, He offers Himself through the Eternal Spirit - thus Christ enters through blood - He could have entered without but had so abode alone. But entering through blood in the efficacy of His own sacrifice, in which God was glorified and sin put away, He introduces us as Himself, through and according to the value of that blood, into His own place and standing, and now appears for us there - our present state which we are in and know by the Holy Ghost. But Hebrews is more representative, not our being in Him; and the testator question is of importance here, for the old state of things subsists while the testator lives. When he is dead, that is wholly gone, and the object of the will gets into a new place according to it - thus, through verses 17, 18, come in by the bye, they are of all importance. The new covenant is founded on death, its efficacy, but also as ending the old and bringing in the new thing, for death closes all that man lived in.

36 Notice also here that the tabernacle and altar were anointed with Aaron before the sin-offering, which is not in Exodus 29. It was anointed before Aaron, which shows further that it was not characterized by redemption and priesthood.

NOTE.-In the consecration of Aaron, there is no incense nor blood upon, nor approach to the altar of incense, but the bullock was burned without the camp, as if the blood had been carried into the holy place. Aaron and his sons abode in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation; and note that, though the altar stood first, Aaron was washed before he offered the sin-offering on the altar. They abode now where the Lord met the congregation, and where blood was sprinkled for them, as in the red heifer. All this was done outside the outer veil even. There was nothing of Aaron's place within yet, in any sense, nor association of the people with him there - neither for him, nor the people. The veil or sanctuary was entirely closed, he offers for the people, and blesses them from the offering, i.e., the altar, before he comes down; and then he goes in with Moses, but it is only his being hid - nothing appears of what took place within - he comes out with Moses, and they bless the people, and the glory appears; chap. 9:23. All they had to say to the sanctuary was to go in and be hid there. But note in chapters 9 and To nothing is said but of his acting as previously except in chapter 10; this is (chap. 10:17) I apprehend, a mistake - it is (not blame, but) Moses' reason why he ought to have eaten it. Had it been brought into the holy place, it ought to have been burnt with fire, but it was not, and hence ought to have been eaten; this would make it appear that their conduct (chapter 9:11) was wrong.

Aaron and his sons are all washed together. Then Aaron is anointed, the oil poured on his head, verse 12, alone, without blood. Then as to persons, verse 23, blood on the tip of Aaron's right ear, hand and foot; then verse 24, on those of Aaron's sons; then oil, verse 30, and blood (of the ram of consecration) from off the altar, sprinkled on Aaron, his garments, his sons and sons' garments with him, it-to (with him). In the leper, the blood was placed on each part, and then the oil on each part.

The moral purity of Christ and the Christian, as such, is the same, for Christ is his life, and he is to walk as He walked. But in fact, I need not say, He only was absolutely pure; so he (Aaron) was anointed alone on the head with oil - so Christ was anointed alone, with the Holy Ghost, of course therefore without blood.

Hence, too, the obedience is the same, though we follow Him - His ear, hand and foot were touched with the blood of the sacrifice. His obedience and whole acts and conversation were always in the perfectness of obedience unto death. We follow, apart, on this principle - we reckon ourselves dead - arm ourselves with the same mind, because He has actually died. Then comes union, Aaron and his sons, his garments and his sons' garments were anointed with him - this with oil and blood together, because the value of the blood is known in the power of the Holy Ghost, and here it is not only obedience, but the title and earnest of a heavenly and priestly place along with Christ - though under Him, with Him. The value of the blood of Christ, inasmuch as He has glorified God, is to bring us into the presence and glory of God, and of this the presence of the Holy Ghost is the earnest and power. It is not for spiritual service here, but with Him there. There may be more in it, but I think there is this.

Note that the anointing of the tabernacle was quite a distinct thing from the sprinkling it with blood, and when it was sprinkled with blood, there was no question of anointing. This is of capital importance as to the application of this to the heavenly things themselves. In the consecration of men, the aspersion with blood preceded anointing, while the sacrifice as noted in a previous note was a peace-offering, not a sin-offering - in cleansing the leper, it was a trespass-offering, but the man was anointed after it - in the tabernacle, we have an anointing at the same time as Aaron without blood, and an aspersion with blood without any anointing after it. This last had, as is evident, a proper exclusive character of expiation or atonement.

38 Note also, that in this chapter the consecration being in connection with the Jewish relationship with God, the vessels of the court only are particularly mentioned, whereas in Exodus 30, all are mentioned in detail (vv. 26-29). This consecration of all, independent of blood, in connection with the person of the high priest, is to be noted.

Note, the double way in which the priest approached; first, the perfect savour of the whole burnt-offering arose to God - he drew nigh in the power of that. Afterwards, consecrated by the blood sprinkled on them, their hands were filled with the oiled cake, the unleavened bread and the fat that was to be burned, i.e., Christ anointed, sinless, and dying, offered as a sweet savour. We approach in the infinite and perfect savour of the whole burnt-offering, i.e., Christ as offered up by Himself, so that the acceptance is infinite in its character. For I might find my thoughts of Christ, in recalling His name before the Father, so imperfect that I was more faulty and guilty than acceptable in it. But I approach in the perfection of Christ's sacrifice of Himself; yet it is my privilege to bring Christ, and present Him in memorial before the Father, so as to know the sweetness of communion with the Father in the common sense of the excellence of Christ offered, and I take His estimate of the excellence of the Object as the real one, though I cannot reach it. I know that He is before Him in that perfect savour, and I learn not to think of the imperfection of the degree of my appreciation, but of the excellency of the Object in God's sight. It is a sweet view of the manner of our drawing near to God.

NOTE. - Aaron was not washed alone at all, i.e., only the saints are washed as priests as well as sprinkled to be anointed. Note also that the tabernacle was anointed with Aaron to sanctify them (the altar seven times). Does this connect the priesthood with Christ as filling all things, ascending up on high, in which He became, or took at least, the place of priest? If so, then why the altar seven times?

- 34. I do not know whether I have sufficiently noticed it, but surely Mapper alav is to make atonement or reconciliation "for it" (see chapter 1, etc.) not "upon it." I think it very notable the altar being sprinkled seven times, and all the tabernacle being anointed with oil to begin with before the blood, for the heavenly things thus are so - and Christ as place and altar of offering perfectly so with divine perfection. Then when connected with his sons, the altar already perfect and perfectly holy is, so to speak, made sin; and even He comes from the dead through (in the power of) the blood of the everlasting covenant, i.e., having taken the sin, He must put it away to take His place and bring them into the new estate prepared for man and God's glory. But the thought is not "if He needed it" - it is in the power of en aimati as long ago remarked, perhaps alluding to Zechariah 9:11, b' dam b'rithe'kh (by the blood of the covenant). Still having taken the sin on Him, He had to put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, not only for us, but for God's glory, as a part of the counsels of God whose glory He came to make good in love. We have, too, kip per b' ad (make atonement for, forgive).

39 NOTE. - The burnt-offering and consecration-offering are alike, in this chapter. The consecration of the believer is as absolute as the dedication of Christ to God, just as Joshua's shoes had to be off before the Captain of the Host - as Moses at the bush. In another analogy, the sin-offering and burnt-offering are one.