J. N. Darby.
<42004E> {file section b.}
(Notes and Comments Vol. 2.)
39 Leviticus 9
This chapter in all its aspects refers to the earthly blessing of the world to come, and that in virtue of the sacrifice of Christ in all its aspects, and, at the end, in virtue of His royalty. Hence remark that the blood of the sin-offering, though the body was burned without the camp, was not carried into the sanctuary - it was sprinkled where God met the people. The efficacy as to bearing away sin is the same, but there is not entrance within the veil, nor properly call to go outside the camp. The sacrifice is referred to in all its parts, and viewed as meeting man, or used by him - sin-offering, sin-borne-burnt-offering, the perfect savour of Christ's offering up Himself - the communion of the peace-offering, the real, proper apprehension of Christ, such as He was down here, comes last, for so indeed it does, when we are brought into communion, as the result of the sin and burnt-offering; we then afterwards are occupied with, and estimate the personal perfection of Christ.
40 Here the priest's eating the meat-offering is not noticed - it is enjoyed, not feasted on in connection with priestly service. In the bringing it into action, this order is not observed - we have the sin-offering, the burnt-offering, the meat-offering, and then the peace-offering, because in fact Christ is all these first for them (Israel) before they have the communion. When Aaron blesses as Priest he does so not from the Sanctuary, He does so for us through the Holy Ghost - but from the sacrifice; this concerns what is noticed above - we have the efficacy of the sacrifice, but no entrance within the veil, nor relationship with Christ as there. It shews also the source and character of the blessing of Israel in the latter day - they get it from the sacrifice. But the public recognition of the value of the sacrifice in the world, and so by Israel, is by Jehovah's appearing in glory, i.e., Christ Himself, and so the people own it. In virtue of their having blessing through Christ's priesthood, and of course sacrifice, Jehovah appears to bless, but it is Christ, King and Priest, who appears. Historically their repentant cry brings Jehovah down to them - but this turns out to be Christ, and they look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn finding that it is the Lord their Redeemer, the Messiah whom they had rejected and crucified. We know Him within the veil through the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. The eighth day is the beginning of a new system.
- 2. As far as I see, rams are consecration or because of desecration; they may be burnt-offerings, but as having a specific character, they are as above. If for trespass, it is for desecration or defilement, and so in the priest's consecration. Bullocks are representative as of people or priest, and hence also may come in as measure either of the party or of the faith. Thus as a sin-offering a bullock for Aaron and his house - for the people - for the priest - so of the largeness of faith in a burnt-offering. This (imperfectly expressed) assists, I judge, in explaining some feasts in chapter 23, which were the circle of feasts on earth; we have in Pentecost two wave-loaves - so there were one bullock and two rams, because they were offered up as one body in Christ, but there were two distinct parties consecrated. In Numbers where the offerings, not the circle of dispensational feasts are considered, we have not yet the full offering up of both representatively, but the nature of the consecration one; because it is not here the dispensational circumstances on earth, but the power of the offering to God. There was a remnant of Jews, and there was the offering-up of the Gentiles, but their consecration in Christ was one. In the seventh month, in the beginning of months, which was in general restoration, the same, because in fact there will be the double offering-up. In the seventh month, which is specifically Israel's restoration, one bullock and one ram - on the tenth day, the same, for that was clearly Israel. This was besides the sin-offering, considered elsewhere, and which was rather the heavenly saints, as Aaron and his family, and Jewish, and in principle all saints in Azazel (scape-goat).
41 This aids in Tabernacles. There we have thirteen bullocks, not full perfection doubled. The whole circle brought in Jews and Gentiles all complete, still all lost; and then we have a double consecration here, the two rams - the power of the earthly completeness declines. The fourteen lambs are Christ's perfection in representative efficacy as a Victim, itself never changing, and with the two rams including, I suppose, heaven and earth, though I have hesitated if it was not the difference of Jew and Gentile. On the eighth day, we get out of the Jewish circle into an extraordinary resurrection day, and then we have unity in all save the lambs - the Church one offered in Christ to God, and the consecration one. How far this eighth day would include the perfect time after the millennium I do not say, but it is possible, for they get into such a state indeed. The seventh day would then have to be considered which maintained the double perfectness of Christ as Victim, and double consecration which representative completeness maintained its perfectness only in singleness. Is it earthly only?
NOTE. - The burning of the burnt-offering and the fat was a distinct thing. Moses had done it in the ordinary way "according to manner." This was a special act of the Lord. They were burning on the altar, when this took place publicly as a testimony of the Lord's acceptance of them.
- 4. The min'khah (meat-offering) was to be b'lu-loth (mingled or tempered). This was the main essential thing, what Christ was personally, though also anointed.
- 7. Is there any reason why Aaron by the offering for himself made an atonement for the people also, or does it refer vaguely to what follows?
42 - 9. Not here within the veil, though burned without the camp. No doubt the blood had to be carried within for Israel, or for any, for God was thus glorified. But as to application to Israel, the blood was on the altar without, quod nota bene. But the goat of the sin-offering for the people ought to have been eaten (chap. 10:17-18); compare chapter 4, the sin-offering for priest and people.
- 11. This chapter, as I have said, refers in all its aspects to the earthly blessing to come, in virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, and of His royalty. Yet note, the flesh and skin of Aaron's sin-offering was burned without the camp, but no blood was carried within the veil, nor indeed further than the altar. Nor is this blamed - the not eating the sin-offering for the people is - nay, the place of blood-sprinkling is "as the Lord commanded Moses"; the people were included, verse 7, u-v'ad ha-am (and for the people).
- 17. Is not mil-l'vad "besides"?
- 20. The yak'tir (burned) is not, I think, necessarily here the actual consumption by Aaron's putting the fire - he may have put it no doubt - but the ceremonial order of his doings; the actual consuming may have been by verse 24. It has been said it was the evening sacrifice there, but that seems to me to be getting away from the mind of the chapter. The fire from the Lord did not necessarily first set fire to the wood, but it consumed the sacrifice.
The fire consumes the sacrifice, and the fire consumes the two sons of Aaron; in both te-tseesh (a fire went out), quod nota. To-kal (devoured) is repeated too.
- 23. With regard to the offerings at Aaron's and his sons' consecration, blood was not brought into the holiest or holy place, the bullock was burnt outside the camp; so with the red heifer, and these sacrifices when the cloud had filled the tabernacle. The people were not to go in, and the priests could not go in till they were consecrated; here Moses and Aaron go into the tabernacle for the first time. The first thing must be every bearing of Christ's sacrifice, before any approach within - the revelation of God here below required this. Christianity comes in a different shape, because Man (Christ) is gone in, consequent on the accomplishment of the sacrifice in every character of it, and the Holy Ghost comes out as a witness of it, and that is the way of the presence of God on the earth now.* There was only anointing in its first setting-up, so even of Aaron and his sons, Exodus 40.
{*I am partly indebted for a suggestion in this last.}
43 For the full consecration we must go to our previous chapter (8). But the offerings were only on the altar, though burned without the camp; it was culpability, not propitiation. The whole of this is Israelitish to the end, when the Lord comes out. The Holy Ghost not only anticipates this, but comes from within when Christ (Man) is gone in there according to the glory of God. There was no proper propitiation but on the great day of atonement - no going within the veil; but I must look into this further.
- 24. This consuming was not setting fire to, but God's testimony of His acceptance of what was offered. There is no sign of the original lighting, by fire from heaven, in the case of the tabernacle.
Leviticus 10
- 3. In both to have His first place - for sanctified is here giving Him His highest glory; so glorified before the people.
- 8. Is not this the first time the Lord speaks to Aaron, now consecrated?
- 9. A disordered internal state - the excitement of flesh, and absence of the sober sense of the presence of God is as fatal as, perhaps leads to, strange fire; they are closely connected. The priests' sense of divine presence, and godly sobriety is needed to our senses distinguishing between sacred and profane, unclean and clean - the former what is fit for God, or the opposite - the latter for the saint, and the opposite; and to teach in the word; so ever.
- 14. Here "a clean place," not "holy"; the daughters eat of it. It was not a priestly eating, but provision, though due to the priests as offering. It is evident that the eating of the t'nu-phah (wave-offering) and t'ru-mah (heave-offering) was not a priestly act. They were consecrated and eaten by the priest's family, but in a clean place, not in the holy place as the rest of the min-khah (meat-offerings). Here the t'nuphah and t'ru-mah were peace-offerings founded on, but not a proper sacrifice. They were communion on a sacrifice itself, though identified with it - but the fat was always burned.
44 I have looked into the Levites elsewhere - they were a t'nu-phah and were waved before the Lord.
Leviticus 14
In the case of the leper, it is different from the consecration of the priests. This is not consecration to God primarily, though blood be needed for us, and Christ, who needed of course none, yet associates us with Himself according to the power of it, exercising His priesthood in that power before God. The first thought is cleansing, consecration from defilement, though we reach up to the anointing oil, and here it is poured on the head of the cleansed one - he is viewed individually as partaker of the Holy Ghost before God.
First note he is become intrinsically clean, as we are when born of God, but he has to be cleansed and consecrated to God to be with Him, in communion with Him judicially, and in respect of his responsibility - first the work of Christ Himself, His death and resurrection, and the perfect and complete sprinkling with His blood, shed in the power of the Holy Ghost. The bird is killed, over running water in an earthen vessel - the power of the Spirit working in a human body. This is identified with the shed blood, and with this the man, clean as to disease, is sprinkled, and is pronounced clean. He clears himself from everything that could carry the remains of corruption with it; and then the various offerings are offered after seven days, but first the man is consecrated to God by blood and oil. The last kind of sacrifice, that for actual trespasses, is slain, and the blood is put upon his ear, thumb, and great toe. In this it is analogous with chapter 8, but there it is what is needed to the sons, having a part with the personally holy priesthood of Christ, the sinless anointed Man - cleansing consecration by blood. Here it is the quickened sinner who is restored to God, and cleansed and consecrated by blood that he may be, and then he gets his own portion, i.e., the knowledge and enjoyment by anointing - his mind, acts, and walk cleansed by blood, and he in all of them consecrated to God, according to its value.
Nothing as we have heretofore seen is to have a place in thought, act, or way, which does not suit the blood sprinkled on the organ of each; we are wholly thus consecrated morally to God, according to the price of Christ's blood.
45 Then the anointing takes place, and the power and action of the Spirit of God is operative in the man's consecration; but first note, it is its action before and in the presence of the Lord - not, so to speak, a prophetic action, coming out from Him with a partial revelation, a light shining in a dark place, but the full present unction and action of the Spirit of God before God Himself. The oil was sprinkled seven times before the Lord, not merely a person holily consecrated to a function, but the Holy Ghost (the Comforter) present, and in its fulness present, and acting towards the Lord. It was then besides put where the blood had been put - we are no more to grieve the Spirit of God in these things than we are to admit or do anything inconsistent with Christ's blood - His holy intelligence of God is to govern our thoughts and acts and ways; and then the rest of the oil is poured on the man.
Thus, consequent on the blood-shedding, the full presence and power of the Holy Ghost is developed, as with men. First, the Comforter is come - present, but before the Lord; John 16. He is there Himself in His fulness, He who fills all things, but present as sent or given, here before the Lord. Next, it follows the work of Christ in the individual, i.e., as wholly consecrated to, and cleansed for God in all his thoughts and ways, giving the holy, active, intelligent consecration, and, owing to the value of this blood-shedding, cleansed from sin, and to God according to the putting away of sin, and redemption to God by death, the death of Christ.
Then further, the Holy Ghost is given to give the full, conscious place of blessing and relationship to the believer - the oil is poured on his head, he is anointed - the love of God shed abroad in his heart - knows he is a son, is in Christ and Christ in him - is at liberty in this new place, has not merely the thought and walk of a holy man, but is an anointed man - has the Spirit of adoption, knows his place, a place angels never had, they were never sealed with the Holy Ghost. We know thus God dwells in us, and we in Him; this is more complete than the official anointing, and it is for personal fellowship, and personal relationship, but a divine one, and of sons in its nature. It is a wonderful thing that God should dwell in us for our enjoyment of Him; we dwell in God, and God in us - but then the Father and the Son are the objects of our fellowship and our faith. The Holy Ghost is the power of it, dwelling in us, and that in the power of a new life. Chapter 8 was priesthood, and the blood needed to bring in and fit us for it, and associate us spiritually with Christ, so that we might be priests with the perfect One; in the chapter before us it is our place as redeemed in the power and intelligence of the divine Spirit of God.
46 - 6, 7. In cleansing the leper, the bird was killed over the running water, the other bird was dipped in his blood and so the man sprinkled, and then the man was to wash; in the case of a house, the bird is dipped in the running water also, and the house is sprinkled with it.
There is no burning on the altar nor outside - death must come in, but the object is purification; it is sprinkling with water, though with all the efficacy of the blood. It is the action on the conscience, not the presenting of the efficacy to God, though the work was needed to purify the conscience. Further, it was a trespass-offering, of which the blood was taken to sprinkle the ear, hand, and foot; that is, first the sinner had to be occupied with his actual evil - what affected his conscience - not abstractedly with the sacrifice of Christ for sin. That is needed, because God must see all sin put away, even that which we see not, and sin as such; but this will not do as regards the conscience - practically it comes afterwards, and is all-important in its place, but the conscience to be purified must be occupied with its sin; there is reality and personal humiliation in that. Thoughts, acts, and walk must be put under the efficacy and safeguard of the blood of Christ, and then its absolute efficacy as to all sin in God's sight can be entered into - after that, His perfection in devotedness to God, and life of holy grace and service as Man; the trespass was wrongs done to God or man in things forbidden, or violating a right, but here I judge the full sense is that which I have given. The former part was without, to purify and render capable of approaching God, in coming under the intelligent efficacy of the work of Christ; he is not at home in the camp to worship; but he can come into the camp as cleansed, so as to enter into the full relief and peace and drawing nigh of conscience. He that is cleansed by the water comes in the efficacy of the blood, but he does not yet know in his conscience the applied efficacy that he finds progressively when he draws nigh, so as to enter into the full appreciation of Christ's offering of Himself to God, and to draw nigh to God according to the acceptability and acceptance of Christ Himself, having so offered Himself for God's glory.
47 Christ has given Himself that we may come - the water brings us, dead to all creature condition and human glory, into the camp in consequence of this; there we realize all the efficacy and importance of the death which Christ has suffered, not merely to bring us in by purifying us, but its proper value before God. The detail seems repeated to show the impossibility of a sinner, not thoroughly purified according to the purification of the sanctuary of God's presence, coming into that presence in peace.
- 25, etc. The leper was cleansed by the blood of a trespass-offering being put upon his ear, etc. - the priest was consecrated by that of an offering of sweet savour which was in effect a peace-offering of which Moses had his part, and Aaron and his sons ate the rest.
Leviticus 16
In this chapter sin is entered - man's sin is shown - so that the free intercourse with glory in connection with flesh is impossible. But this brings in the connection with Israel in a new way - atonement, the full savour of Christ in connection with death, and the total putting away of sin (not merely bearing sins, and forgiveness of them) so that there was an absolute standing on that ground before God. Then an actual subsequent bearing away the sins of Israel, and a cleansing of the heavenly things also - a wider work than blessing without in virtue of sacrifice.
Christ is presented in the double character, for the nation and for Aaron and his house, and as to Israel as with the bullock for the Lord's lot, and then the bearer away of the people's sins - so it was Christ was offered, and died for the nation, but for the gathering of the Church also; afterwards the sins of Israel will be practically removed. When the bullock is offered for Aaron and his house, the whole and perfect atonement is made, and for it the whole personal savour of Christ's offering ascends up, and the blood for others is presented in connection with that, "He has put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" - no doubt bearing our sins, but the truth intimated here is not so much the forgiveness of particular sins, as the total abolition of sin as between us and God by atonement, so that we stand on this blessed ground with God - it is the only one on which a sinner can - though in an inferior order, the goat, not the bullock. It is the same for Israel - Christ has made atonement, or they could not be blessed.
48 Then further, the whole scene is purged; this is a new feature, connected with Christ's going through the heavens in the virtue of His blood, and purifying the whole scene, to make it the place of His universal dominion and display of glory - not merely suffer that Israel might be blessed - but that blood be carried within, and the redemption of the Church, the purifying of all things wrought out, and the blessing of Israel flow from that height and be in connection with it.
Then afterwards when Aaron comes out, the people's actual sins are administratively removed, and they can be freely blessed. This diminishes the direct application of the scapegoat to us; but besides that, we enter into and anticipate all that is true of Israel, as grafted into the tree of promise, and that Christ's bearing of sins is thus applied, yet I believe only positively spoken of in Peter and the Hebrews, where the Jew is first; yet it is as propitiation formally, in general, extended to the whole world; 1 John 2. This gives a much fuller character to the work of Christ for us, while it leaves not the smallest cloud on the truth that He washed us from our sins in His own blood, for sin is totally put away - our standing-place is without it before God. It is not merely sins administratively removed at a given epoch when Christ comes out, but we enter into the holiest completely purged. It is a full, heavenly, sinless qualification we now possess, "made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light." No doubt fundamentally the same work is done for Israel, or they could not be blessed, but we go within with Aaron; their sins are, as I have said, administratively removed when he comes out.
The purification in the sanctuary was a distinct part of the great day of atonement; the cleansing of the outer sanctuary distinct. The burnt-offering came afterwards quite distinct; nobody was to be in the outer sanctuary, when the high priest went through the cleansing of the inner - that was the essential substantive thing, the blood being brought to the throne, as the Lord's lot, and that was done for himself and his house (the priest's) and all the congregation of Israel. Verse 16 comes in by the bye. There was to be a cleansing of the place - that had been done for the most Holy when the blood was brought in, and it was to be done for the tabernacle - outside there was no such cleansing. In verse 18 he comes to the cleansing of the outer sanctuary, so that what was cleansed was the sanctuary itself, the blood being sprinkled before God Himself and on His throne, for Aaron, his house, and all the people, and during this time, no one was to come into the outer. Then he went out of the sanctuary, and cleansed the altar of incense, i.e., all was cleansed when man approached to God - not when man was cleansed by God. The tabernacle as the place of approach was cleansed; then came the putting the sins out of sight, quite another matter but connected. And then as a distinct service, in other garments, the service of offering outside. Nor was there any specific cleansing of the candlestick and table - they were not approaching-places.
_______
49 I notice with much interest lately that cleansing, on the great day of atonement, referred only to the tabernacle itself and what was in it - not to the court or what was there. Here only the blood was carried into the holiest of all. But as to cleansing, the heavenly places alone are in view - this is full of interest; there was a cleansing away of sins on Azazel, but that was a distinct part (not as to Christ, separated in His work - the goats were one Christ) but it was a different subject - sins put away, but no approach in that to the sanctuary. And as to the holy of holies, the witness still there that the way was not open. Still, though only the shadow not the image of the things to come was there, the principle of entrance in peace into the presence of God was there - the blood was on the propitiatory. This was a thing wholly apart from all regular Jewish offerings, none of which contemplated entrance there. But what was done, was cleansing everything within, because God was there; it was apart, unconnected with any other sacrifices. When it was complete, the high priest offered burnt-offerings - but they were no part of this service. This, too, was not available for an occasion - it was effectual for God Himself, here only for a year no doubt, but cleansed all around Him for Himself, for what He was, and when all was revealed was an eternal redemption, an eis to dienekes.
50 But the point I am now upon, is that it applied only to what figured the heavenly places. The red heifer was apart as a sacrifice, and was connected with approach to God, but for those who could still defile themselves where death was, and in this sense outside; but it was for particular defilement of man, which his conscience must take notice of as approaching God, but was of water to restore communion, though founded on blood and the consuming of sin, but blood only sprinkled where the people met God, outside. It was for the actual defilement of man, not what affected God's presence where He was; it came in, in a supplementary way, for man in his relationship to God where he could defile himself, hence is found in the book of Numbers - the wilderness journey. It was an outside thing, though of course referring to our relationship with God. Hence it is found in the Hebrews, just alluded to as a supplementary thing.
In Hebrews we are always weak individuals, in the wilderness, with access to God in the holiest where the High Priest is, only sitting down there.
The scape-goat referred to actual clearing and putting the sins away, so that they were not found again, hence applied to Israel (though of course it was for us). But it is only the outer part - we are looked at as responsible, according to our Adam standing in this world - our intercourse with God as human beings. But within was where God's presence was - not exactly our Father's house, but being where God reveals Himself - where all is according to His nature, and what is in heaven is revealed to us, "What eye hath not seen, God has revealed unto us by his Spirit," indeed, now there is no veil; as to our entering in, it is the ta agia. But this is properly our place, and note here that there was no Azazel bullock. No doubt our sins are put away - Scripture, thank God, is full of it - but our characteristic relationship is cleansing for God, for His presence. Christ has spoken what He knew, and testified what He had seen, and by the Holy Ghost we follow Him there where He is gone, not without blood too; and that is what we belong to, and what belongs to us. We start with learning what God is for us down here, and all is forgiven, and we are redeemed out of this world, though in it, and we belong, by the purchase of Christ, to the place where He is.
51 Thus I would remark first that the cloud of sweet incense and the bullock seem our proper way and ground of acceptance - the two goats, Israel's, though we come in, as regards our guilt, in the same way, but the other is our own proper ground, i.e., the personal acceptance of Christ, and God perfectly glorified in His offering - not merely bearing our sins away. - That meets need, and blessed it is that it does, still there is that which glorifies God as to sin, and divine favour in which Christ stands, and in which we are accepted, and this is where we are before God, the sweet savour of Christ, and God glorified as to sin, as only through the sacrifice of Christ, not bearing sins, but according to John 13 - this part the Jews have not. Their blessing, no doubt in a general sense, is founded on it, and the blood of the goat was put on the mercy-seat, as well as the sins carried away; but though Christ must be there that they may be blessed, they are not in His blessing - standing before God in the virtue of it, as He does.
- 8. As regards Azazel - the word is pretty plain I think, I have heretofore noticed it; Ez, the goat - Azal (to depart) in whom the sins fail and disappear - and this is practically, I suppose, the force of eretz g'zerah (a land of separation), to fail, to be removed, perish, excluded. The sins disappeared wholly - they were sent off, and so gone to the land where no man was - they were lost. The use of the two words, only thus used here, is remarkable, for the total disappearance of sins, never to be found - there was no one there to seek for or find them. Just as in the Jewish idea, death removed man from this world, and then there was no remembrance, it was a non est as to this world - so the sins, they were gone, and were not, not to be found, like Rachel's children though not longed for.
The fact that there is no scape-bullock seems to me to depend upon the fact that they were priests. Hence, though in the necessarily imperfect shadowing of the law, it was only approach that was in question, qua priests we are not guilty sinners - for such, the actual sins must be cleared away - as priests we draw nigh, and that with boldness into the holiest now, because Christ has perfected the work which brings us there - for us once for all, and we have no more conscience of sins.
It seems to me that though I doubt not that the blessed Lord in bearing our sins held the place of Aaron as representing the people and confessing their sins on Azazel - not properly a priestly but a representative office (for priestly was in ability to approach God when others could not, and here he took their place as sinners) - yet Hebrews 5:9-10, points out distinctly that He was established as High Priest, only after His sufferings, "being made perfect," i.e., having been passed through His consecration by the things which He suffered, He became, and is thus and then saluted of God a High Priest - God publicly owns Him thereon.
52 I certainly think, as to the strict application of it (for as to efficacy, whatever efficacy there is in Christ's offering we have, and what is true of the Jew we have) yet as to the letter, the bullock for Aaron and his house is for us, the scape-goat is for the Jews. Aaron and his house were atoned for by themselves by the bullock, as directed indeed in chapter 4. The sacrifice was of greater value, of weightier import than that for Israel. But this is not all - this was complete before there was any purifying of things and places - Aaron and his house are purified by themselves; and in the case of the goat the blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat, and atonement made for Israel also before the cleansing began. Then, in the Lord's lot, begins the putting the blood on places, before Azazel. It makes atonement, and purifies the holy place and altar, defiled by the uncleanness of Israel. It was Godward, the nature of sin as uncleanness in His sight; with this the places were all cleansed (the heavenly with better sacrifices) but the only thing mentioned in the first goat is the places - no doubt in respect of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, as affecting God and His presence. No doubt thus death had come in and a sin-offering, but it met God, and after the reconciliation of the heavenly saints, the places were reconciled; and then last of all, when the high priest had confessed Israel's sins, Azazel was taken to the land not inhabited. And this confirms the order of power - first the Church received, then the heavenly places cleansed, and then Israel reconciled; there is the Church, the reconciling the heavenly things, and Israel. There are other precious differences elsewhere noticed, but this as to the proper order of application.
- 14. Notice that on the great day of atonement, the blood was sprinkled seven times on the mercy-seat, and upon the altar (v. 19) - as of the red heifer at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, once as far as appears on the mercy-seat.
53 NOTE. - The blood of the offerings for sin for priest and congregation was sprinkled before the veil; on the great day of atonement it was on the mercy-seat; in ordinary cases on the altar of burnt-offering. This would make it communion, but it puts the people (through the priests) in the holy place. At any rate the congregation must be fit to be represented there by them - fit for that place. Personally they came no nearer than before the altar of burnt-offering; there consequently their sin-offering was offered.
NOTE. - We have in fact the blood on the mercy-seat, and the scape-goat in Romans 3 and 4; only the Lord's lot is set out in testimony for us as guilty to come, an hilasterion (mercy-seat) through faith in His blood - the scape-goat is as delivered for our offences (and raised again for our justification) and propitiation, though in view of God's glory (among whom I dwell), still is for sins as 1 John 2. The Lord's lot was a sin-offering, though not for particular acceptance or restoration, but, in general, for God who was there.
- 15. The sprinkling on and before the mercy-seat had its own efficacy before the Lord, but the cleansing then began with the holy place, etc. It may be they were sprinkled, with blood certainly, if Hebrews 9:21 applies to this, but that may be doubted; otherwise it is said only of the mercy-seat and of the altar before the Lord, i.e., the altar of incense. Atonement was made for the places, but specific mention of blood could perhaps only be on the mercy-seat and altar.
The altar of incense was to be sprinkled (Exodus 30:10); but when the tabernacle was set up it would seem it was not sprinkled with blood (Exodus 40:9; chap. 30:26, etc.); the brazen altar seems to have been cleansed with blood; Exodus 29:36. The sprinkling with blood and cleansing leads to the judgment that it was so done with all (the altar of incense certainly) on the day of atonement. Moses' doing it would not mean more than its being done under the law; but the connection with Sinai (Hebrews 9:19) tends to show that it was then, and not recorded in the Old Testament. Still Hebrews 9:21 gives no clear judgment that it was at the setting up; verse 22 clearly generalises it, so that we may suppose he was already beyond Sinai.
- 18. The question then arises, what is the altar here? In verse 20 the tabernacle of the congregation is said positively to be reconciled. The altar cleansed was the altar of incense, the altar before the Lord (see chapter 4:6, 18). This changes the character; this reconciliation (ka-phar) to make atonement, was of the places where they went to God (only by priests). It was the holy place or sanctuary, the tabernacle and the altar. Aaron was to sprinkle the blood on the mercy-seat and before it; He makes atonement for himself and for all Israel - he makes atonement for the brazen altar before the Lord, i.e., reconciles it, but it is not said of the mercy-seat. In verse 17 he makes atonement for himself and house, and for all Israel; he makes atonement in it (verse 16) for the holy place, but not for the mercy-seat, but he does specifically for the altar; it was the idea of the people approaching. The altar without was not the place of approaching, save as under sin; the atonement was made there - the sacrifice, whose blood was to work thus efficaciously, was offered there - but it was distinctly the place of approach that was cleansed. The place of approach and of offered incense - the mercy-seat - was what they approached, blood was put on it and before it for them. The altar without was the place where, when offering was made, the thing, as far as man was concerned, to come there with was sin. Hence we have blood put on the mercy-seat, atonement for Aaron and Israel, the cleansing of the holy place, tabernacle, and altar; then putting Israel's sins on Azazel.
54 It gives an absolute character to our reconciliation which Israel's has not, though in substance it is just the same. Christ was made sin for us - the whole thing is put away. It is not a question of dealing with sins - that of course would have been, if this work had not been done; but Christ intercepts this, and God's righteousness is now declared, in which we stand to start with, by faith, and are always in. No doubt we are made to feel our sins as a means of discovering our state, but this is only the way of getting at it - we are all under sin, in this condition before God. I learn it by my sins, or much more deeply by my sinfulness, and then find I am made the righteousness of God. In Israel there is a dealing with particular transgressions. No doubt if Christ had not atoned for all our sins we could not have been the righteousness of God in Him - He did, Scripture says it, abundantly, thank God, but He was made sin and glorified God as in, and about it. But it is done, and we stand in righteousness in the efficacy of His work.
55 But Israel has to meet God about the transgressions they have been guilty of - suffer about them - feel Reuben to be guilty about their brother - transgressors, and God dealing with them as His people about their transgressions. It is surely practically true of us, yet not as His people who have sinned as such, but as merely and wholly sinners, and nothing else. Hence Israel has to feel in a special way that their sins, when they had to say to them, had been laid on the head of the scape-goat. My whole place is changed to be owned as righteous in Christ before God - Christ my righteousness; of course if He had not done the work on the cross I could not be, still I come in from a place of utter sin and alienation into divine righteousness. The truth is the same - the manner and circumstances are different. Indeed we have the bullock of atonement, they the goat - yet Christ for both, and Christ ever perfect in His work.
The question whether the altar before the Lord which was sprinkled was that of incense or of burnt-offering does not affect the general teaching of the passage. See verse 12, also Exodus 30:10. My impression is that verse 12 is the altar of incense, see Exodus 30:10; but it does not affect what is the important part of the question, I only add some fruits of further research.
The distinction of judicial righteousness connected with responsibility, and our approach to God according to what He is, is of all moment. This last connects itself with the purpose of God, Christ's delight in the sons of men before the Creation, and before the responsibility; but it is not that side that is treated here, but the nature of God, and access to Him as such. Israel stood formally in the place of responsibility, the law being the perfect rule of it; it was their standing as to the present government of, and relationship with God.* That could not be, it is true - that is, forgiveness and purgation from sins - if what God was had not been glorified; and the Lord's lot was offered (in this case only the blood was brought into the holiest) and our responsibility is also met as we know, thank God. He gave Himself for our sins, "died for our sins according to the Scriptures"; but it was Israel's place as such, though in spirit we get the good of the new covenant, but then what characterises us more is our approach to God within, not merely being in Christ, but as regard's God's nature and presence, the bullock marks our place - we have died with Christ, are not, in faith, in the old creation; it is not our politeuma (citizenship). It is more than the needed basis of forgiveness - it is justification of life. The bullock-offering is our whole position and present relationship, our calling is heavenly, and we have boldness to enter into the holiest by the new and living way. It is "quickened together with him, having forgiven us all trespasses," though here it is not the life, but the ground of acceptance - but it is in death and resurrection, beyond and out of the old creation. He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Hence too remark that, when the blood was carried into the sanctuary, the bodies were burned without the camp, a religion of man, as in this world, did not consist with it. It is death to the world - and heaven. This is a most immensely important point. The Epistle to the Hebrews is just leading them from one to the other; till then they had united both - served the tabernacle - it could not be.
{*The question with Israel was, Could they come? Nor was the question fully solved - into His presence they could not; His presence, the Tabernacle, claimed sacrifices. His presence with us, as noted by others, is by the Holy Ghost where Man, consequent on the purgation of sins, is Himself on the throne - the veil rent.}
56 The putting the blood on the mercy-seat was meeting God in respect of sin in the essence of His Being in death the fruit of sin - a wondrous truth! It was when made sin and bearing its curse, forsaken of God and dying that Man's obedience was perfect, and love to the Father in Jesus, and that wherein God's righteousness against sin, and supreme love to sinners was manifested. In the place of sin, as made it (and God Himself was perfectly glorified, John 13*), obedience was perfect. Then the sprinkling seven times before the mercy-seat was the perfection of its effect for our approach. This sevenfold sprinkling therefore was done on the altar of incense - God was not seated there. The scape-goat met responsibility and judgment founded, of course, on the blood of the other, but the first part gave access to God as He is, and the fitness of incense service, and this is truly blessed. The scape-goat was, first of all, Israel as an earthly people on earthly ground, in the flesh, but of course applicable to us (as Isaiah 53), but to us as having been on this ground, guilty as sinners in the flesh by what the flesh produced; but now out of it, all that gone, not in the flesh, and as to that perfected for ever; and so now standing on the ground of the blood within, with "boldness to enter into the holiest" - not justified without merely, but "made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light" - so that while the positive preciousness of the blood remains for God Himself, yet it is not contrast with a state of guilt, but positive joy and worship where there is none.
{*In John's Gospel, forgiveness of sins does not come in.}
57 Peter does not go beyond redemption out of where we were, and bearing our sins, and so dead to sins, man suffers in the flesh, is not dead - he has the Red Sea fully, blessed perfectness of work too, but not I think the Jordan. 1 Peter 1:3 is the Red Sea, but we are in the wilderness, though with a lively hope; hence of course the appearing is what is before us. Christ is ready to judge, and God's government on the earth is treated of; he reaches the "Day-star" as an extreme point of hope, and "the day of the Lord will come."
John, i.e., in his Epistle (see before as to his Gospel), is a different class of teaching - it is Christ's, or rather the Son's Person, and life and that reproduced in us. Still he refers to the other, but puts it all together, "His blood cleanseth from all sin" - we are on earth, but Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, as well as for Jewish believers. Man is not looked at in the flesh; it is not exactly, therefore, bearing sins, but then we are in this world as Christ is before God, so as to have boldness. It is, what He is we are; and, in this, love is perfected. It is all what suits God, though the cleansing blood be necessarily there. But we are in the light, as God is in the light. It is what divine love has done for us, and the place it has put us in.
Paul, though he be essentially the same, does not give us Peter's form of it, "He gave himself for our sins," "died for our sins according to the Scriptures" - Hebrews gives us both sides, but the first more in view of the general result; "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" and, in correspondency to death and judgment, "bore the sins of many." Paul, I think, brings it more from God's side - Peter more Christ's work "that we might live to God." In Paul, God sets Christ forth a propitiatory "that he might be just in justifying." "He gave himself for our sins." "God commends his love to us." He reasons more downward from grace, though both meet in the one act, and are substantially the same as to this. "He was delivered" in Paul "for our offences," "God made him to be sin for us" - God is for us in it. In Peter, He dies and is raised in glory "that our faith and hope might be in God." The truth is the same, but in Peter it is more our need and judicial. Hence, too, we never get sin in Peter, only sins. You get "the God of all grace" as a title, and referred to our present walk, but you never get the love of God, or love as in Him presented in Peter - what we know as the fruits of it are, but it is not presented as such. All this is not clearly put, but profoundly interesting.
58 - 18. As to kip-per (the piël form of ka-phar to cover), and kip-per al (expiate for). Al (for) follows the natural sense of kip-per (expiate), as the Lexicons say, though other prepositions be occasionally used. But it seems to me that kip-per must be very much taken alone in the sense of reconciling or appeasing, and the al merely gives the object about which the kip-per takes place. We may have it as "reconcile," with no preposition, as Genesis 32:20, "I will appease, reconcile his face," Daniel 9:24 with a-von (iniquity), Leviticus 6:30. But we have kip-per al (expiate upon) the scape-goat. We have also Exodus 30:10 in English "atonement" upon it. Then Leviticus 8:15 "sanctified, to make reconciliation upon it." In all al (for, etc.). Here the altar of burnt-offering. Now al must have different senses here - no atonement was made on the altar of incense; and it does not answer in the case of the scape-goat (in English "with"); with persons al is common. We have also l'kap-per al … min (to make expiation for) with al of the person, and min (from) of the sins. In Psalm 79:9, we have al with sins. In Leviticus 16:17 we have b' (in) the holy place. If "in" be right absolutely the b'ad (about, or for) himself, his house, and all the congregation (a l'addresse de), not the object of the act, but as that which has its part in what is done, Exodus 8:24; in verse 33, we find kip-per without a preposition for the places and things, and al for the priests and people of the congregation. The only real difficulty is the scape-goat, but I apprehend it comes under the general rule. As to the altar of incense - it is only "on it" so far as it was defiled by the sins of the people. It was the object of the ko-pher (atoning work) made; so in verse 33 the places were reconciled, but the expiation had to be made about the priests and people as the object - b'ad (in reference to) offers no difficulty.
59 In chapter 8:15 I am disposed to take l'kap-per a-lav (to make expiation for it) as meaning "in making reconciliation for it" - He sanctified it - in this, ko-pher (atoning) for it. It was the object of the ko-pher (atoning) here, as in Genesis 2:2. As to Leviticus 16:10 "to make an atonement with" gives substantially the sense, though "with" may be too precise. The instrumental "with" is b' as in Genesis 32:21; Exodus 29:33; 2 Samuel 21:3 - but the scape-goat is the object as to which the l'kap-per (to make atonement) takes place, is before the mind as where sin is in question, requiring the ko-pher. In the passages with b' (in), this has nothing particular to do with the word kip-per, it is the common use of it, but here the scape-goat presented the sin as needing l'kap-par (to be expiated), but those were the sins on the goat - the goat was as to itself identified in idea with the other, and on it the sins were carried into a land where none could find them, and so peace was made; so that "with" gives the general sense, though too precise. As having the sins laid upon him, atonement was made in respect of him, not of the goat, but what was on him, and the blood being shed, all the sins carried away into the land where they are no more found. All was cleared away and removed - Christ bore our sins on the cross, then atonement had to be made for the sins that were upon Him, and there it was made in the same act, in His dying. For Himself, clearly no propitiation was made - He was making it; still He was the scape-goat, as well as the Lord's lot, and the actual sins that were there had to be atoned for. What He stood as, and what He carried was the object of the propitiation He made. In Leviticus 19:22 we have al, both for the person, and for the sin.
_________
(Dated 1874.) I turn to this great day of atonement a little more clearly, or rather precisely and definitely. The blood of the bullock and of the goat were sprinkled on and before (for I suppose this applies to the goat too) the mercy-seat, and on the altar; so that as God was glorified by the blood, so access was given by it, "boldness to enter by the blood" - God glorified, and we able to draw nigh. But then the altar of incense (as I have supposed it) also sprinkled, i.e., communion, when not actually in heaven but only in heavenly places, according to what glorified God; and this is all we have of the blood on the great day of atonement. The bullock for Aaron and his sons - the fullest value of Christ as an offering - ours, though what was essential was done for Israel as regards God. Azazel was the actual putting-away of sins; then there was the burnt-offering, and fat of the sin-offering burned on the altar - the perfect value of Christ's sacrifice as a sweet savour to God, by which He is glorified in Christ's perfection in His sacrifice, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again." But the blood is here all within for God Himself, approach to Him and communion; see the difference of the sin-offerings even when the blood was brought into the holy (not most holy) place. The blood was sprinkled seven times before the veil - the place of approach in worship; then on the altar of incense, and then all the rest at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering, and, as to the people at any rate (nothing said as to the high priest) there was forgiveness. It was according to God, but it was not the foundation of all the rest; nor for God, the Lord's lot. Even the scape-goat was the removal of the sins, not exactly the forgiveness. In particular or individual sin-offering, it is evident - but in all there was restoration of communion, not foundation for it. Hence we have not forgiveness in chapter 16 - cleansing we have, and sins put out of God's sight.
60 The more it is weighed, the more important does the great day of atonement become. It is not a burnt-offering to be accepted according to a sweet savour, nor a sin-offering to restore a soul by priestly intervention, or the people and priest in sprinkling before the veil and on the altar of incense, so that communion might be restored to them. It is in no sense application consequent on failure in responsibility. It was a sin-offering, and of course in respect of the priest and his house, and the people, but not application and restoration - God was in view. No doubt that the sins were carried into a land not inhabited, but it was not personal restoration nor access; as the blood on the mercy-seat, it laid the ground for it, though in another way. It was substitution, doing the work which bore the sins away out of God's sight. So in sprinkling the tabernacle, it was "because of the iniquities of the children of Israel among whom I dwell." The blood was brought in in respect of sin no doubt, but as meeting God's own nature. The sins were gone, but no blood was put on the brazen altar; it was not measured judicially by man's responsibility. The sins did not suit God's presence, and cleansing was effected on God's throne and before it, and on the altar of incense. We go into the holiest - the veil is now rent. Burnt-offerings were offered afterwards, and the fat of the sin-offering, and the rest was burned outside the camp. A religion for the sanctuary is not a worldly religion - it goes outside the camp or earthly relationship with God. When the priests were consecrated, they belonged as such to what was within; hence the offerings were burned outside the camp; till after they were consecrated, they of course could not go in - not inside the brazen altar; they needed the judicial atonement. This was a special case; hence the blood was poured out at the brazen altar (for they were taken as sinners to be priests), and the body, etc., burned without the camp. In the case of the sin-offering for the anointed priest or congregation, the communion of all was interrupted, and the blood was sprinkled before the veil and on the altar of incense, for there it was needed to re-establish it, but the blood was put at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, for they were guilty - the bodies burned outside the camp, the blood having gone into the sanctuary. It was not God's nature met, but communion re-established with it, and judicially met withal at the altar of burnt-offering. Individual cases got their place back where communion subsisted. For Aaron himself there was no offering.
61 What makes the absence of a scape-bullock easily understood is, that it was for priests, persons already within as such. What concerned them was approach within, or rather God's nature or character within, for they would not have been there without it - it was done, in fact, when they were consecrated; but it gives strongly the true character of worship. In point of fact we were sinners just as Jews will be, or were, on the earth, and hence have needed the scape-goat, when our responsibility was in question as they do; just the same exactly as we anticipate the use of Isaiah 53, or even the blessing of the new covenant, but it does show what our worship in the priestly character is (compare Deuteronomy 16).
NOTE. - The new covenant does not go beyond forgiveness, and remembering sins no more. No doubt all depends, to the eternal blessing, in Christ having carried the blood once for all into God's presence, but the effect in the new covenant is only forgiveness, quod nota. How this shows too where the Evangelical Church is, though with their knowledge of sin they have not even this!
Leviticus 17
62 - 7. Lass 'irim (to wood-demons) from sa-ir, that which is hairy. The English Bible has "unto devils."
- 11. It has been thought that atonement "for the soul" should be "with the soul" ban-nephesh; but I doubt. It is not huper (for) but "in respect of," "in the matter of." But note, only what is on the altar makes atonement.
Leviticus 18
Remark how in this Book, when the details of evil are judged, Jehovah puts Himself personally forward as the One whose character at once rejects, and makes all these things impossible to His people - "I am the Lord." The people were in relationship with Him - He sanctified them. See also the two following chapters.
Leviticus 19
- 5. Ye shall offer it for your acceptance.
- 11. "One to another" seems to apply to all these words.
Leviticus 23
Feasts of the Lord, mo-ed (a set time), feast of unleavened bread, Khag (a holy feast).
Note the Sabbath, passover and unleavened bread were not dependent on their coming into the land.
- 9. Introduces a new ground of the feast.
- 10-14. This is an offering of obligation, and connected with the whole people - one of the regular feasts of the Lord, Christ's resurrection, to which Pentecost was subsidiary, though one of the great feasts, while that in chapter 2:14-16, seems a personal free-will offering. It was not in itself a mo-ed (set time) feast; but it comes under a "the Lord spake unto Moses saying"; in verse 15 (chap. 23) Pentecost is attached to it, so to speak. Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were gathering feasts; the Sheaf, the new Moon, and the day of Atonement were not. They were actings of God of whatever character, the basis of gathering perhaps, or leading to it, but not the gathering itself; Christ's lifting up did gather - "draw all men" - Pentecost was the actual power that did it. Tabernacles, not yet fulfilled, will be the great congregation when all Israel will be brought home from their wanderings - for us the heavenly assembly of all saints. But then resurrection presented the accepted sheaf in resurrection to God - it was Christ, first fruits of them that slept.
63 In the new moon Israel re-appears. The great day of atonement was not only the Lord's lot for His glory, but the actual putting away of the people's sins, and their knowing it through the appropriation of it in confession - so of us anticipatively by faith through the Holy Ghost.
The Sabbath, God's rest, stands by itself - the great Promise that overrides all.
Then the Passover, the basis of all, founded on which we have the feast of unleavened bread, the general result also in the sinless character of our association with God; verse 4, therefore begins afresh as the grand basis of all, unleavened bread being connected with it. The rest are special and actual dealings of God, and states and terms of relationship with Him; hence verse 9 starts with a new "the Lord spake," and that begins the ways of the Lord in the resurrection of Christ, first fruits from the dead presented to Him. Sabbath - Passover - and Unleaven are the general great truth of our being assembled to God, verses 1-8.
Then I get resurrection of Christ - the gift of the Holy Ghost - present dealings - then Israel recalled - their humiliation, and owning of sins, and the atonement made (Isaiah 53), which we anticipate as first fruits of His creatures - and finally the feast of tabernacles, which comes after the fruit of the land is gathered in, and the fulfilment of all promise is celebrated in blessing. The divisions are thus marked by "the Lord spake," verses 1, 9, 23, 26, 33.
As to the offerings, some points are to be observed. The Lord's Passover we know - it is the grand basis; hence in the feast of unleavened bread, the sacrificial worship is commanded, but there are no special sacrifices. In Pentecost, a full perfect sacrifice is introduced of perfect satisfaction to God, also a bullock and two rams - consecration or failure in it - and, leaven being in the cakes, a sin-offering, and two lambs for a heave-offering. All kinds were introduced with the Spirit, the full knowledge of what Christ's sacrifice is in every form, seven being full worship in Christ acceptable to God. In Tabernacles none but the general sacrificial worship. They are all really connected with the Passover. In the Sheaf of first fruits only a burnt-offering - it was Christ; with the two cakes a sin-offering (only here) there was leaven. In the blowing of trumpets, only the usual sacrificial worship, on which all is based, i.e., Christ's sacrifice, blessing being only in connection with this; it is calling God to remembrance in Israel, when they reappear. On the day of atonement also, only the usual sacrificial worship - it is Israel's confession of their sin, afflicting their souls. There were, we know, offerings showing the whole work of Christ for sin, but here it is the historical aspect, so to speak - whoever of Israel does not humble himself and mourn, recognizing what Christ's Cross (now come in glory) was, will be cut off - fulness expressed, as I have said, in Isaiah 53. Verse 22, I suppose, presents the remnant called out and, as sacrificed by the beast, belonging to the Spirit's time of work, but only exceptionally left, but not the offering up of the Gentiles, but not the bread of the first fruits yet gathered in an inferior way, so to speak.
64 - 11, is not rat-zon, "for your acceptance?" The wave-sheaf and the first fruits go together, and are connected with the land - resurrection and the Holy Ghost - and these with the non-riddance of the corners of the land form a complete whole. The offerings which were complete are spoken of elsewhere.
- 18. This seems to be a special offering, "with the bread." Numbers 28:24 on the Passover, the then prescribed offering was daily, it seems, implied in verses 26-31, but it is not said. Here it is specially with the bread, for otherwise the number of offerings is not prescribed. Compare Josephus, Ant., chap. 3:10. The seven lambs - a perfect sacrifice; the one bullock - the plain measure of the worth of Christ's sacrifice, without question of its estimation by piety, or in its effect on the heart; the rams - always consecration; two - full witness of it. The sin-offering as meeting the leaven, and two lambs for communion; hence two, as adequately witnessed - it was here in its natural completeness and simply itself.
65 - 24. The feast of trumpets is a distinct feast, nor is this directly connected with the land; there was an offering made by fire - God was acknowledged in the sacrifice - but the blowing of trumpets characterises it;
- 25, what sacrifice is not said.
- 27. The day of atonement is again distinct - it is a covering out of God's sight (kippurim atonement);
- 34, etc., so is the feast of tabernacles.
NOTE. - While leaven is met in the feast of weeks by the sin-offering, as needed to the actual relationship of the people, in none of the others it is so - we have "an offering made by fire" - not even in the day of atonement is any sin-offering mentioned; in the feast of weeks, the sacrifices are fully noticed, and the wave-sheaf - this is remarkable. When, if not in the Church and by the Holy Ghost, are they known? In the rest there is worship (the Passover speaks for itself by itself) and by an offering made by fire - that is all;
- 37 and 44, it is the same. It is always the mo-ed in the meetings with God, not the way of reception. So here, in this part of Tabernacles, it is specially characterised as to the character of appointed meeting with God; so as a Khag (holy feast) to the Lord, their former part, wanderings, are celebrated, and in verse 37, in general, worship-offerings are mentioned but not sin-offerings - offerings made by fire, no servile work, and on the tenth of the seventh month afflicting their souls. Then we have, but save the feast of weeks, no sin-offering nor any specified, though in Numbers those of Tabernacles are very remarkable. But in the feast of weeks we have the full intelligent appreciation, in worship, of sin in ourselves (though presented sinless) and of all that Christ has done, and of our presenting before the Lord; t'nu-phah (wave-offering) - t'ru-mah (heave-offering) seems to me to be more absolutely "offered up," as we say "given up" to God; though t'nu-phah was "consecrated" in general, t'ru-mah belonged to the priest who offered. The Levites however were a t'nu-phah, and they were (Numbers 8:16) n'thunim n'thunim (wholly given; literally given given) to Jehovah; for nuph (offer or wave) see verses 10, 13 and 15. Still it was for service as wholly consecrated, and that we all are as a prosphora (offering up, sacrificing), Rom. 15:16; but I still doubt this was a t'ru-mah. The t'nu-phah Aaron and his sons ate, just as the Levites were given to them - the t'ru-mah was in the intimacy of priestly communion; one was blessedly useful in service, and consecrated to it - the other in the mind of Christ. There were I think three steps, Aaron, sons and daughters, all clean in the house - Aaron and his sons - and the offering priest; but see Numbers 18:11-13 - but this hardly abrogates the distinction of Leviticus 7:31 and 33, certainly not chapter 6:26. However, here I only refer to them for t'ru-mah and t'nu-phah; see Leviticus 6:18, also verse 29, and chap. 7:6-9; there is "the priest's that offereth" (verse 9) and (verse 10) distinction, "all the sons of Aaron," or in verse 10 merely general, contrasted with the people, and verse 9, appropriative - I mean distinction as to the kind of offering. If so, this would make an interesting difference in Leviticus 2 - the flour, dry or with oil, generally for the priests, that baked in the oven or pan for the priest that offered it. For the general idea of Aaron and his sons, as contrasted with the people, or burning it, see Leviticus 2:3, 10, and chap. 7:9. What is "one as much as another" in verse 10? For each one who did it, or for all? See verse 14. Verse 33 seems decisive as to the difference of t'ru-mah, even if daughters ate it, which I doubt, in the court of the tabernacle.
66 - 42. The Jews, it appears, hold that none but an Israelite-born could keep the feast of tabernacles, i.e., dwell in booths, whatever the common joy might be. This has an intelligible reason, Israel having been, as such in the wilderness, as now strangers and wanderers. In Exodus 12:44, bought servants were to be circumcised and keep the Passover - they were redeemed members of the household, and separated to God by circumcision. Now in Zechariah 14:19, the Gentiles are to go up and keep the feast of tabernacles. The sin of Jews was they would not own mercy to Gentiles. Gentiles must bow, and join in the joy of mercy to Jews; if they do not, this shall be their sin - they will be dealt with in judgment about it - they would not submit to Israel's grace.
Leviticus 24
The candlestick and the shew-bread seem a kind of appendix to the Feasts. These are the gathering of Israel in connection with Christ, and the privileges granted to them through Him. The candlestick and shew-bread seem to be their estate according to God's purpose as in their normal condition before God, and in connection with Christ as Man, but full of grace and the Holy Spirit, or at any rate and rather the light of testimony by it.