Schoolmaster to Christ
LEVITICUS CHAPTERS 4-5:13

Scripture Reading: Leviticus 4-5:13 (KJV)

Having considered the "sweet savour" offerings, we now approach the "sacrifices for sin." These were divided into two classes: sin offerings and trespass offerings. Of the former, there were three grades; first, the offering for "the priest that is anointed," and for "the whole congregation." These two were the same in their rites and ceremonies¹; and the result was the same, whether the representative of the assembly or the assembly itself sinned. In either case three things were involved: God's dwelling-place in the assembly, the worship of the assembly, and individual conscience. Because all three depended on blood, we find, in the first grade of sin offering, there were three things done with the blood. It was sprinkled "seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary." This secured Jehovah's relationship with the people, and His dwelling in their midst. Again, we read, "The priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation." This secured the worship of the assembly. By putting the blood on "the golden altar," the true basis of worship was preserved; so that the flame of the incense and the fragrance might continually ascend. Finally, "He shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."² Here we have the claims of individual conscience fully answered; for the brazen altar was the place of individual approach – the place where God met the sinner.

In the two remaining grades, for "a ruler" or "one of the common people": it was a question of individual conscience. Therefore, there was only one thing done with the blood. It was poured "at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering."³ There is divine precision in all this that demands our close attention, if we desire to enter into the marvelous detail of this type.⁴

The effect of individual sin could not extend beyond individual conscience. The sin of "a ruler," or of "one of the common people," could not reach "the altar of incense" – the place of priestly worship. Neither could it reach to "the veil of the sanctuary" – the sacred boundary of God's dwelling place in the midst of His people. It is important that we ponder this; and never raise a question of personal sin or failure in the place of priestly worship or in the assembly. It must be settled in the place of personal approach. Many of us err in this. We come into the assembly or into the ostensible place of priestly worship with our conscience defiled, and thus drag down the whole assembly, marring its worship. This should be seriously considered and carefully guarded against. We need to walk more watchfully, so that our conscience may always be in the light. And when we fail, let us seek God in secret, in order that true worship and true position of the assembly may always be kept with fullness and clearness.

Having briefly considered the three grades of sin offering, we now proceed to examine the principles unfolded in the first. However before entering on the direct comparison already proposed, we call attention to a prominent point set forth in the second verse of this fourth chapter. It is contained in the expression, "If a soul shall sin through ignorance." This presents a deep truth in connection with the atonement⁵ of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contemplating atonement, we see more than the satisfaction of the claims of conscience; we see that which has fully satisfied all the claims of Divine holiness, justice, and majesty. The holiness of God's dwelling-place and the ground of association with His people could never be regulated by the standard of man's conscience, no matter how high the standard might be. There are many things that man's conscience passes over – many things that escapes our cognizance; many things that we might deem right that God cannot tolerate; many things that interfere with our approach to, worship of, and relationship with, God. If the atonement of Christ merely made provision for those sins that come within the compass of man's apprehension, we would find ourselves far short of the true ground of peace. We need to understand that according to God's measurement, sin has been atoned for – the claims of His throne have been perfectly answered. Sin, as seen in the light of His inflexible holiness, has been divinely judged. This is what gives settled peace to the soul. A full atonement has been made for the true believer's sins of ignorance, as well as known sins. The sacrifice of Christ is the foundation of our relationship and fellowship with God.

A clear sense of this is of great value. Unless this feature of the atonement is understood, there cannot be settled peace; nor can we have a true moral sense of the extent and fullness Christ’s work, or of the true nature of the relationship He founded. God knew what was needed so that man might be in His presence without a single misgiving – He made ample provision for it in the cross. If sin had not been disposed of according to God's thoughts about it, fellowship between God and man would have been utterly impossible. Though man's conscience might be satisfied, the question regarding God's satisfaction would always be before us. If this question could not be answered in the affirmative, fellowship could never subsist.⁶ The thought that things Divine holiness could not tolerate were manifesting themselves, would be continually intruding itself in the heart. True, we might be doing such things "through ignorance" but this could never alter the matter before God, because all is known to Him. Hence, we would experience continual apprehension, doubt, and misgiving. All these things are divinely met by this fact: sin has been atoned for, not according to our "ignorance," but according to God's knowledge. This assurance gives rest to the heart and conscience. All God's claims have been answered by His own work. He has made the provision Himself. Therefore, the more refined our conscience becomes, under the combined action of the Word⁷ and Spirit of God⁸, the more we grow in a divinely-adjusted sense of all that morally befits the sanctuary. The more keenly alive we become to things unsuited to God's presence, the fuller, clearer, deeper, and more vigorous will be our apprehension of the value of that sin offering which has not only traveled beyond the bounds of human conscience, but has also met all the requirements of Divine holiness.

Nothing more forcibly expresses man's incompetence to deal with sin than the "sin of ignorance." How can we deal with that which we do not know? How can we dispose of that which has never come within the range of our conscience? Our ignorance of sin proves our total inability to put it away. If we do not know of it, what can we do about it? We are as powerless as we are ignorant. Also, the fact of a "sin of ignorance" clearly demonstrates the uncertainty that attends every settlement of sin in which no higher claims have been responded to than those put forth by the human conscience. Can there be settled peace on this ground? No; there will always be the painful apprehension that something is wrong underneath. If the heart is not led into settled repose by the Scripture testimony that the inflexible claims of Divine Justice have been answered, then there will always be a sensation of uneasiness that will certainly present a barrier to worship, communion, and testimony. If we are uneasy regarding the question of sin, we cannot worship; we cannot enjoy communion, either with God or His people; and we cannot be an intelligent or effective witness for Christ. Before we can "worship him in spirit and in truth," the heart must be at rest before God regarding remission of sin. If there is guilt on the conscience, there will be terror in the heart; and a heart filled with terror cannot be a happy or a worshipping heart. Only the worship of a heart filled with sweet and sacred repose imparted by the blood of Christ can ascend to the Father. The same principle applies to our fellowship with the people of God, and our service and testimony among men. All must rest on the foundation of settled peace – a peace resting on the foundation of a purged conscience. This purged conscience rests on the foundation of the remission of our sins, whether they be sins of knowledge or of ignorance.

We now proceed to compare the sin offering with the burnt offering. In doing so, we will find two different aspects of Christ. But, although the aspects are different, it is one and the same Christ. Hence, in each case the sacrifice was "without blemish." This is easily understood. It matters not in what aspect we contemplate the Lord Jesus Christ, He must always be seen as the same pure, spotless, holy, perfect One. True, in His abounding grace He did stoop to be the sin-bearer of His people; but it was a perfect, spotless Christ who did so. It would be nothing short of diabolical wickedness to tarnish the personal glory of the humbled One. The intrinsic excellence, unsullied purity, and divine glory of our precious Lord appear in the sin offering, as fully as in the burnt offering. It matters not in what relationship He stands, or what office He fills, or what work He performs, or what position He occupies, His personal glories shine out, in all their divine effulgence.

Whether in the burnt offering or the sin offering, this truth of one and the same Christ is seen not only in the fact that in each case the offering was "without blemish," but also in "the Law of the sin offering," where we read, "this is the law of the sin offering: in the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy" (Lev. 6:25). Both types point to one and the same great Antitype, presenting Him in contrasted aspects of His work. In the burnt offering, Christ is seen meeting the divine affections – Accomplisher of the will of God. In the sin offering, He is seen meeting the depths of human need – Bearer of the sin of man. In the former, we are taught the preciousness of the sacrifice; in the latter, the hatefulness of sin. A minute examination of the details tends to establish this general statement.

In the first place, when considering the burnt offering, we observed that it was a voluntary offering. "He shall offer it of his own voluntary will."⁹ As we might expect, the word "voluntary" does not occur in the sin offering. Such is in keeping with the specific object of the Holy Spirit in the burnt offering, setting it forth as a free-will offering. It was Christ's meat and drink to do the will of God, whatever that might be. He never thought about inquiring about the ingredients in the cup that the Father was putting into His hand. It was sufficient for Him that the Father had mingled it. Thus it was with the Lord Jesus, as foreshadowed by the burnt offering. But in the sin offering a different line of truth is unfolded. This type introduces Christ to our thoughts, not as the "voluntary" Accomplisher of the will of God, but as the Bearer of that terrible thing called "sin" – Endurer of all its appalling consequences, of which the most appalling to Him was surely the hiding of God's countenance. Hence, the word "voluntary" would not harmonize with the object of the Spirit in the sin offering. It would be as completely out of place in the sin offering, as it is divinely in place in the burnt offering. Its presence and its absence are both Divine – both exhibit the perfect, Divine precision of the types of Leviticus.

The point of contrast we have been considering harmonizes two expressions used by our Lord. On one occasion, He says, "the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" And, again, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." The former of these expressions was the full carrying out of the words with which He entered on His course: "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God" – the utterance of Christ as the burnt offering. On the other hand, the later is the utterance of Christ when contemplating the place that He was about to occupy, as the sin offering. What that place was, and what was involved in Him taking it, we will see as we proceed. But it is interesting and instructive to find the entire teaching of the two offerings involved in the fact that a single word introduced in one is omitted in the other. If, in the burnt offering, we find the perfect readiness of heart with which Christ offered Himself for the accomplishment of the will of God; then, in the sin offering, we find how perfectly He entered into all the consequences of man's sin, and how He traveled into the remote distance of man's position before God. How Jesus delighted to do the will of God, shrinking only for a moment when losing the light of the Father’s blessed countenance. No one offering could have foreshadowed Him in both of these phases. We needed a type that presented Him as One delighting to do the will of God; and we needed a type that presented Him as One whose holy nature shrank from the consequences of imputed sin. Blessed be God, we have both in the burnt offering and the sin offering. Further, the more fully we enter into the devotion of Christ's heart to God, the more fully we will apprehend His abhorrence of sin; and vice versa. Each throws the other into relief; using the word "voluntary" in one and not the other fixes the leading import of each.

It may be said, "Was it not the will of God that Christ should offer Himself as an atonement for sin? And, if so, how could there be shrinking from the accomplishment of that will?" Without doubt, it was "the determinate counsel" of God that Christ should suffer; and, further, it was Christ's joy to do the will of God. But how are we to understand the expression, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me?" Is it not the utterance of Christ? And is there a type of the Utterer? Unquestionably, there would be a serious blank among the types of the Mosaic economy, were there not one to reflect the Lord Jesus in the exact attitude in which the above expression presents Him. But the burnt offering does not reflect Him in this way. There is not a single circumstance connected with that offering which would correspond with such language. Only the sin offering furnishes the fitting type of the Lord Jesus as the One who poured forth such intense agony – in it alone we find the circumstances that evoked such accents from the depths of His spotless soul. The awful shadow of the cross, with its shame, curse, and exclusion from the light of God's countenance, was passing across His spirit, and He could not contemplate it without an "If it be possible let this cup pass from me." But, no sooner had He uttered these words, than His profound subjection manifests itself in, "thy Will be done." What a bitter cup it must have been to elicit from a perfectly subject heart the words, "let it pass from me." What perfect subjection there must have been when, in the presence of so bitter a cup, the heart could breathe forth, "thy will be done."

Let us now consider the typical act of "laying on of hands." This act was common both to the burnt offering and the sin offering. However, in the case of the former, it identified the offerer with an unblemished offering. While in the case of the latter, it involved the transfer of the sin of the offerer to the head of the offering. Thus it was in the type; and, when we look at the Antitype, we learn a truth of the most comforting and edifying nature – a truth which, were it more clearly understood and fully experienced, would impart a far more settled peace than is ordinarily possessed.

What is the teaching set forth in the laying on of hands? It is this: Christ was "made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5). He took our position with all its consequences, so that we might get His position with all its consequences. On the cross He was treated as sin that we might be treated as righteousness in the presence of Holiness. He was cast out of God's presence because, by imputation, He had sin on Him so that we might have His righteousness and be received into God's house and into His bosom. He endured the hiding of God's countenance, so that we might bask in the light of that countenance. He passed through three hours of darkness, so that we might walk in everlasting light. He was forsaken of God, so that we might enjoy His presence forever. All due us as ruined sinners was laid on Him in order that all due Him as the Accomplisher of redemption might be ours. Everything was against Him on that cursed tree, so nothing would be against us. He was identified with us in the reality of death and judgment, in order that we might be identified with Him in the reality of life and righteousness. He drank the cup of wrath – the cup of trembling, so that we might drink the cup of salvation – the cup of infinite favor. He was treated according to our deserts, that we might be treated according to His.

Such is the wondrous truth illustrated by the ceremonial act of imposition of hands. When the worshipper had laid his hand on the head of the burnt offering, it ceased to be a question regarding what he was or what he deserved, and became a question of what the offering was in the judgment of Jehovah. If the offering was without blemish, so was the offerer; if the offering was accepted, so was the offerer. They are perfectly identified. In God's view, the act of laying on of hands constituted them one. He looked at the offerer through the medium of the offering. Thus it was in the case of the burnt offering. But, in the sin offering, when the offerer had laid his hand on the head of the offering, it became a question of what the offerer was and what he deserved. The offering was treated according to the just deserts of the offerer. They were perfectly identified. In the judgment of God, the act of laying on of hands constituted them one. The sin of the offerer was dealt with in the sin offering; the person of the offerer was accepted in the burnt offering. This made a vast difference. Hence, though the act of laying on of hands was common to both types, and, further, though it was expressive of identification in the case of each, yet here the consequences are as different as possible. The just treated as the unjust; the unjust accepted in the just. "Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." This is the teaching. Our sins brought Christ to the cross – He brings us to God. He brings us to God through His own acceptableness, as risen from the dead – having put away our sins according to the perfectness of His own work. He bore away our sins far from the sanctuary of God, in order that He might bring us nigh, even into the holiest of all, in full confidence of heart, having the conscience purged from every stain of sin by His precious blood.

The more minutely we compare all the details of the burnt offering and the sin offering, the more clearly will we apprehend the truth regarding the laying on of hands, and the results in each case.

In the first chapter of Leviticus we noticed that "the sons of Aaron" are introduced in the burnt offering, but not in the sin offering. As priests they were privileged to stand around the altar, beholding the flame of an acceptable sacrifice ascending to the Lord. But in the primary aspect of the sin offering, it was a question of the solemn judgment of sin – not of priestly worship or admiration. Therefore, the sons of Aaron do not appear. It is as convicted sinners that we have to do with Christ – Antitype of the sin offering. It is as worshipping priests, clothed in garments of salvation, that we contemplate Christ as the Antitype of the burnt offering.

Also, we observe that the burnt offering was "flayed," the sin offering was not. The burnt offering was "cut into his pieces," the sin offering was not. "The inwards and the legs" of the burnt offering were "washed in water," an act omitted in the sin offering. Lastly, the burnt offering was burned on the altar; the sin offering without the camp. These are weighty points of difference arising out of the distinctive character of the offerings. We know that nothing in the Word of God is without its own special meaning; and every serious and careful student of Scripture will notice the above points of difference. Hopefully, when we notice them we will seek to ascertain their real import. We may express ignorance of this import; but may we never demonstrate indifference. To pass over a single point in any section of inspiration, especially one as rich as that before us, would be to offer dishonor to the Divine Author, depriving our own souls of much profit. We should hover over the minute details, adoring God's wisdom in them, confessing our ignorance of them. To pass them by in a spirit of indifference implies that the Holy Spirit has taken the trouble to write what we deem unworthy to understand; and no right-minded Christian would presume to think in this way. If the Spirit has omitted various rites alluded to the sin offering – rites that get a prominent place in the ordinance of the burnt offering, then there must certainly be some good reason; some important meaning for doing so. It is these we seek to apprehend, because each offering arises out of special design by the Divine mind. The sin offering presents that aspect of Christ's work in which He is seen judicially taking the place that morally belonged to us. For this reason we do not look for an expression of what He was in the act of "flaying." Neither is there an exhibition of His character in the act of "cutting it into his pieces." Nor, yet, could there be that manifestation of what He was personally, practically, and intrinsically, in the act of "washing the inwards and legs in water."

All these things belonged only to the burnt offering phase of our blessed Lord, because in it we see Him offering Himself to the eye, the heart, and the altar of Jehovah, without any question of imputed sin, wrath, or judgment. On the contrary, in the sin offering, instead of having as the prominent idea what Christ is, we have what sin is. Instead of the preciousness of Jesus, we have the odiousness of sin. In the burnt offering, everything is done that could possibly manifest what Christ was. In the sin offering, the very reverse is the case. All this is plain enough, naturally flowing out of the distinctive character of the type.

However, although the leading object in the sin offering is to shadow what Christ became for as, and not what He was in Himself; nevertheless, there is one rite connected with this type expressing His personal acceptableness to Jehovah. This rite is laid down in the following words, "And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away, as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offering; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering" (Lev. 4:8-10).

Thus, even in the sin-offering, the intrinsic excellence of Christ is not omitted. The fat burned on the altar is the expression of God’s appreciation of the preciousness of Christ's Person, no matter what place He might take on our behalf or in our stead; He was made sin for us, and the sin offering is the divinely-appointed shadow of Him in this respect. But, because it was God's Holy One, His pure, spotless, eternal Son Jesus Christ who was made sin, therefore the fat of the sin offering was burned on the altar as a proper material for that fire which was the impressive exhibition of Divine holiness.

Even in this point, we see what a contrast there is between the sin offering and the burnt offering. In the case of the latter, it was not merely the fat, but the whole sacrifice that was burned on the altar, because it was Christ, without any question of sin-bearing whatsoever. In the case of the former, there was nothing but the fat to be burned on the altar, because it was a question of sin-bearing, though Christ was the sin bearer. The divine glories of Christ's Person shine out, even from amid the darkest shades of that cursed tree to which He consented to be nailed as a curse for us. The hatefulness of that with which He connected His blessed Person on the cross, could not prevent the sweet odor of His preciousness from ascending to the throne of God. Thus, unfolded to us is the profound mystery of God's face hidden from that which Christ became, and God's heart refreshed by what Christ was. This imparts a peculiar charm to the sin offering. The bright beams of Christ's Personal glory shining out from amid the awful gloom of Calvary – His Personal worth set forth in the deepest depths of His humiliation – God's delight in the One from whom He had to hide His face – all this is set forth in the fact that the fat of the sin offering was burned on the altar.

Having thus endeavored to point out in the first place what was done with "the blood;" and, in the second place, what was done with "the fat;" we now consider what was done with "the flesh." "And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh . . . even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him On the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt" (vv. 11, 12).

In this act, we have the main feature of the sin offering; that which distinguished it from both the burnt offering and the peace offering. Its flesh was not burned on the altar, as in the burnt offering; neither was it eaten by the priest or the worshipper, as in the peace offering. It was completely burned without the camp.¹⁰ "No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation, to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire" (Lev. 6:30).

"For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought unto the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate" (Heb. 13:11, 12).

Comparing what was done with the "blood," with what was done with the "flesh" or "body" of the sacrifice, two branches of truth are presented to our view: worship and discipleship. The blood brought into the sanctuary is the foundation of the former. The body burned outside the camp is the foundation of the latter. Before we can worship in peace of conscience and liberty of heart, we must know, by authority of the Word and power of the Spirit, that the entire question of sin has forever been settled by the blood of the divine sin offering – that His blood has been sprinkled before the Lord – that all God's claims, and all our necessities as ruined and guilty sinners, have forever been answered. This gives perfect peace; and, only in the enjoyment of this peace can we worship God. When an Israelite had offered the sin offering, his conscience was at rest, as far as the offering was capable of imparting rest. True, it was a temporary rest, being the fruit of a temporary sacrifice. But clearly, whatever kind of rest the offering imparted, that rest the offerer enjoyed. But, since our Sacrifice was divine and eternal, our rest is also divine and eternal. In other words, as is the sacrifice so is the rest that is founded thereon. A Jew never enjoyed an eternally purged conscience, simply because he did not have an eternally efficacious sacrifice. He might have his conscience purged for a day, a month, or a year; but he could not have it purged forever.

"But Christ being come, an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 11:11-14).

Here we have the full, explicit statement of the teaching. The blood of goats and calves procured a temporary redemption; the blood of Christ procures eternal redemption. The former purified outwardly; the latter, inwardly. The blood of goats and calves purged the flesh, for a time; the blood of Christ purges the conscience forever. The whole question does not hinge on the character or condition of the offerer, but on the value of the offering. The question is not whether a Christian is better than a Jew, but whether the blood of Christ is better than the blood of a bullock. Assuredly, it is infinitely better. The Son of God imparts all the dignity of His own divine Person to the sacrifice He offered; and, if the blood of a bullock purified the flesh for a year, "how much more" shall the blood of the Son of God purge the conscience forever? If a bullock took away some sin, then how much more shall Christ take away "all?"

Why was the mind of a Jew at rest for a time when he had offered his sin offering? How did he know that the special sin for which he had brought his sacrifice was forgiven? Because God had said, "it shall be forgiven him." Regarding that particular sin, his peace of heart rested on the testimony of the God of Israel, and the blood of the victim. So, now, the peace of the true believer, regarding "all sin," rests on the authority of God's Word, and "the precious blood of Christ." If a Jew sinned and neglected to bring his sin offering, he would be "cut off from among his people;" but when he took his place as a sinner – when he laid his hand on the head of a sin offering, then, the offering was "cut off" instead of him, and for a while he was free. The offering was treated as the offerer deserved; and, hence, for him not to know that his sin was forgiven, would have been to make God a liar; to treat the blood of the divinely-appointed sin offering as nothing.

And, if this was true regarding one who had only the blood of a goat to rest on, "how much more" powerfully does it apply to one who has the precious blood of Christ to rest on? The Christian sees in Christ One who has been judged for all his sin – One who sustained the entire burden of his sin on the cross – One who made Himself responsible for that sin, settling the whole question of sin according to all the claims of infinite justice. So absolutely did Christ take our place on the cross; so entirely are we identified with Him; so completely were all our sins imputed to Him, there and then, that all questions regarding our liability; all thought of our guilt – all idea of our exposure to judgment and wrath, is eternally set aside.¹¹ It was all settled between Divine Justice and the Spotless Victim on the cursed tree. And now the true believer is as absolutely identified with Christ on the throne, as Christ was identified with him on the tree. Justice has no charge to bring against the child of God, because it has no charge to bring against Christ. Thus it stands forever. If a charge could be brought against the believer, it would be calling into question the reality of Christ's identification with him on the cross, and the perfectness of Christ's work on his behalf. If, on his way back after having offered his sin offering, the worshipper of old had been charged with that special sin for which his sacrifice had bled, what would have been his reply? Just this: "the sin has been rolled away, by the blood of the victim, and Jehovah has pronounced the words, 'It shall be forgiven him.'" The victim had died instead of him; and he lived instead of the victim.

Such was the type. When the eye of faith rests on the Antitype Christ as the sin offering, it beholds Him as One who assumed a perfect human life and gave it up on the cross because sin was attached to it by imputation. But, it also beholds Him as One who had the power of divine and eternal life; who rose from the tomb, and who now imparts His risen, divine, eternal life to all who truly believe in His name. The sin is gone because the life to which it was attached is gone, and now, instead of the life to which sin was attached, all true believers possess the life to which righteousness attaches. The question of sin can never be raised in reference to the risen and victorious life of Christ – the same life possessed by true believers. There is no other life. Everything else is death, because everything else is under the power of sin. "He that hath the Son hath life;" and he that has life also has righteousness. The two things are inseparable, because Christ is both. If the judgment and death of Christ on the cross were realities, then the life and righteousness of the true believer are realities. If imputed sin was a reality to Christ, imputed righteousness is a reality to the Christian. The one is as real as the other; and if not, then Christ died in vain. The true and irrefragable ground of peace is this: regarding sin, the claims of God's nature have been perfectly met. The death of Jesus has satisfied them all. In resurrection, a risen Christ declares full deliverance of the child of God. "He was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification" (Rom. 4:25). For a Christian not to know that his sin is gone forever, is to cast slight on the blood of his divine Sin Offering. It is to deny that there has been the perfect presentation – the sevenfold sprinkling of the blood before the Lord.

On the ground of finished atonement, the feeblest babe in Christ can be assured of the happy privilege of rejoicing in full and everlasting remission of sins; and, for any to teach otherwise is to lower the sacrifice of Christ to the level of "goats and calves." If we cannot know that our sins are forgiven, then, where are the good tidings of the Gospel? Is a Christian in no wise better off in the matter of a sin offering, than an Israelite of old? The latter was privileged to know that his sins were set straight for a year by the blood of an animal sacrifice. Can the former not have any certainty at all? Yes; without a doubt. Well, then, if there is any certainty then it must be eternal, because it rests on Jesus Christ – an eternal sacrifice.

This and this alone is the basis of worship. The full assurance of sin put away ministers not to a spirit of self-confidence, but to a spirit of promise, thankfulness, and worship. It does not produce a spirit of self-complacency, but of Christ-complacency – the spirit that will characterize the redeemed throughout eternity. It does not lead one to think little of sin, but to think much of the grace that has perfectly pardoned it, and of the blood that has perfectly cancelled it. It is impossible that any one can gaze on the cross – can see the place Christ took; can meditate on the sufferings He endured; can ponder on those three terrible hours of darkness, and at the same time think lightly of sin. When all these things are entered into in the power of the Holy Spirit, there are two results which must follow: an abhorrence of sin in all its forms, and a genuine love for Christ, His people, and His cause.

We now briefly consider what was done with the "flesh" or "body" of the sacrifice – the true ground of discipleship. "The whole bullock shall he carry forth, without the camp, unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire" (Lev. 4:12). This act is to be viewed in a two ways: expressing the place the Lord Jesus took for us, as bearing sin; expressing the place into which He was cast, by a world that had rejected Him. It is to this latter point that we now give attention.

In Hebrews 13, the inspired writer makes practical use of Christ having "suffered without the gate." "Let us go forth, therefore, unto him, without the camp, bearing his reproach." If the sufferings of Christ secured for us an entrance into heaven, the place where He suffered expresses our rejection from earth. His death has procured a city for us on high; the place where He died divests us of a city below.¹² "He suffered without the gate," and in so doing, He set aside Jerusalem as the present center of Divine operation. Now there is no such thing as a consecrated spot on earth. Christ has taken His place as a suffering One, outside the range of this world's religion – its politics and all that pertains to it. The world hated Him, and cast Him out. Therefore, the word is, "go forth." This is the motto, regarding everything that men would set up here in the form of a "camp," no matter what that camp may be. If men set up "a holy city," we must look for a rejected Christ "without the gate." If men set up a religious camp, call it by any name, we must "go forth" out of it in order to find a rejected Christ. No doubt, blind superstition has and will continue to grope amid the ruins of Jerusalem, searching for relics of Christ. It will seek to find out, and do honor to, the site of His cross and His sepulcher. The covetousness of human nature takes advantage of superstition and for ages has carried on a lucrative traffic under the crafty plea of doing honor to the so-called sacred localities of antiquity. But a single ray of light from Revelation's heavenly lamp is sufficient to enable us to say that we must "go forth" from all these things, in order to find and enjoy communion with a rejected Christ.

However, we need to remember that there is far more involved in the soul-stirring call to "go forth," than a mere escape from the gross absurdities of an ignorant superstition, or the designs of a crafty covetousness. There are many who can powerfully and eloquently expose such things, who themselves are far from any thought of responding to the apostolic summons. When men set up a "camp," and rally around a standard on which is emblazoned some dogma of truth or religious organization – some orthodox creed – an advanced and enlightened scheme of doctrine – a splendid ritual, capable of satisfying the most ardent aspirations of man's devotional nature – when any or all of these things exist, it demands a great deal of spiritual intelligence and energy to discern and act on the real force and proper application of the words, "Let us go forth." However, these words should be discerned and acted on, because it is certain that the atmosphere of a camp, no matter its ground or standard, is destructive of personal communion with a rejected Christ; and no so-called religious advantage can make up for the loss of that communion. It is the tendency of the human heart to drop into cold stereotyped forms. This has always been true of organized religion. Such forms may have originated in real power. They may have resulted from positive visitations of the Spirit of God. The temptation is to stereotype the form when the spirit and power have departed. In principle, this is what it means to set up a camp. The Jewish system could boast a divine origin. A Jew could triumphantly point to the Temple, with its splendid system of worship, priesthood, sacrifices, furniture, and show that it had all been handed down from the God of Israel. He could give chapter and verse, as we say, for everything connected with the system to which he was attached. Where is the system, whether ancient, mediaeval, or modern, that could put forth such lofty and powerful pretensions, or come down on the heart with such an overwhelming weight of authority? And yet, the command was to "go forth."

This is a deeply solemn matter, and it concerns all of us, because we are all prone to slip away from communion with a living Christ, sinking into dead routine. Thus, the practical power of the words, “go forth therefore unto him.” It is not go forth from one system to another – from one set of opinions to another; from one company of people to another. No; go forth from everything that merits the appellation of a camp – go forth "to him" who "suffered without the gate." The Lord Jesus is as thoroughly outside the gate in our age, as He was when He suffered centuries ago. What was it that put Him outside? "The religious world" of that day; and, in spirit and principle, the religious world of that day is the religious world of our age. The world is still the world. "There is nothing new under the sun." Christ and the world are not one. The world has covered itself with the cloak of Christianity; so that its hatred of Christ may in the shadows work itself up into more deadly forms. Let us not be deceived. If we are going to walk with a rejected Christ, then we must be a rejected people. If our Master "suffered without the gate," we cannot expect to reign within the gate. Will walking in His footsteps lead us to high places in this godless, Christless world?

He is a despised Christ – a rejected Christ; a Christ outside the camp. May God strengthen us to go forth with Him, ready to bear His reproach. Let us not bask in the sunshine of this world's favor, seeing that it crucified and still hates the beloved One to whom we owe our present and eternal all – the One who loves us with a love that many waters cannot quench. Let us not directly or indirectly accredit that thing which calls itself by His sacred name; but which in reality hates His Person, hates His ways, hates His truth, hates even the mention of His advent. Let us be faithful to an absent Lord. Let us live for Him who died for us. While our consciences repose in His blood, let our heart's affections entwine themselves around His Person; so that our separation from "this present evil world" may not be merely a matter of cold principle, but an affectionate separation, because the object of our affections is not here. May the Lord deliver us from the influence of that consecrated, prudential selfishness, so common in our age, which would not be without religiousness, but is in reality an enemy of the cross of Christ. In order to successfully stand against this terrible form of evil, we do not need peculiar views, or special principles, or curious theories, or cold intellectual accuracy. We need a deep-toned devotedness to the Person of the Son of God; a whole-hearted consecration of ourselves – body, soul, and spirit – to His service; an earnest longing for His glorious advent. These are the special needs of the age in which we live. Let us join together in uttering, from the depths of our heart, the cry, "O Lord, revive thy work"; "accomplish the number of thine elect"; "hasten thy kingdom"; "Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly."

---

    

Copyright © StudyJesus.com