« PreviousContinue »
is a cry, like the souls under the altar in Revel. vi. 9, against the cause of this bloodshedding, viz., sin. A testimony against it sounds up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. But his blood speaketh better things than the blood of Abel, or the cry of the martyred ones ; for the response to this cry of blood is not vengeance, but pardon to man.
It was the priest who performed this apparently harsh and cruel act, for the Father bruised Jesus, and the priest acts in his name.
Ver. 16. “ And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and
cast it beside the altar, on the east part, by the place of the ashes.” The crop, containing the food, seems to be considered unclean, because an emblem of man's appetites. Now, as there was nothing of man's sinful appetites in the Holy One, there must be nothing even in the type, that might lead us to suppose that he was otherwise than perfectly holy. Hence “the crop” is removed.
feathers," also, are removed, because they are a covering to the dove; and it must be left quite unsheltered when the drops of the storm fall thick and heavy upon it. These are to be cast “ to the place of ashes,” out of sight of God; and thus the dove is offered, in a state of purity and of unprotectedness, on the altar.
Ver. 17. “And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall
not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt-sacrifice, an
offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord.” “ The cleaving" (sou) implies such a separation as is not complete. It is only dislocation, but not disruption of the parts, as is also explained in the clause, “but shall not divide it asunder.” In this we see another typical circustmance. It is like that in the case of the paschallamb-"A bone of him shall not be broken." At the same time, this type gives us, in addition, a reference to the Saviour's racked frame on the cross, when he said, “ All my bones are out of joint.” (Ps. xxii. 14.) All this seems intended to declare that Jesus, in his death, was whole, though broken,—" sin for us,” but no sin in him."
“With the wings thereof,” to show nothing left whatsoever that could be means of escape—total weakness. Jesus said, as he suffered, “I am poured out like water." (Ps. xxii. 14.)
And this sacrifice is ki of a sweet savor to the Lord.” It satisfies the Father well—so much so, that we find his redeemed ones called by the name that refers us back to the sacrifice. For example—the Church is called “the dove,” Song ii. 14. So—"Deliver not the soul of thy turtle-dove into the hands of the enemy." (Ps. lxxiv. 19.) Just as both Christ and his Church are called “the lily," in Song ii. 1, 2; and both his voice and theirs is “ like the voice of many waters” in the book of Revelation. (Comp. Revel. i. 15; xiv. 2 ; xix. 6.) If the Church says, “ Behold, thou art fair, my beloved (1717), yea, pleasant (Song i. 16,) it is in response to Christ, who had said, “ Behold, thou art fair, my love (n); behold, thou art fair." So truly one is Christ and his people, they are in a manner identified! “Lord, thou art my righteousness, and I am thy sin; thou hast taken from me what was mine, and given me what was thine.” . 'Ω της γλυκείας ανταλλαγής, ώ της ανεξιχνιαστου δημιουργιας, και των απροσδοκήτων ευεργεσιών !” (Epist. ad Diognet. 9.) “Oh, sweet exchange! Oh, unsearchable device! Oh, benefits beyond all expectation !"
And now, looking back on this chapter, let us briefly notice that the rudimental sketch of these offerings and the mode of their presentation, will be found at the gate of Eden. Some have sought for their origin* in Egyptian ceremonies, at one time imitated, at another purposely opposed. But this is altogether erroneous.
Davison, on "The Origin and Intention of Primitive Sacrifice,” refuses to admit that sacrifice in the patri. archal time was identical in meaning with sacrifice in the Mosaic dispensation-admitting that, if that identity could be made out, the Divine origin of sacrifice would be proved. Now, is there one text in all the Bible to show that sacrifice (which Davison gladly admits had in it the atoning principle in the institutions of Moses) ever has more than one meaning? As well might we ask evidence to prove that “ to call on the name of the Lord in the days of Enos was quite a different act from“ calling on the name of the Lord” in the days of the Psalmist; or that "righteousness" in Abraham's day (Gen. xv. 6) was different from "righteousness” in Paul's days. (Rom. iv. 3.) Just as we believe the Hiddekel and Euphrates of Genesis ii. are the same as the Hid. dekel and Euphrates of later history; and the Cherubim of Genesis iii. the same as those in the tabernacle; and the "sweet savor" of Genesis viii. 21, the same as that in Leviticus i. 9, and Ephesians v. 2 ; so do we regard the intention of sacrifice as always the same throughout Scripture. There would therefore be nced, not of proof to establish this principle, but of argument to refute it. Ours is the obvious and common-sense principle. All these ordinances were parts of the one telescope, through which men saw the Star of Bethlehem from afar. In
* Vide Spencer, &c.
Mosaic rites, the telescope was drawn out farther than at Eden, and the focus at which the grand object could be best seen was more nearly found. But the gate of Eden presents us with the same truths in a more rudimental form.
Some have traced the outlines of the Mosaic ritual at the gate of Eden in the following manner :- Within the gate stood the cherubim, occupying the hallowed spot where the Tree of Life waved its branches. This resembled the Iloly of holies, and the veil that prevented the approach of any one from without was the flaming sword, flashing its sheet of fire on every side. But opposite to this sword, at some distance we see an altar, where our first parents shed the blood of sacrifice—showing in type how the barred-up way of access to the Tree of Life was to be opened by the blood of the woman's bruised seed. On this altar, bloody and unbloody offerings were appointed to be presented in their season. And when we find clean and unclean noticed (Gen. viii. 20), and in Abraham's case (Gen. xv. 9, 10), the heifer and goat, the turtle and the pigeon, and also “commandments, statutes, and laws” (parallel to ch. xxvi. 46), we cannot but believe that these fuller institutions in Leviticus are just the expansion of what Adam first received. The Levitical dispensation is the acorn of Eden grown to a full oak. If so, then may we say, that the child Jesus, wrapped in his swaddling-clothes, was, in these ceremonies, laid down at the gate of Eden!
I BESEECH YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, BY THE MERCIES OF GOD, THAT YE PRESENT YOUR BODIES A LIVING SACRIFICE, HOLY, ACCEPTABLE UNTO GOD."Rom. xii, 1.
“THE THINGS WHICH WERE SENT FROM YOU, AN ODOR OF A SWEET SMELL, A SACRIFICE ACCEPTABLE, WELL-PLEASING TO GOD."— Philip. iv. 18.
Ver. 1. “And when any will offer a meat-offering unto the Lord, his
offering shall be of fine flour : and he shall pour oil upon it, and put
In Daniel ix. 27, “He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease," there seems to be reference made to the two great divisions, sacrifices with, and sacrifices without blood. For the words are more exactly, “He shall cause sacrifice and meat-offering (nne) to cease." So also in 1 Samuel iii. 14, and Psalm xl. 6. We have now come to this second class of offerings.
The meat-offering (so called by our translators because the greater part of it was used for food) represents the offerer's person and property, his body and his possessions. * When he had by the burnt-offering obtained
* Ainsworth gives in substance the same meaning of the type when he says that it signified “the sanctification of persons and actions, and the acceptation of them.” Patrick is evidently far wrong when he speaks of these meat-offerings as a merciful provision for those who could not afford to offer animal sacrifices.