Notes on the Book of Leviticus Part 4

There is an immense moral difference between praying for forgiveness and confessing our sins, whether we look at it in reference to the character of G.o.d, the sacrifice of Christ, or the condition of the soul. It is quite possible that a person's prayer may involve the confession of his sin, whatever it may happen to be, and thus come to the same thing; but then it is always well to keep close to Scripture in what we think and say and do. It must be evident that when the Holy Ghost speaks of _confession_, He does not mean _praying_; and it is equally evident that He knows there are moral elements in, and practical results flowing out of, confession, which do not belong to prayer. In point of fact, one has often found that a habit of importuning G.o.d for the forgiveness of sins displayed ignorance as to the way in which G.o.d has revealed Himself in the Person and work of Christ, as to the relation in which the sacrifice of Christ has set the believer, and as to the divine mode of getting the conscience relieved from the burden and purified from the soil of sin.

G.o.d has been perfectly satisfied as to all the believer's sins in the cross of Christ. On that cross, a full atonement was presented for every jot and t.i.ttle of sin in the believer's nature and on his conscience. Hence, therefore, G.o.d does not need any further propitiation. He does not need aught to draw His heart toward the believer. We do not require to supplicate Him to be "faithful and just," when His faithfulness and justice have been so gloriously displayed, vindicated, and answered in the death of Christ. Our sins can never come into G.o.d's presence, inasmuch as Christ, who bore them all and put them away, is there instead. But if we sin, conscience will feel it--must feel it,--yea, the Holy Ghost will make us feel it.

He cannot allow so much as a single light thought to pa.s.s unjudged.

What then? Has our sin made its way into the presence of G.o.d? Has it found its place in the unsullied light of the inner sanctuary? G.o.d forbid! The "Advocate" is there--"Jesus Christ the righteous," to maintain, in unbroken integrity, the relationship in which we stand.

But though sin cannot affect G.o.d's thoughts in reference to us, it can and does affect our thoughts in reference to Him;[8] though it cannot make its way into His presence, it can make its way into ours, in a most distressing and humiliating manner; though it cannot hide the Advocate from G.o.d's view, it can hide Him from ours. It gathers, like a thick, dark cloud, on our spiritual horizon, so that our souls cannot bask in the blessed beams of our Father's countenance. It cannot affect our relationship with G.o.d, but it can very seriously affect our enjoyment thereof. What, therefore, are we to do? The Word answers, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." By confession, we get our conscience cleared, the sweet sense of relationship restored, the dark cloud dispersed, the chilling, withering influence removed, our thoughts of G.o.d set straight. Such is the divine method; and we may truly say that the heart that knows what it is to have ever been in the place of confession, will feel the divine power of the apostle's words--"My little children, these things write I unto you, THAT YE SIN NOT." (1 John ii. 1.)

[8] The reader will bear in mind that the subject treated of in the text leaves wholly untouched the important and most practical truth taught in John xiv. 21-23, namely, the peculiar love of the Father for an obedient child, and the special communion of such a child with the Father and the Son. May this truth be written on all our hearts, by the pen of G.o.d the Holy Ghost!

Then, again, there is a style of praying for forgiveness which involves a losing sight of the perfect ground of forgiveness which has been laid in the sacrifice of the cross. If G.o.d forgives sins, He must be "faithful and just" in so doing; but it is quite clear that our prayers, be they ever so sincere and earnest, could not form the basis of G.o.d's faithfulness and justice in forgiving us our sins. Naught save the work of the cross could do this. There, the faithfulness and justice of G.o.d have had their fullest establishment, and that, too, in immediate reference to our actual sins, as well as to the root thereof in our nature. G.o.d has already judged our sins in the Person of our Subst.i.tute "on the tree;" and, in the act of confession, we judge ourselves. This is essential to divine forgiveness and restoration. The very smallest unconfessed, unjudged sin on the conscience will entirely mar our communion with G.o.d. Sin _in_ us need not do this; but if we suffer sin to remain _on_ us, we cannot have fellowship with G.o.d. He has put away our sins in such a manner as that He can have us in His presence; and so long as we abide in His presence, sin does not trouble us; but if we get out of His presence, and commit sin, even in thought, our communion must, of necessity, be suspended, until, by confession, we have got rid of the sin. All this, I need hardly add, is founded exclusively upon the perfect sacrifice and righteous advocacy of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Finally, as to the difference between prayer and confession, as respects the condition of the heart before G.o.d, and its moral sense of the hatefulness of sin, it cannot possibly be over-estimated. It is a much easier thing to ask, in a general way, for the forgiveness of our sins than to confess those sins. Confession involves _self-judgment_; asking for forgiveness may not, and, in itself, does not. This alone would be sufficient to point out the difference. Self-judgment is one of the most valuable and healthful exercises of the Christian life, and therefore any thing which produces it must be highly esteemed by every earnest Christian.

The difference between asking for pardon and confessing the sin is continually exemplified in dealing with children. If a child has done any thing wrong, he finds much less difficulty in asking his father to forgive him than in openly and unreservedly confessing the wrong. In asking for forgiveness, the child may have in his mind a number of things which tend to lessen the sense of the evil,--he may be secretly thinking that he was not so much to blame after all, though, to be sure, it is only proper to ask his father to forgive him; whereas, in confessing the wrong, there is just the one thing, and that is, self-judgment. Further, in asking for forgiveness, the child may be influenced mainly by a desire to escape the consequences of his wrong; whereas, a judicious parent will seek to produce a just sense of its moral evil, which can only exist in connection with the full confession of the fault--in connection with self-judgment.

Thus it is, in reference to G.o.d's dealings with His children when they do wrong. He must have the whole thing brought out and thoroughly judged. He will make us not only dread the consequences of sin (which are unutterable), but hate the thing itself, because of its hatefulness in His sight. Were it possible for us, when we commit sin, to be forgiven merely for the asking, our sense of sin and our shrinking from it would not be nearly so intense, and, as a consequence, our estimate of the fellowship with which we are blessed would not be nearly so high. The moral effect of all this upon the general tone of our spiritual const.i.tution, and also upon our whole character and practical career, must be obvious to every experienced Christian.[9]

[9] The case of Simon Magus, in Acts viii, may present a difficulty to the reader. But of him, it is sufficient to say that one "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" could never be set forth as a model for G.o.d's dear children. His case in no wise interferes with the doctrine of 1 John i. 9. He was not in the relationship of a child, and, as a consequence, not a subject of the advocacy. I would further add, that the subject of the Lord's prayer is by no means involved in what is stated above. I wish to confine myself to the immediate pa.s.sage under consideration. We must ever avoid laying down iron rules. A soul may cry to G.o.d under any circ.u.mstances, and ask for what it needs: He is ever ready to hear and answer.

This entire train of thought is intimately connected with, and fully borne out by, two leading principles laid down in "the law of the peace-offering."

In verse 13 of the seventh of Leviticus we read, "He shall offer for his offering _leavened_ bread;" and yet at verse 20 we read, "But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness _upon_ him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." Here, we have the two things clearly set before us, namely, sin _in_ us and sin _on_ us.

"Leaven" was permitted, because there was sin in the worshiper's nature: "uncleanness" was forbidden, because there should be no sin on the worshiper's conscience. If sin be in question, communion must be out of the question. G.o.d has met and provided for the sin, which He knows to be in us, by the blood of atonement; and hence, of the leavened bread in the peace-offering, we read, "Of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for a heave offering unto the Lord, and it shall be _the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace-offerings_." (Ver. 14.) In other words, the "leaven" in the worshiper's nature was perfectly met by the "blood" of the sacrifice.

The priest who gets the leavened bread must be the sprinkler of the blood. G.o.d has put our sin out of His sight forever. Though it be in us, it is not the object on which His eye rests. He sees only the blood, and therefore He can go on with us, and allow us the most unhindered fellowship with Him. But if we allow the "_sin_" which is in us to develop itself in the shape of "_sins_," there must be confession, forgiveness, and cleansing ere we can again eat of the flesh of the Peace-offering. The cutting off of the worshiper because of ceremonial uncleanness, answers to the suspension of the believer's communion now because of unconfessed sin. To attempt to have fellowship with G.o.d in our sins would involve the blasphemous insinuation that He could walk in companionship with sin. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." (1 John i. 6.)

In the light of the foregoing line of truth, we may easily see how much we err when we imagine it to be a mark of spirituality to be occupied with our sins. Could sin or sins ever be the ground or material of our communion with G.o.d? a.s.suredly not. We have just seen that, so long as sin is the object before us, communion must be interrupted. Fellowship can only be "in the light;" and, undoubtedly, there is no sin in the light. There is naught to be seen there save the blood which has put our sins away and brought us nigh, and the Advocate which keeps us nigh. Sin has been forever obliterated from that platform on which G.o.d and the worshiper stand in hallowed fellowship. What was it which const.i.tuted the material of communion between the father and the prodigal? Was it the rags of the latter?

Was it the husks of "the far country"? By no means. It was not any thing that the prodigal brought with him: it was the rich provision of the father's love--"the fatted calf." Thus it is with G.o.d and every true worshiper. They feed together, in holy and elevated communion, upon Him whose precious blood has brought them into everlasting a.s.sociation, in that light to which no sin can ever approach.

Nor need we, for an instant, suppose that true humility is either evidenced or promoted by looking at or dwelling upon our sins. An unhallowed and melancholy mopishness may thus be superinduced; but the deepest humility springs from a totally different source. Whether was the prodigal a humbler man "when he came to himself" in the far country, or when he came to the father's bosom and the father's house?

Is it not evident that the grace which elevates us to the loftiest heights of fellowship with G.o.d is that alone which leads us into the most profound depths of a genuine humility? Unquestionably. The humility which springs from the removal of our sins must ever be deeper than that which springs from the discovery of them. The former connects us with G.o.d: the latter has to do with self. The way to be truly humble is to walk with G.o.d in the intelligence and power of the relationship in which He has set us. He has made us His children; and if only we walk as such, we shall be humble.

Ere leaving this part of our subject, I would offer a remark as to the Lord's Supper, which, as being a prominent act of the Church's communion, may, with strict propriety, be looked at in connection with the doctrine of the peace-offering. The intelligent celebration of the Lord's Supper must ever depend upon the recognition of its purely eucharistic or thanksgiving character. It is very especially a feast of thanksgiving--thanksgiving for an accomplished redemption. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. x. 16.) Hence, a soul bowed down under the heavy burden of sin cannot, with spiritual intelligence, eat the Lord's Supper, inasmuch as that feast is expressive of the complete removal of sin by the death of Christ.--"Ye do show the Lord's death till He come." (1 Cor. xi.) In the death of Christ, faith sees the end of every thing that pertained to our old-creation standing; and seeing that the Lord's Supper "shows forth" that death, it is to be viewed as the memento of the glorious fact that the believer's burden of sin was borne by One who put it away forever. It declares that the chain of our sins, which once tied and bound us, has been eternally snapped by the death of Christ, and can never tie and bind us again. We gather round the Lord's table in all the joy of conquerors. We look back to the cross, where the battle was fought and won; and we look forward to the glory, where we shall enter into the full and eternal results of the victory.

True, we have "leaven" _in_ us; but we have no "uncleanness" _on_ us.

We are not to gaze upon our sins, but upon Him who bore them on the cross and put them away forever. We are not to "deceive ourselves" by the vain notion "that we have no sin" in us; nor are we to deny the truth of G.o.d's Word, and the efficacy of Christ's blood, by refusing to rejoice in the precious truth that we have no sin on us, for "the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." It is truly deplorable to observe the heavy cloud that gathers round the Supper of the Lord, in the judgment of so many professing Christians. It tends, as much as any thing else, to reveal the immense amount of misapprehension which obtains in reference to the very elementary truths of the gospel. In fact, we know that when the Lord's Supper is resorted to on any ground save that of known salvation--enjoyed forgiveness--conscious deliverance, the soul becomes wrapped up in thicker and darker mists than ever. That which is only a memorial of Christ is used to displace Him,--that which celebrates an accomplished redemption is used as a stepping-stone thereto. It is thus that the ordinances are abused, and souls plunged in darkness, confusion, and error.

How different from this is the beautiful ordinance of the peace-offering! In this latter, looked at in its typical import, we see that the moment the blood was shed, G.o.d and the worshiper could feed in happy, peaceful fellowship. Nothing more was needed. Peace was established by the blood, and on that ground the communion proceeded.

A single question as to the establishment of peace must be the death-blow to communion. If we are to be occupied with the vain attempt to make peace with G.o.d, we must be total strangers to either communion or worship. If the blood of the peace-offering has not been shed, it is impossible that we can feed upon "the wave breast" or "the heave shoulder." But if, on the other hand, the blood has been shed, then peace is made already. G.o.d Himself has made it, and this is enough for faith; and therefore, by faith, we have fellowship with G.o.d, in the intelligence and joy of accomplished redemption. We taste the freshness of G.o.d's own joy in that which He has wrought. We feed upon Christ in all the fullness and blessedness of G.o.d's presence.

This latter point is connected with and based upon another leading truth laid down in "the law of the peace-offering."--"And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered: he shall not leave any of it until the morning." That is to say, the communion of the worshiper must never be separated from the sacrifice on which that communion is founded. So long as one has spiritual energy to maintain the connection, the worship and communion are also maintained, in freshness and acceptableness; but no longer. _We must keep close to the Sacrifice_, in the spirit of our minds, the affections of our hearts, and the experience of our souls. This will impart power and permanency to our worship. We may commence some act or expression of worship with our hearts in immediate occupation with Christ, and ere we reach the close we may become occupied with what we are doing or saying, or with the persons who are listening to us, and, in this way, fall into what may be termed "iniquity in our holy things." This is deeply solemn, and should make us very watchful. We may begin our worship in the Spirit and end in the flesh. Our care should ever be, not to suffer ourselves to proceed for a single moment beyond the energy of the Spirit, at the time; for the Spirit will always keep us occupied directly with Christ. If the Holy Ghost produces "five words"

of worship or thanksgiving, let us utter the five and have done. If we proceed further, we are eating the flesh of our sacrifice beyond the time; and, so far from its being "accepted," it is really "an abomination." Let us remember this, and be watchful. It need not alarm us. G.o.d would have us led by the Spirit, and so filled with Christ in all our worship. He can only accept of that which is divine, and therefore He would have us presenting that only which is divine.

"But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow or a voluntary-offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and _on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten_." (Chap. vii. 16.) When the soul goes forth to G.o.d in a voluntary act of worship, such worship will be the result of a larger measure of spiritual energy than where it merely springs from some special mercy experienced at the time. If one had been visited with some marked favor from the Lord's own hand, the soul at once ascends in thanksgiving. In this case, the worship is awakened by and connected with that favor or mercy, whatever it may happen to be, and there it ends; but where the heart is led forth by the Holy Ghost in some voluntary or deliberate expression of praise, it will be of a more enduring character. But spiritual worship will always connect itself with the precious sacrifice of Christ.

"The remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice, on the third day, shall be burnt with fire. And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity." Nothing is of any value, in the judgment of G.o.d, which is not immediately connected with Christ. There may be a great deal of what looks like worship, which is, after all, the mere excitement and outgoing of natural feeling; there may be much apparent devotion, which is merely fleshly pietism. Nature may be acted upon, in a religious way, by a variety of things, such as pomp, ceremony, and parade, tones and att.i.tudes, robes and vestments, an eloquent liturgy, all the varied attractions of a splendid ritualism, while there may be a total absence of spiritual worship. Yea, it not unfrequently happens that the very same tastes and tendencies which are called forth and gratified by the splendid appliances of so-called religious worship, would find most suited aliment at the opera or in the concert-room.

All this has to be watched against by those who desire to remember that "G.o.d is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." (John iv.) Religion, so called, is, at this moment, decking herself with her most powerful charms. Casting off the grossness of the middle ages, she is calling to her aid all the resources of refined taste, and of a cultivated and enlightened age.

Sculpture, music, and painting are pouring their rich treasures into her lap, in order that she may therewith prepare a powerful opiate to lull the thoughtless mult.i.tude into a slumber, which shall only be broken in upon by the unutterable horrors of death, judgment, and the lake of fire. She, too, can say, "I have _peace-offerings_ with me; this day have I paid my _vows_.... I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon." (Prov. vii.) Thus does corrupt religion allure, by her powerful influence, those who will not hearken to Wisdom's heavenly voice.

Reader, beware of all this. See that your worship stands inseparably connected with the work of the cross. See that Christ is the ground, Christ the material, and the Holy Ghost the power of your worship.

Take care that your outward act of worship does not stretch itself beyond the inward power. It demands much watchfulness to keep clear of this evil. Its incipient workings are most difficult to be detected and counteracted. We may commence a hymn in the true spirit of worship, and, through lack of spiritual power, we may, ere we reach the close, fall into the evil which answers to the ceremonial act of eating the flesh of the peace-offering on the third day. Our only security is in keeping close to Jesus. If we lift up our hearts in "thanksgiving" for some special mercy, let us do so in the power of the name and sacrifice of Christ. If our souls go forth in "voluntary"

worship, let it be in the energy of the Holy Ghost. In this way shall our worship exhibit that freshness, that fragrance, that depth of tone, that moral elevation, which must result from having the Father as the object, the Son as the ground, and the Holy Ghost as the power of our worship.[10]

[10] The statement in the text affords no warrant for the idea that our Lord Jesus Christ is not, equally with the Father, the object of worship. We utterly abhor and reject such a blasphemy.

Let the reader turn to John v. 23--"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him." How can any one, in the face of such a pa.s.sage as this, attempt to teach that it is wrong to present worship to the Lord Jesus? Woe be to the man who so teaches! He is plainly at issue with G.o.d.

Again, look at Rev. v. 12--"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." What mean these words if our Lord Jesus Christ is not to be addressed in prayer or worship?

Was the martyr, Stephen, wrong when he said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"? Was Paul mistaken when he besought the Lord to remove the thorn?

But it is needless to multiply pa.s.sages: the teaching of the inspired volume, from cover to cover, establishes, beyond all question, the rightness of presenting prayer and worship to our Lord Jesus Christ; and therefore all who teach otherwise are in direct opposition to the Word of G.o.d.

Thus may it be, O Lord, with all Thy worshiping people, until we find ourselves--body, soul, and spirit--in the security of Thine own eternal presence, beyond the reach of all the unhallowed influences of false worship and corrupt religion, and also beyond the reach of the various hindrances which arise from these bodies of sin and death which we carry about with us!

NOTE.--It is interesting to observe that although the peace-offering itself stands third in order, yet "the law" thereof is given us last of all. This circ.u.mstance is not without its import. There is none of the offerings in which the communion of the worshiper is so fully unfolded as in the peace-offering. In the burnt-offering, it is Christ offering Himself to G.o.d. In the meat-offering, we have Christ's perfect humanity. Then, pa.s.sing on to the sin-offering, we learn that _sin_, in its root, is fully met. In the trespa.s.s-offering, there is a full answer to the actual _sins_, in the life. But in none is the doctrine of the communion of the worshiper unfolded. This latter belongs to "the peace-offering;" and hence, I believe, the position which the law of that offering occupies. It comes in at the close of all, thereby teaching us that, when it becomes a question of the soul's feeding upon Christ, it must be a full Christ,--looked at in every possible phase of His life, His character, His Person, His work, His offices; and, furthermore, that, when we shall have done forever with sin and sins, we shall delight in Christ, and feed upon Him, throughout the everlasting ages. It would, I believe, be a serious defect in our study of the offerings were we to pa.s.s over a circ.u.mstance so worthy of notice as the above. If "the law of the peace-offering" were given in the order in which the offering itself occurs, it would come in immediately after the law of the meat-offering; but instead of that, "the law of the sin-offering" and "the law of the trespa.s.s-offering" are given, and then "the law of the peace-offering" closes the entire.

CHAPTER IV.-V. 13

Having considered the "sweet savor" offerings, we now approach the "sacrifices for sin." These were divided into two cla.s.ses, namely, sin-offerings and trespa.s.s-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 ceremonies. (Compare ver. 3-12 with ver. 13-21.) It was the same in result, whether it were the representative of the a.s.sembly or the a.s.sembly itself that sinned. In either case there were three things involved,--G.o.d's dwelling-place in the a.s.sembly, the worship of the a.s.sembly, and individual conscience. Now, inasmuch as all three depended upon the 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 vail 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 a.s.sembly. By putting the blood upon "the golden altar," the true basis of worship was preserved; so that the flame of the incense and the fragrance thereof 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." Here, we have the claims of individual conscience fully answered; for the brazen altar was the place of individual approach,--it was the place where G.o.d met the sinner.

In the two remaining grades--for "a ruler" or "one of the common people," it was merely a question of individual conscience, and therefore there was only one thing done with the blood,--it was all poured "at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering." (Comp. ver. 7 with ver. 25, 30.) There is divine precision in all this, which demands the close attention of my reader, if only he desires to enter into the marvelous detail of this type.[11]

[11] There is this difference between the offering for "a ruler" and for "one of the common people:" in the former, it was "a _male_ without blemish;" in the latter, "a _female_ without blemish." The sin of a ruler would necessarily exert a wider influence than that of a common person, and therefore a more powerful application of the value of the blood was needed. In chapter v. 13, we find cases demanding a still lower application of the sin-offering--cases of swearing, and of touching any uncleanness, in which "the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour" was admitted as a sin-offering. (See chap. v. 11-13.) What a contrast between the view of atonement presented by a ruler's bullock and a poor man's handful of flour! And yet, in the latter, just as truly as in the former, we read, "It shall be forgiven him."

The reader will observe that chapter v. 1-13 forms a part of chapter iv. Both are comprehended under one head, and present the doctrine of the sin-offering in all its applications, from the bullock to the handful of flour. Each cla.s.s of offering is introduced by the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses." Thus, for example, the sweet savor offerings (chap. i.-iii.) are introduced by the words, "The Lord called unto Moses." These words are not repeated until chapter iv. 1, where they introduce the sin-offering. They occur again at chapter v.

14, where they introduce the trespa.s.s-offering for wrongs done "in the holy things of the Lord;" and again at chapter vi. 1, where they introduce the trespa.s.s-offering for wrongs done to one's neighbor.

This cla.s.sification is beautifully simple, and will help the reader to understand the different cla.s.ses of offering. As to the different grades in each cla.s.s, whether "a bullock," "a ram," "a female," "a bird," or "a handful of flour," they would seem to be so many varied applications of the same grand truth.

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, in its influence, reach "the altar of incense"--the place of priestly worship; neither could it reach to "the vail of the sanctuary"--the sacred boundary of G.o.d's dwelling-place in the midst of His people. It is well to ponder this. We must never raise a question of personal sin or failure in the place of priestly worship or in the a.s.sembly; it must be settled in the place of personal approach. Many err as to this. They come into the a.s.sembly, or into the ostensible place of priestly worship, with their conscience defiled, and thus drag down the whole a.s.sembly and mar its worship.

This should be closely looked into, and carefully guarded against. We need to walk more watchfully, in order that our conscience may ever be in the light. And when we fail, (as, alas! we do in many things,) let us have to do with G.o.d in secret about our failure, in order that true worship and the true position of the a.s.sembly may always be kept with fullness and clearness before the soul.

Having said thus much as to the three grades of sin-offering, we shall proceed to examine, in detail, the principles unfolded in the first of these. In so doing, we shall be able to form, in some measure, a just conception of the principles of all. Before, however, entering upon the direct comparison already proposed, I would call my reader's attention to a very 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 truth of the deepest blessedness, in connection with the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contemplating that atonement, we see infinitely more than the mere satisfaction of the claims of conscience, even though that conscience had reached the highest point of refined sensibility. It is our privilege to see therein that which has fully satisfied all the claims of divine holiness, divine justice, and divine majesty. The holiness of G.o.d's dwelling-place, and the ground of His a.s.sociation 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 which man's conscience would pa.s.s over--many things which might escape man's cognizance--many things which his heart might deem all right, which G.o.d could not tolerate; and which, as a consequence, would interfere with man's approach to, his worship of, and his relationship with G.o.d. Wherefore, if the atonement of Christ merely made provision for such sins as come within the compa.s.s of man's apprehension, we should find ourselves very far short of the true ground of peace. We need to understand that sin has been atoned for, according to G.o.d's measurement thereof--that the claims of His throne have been perfectly answered--that 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 believer's sins of ignorance, as well as for his known sins. The sacrifice of Christ lays the foundation of his relationship and fellowship with G.o.d, according to the divine estimate of the claims thereof.

A clear sense of this is of unspeakable value. Unless this feature of the atonement be laid hold of, there cannot be settled peace; nor will there be any just moral sense of the extent and fullness of the work of Christ, or of the true nature of the relationship founded thereon.

G.o.d knew what was needed in order that man might be in His presence without a single misgiving, and He has made ample provision for it in the cross. Fellowship between G.o.d and man were utterly impossible if sin had not been disposed of according to G.o.d's thoughts about it; for, albeit man's conscience were satisfied, the question would ever be suggesting itself, Has G.o.d been satisfied? If this question could not be answered in the affirmative, fellowship could never subsist.[12] The thought would be continually intruding itself upon the heart, that things were manifesting themselves in the details of life which divine holiness could not tolerate. True, we might be doing such things "through ignorance," but this could not alter the matter before G.o.d, inasmuch as all is known to Him. Hence, there would be continual apprehension, doubt, and misgiving. All these things are divinely met by the fact that sin has been atoned for, not according to our "ignorance," but according to G.o.d's knowledge. The a.s.surance of this gives great rest to the heart and conscience. All G.o.d's claims have been answered by His own work. He Himself has made the provision; and therefore the more refined the believer's conscience becomes, under the combined action of the Word and Spirit of G.o.d--the more he grows in a divinely-adjusted sense of all that morally befits the sanctuary--the more keenly alive he becomes to every thing which is unsuited to the divine presence, the fuller, clearer, deeper, and more vigorous will be his apprehension of the infinite value of that Sin-offering which has not only traveled beyond the utmost bounds of human conscience, but also met, in absolute perfection, all the requirements of divine holiness.

[12] I would desire it to be particularly remembered that the point before us in the text is simply atonement. The Christian reader is fully aware, I doubt not, that the possession of "the divine nature"

is essential to fellowship with G.o.d. I not only need a _t.i.tle_ to approach G.o.d, but a _nature_ to enjoy Him. The soul that "believes in the name of the only begotten Son of G.o.d" has both the one and the other. (See John i. 12, 13; iii. 36; v. 24; xx. 31; 1 John v. 11-13.)

Nothing can more forcibly express man's incompetency to deal with sin than the fact of there being such a thing as a "sin of ignorance." How could he deal with that which he knows not? How could he dispose of that which has never even come within the range of his conscience?