The Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel

Burnt-offerings

“Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it. And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offerings. The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out.” (Lev. 6:9-13)

“Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering. And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD. This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.” (Exod. 29:38-42)

There are but two Hebrew words, olah and chalil, which have been rendered burnt offering or burnt sacrifice, in the King James Version. Olah (and alah) has the significance of ascending, or as Young puts it in his Analytical Concordance to the Bible: “that which goes up.” It has been rendered burnt-offering 267 times, and burnt sacrifice 18 times. Chalil has been rendered burnt offering only once (Psa. 51:19) and burnt sacrifice only once (Deut. 33:10).

“Burnt offerings as well as ‘meat offerings,’ and ‘peace offerings,’ were mere voluntary offerings (unlike ‘sin’ and ‘trespass’ offerings, which were compulsory), which, however, were to be represented in a uniform systematic manner, as laid down in Lev. 1-3. The first three express generally the idea of ‘homage, self-dedication, and thanksgiving,’ the latter two that of ‘propitiation.’ The animals that might be used for burnt offerings might be from the flock or herd, or from the fowls, and were to be entirely burnt, their blood sprinkled on the altar, and their skins given to the priest for clothing. They were to be offered every morning and evening, every Sabbath day, the first day of every month, the seven days of unleavened bread, and the day of Atonement. They were offered at the consecration of the priests, Levites, kings, sacred places, the purification of women, Nazarites, lepers, after- mercies, before war, and with sounding of trumpets at feasts.” (Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible)

“The word [Burnt-Offering] is applied to the offering which was wholly consumed by the fire on the altar, and the whole of which, except the refuse ashes, ‘ascended’ in the smoke to God … But the term is generally restricted to that which is properly a ‘whole burnt offering’ the whole of which was so offered and so consumed.” (Smith, Dictionary of the Bible)

“The burnt-offering: Olah, or also Chalil. The derivation of the term Olah, as wholly ‘ascending’ unto God, indicates alike the mode of the sacrifice and its meaning. It symbolizes the entire surrender unto God, whether of the individual or of the congregation, and His acceptance thereof. Hence, also, it could not be offered ‘without shedding of blood.’ Where other sacrifices were brought, it followed the sin-, but preceded the peace-offering. In fact, it meant general acceptance on the ground of previous special acceptance, and it has rightly been called the sacrificium latreuticum, or sacrifice of devotion and service. Thus day by day it formed the regular morning and evening service in the Temple, while on sabbaths, new moons, and festivals additional burnt-offerings followed the ordinary worship. There the covenant people brought the covenant sacrifice, and the multitude of offerings indicated, as it were, the fulness, richness, and joyousness of their self-surrender … The burnt-offering was always to be a male animal, as the more noble, and as indicating the strength and energy … and the sacrifice having been duly salted, it was wholly burned.” (Edersheim, The Temple, p. 99)

“The burnt-offerings of the priests were to be kept up continually on the altar, and the fire never suffered to die out. (Lev. 6:9,12,13) Thus was represented to the mind of each offerer that the altar was already sanctified or set apart, and that their offerings would be acceptable because of God’s acceptance of the Atonement Day sacrifices. To this altar the Israelites brought his free will offering, as narrated in Leviticus 1. It was made in the usual way; the animal, cut in pieces and washed was laid, the pieces to the head, on the altar, and wholly burnt, a sacrifice of sweet savor unto the Lord. This would serve to typify a thankful prayer to Jehovah, an acknowledgment of his mercy, wisdom and love, as manifested in the broken body of the Christ, their ransom.” (T97)

“The sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering evidently pictured the same sacrifices, but from different standpoints. In every case we would understand the bullocks to represent our Lord Jesus and the goats to represent the church, the underpriesthood. The sin-offerings represented the suffering of Christ and of all who walk in his footsteps as respects their relationship to the Lord, ‘outside the camp,’ and their course as new creatures inside the holy and ultimately beyond the second vail in the most holy. And it shows the merit of the sacrifice eventually applied on the mercy seat, and for whom applied—the blood of the bullock first, for the church; the blood of the goat afterward, for all the people.

“The burnt-offering shows the same sacrifice but from a different standpoint—that of divine acceptance. It shows that the offering was made to God and accepted by God as a whole, even though, as shown in the sin-offering, the sufferings were inflicted by men and the services rendered unto men.” (R4389:3)

“Other features of the same consecration were shown by the two rams mentioned in verses 18 and 22 [of Leviticus chapter 8]. The first mentioned was the ram for the burnt-offering. Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon its head, thus indicating that it represented them. It was killed; its blood was sprinkled upon the altar; and Moses ‘cut the ram into pieces, and washed the inwards and legs in water,’ and ‘burnt the head and the pieces and the fat.’ Thus during the entire Gospel age Jesus and his body, the church, are being presented, member by member, before God on the altar, yet all are counted together as one sacrifice. The Head was laid on the altar first and since then all who are ‘dead with him,’ and cleansed, as in the type, by the washing through the Word—are reckoned as laid with the Head upon the same altar. The burning of the offering on the altar shows how God accepts the sacrifice, as a ‘sweet smelling savor.’ ” (T42)

“The burnt-offering consisted of two rams (verses 3 and 5), one representing the bullock and the other the Lord’s goat. These, being alike, show the harmony and oneness of the sacrifices made by Jesus and his footstep followers—that in God’s sight they are all one sacrifice. ‘For both he that sanctifieth (Jesus) and they who are sanctified (the little flock) are all one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.’ Heb. 2:11

“This is further shown in the treatment of each of these sacrifices. The rams of ‘burnt-offering’ were cut in pieces and washed and the pieces laid unto the head upon the altar and burned—a burnt-offering of sweet savor unto Jehovah. Since both rams were thus treated, it showed that in Jehovah’s es- timation they were all parts of one sacrifice: the members joined to the Head, acceptable as a whole, as the atonement for the sins of the world— thus satisfying the claims of justice on behalf of the whole world of sinners.” (T73)

The ram (male sheep) was frequently, though not exclusively used for a burnt-offering. This fact is intensely interesting when considered in connection with the rituals of Lev. 8:18; Lev. 9:2,3; and Lev. 16:3,5.

The sin-offering in these rituals was either a bullock or a goat, to represent more particularly the humanities, respectively, of Christ and his Church. Frequently, the bullock is used to typify perfect humanity; and, except in Leviticus 8 (in the rituals referred to), it represented that of Christ Jesus and his humanity alone; the goat was used to typify the imperfect humanity of the Church. In the ritual of Leviticus chapter 8, the bullock in the first instance does represent that perfect body prepared by Jehovah God for Christ Jesus (Heb. 10:5) for the suffering of death. Note how beautifully this is reflected in the type (Lev. 8:14) where Moses supplied the bullock which Aaron accepted to represent himself. But it will have been noted that not only did Aaron lay his hands upon the head of it, but the underpriests did too; as if to say that the perfection required by God of the Church in its consecration is supplied by Him in the humanity of the man Christ Jesus! Truly, we are accepted in the Beloved!

In Leviticus chapters 9 and 16, however, our true status is clearly reflected by a goat, which as suggested, represented the imperfect humanity of the Church, which accordingly, has no intrinsic merit!

It will be recalled that of these sin-offerings, only the inwards were burnt upon the altar in the Court, and the remainder, the hide, hoofs, etc., were burnt with fire “outside the Camp.” Thus our heart devotions are yielded to God on the altar of sacrifice, while at the same time the testimony of our consecrated lives must be such before the world that it creates, as it were, a veritable stench in their nostrils. (See Lev. 8:16,17; 9:10,11,15; 16:25,27 and T42.)

It is quite evident from this that we are not to withdraw ourselves from the world to live cloistered lives, but rather we are to live in it, but to be not of it. And let it not be overlooked that the stench was not produced by a decomposition of the carcass, for the animal had only recently been slain. Rather, the stench was the result of the fire coming into contact with the carcass. So should it also be with us, even as it was with Christ Jesus. A “dead” animal does not seek to get away from the fire which is to destroy it; nor must we endeavor to escape from the fiery trials which the Father, in his wisdom, permits to come upon us. It is this resignation to the providences of God that so often annoys our friends both in, and outside “the Camp.” But one day, they will understand that even this had something to do with their redemption.

On the other hand, the burnt-offerings were completely consumed by the altar. (Lev. 8:21; 9:13,14,16) This seems to say that though only a part of the sin-offerings was actually sacrificed upon the altar, God accepted it as though it had been completely offered there. Nor should we fail to note that the head of these burnt-offerings was always laid upon the altar unwashed, whereas, the body, the inwards and the legs, which were subsequently laid upon the altar unto the head, had first to be washed. (See Lev. 8:20,21; 9:13,14,16.) The head unwashed well represented the perfect sacrifice of Christ Jesus who was “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners.” (Heb. 7:26) Naturally, his sacrifice had to precede all others (Col. 1:18); but oh the glory of it! The testimony of the types here is that both the “head” which required no washing, and the “members” who do, are parts of one body, one sacrifice. (See T73)

But there is yet another lesson which may be gleaned from this type of the burnt-offering, and a most beautiful one it is. It lies in the fact of the burnt-offering generally being a ram (male sheep). There are reasons why God might have required a bullock as a burnt-offering for the goat of the sin-offering; but he specified a ram for both! Surely, the bullock is a creature of much weight, a lot of fat and considerable strength; whereas the goat is by comparison lighter, lean, and of considerably less strength. In the matter of our consecration God might have accepted Jesus to membership in the mystical body of “the Christ” because of his perfection, for his much zeal, and for his great strength of character. On this basis, of course, the Church would have had to have been left out completely. On the other hand, in great compassion God might have accepted us because of our inability as members of a fallen race to yield perfect obedience; but would not this have involved an inequity?

It is evident, however, that while both of these characteristics have been duly taken into account by God, they do not constitute the actual basis of our acceptance into membership in the “one body,” for a “bullock” is a “bullock,” and a “goat” is a “goat,” and the two never could be made one. Even the yoking together of dissimilar animals, though it be for a common purpose was forbidden by the Law of Moses. (See Deut. 22:10) It is rather in characteristics common to both Christ and his Church, that we must seek this basis. Is it not comprehended in the traits of meekness, lowliness and humility so beautifully pictured in the docility of a little lamb? It is not strange, then, that both Jesus and his Church are never likened unto a herd of cattle, but pictured to us as a “little flock” of sheep. (Luke 12:32) Prophetically, David of old speaks for us when he declares, “the LORD [Jehovah] is my shepherd.” (Psa. 23:1) In Psa. 95:7 we are called “the people of his pasture,” and also “the sheep of his hand.” In Psa. 100:3 we are referred to as “the sheep of his pasture.” (See also the testimony concerning Jesus in Isa. 53:7.)

“The LORD, in calling his people his sheep, chose a very significant emblem of the character he would have manifested in them. The most noticeable characteristics of the sheep are meekness, docility and obedience to the shepherd to whose care they fully entrust themselves. They are very true to the shepherd: they study his voice, watch for the indications of his will, and trustfully obey him. When they hear his voice, quickly, and without the slightest hesitation or faltering, they run to obey it. But the voice of a stranger they will not follow, for they know not the voice of strangers.” (R3116:2)

“And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord God.” (Ezek. 34:31)

May this not be the reason why God specified a ram for the sacrifices, which, wholly consumed by the altar, the burnt-offerings, best showed forth the only basis on which he could accept one so great and so perfect as Christ Jesus, together with others so imperfect as Paul (see Rom. 7:18,24) and ourselves, as “members” of one and the same “body”—the antitypical sin-offering?

“When God through the angel stayed the hand of Abraham from accomplishing the sacrifice of his son’s life, a ram caught in the thicket was provided as a sacrifice instead. Thus a ram in sacrifice became a symbol of the seed of Abraham, and an indication of a part of the process by which reconciliation of divine justice will be made on behalf of all the families of the earth, to permit of their being blessed by the Messianic Kingdom.” (R5180:5)

Characteristics of the Burnt-Offerings

As a Free Will offering (Lev. 1:3), it could be:

OF THE HERD: Bullock, etc. (Lev. 1:2, 3); male, without blemish (Lev. 1:3)
OF THE FLOCK: Sheep or Goat (Lev. 1:1,10); male, without blemish (Lev. 1:10)
FOWL: Turtledoves or Pigeons, (Lev. 1:14)

If of the herd or flock:

the offerer laid his hand upon the head of it (Lev. 1:4)
the offerer killed it (Lev. 1:5,11)
the priest sprinkled the blood round about the altar (Lev. 1:5,11)
the offerer cut the sacrifice in pieces (Lev. 1:6,12)
the priest laid the head and fat upon the altar (Lev. 1:8,12)
the offerer washed the inwards and legs (Lev. 1:9,13)
the priest burnt it upon the altar (Lev. 1:9,13)
the priest retained the skin for himself (Lev. 7:8)

If of Fowl:

the offerer presented it to the priest (Lev. 1:14)
the priest brought it to the altar (Lev. 1:15)
the priest killed it (by wringing its neck) (Lev. 1:15)
the offerer plucked the crop and feathers and cast them to the eastside of the altar (place of ashes) (Lev. 1:16)
the offerer cleft it, but did not divide it asunder (Lev. 1:17)
the priest burnt it upon the altar (Lev. 1:17)

As a Burnt-Offering of the priests (Lev. 6:9-13):

had to be offered daily (Exod. 29:38)
two lambs of the first year (Exod. 29:38); one to be offered in the morn- ing; the other in the evening (Exod. 29:39)
fire had to be burning continually (Lev. 6:12,13; Exod. 29:42)
with each lamb there was to be offered: 1) a meal-offering, consisting of a tenth deal of flour, mingled with a fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; 2) drink-offering, consisting of the fourth part of an hin of wine (Exod. 29:40,41)

the fat of the peace-offerings was to be burned upon these burnt- offerings (Lev. 6:12)
the priest was to be in his Linen Garments, except when removing the ashes to a clean place without the Camp (Lev. 6:10,11)

At initial consecration of the priests (Exod. 29:1; Lev. 8:1):

Had to be a ram (Exod. 29:1,15-18; Lev. 8:2,18-21)
Moses brought it (Exod. 29:1; Lev. 8:1,2,4)
Aaron and sons laid their hands on head of it (Exod. 29:15; Lev. 8:18)
Moses killed it (Exod. 29:16; Lev. 8:19)
Moses sprinkled blood on the altar round about (Exod. 29:16; Lev. 8:19)
Moses cut ram in pieces (Exod. 29:17; Lev. 8:20)
Moses washed inwards and legs (Exod. 29:17; Lev. 8:21)
Moses laid pieces unto head upon altar (Exod. 29:17; Lev. 8:20,21)

At secondary consecration (Lev. 9:1) for the priest:

Had to be a ram (Lev. 9:2)
Aaron brought it (Lev. 9:2)
Aaron slew it (Lev. 9:12)
Underpriests presented its blood to him (Lev. 9:12)
Aaron sprinkled the blood on the altar, round about (Lev. 9:12)
Underpriests presented the offering to him (Lev. 9:13)
Aaron burnt it upon the altar (Lev. 9:13)

The Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel 373

Aaron washed the inwards and legs, and laid them upon the altar, the pieces unto the head (Lev. 9:14)

For the people:

Had to be two animals, a bullock (calf) and a ram (lamb) (Lev. 9:3)
People brought it (Lev. 9:3)
Aaron slew it (Lev. 9:16—see verses 12-14)
Underpriests presented its blood to him, (Lev. 9:16—see verses 12-14)
Aaron burnt it upon the altar (Lev. 9:16—see verses 12-14)
Aaron washed the inwards and legs, and laid them upon the altar, the pieces unto the head (Lev. 9:16—see verses 12-14)

On Atonement Day (Leviticus chapter 16):

had to be two rams—one in connection with each of the sin-offerings (Lev. 16:3)
Aaron offered them after:
1. Both sin-offerings, the bullock and the goat, had been sacrificed (Lev. 16:24)
2. Reconciliation of the Court, the Holy, and the Most Holy had been accomplished with the blood of atonements (Lev. 16:16-19)
3. Scapegoat had been dealt with (Lev. 16:20-22)
4. He had changed his garments from those of sacrifice (linen) to those of “Glory and Beauty” (Lev. 16:23,24)

These two rams were undoubtedly offered in the usual manner:
1. Animal slain and cut in pieces.
2. Blood sprinkled round about, upon the altar.
3. Head, unwashed, laid upon the altar first.
4. Inwards and legs washed and laid as pieces unto the head.
5. Sacrifice was completely consumed by the altar.

“The burnt-offerings of the priests were to be kept up continually on the altar … ‘It is the burnt-offering because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it … It shall not be put out, and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt-offering in order upon it … The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out.’ (Lev. 6:9,12,13)

“Thus was represented to the mind of each offerer the fact that the altar was already sanctified or set apart, and that their offerings would be acceptable because of God’s acceptance of the Atonement Day sacrifices. To this altar the Israelites brought his free will offering, as narrated in Lev. 1. It was made in the usual way: the animal, cut in pieces and washed, was laid, the pieces to the head, on the altar, and wholly burnt, a sacrifice of sweet savor unto the Lord. This would serve to typify a thankful prayer to Jehovah, an acknowledgment of his mercy, wisdom and love, as manifested in the broken body of the Christ, their ransom.” (T97)

Here the term ransom must not be confused with the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus, for in that, he, and he only shared! So also, all the ransom merit lies with him: nothing, absolutely nothing of the merit could have been supplied or contributed by us, for we were born in sin and “shapen in iniquity.”

It is however, in the other sense of the word ransom that we are privileged to be identified with him, in the sense in which we by way of our “baptism for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29) become channels whereby the ransom merit is made available for the world of mankind. In this sense of the word, there is, of course, no thought of an exact correspondency, but merely that of release. Even as in war, one hundred common soldiers may be the ransom for two generals, or vice versa, so here, the broken body of the Christ (head and body), the sin-offering, becomes the means whereby the world of mankind is released from the great prison house of death. We share with Jesus in this ransom work, but only because we have first suffered with him, i.e., made up, as it were, that which was left behind of the afflictions of Christ, for the body’s sake.

“In the matter of sin atonement, ‘we were children of wrath even as others,’ and therefore we had nothing wherewith we could procure the redemption either of ourselves or of anybody else. Hence we were wholly dependent upon God’s provision in Christ Jesus our Lord, ‘who gave himself a ransom for all,’ a ransom price. We, therefore, have none of this ransom merit in us, and then, by virtue of our consecration and his becoming our Advocate, the Father receives us as members of his body, we thus become members of the Ransomer, because his work of ransoming is not completed.” (R4617:1)

“The work of ransoming Adam and his race is much more than merely the providing of the ransom-price. The thought connected with the word Ransom goes beyond the mere giving and appropriating the price. It includes the recovery of Adam and his race from the power of sin and death. Manifestly, this work has not yet been accomplished; indeed it has scarcely begun. The only disposition thus far of the ransom, the merit, has been its imputation to the Church, and this only by faith … it will require the entire thousand years of Messiah’s Kingdom to ransom, to deliver, to set free, from the power of sin and death, Adam and all his children.

“The full completion of the Ransoming work will include what the Bible speaks of, saying, ‘I will ransom them from the power of the grave’ (Hos. 13:14).” (R5873:2)

“We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, because we, accepted as members of the Body, are set apart to this great priestly, kingly, mediatorial work with him … It is only as we obtain this great privilege of sacrificing as members of his Body that we can have any expectancy of participation with him in his glory.” (R4512:6)

“But now that this Ransom-price has been placed in the hands of Justice as a deposit, whose title is possessed by Jesus, we are jointsharers with him in this possession by reason of our relationship to him and our interest in everything that he possesses. Thus the Church becomes a sharer in his Ransom-price, because as his bride we are his joint-heirs; and we are to be associated with him in giving to the world the benefits of that Ransom-price.” (R5882:1)

The Ashes

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it. And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.” (Lev. 6:8-11)

We understand from the foregoing that these daily sacrifices were offered upon the altar of the Lord by the High Priest in the linen garments of sacrifice, in which also he removed from the altar the accumulated ashes, placing them to the eastward beside the altar. (Lev. 1:16) The placing of these ashes beside the altar was, however, but a temporary expedient, for after changing to “other garments” he carried them forth to a clean place beyond the camp.

While the instructions given in Leviticus chapter 6 were for “Aaron and his sons” we would understand “his sons” here to signify merely such sons as would in due course officiate as high priests. Our thought is that the high priest only was ordained to offer these daily sacrifices; then too, was he not the only one among the priesthood who had “other garments” to change to? It follows then, that the High Priest was the one who carried forth the ashes to the clean place beyond the camp.

Perhaps, the two burnt-offerings—the lamb offered in the morning and the lamb offered at even (Exod. 29:38,39)—were intended to have about the same significance as the two rams of the burnt-offering of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:24), i.e., they represented both Jesus and his church in the consecration unto death! It is, in any event, these “better sacrifices” of the Gospel age that are sanctifying the earthly altar against the Millennium, wherein the world of mankind will be called upon to offer “sacrifices and offerings” unto the LORD on their own behalf. (See T97)

The two burnt-offerings offered as a daily offering by the priests (Num. 28:3-8) primarily represented the Lamb of God whose sacrifice sanctified the “altar” against its use by the Gospel Age priesthood. The drink offering, incidental thereto, depicted the manner in which Jesus’ consecration to the will of God, a libation of “strong drink,” made glad the heart of God.

In a secondary sense these two lambs represented respectively the morning sacrifice (Christ Jesus) and the evening sacrifice (the Church)—the “better sacrifices” (Heb. 9:23) of the Gospel Age, which sanctify, as it were, the “altar” against its use during the Millennial Age. The corresponding drink offering, representing the consecration of the Church, which the High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus presents as a libation, to make glad the heart of God!

Ashes are symbols for “remembrance.” During this Gospel Age, we, who presently are the antitypical Israel of God, frequently are defiled by unavoidable contact with Adamic death, we do become discouraged because of repeated failures due to the weaknesses and frailties of the flesh. Then, as the ashes of the red heifer served those of old from their defilements, affording them a cleansing, so are we privileged to use “red heifer” ashes, the remembrance of the faithfulness of the defilements. Thus do these “ashes” not only serve us, here and now, but they will serve also the world of mankind in the age to come. (T109, 111)

No specific purpose was suggested for the use of the ashes of the daily burnt-offerings; we are merely told that they were carried “without the camp unto a clean place.” (Lev. 6:11) So, evidently, the “ashes,” the remembrance of the faithfulness of Jesus and the church will serve no particularly designated purpose; however, the fact that the ashes in the type were not promiscuously disposed of, seems to suggest that the memory of the faithfulness of those who offered themselves as the “better sacrifices” of the Gospel age will not be forgotten. This memory will undoubtedly be left for the reverent contemplation of those among whom they once lived. (Psa. 87:5)

The High Priest, we have suggested, is the glorified Christ, head and body, arrayed in “other garments” of “glory and of beauty.” Unlike the “man that is clean” who took the ashes of the red heifer to a clean place without the camp (Num. 19:9), the high priest in his “other garments” was in no way defiled in carrying forth the ashes of the burnt-offerings (see Num. 19:10). So it may be said that the Apostle Paul, who gathered the “ashes of the red heifer”—the memory of the faithfulness of the ancient worthies—into a “clean place,” the Bible, was still so to speak, unavoidably defiled by his contact with Adamic death, and remained so until “the even”; but the World’s High Priest, being arrayed in his “other garments” will be beyond the defiling influences of the flesh!

“The sins are not blotted out; they are merely reckonedly covered. In the case of the church’s sins they will not be blotted out until death shall destroy these mortal bodies, and until the Lord, in the first resurrection, shall grant us glorious, spiritual, perfect bodies.” (R2677:1)

We suggest that Paul must also be numbered among the “prophets” because like the prophets of old, he too is responsible for the “gathering up” of the ashes of the “red heifer” into a clean place—particularly Hebrews chapter 11. The ancient prophets gathered them into the Old Testament; Paul gathered them into the New Testament.

“Their ashes (the knowledge and remembrance of their faithfulness unto death) … the remembrance and lessons of the faithfulness of the ancient worthies (typified by the ashes of the red heifer).” (T108)

Free Will Offerings

“And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire: And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish. And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar. And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons. And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar: 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: 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 savour unto the LORD.” (Lev. 1:1-17)

“During the Millennial age all men will ‘come to a knowledge of the truth,’ and thus to the fullest opportunity of salvation from the curse (condemnation or sentence) of Adamic death. (1 Tim. 2:4) When we remember that death includes all sickness, pain and imperfection to which humanity is now subject, we see that God’s plan includes a full restoration to human perfection; only those who deliberately refuse or neglect the opportunities then put within reach of all will die the Second Death. But perfection will come gradually, and it will require the cooperation of the sinner’s WILL ever to reach it. He must do what he can to climb up again to perfection, and will have all the assistance necessary. This is shown by these sacrifices in general; they were to be according to every man’s ability. However degraded by sin and imperfect, each must, when he comes to a knowledge of the truth, present himself to God, the offering indicating his condition. The dove or pigeon brought by the poorest in the type represented the justified all of the morally poor and degraded; the goat offered by others more able, represented the all of some less degraded; while the bullock represented the all of those who attained perfection of human nature. Just as a bullock was used to typify the perfect humanity (much fat) of Jesus’ sacrifice, and a goat (wayward and lean) was used to represent the imperfect human nature of the saints, in the sacrifices of this Atonement Day, so those animals similarly represented the offerers (Israel—typical of the believing world in the Millennium) in their consecrations. But it should be remembered that these burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of the future represent the people as consecrating, giving themselves to the Lord.” (T95, 96)

And that priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered .” (Lev. 7:8)

“The skins of the most holy sacrifices, except such as were wholly burnt, belonged to the priests; those of the less holy to the offerers.” (Edersheim, The Temple, p. 86)

Perhaps the ‘free will’ burnt-offering which the children of Israel brought subsequent to the Day of Atonement was intended more particularly to typify that consecration which during the Millennial age will ultimately merit everlasting life on the human plane for the world of mankind. These offerings as set forth in Leviticus chapter 1 could be of the herd (verses 2- 9), of the flock (verses 10-13), or of fowls (verses 14-17) viz., turtle-doves or pigeons. All seemed designed to show:

The individual’s ‘appreciation of the ransom’ (T97)—his recognition of the Day of Atonement sin and burnt-offerings—as the basis for general forgiveness and acceptance (T94).
The individual himself, i.e., his ‘acquiescence … to the law of God’ (T97) as by way of consecration he manifests his desire to come into fullest har- mony with God, limited only by the measure of his own apprehension of the divine Will concerning himself.

“The completeness of consecration was shown by the death of the animal, that is, each member of the race must consecrate his will; but it will be followed neither by the destruction of the human nature (the burning of the flesh outside the camp) nor by the taking of the life into a new nature, into the ‘Most Holy.’ Only the priests enter there, as shown in the Atonement sacrifices. No: when consecrated, they are accepted as human beings, and will be perfected as such, their right to life as such having been purchased by the High Priest, in the members of whose body all the overcoming Church is represented. The consecrations represent an appreciation of the ransom, and the acquiescence of the offerers to the Law of God as the condition upon which they may continue to live everlastingly, in harmony and favor with him.” (T96)

In the Atonement Day type, the bullock of the sin-offering was, with the exception of its inwards, completely consumed by the fire “without the camp.” (Lev. 16:27) Only the inwards were burnt upon the altar within the Court. (Lev. 16:25; 9:10) It was different, however, with the Atonement Day burnt-offerings; for this was completely consumed by the altar. (Lev. 16:24; 9:12-14) Here we have depicted two different aspects of one and the same sacrifice of Jesus, showing forth the full and complete consecration of Jesus to the Will of God, how he sacrificed himself, and how God accepted him.

Jesus declared, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” (Mark 12:30) Let us note how beautifully the Atonement Day sacrifices illustrate this:

HEART

Represented by the “inwards” of the sacrifice. How better could we have pictured for us, the heart devotions of Jesus; and his zeal (fat) consumed upon the altar of the Lord. (T42)

SOUL

Represented by the blood. Truly the life, the being, the all, as it were, of Jesus, was fully yielded, even unto death!

MIND

Represented by the head. Was Jesus not beheaded when in place of his own will, he took the mind and will of God, his Father?

STRENGTH

Represented by the legs. Yes, Jesus’ entire walk was before God; yea, all of his strength was used in His blessed service. Not only did he say, “I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29), but he actually did just that!

Now all of these were accepted of God as having been “consumed” upon his altar, as was so beautifully represented in the Atonement Day burnt-offerings. Even though the Atonement Day sin-offering showed most of the bullock as having been burnt “without the camp,” and there creating a stench in the nostrils of the people, the “inwards” were burnt upon the altar in the Court, as a sweet savor unto the Lord. In a sense these “inwards” represented the whole body fully dedicated unto the Lord. But both the bullock of the sin-offering, and the ram of the burnt-offering, typified Jesus’ sacrifice; and though the “inwards” and “legs” were washed, we are not to understand that either Jesus himself needed to be cleansed from any defilement; or that the Church (which needed both washing and cleansing) was in any way represented in his personal sacrifice. Rather, God was merely showing that the sacrifice of Jesus, could not, and would not, be accepted as the complete sin-offering, but as being the “head” unto those who would require washing, and as a result of that washing could be laid upon that altar subsequently, yet, only as “members” of his body! These “body members” were typified in the secondary sin-offering of the Day of Atonement, in the goat; and this goat represented their imperfect humanity.

Like the bullock, the goat was burned without the camp, save for its inwards, and these were burnt upon the altar as a sweet savor unto the Lord. Its acceptance, as though this sin-offering had been completely sacrificed upon the altar, was shown in the burnt-offering identified with it. Both the sin-offering (goat) and the burnt-offering (ram) showed forth the full and complete consecration of the Church, to the will of Jehovah.

The “ransom” merit must, of course, be recognized as belonging wholly to Jesus, and to him alone! Yet its application, resulting in the blessing and salvation of the world of mankind, God has decreed, shall come by way of the sacrifices (consecrations faithfully performed) of both Christ Jesus and his Church, as depicted in these very Atonement Day sin-and burnt-offerings respectively. It is this that the world of mankind will first be called upon to recognize. Then, and only then, will they be privileged to dedicate themselves similarly to God. Their recognition (apprehension) will be the measure of their faith; and their faith will be the measure of their justification; and their justification will be the determining factor in their consecration.

Since, then, one’s ability in the matter of consecration bears such a definite relationship to his apprehension, we can readily see that the “turtle-doves” and “pigeons” as brought by the morally poor of the Millennial age, will reflect their appreciation of the divine will concerning them as based on a yet incomplete and imperfect apprehension of the sacrifice of Christ and his Church as their sin-offering.

Doves and pigeons are very light; there just isn’t much flesh; and the bones (unlike those of the mammals offered) are small and hollow; nor is there much blood! Let it be noted that in the instance of these sacrifices, it was the priest, and not the offerer who killed it (Lev. 1:5,11,15), and further, that there is here no discrimination with regards to its “body members.” It is true that in the type the head was wrung off by the priest, and burnt upon the altar, but its body members were merely “cleaved” but not “divided.” (Lev. 1:17) There is no cutting of it in “pieces,” nor is it stated that the “inwards” and “legs” were washed and laid unto the “head” upon the altar, which was so characteristic of the burnt-offerings of the Atonement Day.

Thus does this sacrifice show not only the state and condition of those who are morally poor, but also their imperfect apprehension of the sacrifice of the Christ. Surely such as bring “turtledoves” and “pigeons” have not yet reached that degree of apprehension wherein they, as did Christ and the Church, see the need of being beheaded. Note again, that in the type it was the priest who wrung off the bird’s head, as if to say, those of the Millennial age who bring the corresponding offerings will be required to be taught by their priesthood of the need of such beheading. Nor will such as these as yet appreciate to any degree that heart devotion to the will of God which enabled the Christ to offer acceptable sacrifices upon the altar of the Lord. When these lessons have been learned by the morally poor of the Millennial age, it will be reflected in their desire to use all their strength (figuratively, to use their “legs”) in full and absolute obedience to the Lord. Gradually their consecrations will be reflected in the more noble “sacrifices,” until eventually, as already suggested, they will bring a perfect hu- manity (bullock) as a whole-burnt-offering unto Jehovah.

“… he shall offer it of his own voluntary will.” (Lev. 1:3)

The translators of the Old Testament scriptures seem to have had difficulty in the rendering of this text, for there is no degree of unanimity:

Of the 14 translations or versions here cited, only the four in bold type suggest that the offering was to be a freewill offering. Adam Clarke says:

“His own voluntary will … lirtsono (Hebrew) to gain himself acceptance before the Lord: in this way all the versions (prior to 1826) appear to have understood the original words, and the connection in which they stand obviously requires this meaning.” (Clarke, Commentary)

The “connection” to which Adam Clarke refers is the Hebrew word korban, occurring in Lev. 1:2, which means an offering or gift to God. Such an offering or gift, would quite naturally have to be of the free-will of the offerer, else it would not be acceptable from or for him.

The word korban occurs in the New Testament in its Greek form (virtually a transliteration): “But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is corban, that is to say, a gift.” (Mark 7:11)

Then too, in Matt. 27:6, the 30 pieces of silver which were being returned by Judas to the chief priests was declared unlawful for the treasury. The Greek word here rendered “treasury” is corbanas, the chest or receptacle into which the free-will monetary gifts of the people were cast.

“Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats. (vs. 21) And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. (vs. 29) And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer it at your own will.” (Lev. 22:18,19,21,29)

“And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.” (Lev. 19:5)

“Nowhere in the scriptures is the statement made that Christ came to sacrifice himself. What the Scriptures say is that he came to do the Father’s will. He did not refuse to drink the ‘cup’ which the Father prepared for him, but drank it to the dregs. And for his obedience to this will, even unto death, no matter how long or how short a time the Father should be pleased to have that life continue, he received the reward. He gave over all into the Father’s hands. This was a sacrifice; for he had a right to use his life. But his obedience to his Father’s will led to the sacrifice for which he obtained the reward.” (R5087:4)

Free Will Offerings Before the Law

The sacrifices offered by Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others before the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai and the institution of the Aaronic priesthood were all burnt-offerings which represented the offerers’ appreciation of God’s grace and favor unto them; and perhaps also their appreciation of the fact that a sacrifice for sin, and the shedding of innocent blood was necessary (Heb. 9:22), as God himself had indicated when he made the coats of skins for Adam and Eve. (Gen. 3:21) We are quite sure that Abel must have appreciated this, for he offered of the “firstlings of his flock” rather than the mere “fruit of the ground” as did his brother Cain. (Gen. 4:3-5)

“The sacrifices which these offered were not sin-offerings. They did not offer up sacrifices according to the types of the Law; as the Day of Atonement sacrifices, for instance. This whole arrangement of the Jewish Law, by which the sacrificing was taken out of the individual’s hand and put into the hands of the priests, was a new departure in God’s dealings.

“Abraham, we know, presented offerings before the establishment of the priesthood. The exact time in which Job lived we do not know. We merely know that he was Job of Uz, and walked before God with a perfect heart; but we think we are justified in supposing that he did not live during the law dispensation, with its typical sacrifices. If this be true, his course was in full line with Abraham’s course when he offered up sacrifices. When Abraham was stayed from offering his son, he offered up the ram caught in the thicket, as the Lord directed.

“What these patriarchs did in the matter of offering up sacrifices was evidently a token on their part of appreciation of God and of the fact that a sacrifice for sins was necessary, just as Abel brought the firstlings of his flock and offered them to God, though he was not called to be a priest; but none of these sacrifices was accepted in the same sense that the sacrifices were accepted under the law. None of these sacrifices ever made the offerers themselves perfect, nor did they atone for anyone else; they were merely the same as a prayer would be, a manifestation of a good desire of heart and of appreciation of God and a desire to reverence him, and a recognition of the fact that sin required some atonement. So when the Lord showed how this sin-atonement was to be made, he pictured the work of this Gospel age. He appointed a priest to represent the Lord Jesus, and under-priests to represent the church. A work of sacrifice was done on a particular day of the year, the Atonement Day, representing a work of this Gospel Age in which these ‘better sacrifices’ for sin are offered; and under this larger arrangement no one is permitted to offer the sacrifice except a priest, God thus indicating that the work is entirely under his supervision and direction.” (R4666:6- 4667:1)

“They (Cain and Abel) did not come … with a petition to a Father, but with sacrifices, thus acknowledging sin. The one who brought a sacrifice symboli- cally representing a sin-offering God accepted; the other, he declined to accept in any sense of the word.” (R5200:2)

Once the Tabernacle was established in the midst of the Camp, no individual Israelite had the right to slay and to offer his own sacrifice. They were thereafter to be brought to the Court of the Tabernacle, there to be presented to the anointed priesthood, to be offered upon the altar of the Lord.

“What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD. And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt of- fering of sacrifice, And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the LORD; even that man shall be cut off from among his people.” (Lev. 17:3-5,8,9)

It is with the giving of the Law at Sinai, that a distinction was made in the matter of the sacrifices. Before this, the sacrifices were all in the nature of free will burnt offerings! With the coming of the Law this was changed so that now there were mandatory sacrifices, such as the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, and those that might be offered of the free will, such as the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings. The former were not recognized as having a “sweet savor unto the LORD,” but the latter were.

Burnt-Offerings and Sin-Offerings for Atonement

“And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people.” (Lev. 9:7)

“And he [Aaron] shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt-offering, and the burnt-offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.” (Lev. 16:24)

Basically, the burnt-offering represented the consecration or dedication of the individual unto God; and God’s acceptance of that consecration as of one wholly to be consumed in his service. Such burnt-offerings were, of course, of a “sweet savor unto the Lord.” Sometimes, however, burnt-offerings were offered in conjunction with sin-offerings, and thus, had a part in bringing in the atonement for those for whom they were offered.

No offering brought for sin was a pleasure unto the Lord (Heb. 10:5,8); nor could they be required of a perfect man! (Psa. 40:6) Jesus, the perfect man, as such, could however, and did, offer himself to God, a free-will “burnt- offering” but not as a “sin-offering.”

The sin-offering brought by the ancients was because of sin: it was required by the Law; and it reflected how the blood of an innocent victim could, by God’s grace, become the offset for sin. Antitypically, such was the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. (See T50,51)

The burnt-offering represented the consecration or dedication of the offerer to God; as such, not being required by the Law, it was a “free-will” offering of sweet savor unto the Lord.

Separate and apart from each other the burnt-offering, and the sin- offering, had each its own significance. However, as already stated, they were sometimes brought in conjunction with each other. Why?

We believe it was because God intended thus to show that he could not require Jesus to offer himself as either a “sin-offering” nor a “burnt-offering.” It would have to be the matter of his own free-will, and this is just what Jesus did. He consecrated himself at Jordan, because it was his delight to do the heavenly Father’s will (Psa. 40:8; Heb. 10:7,9), regardless as to what that will of the Father might demand of him.

“At Jordan, our Lord made a consecration of himself, even unto death. That is to say, he was baptized, immersed. He said, ‘Henceforth, I shall have no will of my own. Whatever is your will, Father, shall be my will. I shall do anything that you will have me do; not merely those things required in obedience to the divine law, failure to do which would be sin, but all things written in the Book. I have given up my life. Direct me through your providences and through your words that I may see your will and do it.’ This was not giving away of life in the sense of giving it to the world; for he was giving himself to God. When he made his consecration unto God, he was pre- pared to face death itself and to give up his existence if such should be the Father’s will. (Psa. 40:7,8; Heb. 10:7)” (R5085:3)

The will of God, however, was to make “his soul an offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10); i.e., to accept his consecration unto death and use it to offset the sin of Adam, and the race, condemned in him.

It is evident that no man of Adam’s race was in the position where he could offer unto God a ransom either for himself or another. (Psa. 49:7) Only Jesus, because of the body God had prepared for him (Heb. 10:5), was able to offer unto God an acceptable offering for sin. Yet God could not demand or require this of him. (Psa. 40:6) Thus, while Justice demanded an offering for sin, it would not require a perfect man so to offer himself. But Jesus, “for the joy that was set before him” (Heb. 12:2), offered himself a “free-will burnt-offering” unto God, leaving it unto the Father as to how he (Jesus) was to carry it out. And, it was Jesus’ faithfulness in this regard that enabled the Father in due time to exalt him. (Phil. 2:9)

We believe, therefore, that where the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering were brought together for the purposes of atonement, that it was to reflect just this.

Sometimes the two categories were combined, i.e., a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, might be offered for sin atonement, as in Lev. 9:7 and Lev. 16:6,15,24. As is evidenced in these instances, they were “required” for atonement. In a sense, two aspects of Jesus’ consecration are beautifully reflected here. Yet, it should be noted, though Jesus was born under the Law, it was not incumbent upon him to offer either a sin-offering, nor a burnt-offering. He was not a sinner and thus could not be required to offer a sin-offering; and as for a free will offering, had God required it of him, it would no longer have been a free will offering. Prophetically, this is just what the Psalmist David infers, when, speaking for Jesus, he says:

“Sacrifice [debach, slaughtered animal] and offerings [minchah, gift] thou didst not desire … burnt offering [olah, ascending] and sin-offering [chataah, sin-offering] hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” (Psa. 40:6-8)

“Sacrifice [thusian, slaughtered animal] and offering [prospharan, gift] thou wouldest not … in whole burnt offerings [holokautomata, completely burned by fire] and sacrifices for sin [amartias, sin] thou hadst no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.” (Heb. 10:5-7, Phillips translation)

It is quite evident that the Hebrew debach and the Greek thusian mean the same thing—a sacrifice, a slaughtered animal. Likewise, the Hebrew minchah and the Greek prospharan mean about the same thing—an offering, a gift. The Hebrew olah, meaning wholly ascending, may be considered the equivalent of the Greek holokautomata, meaning wholly burnt with fire.

In the Apostle Paul’s quotation—probably from the Septuagint—he does not use the term thusian (meaning a slaughtered animal), nor prospharan (meaning an offering) in connection with the word “sin.” However, the translators, in most instances, have here supplied a word which does not appear in the original manuscripts: “sacrifice.” The King James Version has supplied this word; but to show that it was not in the original text, it appears in italics. Dr. Benjamin Wilson, in the Emphatic Diaglott, renders it (we believe, more correctly): “in whole burnt-offering, even (Greek: kai) for sin, thou didst not delight.”

The term burnt-offering sometimes is applied to any and all animal sacrifices that were burnt with fire. Probably the “burnt-offering” of Lev. 9:24 was, in this same sense, all that remained still to be burned, of the sin-, burnt-, and peace-offerings upon that altar. All the offerings of the ancients, i.e., those offered before the Law of Mount Sinai was given, were “burnt- offerings.” (See Gen. 22:2,7,8) Even Abel’s sacrifice though a burnt- offering, was symbolic of the sin-offering. (See R5200:2)

If we are justified in so understanding the text quoted by the Apostle Paul, then, of course, the “burnt-offering, even for sin,” would include the offering for sin—the burnt-offering. And, in this connection, it may be well to remember that the sin-offerings of Leviticus chapters 8, 9 and 16, were all completely burned with fire¹ (some upon the altar and some “without the camp”). And if the “burnt-offerings” in these three chapters were intended to show “how” God accepted the sin-offerings (see T44) as if they had been completely burned and consumed by the altar, then, we have here another deep and beautiful thought, viz., that the best, the most holy, the most complete sacrifices of the ancient priesthood, are unworthy of comparison with the one great sacrifice of Jesus, our High Priest.

1. The sin-offerings of and for the common people were not completely consumed by the altar, for a part was to be eaten by the priest who offered it for them! (See Lev. 6:26,29; 7:7)

Thus, while there is a sense in which Jesus’ consecration has these two aspects, that of the sin-offering and that of the burnt-offering, both necessary for atonement; yet, Jesus did not really offer himself to God as either of these! He dedicated himself merely to the doing of the Father’s will leaving the manner in which his offering was to be used entirely to the father. (Read also Jer. 7:22,23; 1 Sam. 15:22; Heb. 10:7,9.) Let it be carefully noted that Jesus’ presentation of himself had to precede the Father’s acceptance; and it was this acceptance, evidenced in his baptism of the holy Spirit, his anointing with the oil of gladness above his fellows, that constituted him High Priest with the right to offer both “gifts (free-will offerings) and sacrifices for sin (sin-offerings).” (See Leviticus 8; Lev. 9:7; also Psa. 45:7; Heb. 1:9; Heb. 5:1.)

When the burnt sacrifice was a freewill offering of the people, the animal was first flayed, before being cut in pieces, washed and offered upon the altar (Lev. 1:6) and of this, the priest was privileged to retain the hide for himself. (Lev. 7:8)

It seems to have been different with the offerings which represented the priest, individually or collectively, for here, they seemingly had no right to retain anything; so that literally, the sacrifices were wholly consumed by the altar. We do know that while according to the law of the meal-offering (Lev. 6:14-18) there was a portion which ordinarily belonged to the priest; this was not true when the meal-offering was his or represented him. Then it could not be eaten but had to be wholly consumed by the altar. (Lev. 6:23) It is conjectured, therefore, that so too was it with the burnt-offering of, or for, the priest.

While we cannot be dogmatic about it, we feel that the burnt-offerings of Leviticus chapters 8, 9, and 16, were all duly cut in pieces and washed, and then laid upon the altar, to be fully and completely consumed by the fire. If we are right in this conjecture, then, of course, there was a stench associated with these offerings too; though this was not true of such burnt-offerings, the free-will offerings of the people; for they were first flayed, before being burned; and the hide was retained by the priest who offered it. This affords us a very beautiful picture, inasmuch as it contrasts the consecration of the church of this Gospel Age with that of the world of mankind in the Millennial Age. (See T96) Ours is a consecration unto death; and there is that which creates a stench as the old body, the old nature, is destroyed as a justified sacrifice upon God’s altar. The consecration of the world in the Millennium will be different, for it will not be unto death (see T94), but unto life, in a time when such consecrations will be more popular; thus there will be no stench, for there will be no destruction of their justified humanity! (T96)

Sin Offerings

“Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, 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. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water. All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place¹, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.” (Lev. 6:25-30)

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, say- ing, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:

“If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering. And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the LORD. And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary. And 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: and 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. 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 offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, 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.

“And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD. And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock’s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, even before the vail. And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.

¹ The holy place here referred to is undoubtedly the Most Holy; compare with Lev. 16:16,20.

“When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

“And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Lev. 4:1-35)

“And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder: And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering. And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him. But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meat offering.” (Lev. 5:1-13)

All sins for which either a sin-or trespass-offering could be brought were, as might generally be classified, “sins of ignorance” “somewhat against the commandments of God” (Lev. 4:2,13,22,27), in contradistinction to those committed “presumptuously” and for which no atonement could be made. (Num. 15:30,31; see also Heb. 10:26-28) It must be recognized, however, that many of the “sins of ignorance” involved a measure of knowledge (responsibility), though not sufficient to bring them into the category of “presumptuous” sins.

If the trespass-offering was for the priest, it was always a bullock (male animal). (Lev. 4:12; 8:17; 9:11; 16:27) With the exceptions of the rituals of Leviticus chapters 8 and 9, the blood was either taken into the Holy (Lev. 4:5) or Most Holy (Lev. 16:14); but in every instance some of it was poured out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering (Lev. 4:7; 8:15; 9:9) or used upon it by way of sprinkling, etc. (Lev. 16:18,19) Certain of the inwards were burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering (Lev. 4:8-10; 8:16; 9:10; 16:25), and the remainder was burnt “without the camp.” (Lev. 4:11,12; 8:17; 9:11; 16:27) No part of the sacrifice was ever eaten. (Lev. 6:30)

In the Initial Consecration Ritual (Lev. 8:2,14-17; Exod. 29:10-14):

Moses slew it (Lev. 8:14,15; Exod. 29:10,11)
Blood was put upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and poured out at its base. (Lev. 8:15; Exod. 29:12) None of the blood was brought into the Holy or Most Holy.
Inwards were burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering. (Lev. 8:16; Exod. 29:13)
Hide, etc., were burnt “without the camp.” (Lev. 8:17; Exod. 29:14) No part of the bullock was eaten.

In the Secondary Consecration Ritual (Lev. 9:2,7,11):

Aaron slew it (Lev. 9:8)
Blood was put upon horns of the altar of burnt-offering and poured out at its base (Lev. 9:9); none of the blood was brought into the Holy or Most Holy.
Inwards were burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering. (Lev. 9:10)
Hide, etc., were burnt “without the camp.” (Lev. 9:11) No part of the bullock was eaten.

In the Atonement Ritual for the national sin of the people (Lev. 16:3,4,6, 11-14,18,19,25,27—see also Exod. 30:10):

Aaron slew it (Lev. 16:6,11)
Blood was taken into the Tabernacle of the Congregation and into the Most Holy where some of it was sprinkled on and before the Mercy Seat (Lev. 16:14); some of the blood was also put upon the horns of the altar of incense (Lev. 16:2,20; Exod. 30:10); and some of it found its way to the altar of burnt-offering which stood in the Court. (Lev. 16:18,19)
Inwards were burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering. (Lev. 16:25)
Hide, etc, were burnt “without the camp.” (Lev. 16:27) No part of the bullock was eaten. (Lev. 6:30)

For the Priest that is anointed (Lev. 4:3-12):

The offerer (i.e., the priest whose sin was to be atoned for) laid his hand upon the head of the bullock (Lev. 4:4) as if imputing his sin to the innocent victim. (See also Lev. 4:15 where the elders of the congregation do the same thing on behalf of all Israel—the whole congregation.)
The offerer slew it. (Lev. 4:4)
The priest (evidently another) took the blood into the Tabernacle of the Congregation (the Holy), where he sprinkled it before the vail of the Sanctuary (Lev. 4:5,6); and some of it he put upon the horns of the Altar of Incense and the remainder, he poured out at the base of the Altar of Burnt-Offerings. (Lev. 4:7)
The priest then burnt the “inwards” of the bullock on the Altar of Burnt-Offering. (Lev. 4:8-10)
The priest then burnt the remainder of the bullock on the wood of the fire “without the camp.” (Lev. 4:12) No part of the bullock was eaten. (Lev. 6:30)

For the Whole Congregation:

The offerer (the elders of Israel) laid hands upon the head of the bullock (Lev. 4:15); and perhaps one of their number slew it. (Lev. 4:15)
The priest took the blood into the Tabernacle of the Congregation (the Holy) where he sprinkled it before the vail of the Sanctuary (Lev. 4:16,17); and some of the blood he put upon the horns of the Altar of Incense and the remainder he poured out at the base of the Altar of Burnt-Offerings. (Lev. 4:18)
The priest took the “inwards” and burnt them upon the Altar of Burnt- Offering. (Lev. 4:19)
The priest then burnt the remainder of the bullock “without the camp.” (Lev. 4:21) No part of the bullock was eaten. (Lev. 6:30)

For the Ruler:

The offerer (the ruler) laid his hand upon the head of the goat. (Lev. 4:22-24)
The offerer slew it. (Lev. 4:24)
The priest took the blood and put it upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt-Offering, and poured the remainder out at its base. (Lev. 4:25) He did not take any of it into the Tabernacle of the Congregation.
The Priest took the “inwards” and burnt them upon the Altar of

Burnt-Offering. (Lev. 4:26)

Nothing is said about this animal being burnt “without the camp”; but it is certain that a part of it was eaten by the priest, and this, in the Court of the Tabernacle. (Lev. 6:26)

For One of the Common People:

This could be: if of the herd, a kid of the goats; or if of the flock, a lamb; but in any event, a female animal. (Lev. 4:29,33) There were other creatures and things which might be offered, if the sinner was unable to procure an animal. These were turtledoves or young pigeons (Lev. 5:7) or even fine flour. (Lev. 5:11) These latter, however, are those more particularly brought to our attention in connection with those trespasses for which sin-offerings might be brought. (Lev. 5:7-12)

When the offering was of the herd or the flock:

The offerer laid his hand upon the head of it. (Lev. 4:29,33)
The offerer slew it. (Lev. 4:29,33)
The priest took the blood and put it upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt-Offering and poured the remainder thereof out at its base. (Lev. 4:30,34)
The priest took the “inwards” and burnt them upon the Altar of Burnt-Offering. (Lev. 4:31,35)
Nothing is said about this animal having been burnt “without the camp,” though we may be reasonably certain that a part was eaten by the priest, and this, in the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation. (Lev. 6:26)

Thus the Sin-Offering was to be:

For the priest: a bullock (Lev. 4:3)
For the whole congregation: a bullock (Lev. 4:14) For the ruler: a goat (male) (Lev. 4:23)
For one of the common people: a goat (female) (Lev. 4:28) or a lamb (female) (Lev. 4:32). But for certain trespasses a sin-offering could be brought—turtledoves or young pigeons (two birds were brought, only one of which was offered as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt- offering). (Lev. 5:7) Then too, in certain instances a meal-offering of fine flour, but without oil and without frankincense, might be brought. (Lev. 5:11)

An animal, if brought, had to be without blemish (Lev. 4:3,23,28,32):

The offerer laid his hand upon the head of it (Lev. 4:4,24,29,33). If the sin-offering was for the Congregation, the elders were called upon to do this. (Lev. 4:15)
The offerer slew it (Lev. 4:4,24,29,33). If for the Congregation, probably the elders did this. (Lev. 4:15)
The priest took the blood, if for the priest (Lev. 4:5) or the Congregation (Lev. 4:16), and brought it into the Holy of the Tabernacle and there sprinkled it seven times before the Vail (Lev. 4:6,17), and placed some of it upon the horns of the Altar of Incense; and the remainder, he poured out at the base of the Altar of Burnt-Offering. (Lev. 4:7,18)
The priest took the blood, for the ruler (Lev. 4:25) or one of the common people (Lev. 4:30,34), but did not take it into the Holy of the Tabernacle. He did apply some of it upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt-Offering in the Court of the Tabernacle, then poured the remainder of it out at its base. (Lev. 4:30,34)
The priest took the “inwards” and burnt them upon the Altar of Burnt-Offering. (Lev. 4:8-10,19,20,31,35)
The priest, if the offering was for the priest (that had sinned) or the Congregation of Israel as a whole, burnt the rest of the animal “without the camp.” (Lev. 4:11,12,21)
The priest, if the offering was for the ruler or for one of the common people, seems not to have burnt all the remainder “without the camp” for some portion of the sin-offering was appropriated by the priest; it was eaten “in the Court.” (Lev. 6:26,29; see also Lev. 7:7)

In all these cases, “inwards” means fat upon the inwards, the two kidneys, and the caul above the liver.

Trespass Offerings (or Guilt Offerings)

“Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy. In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar. And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away: And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the holy place: it is most holy. As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it.” (Lev. 7:1-7)

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him. And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.” (Lev. 5:14-19)

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.” (Lev. 6:1-7)

“This teaches that for every wrong, restoration must then be made with interest, and accompanied by repentance or an asking of forgiveness of the Lord, through the Church (priesthood), the trespasser’s recognition of his own imperfections, and of the value of the ransom being shown by the ram presented.

“But notice the difference between the treatment of such sin-offerings and the sin-offerings of the ‘Day of Atonement.’ The latter were offered to God (Justice) in the ‘Holy,’ as ‘the better sacrifices’; the former were offered to the priests, who during the Atonement Day, had purchased the people. The acknowledgment of the people will be made to their Redeemer. The Priest, indeed, took and offered to the Lord a portion of the offering, as a ‘memorial,’ as a recognition that the whole plan of redemption as executed on the Atonement Day (Gospel Age) was the heavenly Father’s, but appropriated to himself the remainder, by eating it.

“The whole world, purchased by the precious blood (human life) of Christ, will present themselves, for forgiveness of trespasses, to the ‘Royal Priesthood,’ whose acceptance of their gifts or consecrations will signify forgiveness. To this agree our Lord’s words to his disciples: ‘He breathed on them and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain [to them] they are retained.’ (John 20:23)

“While this ‘ministry of reconciliation’ belongs in its fullest sense to the next age, when all the sacrifices of Atonement will have been completed, yet even now, any member of the ‘Royal Priesthood’ may say to those who believe and repent, ‘Thy sins are forgiven thee,’ as did our Head, by faith looking forward; as he did, to the completion of the sacrifices for sins: moreover, these priests now know the terms and conditions upon which forgiveness is promised, and can speak authoritatively whenever they see the terms complied with.

“The offerings of the Atonement Day, as we have seen, were always burned (Lev. 6:30; Heb. 13:11), but the later trespass-offerings, offered after the Day of Atonement, were not burned, but eaten (appropriated) by the priests.” (T99, 100)

The following quotation is not merely interesting, it is soul-searching as well, bearing as it does, upon the matter of the difference between the Sin-and the Trespass-Offering, particularly trespasses involving restitution. After making reference to Leviticus 6:2-4, Andrew Jukes says:

“Here trespass is defined as wrong done to God, or wrong done to a neighbor: we read of ‘violently taking,’ ‘deceitfully getting,’ and ‘swearing falsely about that which is found.’ In every case of trespass, wrong was done; there was an act of evil by which another was injured. And the offering for this act, the Trespass-Offering, (in this contrast to the Sin-Offering), was offered by the offerer, not because he was, but because he had done, evil. Accordingly, in the Trespass-Offering we never get sight of any particular person as a sinner: the act of wrong is the point noticed and dwelt upon.

“Such was trespass, actual wrong and robbery, and yet there might be trespass, as well as sin, of which the trespasser was ignorant. (See Lev. 5:15, 17,19) This is remarkable. It shows how little man’s judgment, not only respecting what he is, but respecting what he does, can be trusted . . .

“And how solemn is the truth here taught to us, that neither our conscience, nor our measure of light, nor our ability, but the truth of God, is the standard by which both sin and trespass are to be measured. ‘Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty; he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord.’ (See Lev. 5:17,19) If man’s conscience or man’s light were the standard, each man might have a different rule. And, at this rate, right or wrong, good or evil, would depend, not upon God’s truth, but on the creature’s apprehension of it … our blindness does not alter His judgment; for it is our sin and that alone which has caused the blindness.

“In the Trespass-offering, besides the life laid down, the value of the trespass, according to the priest’s valuation of it, was paid in shekels of the sanctuary, to the injured party. Then, in addition to this, a fifth part more, in shekels also, was added to the sum just spoken of, which, together with the amount of the original wrong or trespass, was paid by the trespasser to the person trespassed against. (See Lev. 5:15,16; Lev. 6:5,6) These particulars, respecting the payment of money in connection with the offering, are not only very definite, but very remarkable . . .

“In the Sin-offering we see nothing of money; there was no estimation by the priest, nor any fifth part added. Indeed, from the nature of the case, there could be neither of these, for they depend entirely on the nature of the trespass. In the Sin-offering the offerer was a sinner: and his sin was met and judged in the victim. A perfect victim bore the penalty; a sinless one was judged for sin. In all this the one thought presented to us is sin receiving its rightful wages. We see due judgment inflicted on the sinner’s substitute; and this having been inflicted, justice is satisfied. In the Trespass-offering, with the exception of ‘trespass’ instead of ‘sin,’ we have all this precisely the same as the Sin-offering. The victim’s life is given for trespass: judgment is inflicted, and so far justice is satisfied. But in the Trespass-offering, there is more than this arising, as we shall see, out of the nature of trespass, the original wrong or evil is remedied; and further, a fifth part is added to it. Observe, in the Trespass-offering the wrong inflicted is made up and restored by the offerer. According to the priest’s valuation, the injured party receives his own, or the value of it back again. Nor is this all; more than the original loss is repaid; the loss is more than remedied. These two most interesting particulars, specially characterizing, as they do, the atonement of the trespass-offering, result directly and immediately from the distinction between sin and trespass. The apprehension of this distinction is absolutely necessary, if we would understand what remains of the Trespass-offering.

“In a word, atonement for trespass implies restitution; without this, though the trespasser is judged, the claim of trespass remains still unsatisfied . . .

“In the Trespass-offering we get restitution, full restitution for the original wrong. The amount of the injury, according to the priests valuation of it, is paid in shekels of the sanctuary to the injured person. (See Lev. 5:15) The thought here is not that trespass is punished, but that the injured party is repaid the wrong. The payment was in shekels; these ‘shekels of the sanctuary’ were appointed standard by which God’s rights were measured; (See Exod. 30:13, 24; 38:24,25; Lev. 27:3,25; Num. 3:47,50; 18:16) as it is said,

‘And all thy estimation shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary.’ (See Lev. 27:25) Thus they represent the truest measure, God’s standard by which He weighs all things. By this standard the trespass is weighed, and then the value paid to the injured person.” (Jukes, The Law of the Offering)

The Hebrew word asham rendered “trespass” in the King James Version would better have been rendered “guilt” since our English wordtrespass— especially as used in the New Testament: paraptoma in Matt. 6:14,15; Mark 11:25,26; 2 Cor. 5:19; Eph. 2:1 and Col. 2:13—is a much milder term. There is much more guilt attached to the Old Testament asham than there is to the New Testament paraptoma, for which reason most of the later translations have rendered it guilt (e.g., Jewish Publication Society, Rotherham, Moffatt, Meek in An American Translation, Revised Standard, and the New Catholic Confraternity). Accordingly, the expression “trespass-offering” really means “guilt-offering.” Even Luther, whose translation is older than the King James rendered this Hebrew word schuld opfer, i.e. “Guilt-offering.”

Concerning trespasses and comparing them with sin, Bro. Russell had this to say:

“A sin is that which is more or less willfully and intentionally committed. A trespass is a sin in a certain sense, but one committed without intention. The fact that a sin is called a trespass would imply that it was not done willfully. The divine law stands whether we are able to keep it or not; and every violation of the divine law is a sin in one sense. But those violations of God’s law which are wholly the result of our unavoidable weaknesses are not culpable sins, and hence not in the same category with sins more or less willful.” (R5750:3)

“According to the scriptures it is sinful for the Lord’s people to injure one another in word, act or thought. But many do not realize this high standard, even after they have come into the family of God. They may not learn until months, or even years afterward, the full measure of the divine law respecting every affair of life. Therefore there are many who for a time are guilty of evil-speaking and evil-thinking, but who are unconscious of having done wrong. These transgressions of the divine law are trespasses. This should be our attitude toward God: ‘Gracious heavenly Father, we cannot do perfectly.

We pray thee, forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. We come with courage to the throne of heavenly grace, asking for the covering of the merit of our Saviour for these trespasses, and for grace to overcome as far as possible and to become holy in thought, in word, in deed.’

“But if any man sin, it is a different matter. In proportion as he willfully violates the divine law, in that proportion he shall suffer stripes. Sins leave their mark on the character; for they are to some extent at least intentional violations of the principles of righteousness and of the covenant with God by which every real Christian obligates himself to obey the divine injunction. The Scriptures clearly indicate that if one of these deliberately sins, he commits the sin unto death, for which no penalty will be sufficient except extinction of the second death.

“The text, ‘If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous’ (1 John 2:1), evidently refers to trespasses, and not to deliberate, or willful sins; for, as we have already noted, the same Apostle writes, ‘He that sinneth is of the devil’; ‘that which is begotten of God sinneth not.’ Any one begotten of God, possessed of the Holy Spirit, could not, so long as he is in possession of this holy Spirit, commit a sin with full intention. Except under the influence of strong temptation of the flesh, he could not sin knowingly; for if he were to commit such a sin, he would be manifesting that he had lost the Holy Spirit entirely. So long as the Holy Spirit abides in him he could not willfully, intelligently, commit sin. He might be overcome by the weaknesses of the flesh, and thus might give a measure of consent to the wrong; but this would be only a partial sin. Yet for that portion which would involve the consent of his mind he would receive stripes, in proportion to the degree of willfulness connected with the matter.

“Our unintentional trespasses, properly striven against, evidently do not interfere with the development of character. … In the case of trespasses which are unavoidable on his part, instead of doing him an injury, these serve to show him what points in his character are weak and need to be strengthened. He learns of his weaknesses only by more or less falling into trespasses unintentionally, unwillingly. As he finds weaknesses in his character development, it becomes his pleasure and earnest effort to fortify himself along these lines, that he may become ‘strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.’ (Eph. 6:10)” (R5750:6—R5751:1)

In the Old Testament a sin, unless it was presumptuous, could be atoned for by way of a simple sin-offering (for one of the common people this might be a female sheep or goat); but not so for trespass (i.e., guilt), for in the latter case (with the exception of such trespasses as for which a sin- offering was acceptable, Lev. 5:1-7), a guilt-offering (a ram) with restoration, plus in valuation ⅕th more, was required.

In the case of an ordinary trespass, as we commonly understand the term, there is of course, in most instances, some degree of ignorance; in fact, one could be entirely innocent of his trespassing; and such a trespass we believe, is pardonable. With the Old Testament “trespass” guilt, one was guilty whether he knew it or not (Lev. 5:17), and was called upon not merely to confess the wrong when he became aware of it, but also to make amends for it, for we read:

“ ‘If a soul (being) commit a trespass and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord … if he sin and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord, though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock,’ and money according to the priest’s estimation of the trespass, with a fifth more, and this shall be his offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him. And if any one sin knowingly and damage or defraud his neighbor, he shall restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto (twenty percent interest) and give it to the wronged one. And he shall bring a ram for the trespass offering unto the Lord. (Lev. 5:15-19; 6:1-7)” (T99)

Antitypically, the world of mankind, guilty of such “trespasses” will be called upon not only to recognize their guilt, but also the value of Jesus’ sacrifice and its atoning merit, and thus we read:

“This teaches that for every wrong restoration must then be made, with interest, and accompanied by repentance or an asking of forgiveness of the Lord, through the Church (Priesthood), the trespasser’s recognition of his own imperfections, and of the value of the ransom, being shown by the ram presented.” (T99)

The Trespass Offering was always a ram (male animal), unless the trespass was of the type for which a sin-offering could be brought. (Lev. 5:1-13)

It should be noted however, that these sin-offerings (for trespasses) were of the order proper for the common people, i.e., no bullock (sin-offering for the priest, Lev. 4:3; or for the congregation as a whole, Lev. 4:14); nor he goat (sin-offering for the ruler, Lev. 4:23); but the female sheep or goat (sin-offering for one of the common people, Lev. 4:28,32) was acceptable (Lev. 5:6). Such a sin-offering for a trespass might be brought for:

Failure to testify (Lev. 5:1)
Contact with uncleanness (Lev. 5:2,3)
Making an oath (Lev. 5:4)

But if for one reason or another, the sinner was unable to bring one of these animals, he was permitted in their stead to bring two turtledoves or young pigeons (Lev. 5:7), one of which was offered as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering. Yet if even these birds were beyond the sinner’s means, he might bring a meal-offering, i.e., fine flour, but without oil, and without frankincense. (Lev. 5:11)

This type of trespass (one for which a sin-offering might be brought) required confession of the sin, but did not require restitution with a fifth part added thereto. (Lev. 6:5)

For all other trespasses a ram had to be brought; and it made no difference as to whether the trespasser was a priest, a ruler, or one of the common people. But such trespasses required restitution plus a fifth more according to the estimate of the priest. (Lev. 5:16) Undoubtedly, the manner in which these trespass-offerings were offered was the same as for the sin- offerings. (Lev. 7:7) If so, then:

The offerer laid his hand upon the head of it (Lev. 4:29,33)
The offerer slew it (Lev. 4:29,33)
The priest took the blood and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering and poured the remainder at its base (Lev. 4:30,35; see also Lev. 7:2)
The priest burned the inwards on the altar of burnt-offering (Lev. 4:31,35; see also Lev. 7:3-5)
The priest appropriated, i.e., ate of the offering (Lev. 7:6,7)

If the offering was of turtledoves or young pigeons, then:

The offerer brought them to the priest (Lev. 5:8)
The priest slew both birds:
1. the one for the sin-offering by wringing off its head from its neck (though he did not divide the bird asunder); he (the priest) took of its blood and besprinkled the side of the altar of burnt-offering, and poured the rest of its blood at its base (Lev. 5:8,9);
2. the one for a burnt-offering and offered it ‘according to the manner’ (Lev. 5:10).

If the offering was of fine flour, then:

The offerer brought it to the priest (Lev. 5:11,12)
The priest took a memorial thereof and burnt it on the altar of burnt- offering (Lev. 5:12)
The priest appropriated the remainder to himself (Lev. 5:13)

A trespass-offering is a sin-offering, but a sin-offering is not necessarily a trespass-offering!

There were two general groups of trespasses:

Those for which an ordinary sin-offering might be brought (Lev. 5:1-3); and
Those for which the specific trespass offering—the ram (male animal) had to be brought (Lev. 5:15; 6:7)

Category 1 required confession of sin (Lev. 5:5), and were for:

Failure to testify (Lev. 5:1): he is guilty.
For contact with uncleanness (a) of beast, creeping thing, etc. (Lev. 5:2) he is guilty, and (b) of man (Lev. 5:3) whether he is aware of it or not, he is guilty.
For making an oath, good or evil (Lev. 5:4); only when he becomes aware of it he is guilty.

The sin-offering brought for this type of trespass would be as one brought for an individual of the common people—a female lamb or kid of goats (Lev. 5:6); but if unable to bring these, he might bring two turtledoves or young pigeons, one to be offered as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering (Lev. 5:7); however, if unable to bring even these, he might bring a sin-offering of fine flour (without oil and without frankincense—Lev. 5:11).

Category 2 required restoration in principal plus ⅕th more as interest (Lev. 5:16; 6:4,5), and were for:

Sins in the holy things of the LORD (through ignorance). The priest estimated the extent of the infraction, for he alone was in a position to know, and his evaluation was according to the shekel of the sanctuary. The ⅕th more added had to be given to the priest (Lev. 5 :15,16).
Lying (or swearing falsely) concerning trusts, fellowship, or things stolen by violence (Lev. 6:2); or things found (Lev. 6:3).
Deception of one’s neighbor (Lev. 6:2).

The ram of the trespass-offering had to be slain in the Court, and its blood sprinkled round about the altar of burnt-offering and poured out at its base. The inwards and the fat were burnt on this altar. The offering like that of the sin-offering was eaten by the males among the priests. (Lev. 7:6)

“When we pray, ‘Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us,’ we are not referring to Adamic sin, which God does not forgive, but which is atoned for by the merit of Christ, imputed to us. When we speak here of trespasses, we are referring to those sins which we as new creatures commit unintentionally, against the divine plan or law because entrapped or ensnared by our infirmities or by the surrounding conditions and temptations of life. These might overcome the new creature and swerve him from his course, just as the bringing of a magnet into the vicinity of a compass might cause the needle of the compass temporarily to deviate; this would not mean that the compass has been spoiled, nor that it is a bad compass because temporarily it has been turned from its proper course; and so with us. The new mind, the new will, is in harmony with God and anything which might distract it in any degree would be merely a temporary matter and would not necessarily mean our imperfection as new creatures. In the case of the compass, if the opposing magnet were removed, the needle of the compass would immediately revert to the North; and so with us, if the overpowering temptation were out of the way, our hearts, as new creatures, would at once revert to loyalty to God. This illustration, of course, is not a perfect one because the compass has no intelligence, no will, no power to improve itself nor to add to its resistance of outside influence.” (R4615:3,4)

Peace Offerings

“And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried. Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. 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. 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: But the re- mainder 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. And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof. 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. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.” (Lev. 7:11-21)

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the LORD shall bring his oblation unto the LORD of the sacrifice of his peace offerings. His own hands shall bring the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the LORD. And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings. He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder for his part. For the wave breast and the heave shoulder have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel. This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, out of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister unto the LORD in the priest’s office; Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations.” (Lev. 7:29-36)

“And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away. And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto the LORD be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish. If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before the LORD. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat thereof, and the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; and 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. And the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD. And if his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the LORD. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about. And he shall offer thereof his offering, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD; 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. And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the LORD‘s. It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.” (Lev. 3:1-17)

“The sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering evidently pictured the same sacrifices, but from different standpoints. In every case we would understand the bullock to represent our Lord Jesus and the goats to represent the church, the underpriesthood …

“The peace-offering (Lev. 3) would appear to be another view or picture of the same sacrifices, representing the willingness of the individual who sacrificed—that nothing was of compulsion, so far as God was concerned; and that there was peace between God and the sacrificer, so that the offering was not made for his own sins.

“So then, it seems very appropriate that, as described in Exodus 24, it was the blood of peace-offerings and burnt-offerings that sealed the Law Covenant. The sin-offering feature has to do with the satisfaction, but the burnt- offering and peace-offering imply that the sacrificers voluntarily lay down their earthly rights in the interest of those who will be blessed under the New Covenant; entirely aside from the Atonement for Adamic sin, accomplished by the same sacrifices, viewed from the standpoint of the sin-offering.” (R4389:3,6)

“This offering was to be of the herd or flock; and it could be made either in fulfillment of a vow (covenant), or as a willing thank-offering. Part of it was to be brought to Jehovah by the offerer—‘His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire; the fat with the breast, it shall he bring’; and the Priest shall burn the fat on the altar, and wave the breast before the Lord. But the breast shall be the priest’s, also the shoulder. The offerer must eat the sacrifice. (Lev. 3 and 7:11-18,30-34)

“This seems to show that if any man will then come into a condition of full peace and harmony (as all must do or else be cut off in the Second Death), he must eat or fulfil a covenant before God of entire consecration to him. If, after being thus perfected, he again becomes defiled by willful sin, he must die (the Second Death) as shown by the penalty of touching unclean things. (Lev. 7:19-21; compare Rev. 20:9,13-15)

“With this sacrifice there was presented an offering of unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and anointed wafers, representing the offerer’s faith in Christ’s character, which he will copy, and leavened bread indicating his acknowledgment of his own imperfection at the time of consecration; leaven being a type of sin. (Lev. 7:11-13)” (T98)

The Peace-Offering (Lev. 7:11-21, see also Lev. 7:30-34) had to be without blemish but could be either male or female. (Lev. 3:1,6) It could be of the herd (a calf, etc.—Lev. 3:1) or it could be of the flock (sheep [lamb] or goat —Lev. 3:7,12).

The offerer brought the offering with his own hand (Lev. 7:30) (T98)
The offerer laid his hand upon the head of it (Lev. 3:2,8,13)
The offerer slew it (Lev. 3:2,8,13
The priest sprinkled the blood on the altar of burnt-offering, round about (Lev. 3:2,8, 13)
The offerer presented the parts (fat on inwards, kidneys, breast and right shoulder, etc.) to the priest (Lev. 3:3,4,9,10,14,15 and Lev. 7:30)
The priest burnt it upon the altar of burnt-offering (Lev. 3:5,11,16, and Lev. 7:31); but the breast and the right shoulder, as Wave and Heave Offerings respectively, belonged to the priest. (Lev. 7:31-35) (T98)
The offerer ate the sacrifice (Lev. 7:15,16)

It could be offered for thanksgiving. (Lev. 7:12) In this case, it had to be offered with:

unleavened cakes mingled with oil (Lev. 7:12)
unleavened wafers anointed with oil (Lev. 7:12)
cakes mingled with oil (Lev. 7:12) all of fine flour, and fried (Lev. 7:12), and with leavened bread (Lev. 7:13) (T98)
a part of this sacrifice (“one out of the whole oblation”) had to be presented by the offerer to the priest as a Heave-Offering. (Lev. 7:14; see also Lev. 7:31,35)
the offerer ate the sacrifice on the self-same day (Lev. 7:15)

It could be offered for a vow, or voluntary (free-will) offering. (Lev. 7:16) (T98) Undoubtedly the ritual here was the same as for that offered for thanksgiving except that the offerer had not only to eat of the sacrifice the self-same day, but if anything was left over, he might eat of it on the second day also (Lev. 7:16); however, what remained until the third day had to be destroyed by fire (Lev. 7:17,18)

Wave Offering and Heave Offering

“And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave-offering, and the shoulder of the heave-offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of the consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons: And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’ by a statute forever from the children of Israel: for it is an heave-offering: and it shall be an heave-offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their peace-offerings, even their heave-offering unto the LORD.” (Exod. 29:27,28)

“For the wave breast and the heave shoulder have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace-offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel.” (Lev. 7:34)

“The peace-offering … represented a vow or covenant. Made in connection with the sin-offering of the High Priest, it signified the vows, obligations and covenants assumed by the Priest, based on the sin-offering. In the type the peace was established between Jehovah and Israel as follows: The sin- offering having been made, also the burnt-offering showing the acceptableness of it by God, there was peace between Jehovah and Israel, because their former Adamic sin was typically removed: and they were obligated then to live obedient to a covenant based on their forgiveness; i.e., they were to keep the Law, that he that doeth those things should live by (or as a reward for keeping) them. But as our sin-sacrifices are better than the typical ones, so with the peace-offering or covenant established by those sacrifices; it is a better covenant. Thus in this sacrifice … or covenant-offering, the Priest is seen to serve unto the example and shadow of spiritual things, the mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6-13) under which all people shall be blessed with restitution, and thus enabled to obey the perfect law and live forever.” (T81)

There were two parts of the peace-offerings which were specially set apart by God, and which we believe, therefore, must have some particular significance. These were the breast which God would have designated “the wave-offering”; and the shoulder as “the heave-offering.” The wave offering probably was waved from side to side, whereas the heave offering, up and down; between the two movements there is the sign of the cross! The waving from side to side and the heaving up and down undoubtedly signified one and the same thing—that the consecration here typified was not for a moment, an hour, nor for a day, but continually, forever.¹

“The choice portions of the ram, its ‘inwards’ and ‘fat,’ represented our heart sentiments, our best powers. These were taken in the hands of the priests and ‘waved’; passed to and fro before the Lord, representing the fact that a consecrated offering is not given to the Lord for a moment, a day or a year, but that we consecrate to continually keep our affections and powers uplifted, never ceasing until accepted of him as having finished our course. And Moses took the wave-offering off their hands (the priests did not lay it down), God’s acceptance being shown by fire. So we, the ‘royal priests,’ may not lay down or cease to offer all our powers in God’s service while we have them, nor until God shall say, ‘It is enough, come up higher.’ When the love (fat) of our inmost being is laid upon the altar, it helps to increase the fire of God’s acceptance. The more love there is connected with our consecration to God, the more quickly will it consume our offering.” (T45)

The question may arise as to why the breast and the right shoulder were particularized for this purpose. Perhaps an answer is suggested by the anatomical position they occupied in the victim offered or the peculiar service rendered unto the creature by that member.

The breast being identified with the heart becomes a most apt symbol of our affections, and the right shoulder of the strength with which we serve our God! This latter, since it involves the doing of the will of God with, and in, our mortal bodies, may also be intended to show the divine government in our lives!

It is interesting to note that in Leviticus chapter 9, the secondary consecration of the priesthood, the peace-offering is offered for the people, clearly setting forth, as it were, that our consecration, which is unto death, is in the interests of the world of mankind. Truly, we are baptized for the dead!

“They had consecrated themselves to be members, to die one with the other, and one for the other in fellowship with Christ, and thus to be dead with him, and as members of his body, members of the great atonement sacrifice on behalf of the dead world … We are baptized into death with Christ, baptized for the dead, to the intent that we may by and by be associated with him as the Life-giver of the world, the Seed of Abraham.” (F456)

¹ Note: In the ritual of the cleansing of the leper, the wave-offering was identified with the trespass-offering. (See Lev. 14:12)

In the initial consecration of the priesthood in Exodus chapter 29 and Leviticus chapter 8, typifying the antitypical priesthood’s consecration on its own behalf, the second ram is called the ram of consecration. It is, nevertheless, a peace-offering, logically following the sin-and burnt-offerings, and having the wave and heave offerings identified with it. (See Exod. 29:22,24,26-28)

Incidentally, let it be noted that the High Priest at the close of the Atonement Day wore a breastplate (over his heart), which breastplate was sup- ported by a golden chain from the shoulderpieces of his garments. The sin sacrifices and the burnt-offerings having been accepted by Jehovah, the High Priest was privileged to become the bearer of love and peace unto men.

“And the government shall be upon his shoulder . . . of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.” (Isa. 9:6,7)

“Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Heb. 5:6) “Melchisedec, King of Salem.” (Salem means peace!) (Gen. 14:18)

Sometimes a single offering seems to have been used to serve two different purposes; and though one of these is not specifically mentioned, as it were, the function is quite clearly and definitely set forth.

The ram of consecration (Exod. 29:19,22; Lev. 8:18) seems also to have been a peace-offering, for a portion of it was used for a wave-offering (Exod. 29:22-24; Lev. 8:22,27), and wave-offerings were taken from the peace-offerings (Lev. 7:30,34). The he-lamb of the trespass-offering (Lev. 14:14) for the man “to be cleansed”—the leper—seems to have been a peace-offering also, for a portion of it was used as a wave-offering (Lev. 14:12). Wave-offerings were taken from the peace-offerings. (Lev. 7:30,34)

It is interesting to note, however, and quite significant too, that in the “consecration” ritual (Leviticus chapter 8) the wave-offering was placed in the hands of those being consecrated into the priesthood (Exod. 29:24; Lev. 8:27); whereas in the “cleansing of the leper” ritual, the wave-offering was not put into the hands of him, but was waved by the priest himself. (Lev. 14:12) Then too, in the former ritual, oil was not a part of the wave- offering; but in the latter, some oil was waved before the Lord (Lev. 14:12), and subsequently, some of this oil was put upon “the tip of the right ear,” “the thumb of his right hand,” and “the great toe of his right foot” upon the blood of the trespass-offering already there. (Lev. 14:15-17)

In the instances of certain trespasses, the extremely poor were privileged to bring a sin-offering of fine flour but without oil and without frankincense. (Lev. 5:11) As in the case of the meal-offerings, the priest took out his handful of the flour—the memorial thereof, and burnt it upon the altar; but the “remnant” he retained for himself; for it was a meal-offering. (Lev. 5:12,13)

Clean and Unclean Animals

“Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.” (Deut. 14:1-5)

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.” (Lev. 11:2,3)

Jehovah God instructed Israel to regard as clean animals, suitable for food and for sacrifices upon his altar, such as chewed the cud and were cloven-footed. Animals that chew the cud are not carnivorous (flesh-eaters). They are graminivorous (grass-eaters) and grind their food with a side to side movement of the jaws and the teeth. As ruminants they have more than one stomach, which makes their digestive-assimilative process an unusually thorough one!

Perhaps God intended here to show that the consecrated “saints” of the Gospel Age would be acceptable to him as “better sacrifices” (Heb. 9:23) upon his altar because they are “clean” and differ from others:

In the kind of “food” they eat;
The “manner” in which they eat it;
The “manner” of their walk.

Certainly, the “truth” is their food, and this they find not merely in the printed page but also as it may be embodied in another’s “living.” Jesus himself declared that he was the embodiment of the “truth” when he said, “I am … the truth” (John 14:6), and how better as “truth” people can we grow strong than by appropriating to ourselves all that was embodied in Jesus’ living? So will it be with any brother or sister who has made the “truth” so much his own that it is reflected in all that he says and does. His patience, his long-suffering kindness, etc., will they not be an inspiration to nobler thinking, nobler living for us? We think that this is what God intended to imply when he spoke of the sacrifices of Israel of old upon his altars as his own “food.” (See Lev. 21:17,21) And so it is that those who themselves are clean and acceptable to God are privileged to feed upon the consecration of others even as God himself does!

Surely such “saints” are not “carnivorous.” They are not like unclean dogs which bite and devour one another. Here we might refer to Paul’s admonition:

“Use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another; for all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.” (Gal. 5:13-15)

We are to look upon each other and see no longer the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16) but the new creature, who is himself the embodiment of the “truth.”

The cloven hoof (double hoof) may be intended to suggest the “way” in which these “saints” walk in the strength of what they “eat.” The clean animals referred to in Deut. 14:4 had each of them four feet, and since each of these feet bore a cloven (double) hoof, they walked virtually, on eight hoofs. “Eight” suggests to our minds the resurrection, for it was on an “eighth day”—the morrow after the sabbath—that Jesus arose from the dead. May this not imply that these “clean animals”—those acceptable upon the altar of God as the “better sacrifices”—are such “saints” only as appropriate unto themselves the “truth” and in the strength of it live, as it were, “the resurrection life” which enables them to have fellowship in “his” sufferings and be made conformable unto “his” death! (See Phil. 3:10)

It is interesting to note yet another picture given us in Holy Writ bearing upon the matter of clean and unclean animals:

“And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee, That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’s. And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.” (Exod. 13:11-15)

While the first to be brought forth of man is called a “firstborn” and that of beast a “firstling,” it should be remembered that the firstling of a beast is also a firstborn! Thus Jehovah God decreed that all firstborns were to be his, be they of man or beast. Here, however, we shall concern ourselves merely with the firstborns (firstlings) of the beasts. Perhaps, synecdochically, the “ass” stands for all unclean beasts! The clean were, as set forth in Deut. 14:4, the ox (bullock), the sheep, and the goat.

It seems to us that the lesson here is that all of the “firstborns” among the saints are not clean! If this conjecture is correct, then the “clean” firstborns undoubtedly represent the “little flock”—those who are acceptable as “better sacrifices” upon the altar of God. The “unclean” among the first- borns would be those who being unacceptable upon the “altar of the Lord” are unworthy of life, unless redeemed by “the lamb!” What a picture is this! Among those “called” in the one hope of their calling, there are those who fail to live up to their sacrificing privileges, who nevertheless still love truth and righteousness and for whom Jesus, the Lamb of God, continues to act as Advocate. It is therefore by his favor that they may continue in life, though not in the highest form of life. (See T70) On the other hand, there are those among those who were “called” in the one hope of their calling, who, having sinned against light, no longer have a redeemer, and thus go into the Second Death (figuratively, they have their necks broken).

“The ox could not be offered because it was mutilated. Where it is said in our version oxen were sacrificed, we are to understand bulls (Exod. 20:24).” (McClintock & Strong, Encyclopedia, “Animal,” v. 1, p. 223)

While all the animals used for sacrifices belonged to the same family (Bo- vidae), they were of different genera and species: the ox (bullock and cow) to the genus Bos; the sheep (ram and ewe) to the genus Ovis; and the goat (male and female) to the genus Capra.

In the scriptures, particularly in Leviticus, the terms “herd” and “flock” are frequently used. The term “herd,” however, is applied to bovine animals such as the ox, bullock and cow; whereas the term “flock” has reference to sheep or goats. (See Lev. 1:3,5 and Lev. 1:10.)

Though the term “without blemish” does not occur in Leviticus 8, it does appear in the correlative passage, Exod. 29:1. So for practical purposes, we may assume, even though this is not so stated, that all sacrifices offered upon Jehovah’s altar were “without blemish.” For example:

Burnt-Offerings Lev. 1:3,5,10
Peace-Offerings Lev. 3:1,6
Sin-Offerings Lev. 4:3,23,28,32
Trespass-Offerings Lev. 5:15,18; 6:6

“Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you. And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD. Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing su- perfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted. Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.” (Lev. 22:19-24)

Though there is no specific reference here to oblations for vows and freewill (burnt- and peace-) offerings, the words in bold face could be considered as applying to any and all sacrifices offered upon Jehovah’s altar. Such sacrifices pollute Jehovah’s altar: it is polluted “bread.” (Lev. 21:17, 21,22)

“Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, the table of the LORD is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? of- fer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.” (Mal. 1:7,8)

There are a number of Hebrew words which in the KJV have been rendered lamb in the Old Testament passages, but of particular interest is the word seh which means a young lamb, or kid (of goats). It occurs in:

“God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt-offering.” (Gen. 22:8) “Firstling of an ass … redeem with a lamb.” (Exod. 13:13; 34:20) “Take … every man a lamb … a lamb for a house.” (Exod. 12:3)

However, in Exod. 12:21 we read, “take you a lamb … and kill the passover,” where the word lamb is the Hebrew word tson meaning a sheep. All other occurrences of the word lamb in this chapter are the Hebrew word seh.

In the New Testament, there are three words which have been rendered lamb(s) from the Greek. They are:

It will have been noted that in many of the types, the animal used for sacrifice upon the altar of the Lord, especially if the animal represented Jesus, and/or his Church, was always a very young one! Sometimes the animal is specifically referred to as a lamb, or the kid of the goats; and as if to add emphasis, the words “of the first year” also sometimes appear. (See Exod. 12:5; Lev. 9:3) A bullock, is, of course, a young bull; yet here too, for emphasis, the adjective “young” in certain instances has been added. (Lev. 16:3)

The term “of the first year” seems quite specific, since it narrows it down to a very definite period of time—a year. And it is interesting to note how the various versions and translations have rendered this particular He- brew expression, as for example in the instance of Lev. 9:3:

On the surface, it might appear as if all these renderings are in agreement, having reference to an animal at least a year old, and perhaps older. Yet it is not always so understood. Adam Clarke in his Commentary on Exodus 12:5 says, “ ‘of the first year,’ that is, any age in the first year between eight days and twelve months.” The term “yearling” however, is not defined that way in our dictionaries:

“One that is a year old; usually of an animal one year old, or in the second year of its age.” (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition)

“An animal between one and two years old.” (Winston Dictionary, Encycl. Edition)

Perhaps it was the fact that animals of tender days might be used for sacrifice (Exod. 22:30; Lev. 22:27) that led Dr. Clarke to his conclusion; but the consensus of opinion lies in the other direction, that of an animal between one and two years old!

Incidentally, it seems that it is in this period (between one and two years of age) that these animals will have attained, though not necessarily will have used, their procreative powers. According to the 1963 Old Farmer’s Almanac the proper age for the first mating of these particular animals is:

Jesus, at the time of his consecration to the will of God, was just such a sacrifice, a lamb “without blemish … of the first year.” (Exod. 12:5)

“He was ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,’ … he knew no sin; he was the ‘holy one,’ the ‘just one’ …

“The types which prefigured the sacrifice taught the same thing. The animal presented for the typical sacrifice must be the most choice of its kind—‘with- out blemish.’ (Exod. 12:5; Lev. 9:3; Exod. 29:1; Lev. 1:3) Had our Lord not been absolutely free from sin, he never could have redeemed us. It was because there was not one such spotless one among men, that no man could by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him.—Psa. 49:7” (R1186:3,6)

Jesus was at that time “the lamb of God,” “of the first year,” i.e., a “year-ling,” in the sense that he was as young as he could be according to the Law. (Num. 4:3,30,47) Already at the tender age of 12 years we find him in the Temple apparently seeking information from the doctors of the Law with regard to the proper time at which he might so dedicate himself unto Jehovah God. This we also know; he did return to his home in Nazareth to remain subject to his parents for another 18 years. On reaching the age of 30 years, he lost no time, but rushed down immediately, as it were, to John in the Jordan, to symbolize this consecration unto death. (See Luke 3:21-23 RSV and also Heb. 10:7,9.) No! Jesus did not wait until later on in life; nor for some more opportune time. He might have married too, and raised a family; but he didn’t! And perhaps because of the perfection of his being, his mind was already able to sense as to why the ancient sacrifices had to be “yearlings,” “without spot” (Num. 28:3) and “without blemish” (Exod. 12:5) and presented himself accordingly.

God did not want that which was old and perhaps decrepit, useless to its owner, or nearly so; yet it had also to be a voluntary, a free-will offering. (Lev. 1:3; 22:21) Thus, while sometimes older animals were acceptable, the Lord expressed his preference for the very young! “Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth.” (Eccl. 12:1)

“First of all, the heart should be given to the Lord in the days of youth, before the evil days and evil experiences have come; before one shall have learned so much evil that the remainder of life would not suffice to eradicate it. Then … when time shall bring us opportunities for the service of righteousness, let us be whole-hearted in our advocacy of the right and in our opposition to the wrong, and in everything show forth the praises of our God, with the motto, God first.” (R4838:5)

Of course, some of us may not have come into an appreciation of the Truth, and the opportunities to consecrate until we were already somewhat advanced in years. For our comfort, let it be remembered that regardless of the age or state of the physical body, by God’s grace we can be young at heart; and so does he look upon us. He is always willing to account unto us, what we would be willing to do for him, had we both youth and strength so to carry on; in fact, he quickens the mortal body (Rom. 8:11), making it possible for us despite fleshly weaknesses and frailties, to work out this “so great salvation” with fear and trembling! (Heb. 2:3; Phil. 2:12)

“There are other forms of sacrifice, the practice of economy for the truth’s sake, the sacrifice of time and strength in doing good, feeding the physically or spiritually hungry, the spending of time and energy in preaching the Word, either by voice or pen or printed page, tracts, etc. Any service rendered to God, his people, or his Word, which costs the flesh something, is a sacrifice, acceptable in God’s sight through Christ. But a ‘whole burnt-offering,’ the giving of all that we have and are to the Lord, is most pleasing to him, and our reasonable service.” (R1672:2)

“Our Lord’s sacrifice was made when he was exactly thirty years of age; this was his first year, and the very beginning of it. According to our under- standing that was where the sacrifice was made and completed. There the human nature, typified by the bullock, was slain in the sense of consecration, by the new creature, typified by the priest. The subsequent work in the three and a half years of ministry was in the types represented by the taking of the blood into the ‘Holy,’ the offering of the incense there, while the fat was being burned in the ‘Court,’ and the offal outside the Camp, and all this sacrificing ceased when our Lord died at Calvary. But the point is that his death was reckoned to him from the very moment of consecration, just as it is the case with us: ‘Reckon ye yourselves dead indeed.’ This is the only sense that we know of in which our Lord can be shown to have been the Lamb of the first year.” (R3078:3)

“When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be acceptable for an offering made by fire unto the LORD.” (Lev. 22:27)

“Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it up.” (Exod. 22:30)

Sweet Savor Offerings

In a sense, all offerings made by fire were acceptable to Jehovah; yet all were not of a “sweet savor.” Some offerings were in the nature of gifts, expressing gratitude or thankfulness, or perhaps the offerer’s dedication (consecration) to God. Naturally, these, as free-will offerings, were of a “sweet savor” unto God.

On the other hand, there were such offerings and sacrifices as were required by the Law because of sins or trespasses. These were not, per se, of a “sweet savor.” This, we believe, is what Jesus meant when in the spirit of his own consecration, he declared that in sacrifices and offerings for sin, God had no pleasure (Heb. 10:5, 8; Psa. 40:6) but that he would enter into a covenant with Jehovah to do His will (Heb. 10:9), and would ratify that covenant by way of sacrifice. Surely, this was the kind of offering that God could, and would, take pleasure in; and so did God himself declare it. (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; 2 Pet. 1:17)

To Israel of old, God afforded the first privilege of becoming his peculiar treasure above all the families of the earth (Exod. 19:5) to be his “saints” as it were, if they would enter into such a covenant and ratify it by way of sacrifice. It will be recalled that they declared on the hearing of his will (the Law), “all that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” (Exod. 19:8) The covenant was duly ratified; burnt-offerings and peace-offerings (not sin- offerings or trespass-offerings) were slain, and both the “book” of the Law, and the people were besprinked with the blood. (Exod. 24:5-8; Heb. 9:19,20)

They were now to be his “saints,” “a kingdom of priests” and an holy nation. (Exod. 19:6) This, we believe, is the reason why in Psalm 50:5, he calls them his saints, as those having ratified, by way of sacrifices, the covenant to do his will. However, Israel did not live up to the terms of that covenant; they were continually coming short, and finding it necessary to bring sacrifices for sin. Of course, God would not find fault with them for bringing these sin-offerings, and much less for the burnt-offerings which they brought also. (Psa. 50:8) Perhaps they thought that the burnt-offerings constituted “food” in which God delighted. True, he was hungry; but not for what they brought! In fact, what they brought, the bullocks, goats, etc., was already his. (Psa. 50:9-13) Their covenant called for the doing of his will; i.e. they were to be obedient, and as Samuel the prophet had declared for Jehovah, obedience is better than sacrifices (1 Sam. 15:22)! They were thus a people who, as Jesus said of some in his day, quoting Isa. 29:13, “draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” (Matt. 15:8)

The sacrifices of a “sweet savor” in which God could have been delighted, were such as would be made in the true spirit of thanksgiving (Lev. 7:12; Psa. 50:14; 107:21,22; 116:17) and praise (Heb. 13:15). For those who offered such “offerings” the Law of the Lord, the divine will, would be a consuming pleasure! This, however, was not the case with Israel of old, for they continually murmured and repined against God’s providences, and so were eventually rejected: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matt. 23:38)

It was different with Jesus who declared that he did always those things that pleased the father. (John 8:28; Psa. 40:8; Heb. 10:9) No wonder, then, that the “burnt-offering” of Jesus, which was the daily ratification of the covenant he entered into with Jehovah at Jordan, was of such a “sweet savor” unto God.

So also should it be with the Church. She too should be ratifying the covenant with Jehovah by way of a “daily dying” (1 Cor. 15:31); and for her, after all the mercies that God has extended to her, the “sacrifice” should be a most “reasonable service.” (Rom. 12:1) Yea, the law of the Lord should be our delight, and we ought to be meditating in it day and night. (Psa. 1:2; 119:33-35) Only thus will our “sacrifices” be of a “sweet savor” unto the Lord, and we be the “royal priesthood!”

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ … ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Pet. 1:2; 2:9)

No sin-offering and no trespass-offering was ever designated as being of a “sweet savor” because of sin, in which, of course, God could not be pleased. A “sweet savor” offering had to be offered upon the altar in the Court; but we are told that “the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” (Heb. 13:11; see also Lev. 4:8-10; 9:10,11; 16:25,27) However, there was a portion which was burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering in the Court. (Lev. 4:8-10,19,31,35; 16:25) This, it is suggested, was of a “sweet savor” unto the Lord. (See Lev. 4:31)

“But while the humanity of the royal priesthood is destroyed, as a vile thing in the eyes of the world, as represented by the burning of the bullock without the ‘Camp,’ God accepts the heart devotion which prompts the sacrifice, which says, ‘Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.’ ‘I delight to do thy will, O my God.’ This was represented by the offering on the altar of the fat and parts of the inward life-producing organism, as a ‘sweet savor’ unto the Lord. Col. 1:24 (T42)

“We last saw the bullock dead, in the ‘Court,’ representing the man, Jesus, consecrated at thirty years of age, at his baptism. Now the fat of it has been placed upon the Brazen Altar, and with it the kidneys and various life-producing organs. They are burning furiously, for a bullock has much fat. A cloud of smoke, called a ‘sweet savor to God,’ rises in the sight of all who are in the ‘Court,’ the Levites, the household of faith, believers.” (T57)

“And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.” (Eph. 5:2)

“In the highly figurative language of the Hebrews, smelling is used to denote the perception of a moral quality in another; thus God is said to ‘smell a sweet odor’ from sacrifice, to signify that he perceived with pleasure the good disposition which the offerer expressed by such an act of worship.” (Macknight; see Eph. 5:2 footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott)

“Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble.” (Psa. 50:14,15)

“Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.” (Psa. 4:5)

“I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.” (Psa. 69:30)

“Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.” (Hos. 14:2)

“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” (Heb. 13:15)

“Let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing.” (Psa. 107:22)

“Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened [Margin: digged].” (Psa. 40:6)

“If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him forever.” (Exod. 21:2-6)

The Hebrew word minchah rendered “offering” in Psa. 40:6 has the significance of a gift or present. It has been translated gift, meal-offering, oblation, offering, present, and sacrifice in the King James Version. (See Psa. 40:6, Standard Version Margin.) So this text would seem to imply that God didn’t even find pleasure in the so-called “gift-offerings”—the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings! This, however, was merely because Israel was not properly motivated in the giving of these; feeling perhaps that by way of these they might appease God. (The so-called “peace-offerings” of our day are much like this.) Not being prompted by a sincere de- sire to please God but rather to placate or pacify him, how could such offerings any longer delight him! (Psa. 50:7-15)

“These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee.” (Psa. 50:21)

Paul, in quoting this text, does not do so from the Hebrew, but rather from the Septuagint Version (see Heb. 10:5 which reads “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me”). This is the Septuagint reading of Psa. 40:6:

“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole- burnt-offering and (sacrifice) for sin thou didst not require.” (Bagster)

“Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire but preparedst for me a body; whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin Thou didst not require.” (Thomson)

“For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” (Heb. 5:1)

“The Apostle puts the word ‘gifts’ first. We may, therefore, look to see whether there is not some way in which the High Priest offers gifts now. Surely our Lord’s consecration of his own life was a gift on his part. The Father accepted that gift and ultimately permitted our Lord’s gift to constitute a sin-offering for others. Likewise, throughout this Gospel age, the ‘brethren,’ are invited to present their bodies living sacrifices—to give themselves to God. (Rom. 12:1,2)

“When we thus make a present of ourselves to God, we are not making a sin-offering to God; for this we could not do. But the divine arrangement for accepting our gift is that each gift will be accepted through the merit of Christ; and that then, later on, these gifts will, according to the same divine arrangement, constitute the great sin-offering which the High Priest gives for the world. Thus the High Priest is ordained to make the ultimate offering of that gift as the sin-offering for the world.” (R4915:2,4)

Edible Portions of the Offerings and Sacrifices

Of certain of the offerings and sacrifices made by the children of Israel subsequent to the Day of Atonement, the priest alone could be a partaker. According to Num. 18:9, these were:

The Meal Offering (See also Lev. 2:3,10; 6:16; 7:9,10) However, if the meal-offering was for the priest himself, it had to be “wholly burnt” upon the altar; it was not to be eaten. (Lev. 6:23)
The Sin-Offering (See Lev. 6:26,29; 7:7) However, if the sin-offering was one where the blood was brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation to be put upon the horns of the altar of incense (Lev. 4:7,16,17,18) or into the Most Holy (as on the Day of Atonement—Lev. 16:14,15) to be sprinkled “upon the mercy seat eastward, and before the mercy seat,” then whatever was left of the offering after the inwards had been burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering had to be burnt with fire “without the camp.” (Lev. 4:11,12,21; 16:27; Heb. 13:11)
The Trespass Offering (See also Lev. 7:6,7) But if the trespass-offering was of fine flour (with no oil nor frankincense), what was not burnt upon the altar—the “remnant”—belonged to the priest as a meal-offering. (Lev. 5:11,12)

There were also portions of the people’s peace-offerings which belonged to the priests. These were designated: 1) the heave-offering (right shoulder; see Lev. 7:32,33,34), and 2) the wave-offering (breast; see Lev. 7:30,31,34; also Exod. 29:26-28 and Lev. 8:22-29; 9:21).

As to where the priests may have eaten their portions of these offerings is debatable for there seems to be a discrepancy between the following texts, which in the KJV, read:

“And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat; … in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.” (Lev. 6:16)

“The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.” (Lev. 6:26)

“It shall be eaten in the holy place.” (Lev. 7:6)

“Every meat offering … sin offering … trespass offering … in the most holy shalt thou eat it.” (Num. 18:9,10)

Among the renditions, translations and versions, supporting the above are the Revised Standard, the Douay, Leeser, and the Jewish Publication Society. Moffatt, however, instead of “the most holy place” in Num. 18:10 renders it “a sacred place.” This could be regarded as virtually the same as the other translations and versions already referred to unless we should regard the court as “a sacred place,” in which event the contradiction between the three Leviticus texts and that of Numbers 18:10, would no longer exist.

Bro. Russell, basing his conclusions wholly upon Num. 18:10 as rendered in the KJV, says:

“Again, whenever an Israelite offered a sin-offering unto the priests (after the ‘Day of Atonement’ sacrifices were over) they all ate it in the ‘Most Holy.’ (Num. 18:10) So with the antitype, after the present ‘Day of Atonement’ is over; the ‘Royal Priesthood’ will be in the ‘Most Holy’ or perfect spiritual condition, and there will accept (eat) the sacrifices for sin, brought by the world for their own transgressions (not for original or Adamic sin, which was cancelled on the ‘Day of Atonement’). In that perfect spiritual condition, the priesthood will instruct in every matter, as represented in the decisions and answers given to Israel by the Urim and Thummim.” (T91)

Surely this thought is a most beautiful one for it seems to fit into the picture so well, so nicely. Yet in accepting it, we must ignore completely Lev. 6:16,26 and Lev. 7:6. Were it not for the fact that in Lev. 6:16 and Lev. 6:26, the words “in the holy place” are followed with a most emphatic “in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation,” we might quite reasonably assume that the word “most” had inadvertently been deleted. To accept, then, the rendering of Num. 18:10 as it appears in the KJV, we should have to assume that there has been a deletion of the word “most” from the three Leviticus texts; but also that there has been an interpolation of the clauses “in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.” While this is possible, it does not seem quite so probable.

Unfortunately, the Septuagint does not help here either for it too supports the rendering of these three texts as they appear in the KJV. On the other hand, however, Rotherham, Smith (An American Translation), the American Standard (R.V.), the Confraternity (Revised Catholic) versions all give the sense of Num. 18:10 as “consider” or “regard as most holy” instead of “in the most holy.” Accordingly, the Leviticus texts would be correct as they are rendered in the KJV and Num. 18:10 would not necessarily contradict!

Since authorities disagree and recourse to the original manuscripts is impossible, we shall have to draw our own conclusions. While the weight of evidence seems to favor the Leviticus texts, and also it is not a most proper method to establish a type by way of an antitype, we feel, nevertheless, that Num. 18:10 as rendered in the KJV is more acceptable, and this, per- haps, on the basis of antitypical significance.

There is nothing in the Scriptures which definitely tells us as to where the people were to eat their portions of the peace-offerings. It does seem most logical, however, to conclude, after considering the quantity of food involved in these sacrifices—some to be eaten, and some to be burnt (see Lev. 7:15-18)—that neither the eating nor the burning of the remainder took place in the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation. The eating, most likely, took place in the offerer’s tent and the burning of what remained “without the camp.”

We assume, of course, on the basis of Num. 18:8-19 (see also Lev. 7:34; Exod. 29:27,28) that the heave and wave offerings were eaten by the priests and the household; but there seems to have been an exception in the instance of the consecration ritual of Leviticus 8 and Exodus 29, wherein the right shoulder of the heave-offering (Exod. 29:27, called the “wave-offering” in Lev. 8:26-28) was burnt upon the altar (Exod. 29:22-25; Lev. 8:25-28); though the breast of the wave-offering (Moses’ part) seems to have been appropriated and eaten by him. (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 8:29) Thereafter, when the rituals were carried out by the priests (not by Moses), both the breast of the wave-offering, and the right shoulder of the heave-offering, belonged to them. (Exod. 29:27, 28; Lev. 8:29) It should also be noted that the remaining flesh of the ram of consecration ritual was boiled and eaten in the holy place by the priests being consecrated. (Exod. 29:31-34; Lev. 8:31,32)

Generally speaking, such sacrifices as represented the priests could not be eaten by them. Compare the sin-offerings of the Day of Atonement with those of other occasions. Those of the Atonement Day were completely consumed by the fire, either upon the altar or without the camp (Lev. 16:25, 27); whereas those for the people, or of the people, were appropriated by the priests. (Num. 18:9—see also Lev. 6:23 with regard to the meal- offerings of the priests.)

It should be noticed that in the initial consecration, the second ram, though it was a peace-offering, is called here merely “the ram of consecration.” (Exod. 29:22; Lev. 8:22) Probably because in this ritual though it was for the priest (incidental to his consecration), it was nevertheless also in the interests, or on behalf of the people! (See 1 Cor. 15:29) No peace-offering was ordinarily required in connection with the priest’s own sacrifices as for example in Lev. 9:2, but there was in connection with those sacrifices the priest made on behalf of the people, as is evident from Lev. 9:3,4. Of course, both consecration rituals were in the interests of the people, that is, for the people, therefore it is quite proper that the peace- offering of Leviticus 8, the ram of consecration, though offered specifically in connection with the initial consecration of the priesthood, should be eaten by those priests.

“The Apostle’s argument [in 1 Cor. 15:29] is that the whole Christian position stands or falls together. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then those who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished, as well as the remainder of the world; and if such be the case, and there is no future hope either for the Church, why should we consecrate our lives unto death? We are baptized into death with Christ, baptized for the dead, to the intent that we may by and by be associated with him as the Life-giver of the world—the Seed of Abraham.” (F456)

The people’s offerings which were to be eaten by the priests in the Most Holy (Num. 18:9,10), we know, represented the “offering” to be brought by the world of mankind, on their own behalf, during the Millennial age, to the glorified “priesthood” which will “eat” or accept them, in their (i.e. the priests’) perfect spiritual condition “beyond the Vail.” (see T91)

Then whose “offerings” did those represent which according to Lev. 6:16, 26, were to be eaten “in the holy place … in the court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation”? We suggest those of the “priests” of and during this Gospel dispensation! Yet this poses for us another difficulty for the typical priest was expressly forbidden to eat such offerings as were for himself. Consider, for example, the sin-offerings of the Day of Atonement. These were to be completely burnt by fire: the “inwards” upon the altar and the rest of the animal in the fire “without the camp.” (Lev. 16:27) Nor was it different with the sin-offering for “the priest that is anointed” if he sinned according to the sin of the people (Lev. 4:3); for here too the “inwards” were burnt upon the altar and the remainder of the animal in the fire “without the camp.” (Lev. 4:8-12) And the meal-offering, if it was the priest’s, had likewise to be “wholly burnt.” How then are we to understand this matter?

Could it be that this portion of Scripture was recorded in the type merely for the edification of those who were to be the antitypical “priesthood”—to whom it would be given to understand? We are suggesting that it is these “priests” who are referred to by the apostle Paul when he wrote:

“We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle, for the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” (Heb. 13:10,11)

But one would remind us that the sin-offerings of such priests were, in the type, completely burned by fire—on the altar in the court, or “without the camp.” (Lev. 4:10-12)

Before proceeding further, let us see as to who are these antitypical “priests.” On reading Leviticus 4, most of us would probably conclude that everything in the chapter was typical of what was to take place during the Millennium when the whole world of mankind will be called upon to bring their offerings to the antitypical priesthood which had purchased them. (T91,92) And while this is true of the rest of the chapter, it cannot be true of verses 3-12 for, in the Millennial age, there will be no priest who sins according to the sin of the people! Only such of the consecrated, as shall have attained the crystallized character-likeness of Jesus (Rom. 8:28,29) and who have therefore been made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4) will be among that priesthood. Reference, therefore, must be to that duly anointed priesthood of this Gospel Age—according to the sin of the people. The fact that for the typical priest the sacrifice was a bullock (Lev. 4:3) seems to say that these antitypical “priests” of the Gospel Age would have a greater responsibility because of a far deeper comprehension and under- standing of God’s will than any others; and that for these, repentance, and the recognition of the fact that the merit of the man Christ Jesus, alone, could bring in atonement for their sins. The type clearly sets forth that “others” will not have so great a responsibility—their comprehension and understanding of the divine will being so much less; for they could bring “he-goats,” “female sheep” and “female goats.” (Lev. 4:22-35)

Because of the apparent contradiction between the texts being considered, we may not be too sure about Lev. 6:16,26 in the type; but this later text does seem to have an important antitypical significance. Why, though, should there be any difference between the type and the antitype?

Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, declares that the types being shadows, did not always clearly, i.e., perfectly, reflect the substance. According to the KJV he stated it in this manner: “For the Law [covenant] having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things.” (Heb. 10:1) The significant phrase is rendered in the Basic English Version—“not the true image”; and by Weymouth “not a perfect representation”; and in the Revised Standard Version “instead of the true form.” It is evident, therefore, that the Law (covenant) with its types and shadows, did not always give a perfect, nor true image or representation, of that which was to be clearly discerned in the antitype. Paul seems again to be emphasizing this fact when, as we have already seen, he declares:

“We have an altar, whereof, they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle, for the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the High Priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” (Heb. 13:10,11)

On the surface it might appear as if all the apostle meant by this was that those of old who served the typical altar, not being antitypical priests, could have nothing to do with the antitypical (our) altar. This, of course, is self-evident and need, therefore, not to be particularly brought to the attention of the antitypical priesthood. We think that Paul had something of a far deeper significance in mind, something that was not so clearly reflected in the type! We believe this to have been the fact that, whereas the typical priests were not permitted to eat of the sacrifices offered upon the altar of burnt-offering on the Day of Atonement, we, the antitypical priesthood of this Gospel age, find it incumbent upon us to eat of the sacrifice (ransom-sacrifice of Christ Jesus) offered upon the antitypical altar of burnt-offering during this antitypical Day of Atonement! The words of Jesus as recorded in John’s Gospel seem tantamount to this also, for did he not declare to those who had been forbidden to eat (drink) the blood of any creature, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

We are told how that certain of the sacrifices offered upon the ancient altar, were looked upon by God as his “bread”—food. (See Lev. 21:21,22; also Psa. 50:8-15) Antitypically, therefore, God looks upon the “better sacrifices” (Heb. 9:23) offered to Him upon “our” altar, as His “bread”—food— and permits the antitypical priesthood to share this “bread” with Him as did the typical priesthood of old. (Lev. 21:22) Even as God “feeds” upon the faithfulness of our brethren in the matter of their consecration unto death, so we too may “feed” upon them, being encouraged and strengthened by these. This implies that we are not “flatnosed” and unable to sense the “savoriness” of another’s sacrifice. (See Lev. 21:18)

But aside from the “sacrifices” which represent the consecration and dedication of our fellow-priest, there are those which are brought for sin—for as already suggested, it is possible for the “priest that is anointed” to sin according to the sin of the people. (Lev. 4:3) Here again, is a “sacrifice” which, because it is for the priest that is anointed (the priesthood of this Gospel age, is still susceptible to sinning while in the flesh), and indicates his deep sorrow and regret for his sin, and his earnest desire to be right with God, is one which both God, and we (the fellow-priests) are privileged to “feed” upon. In a sense, the “eating” of another’s sacrifice, identifies us with it! Surely, we are not in harmony with the sin; but we can, and should love the sinner who is truly repentant. It is in this way that we may help and succor him, assuring him that his present attitude of godly sorrow is acceptable to God. (T100) This is, of course, a very high order of priestly service and can be rendered only by one who is himself touched with the feeling of another’s infirmities, as was, and as is, Jesus for ours. (Heb. 4:15)

Unfortunately with many of us the tendency is rather when a brother has sinned, to sit in judgment upon him, to take the place of a severe censor—refusing, as it were, to “eat” the “sin-offering” in “the holy place; the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.”

“It is only the spiritual who really enter into this; and alas; how few of us are truly spiritual! ‘Brethren … ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.’ (Gal. 6:1,2) May the Lord give us grace to fulfil this blessed ‘law.’ How unlike it is to everything in us! How it rebukes our harshness and selfishness! Oh to be more like Christ in this as in all besides!” (C.H.M., Notes on Numbers, p. 346)

Blood on Ear, Thumb and Toe

There is a similarity in one part of the ritual incidental to the consecration of the priesthood and that of the cleansing of the leper. This concerns the application of the blood of a sacrifice, to the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right foot, of the respective individuals. But there are differences also, even with regard to this particular feature:

In the case of the priest, after the last animal, the ram of consecration had been slain, its blood was immediately put upon the ears, thumbs and great toes of Aaron and his sons by Moses (Lev. 8:22-24; Exod. 29:21); subsequently they were all sprinkled with this blood after it had been commingled with the oil. (Lev. 8:30)
In the case of the leper, he was first besprinkled with the blood of one of the birds (there were two, but only one was killed) the first creature to be slain; then at a subsequent time he had the blood of the trespass-offer- ing put upon his ear, thumb and great toe. (Lev. 14:5-7,12-17)

It was quite natural in the case of the priest that certain parts of the ram of consecration were placed in the hands of Aaron and his sons and waved as a wave-offering (Lev. 8:25-27), for the ram of consecration was in reality, a peace offering (Lev. 9:21) of which, according to the law, this portion was designated the wave-offering since it was to be waved before the Lord (See Lev. 7:14,30) and was then set apart as a special portion for the priests. (Lev. 7:33,34; see also Exod. 29:27,28)

In the ritual incidental to the cleansing of the leper, however, it seems, the whole animal (it was small, a lamb) was waved before the Lord as a wave-offering (Lev. 14:12), the log of oil being included!

It is also worthy of note that in the case of the initial consecration of the priesthood, the first animal to be slain was a sin-offering (the bullock, Lev. 8:14,15); the second, the burnt-offering (a ram, Lev. 8:18); and the last, the peace-offering (the ram of consecration, Lev. 8:22). It was with the blood of this last sacrifice that their ears, thumbs and great toes were besprinkled. (Lev. 8:22-24) This took place subsequent to the offering of both the sin-offering and the burnt-offering.

In the case of the leper, there was no peace-offering, as such, though the wave-offering was in this instance taken from the trespass-offering. The besprinkling of the leper took place before either the sin-offering (Lev. 14:19) or the burnt-offering (Lev. 14:20) were slain.

“Living” Blood

“And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even; then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity.” (Lev. 17:15,16)

“Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.” (Deut. 14:21)

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is in the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Gen. 9:4)

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof … for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.” (Lev. 17:11,14)

The Scriptures tell us that the blood is the life of the creature (Lev. 17:11, 14) and that it was not to be eaten with the flesh. (Lev. 17:12) The blood was the people’s only to be used for making atonement for their sins. (Lev. 17:11)

In a sense the blood of the Passover Lamb was used for an atonement also. As the people, the Israelites, were slaves unto the Egyptians, and were doomed to die in that land of darkness, so the whole world of mankind, having been born in sin, and as slaves to it, were likewise doomed to die in “Egypt.” However, Jesus, the Lamb of God (John 1:29,36) was slain so that through the merit of his blood, all might be delivered and saved. (See Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6)

Hidden away in the types and shadows of old are some very wonderful pictures fraught with important, yes, deep lessons for the spiritual Israel of God—the Israel of this Gospel dispensation. And it is possible that in due time, the world of mankind also will be brought to an understanding of these; for does not the prophet declare that “afterward (i.e., during the Millennial age) … I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh!” (Joel 2:28) In Deuteronomy, Moses in reminding the people concerning such animals (beasts) as were to be considered clean and therefore suitable for food (and for sacrifices upon God’s altar) (Deut. 14:3-8) warns them that no animal (beast) that “dieth of itself” should be eaten by any Israelite. (Deut. 14:21)

This was because of the fact that the blood which they were forbidden to eat and which might be used for atonement, had always to be that of a living animal, for only then could it be considered as representing life! For example, animals that had died of themselves might have blood in them, but it was then no longer a life-giving, or life-sustaining fluid!

In order to understand the spiritual significance of this, we shall need to remember that Adam was “dead” before he actually died, that he had no life within him to give unto his children (Rom. 5:12); and for this very reason, none of Adam’s seed could redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him. (Psa. 49:7) The blood with which atonement could be made had therefore to come from a creature that had life to give, the Lamb of God (John 1:36), who only, because being born “separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26), could furnish the necessary blood of atonement. (John 1:29) Thus also, the eating of the flesh of the animal that died of itself could not be a fitting symbol of the “flesh” of him who said, “the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world … except ye eat the flesh of the son of man … ye have no life in you.” (John 6:51,53)

“The general principle on which the chemical life of the body is conducted is that each living cell carries out in its own substance, all those chemical processes necessary to its existence. Therefore all the materials which it requires must be carried to it and all those which it discards must be removed. Throughout the whole body therefore a system of transport is necessary, with which every living cell is in intimate contact.

“The principle materials which a living cell, be it a muscle fibre, a nerve cell or a gland cell, requires are (1) sugar, (2) the basis of albuminous materials, (3) fat, (4) vitamins, (5) oxygen, (6) salts, (7) hormones, (8) water. The blood picks these up where they may be had, in the lung or in the alimentary canal or elsewhere, it being the province of the organs of digestion to reduce the solid constituents of the food to such a form that the blood can absorb them. The principal substance of which the cell must be rid are carbonic acid and simple soluble compounds of nitrogen, compounds of ammonia etc., or, in the case of the liver, urea.

“In all the higher animals blood consists of a fluid, the plasma, in which are suspended corpuscles of various kinds adapted for special purposes.

“A second purpose of one protein at least, fibrinogen, is to confer on the blood the power of clotting. The clot is the first aid to the healing of a wound; it at once plugs the wound and forms a scaffold on which new tissue is built … the solidification of the blood is not due to drying or exposure but to a chemical process in the plasma which causes the fibrinogen (hitherto in solution) to separate out as a solid sponge of fibrin connecting the edges of the wound and through which the corpuscles of the blood cannot pass.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1942 edition, “Blood”)

“The blood is composed of about twenty-five or thirty thousand billions of red cells, and of fifty billions of white cells. These cells are suspended in a liquid, the plasma. Blood carries to each tissue the proper nourishment, but acts, at the same time, as a sewer that takes away the waste products set free by living tissues. It also contains chemical substances and cells capable of repairing organs wherever necessary. These properties are indeed strange. When carrying on such astonishing duties, the bloodstream behaves like a torrent which, with the help of the mud and the trees drifting in its stream, would set about repairing the houses on its banks.

“Blood plasma … contains proteins, acids, sugars, fats and the secretions of all glands and tissues. The nature of the majority of these substances and the immense complexity of their functions are very imperfectly known. The blood also contains antibodies, which appear when the tissues have to defend themselves against invading microbes. In addition there is in the blood plasma a protein, fibrinogen, whose shreds adhere to wounds and stop hemorrhages.” (Carrel, Man, The Unknown)

“The life of the flesh is in the blood … It is the life of all flesh: the blood of it is for the life thereof … for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.” (Lev. 17:11,14)

“The Scriptures say that the life is in the blood. (Lev. 17:11) In harmony with that statement, the Jews were bidden to always refrain from eating the blood. The animals must be bled before they were permitted to eat the flesh. Nor was any stranger sojourning with them to eat any blood. (Lev. 17:10-14) In this way, God would seem to say that life is a very sacred thing. This life principle that he gave to man, seems to reside in the blood. As long as the blood is passing through the organs of circulation, there is life; but when the blood is shed, the being dies.” (R5341:6)

Shed blood thus becomes a very apt symbol of life—laid down, as it were, in sacrifice! Scripturally, at least, it bespeaks of atoning merit.

“Almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb. 9:22)

“ ‘Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.’ (Heb. 9:22) Throughout the Law dispensation God emphasized this feature of his arrangement by requiring the blood of bulls and of goats; not that these could ever take away sins, but that in due time they might be recognized as types or illustrations of better sacrifices, through which sins are blotted out and cancelled. The expression ‘shedding of blood’ signifies simple death, life poured out, yet points to a sacrificial death, and not what is sometimes termed a natural death—though strictly speaking no death is natural.” (E442)

“How frequently the Scriptures refer to our Lord as our sin-offering, ‘the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world’! (John 1:29) All the sacrifices of the Law, all the blood shed upon Jewish altars, pointed forward to this great sacrifice for sin slain on our behalf; for, as the Apostle assures us, the blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sin—only the anti-typical sacrifice could do this, ‘the precious blood.’ On this subject of the sacrifice for sins, as presented in the New Testament, see Heb. 9:12; 10:10; Eph. 5:2; 1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet. 2:22-24; 2 Cor. 5:21—Diaglott.” (E446)

“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.” (Prov. 4:23)

The heart, figuratively speaking, is the seat of the affections, and out of it flows “the blood”—the issue of life and death—yes, the thoughts which either make for life, or destroy it, in ourselves and sometimes in others.

The thinking of good, wholesome, pure, holy thoughts, will make us good, wholesome, pure and holy; but contrariwise, evil, unwholesome, impure, unholy thoughts, will make us just that! “As [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he.” (Prov. 23:7)

“Strong, pure, and happy thoughts build up the body in vigor and grace. The body is a delicate and plastic instrument, which responds readily to the thoughts by which it is impressed, and habits of thought will produce their own effects, good or bad, upon it.

“Men will continue to have impure and poisoned blood, so long as they prop- agate unclean thoughts. Out of a clean heart comes a clean life and a clean body. Out of a defiled mind proceeds a defiled life and a corrupt body. Thought is the font of action, life, and manifestation; make the fountain pure, and all will be pure.

“Spiritual achievements are the consummation of holy aspirations. He who lives constantly in the conception of noble and lofty thoughts, who dwells upon all that is pure and unselfish, will, as surely as the sun reaches its zenith and the moon its full, become wise and noble in character, and rise into a position of … blessedness.

“Achievement, of whatever kind, is the crown of effort, the diadem of thought. By the aid of self-control, resolution, purity, righteousness, and well-directed thought a man ascends; by the aid of animality, indolence, impurity, corruption, and confusion of thought a man descends.” (excerpts from James Allen, As A Man Thinketh)

“The heart is one of the most important organs of our body. If it ceases to work, death is sure to follow. The blood that flows through the heart constitutes the life, the energy of the body. If the blood current is interrupted for a little while, a clot is formed. This is so much of a preparation for death. There must be a continual stream circulating through our bodies to keep life there.

“In view of this important function of our natural hearts, the Bible very properly uses the heart, the center of life, as a symbol of the center of our affections, including the will. Our will has to do with everything we do. Whoever of the Lord’s people wills to seek more and more to purify himself becomes more and more alive. If we are pure in heart, we resolve to live righteously and soberly in the present life. Whoever appreciates the principle that right is right, and wrong is wrong will desire to live right, whether Jew or Gentile or the church of God.

“According to a man’s innermost sentiment, so is he. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is his real character. What is your real will? What are your real sentiments? Not, What words do you use? Not, What are your actions, but, what is the motive underlying all these?

“If our thoughts are not according to our ideals, we should endeavor to make them so. We should put away anger, malice, hatred, strife, and all such works of the flesh and the devil.

“There is another view of the text—‘As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he’—given by Christian Scientists; namely, that according to our minds, so be it unto us. They get some good out of this view. They say that if one thinks about kind, noble things, he will be influenced thus. We think our Christian Scientist friends are partly right and partly wrong. They hold that if one thinks himself to be well, he will be well; that if one thinks himself to be sick, he will be sick. There is a measure of truth in this view.

“One half the people in the world are sick because they think they are so. If they thought, not about their aches and pains, but about more helpful things, they would no doubt be better and stronger in every way. The mind has something to do with our condition. Whoever mopes about a headache will undoubtedly make it worse. Whoever tries to put the thought of his condition away and to give attention to other things will undoubtedly help himself.

“The less we think about our aches and pains the better for us. If we talk about them we aggravate them. It is also bad to exercise too much sympathy with each other. Of course, there are times when it would be cruel not to show sympathy. But it is not wise to encourage those who are weak to complain about their condition. We become stronger in proportion as we try to avoid thinking of our ailments.” (R5246-5247)

But blood is a symbol of yet other things of spiritual import. In the Scriptures it is identified with the following:

the staying of (the angel of) death: Exod. 12:7,13 the attaining of life; John 6:53, 54
justification: Rom. 3:24,25; 5:9
consecration: Lev. 8:22-24,30
sanctification: Lev. 8:15; Heb. 9:13; 10:29; 13:12

atonement: Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16:15,16,18; 17:11,14
propitiation: Rom. 3:25 (1 John 2:2; 4:4; see T124)
reconciliation: Lev. 8:15; 16:16,18,20; Eph. 2:13,16

forgiveness: Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14
remission: Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:22

purchasing: Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:14 (T42)
redemption: Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18,19; Rev. 5:9

washing: Rev. 1:5; 7:14
cleansing: Lev. 14:6,7,14,17,52; Heb. 9:23, 24; 1 John 1:7
purging: Heb. 9:14,22
purification: Lev. 8:15; Heb. 9:13,23

a covenant: Exod. 24:8; Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20; Heb. 9:20; 10:29

Aside from whatever else may be the significance of the blood carried by Aaron from the Court into the Most Holy (Lev. 16:14), there seems a sense in which it represented for him a right to life! By this, we do not mean the right of life which he laid down in sacrifice for the people, so well depicted in the slain animal; but the right to live, as it were, a new life, as pictured in the priest who now had the right of access into the Tabernacle and the very presence of God. This right he did not have until he had the merit (the blood) of the sacrificed animal to take along with him. This seems to be the true significance of the words of caution given to Aaron:

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place [the Most Holy] within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place [the Most Holy] with a young bullock for a sin-offering.” (Lev. 16:2,3)

So is it with those who consecrate during this Gospel Age, the completeness of their consecration is reflected in the death of the animal. This consecration, however, unlike that of the world in the Millennial age, is followed by the full and complete destruction of the human nature (the burning of the flesh outside the camp) and by the taking of the life into a new nature—into the “Most Holy.” (T96)

Blood Atonement

“God arranged Israel’s typical Atonement Day as a type of the real Atonement Day, which began at Jesus’ baptism and has continued ever since, and will continue for another thousand years in the future. The killing of the bullock on behalf of the priestly family found its antitype in the death of Jesus, which began with His consecration at Jordan and was completed at Calvary, three and a half years later. As a man Jesus offered up sacrificially His human nature, the body which He had taken for the special purpose of sacrifice. That sacrifice was satisfactory to God, as was indicated by His raising up Jesus from the dead.

“Moreover, we are assured that our Lord was not only raised up out of death, but raised up as a New Creature, to a still higher nature than that which He had before He undertook the Father’s commission to be the world’s Redeemer, Prophet, Priest and King. His resurrection was (Phil. 2:10) to glory, honor and immortality, far above human nature, angelic nature, principalities and powers and every name that is named. Eph. 1:21

“The risen Son of God remained forty days with His disciples, and when He had ascended on High He appeared in the presence of God, and according to the type made application of the merit of His sacrifice for the Household of faith, the antitypical Levites. The acceptance of His Atonement Sacrifice, and incidentally the acceptance of His waiting followers, was manifested by the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

“As Aaron in the type, by Divine direction, accepted his sons to be members with him in the priesthood, under his headship, so in the antitype Christ Jesus during this Gospel Age has been accepting members of the Royal Priest- hood, of which He is the Head. And these are taken from the Levites, for which class the Atonement was made by Aaron in the type and by Jesus in the antitype.

“Aaron in the type, after sprinkling the blood of the bullock and making Atonement for the House of Levi, came forth and slew the goat. So Christ, having finished making Atonement for the sins of the antitypical Levites, came forth at Pentecost to bless them and to accept them as joint-sacrificers and as joint-heirs. The goat, which Aaron slew as the second portion of his sin-offering, represented all the faithful footstep followers of Jesus in the nearly nineteen centuries that have elapsed since Pentecost. Respecting these Jesus prayed, saying, ‘I pray not for the world, but for those whom Thou hast given Me; … neither pray I for these alone, but for all those who shall believe on Me through their word, that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, and I are one.’ ‘I in them and Thou in Me.’ John 17:9,20-23

“Incidentally, Jesus as the High Priest in glory began at Pentecost the sacrificing of the goat class, His faithful followers. The work has continued ever since. The sufferings of Jesus have thus been prolonged for centuries. As St. Peter declares, the Prophets spake of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow. (1 Pet. 1:10,11) The sufferings have not yet been completed, and hence the glory has not come. When the full number foreordained of God shall have faithfully finished their course in death the sacrifices of the antitypical Day of Atonement will be at an end. The great High Priest with His Body will pass beyond the second veil into the Heavenly glories, the First Resurrection completing the transfer. The blessing of the people will follow.

“That Jesus thus recognized His followers as His members is clearly attested by the Apostle. In their flesh they are counted as members of Jesus; as New Creatures, spirit-begotten, they are counted as members of The Christ. Thus Jesus said to Saul of Tarsus, speaking of His followers, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?’ ‘I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.’ (Acts 9:4,5) The same thing is true of any truly consecrated follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

“While such are in the world and suffer, the sufferings of Jesus are not completed. And the glory of Christ can be fully attained only in proportion as the sufferings of Jesus are completed. In the type, all this was pictured in the things which happened to the Lord’s goat, which typified the faithful, sacrificing members, the flesh of Jesus. As the goat passed through all the experiences of the bullock, so the footstep followers of Jesus are to have similar trials, difficulties, oppositions, persecutions, to those which came to the Master.

“With the completion of the Priest of Glory at the end of the sufferings of the flesh will come the effusion of the blood on behalf of Israel and all of Adam’s race of every nation. In the type Aaron took the blood of the goat, his secondary sacrifice, and sprinkled it on the Mercy Seat on behalf of all the people of Israel, representing all who will become the people of God of every nation. Forthwith Divine acceptance of these sacrifices spoke the forgiveness of the sins of all.

“So in the antitype. When our Lord the second time sprinkles the blood in the Most Holy, the sins of all the people—the whole world—will be canceled. At the same instant the Redeemer will take them over as a purchased possession and, under the Divine arrangement, He will establish over them His Kingly power. He will reign for their blessing and uplifting. As the great Prince of Glory He will bind the Prince of Darkness, Satan, and destroy all his works of evil and lift poor humanity back into harmony with God—all the willing and obedient.” (SM73-76)

“And 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 burned in the fire.” (Lev. 6:30)

It is not good to be wise above that which is written, nor to read into an account what is not specifically set forth therein. Let us note carefully what the Apostle Paul does say:

“The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” (Heb. 13:11—KJV)

“For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the holy places, are burned outside of the camp.” (Emphatic Diaglott)

The Greek word agia rendered Sanctuary in the King James Version is plural and may therefore have reference to the whole structure, i.e., both the Holy and the Most Holy. Wilson in the Emphatic Diaglott rendered it “holy places”; and in the Newberry Bible (the Englishman’s Bible) the word is indicated as being plural. Seemingly, the word has reference to either, or both of the “holies”—the Holy and the Most Holy! If this is correct, then the blood brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation (as in Lev. 4:5, 16) must be considered as having been brought into the Sanctuary, even though it was merely into the Holy, and not into the Most Holy; and it will be reason enough for the carcasses having been burnt “without the camp.”

While, as in the Old Testament, we refer to the first compartment of the Tabernacle as the Tabernacle of the Congregation, or the Holy; and the second compartment, where Jehovah’s presence was represented by the Shekinah Glory, as the Most Holy, or Holy of Holies, it is evident that God regarded the two compartments as his Sanctuary, or Sanctuaries. The word occurs in the plural in Lev. 21:23, having reference, we believe, to these two compartments!

There were sin-offerings burned “without the camp” whose blood, however, was not brought into the Sanctuary. Striking examples of these are those of the initial and secondary consecrations of the Aaronic priesthood, as set forth in Leviticus 8 and 9, respectively. In both instances, the blood of the sin-offerings was put upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and the remainder thereof was poured out at its base. (Lev. 8:15; 9:9,15) None of the blood was taken into the Sanctuary but the bodies were burned “without the camp.” (Lev. 8:17; 9:11,15)

Of the sin-offerings enumerated in Leviticus 4, only those offered for “the priest that is anointed” (Lev. 4:3), and for the congregation as a whole (Lev. 4:13), seem to have been burned “without the camp” (Lev. 4:11,12, 20), and this, evidently, because some of the blood was taken into the Sanctuary (i.e., the Holy of the Tabernacle) and there placed upon the horns of the altar of incense. (Lev. 4:17,18)

On the other hand, it will have been noted, the bodies of the other sin-offerings treated of in Leviticus 4, seem not to have been burned “without the camp.” (See Lev. 4:26,31,35) It is possible that the edible portions of these sacrifices were appropriated by the priests (Lev. 6:25,26; Num. 18:9,10), and such an appropriation signified the acceptance of the offerer’s sacrifice. (T91,100)

Undoubtedly, there is a reason why the blood of these sin-offerings of Leviticus 8 and 9 was not brought into the Sanctuary, though the bodies of the beasts were burned “without the camp.” It should be remembered that the rituals of Leviticus 8 and 9 bore on the consecration of the priesthood and had nothing directly to do with the atonement for the national sin of the people, which sins were expiated on the 10th day of the 7th month. (Lev. 23:27) In this latter ritual (Leviticus 16) the blood was brought into the Sanctuary to make atonement for sin (Lev. 16:14); therefore, the car- cass had to be burned with fire “without the camp.” (Lev. 16:27)

The ritual of Leviticus 8 set forth the response of the priesthood to the “call” of God; whereas, the ritual of Leviticus 9 showed the “working out” of this consecration by the “called.” Thus do they reflect more particularly, the consecration and dedication of that priesthood to the will of God. This is something quite separate and distinct from the blood atonement accomplished by this priesthood, so that the blessing of God might be brought unto the people. The one involved merely the full and complete dedication of the priest; the other, his death (figuratively, the laying down of life itself in the interests of the people). The former did not necessarily involve death for others (angels live consecrated lives but do not die vicariously for others); but the latter does. So in the rituals of Leviticus 8 and 9 we see the “inwards” of the sin-offerings consumed upon the altar of burnt-offering, and the remainder of the animals burned with fire “without the camp,” reflecting, as it were, the complete dedication of the antitypical priesthood to the will of God. In the ritual of Leviticus 16, however, we see that identical consecration of this “priesthood” by way of death, bringing in atonement for the world of mankind!

Our dedication as the antitypical priesthood, to the will of God, is thus beautifully depicted in those rituals of old wherein the “inwards” offered upon the altar of burnt-offering in the Court well represent our heart devotions, and the “externals” burned with fire “without the camp” well represent the testimony which our consecrated lives bear to our “deadness” to the people at large. This “testimony” should create a veritable stench in their nostrils.

On the other hand, the ritual of Leviticus 16, Israel’s ancient Day of Atonement, just as beautifully depicts this identical consecration unto death, but in addition shows how God accounts it as a sin-offering by means of which the atonement blessing is brought to the world of mankind.

To summarize: these three rituals picture in the death of the animals the completeness of the consecration—the burning of the flesh outside the Camp indicating the utter destruction of our human nature; but only the ritual of Leviticus 16 shows how the consecrated take on a new nature, for here the blood (which represents life) was taken into the Most Holy, representing the new, the divine nature (T96) to which those who become identified with Jesus in the sin-offering become heirs.

“In order that they may share his nature and its glory they must share his sufferings, ‘his death’; thus, since he must suffer, the just for the unjust, so these, being justified through faith in his blood, must similarly suffer, the just for the unjust, as his ‘members’ and as ‘filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ’; not afflictions left behind in the sense of the Redeemer’s incompetency to make the full atonement for the sins of the world, but sins left behind in the sense that our Lord did not apply his own merit directly to the world of unbelievers. Their sins are left behind that the merit of Christ, passing through the elect church, might benefit them just as much in the end, and additionally might give the ‘elect’ of this age the opportunity of suffering with their Lord and Head, in order that in due time they might be glorified with him. Col. 1:24.” (R4352:6)

Sprinkled Blood

Three special sprinklings of blood are, for very good reason, brought to our attention in the Scriptures:

The blood of the Passover Lamb (Exod. 12:3-7,13)
The blood of the Sin-Offerings (Lev. 16:14-16)
The blood of the Burnt- and Peace-Offerings (Exod. 24:5-8; Heb. 9:18-20)

Antitypically they seem all to meet in the cup which the Father poured for Jesus. (John 18:11)

From the very beginning, almost, God showed the value He placed upon the blood. Shortly after Adam and Eve sinned, they made unto themselves “aprons” of leaves to hide, as it were, their nakedness (which in their original state of purity had not troubled them); nor did the “aprons” afford them much relief, for despite wearing these, they still felt their need of hiding themselves from the eyes of their God. (Gen. 3:10) The Lord intended to show them the utter futility of their own endeavors; and the record declares that he made for them “coats” of skins. (Gen. 3:21) This, of course, presupposes the slaying of an animal, the shedding of innocent blood! Truly, as this fact so clearly teaches, there is no more important doctrine in the Scriptures than this, which declares that without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission (covering) for sin. (Heb. 9:22)

We are not told in the Genesis account as to what animal it was that was slain by the Lord in order to furnish the coats of skins, nor should we be wise above that which is written; however, we believe there is much to suggest that it was a lamb. In the Revelation (13:8) there is reference made to the lamb slain “from the foundation of the world.” The implication seems to be that God by His foreknowledge had ordained for One (the Lamb of God) to become man’s redeemer, by way of his shed blood. When Jesus, during his first Advent appeared on the banks of the Jordan, John the baptist, identified him to his disciples as “the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29,36) Thus did he come to give his life a ransom for all who were lost in Adam. (See Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) Surely, this establishes the fact that the ransoming, or atoning, merit, lies wholly in the sacrifice of him who came to give his life, to shed his blood, to redeem the race. (1 Tim. 2:6)

It will be remembered that Israel’s redemption, its deliverance from the bondage of Egypt was predicated upon the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb. (Exod. 12:7,13) It will also have been noted that while the first-borns were the only ones in danger of death in the nighttime, their deliverance from the hand of the angel of death became the precursor of the general delivery of all Israel the following morning. (F457) So it was that the blood of the lamb sprinkled upon the lintels and doorposts, became the means of salvation to all Israel. Undoubtedly, this was intended to show that not only the Church of this Gospel dispensation (the “first-borns”) are redeemed by the blood of Jesus, but also all the world of man- kind, all who shall ever become the Israel of God!

It is interesting to note that with the establishment of the Tabernacle of God in the wilderness, and the coming of Israel under the Law at Sinai, a certain ritual of atonement was instituted involving sacrifices to be offered upon the “brazen altar” of animals designated “clean” by Jehovah God; and the blood of which sacrifices was to be sprinkled on, and before, the mercy seat in the Most Holy of the Tabernacle. These particular sacrifices, consisting of bullocks and goats, offered on the 10th day of the 7th month, were known as sin-offerings. It is important to note that no male sheep was ever used for such a sin-offering, though a female sheep was sometimes used as a sin-offering for one of the common people. (Lev. 4:27,32) It would seem that God had reserved the place of the male sheep, the lamb, to portray, not the sin-offering, but rather, the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

A sin-offering—save for the small portion of inwards which were burnt upon the “brazen” altar in the Court (Lev. 4:31; T42)—was never of a “sweet savour unto the LORD.” Being brought for sin, Jehovah could not take pleasure therein. It was different with the burnt-offering, since it was not demanded for sin, but was on the contrary a free-will, or voluntary offering, reflecting, as it were, the offerer’s dedication or consecration of himself to the Will of God. Hear Jesus as he approaches John for his baptism, saying, “Sacrifice for sin thou hast no pleasure in … lo, I come … to do thy will, O God.” (Heb. 10:6,7)

Normally, the sin-offering preceded the burnt-offering, and the peace-offering. This was because God could accept no man’s burnt- or peace-offering (consecration) until atonement by way of a sin-offering had first been accomplished for him. But it was different with Jesus, for he was born “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners.” (Heb. 7:26) He could present himself a “burnt-offering” unto God. His consecration was accepted by God, who thereupon showed him that this consecration called for a faithfulness unto death; i.e., he would have to die as the Lamb of God, to take away the sin of the world.

As already suggested, the atoning merit lies in the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. The sin-offering of the Tabernacle types showed perhaps more particularly, the manner in which this atoning merit would be applied; viz., first, for the “high priest and his house,” and then, and by way of these, to all of “Israel.” Thus the bullock of the sin-offering was offered for the priest (and his house); and the goat of the sin-offering for the people. If one would see the ransom in the Tabernacle type, he must look for it in the sacrificed bullock, which represented Jesus, and Jesus only! (T51, 52) No other sacrifice than this was really necessary: the goat might have been eliminated completely. The only reason for the goat in the type was to show that antitypically, those whose humanity was represented in the goat were to become channels through which the atoning merit of Jesus was to flow out to all the world.

“And Moses said unto Aaron, go unto the altar, and offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people.” (Lev. 9:7)

Commenting upon this text Bro. Russell says:

“This type illustrated the fact that our Lord Jesus (the bullock sacrifice for sins) was sufficient to redeem both ‘his Body,’ the ‘little flock,’ and also the whole world of mankind. The Church’s share in the sin-offering could have been dispensed with entirely: we might have been spared the special trials of our ‘narrow way,’ spared the sacrificial sufferings, and could have been restored to perfection of human nature, just as all mankind will be. But it pleased Jehovah not only to choose Jesus to this great work of sacrifice, but also to make him the Captain or Head of ‘the Church which is his Body,’ and that these as well as their Captain should be made perfect as SPIRITUAL beings, by sufferings in the flesh as sin-offerings. (Heb. 2:10; Col. 1:24)” (T79)

The morning and evening sacrifices—the burnt-offerings of the priests— were to be lambs also; and there is nothing in Exodus 29:38-42 to indicate that these were to be male animals. But Leviticus 1:10 is quite specific when it says, “and if his offering be of the flocks … sheep … he shall bring it a male.” Edersheim says, “The burnt-offering was always to be a male, as the more noble, and as indicating strength and energy.” (The Temple, p. 100) These burnt-offerings (perhaps corresponding to the two rams offered on the Atonement Day) sanctified, as it were, the altar to which any Israelite might thereafter bring his own offering. (See T97)

Actually, there was no atoning merit in the sin-offerings of old! Paul tells us that “It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” (Heb. 10:4) The Tabernacle type of the sin-offering, as Bro. Russell suggests, was merely intended to show how, antitypically, application of the ransom merit would be made.

“The word ransom would more properly be rendered ransom-price, corresponding price. On the Day of Atonement no type of the ransom price is given to us, but rather a type of the sin-offering, showing particularly how that ransom-price will be made applicable. If we scrutinize this Atonement Day type, however, we shall find that which points to the ransom, in the killing of the bullock: for the whole matter depended upon the killing of the bullock. The goat could not be killed first. The bullock must first be killed and the blood applied in the Most Holy before anything could be done with the goat. Hence, all that was done, not only with the Lord’s goat, but also with the scapegoat, was based on the death of the bullock. So if we look for anything that might correspond to the ransom-price in the Day of Atonement sacrifices, we shall see, that the death of the goat was not necessary, but all depended on the bullock.” (R4915:4)

“The sin-offering shows the manner in which the ransom price is applicable, or effective, to the cancellation of the sins of the whole world!” (R5873:3)

“The sin-offering of the Atonement Day and its sacrifices constitute a picture of the processes by which God accomplishes the world’s blessing; while the Ransom is entirely distinct, and shows the work of Jesus alone and its ultimate effect for mankind throughout the whole wide world.” (R5874:5)

“That cash [obtained by someone who sold property] would be the ransom-price for the liberation of his imprisoned friends. … At his convenience he could take this ransom-price and apply it for one of the captives or two or more, or even for all. The application of the money, whether in one portion or in different portions at different times, corresponds to the presentation of the sin-offering on behalf of sinners.” (R4493:6-R4494:1)

This ransom merit is identified with the sacrifice of Jesus as the Passover lamb—the “lamb of God” that taketh away the sin of the world.

“None accepting Christ as the Passover lamb, and thus accepting the anti-type as taking the place of the type, could any longer with propriety prepare a typical lamb and eat it in commemoration of the typical deliverance. The appropriate thing thenceforth for all believers in Jesus as the Passover lamb would be the sprinkling of the doorposts of the heart with his blood: ‘Having their hearts sprinkled from a consciousness of evil’ (from present condemnation—realizing their sins propitiated through his blood, and that through his blood they now have forgiveness of sins). These henceforth must eat, or appropriate to themselves, the merits of their Redeemer—the merits of the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” (F463)

“The cup was symbolical and pointed forward to his own death. It was offered only to his followers, and not to the world. It was shed for them, and was the basis for their reconciliation to the Father; but it was to be in due time the blood of the New Covenant—the blood with which the New Covenant would be sprinkled, sealed, made efficacious. It was offered to the Church more than eighteen centuries before the time for the sealing of the New Covenant, to grant the Church, the overcomers, the privileges of participation with Christ in his sacrifice, not only in the sense of justification, but also in the sense of sanctification, or death with him.” (R4331:3,6)

No one knows just when the cup (wine) became identified with the Pass-over ritual; for it was definitely not a part of the original institution in Egypt. (Examine Exod. 12:1-15) Then too, the Israelites were forbidden to eat (or drink) blood. Blood represented life; for “life . . . is in the blood.” (See Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:10-12) However, God, to whom all life belongs gave the blood to Israel for but one specific purpose—“to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.” (Lev. 17:11) They might eat of the Passover lamb’s flesh, but its blood had to be sprinkled upon the lintels and doorposts of their houses to preserve them from death in the land of Egypt. (Exod. 12:7,8,12,13) Undoubtedly, this is also the reason for the cup (wine) having had no place in the original rit- ual: for Israel was a type of all the world of mankind, who must of needs “eat the flesh of the Son of Man” (John 6:53)—the Lamb of God—but will not be privileged to become partakers of Jesus’ cup!

Of course in John 6:53 we do read the words of Jesus: “Verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” How these words must have startled those Jews—“Except ye eat my flesh.” Yet they were even more dumbfounded when he added, “and drink my blood,” for this was so contrary to the Law of Moses! However, Bro. Russell is quite emphatic when he declares:

“All the work of this Gospel Age, is the getting ready of the food for the world, and of the blood which will be sprinkled upon them. But the message of our Lord in our text [John 6:53] was not intended for the world.” (R5343:4)

We, of course, agree since the drinking of the cup, i.e., the blood, is symbolic of the sharing of his cup which the world of mankind at large is not permitted to share.

When Jesus instituted the “memorial” he did not take the lamb to pass on to his disciples, for they had already partaken thereof in the supper which preceded. The lamb represented “his flesh,” and his alone! It represented the man Christ Jesus—the lamb of God, whose “flesh” all mankind must “eat” of, if they would have life. But Jesus took the bread in which many individual kernels of wheat had lost their identities to be found in one loaf; and he took the cup in which many individual grapes had lost their identities to be in one wine (cup). It was the Apostle Paul who under inspiration told us the significance of this:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [common union] of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion [common union] of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body, for we are partakers of that one bread.” (1 Cor. 10:16,17)

Of course, the cup in the first instance does represent something for us which it never represented for Jesus: justification, the appropriation unto ourselves of the merits of the man Christ Jesus. Jesus himself, being born “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners,” needed not to be justified. Nor could we become identified with him, save that first we were “baptized into his death.” (Rom. 6:3) Speaking of this baptism, Bro. Russell said:

“The word baptism signifies immersion. St. Paul explains that we are all baptized, or immersed, or anointed, by the one spirit into one body. The anointing, or baptism of the spirit came first to our Lord Jesus, extended down to the Church at Pentecost, and has been with the Church as an anointing ever since. All of us who come to God, by Christ, confessing our sins and asking forgiveness through His merit, and who yield ourselves to be dead with him, by baptism into his death, are immersed into membership in his body, thus coming under the anointing.

“The result of this action is two-fold; we become first of all, members of Christ in the flesh, and he accepts us and treats us as such. We are first baptized, or immersed, into death—His death, His baptism. Then the figure changes: and we are raised up out of this baptism into death, as new creatures. Thereafter our flesh is counted as His flesh. So our relationship to Christ is two-fold: one appertaining to the flesh, the other to the spirit.” (R5394:1)

By way of this justification, there is accounted to us a perfect humanity— with all the rights and privileges this entails, which we in turn are then privileged to sacrifice, to lay down together with Jesus, as a part of the sin- offering. Thus we have the import of the following:

“The partaking of the unleavened bread at the Memorial season, then, means to us primarily the appropriating to ourselves, by faith, of justification to human life-rights, a right to human life, with all its privileges, which our Lord at his own cost procured for us. Likewise the fruit of the vine symbolized primarily our Saviour’s life given for us, his human life, his being, his soul, poured out unto death on our behalf; and the appropriation of this by us also signifies primarily, our acceptance of restitution rights and privileges secured by our Lord’s sacrifice of these.

“Now let us note that God’s object in justifying the Church by faith during this Gospel age, in advance of the justification of the world by works of obedience in the Millennial age, is for the very purpose of permitting this class who now see and hear, who now appreciate the great sacrifice which Love has made on man’s behalf to present their bodies a living sacrifice, and thus to have part with the Lord Jesus in His sacrifice—as members of His Body. This deeper meaning of the Memorial He did not refer to directly. It was doubtless one of the things to which he referred when He said, ‘I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit, when it, the Spirit of Truth, shall come, it will guide you into all Truth, and will show you things to come.’ (John 16:12,13.)” (R5871:1)

Thus, the blood of the Passover lamb had to be sprinkled on lintels and doorposts of the houses; and it is this blood that represented the ransom or atoning merit of the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. But the blood of the sin- offerings—the blood of the bulls and goats, had to be sprinkled on and before the mercy seat, being thus applied for the priest and his house, and then for the people. This shows then, more particularly, the manner in which the ransom merit of the sacrifice of Christ Jesus would be applied— first to the Church of the Gospel dispensation, and in due time, by way of these, to all the world of mankind.

There was, however, another sprinkling with blood, and that was of the people, and the Law, with the blood of burnt- and peace-offerings; not the blood of sin-offerings! This was at the time when Israel came into a special covenant relationship with God through their Mediator, Moses. We read:

“And he [Moses] sent men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the LORD. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and the half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” (Exod. 24:5-8)

There is nothing in this text which said that Moses took any of the blood to sprinkle it upon the book (the Law). However, the Apostle Paul, remem- bering tradition, and under inspiration declares that Moses sprinkled “both the book and the people.”

“Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and the people. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.” (Heb. 9:18-20)

“The Apostle, after informing us that Christ was mediator of the New Covenant, adds (Heb. 9:15-22 Diaglott): ‘For where a covenant exists, the death of that which has ratified it, is necessary … a covenant is firm (binding) over victims, since it is never valid when that which ratifies it (or, is to satisfy it) is alive. Hence not even the first (i.e. the Law Covenant) has been (was) instituted without blood (though the blood used in the type was not the actual blood of Moses the typical Mediator at that typical covenant, the blood of beasts representing Moses’ blood). For every commandment of the Law having been spoken by Moses to all the people, taking the blood of bullocks and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop he sprinkled both the book (of the law, the covenant) itself, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of (or evidence of death, of that which ratifies) the covenant which God enjoined on you.’

“It will be observed that the killing (shedding of blood of the bullocks and goats) was the mediation, their death representing the death of Moses the mediator of that covenant.” (R788:4)

“After the people had assented to the law and the covenant based upon it, Moses killed an animal, which represented himself, the Mediator of that covenant, and he sprinkled the blood of the animal upon the Book of the Covenant, which represented the Lord and his faithfulness to all of his promises; and he sprinkled of the blood also upon the people—probably not upon the two millions, but upon representatives of the whole, the heads or chiefs of the tribes. Thus in type, or symbol, Moses stood pledged to God on behalf of the people, and to the people on behalf of God that the provisions on both sides should be carried out.” (R3046:1)

Hyssop

The identification of the plant referred to in the Scriptures as hyssop is at this distance extremely difficult if not utterly impossible. That there is considerable difference of opinion among the authorities on the subject, is quite evident from the articles appearing in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, and The International Stan- dard Bible Encyclopedia.

“Perhaps no plant mentioned in the Scriptures has given rise to greater differences of opinion than this. The difficulty arises from the fact that in the LXX the Greek hussopos, is the uniform rendering of the Hebrew ezob, and that this rendering is endorsed by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews (9:19,21), when speaking of the ceremonial observances of the Levitical law. Whether, therefore, the LXX made use of the Greek hussopos as the word most nearly resembling the Hebrew sound, as Stanley suggests, or as the true representative of the plant indicated by the latter, is a point which, in all probability, will never be decided. Botanists differ widely even with regard to the identification of the hussopos of Dioscorides. The name has been given to the Satureia Graeca and the S. Juliana, to neither of which it is appropriate. Kühn gives it as his opinion that the Hebrews used the Origanum Aegyptiacum in Egypt, the O. Syriacum in Palestine, and that the hyssop of Dioscorides was the O Smyrnaeum. The ezob was used to sprinkle the doorposts of the Israelites in Egypt with the blood of the paschal lamb (Exod. 12:22); it was employed in the purification of lepers and leprous houses (Lev. 14:4, 51), and in the sacrifice of the red heifer (Num. 19:6). In consequence of its detergent qualities, or from its being associated with the purificatory services, the Psalmist makes use of the expression, ‘Purge me with ezob.’ (Psa. 51:7) It is described in 1 Kings 4:33 as growing on or near walls. Bochart decides in favor of marjoram, or some plant like it, and to this conclusion, it must be admitted, all ancient tradition points. … An elaborate and interesting paper by the late Dr. J. Forbes Royle, ‘On the Hyssop of Scripture,’ in the Journal of Royal Astronomical Society 8:193- 212, goes far to throw light upon this difficult question. Dr. Royle, after a careful investigation of the subject, arrived at the conclusion that the hyssop is no other than the caper-plant, or Capparis spinosa of Linnaeus. The Arabic name of this plant, asuf, by which it is sometimes, though not commonly, described, bears considerable resemblance to the Hebrew. In the present state of the evidence, however, there does not seem sufficient reason for departing from the old interpretation, which identified the Greek hussopos with the Hebrew ezob.” (Smith, Dictionary of the Bible)

“Hyssop, an aromatic shrub used in applying the liquid prescribed for the removal of impurity, scarcely needs explanation. It was with the Hebrews, and perhaps with other ancient nations, an emblem of purification. This office may have been assigned it on account of its agreeable aroma, so antagonistic to the offensive odor proceeding from disease and death. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews understood that Moses used this shrub, when the covenant was ratified at Sinai, in sprinkling the people and the manuscript copy of the mutual engagement; though hyssop is not mentioned in the original record of the transaction. It was specifically prescribed as a necessary item in the ceremonial for cleansing lepers, and those who had touched a dead body. It was employed by King David in a penitential Psalm (Psa. 51:7), as a symbol deeply laden with the idea of purgation.” (Atwater, The Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, ppg. 234, 235)

Evidently hyssop was intended to symbolize certain purging, i.e., cleansing, influences. We are not too sure that it was an herb which when taken internally, would produce wholesome effects by way of cleansing the system of impurities; but we do know that it was used for a symbolical cleansing, when it became the instrument by way of which the meritorious blood was sprinkled upon that which was defiled.

“The hyssop would represent the purging or cleansing.” (T109)

This, undoubtedly, was intended to reflect God’s purpose with regard to the establishment of the New Covenant under a better mediator than Moses—the Christ, Head and body; and by way of which all the families of the earth are in due time to be blessed. The blood of the typical burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings, represented the “blood” of the “better sacrifices” of this Gospel age. In reply to a question bearing on Exodus 24—the account of the “sealing” or inauguration of the original Law Covenant— Bro. Russell said:

“The sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering evidently pictured the same sacrifices, but from different standpoints. In every case we would understand the bullocks to represent our Lord Jesus and the goats to represent the Church, the under-priesthood. The sin-offerings represented the sufferings of Christ and of all who walk in his footsteps as respects their relationship to the Lord … And it shows the merit of the sacrifice eventually applied on the mercy seat, and for whom applied—the blood of the bullock first, for the Church; the blood of the goat afterward, for all the people.

“The burnt-offering shows the same sacrifices but from a different standpoint—that of Divine acceptance. It shows that the offering was made to God and accepted by God as a whole, even though, as shown in the sin-offering, the sufferings were inflicted by men and the services rendered unto men.

“So then, it seems very appropriate that, as described in Exodus 24, it was the blood of peace-offerings and burnt-offerings that sealed the Law Covenant. The sin-offering feature has to do with the satisfaction, but the burnt- offering and peace-offering imply that the sacrificers voluntarily lay down their earthly rights in the interest of those who will be blessed under the New Covenant and that God accepts these sacrifices as sealing that New Covenant—entirely aside from the Atonement for Adamic sin accomplished by the same sacrifices, viewed from the standpoint of the sin-offering.” (R4389:3)

“The difference is that Moses sprinkled the tables of the law with the blood of bulls and goats, but the antitypical Moses, the Mediator of the New (Law) Covenant, will (symbolically) sprinkle the law with the antitypical blood of the better sacrifices (antitypes of the bullock and the goat)—‘his own blood,’ not only the precious blood of Jesus, but the blood of the sacrifices of all those whom he shall have accepted as ‘members of his body.’ Then, as Moses sprinkled all the people at Mt. Sinai in the type, so in the antitype, on a larger scale, the Christ, Jesus and his members, will, during the Millennium, sprinkle all the people, that is, bring all mankind to a knowledge of the truth and to an appreciation of their privileges of full return to harmony with God and his divine laws and regulations.” (R4366:5)

Burning “Without the Camp”

We are reminded by the Apostle Paul (Heb. 13:11) that the bodies of those beasts (sin-offerings) whose blood was brought into the Sanctuary (the Most Holy—R4867:3) to make an atonement for sin, were burnt with fire “without the camp.” He is, of course, here referring to the great Day of Atonement sin-offerings, whose “inwards” were offered as a “sweet savor” unto the Lord upon the altar of burnt-offering, but whose skins, flesh and dung, were burnt “without the camp.” (Lev. 16:27)

While nothing is said in Leviticus 16 to the effect that the “inwards”—the liver, kidneys, and fat—were burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering, this was the usual procedure as may be gathered from Lev. 4:8-10,19,26,31,35; 8:16; 9:10,15. But there were sin-offerings whose blood was not brought into the Most Holy, and whose carcasses were nevertheless burnt “without the camp.” (Lev. 4:5,11,12,16,21; 8:15,17; 9:11,15)

In all instances, whether the blood was brought into the Sanctuary or not, the significance of the burning of the carcasses “without the camp” is the same. It will have been noticed that in every case the “inwards” were burnt upon the altar in the Court. These “inwards” represent our heart devotions, heart sentiments, and best powers (T42,45), which are thus a “sweet savor” unto the Lord. The “carcasses” however, represent that part of our consecration which creates a “stench” in the nostrils of the people!

The stench, let it be noted, was not the result of putrefaction but of the coming into contact with the fire of the nitrogenous and other substances in the bodies of the dead animals, whose “inwards” were burning upon the altar in the Court. This is a very beautiful picture and it reflects how “dead” we should be to all things other than the Lord. Jesus, the man, was so “dead” to himself that he could honestly say, “I do always those things that please him [the Father].” (John 8:29) It was just this “deadness” in the face of all his trials that caused the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Doctors of the Law—the religious people of his day—to hate and despise him. Like one really dead, he was not moved by either praise or blame!

Nor should it be different with us who have been admonished to “go forth… unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” (Heb. 13:13) The “camp” outside of which this “deadness” bears testimony is not the world in its broad sense, but rather the worldly church:

“The ‘camp’ condition at the present time, however, we could not think would represent the world in the broad sense, but rather the worldly church. It would represent those who with more or less desire wish to be in accord with God and who profess his name, but through ignorance or superstition or love of the world are not in the proper attitude of heart to receive the deep things of God, the spiritual things, at the time in which this spiritual work, the work of Atonement, is being carried on. We do not understand that these were ever begotten of the Spirit. They are merely moral, or outward Christians—the Christian world—Christendom. These, we understand, are now represented in the camp condition. In our Lord’s day the camp condition did not represent Christendom, but the Jewish nation.” (R4607:2)

Our heart devotions are a “sweet savor” unto the Lord upon his altar; but the testimony of our lives to the world, and the worldly church, is one of “deadness.” Unlike Christians, we do not find pleasure in the theater, the dance hall, the bridge party, the bazaars, bingos; nor in drinking, smok- ing, cursing, swearing, etc., so to all appearances we are “dead.” And, above and beyond this, the trials of life (the fire) leaves us unmoved, yet ever faithful to the divine will; no wonder, then, that the “stench” in the nostrils of the world is so persistent!

“The world appreciates and approves what it would designate a robust and strenuous life—not righteous overmuch. Our Lord explains to us why the world would not approve his followers; namely, because the darkness hateth the light—because the standard of his Royal Priesthood for thought and word and action would be higher than the standard of mankind in general, and would, therefore, seem to more or less condemn their course. The world desires rather to be approved, to be flattered; and whatever in any degree casts reflection upon it is to that extent avoided, if not opposed.” (F132)

“Their disposition would be to attribute such a change to some ignoble motive. It would be beyond their comprehension that anyone should voluntarily make such a change, for truly they would say that the course was ‘un- natural!’ Likewise, in our day, those who step out of Churchianity, with its forms of godliness without the power, with its social revelry, intoxication with the spirit of this world and of false doctrines (Rev. 17:2), and its idola- tries of money, influence, etc., are considered peculiar people, and not infrequently their sanity is questioned. The natural man understandeth not why any seek for more than that which would be outwardly respectable and honorable. The world knoweth us not, even as it knew not the Lord—Rev. 18:3

“The Apostle continues with this thought, saying, that it is for this reason (because we are dead to the world and alive toward God that we are being called out now, as the Lord’s elect class, therefore) the Gospel is preached to us who are (thus) dead, so that while the world judges us as in the flesh, like all other men, the Lord may judge us in the spirit, begotten to a newness of life. … The world discerns not that the New Creatures are any different from other men; hence it wonders at this devotion, calls it folly or hypocrisy, and discerning the imperfections of the flesh may not at all times be able to see so great a difference between the New Creatures and the world. But God, who knoweth the heart, and who has from the moment of our consecration counted the flesh dead, and who charges nothing against us as New Creatures, begotten spirit-beings, except that which is willfully wrong, is the One with whom we have to do, and in whose favor and love and promises we rejoice.” (R3247:2,3)

“While the humanity of the royal priesthood is destroyed, as a vile thing in the eyes of the world, as represented by the burning of the bullock without the ‘Camp,’ God accepts the heart devotion which prompts the sacrifice, which says, ‘Lo, I come to do thy will, O my God.’ … This was represented by the offering on the altar of the fat and parts of the inward life-producing organism, as a ‘sweet savor’ unto the Lord.” (T42)

“But the bullock and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded.” (Lev. 8:17)

“And Moses took the bullock, his hide, flesh, etc., and burnt them with fire without the ‘Camp.’ (verse 17) Thus the humanity of the Christ complete— Head and body—is made ‘a sin-offering,’ suffering the destruction to which the world was doomed, and from which, by this sacrifice, it will ultimately be delivered—the merit being in the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus, we, his ‘brethren’ being privileged to fill up a measure of HIS sufferings, as ‘members of his body.’ (Col. 1:24)” (T42)

“And the bullock for the sin-offering, and the goat for the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp: and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.” (Lev. 16:27)

“There is another fire ‘outside the camp.’ There the body of flesh is being destroyed (verse 27). This represents Jesus’ work as viewed by the world. To them it seems foolish that he should spend his life in sacrifice. They see not the necessity for it as man’s ransom-price, nor the spirit of obedience which prompted it, as the Father saw these. They see not our Lord’s loving perfections and self-denials as the believers (in the ‘Court’ condition) see them.

… To them his sacrifice was and is offensive, he was despised and rejected of men, and as it were they blushed and hid their faces from him, as, in the type, the Israelites turned disgusted from the stench of the burning carcass.” (T57)

“The slandering of God’s people for righteousness’ sake is represented in the burning of the ‘Lord’s Goat’ on the typical Atonement day. Whatever ignominy befalls one member of the body is shared by all. Whatever shame the Lord thus permits he could hinder; hence it must serve some good purpose— in testing our patience, love, loyalty, obedience, humility, or what not.” (R5655)

“The bullock was burned first and secondly the goat. (Lev. 16:27; Exod. 29:14) The burning represented the gradual destruction of the flesh. Outside the camp signified ostracism, rejection of men, dishonor.” (R4385:1)

“There the ‘Lord’s goat’ was killed, sacrificed, and the ignominious burning outside the camp commenced.” (R4512:4)

The carcasses of such sin-offerings, as of which some of the blood was brought within the Sanctuary for reconciliation, were always burnt with fire without the camp. This is very clearly set forth in:

Lev. 4:7,11,12 where it is specifically stated that the carcass of the bullock, brought for the anointed priest who sinned, should be burned without the camp; as also the carcass of the bullock brought for the sin of the congregation as a whole (Lev. 4:16-18,20,21);
Lev. 16:14,15,27, where again it is specifically stated that the carcasses of these sin-offerings were to be burnt without the camp.

Sometimes, to note what the Scriptures do not say, or pass over in silence is just as important as to note what they do say. So it will be noted that in Lev. 4:22-26 and in Lev. 4:27-35, where the sin-offerings for the ruler, or the common people (as individuals) are outlined, that the blood in both instances was not brought into the Tabernacle of the Congregation but was used in connection with the altar of burnt-offering, and that nothing whatever is said about the carcasses, nor as to where they should be burned. We believe that this silence is as purposed as is that in Gen. 14:18 where in speaking of Melchisedec, no mention is made of his father, mother, descent, birth or death. (Heb. 7:2,3)

The Apostle Paul in speaking of the antitypical sin-offerings, and contrasting these with those of the ancient priesthood, says:

“We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into 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. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” (Heb. 13:10-13)

Since “without the camp” is the designation of the place where the carcasses of certain sin-offerings were burned, and in their burning created a stench in the nostrils of the people, reference, antitypically, must be to any place “without the gate” (the Court) where our covenant life of sacrifice causes resentment and repugnance. Let it be carefully noted that the carcasses which were burned without the camp caused the stench not merely because they were dead—for they had not been dead long enough for decomposition and putrefaction to have set in—but rather, the evil smell resulted from the carcasses’ contact with the fire. What a picture is this! Truly, we ought to be “dead,” and if we are, it will manifest itself when we are subjected to the trials intended to consume the flesh. A living animal, surely, will flee from the flames, but a dead animal cannot do this. Just so, as “dead” creatures we will not seek to escape the trials, by compromise or otherwise, which God himself has ordained or permitted to prove us (1 Pet. 4:12), in which, however, our faithfulness, our righteousness, our purity, etc., may, in convicting others of the lack of these, become a sickening stench unto them.

It is possible that the stench of the burning carcasses would not only be in evidence without the camp, but depending upon the direction of the wind, might also become somewhat annoying to those within the camp. And how true this is! A faithfulness to our covenant of sacrifice will not only be repulsive to those outside, but ofttimes more offensive to those of the Camp—nominal Christendom.

But there is one place where the stench under no circumstances can be, and that is within the “holies” of the Tabernacle. Here only the “sweet savor” of the burning incense affects the olfactory nerve of the priest within their confines. No flesh was ever brought into the Holies! If then, we are living in the first of the antitypical holies, we should no longer know any of our brethren according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16,17), but ever and only as New Creatures in Christ Jesus, breathing in the “sweet savor” of their faith, love, obedience and praise unto Jehovah God. The place of the stench must ever be “without the gate”—“without the Camp.” Thus:

“So long as we ourselves are true sacrificers in the ‘Holy,’ or true members of the ‘household of faith’ in the ‘Court,’ we will not be revilers of any that are true sacrificers of this present time. Nor will we be blinded by malice, hatred, envy or strife—so as to be unable to see the sacrifices which God accepts. What, then, shall we say of those, once ‘brethren,’ sharers in the same sacrifices and offerers at the same ‘Golden Altar,’ and fellows of the order of royal-priesthood, who become so changed, so possessed of an opposite spirit, that they can speak evil of their fellow-priests continually! We must surely ‘fear’ for them (Heb. 4:1) that they have left the ‘Holy,’ and the ‘Court,’ and gone outside of all relationship to God—into ‘outer darkness.’ We should do all in our power to recover them (Jas. 5:20); but under no consideration must we leave the ‘Holy’ to render evil for evil, reviling for reviling. No, all who would be faithful under-priests must follow in the footsteps of the great High Priest and love their enemies and do good to those who persecute them. They must copy him ‘Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered threatened not; but committed his cause to him who judgeth righteously.’ 1 Pet. 2:23” (T62)

Both the bullock, which represented the perfect humanity of Jesus, and the goat, which represented the imperfect humanity of the Church (T95), as sin-offerings were burnt “without the camp” causing a stench; but not so the priest within the Holies, offering “sweet incense” on the Golden Altar. Friends, just where are we?

What is the antitypical significance of the expression “without the camp” (Lev. 4:12; 8:17; 9:11; 16:27) where the carcasses of the sin-offerings were burnt creating at the same time a stench in the nostrils of the people?

Of course, the dead animals whose carcasses were burned were not in any way moved by what the people said about the stench which the burning of their bodies produced! We believe, there is a lesson here that is intended for us. We too should be so “dead” that none of the world’s reproaches will in any way affect us! But reproaches they are, such as are heaped upon us because of the righteous living in conformity with our consecration vows— our “deadness” to all the world’s pleasures and activities.

What these traducers do not know is that their reproaches of us are really reproaches against God. True, they seemingly “fall upon us” and a kindly God and Father accredits us with the suffering for righteousness’ sake. (1 Pet. 3:14) It will be recalled that when the ancient Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron, they were really reproaching God. The account reads:

“And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness: and the children of Israel said unto them, would to God that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt when we sat by the flesh pots and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilder- ness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger … the LORD heareth your murmurings against Him: who are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD.” (Exod. 16:2,3,8)

Thus, the reproaches against Jehovah God fell upon his servants Moses and Aaron even as in a later day—as the prophet declared—a similar reproach was to fall upon Christ Jesus, the servant of God in the great work of deliverance and redemption. We read again: “The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” (Psa. 69:9; see also Rom. 15:3)

Even as the Camp, the Court, the Holy and the Most Holy represent conditions, so also is it with “without the camp.” It represents a condition—the condition of reproach! Accordingly, for Jesus, “without the camp” was a condition of reproach wherein his sacrifice (his consecration unto death) became a veritable “stench” in the nostrils of the people (the scribes, the Pharisees and doctors of the law). And so also must it be for those who in obedience to the Spirit’s dictates, “go forth, therefore, unto him without the camp bearing his reproach.” (Heb. 13:13)

To call the sacrifice a “stench” is, of course, a figure of speech. In fact the word “stench” does not occur in the Scriptures. Naturally, the burning of nitrogenous substances, such as the hides, hoofs, etc., of the animals which were burnt “without the camp” (Lev. 4:11,12,21; 8:17; 9:11; 16:27) would create a stench in the nostrils of the people near enough to the burning. The expression “stench” is used merely to show how differently man and God view an identical sacrifice! Through the Prophet of old, God declared, “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways . . . for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8, 9) How true! To God, the sacrifice of Christ and his Church is a “sweet savor,” but to the world, quite loathsome.

“To them his sacrifice was and is offensive, despised: he was despised and rejected of men, and as it were they blushed and hid their faces from him, as, in the type, the Israelites turned disgusted from the stench of the burning carcass.” (T58)

“As with the bullock so with the goat in the sin-offerings: the burning ‘out- side the camp’ represents the dis-esteem in which the offering will be viewed by those outside the camp, not in covenant relationship with God, the unfaithful. … Those, outside the camp, who see these sacrificers and their self-denials only as the consuming of ‘the filth and off-scourings of the earth’ are a class far from God, his ‘enemies through wicked works.’ Those are the ones of whom our Lord foretold, ‘They shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake.’ ” (T62)

To them it makes no difference as to where the offering is made, whether it be “upon the altar” or “without the camp.” It is yet a stench. To God, however, both are accepted as being of a “sweet savor.” This is reflected in the burnt-offering, which always followed the sin-offering; and which burnt-offering was wholly consumed upon the altar. (Exod. 29:18)

“The ram for the burnt-offering … was killed; its blood was sprinkled upon the altar; and Moses ‘cut the ram in pieces and washed the inwards and legs in water,’ and ‘burnt the head and pieces and the fat.’ Thus during the entire Gospel age Jesus and his Body, the Church, are being presented, member by member, before God on the altar, yet all are counted together as one sacrifice. The Head was laid on the altar first, and since then all who are ‘dead with him,’ and cleansed, as in the type, by the washing of water, through the Word, are reckoned as laid with the Head upon the same altar. The burning of the offering on the altar shows how God accepts the sacrifice, as ‘a sweet smelling savor.’ ” (T42, 43)

In Leviticus chapter 8 nothing is said about the animal having been flayed; for it here represented the priest himself, in his dedication to God. Accordingly, it was wholly burnt upon the altar (Exod. 29:18; Lev. 8:21); nothing was retained as would have been, had the offering been for one of the common people. (Lev. 7:8) It is interesting to note that even the meal- offering, if it was the priest’s, had to be completely burned upon the altar. (Lev. 6:23)

Fat

Fat represents love and zeal; and fat burns vehemently. So should it also be with us: our love and zeal for the Lord and his precious will concerning us ought to be so fervent and active that when we come into contact with the trials and difficulties of this “way,” we do not falter in yielding upon the altar our all, but rejoice in the knowledge that it is in this way that our “sacrifice” is the more quickly consumed (destroyed)!

“It is worthy of notice that while a prime bullock is always very fat, a goat is a very lean animal. So our Lord Jesus, as represented by the bullock, had a great abundance of the fat, of zeal and love for his sacrifice, while his followers, represented by the goat, are lean in comparison.” (T61)

Now it so happens that a bullock has more flesh than a goat; but this difference when carried over into the antitype is qualitative rather than quantitative for it is intended to emphasize the fact of Jesus’ perfection in comparison with the Church’s imperfection. (See T95) On the other hand, weight for weight, there is more fat identified with the bullock’s flesh than there is with the goat’s. This difference when carried over into the antitype is quantitative, for it emphasizes the fact that with Jesus’ sacrifice, there was more zeal and less “flesh” to be destroyed, whereas with our sacrifice there is more “flesh” and correspondingly less zeal.

In the type fat was not only present with the “inwards” offered upon the altar of burnt-offering within the Court, but also it was present with the carcasses burnt with fire without the camp. So not only is our love and our zeal to be manifested in the “heart devotion” rendered as a “sweet savor unto the LORD,” but is also to be evidenced in the “burning without the camp.” There our zeal to give a faithful testimony as to our “deadness” to self, and our love for the Lord and his will, will be a means of hastening the destruction of the already “dead” flesh.

“All the fat is the LORD’s.” (Lev. 3:16)

“Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.” (Lev. 7:23) “Neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning.” (Exod. 23:18)

“Inwards”

“Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Psa. 51:6,7)

The Hebrew word qereb, frequently rendered “inwards” in the King James Version (Exod. 29:13,17,22; Lev. 1:9,13; 3:3,9,14; 4:8,11; 7:3; 8:16,21,25; 9:14), has also been rendered “bowels” (Psa. 109:18), “heart” (Jer. 9:8), “inward part” and “inward parts” (Psa. 5:9; Isa. 16:11; Jer. 31:33), “inward thought” (Psa. 49:11; 64:6), “purtenance” (Exod. 12:9), and “midst” 73 times, in the same version.

Moffatt has rendered it “entrails” and “intestines.” Meek in An American Translation rendered it “entrails” most consistently. Rotherham rendered it “innerpart” and “inwards.” Rabbi Leeser and the Jewish Publication Society have rendered it “inwards.”

The term, as will be readily seen, may be applied to all of the inwards of an animal including the intestines, the heart, the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, etc. This, of course, is the very general sense. On the other hand, such organs as the liver, kidneys, and their fat, when specifically referred to in the text, are “inwards” in the particular sense. (See Lev. 8:16; Exod. 29:13)

When the “inwards” referred to consist of the liver, kidneys and their fat, as in the case of Lev. 8:16 (Exod. 29:13; Lev. 9:10, etc.), they are never washed! If reference, however, is to other organs, sometimes specifically called the “inwards” as in Lev. 8:21 (Exod. 29:17), they are washed before being placed upon the altar.

Those organs, like the liver and kidneys, and their fat, which represent our heart devotions (T42) are considered “clean”—acceptable to God upon his altar without washing—the standing we have “in the beloved.” The rest of our being, represented in the pieces, legs, etc., show forth the fact that apart from Jesus, we needed first to be washed and cleansed ere we could be represented in the sacrifice together with him. (T45)

“And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar.” (Lev. 8:16; see also Exod. 29:13)

“But the fat and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin-offering, he burnt upon the altar; as the LORD commanded Moses.” (Lev. 9:10; also verse 14)

“And the fat of the sin-offering shall he burn upon the altar.” (Lev. 16:25)

The inwards (life-producing, i.e., life-sustaining organs), the liver (the caul of the liver—Rotherham; the lobe of the liver—Moffatt; the midriff of the liver—Leeser), and the kidneys, particularly represented the heart devotion unto the Lord. But the question quite naturally arises as to why these particular organs were specified by the Lord. On examination, we find a very deep and significant purpose involved since these organs in a sense, represent life itself. The mystery of life itself, is however, forever hidden by God from the vulgar eyes of man; though he has permitted him to learn much about life. Among the things which he has learned is this, that the physical basis of life, whether of animals or plants, is protoplasm. This is composed of such very common elements as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, calcium, sulphur, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. Yet these identical elements are found in both living and dead protoplasm! Living protoplasm, or shall we say, ‘life,’ has the ability to absorb or assimilate food, and also to throw off waste and refuse; dead protoplasm has not.

Every living cell has the power to assimilate food and throw off wastes and impurities. Nor could there be life without this power. Now it seems that these organs which are so specifically mentioned in Leviticus 8 and 9, and are alluded to in Leviticus 16, were intended to represent the life-sustaining qualities inherent in the new creation—the power to assimilate spiritual food, and the ability to discern and throw off all that would be inimical to that consecration which is so beautifully represented in the burning of these vitals upon the altar of the Lord.

The liver is a blood purifier, but it also has the power to store glycogen—a food substance, which on reconversion into glucose is poured back into the blood stream as the body may require this added energy. Just so, through prayer and study, the new creature builds up the spiritual reserve that it must of needs fall back upon in times of trial, stress, disappointments, etc.

“The cells of the liver take from the blood brought to them by the portal tube a substance called glucose which is derived from the carbohydrates of our food. This is stored in the liver in the form of glycogen until such times as the body needs more glucose than the food furnishes. When such demand is made, the enzymes of the liver cells reconvert the glycogen into glucose and pour it into the circulation.” (Kimber, Gray, Stackpole, Anatomy and Physiology)

The kidneys on the other hand have a different function which is to carry off the wastes, poisons, etc. So too, must the new creature be exercised in his inner life, that he may be able to cast off and out from himself anything that would be injurious to its well-being.

“The function of the kidneys is to separate the constituents of urine from the blood and thus help to maintain the normal composition of the blood. The kidneys extract almost all the protein waste, the greater part of the salts not needed by the blood, and about half of the excess water. … The kidneys also extract foreign substances such as toxins, whether formed in the body or taken into the body from outside.” (Kimber, Gray, Stackpole, Anatomy and Physiology)

“ ‘Reins‘ and ‘kidneys’ are synonyms, but the A.V. undertook a distinction by using the former word in the figurative, the latter in the literal passages.

E.R.V. has followed A.V. exactly, but A.R.V. has retained ‘reins’ only in Job 16:13; Lam. 3:13; Rev. 2:23, elsewhere substituting ‘heart,’ except in Psa. 139:13 where ‘inward parts’ is used. … The physiological function of the kidneys is not referred to in the Bible but has been introduced (quite wrongly) by A.V. to Lev. 15:2; 22:4.

“The kidneys owe their importance in the Bible partly to the fact that they are imbedded in fat, and fat of such purity that ‘fat of the kidneys’ was a proverbial term for surpassing excellence. (Deut. 32:14) For the visceral fat was the part of the animal best adapted for sacrificial burning and hence came to be deemed peculiarly sacred. (Lev. 7:22-25; 1 Sam. 2:16) Accordingly the kidneys with the fat surrounding them were burned in every sacrifice in which the entire animal was not consumed whether in peace (Lev. 3:4,10,15; 9:19), sin (Exod. 29:13; Lev. 4:9; chapters 8 and 16; 9:10), or trespass (Lev. 7:4) offerings; cf the ‘ram of consecration’ (Exod. 29:22; Lev. 8:25). So in Isa. 34:6 ‘fat of the kidneys of rams’ is chosen as a typical sacrificial term to parallel ‘blood of lambs and goats.’

“The position of the kidneys in the body makes them particularly inaccessible, and in cutting up an animal they are the last organs to be reached. Consequently they were a natural symbol for the most hidden part of man (Psa. 139:13), and in Job 16:13 to ‘cleave the reins asunder’ is to effect the total destruction of the individual (cf 19:27; Lam. 3:13). This hidden location, coupled with the sacred use, caused the kidneys to be thought of as the seat of the innermost moral (and emotional) impulses. So the reins rejoice (Prov. 23:16) … and to ‘know’ or ‘try the reins’ (usually joined with ‘the heart’) is an essential power of God’s, denoting His complete knowledge of the nature of every human being. (Psa. 7:9; 26:2; Jer. 11:20; 17:10; 20:12; Rev. 2:23)” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, v. 3, p. 1797)

The fat attached to these organs—the inwards—represented zeal! (T57,61) The more fat an animal had, the more quickly it was consumed by the fire upon the altar. The more zeal we have in the matter of our consecration, in seeking to know what God’s will is concerning us, and doing it, the more quickly will our sacrifice be consumed upon the altar of the Lord!

Regarding salt with which it was seasoned (“with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt”—Lev. 2:13), let it be remembered that salt is a preservative because it arrests the natural processes of decomposition (decay). It is as if God here intended to set forth the fact that no sacrifice whose destruction might even measurably be the result of natural processes, would be acceptable to him. None of the saints dies a natural death: it must be sacrificial—the result of the fire of God’s altar. Therefore, “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.” (Psa. 116:15)

Worthy of note is the fact that the inwards could not be reached to be offered upon the altar of God until the animal had first been slain! So too, our “inwards” (heart devotions—T42) cannot be offered upon God’s altar, until first the “animal” the old man (our justified human nature— R3067:6) has been “slain,” i.e., is dead. (Rom. 6:11; see also T53)

“ ‘Our old man (our justified human nature) is crucified with Christ, that the body (organization) of Sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin’—nor in any sense recognize Sin as our Master. Rom. 6:2- 6” (R3067:6)

“Inwards” (Hebrew: qereb) as rendered in the

“And he took the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar.” (Lev. 8:16)

The word “above” is in italics in the King James Version indicating that it does not appear in the original Hebrew text. Other translations and versions have rendered the text in its essential parts, as follows:

“Caul (Hebrew: yothereth, properly a redundant part, i.e., flap, Exod. 29:13, 22; Lev. 3:4,10,15; 4:9; 7:4; 8:16,25; 9:10,19) is according to the Septuagint and Vulgate, the great lobe of the liver; the margin of our version says, ‘It seemeth by anatomy and the Hebrew doctors, to be the midriff.’ The word might be rendered the lobe over the liver, although it makes a part of the liver itself, and this appears to be more applicable than the net over the liver, termed the lesser omentum.” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia)

Bowels

“bowel … (1) An intestine; entrail, esp. of man; gut; usually in pl. (2) Archaic. The seat of pity or kindness; tenderness; compassion. (3) The interior of anything, as of the earth.” (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition)

“bowel … an intestine: pl. (1) the intestine or entrails of an animal, especially of man; (2) the interior part of anything: Archaic, the seat of tenderness; hence compassion.” (The Winston Dictionary, Encyc. Edition)

“In the Bible meaning the seat of the feelings as we now use heart; also mercy and compassion. (Gen. 43:30)” (Smith, Bible Dictionary)

“In the KJV occurs 36 times, and in three principle senses: (1) literally (2 Chron. 21:15-19; Acts 1:18); (2) As the generative parts of our bodies whether male or female (Gen. 15:4; Psa. 71:6); (3) The seat of the emotions, as we use the word ‘heart.’ (See Lam. 1:20 [ASV ‘heart’], Phil. 1:8 [ASV ‘ten- der mercies’])” (Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary)

“Bowels” (Hebrew: Me’im) as rendered in the

“[The bowels] are often put by the Hebrew writers for the internal parts generally, the inner man, and so also for heart, as we use the term. Hence the bowels are made the seat of tenderness, mercy and compassion; and thus the scriptural expressions of the bowels being moved, bowels of mercy, straightened in the bowels, etc. By a similar association of ideas, the bowels are also sometimes made the seat of wisdom and understanding (Job 38:36; Psa. 51:10; Isa. 16:11).” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia)

“(1) Literal: The lit. meaning of these words is intestine, then the abdomen, the womb (matrix and uterus). As will be seen there is not much definiteness in the use of these expressions from the standpoint of physiology; but not less so than in modern oriental languages and even in many occidental languages, as popularly used. The remarkable phrase used in 2 Chron. 21:18,19, ‘Jehovah smote him in his bowels’ and ‘his bowels fell out by rea- son of his sickness,’ refer to a severe and fatal case of hemorrhoids.

“(2) Figurative: In figurative language these words denote deep emotions of various kinds. As in physiology we speak of the ‘nervous sympathicus,’ the ancients expressed by these terms ‘affection,’ ‘sympathy,’ and ‘mercy,’ feelings of distress and sorrow, as in Job 30:27 AV; Lam. 1:20 AV; 2:11 AV. In one passage we have to translate me’im by ‘heart,’ being, the seat of affection and devotion (Psa. 71:6): ‘Thy law is within my heart’ (40:8).” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, v. 1, p. 511)

Meat [Meal] Offering

“And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar. And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD. And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it. It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering. All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy.” (Lev. 6:14-18)

“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 frankincense thereon: And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD: And the remnant of the meat offerings shall be Aaron’s and his sons’: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire. And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil. Thou shalt part it in pieces, and pour oil thereon: it is a meat offering. And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in the frying pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil. And thou shalt bring the meat offering that is made of these things unto the LORD: and when it is presented unto the priest, he shall bring it unto the altar. And the priest shall take from the meat offering a memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. And that which is left of the meat offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire. No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offer- ing of the LORD made by fire. As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savour.” (Lev. 2:1-12)

“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land whither I bring you, Then it shall be, that, when ye eat of the bread of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the LORD. Ye shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough for an heave offering: as ye do the heave offering of the threshingfloor, so shall ye heave it. Of the first of your dough ye shall give unto the LORD an heave offering in your generations.” (Num. 15:18-21)

This heave-offering, in a sense, was an offering of first-fruits, a meal or cereal offering; and being without leaven was acceptable upon the altar. (Lev. 2:11) On the other hand, this heave-offering is identified also with the peace or thank offering. (Lev. 7:12) In this instance, we believe, Jehovah intended the Israelites to be thankful for their deliverance from Egypt. Of that occasion we read that they left with “baked unleavened cakes of dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was unleavened, because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual.” (Exod. 12:39)

“The word which in the original uniformly stands for the English ‘meal-offering’ (A.V.: ‘meat-offering,’ i.e., ‘food-offering’) primarily means simply ‘a present,’ and is often properly so translated in the Old Testament. It is for example, the word which is used (Gen. 32:13) when we are told how Jacob sent a present to Esau his brother; or later, of the gift sent by Israel to his son Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 43:11); and again (2 Sam. 8:2), of the gifts sent by the Moabites to David. Whenever thus used of gifts to men, it will be found that it suggests a recognition of the dignity and authority of the person to whom the present is made, and, in many cases, a desire also to procure thereby his favor.

“In a great majority of cases, however, the word is used of offerings to God, and in this use one or both of these ideas can easily be traced. In Gen. 4:4,5 in the account of the offerings of Cain and Abel, the word is applied both to the bloody and the unbloody offering; but in the Levitical law, it is only applied to the latter. We thus find the fundamental idea of the meal-offering to be this: it was a gift brought by the worshipper to God, in token of his recognition of His supreme authority, and as an expression of desire for His favour and blessing.

“The grain of the offering was not to be presented to the Lord in its natural condition¹ as harvested, but only when, by grinding, sifting, and often, in addition, by cooking in various ways, it has been more or less fully prepared to become the food of man. In any case, it must, at least, be parched, as in the variety of the offering which is mentioned in (Lev. 2:14-16).” (The Expositor’s Bible, comments on Lev. 2:1-16)

“Calmet has remarked that there are five kinds of the minchah mentioned in this chapter [Leviticus 2]. 1. Soleth. Simple flour or meal (verse 1). 2. Cakes and wafers, or whatever was baked in the oven (verse 4). 3. Cakes baked in the pan (verse 5). 4. Cakes baked on the frying pan, or probably, a gridiron (verse 7). 5. Green ears of corn parched (verse 14). … The minchah of green ears of corn dried by the fire, etc., was properly the gratitude-offering for a good seed time, and the prospect of a plentiful harvest. … The flour, whether of wheat, rice, barley, rye, or any other grain used for ali- ment, was in all likelihood equally proper; for in Num. 5:15 we find the flour of barley, or barley meal, is called minchah. It is plain that in the institution of the minchah no animal was here included, though in other places it seems to include both kinds; but in general the minchah was not a bloody offering, nor used by way of atonement or expiation, but merely in a eucha- ristic way, expressing gratitude to God for the produce of the soil.” (Clarke, Commentary, on Lev. 2:1)

The Hebrew word minchah (Lev. 2:1) is translated: meat-offering in the King James Version and Leeser; meal-offering in the Holy Name, Jewish Publication Society, Rotherham, and Standard; cereal-offering in An American Translation, Moffatt, Confraternity, and Revised Standard Ver- sion; grain-offering in the New World Translation.

Minchah has the significance of a gift or present. It has been rendered gift, meal-offering, oblation, present, and sacrifice in the King James Version.

“… a meat-offering or gift, distinguishing a bloodless from a bloody sacrifice. The word ‘meat,’ however, is improper, as its meaning as now used is different from that attached at the date of our English translation. It was then applied not to ‘flesh,’ but ‘food’ generally, and here it is applied to the flour of wheat.” (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Critical and Explanatory Commentary, on Lev. 2:1)

“The meat-offering was only brought alone in two instances: the priest’s offering (Lev. 7:12) and that of jealousy (Num. 5:15), to which Jewish tradition adds the meat-offerings mentioned in Leviticus 2.” (Edersheim, The Temple, p. 83)

1. There seem to have been exceptions to this, for there is nothing said of the Wave-Sheaf (a meal-offering of the first-fruits) having been prepared in this way. (See Lev. 23:9-11)

From the reading of Lev. 6:16 in the King James Version it would appear that Aaron and his sons were to eat the remainder of the meal-offering with unleavened bread, in the holy place. Evidently this is not a very good rendering of the Hebrew text, for it is rendered differently in other translations:

“And the rest of it Aaron and his sons shall eat; it shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.” (Revised Standard Version)

In the Jewish Versions, our Lev. 6:16 corresponds to their Lev. 6:9 and reads as follows:

“And what is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: unleavened shall it be eaten in a holy place in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation shall they eat it.” (Leeser)

“And that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat; it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.” (Jewish Publication Society)

“And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. And if thou offer a meat offering of thy firstfruits unto the LORD, thou shalt offer for the meat offering of thy firstfruits green ears of corn dried by the fire, even corn beaten out of full ears. And thou shalt put oil upon it, and lay frankincense thereon: it is a meat offering. And the priest shall burn the memorial of it, part of the beaten corn thereof, and part of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.” (Lev. 2:13- 16)

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night. In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the LORD. And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD, it shall be wholly burnt. For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten.” (Lev. 6:19- 23)

The so-called “meat-offering” was (1) always of a cereal, (2) generally with oil, and (3) sometimes with frankincense.

Cereal
General: Lev. 2:1,4-7; 6:15; 7:10,12; Num. 15:4,6,9
Basket of Unleavened Bread:
Consecration of Priest: Exod. 29:2,23; Lev. 8:2,26; Lev. 9:4
Nazarite: Num. 6:15 Cleansed Leper: Lev. 14:10,21 First-fruits: Lev. 2:14; 23:13,17
Jealousy: Num. 5:15¹
Shewbread: Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5
Sin-, Trespass-, Meal-Offering: Lev. 5:11¹; 5:13

1. These texts specifically state that no oil and no frankincense is to be used.

Oil
General: Lev. 2:1,4-7; 6:15; 7:10,12; Num. 15:4,6,9
Basket of Unleavened Bread:
Consecration of Priest: Exod. 29:2,23; Lev. 8:2,26; Lev. 9:4
Nazarite: Num. 6:15 Cleansed Leper: Lev. 14:10,21
First-fruits: Lev. 2:14,15; Lev. 23:13
Shewbread: Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5

Frankincense
General: Lev. 2:1,14,15; 6:15
Shewbread: Lev. 24:7

(Scriptures in italics specifically call the offering a “meat-offering.”)

“We must at the beginning disinthrall ourselves from the mistake that meat is the synonym of flesh; for the material of sacrifices of this class was from the vegetable kingdom exclusively. As the word meat is now used, food-offering would better represent what the English version terms a meat-offering. It was prepared from wheat, and might be presented in different forms. The statute mentions first, fine flour; secondly, cakes of four kinds; and thirdly, wheat in the grain, which had been roasted in the green ears, and rubbed out with the hands. In all this variety the food was, in one mode or another, shortened with olive oil, and seasoned with salt. In whatever form the food-offering was brought, it must be accompanied with frankin- cense. A small portion of the food, and all the frankincense, was to be burned on the altar: the remaining food belonged to the priest. (Lev. 2:1-3)” (Atwater, The Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, p. 71)

“With the sin and guilt offerings every meal offering baked in any way belongs to the priest. (Lev. 7:9,10; 10:12; Num. 18:9) The meal offerings accompanied the other offerings on all important occasions, such as the consecration of Aaron (Lev. 9:4,17); cleansing of leper (Lev. 14:10,20,21,31); feast of first-fruits (Lev. 23:13); Pentecost (Lev. 23:16); set feasts (Lev. 23:37). Special charge was given to Eleazar to care for the continual meal offerings. (Num. 4:16) The Nazarite must offer it. (Num. 6:15,17) When the tribes presented their offerings, meal offerings were always included (Num. 7:13,19, etc.); when the Levites were set apart (Num. 8:8); with vows of freewill offerings (Num. 15:4,6); with the sin-offerings1 (Num. 15:24); at all the several seasons (Num. 28:5-29:39). A special form was the ‘showbread’ (bread of memorial). Twelve loaves were to be placed in two rows or heaps of six each on a pure table in the holy place with frankincense on each pile or row. These were to remain for one week and then to be eaten by the priests. They were an offering of food by fire, though probably only the frankincense was actually burned (Lev. 24:5).” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Sacrifice (O.T.),” v. 4, ppg. 2643, 2644)

¹ J.J. Reeve, writer of this article, is evidently mistaken here, for the meal-offering, referred to in Num. 15:24 was really offered in connection with the burnt-offering, which in this instance accompanied the sin-offering. (See Edersheim on this matter in The Temple, p. 109.)

“Meal (A.V.: ‘meat’) offerings were in the form of ears of corn parched or bruised, with the addition of oil and incense (Lev. 2:14); or as fine flour (Lev. 2:1); or as unleavened cakes (Lev. 2:4). The use of leaven or honey (both of which undergo fermentation) was forbidden, except in the sacrifice of first-fruits and certain thank-offering. (Lev. 2:11,12; 7:13; 23:17; 2 Chron. 31:5) The meal-offerings might, however, be seasoned with salt (Lev. 2:13), as might, according to the Septuagint of Lev. 24:7, the showbread.” (New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, “Sacrifice,” v. 10, p. 164)

“As the burnt-offering represents the value of Christ’s work in the Father’s estimation, giving ‘Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor’ (Eph. 5:2), so the meat-offering sets forth His perfect human character and conduct; and may be linked with His own testimony, ‘My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work.’ (John 4:34)

“(1) It was not a bloody sacrifice, but consisted of fine flour, or flour that had no roughness nor unevenness. Neither was there anything uneven in the human nature of the Lord Jesus. In all other men, however great the church or world may judge them to be, there are serious defects and infirmities, and their strongest points are sure to be counter-balanced by some humiliating weakness. But He could declare: ‘The Father hath not left me alone;’ and He could add, as no one beside can say, ‘I do always those things that please him’; ‘Which of you convinceth me of sin?’ (John 8:29,46) Hence God twice burst heaven open to exclaim, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ (Matt. 3:17; 17:5); but this was the only time in the history of our race its silence was thus broken.

“(2) The fine flour was baken in an oven, and thus every particle of it was exposed to the action of the fire. So we hear the perfect Man crying His hot distress, ‘I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws, and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.’ (Psa. 22:14,15) The fire was burning fiercely, when He who had always done those things that pleased His Fa- ther uttered the wail of a breaking heart: ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Matt. 27:46)

“(3) The fine flour was mingled with oil, and oil is the well-known symbol of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. When the angel announced to the virgin the birth of the promised Messiah he said to her ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ (Luke 1:35) While therefore the Lord Jesus was the seed of the woman, He was not the seed of the man, but as the angel said to Joseph, ‘That which is conceived (margin, begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit.’ (Matt. 1:20) Hence His very nature was perfectly holy, unlike our nature, which ‘is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.’ (Rom. 8:7)

“(4) The unleavened wafers of fine flour were anointed with oil. When the Son of Mary came up out of the water of baptism, ‘He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him,’ (Matt. 3:16); and ‘Jesus be- ing full of the Holy Spirit, returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness;’ and ‘returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee,’ to proclaim, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor.’ (Luke 4:1,14,18) Peter also testifies ‘How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.’ (Acts 10:38) And if the blood of sacrifices under the law availeth to put away sin for a time, ‘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. 9:14)

“(5) The meat-offering was not only anointed with oil, but frankincense was put thereon. This word is derived from a verb which signifies ‘to be white or to make white,’ and it is the verb David used when he cried out, ‘Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow,’ (Psa. 51:7); and the verb God used when He said, ‘Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.’ (Isa. 1:18) The word rendered frankincense occurs twenty times in the Old Testament, and it was closely connected with the holy anointing oil, the type of the Holy Spirit, (Exod. 30:34), and placed upon the twelve loaves that were ever in the presence of God, on the table of the shewbread. (Lev. 24:5,8) Where sin was in question, it could not be used, (Lev. 5:11; Num. 5:15); but it tells of the relation between the Bridegroom and the Bride. (Cant. 3:6; 4:6,14)

“(6) No meat-offering could be made with leaven or with honey. The word leaven, in its various forms and inflections, is found seventy-one times in the Old Testament, and seventeen times in the New, and it is the appropri- ate symbol of that which is evil. There is not so much as a solitary exception to this rule, and little progress can be made, in an intelligent acquaintance with the Bible, until it is acknowledged, and kept constantly in mind. Honey was forbidden, to teach us that whatever is sweet to nature must be dis- owned, if we would walk after the example of Christ who pleased not him- self. (Rom. 15:3; Matt. 16:24; Luke 9:59-62; John 6:63)

“(7) ‘Every oblation of thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt, with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.’ The quality of salt to preserve, and to arrest the spread of corruption, rendered it a fit symbol of an everlasting covenant, and a significant type of true Christians in the midst of sin and vice. ‘Ye are the salt of the earth,’ said Jesus to His disciples; ‘but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men.’ (Matt. 5:13); ‘Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt.’ (Col. 4:6)” (R84:2,3,5,6)

The Meal-Offering consisted of:

Flour (fine, unleavened)—Lev. 2:1,11; 6:15
Oil—Lev. 2:1; 6:15
Frankincense—Lev. 2:1; 6:15
Salt (for seasoning)—Lev. 2:13

or firstfruits (Lev. 2:12,14) i.e., green ears of corn (grain) dried by fire; corn (grain) beaten out of full ears. If of the firstfruits, then:

Oil had to be put upon it—Lev. 2:15
Frankincense had to be laid upon it—Lev. 2:15
The priest was then to burn the memorial of it upon the altar, and the remainder belonged to the priest—Lev. 2:16

If baked in oven, it had to be:

unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil OR unleavened wafers anointed with oil—Lev. 2:4
seasoned with salt—Lev. 2:13
If baked in a pan, it had to be:
fine flour mingled with oil—Lev. 2:5
seasoned with salt—Lev. 2:13
If baked in a frying pan, it had to be:
fine flour with oil—Lev. 2:7
seasoned with salt—Lev. 2:13

The offerer brought it to the priest—Lev. 2:2,8

The Priest divided it and poured more oil thereon (Lev. 2:6) OR took his handful (the memorial) of it—some of the flour, some of the oil, but all of the frankincense—and burnt it upon the altar (Lev. 2:2,6,9; 6:15).

That which remained belonged to the priest—Lev. 2:3,10

Lev. 6:20 reads: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed.” But it appears that the expression “in the day when he is anointed” cannot here be given a too literal interpretation, rather its significance seems to be that the right or privilege of offering the daily meal-offering would be Aaron’s, and any one of his successors (Lev. 6:22) in the day of their respective anointing, even though they might not be called upon to exercise it on that specific day.

The day of Aaron’s anointing was really the first day of the first month of the second year of their departure from Egypt. (See Exod. 40:17; also Lev. 8:10,11) There were seven days allotted to the consecration ritual. (Exod. 29:35) Yet it is evident that no meal-offering was offered throughout this period since no reference to it is made in either Exod. 29:1-37 or Lev. 8:1-35.

There is reference to the meal-offering in Exod. 29:38-41 (particularly verse 40) but as is obvious, it was offered not by Aaron nor his sons, but by Moses, and then only in connection with the daily burnt-offerings of the morning and evening. After the anointing of the priesthood into office, this work, and all the sacrificing, devolved upon them. It should be carefully noted that this meal-offering as that of the priests was completely consumed by the altar; no part of it was eaten. (Lev. 6:23)

The “secondary” consecration of the Aaronic priesthood is outlined in Lev. 9:1-24, and took place on the eighth day of the first month. (Lev. 9:1) In this ritual, reference is specifically made to the meal-offering. (Lev. 9:17) Yet, in this instance, it could not have been the meal-offering referred to in Lev. 6:20 for at least two very good reasons.

It was not designated as being the priest’s but rather the people’s (see Lev. 9:15-17).
It was not completely burned on the altar, for Aaron took only the “memorial” thereof and burnt it upon the altar, the remainder evidently having been appropriated unto himself in accordance with Lev. 6:14-16 (see Lev. 9:17).

“These were either brought in conjunction with burnt-and peace-offerings (but never with sin- or trespass-offerings) or else by themselves. The latter were either public or private meat-offerings. The three public meat-offerings were: the twelve loaves of shewbread, renewed every Sabbath, and afterwards eaten by the priests; the omer, or sheaf of the harvest, on the second day of the Passover; and the two wave-loaves at Pentecost. Four of the private meat-offerings were enjoined by law, viz., the daily meat-offering of the high priest (according to the Jewish interpretation of Lev. 6:20); that at the consecration of the priests (Lev. 6:20); that in substitution for a sin-offering, in the case of poverty (Lev. 5:11,12); and that of jealousy (Num. 5:15). The following five were purely voluntary, viz., that of fine flour with oil, un-baken (Lev. 2:1); that ‘baken in a pan’; ‘in a fryingpan’; ‘in the oven’; and the ‘wafers.’ (Lev. 2:4-7)” (Edersheim, The Temple, p. 10)

Edersheim here says that the meal-offering was never brought with either sin- or trespass-offerings. Evidently he does not consider such meal- offerings as were involved in the jealousy trial (Num. 5:15) or the sin/trespass-offerings of Lev. 5:11,13 as being identified with either sin- or trespass-offerings. While it is true that in the jealousy trial no other offering than the meal-offering is mentioned, in the case of the trespass, where one too poor to bring even turtle-doves or pigeons might substitute the meal-offering, surely the latter is in the place of the trespass-offering (Lev. 5:12); and, let it be noted that in both these instances, the use of oil and of frankincense is forbidden. (Lev. 5:11; Num. 5:15)

The animals offered as burnt-offerings and peace-offerings by Israel subsequent to the Day of Atonement, represented the people in their consecrations and dedications to Jehovah. In Num. 15:2-11, it will be noted that these offerings were to be accompanied by certain meal-offerings and drink-offerings!

Since the animals thus offered represented the people and in no way reflected the Atonement Day sacrifices, may it not be that God intended by way of these meal and drink offerings to bring to the people’s minds the fact that the acceptableness of their offerings was ever and always, on the basis of those sacrifices made on their behalf on the Atonement Day!

Antitypically, at least, the picture is a most beautiful one, for the “burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of the future represent the people consecrating, giving themselves to the Lord,” (T96), and the meal-and drink-offerings thus would represent them as being kept in mind of the fact that their consecrations were possible and acceptable on the basis of these “better sacrifices” made on their behalf during this Gospel Age, the antitypical Day of Atonement. And being kept in mind of these “better sacrifices” they will praise and worship God and our blessed Lord throughout all the ages of eternity. (See Eph. 3:21 and T98)

How are these “better sacrifices” represented in the meal and drink offerings? Is there something about them that suggests the unleavened “bread” which we break, and the “cup” (wine) which we bless, the communion (common union) of the body and blood of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16) Let us first consider then, the meal-offering:

In the type, the ingredients of the meal-offering were fine unleavened flour and oil. (Lev. 2:1,11) It was to be seasoned with salt (Lev. 2:13); and that portion of it to be offered upon the altar, the memorial, was to be sprinkled with frankincense. (Lev. 2:1; 6:15) Can there be a more beautiful picture of the consecration and dedication of those who during the Gospel age become one with Christ Jesus in a baptism “for the dead.” (1 Cor. 15:29)

“They had consecrated themselves to be members, to die one with the other, and one for the other in fellowship with Christ, and thus to be dead with him, and as members of his body, members of the great atonement sacrifice on behalf of the dead world, because they hoped in the promised resurrection. … We are baptized into death with Christ, baptized for the dead, to the intent that we may by and by be associated with him as the Life-giver of the world, the Seed of Abraham.” (F456)

Flour is made by crushing and grinding wheat so that each little kernel loses its individual identity. Jesus and his Church surely are the “wheat class” (Matt. 13:30) who by virtue of sharing a common “affliction” (Col. 1:24; 2 Cor. 1:5; Gal. 6:17; Phil. 3:10) are bruised and broken, and one with him (Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:21; 2 Cor. 4:8-11) now in “his” sufferings, later, in “his” glory. (2 Tim. 2:11,12; Rom. 6:5)

Even as the “unleavened” flour represents the just humanity of Jesus and the justified humanity of the Church, so does the oil very beautifully symbolize the holy Spirit which binds the whole mass together (Psa. 133:1,2) and makes of it one lump. (1 Cor. 10:17)

Salt

“And every oblation of thy meat [meal] offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat [meal] offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.” (Lev. 2:13)

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” (Matt. 5:13)

“Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.” (Mark 9:50)

Salt is a preservative because it arrests the natural processes of decay. With it, all sacrifices were to be seasoned. (Lev. 2:13) It would seem that God, among other things, here intended to show that no “sacrifice” whose destruction might even measurably be attributed to “natural” causes or processes, would be acceptable to him. None of the saints die a “natural” death! Therefore, “precious in the sight of the LORD, is the death of his saints.” (Psa. 116:15)

Salt is a preservative and so is the Church. (Matt. 5:13) It is used to retard the processes of deterioration! Has not the very presence of the Church in this world been to some extent a deterrent, a retarding influence upon the destroying and destructive forces of evil? (Matt. 24:22) This much, at least, is certain, that wherever the Lord’s people are, “a blessing more or less pronounced flows from these to their neighbors” (T82) though it is rarely fully appreciated as such. But, when and if, at least to some extent the godly character of the saints is appreciated by the worldly, it can prove to be the means of insuring for them a special blessing when the Kingdom is established. Jesus himself, declared: “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me … whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, verily, I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” (Matt. 10:40-42) Bro. Russell paraphrasing, and commenting on this, says:

“For whosoever shall give even a cup of cold water unto one of the least of these priests, because he is such, shall by no means lose his reward when the Kingdom of Christ is organized and its rule begins.” (T93)

But salt is also the symbol of faithfulness and loyalty:

“Salt has preservative qualities in connection with whatever it touches. It also serves to bring out the flavor of our food. In olden times it was used as a symbol of faithfulness, loyalty; …

“Jesus used salt as a symbol, representing his own loyalty to God and the loyalty which all of his followers must have, and not only so, but which they must maintain. If salt lose its value for seasoning purposes, it is useless for anything else. It will not serve as a fertilizer, for it has an opposite effect. It is absolutely useless except for its intended purpose. So the Christian has a special purpose in the world—to be a preservative power, to have, as it were, antiseptic qualities, and to draw out all the good qualities of those with whom he is connected. This is the mission of the Christian in respect to the world. If he fails in this, he has failed in the purpose for which he was called, and is of no particular value in the Lord’s service.” (R5426:5)

“ ‘The salt of the covenant of thy God’ is an expression which arrests attention. It suggests that an offering can only be acceptable as being offered in true faithfulness of heart to the covenant relations in which divine grace has set us, and to which we have committed ourselves. I think ‘salt’ is the preservative power of fidelity and purpose of heart to be true to the covenant. It includes self-judgment, but it involves also a faithful purpose to accept and adopt in our own hearts and lives that which is in accord with what we offer. It is that principle of faithfulness which shuts out the activities of the flesh, and brings in Christ in a practical way. For example, if I offer to God in praise an apprehension and appreciation of Christ as the One who was ever about his Father’s business, the ‘salt’ that must be with it to make it acceptable is the faithful purpose to be on the same line—to maintain dedication to the interests and pleasure of God. If my oblation is to praise God for the meekness and gentleness of Christ, the ‘salt’ would be that I am fully set to cultivate a like spirit. This is the test of the reality of the offering, and it indicates whether one is faithfully committed to the covenant … In many things we may come infinitely short of what we appreciate in Christ, but the ‘salt’ is that we are set in purpose of heart to pursue moral conformity to Him.” (Coates, An Outline of the Book of Leviticus, ppg. 28,29)

“Christ’s followers were to be ‘the salt of the earth’—exerting an influence and power amongst men of a preservative kind, delaying, if not arresting, degrading tendencies toward putrefaction and death. They should remem- ber, however, that salt would be of no more value than sand if it were to lose its saltness.” (R4558:5)

Salt (NaCl) is a compound of two chemical elements: Sodium (Na) a metal and Chlorine (Cl) a gas. Salt creates thirst! Sodium has a great affinity for the gas Oxygen (O), and Chlorine has a great affinity for the gas Hydrogen

(H). These two gases, Oxygen and Hydrogen, combine to form water (H₂O) which may be used to assuage thirst. Perhaps there is a lesson for us here too! If, as Jesus suggested, we are “the salt of the earth,” should we not be able to create in those with whom we come in contact, a “thirst” for the “waters of truth”?

The frankincense seems to bespeak that praise and worship which the world will render by way of the Church unto God (Eph. 3:21) throughout all the ages. It reflects the world’s appreciation of what God has done on its behalf, by way of those who during the Gospel Age, through self-denial, self-sacrifice and cross-bearing have become, as it were, a sacrament, a broken body, for them. (1 Cor. 10:17) This, we believe, is the significance of the “meal-offering” which will accompany the “burnt-offerings” and “peace-offerings” of the Millennium.

Regarding the people’s meat (meal) offerings, Bro. Russell said:

“These, of fine flour, unleavened cakes, with oil, etc., were presented to the Lord through the Priest. They probably represent praises and worship offered to the Lord by the world, through his Church. ‘Unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages.’ (Eph. 3:21) These were accepted by the priests. A sample being offered on the altar showed that it was approved by, acceptable to, Jehovah.” (T98)

It should not be overlooked that both a drink-offering and a meal-offering accompanied the daily sacrifice (burnt-offering of the priest). (See Exod. 29:39-41) Though these offerings themselves were the specific charge of Eleazar (Num. 4:16), it was not he but the High Priest who offered them in this connection (Lev. 6:19,20); nor could any of this be eaten, it had to be wholly burnt upon the altar. (Lev. 6:23)

A meal-offering at any other time (i.e., not the daily sacrifice which was for the priest himself—Lev. 6:19-22) might be offered by any one of the priests; and the memorial thereof was to be eaten by all the males—the children of Aaron, the priests. (Lev. 2:1-16; 6:14-18)

Seemingly this is because the “daily burnt-offering” is the Priest’s offering, offered during this Gospel age by the High Priest Jesus and represented first, himself, and then also his body members; whereas other “meal- offerings” are for the “people” and will be offered subsequent to the anti- typical “Atonement Day”—this Gospel age—during the Millennial age by the “World’s High Priest”—the Church in glory—for the world of mankind. However, these meal-offerings will also represent the Christ (Head and Body) as they will be appreciated as having been the “better sacrifices” of the Gospel dispensation. It will be a form of praise and worship rendered by the world of mankind. (T98)

Leaven and Honey

“No meat [meal] offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.” (Lev. 2:11)

“The Lord directs that any coming to his altar should, as far as possible, before coming, get into heart harmony with all of the ‘household of faith.’ … his, in the Jewish Passover type, was prefigured by the search made for leaven of every description—leaven being a symbol of corruption, sin, con- trariness to purity, righteousness and love.” (R4778:5)

“Leaven is corruption, an element of decay, hence a type of sin, and the decay and death which sin works in mankind.” (R2271:6)

Leaven is a type of sin, and therefore of imperfection (T98); but it is also the symbol of false doctrines. (Matt. 16:6-12)

“Do not make the serious mistake that leaven symbolizes merely false doctrine (Matt. 16:6-12); remember that it is also defined by the Apostle to signify a wicked disposition. Not merely a wickedness which would steal and lie and murder (the grosser forms of wickedness), but a form of wickedness much more likely to assail those who have even nominally accepted Christ; viz., ‘malice,’ producing hatreds, envyings, strifes, back-bitings, evil surmisings, and other works of the flesh and the devil. Let the spirit of love come into our hearts and purge us of the old leaven of malice. See 1 Cor. 5:6-8; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Titus 3:3.” (R2283:4)

“ ‘Leaven’ is the corrupting and inflating principle of self-importance which is never absent from man in the flesh. It could not possibly have place in a ‘most holy’ offering. It was entirely absent from Christ, and it must be entirely absent from those movements of heart Godward which have Christ only as their Theme and Substance. I think leaven might come into our oblation if we say more than is really true. There might be an attempt to make our apprehension of Christ appear to be greater than it really is. This would be a puffing up of the flesh in a very sorrowful way. It is possible to say wonderful things of Christ which we have heard other persons say, or which we have read in books, but if they are beyond our own apprehensions they are not a true ‘gift.’ There would be danger of it becoming like Psa. 78:36,37. ‘But they flattered (the word means ‘make pretence,’ elsewhere ‘entice,’ ‘deceive’) him with their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongue; for their heart was not firm toward him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant.’ ” (Coates, An Outline of Leviticus, p. 26)

“Leaven: Various substances were known to have fermenting qualities; but the ordinary leaven consisted of a lump of old dough in a high state of fermentation, which was inserted into the mass of dough prepared for baking. The use of leaven was strictly forbidden in all offerings made to the Lord by fire. It is in reference to these prohibitions that Amos (4:5) ironically bids the Jews of his day to ‘offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven.’ In other instances, where the offering was to be consumed by the priests, and not on the altar, leaven might be used. Various ideas were associated with the prohibition of leaven in the instances above quoted. But the most prominent idea, and the one which applies equally to all the cases of prohibition, is connected with the corruption which leaven itself had undergone, and which it communicated to bread in the process of fermentation. It is to this property of leaven that our Saviour points when he speaks of the ‘leaven’ (i.e., the corrupt doctrine) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees (Matt. 16:6); and St. Paul, when he speaks of the ‘old leaven.’ (1 Cor. 5:7)” (Smith, Dictionary of the Bible)

Some have suggested that leaven in an offering was sometimes accepted and offered upon the altar of the Lord. They base their belief on such a passage as:

“Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals; they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.” (Lev. 23:17)

It is true, the two loaves here mentioned did contain leaven and were presented as unto the LORD. But there is nothing in the passage (nor else- where in the Scriptures) which definitely says they were offered upon the altar of burnt-offering! Since the prohibition of Lev. 2:11,12, is so empha- tic, we incline to the thought suggested by Dr. Smith in his Dictionary of the Bible (quoted above) that those offerings which contained leaven were accepted and eaten by the priests.

Honey is probably a type of that sweetness of “nature” which sours under the heat of trial. (See R84:5)

“Frankincense is the most precious of perfumes, of enduring and delightful fragrance; fit emblem of the sweetness and fragrance of the offering of our blessed Lord. Honey, on the other hand, though sweet is corruptible; soon fermented, and easily turned sour. In frankincense the full fragrance is not brought out until the perfume is submitted to the action of the fire. In honey it is just the reverse; the heat ferments and spoils it.” (Jukes, The Law of the Offerings, p. 80)

“ ‘Honey’ represents the sweetness of nature as found in amiability and natural affections. It may be agreeable, and even refreshing, in its own sphere, and given of God in mercy; but it enters not into the oblation. When it is a question of what God delights in, the line is sharply drawn between the natural and the spiritual, and the former is excluded. ‘Honey’ would be the intrusion of natural sentiment, which I am afraid often comes into hymns and prayers. It may be sweet, but is the sweetness of nature.” (Coates, An Outline of Leviticus, p. 27)

“Honey was forbidden, to teach us that whatever is sweet to nature must be disowned, if we would walk after the example of Christ who pleased not himself. (Rom. 15:3; Matt. 16:24; Luke 9:59-62)” (R84:5)

“Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.” (Exod. 23:18)

Meal-Offering of the Cleansed Leper

It is interesting to note that in connection with the cleansing of the leper, three lambs were brought to be offered as follows:

he lamb—as a trespass offering (Lev. 14:12)
he lamb—as a burnt-offering (Lev. 14:20) which, of course, had to be a male animal (Lev. 1:3,12)
ewe lamb—as a sin-offering (Lev. 14:19) which had to be a female (Lev. 4:27,32)

According to Numbers 15:3,4, meal-offerings were brought with burnt- offerings (free-will, Lev. 1:3), and peace-offerings (for vows, or voluntary offerings, and could be either male or female animals, Lev. 3:1,16); and if the animals were lambs, the meal-offering required an ingredient of ⅒ deal of flour (Num. 15:4,5), and if a ram, 2/10 deals of flour (Num. 15:6).

However, only the lamb of burnt-offering, precisely speaking, was a freewill, or voluntary offering, and thus accounted for but ⅒ deal of the 3/10 deals of flour brought as mentioned in Numbers 15:9. This leaves 2/10 deals of flour still to be accounted for. There is no reason for assuming that the sin-offering here merited a meal-offering for it was a mandatory sacrifice! And if the sin-offering could not merit a meal-offering, how much less would the trespass-offering! In this connection, however, we must not overlook the fact that this he-lamb (ram) of the trespass-offering was also, in a sense, a peace-offering; for, was it not in due course presented, as it were, as a wave-offering (Lev. 14:12; see also Lev. 14:24)? Wave-offerings were always taken from the people’s peace-offerings. (Lev. 7:34) As the “ram of the peace-offering” this he-lamb accounts for this remaining 2/10 deals of flour of the meal-offering. (Num. 15:6)

As a further matter of interest, there is also the correspondency between this ram and the “ram of consecration” in the consecration ritual of the priesthood (Exod. 29:19; Lev. 8:22) which incidentally was also a “peace-offering” inasmuch as its blood was used in a similar manner; it was placed on the tip of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right foot, of those being consecrated, as in a similar manner the blood of this trespass-, peace-offering was put upon the leper to be cleansed. (Compare Lev. 8:23 with Lev. 14:25)

Meal Offerings of the Firstfruits

“No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire. As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savor.” (Lev. 2:11,12)

This rendering of the KJV is somewhat faulty as it gives an erroneous impression that there were, aside from the regular offerings, “oblations.” This, however, is not so, and is quite evident from the renderings of most other versions, among them that of the Jewish Publication Society:

“No meal-offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven, for ye shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the LORD. As an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them unto the LORD; but they shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar.” (Lev. 2:11,12, Jewish Publication Society)

From the foregoing it appears there were two kinds of meal-offerings; those which could be brought upon the altar to yield a “sweet savor” unto the LORD; and those which could not be so offered because of the leaven or honey they contained.

A meal-offering could be made of flour and oil and be offered with frankincense (Lev. 2:1); or it might consist of first-fruits (green ears of corn, i.e., wheat, barley, spelt, rye, millet etc.) with oil and frankincense. (Lev. 2:14, 15) The memorial of either of these, with all the frankincense, could be offered upon the altar of Jehovah for a “sweet savor.”

But there was also the meal-offering made of flour mixed with leaven or honey which could not be offered for a “sweet savor” unto the Lord, upon his altar, even though it was an offering of firstfruits. (Lev. 2:11,12)

So there were offerings of firstfruits which like the green ears (Lev. 2:14) or the wave sheaf (barley?—Lev. 23:10,11) were acceptable unto the Lord upon the altar as a “sweet savor”; but also those which like that of the flour mixed with leaven or honey were acceptable but not upon the altar of the LORD for a “sweet savor.” (Lev. 2:11,12; 23:17)

The wave sheaf offeredon the “morrow after the sabbath” (Lev. 23:11) was evidently intended to typify Christ Jesus, who in his resurrection on the morrow after the sabbath (Mark 16:1,2) became the “firstfruits of them that slept.” (1 Cor. 15:20) (See also R2271:1) In him there was no sin (leaven); for he was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” (Heb. 7:26) He was in himself a meal-offering of a “sweet savor” unto the Lord.

In the type, it will be noted, only one animal was sacrificed in connection with this wave sheaf. This was a lamb for a burnt-offering; and with it there was offered the usual meal-offering and drink-offering. (Lev. 23:12, 13) Note also, that this wave sheaf was to be accepted for the people—Israel. (Lev. 23:11)

While the wave sheaf typified the risen Lord, Christ Jesus himself, the burnt-offering with its attendant meal- and drink-offerings, reflected back to the Jesus, who in his consecration to the heavenly Father’s will, died so that he might become the life-giver to the whole human race. The wave sheaf itself sets forth this same basic truth inasmuch as it resulted from some grain (seed) which fell into the ground and died; and then, since its grave could not hold it, issued forth, becoming a food, or life sustaining, to whomsoever might partake of it! (See John 12:23,24)

Fifty days thereafter; i.e., after the offering of the wave sheaf, Israel was to offer a second offering of firstfruits. (Lev. 23:15,16) However, instead of this being a sheaf of grain, this was to be of two loaves made with flour, but with leaven added! (Lev. 23:17) Leaven is a type of sin. Undoubtedly, these two loaves were intended to typify the whole church—the “little flock” and the “great company.” (See R2271:1) Perhaps the leaven here signified (since both loaves were involved) that not any of those constituting the “church of the firstborns” (including, of course, the “church which is his body”) are in themselves sinless, as was Jesus!

The original wave sheaf, as a first-fruit of the first-fruits, was of itself, (i.e. even without the burnt-offering which was associated with it) acceptable as a “sweet savor” unto the Lord. (Lev. 2:14-16; 23:11); but it was not so with the second offering of first-fruits fifty days thereafter. Being with leaven, it could not be burnt upon the altar (Lev. 2:11,12 Jewish Publication Society’s Version); yet it was “acceptable” for the people, because of the concomitant burnt-, sin-, and peace-offerings, duly sacrificed upon the altar. (Lev. 23:18,19) The burnt-offering consisted of ten animals: seven lambs, one bullock, and two rams. The sin-offering was a he-goat (see Jewish Pub. Soc. Version); the peace-offering was two rams. (Lev. 23:18-20)

Ten seems to be the symbol denoting a cycle of completeness. There were ten commandments constituting the full and complete Law of God (Deut. 4:12); there were ten temptations in the wilderness, all that Jehovah God could allow (Num. 14:22,23); there were ten virgins to represent all of the consecrated, spirit-begotten ones living at the time of our Lord’s second coming. (Matt. 25:1-13) We conclude therefore, that ten is to set forth that all of the church class are here represented in their consecration unto death. These ten animals were all burnt-offerings!

The seven lambs suggest the divine requisite of all “firstborns” to develop a disposition of meekness, lowliness and humility like unto that of Jesus, the “Lamb of God.”

The one bullock, seems to imply that the church’s consecration and its consequent acceptance with God is predicated upon the human perfection of the man Christ Jesus, accounted to them; i.e., they are accepted not because of what they are in themselves, but in him, the beloved. (Eph. 1:6)

The two rams (sheep) probably are intended to set forth that fact that there are two classes here represented, all “called in the one hope of their calling” (Eph. 4:4), the same two classes represented in the two loaves. It will be remembered that in the type of the sin-offerings of the Atonement Day, two goats were brought for a single purpose, “for a sin-offering” (Lev. 16:5); yet only one of these was offered for a sin-offering (Lev. 16:9); the other became the scape-goat (Lev. 16:8,10), showing forth, as it were, the same two classes. The bullock already referred to reflects perhaps that we are in him; whereas these goats, what we are in ourselves! The rams showed that both classes were accepted in the one hope of their calling.

There was also a sin-offering, a he-goat (Lev. 23:19), identified with this ritual of the firstfruits. We are inclined to see here the fact that the church is privileged to become, by way of its faithfulness unto death, the channel through which the ransom merit of Christ Jesus will pass to the world.

Then there were the two lambs for the peace-offering. (Lev. 23:19) Perhaps

this was to suggest the two aspects of the church’s consecration unto God:

She is grateful to Him for all the grace and favor He has bestowed upon her; thus her dedication is a thanksgiving-offering (see Lev. 7:12);
Hers is a voluntary dedication of herself (see Lev. 7:16) by way of which she assumes a vow in the interest of the world of mankind, to bless them with eternal peace and happiness. (See T81)

“The waving of the barley sheaf of first-fruits on the 16th of Nisan (‘morrow after the sabbath’ or Passover of the 15th—Lev. 23:5,6,11,15,16) typified the resurrection of Christ our Lord, as ‘the first-fruits of them that slept.’ (1 Cor. 15:20)

“The two loaves offered on the fiftieth day, Pentecost, represented the presenting of the church before God and its acceptance through the merit of the great High Priest, indicated by the anointing of the holy Spirit at Pentecost. The church really is but ‘one loaf’ (1 Cor. 10:17), the two loaves representing the same thing as the two goats presented on the Day of Atonement. It indicated that, although all presented were acceptable to God through Christ Jesus, he yet knew that all presented would not come up to the condition of faithfulness to the end. The two loaves represented, therefore, the two classes of the consecrated, the overcoming little flock and the ‘great company’ of the consecrated servants of God who do not make the high calling theirs, by overcoming the world as they might and should do.” (R2271:1)

Drink Offering

“Then shall he that offereth his offering unto the LORD bring a meat offering of a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of oil. And the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering shalt thou prepare with the burnt offering or sacrifice, for one lamb. Or for a ram, thou shalt prepare for a meat offering two tenth deals of flour mingled with the third part of an hin of oil. And for a drink offering thou shalt offer the third part of an hin of wine, for a sweet savour unto the LORD. And when thou preparest a bullock for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice in performing a vow, or peace offerings unto the LORD: Then shall he bring with a bullock a meat offering of three tenth deals of flour mingled with half an hin of oil. And thou shalt bring for a drink offering half an hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. Thus shall it be done for one bullock, or for one ram, or for a lamb, or a kid.” (Num. 15:4-11)

The drink-offering was never to be poured upon the incense altar:

“Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt-sacrifice, nor meal-offering; neither shall ye pour drink-offering thereon.” (Exod. 30:9)

It was to be offered with the daily burnt-offerings:

“And with one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink-offering. And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even; and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink-offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.” (Exod. 29:40,41)

“The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even; And a tenth part of an ephah of flour for a meat offering, mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil. It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD. And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering. And the other lamb shalt thou offer at even: as the meat offering of the morning, and as the drink offering thereof, thou shalt offer it, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.” (Num. 28:4-8)

According to verse 7 the drink offering offered in connection with the burnt-offerings of the priests was to be poured out in the holy (place). The word “place” does not appear in the Hebrew text but has been supplied by the translators of our King James Version. Accordingly it could be reasoned that it is the Holy of the Tabernacle that is here referred to. However, we are definitely told that no drink offering was to be poured upon the altar of incense (Exod. 30:9); and since elsewhere in the Book of Numbers the term “Tabernacle of the Congregation” (Num. 16:18) is used to designate the Holy, we conclude that it is in the Court—the Holy place and specifically the altar of burnt-offering—whereon the outpouring of this drink offering was to take place.

In considering the drink-offering it may be well to remember that the animals offered as burnt-offerings and peace-offerings by Israel subsequent to the Day of Atonement represented the people in their consecrations and dedications unto Jehovah. In Num. 15:2-11 it will be noted that these offerings were to be accompanied by certain meal-offerings and drink-offerings!

Since the animals thus offered represented the people and in no way reflected the Atonement Day sacrifices, may it not be that God intended by way of these meal- and drink-offerings to bring to the minds of the people the fact that the acceptableness of their offerings was ever and always, on the basis of those sacrifices made on their behalf on the Atonement Day!

Antitypically, at least, the picture is a most beautiful one, for the “burnt-offerings” and “peace-offerings” of the future represent the people as consecrating—giving themselves to the Lord. (See T96) And the meal-and drink-offerings thus would represent them as being kept in mind of the fact that their consecrations were possible and acceptable on the basis of these “better sacrifices” made on their behalf during the Gospel Age, the antitypical Day of Atonement.

The questions then before us is, how were these “better sacrifices” represented in the drink-offering? Is there anything about it that suggests our communion (common union) in the “cup” which we bless? (1 Cor. 10:16) Is there anything to suggest the consecration and dedication of those who during the Gospel Age become identified—one—with Christ Jesus in a baptism “for the dead”? (1 Cor. 15:29)

“… We are baptized into death with Christ, baptized for the dead, to the intent that we may by and by be associated with him as the life-giver of the world—the Seed of Abraham.” (F456)

The only ingredient of the drink-offering was wine (Hebrew: yayin) according to Num. 15:5,7,10; and in the instance of the daily morning and evening burnt-offerings, strong wine. (Num. 28:7,8)

For perhaps obvious reasons, we assume that this wine was made from grapes. The picture of many grapes, as a result of a common crushing (pressing), losing their individual identities in the wine is a very beautiful one since it depicts that sharing of the afflictions of Christ (Col. 1:24) wherein the individual identities of the saints is lost and whereby they become “the wine” which gladdens the heart of God!

“It is one cup, though it be the juice of many grapes, even as it is one loaf, though it be from many grains. The grains cannot maintain their individuality and their own life if they would become bread for others; the grapes cannot maintain themselves as grapes if they would constitute the life-giving spirit; and thus we see the beauty of the Apostle’s statement, that the Lord’s people are participants in the one loaf and one cup.” (R2772:5)

There is, however, another aspect of this wine—drink-offering—which should be of particular interest to us who during this Gospel Age are privileged to become identified with Jesus in the sacrifice for sin (not the ransom). Wine results from alcoholic fermentation caused by leaven!

It will, of course, be remembered, that Jehovah had specifically forbidden the use of leaven, or even honey, upon his altar. (Lev. 2:11) Some have ignorantly assumed that the wine ordinarily used in the drink-offering was an unfermented grape juice. But even if this were so, it still would leave unexplained the “strong wine” of Num. 28:17. But it is very unlikely that such a thing as a pure, unfermented grape juice was known in ancient Palestine; for surely, if nothing else, the climate conspired against this.

This libation¹ (drink offering) is designated “strong drink” but we are not to understand that this was strong drink in the same sense in which the term is understood today. The ancients had no way of distilling or freezing liquors so as to get the high alcoholic content that modern beverages have.

It is interesting to note Paul’s use of a simile here:

“Nay! if I am even to be poured out as a drink offering, upon the sacrifice and public ministry of your faith, I rejoice.” (Phil. 2:17, Rotherham)

“Nay, even if my life is being poured as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I rejoice.” (Weymouth)

“Even if my life is to be poured out as a libation as you offer your faith in a service of sacrifice to God, I am glad.” (Goodspeed)

“The Apostle pays a beautiful tribute to the church at Philippi, and ex- pressed his great love for them. How he reveals his confidence in their loy- alty! And how glad he was to pour out his own life on their behalf. (see Phil. 2:17, margin) that they might attain unto the fulness of the likeness of Christ.” (R5810:6)

“We should remember that the Biblical phrase ‘strong drink’ really means light beverages. People in Bible times had nothing to correspond to our strong drinks of today. Natural fermentation only gives a product with about 14% of alcohol. Any stronger liquor must be obtained by distillation or freezing. Since neither of these processes of beverage making was known in ancient times, it follows that they never had any beverage which we would call ‘strong drink.’ … As a matter of fact, wine and beer in ancient Palestine were not over 5% or 8% because of the limited sugar content in the natural grape and malt used for fermentation.” (Harris, The Bible Today, “Wine and Strong Drink,” March, 1944)

¹ “libation—the act of pouring wine or other liquid on the ground or on a sacrifice in honor of a god; the liquid so poured.” (Winston’s Dictionary)

“Unfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over cleanly conditions of ancient Palestine was impossible.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

“Wine is fermented from grape juice by the wild yeast found on the skins of the grape.” (Holmes, Introductory College Chemistry)

“Almost any saccharine liquid, such as cider and the juices of fruits in general, gradually undergoes alcoholic fermentation when exposed to the air, the yeast cells entering from the air.” (MacPherson and Henderson, An Elementary Study of Chemistry)

From the foregoing, it is quite evident that leaven is responsible for the alcoholic fermentation resulting in wine. This fermentation continues until the alcohol in turn kills the yeast cells when it may be said that the wine no longer contains leaven!

“It is a mistake to suppose that wine contains leaven after it is made. Leaven is sometimes added to grape juice in order to hasten the fermentation, but when the fermentation has all worked off, the remaining wine is purer, freer from ferment and anything that would produce ferment than ever it was before.” (R3105:4)

Leaven is a type of sin (or corruption, or error) and surely there is none of us who is entirely free from it. (Rom. 3:10) The secondary offering of the firstfruits (fifty days after the offering of the wave sheaf) typifying the Church of the Firstborns—but not the Head!—consisted of two loaves made with leaven. (Lev. 23:17) (R2271:1) The Apostle John tells us, “If we say that we have no sin … the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8) However, for the new mind, the sin that dwelleth in us (Rom. 7:17) IS A CONSTANT CHALLENGE; there is therefore a warfare between the two, in which by the grace of God, the new mind becomes the eventual victor! This then is:

“… the great and continual battle, for although the new mind will assert itself and puts the body under and compels its subjection to the new mind, nevertheless the mortal body, not being actually dead, is continually coming into contact with the world and the Adversary and is continually being stimulated by these and reinvigorated with earthly cares, ambitions, methods, strivings, conflicts and insubordination to our new will. No saint is without experiences of this kind—fighting without and within. It must be a fight to the finish or the prize for which we fight will not be gained. For although the New Creature masters the mortal body by the Lord’s grace and strength repeatedly, nevertheless until death there can be no cessation of the conflict.” (R3275:2)

Alcohol destroys living tissue (i.e., the life in the tissue); but it also preserves what is dead! Drop a living worm into a bottle of alcohol and the alcohol kills him; but you can preserve him in death in the same alcohol that killed him! Just so is it with the graces of the spirit which have become identified with the new mind—the new creature. They spell out death to the “old man” and his thoughts and deeds but preserve for us in memory just what the “old man” once was.

We suggest, that the juice of the crushed grapes may well represent the consecrated life of the saints not yet entirely free from the leaven of sin, the “old man,” the mind of the flesh. Surely none of us is so presumptuous as to declare that he is without sin. And yet, it is just this sin that dwelleth in us (Rom. 7:17) that constitutes the challenge unto the new mind, affording it such opportunities for striving and overcoming as will make it strong and the “old man” proportionately weaker! Even as the alcohol which results from fermentation eventually destroys the leaven, so too does the increase in the graces of the Spirit result in the ultimate van- quishing of the “old man” with his thoughts and deeds. Nor is this warfare ever really won until our course is fulfilled in death; yet the victory, by the grace of God, is ever accounted to us.

The Bible seems to have very little—almost nothing—to say against the use of wine; but it has much to say about its abuse. On the other hand, wine in the Bible, is sometimes the symbol, or token, of special blessing from God (Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:13; Amos 9:14); and also of gladness. (Psa. 104:15) The consecration of the saints and their faithfulness in overcoming the “old man” surely makes glad the heart of God; and He in turn rewards them with the “crown of life”—immortality, the divine nature! (Rev. 2:10)

“Wine also represents joy, gladness, and is thus used in the Scriptures.” (R5538:5)

“And the vine saith unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man.” (Judges 9:13)

“And wine that maketh glad the heart of man.” (Psa. 104:15)

“It cannot be claimed for our Lord Jesus that he was a total abstainer from alcoholic liquors, and the claim made by some that the word ‘wine’ here mentioned (John 2:1-11) signifies a non-intoxicating wine is not true. It can, however, be said on the other side of the question, that many of the wines of that vicinity and time contained much less alcohol than do many of the wines of today. It may also be noted that changes have taken place in humanity, so that the inhabitants, particularly of the temperate zone, are more highly nervous than those of any other time. Hence, with stronger wines and with weaker nerves, there is a largely increased tendency to excess and to injury. It is our opinion, therefore, that if the Lord were living where we do, and now, he would be a total abstainer from alcoholic liquors, not only on his own account, but also as an example to others.” (R2419:4)

Jesus in the Drink-Offering

One may ask how Jesus is represented in this “drink-offering” since he ever was “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners,” and therefore without that “leaven” of fermentation.

The answer is this: there is but one “cup”—one common union of the blood (1 Cor. 10:16)—in which Jesus and the church have lost their individual identities as did the bullock and the goat in the “blood of atonements” (Exod. 30:10) whereby the ancient (most) Holy, the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar were reconciled. (Lev. 16:15-19) The atoning merit, of course, was wholly in the blood of the bullock; in fact, that of the goat might have been dispensed with entirely. (T70) Without the imputed merit of Jesus, the church never could become the channel through which the atoning merit will flow out to the world of mankind.

Jesus, at Cana in Galilee (John 2:1-10), made a wine without gathering the grapes and without adding any leaven for fermentation, and yet, we believe, it was an alcoholic wine. (R509:2; R3485:2) So also is that which Jesus contributed to the “drink-offering”—his was a pure and unadulterated portion right from the very beginning. Our’s, i.e., the Church’s portion, once contained “leaven;” but together (commingled), as a finished product, this “wine” of the “drink-offering” will contain no leaven!

There is a difference between the respective sacrifices of Jesus and his church, yet, how God accepts them as “one” is beautifully illustrated in some of the “burnt-offerings” of old. It will be recalled that there were two rams offered as burnt-offerings on the Atonement Day: one, as it were, for the bullock and the other for the goat. (Lev. 16:3,5,24) If these burnt-offerings were offered in the usual manner (Lev. 1:8,9,12,13; 8:20,21; 9:12-16) and there is no good reason to think otherwise, then the one ram for the bullock representing Jesus in his sacrifice was the first to be slain. It was beheaded. The head, unwashed, was laid upon the altar. Then the body members, the inwards and legs, after having first been washed were laid upon the altar to the head. Here we must not forget that this ram, offered in connection with the bullock, represented Jesus, and Jesus alone!

Why then was not the whole ram left unwashed and placed upon the altar for a burnt-offering? We believe that it was because God intended in this way to show that insofar as the sin-offering was concerned, he was accepting Jesus’ sacrifice as only one of two parts of the same. True, it was that part which alone had atoning merit in itself. He was merely to be the “head” unto a “body” which after it had been washed, was to be laid upon the same altar as a part of one and the same sacrifice for sin! The converse was true concerning the second ram which represented the Church, and the Church alone! Its unwashed head was first put upon the altar, then the inwards and legs were washed and laid upon the altar to the head. Thus God showed how he was accepting the Church’s sacrifice, a second- ary part of the sin-offering, washed and sacrificed but incomplete, save for the “head” which had preceded it and to which it belonged. Thus the bullock and the Lord’s goat, different though they were in value, i.e., in atoning merit, constituted but “one sin-offering” for the people. This, we believe is what the “drink-offering” reflects for the world of mankind.

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land of your habitations, which I give unto you, And will make an offering by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savour unto the LORD, of the herd, or of the flock: Then shall he that offereth his offering unto the LORD bring a meat offering of a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of oil. And the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering shalt thou prepare with the burnt offering or sacrifice, for one lamb. Or for a ram, thou shalt prepare for a meat offering two tenth deals of flour mingled with the third part of an hin of oil. And for a drink offering thou shalt offer the third part of an hin of wine, for a sweet savour unto the LORD. And when thou preparest a bullock for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice in performing a vow, or peace offerings unto the LORD: Then shall he bring with a bullock a meat offering of three tenth deals of flour mingled with half an hin of oil. And thou shalt bring for a drink offering half an hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. Thus shall it be done for one bullock, or for one ram, or for a lamb, or a kid. According to the number that ye shall prepare, so shall ye do to every one according to their number.” (Num. 15:1-12)

With a lamb: meal offering of ⅒ deal of flour and ¼ hin of oil plus a drink offering of ¼ hin of wine.

With a ram: meal offering of 2/10 deals of flour and ⅓ hin of oil plus a drink offering of ⅓ hin of wine.

With a bullock: meal offering of 3/10 deals of flour and ½ hin of oil plus a drink offering of ½ hin of wine.

It was a hin of oil that was used in making the “anointing oil.” (Exod. 30:24) In the anointing of Aaron, it was poured upon his head, flowed down over his beard, and on down to the skirts (Thomson’s Septuagint: hem; Smith’s American Translation: edge; Bagster’s Septuagint: fringe; Rev. Catholic Version: hem) of his garments. (Psa. 133:2) It is evident that not all of the oil poured upon Aaron’s head reached the skirts of his garments, and in this sense only the head received this oil without measure. (See John 3:34) Is it in order then to assume that the hin is the symbol of “full measure”? Surely not any of us received as much of the Holy Spirit of his anointing as did Jesus himself; and yet, there is a sense in which each of us can claim the “full measure” of his anointing seeing that we are the “body” members and belong to the “Head.” At any rate, this outpouring of the Holy Spirit means far more to us than will the outpouring upon all flesh during the Millennium to the world of mankind. (Joel 2:28) For us it bespeaks the begettal to a new nature, the spirit, the divine nature! For them it will be but the spirit of the Truth, guiding them into deeper fellowship with God, but never begetting them to a sonship on the spirit plane.

Perhaps this is the reason that the quantity of oil used in these typical meal-offerings, never exceeded ½ hin; and let it be noted, it was this much in conjunction with the bullock only! The bullock here represented the perfect humanity offered in dedication unto God by one of the “Israelites” of the Millennial dispensation. Nor is it strange that the highest attainment on the human plane, human perfection, (here represented in the bullock) should in the type be directly related to one half of an hin of oil—just one half the quantity used in the holy anointing oil!

In the Tabernacle the posts supporting the curtains surrounding the Court, and representing a human condition, were only five cubits high (Exod. 27:17,18), just half the height of those supporting the vails, which were ten cubits high (Exod. 36:21,35,37) and represented a spirit condition. So too in the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, the human was represented in the 25th course of masonry whereas the spirit was represented in the 50th.

The meal-offering for the lamb and the ram (ayil) were to contain ⅓ of an hin and ¼ of an hin, respectively, indicating perhaps that those “offerers” who during the Millennium offer less than a perfect humanity in their dedication of themselves to God, will have received, or utilized, correspondingly less of God’s Holy Spirit. And since the quantity of wine in the drink- offerings of the type was also ⅓ of an hin and ¼ of an hin, respectively, it seems to suggest that the gladness (for wine is also a symbol of gladness— Psa. 104:15) which those “offerers” will enjoy will be proportionate to the measure of the Holy Spirit they have received. In any event, the drink- offering is in this connection also the symbol of that “libation” which the Church of the Gospel Age becomes by virtue of its pouring of itself forth, so as to make the world’s consecration possible and acceptable to God in due time.

“… We are baptized into death with Christ, baptized for the dead, to the in- tent that we may by and by be associated with him as the life-giver of the world, the Seed of Abraham.” (F456)

It is perhaps in a very similar strain that the Apostle Paul in writing to the church at Philippi wrote, “Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all.” (Phil. 2:17) Commenting on this Bro. Russell says:

“The Apostle pays a beautiful tribute to the church at Philippi, and expresses his great love for them. How he reveals his confidence in their loyalty! And how glad he was to pour out his own life on their behalf (see mar- gin vs. 17) that they might attain unto the … likeness of Christ.” (R5810:6)

In Num. 15:1-12 only three animals—the lamb, the ram, and the bullock— are listed as burnt-offerings though in Lev. 1:14 turtledoves and pigeons are included, evidently as an acceptable offering from those too poor to offer an animal. Bro. Russell reminds us that during the Millennial Age …

“Perfection will come gradually, and will require the cooperation of the sinner’s WILL ever to reach it. He must do what he can to climb up again to perfection, and will have all the assistance necessary. This is shown by these sacrifices in general; they were to be according to every man’s ability. However degraded by sin and imperfect, each must, when he comes to a knowledge of the truth, present himself to God, the offering indicating his condition. The dove or pigeon brought by the poorest in the type represented the justified all of the morally poor and degraded; the goat offered by others more able, represented the all of some less degraded; while the bullock represented the all of those who had attained perfection of human nature. Just as the bullock was used to typify the perfect humanity (much fat) of Jesus’ sacrifice, and the goat (wayward and lean) was used to represent the imperfect human nature of the saints, in the sacrifices of this ‘Atonement Day’ so those animals similarly represented the offerers (Israel—typical of the believing world in the Millennium) in their consecrations. But it should be remembered that these burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of the future represent the people as consecrating—giving themselves to the Lord …

“The completeness of consecration was shown by the death of the animal— that is, each member of the race must consecrate his will; but it will be followed neither by the destruction of the human nature (the burning of the flesh outside the camp) nor by the taking of the life into a new nature—into the ‘Most Holy.’ ” (T95,96)

As already suggested, the “burnt-offerings” of the future represent the people in their consecration to Jehovah (T96), yet in a sense, these “offerings” will reflect their gratitude for that mercy, wisdom and love which God has manifested toward them by way of the sacrifice of Christ. (T97) Perhaps it is this recognition of the grace and favor of God as extended to the world through the Church that is particularly typified in the “meal-” and “drink-offerings” accompanying the “burnt-offerings.” (Eph. 3:20,21; T98)

In the type, it will have been noted, the quantity of flour and oil used in the meal-offering, and the wine used in the drink-offering which accompanied the burnt-offerings, varied according to the animal involved. (Num. 15:1-12) For the poor (yet not those abjectively poor who might offer turtledoves or pigeons—Lev. 1:14) the burnt-offering was to be a lamb, in which instance the meal-offering was to contain ⅒ “deal” of flour, a term peculiar to the King James Version. Most other translations render the Hebrew word “part of an ephah.” (See also Num. 28:5) Its meaning seems to be “a part” or “portion.”

It is suggested that the full period of grace ordained of God to be administered by the glorified Church on behalf of the world is 1000 years, commonly known as the Millennium. Of this, the maximum period of time to be allotted to the sinner will be 100 years (Isa. 65:20), i.e., just ⅒ part of the full period of grace! This, we believe, will be ample time for one to attain unto that degree of character development wherein he, if he so chooses, may “offer” himself (i.e., his justified all) unto God, a “lamb of burnt-offering.”

If we are correct in this conjecture, the “2/10” and “3/10” deals of flour may well represent 200 and 300 year periods of grace in which the “offerers” of the Millennial Age ought to be able to “offer” themselves as “rams” and “bull- ocks” respectively. It will not, yea, it ought not, require more than 300 years under conditions then prevailing, for one to attain unto a perfect humanity. But a perfect humanity does not necessarily imply the right to everlasting life; for not even the Ancient Worthies, though possessing perfect humanity, will have this right until after the trial at the end of the Millennial Age.

“The ancient worthies ‘had this testimony that they pleased God.’ They pleased him in that when they ascertained his will they set about doing it, even before he gave it to them as a law or obligation, even before he could ask them to obey him and promise them eternal life for their obedience. Abraham manifested his faith in God although there was no redemption yet accomplished in the world. Christ had not yet come. And although Abraham was not on trial for life or for death God granted Abraham his favor and declared that he pleased him; and his word tells us that ‘a better resurrection’ is to be not only to Abraham, but to all these Ancient Worthies—a resurrection to human perfection. But since human perfection will come only under the Mediatorial reign of Christ, the Ancient Worthies will not be introduced to the Father in the complete sense until the close the Millennium.

“Hence, they will not have life, in the fullest sense, until that time, when at the close of the Millennial Age, the Kingdom shall be delivered over to the Father. What they will have in the meantime will be the perfection of human nature and all the blessings that God provides for mankind, through the great Mediator. But they will not come into actual and personal relationship with God, so as to be determined worthy of eternal life, until the completion of the Millennial Age, because that age is set apart for the purpose of determining who of all mankind may have eternal life, aside from the spirit-begotten ones of the present time. At the close of the Millennial Age, when all mankind shall be in perfection of being, they shall be tried of the Father for this worthiness or unworthiness of life, just as Adam, while enjoying perfection, was tested as to whether or not he was worthy to have life made perpetual or eternal.

“Since the Ancient Worthies will be a part of the world under the New Covenant arrangements, it follows that they will not have the decision of the divine court, divine justice, respecting their worthiness of eternal life until the completion of the Millennial Age, until the conclusion of the trial at the end of that age, which will bring to them, as it will bring to all others who are faithful, the great reward of life eternal.” (R4598:3 “Were the Ancient Worthies on Trial for Life?”; see also R5074:3,4)

Accordingly, by the end of the Millennial Age, and through the administration of the “Royal Priesthood” who purchased the world by way of a sacrifice unto death (T99) for the privilege of blessing them (T39), there will have been extended to mankind, the grace sufficient of time (3/10 deals of flour) and of the holy Spirit (½ an hin of oil) making possible their consecration of a fully justified, perfect humanity—“bullocks.”

“When those of the world of mankind willing to accept God’s grace, shall have been brought to perfection, at the close of the Millennium, there will be no longer any poor in the sense of deficiency of mental, moral or physical ability. All will be perfect men, and their offerings will be their perfect selves, typified by bullocks. David, speaking of this, says: ‘Then shalt thou be pleased with sacrifices of righteousness (of right doing) with burnt-offering and whole burnt-offering; then shall they offer bullocks (perfect sacrifices) upon thine altar.’ (Psa. 51:19) Yet that David’s language should not be understood to teach the restoration of the literal, bloody, typical sacrifices, is evident, for in the same connection he says, ‘thou desirest not sacrifice (either typical or antitypical—full atonement for sin having been accomplished by that time ‘once for all’)’ … All these sacrifices must be of the free will and desire of the offerer.” (T96)

Chapter 1: An Overview of the Tabernacle

Chapter 2: Court

Chapter 3: Holy and Most Holy

Chapter 4: Brazen Altar

Chapter 5: Laver

Chapter 6: Golden Candlestick

Chapter 7: Table of Shewbread

Chapter 8: Incense Altar

Chapter 9: Ark

Chapter 10: Other Insights

Chapter 11: Tabernacle Numerical Symbolisms

Chapter 12: Priests

Chapter 13: Levites

Chapter 14: The Sacrifices and Offerings of Israel

Chapter 15: Leviticus 4—Sin Offerings

Chapter 16: Leviticus 8— Priesthood’s Primary Consecration

Chapter 17: Leviticus 9— Priesthood’s Secondary Consecration

Chapter 18: Leviticus 13 and 14—Leprosy

Chapter 19: Leviticus 16—The Day of Atonement

Chapter 20: Other Sacrifices

Chapter 21: The Feasts of Israel

Appendix 1: Bro. Russell and Tabernacle Shadows

Appendix 2: The Importance of Blood

Appendix 3: Tabernacle Measurements