“And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel; and he said unto Aaron, Take thee a young calf for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD. And unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying, Take ye a kid of the goats for a sin-offering; and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt-offering; also a bullock and a ram for peace-offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD; and a meat offering mingled with oil: for today the LORD will appear unto you. And they brought that which Moses commanded before the tabernacle of the congregation: and all the congregation drew near and stood before the LORD. And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commanded that ye should do: and the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you. 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: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded. Aaron therefore went unto the altar and slew the calf of the sin-offering, which was for himself. And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar: 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. And the flesh and the hide he burnt with fire with- out the camp. And he slew the burnt-offering; and Aaron’s sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar. And they presented the burnt offering unto him, with the pieces thereof, and the head: and he burnt them upon the altar. And he did wash the inwards and the legs, and burnt them upon the burnt offering on the altar. And he brought the people’s offering, and took the goat, which was the sin-offering for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the first. And he brought the burnt offering, and offered it according to the manner. And he brought the meat offering, and took an handful thereof, and burnt it upon the altar, beside the burnt sacrifice of the morning. He slew also the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the people: and Aaron’s sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled upon the altar round about, and the fat of the bullock and of the ram, the rump, and that which covereth the inwards, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver: and they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat upon the altar: and the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering before the LORD; as Moses commanded. And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people. And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.” (Lev. 9:1- 24)

Leviticus 8 deals with the “initial” consecration of the Aaronic priesthood; it is a ritual which did not need to be repeated again. The “secondary” consecration, set forth in Leviticus 9, however, was one that had to be repeated whenever a new high priest was inaugurated.

“The record of the ninth chapter relates to the consecration of the priests. The service there pictured represents the consecration of Aaron, and was to be repeated in the case of every priest who attained the office of high priest. That is to say, this service was to be repeated only when a high priest should die and his successor in the office should be inaugurated. Thus the ceremony might be performed several times in one year, if several high priests, one after another, died in one year, and successors took their places. Or this ceremony of Leviticus 9 might not be repeated for many years; as, for example, Aaron lived nearly forty years after his appointment to the office, and hence not until his son Eleazar became high priest would this consecration service be repeated.” (R5391:2)

The anointing of Israel’s first High Priest, Aaron, is set forth in Leviticus 8 and Exodus 29. There was no anointing, normally, connected with the ritual of Leviticus 9. Bro. Russell suggested that the ritual of Leviticus 8 need never again be repeated, but that of Leviticus 9 was repeated when- ever a new High Priest was inaugurated. (R5391:2) It is undoubtedly true that each new High Priest was individually anointed (T30). In Lev. 6:22 reference is made to “The priest of his [Aaron’s] sons that is anointed in his stead.”

If Bro. Russell’s conjecture about Leviticus 9 is correct, the anointing of the new High Priest was interpolated into the ritual of Leviticus 9, but just where, we cannot be sure, since the Scriptures themselves are silent here. Our conjecture is that it probably occurred on an “eighth day,” some- time before the new High Priest went unto the altar, and for the first time offered his sin-offering and his burnt-offering, to make an atonement for himself, and for the people. (Lev. 9:7)

“And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him … and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” (Exod. 28:41)

“And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.” (Exod. 40:15)

“And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” (Exod. 30:30)

“Exod. 30:30 refers to the anointing of Aaron and his sons. The thought is that each of Aaron’s sons who succeeded to the High Priest’s office was to be anointed in his turn, as Aaron himself was anointed in the beginning.” (T37)

“The anointing … came only upon the one who was to officiate as chief priest—upon Aaron only at first; but upon each of his sons as they succeeded to the office of chief priest.” (F131)

God was very jealous about keeping these two offices of king and priest, separate and apart in Israel, that there should be no other type of the “royal priesthood” than that of Melchizedek, so that we are not at all surprised at the severity of the punishment meted out to Uzziah in Judah, who sought to combine in himself these two offices. He was smitten with leprosy until the day of his death. (2 Chron. 26:16-21)

“But as King Uzziah knew of the divine arrangement, that his prayers as incense could be offered to the Almighty on the ‘Golden Altar’ only by the priest, so those who now have come to a realization of the fact that Jesus is the great antitypical Priest through whom communication with the Father has been opened up would come under condemnation should they intrude into the divine presence in prayer, otherwise than as provided in the divine arrangement, as King Uzziah was smitten with leprosy for his presumption and pride.

“Leprosy, Scripturally considered, is a type of sin. Uzziah’s experiences, therefore signify, typically, that whoever would approach God aside from his ordained Priest, having a knowledge of the impropriety would come under divine sentence as a wilful sinner. The penalty would be in proportion to the degree of enlightenment previously enjoyed.” (R4786:5)

Jeroboam, a king of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) fearful of losing his subjects and his kingdom to Judah (the southern kingdom) when the people on occasion returned to Jerusalem for their feasts (1 Kings 12:26-33), appointed his own priesthood of men who were not Levites (1 Kings 12:31). He even made himself a priest. (1 Kings 12:33) As was Uzziah of Judah punished, so also was Jeroboam, though the latter’s punishment was not as severe as the former’s (1 Kings 13:4-6), perhaps for the reason that Jeroboam had not endeavored to intrude himself directly into the divinely established Aaronic priesthood!

“Jeroboam’s scheme was far-reaching. In addition to changing the place of gathering and the priesthood, he changed also the date for one of the gatherings, which, instead of being held on the seventh month, he appointed for the eighth. However, craftily he perceived that by taking the high priest’s position to himself and being both priest and king he would attach to his own person more of the reverence of the people. This was the very matter which God had stipulated for the Israelites as being more favorable to their liberties, as putting less power into the hands of their rulers, as keeping their religion on a separate basis from their politics. But Jeroboam’s plan evidently was to take the very step that would forward his personal ambitions. Similarly the emperors of Rome took to themselves the priestly office, in order that they might the more effectively bind the people to them and appear to be not only great military heroes, but the representatives of the gods.” (R3386:4)

For Aaron and his immediate family, the “secondary” consecration began where the “initial” one ended. We read: “And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons.” (Lev. 9:1) It is quite significant that it was an “eighth day” on which Aaron was called upon to offer his own sacrifices and those for the people. The “eighth” is always a “first day,” a day which in New Testament times ever memorializes the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. However, in a sense, the “resurrection” of Jesus was already accomplished 3½ years before his crucifixion on Cal- vary, and was pictured in the fact that after John the Baptist buried the consecrating Jesus under the waters of the Jordan, he immediately raised him up out of the same; and it was at this time that God, the Father, begat Jesus unto a new nature. The testimony of the Scriptures is:

“And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he [John] saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting upon him.” 3:16)

It was also from this time on that Jesus began living his “resurrection life.” Having heard the “call” he responded with an absolute consecration to be dead to himself, yet evermore alive unto God. Now, as a priest of God, he was commissioned to work out this consecration in sacrificial service for others—which service was to culminate in death! Aaron, in the type, having heard the call, and having responded, was then commissioned and instructed to “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)

“ ‘Lo, I have come, as in the volume of the Book it is written of me, to do thy will, O God, Thy law is written in my heart.’ ‘There,’ says the Apostle, ‘he taketh away the first that he may establish the second.’ In other words, there he began to set aside the typical for the ‘better sacrifices.’ The offering of himself was instantaneous, but the presentation of his body to the trials and difficulties of life continued throughout the three and a half years of his ministry and finished at Calvary. He consecrated himself in a moment, to give up all, even life itself, in the Father’s service. But the actual giving of time, influence, strength, vitality, lasted three and a half years.” (R4427:2)

“From the beginning of our consecrated life we are reckoned as being fully ‘crucified with Christ’; but the actual crucifixion is a slow, painful, lingering process, and ends only with the completion of our sacrifice in death.” (R5855:4)

Offerings For the Priest

In this ritual, the bullock (calf), unlike that of Leviticus 8, represents Jesus, and Jesus only! The Church is not here involved, but is represented in the goat subsequently offered. The perfect humanity of Jesus (the bullock) was offered in sacrifice unto God at the time of his consecration and by virtue of this, the “priest” came into existence.

For 3½ years this priest—Christ Jesus as a new creature—was busy carrying out his covenant of sacrifice. During his ministry he referred to it as a baptism not yet accomplished: “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.” (Luke 12:50) On Calvary’s cross he cried, “It is finished.” (John 19:30) Now, this sacrifice of Jesus was indeed all-sufficient to redeem all of mankind, for it supplied all the atoning merit necessary. In commenting upon Lev. 9:7, Bro. Russell wrote:

“This type illustrates the fact that our Lord Jesus (the bullock 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 death of Jesus alone can cancel the sin of Adam. He only was the Redeemer, the Ransomer. He gave his life for Father Adam’s life, and thus as a satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Those for whom Jesus advocates as members of his body become associated with him and identified with him in his work, not by virtue of their own merit, but because ‘accepted in the Beloved.’ These are Scripturally shown as having something to do with the cancellation of ‘the sin of the world,’ because of their association with the Head.” (R5463:3)

As in Leviticus 8, only the “inwards”—the fat, etc.—were burned upon the altar. The remainder of the bullock—its hide, flesh, etc.—were burnt with fire “without the camp.” So Jesus’ heart devotions—his “inner being” as it were—burned as a “sweet savor” upon the altar of sacrifice. Thus was the matter viewed by Jehovah. But there was another aspect to this sacrifice for it was viewed differently by the world of mankind pictured by those in the type, who were without the camp, and for whom the burning occasioned an awful stench in their nostrils.

The blood was applied as in Leviticus 8, to the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and poured out at its base. The significance here is about the same: the earthly altar is sanctified by the blood of Jesus, against the incoming age, and all who would then know its power will be called upon to recognize that blood. It is interesting to note that the underpriests (the Church) are likewise privileged to be conveyors (channels) of the merit (bearing-blood).

Let it be noted also, that the burnt-offerings in this ritual of Leviticus 9 were offered immediately after each of the sin-offerings, whereas those of the Atonement Day (Leviticus 16) followed only after both sin-offerings (the bullock and the goat) had been sacrificed. It will be easier to under- stand the reason for this when we remember that the sin-offerings of Leviticus 9 were not directly for the nation of Israel, but merely indirectly inasmuch as they were incidental to the consecration of that priesthood which on the Day of Atonement was to accomplish the full and complete, the direct and immediate, atonement for Israel. Accordingly, the acceptance of each of the sin-offerings of Leviticus 9 was indicated immediately after its having been offered, when at Pentecost the holy Spirit was poured out upon the waiting disciples—the Church. So too will it also be when the sacrifice of the Church has been accomplished. Its acceptance by God on behalf of the world of mankind will be indicated by the outpouring of God’s holy Spirit upon all flesh. (T67; T88)

That the underpriests in the type were privileged also to present the burnt-offering—“the pieces thereof, and the head” (Lev. 9:12)—unto Aaron who before burning them upon the altar, washed the “inwards and the legs” (Lev. 9:14), seems to have an important significance, especially in view of the fact that this particular ram was offered in connection with the priest’s sin-offering, the bullock. As already stated, the bullock of the type represented the perfect man Christ Jesus, and him alone, and the burnt- offering, the manner of God’s acceptance of this sacrifice. If God had in- tended to accept the sacrifice of Jesus as being the complete (and only part of the) sin-offering, it would have been unnecessary to wash the body members (inwards and legs) of the typical ram—for, surely, Jesus himself, in no sense of the word, required washing. However, if God was accepting not only Christ Jesus, but also the Church in him, how better could this be shown than it was in the type; for though we are accepted of the Father “in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:16), it is not without first having been washed, and this virtually at the hands of Jesus, the High Priest.

There is no mention in the ritual of Leviticus 9 of the underpriests laying their hands upon the head of the bullock or this ram. Perhaps the presentation of the burnt-offering by them unto Aaron, after the latter had slain it, is its equivalent, for so, at least antitypically, the Church does recognize in the sacrifice of Jesus that ransom merit which cleanses it from all sin and makes it acceptable to God as “the Body” of Christ. Thus, “in offering his own perfections, he (Christ) was offering that which would by imputation be our perfection as his members.” (R4922:2)

“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 their being blessed by the Messianic kingdom.

“We are to remember that this same thought was kept up in God’s subsequent dealings with Israel. Thus the Passover lamb was slain, and its blood, sprinkled figuratively, typically, foretold the fact that there could be no church of the firstborn saved during the Gospel age, except through the slain Lamb, ‘the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.’ Similarly, the sin-offerings and burnt-offerings of Israel spoke of the necessity for a redemption work to be accomplished before any blessings could come to Israel, or through them to other nations, peoples, kindreds and tongues.” (R5180:5)

“It is of much interest to see how ‘the sons of Aaron’ appear in this chapter as presenting the blood to Aaron, and delivering the burnt-offering to him. They are sympathetic with all that he does, and, we might say, cooperating with him in it. It suggests the assembly (the Church) as a company with understanding of the necessity for Christ offering Himself, and who are intelligent as to His offering, and as to the fruit of it. Before the moment when the public result of that offering will fill the world with blessing at the ‘appearing of the glory of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2:13), the assembly (the Church) is in accord with Christ as to His offering work, and as to all that will result from it in the blessing of Israel and of all the ends of the earth.” (Coates, An Outline of the Book of Leviticus, p. 105)

“The testimony of the Tabernacle Shadows which fits and binds together every feature of the glorious plan … shows us that the first sacrifice of the Day of Atonement, the sacrifice of the bullock, was for and on behalf of the body of the priest and his household, the house of Levi, the household of faith. It shows us that the sacrifice of the goat, representing the sacrifice of the body of Christ, is a part of the atonement work, though the merit rests entirely upon the first sacrifice—of the bullock. From this we see how the Lord is accepting ‘us’ as sacrificers, because we are Christ’s and not on our own account.

“This in no sense signifies that merit of the Church has accomplished anything that could not have been accomplished without her cooperation. It shows on the contrary that all the merit was in the Lord Jesus and in the sacrifice which he gave. Any sacrifice which we make is based upon his merit imputed to us and continued in our sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of ‘his body,’ in the larger sense of the word his Church, that will thus be completed.” (R3507:5)

Lev. 9:14 reads, “And he did wash the inwards and the legs, and burnt them upon the burnt-offering on the altar.” From this it would appear that there was already a burnt-offering upon the altar when the inwards and legs were placed upon it. This may have reference to the head already burning there; or even to the daily burnt-offering, which, of course, pre- ceded all other sacrifices (Exod. 29:38,39). Indeed, it is very probable that was it, for it is said that the memorial of the meal-offering (identified with the people’s burnt-offering) was burnt upon the altar, “beside the burnt- offering of the morning.” (Lev. 9:17).

“Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf (bullock) of the sin-offering, which was for himself.” (Lev. 9:8)

This is what Aaron was told in the preceding verse: “Go to the altar, and offer thy sin-offering and thy burnt-offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people.” Aaron here, of course, typified Christ Jesus, whose sacrifice had sufficient merit to make an atonement for both the anti- typical “priesthood” and for all “the people.”

“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.” (T79)

But while this is true, the type was intended also to show that in the application of this merit, it was to be to the Church (the “body” of Christ) first, and then, by way of a secondary offering made available to the whole world of mankind. Accordingly, the expression “for himself” in Lev. 9:8, has reference to the “High Priest’s” body members—the Church of the Gospel dispensation.

“For his own sins (not for his individual sins, for he had none), but for the sins of those accepted during this Gospel age as the underpriesthood, the ‘members of his body’; and then later a second sacrifice for the sins of the people—the world in general.” (R4511:3)

It might not be amiss to consider more particularly the two animals which according to the “secondary consecration” ritual of Leviticus 9 were brought as Aaron’s own sin-offering and burnt-offerings, respectively. These were a young calf (bullock) for the sin-offering, and a ram (male sheep) for the burnt-offering. (Lev. 9:2) This, we believe, is most significant. Since Aaron was a type of our great High Priest, undoubtedly two different aspects of the one great sacrifice of Jesus were here intended to be foreshadowed!

Nor should we forget that no sin-offering or trespass-offering, per se, was ever considered a “sweet savor¹ unto the Lord.” In fact, no offering identified with or for sin afforded God any pleasure. Paul, quoting Psalm 40:6,7, has Jesus, at the time of his consecration at Jordan, declaring unto God, the Father: “You have not wished sacrifice or offering … you never cared for burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin … I have come, O God, to do thy will.” (Heb. 10:5-7, An American Translation)

Neither was it possible for God to accept from one still guilty of unjudged sin, any of the so-called “sweet savor” offerings, such as the burnt-offering and peace-offering. That is why the sin-offerings almost invariably preceded all others. (See Leviticus 8, 9, and 16.) With Jesus, of course, it was different, for being “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26) he could offer unto God in full consecration and dedication, his sinless self as an acceptable “burnt-offering”! This, surely, is what is implied in the expression of Jesus: “I have come to do your will.” But it so happens that the divine will (Eph. 3:11) for Jesus was for him to become “the lamb slain” (Rev. 5:12; 13:8), evidently, to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29,36).

Careful examination of the types reveals that while a male sheep (ram) was used for a trespass-offering, it was never used for a sin-offering! (See Lev. 4:4,14,23,28,32.) Frequently, however, the male sheep (ram) was used for a burnt-offering (Lev. 8:12; 9:2,3; 16:3,5; Exod. 29:38-42); and it could also be used for a peace-offering (Lev. 3:1,6-11).

And so, seemingly, God intended by way of this type to show two different aspects of Jesus’ consecration, sacrifice and death. Aaron, in the type, had to offer the sin-offering first because the sin-offering was for himself as well as for the people (Lev. 9:7). Antitypically, Jesus too, offered the sin- offering “for himself,” but here, the “himself” does not have reference to him who knew no sin, but rather to those in due time who become “members” of his “body.” This is very beautifully set forth by the fact that the head of the burnt-offering—that is, the High Priest’s burnt-offering—was laid upon the altar unwashed, whereas the “body members”—the inwards and the legs—were first washed and then laid unto the head upon the altar. (Lev. 9:14; see also Lev. 8:18-21)

The legs are specifically mentioned as requiring the washing. Perhaps this is because the legs are intended to represent more particularly the living members of the Christ, who in all of the age, would be “feet” members, requiring washing because of their contact with the earth.

“The Lord’s people in every part of the age have been ‘feet’ members of the body.” (R2827:2)

¹ That portion of the sin-offering—the inwards, burnt upon the altar—was of a “sweet savor.” (Lev. 4:31)

Of course, Jesus died but once on Calvary’s cross; yet this one death must be viewed from two different standpoints:

1. We see Jesus as the burnt-offering of a “sweet savor,” doing always the things which delighted the heart of his heavenly Father, even to the ex- tent of laying down his life in death. This was beautifully shown when Jehovah broke the silence of heaven to show forth his pleasure in the death which Jesus underwent on the occasion of his consecration (i.e., baptism, the passing of the first vail, the door—Matt. 3:17), and again at the end of that ministry, in anticipation of Jesus’ death soon to be accomplished on Calvary’s cross (the passing of the second vail—Matt. 17:5): “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”
2. We see the sin-offering in which God could not delight, evidenced in the cry of Jesus on that self-same cross, “My God, my God, Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46)

Offerings For The People

The bullock of the sin-offering had all the atoning merit required for all the people, but it was not directly so applied. A goat was graciously permitted to have a share in the ritual (Lev. 9:3,15) as if to become a channel whereby the atoning merit might reach the people. The goat well represents the Church which, unlike Jesus, actually possesses no perfect humanity. But even though the Church’s humanity is not actually perfect, it is nevertheless accounted so by virtue of that justification (imputation of Jesus’ righteousness) already foreshadowed by the washed “inwards and legs” of the priest’s ram of burnt-offering. Like unto the goat of old (Lev. 9:15), when accepted, it was offered by the high priest (Jesus) even as his own sacrifice, but for the people. The account says that he “offered it for sin, as the first” which implies that the blood of the goat was handled in exactly the same way as that of the bullock, i.e., after its presentation to the high priest it was applied to the horns of the altar, and poured out at its base. (Lev. 9:9) The significance here, therefore, must be the same also. How beautifully this all shows forth the fact that the Church is identified with Jesus in the “better sacrifices.” (Heb. 9:23)

The flesh, hide, etc., of the goat were, like those of the bullock, burned with fire “without the camp.” (T62)

“The Apostle Paul explains that only those animals which were sin-offerings were burned outside the camp. And then adds, ‘Let us go to him without the camp, bearing the reproach with him.’ (Heb. 13:11-13) Thus is furnished unquestionable evidence not only that the followers of Jesus are represented by this ‘Lord’s goat,’ but also that their sacrifice, reckoned in with their Head, Jesus, constitutes part of the world’s sin-offering. ‘The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.’—Psa. 69:9.” (T62)

As suggested, here again is set forth the disdain with which the world looks upon our covenant of sacrifice—it is indeed a stench in their nostrils even as was Jesus’.

The burnt-offering (Lev. 9:16) which followed the people’s sin-offering in this instance consisted of two animals—a calf and a lamb (Lev. 9:3). In general, its significance is much the same as that of the ram sacrificed in connection with the High Priest’s sin-offering; it showed how God accepted the sacrifice of the Church as one wholly consumed by the altar and of a “sweet savor” unto himself. Here, however, the fact that the heads (unwashed) of these animals were laid upon the altar, and then the pieces— “the inwards and the legs” after having been washed—further shows that God’s acceptance of the Church is merely as the secondary part of Jesus’ sin-offering—as the part which of itself had no intrinsic merit, and which was made acceptable only by virtue of the washing at the hands of our High Priest. Another point worthy of note is that these two animals were really of the same species as those which constituted the high priest’s sin-offering and burnt-offerings, respectively, viz., a calf (bullock) and a lamb (ram—see Lev. 9:2 and compare with Lev. 9:3); as if to say, the acceptableness of the people’s sin-offering (i.e., the goat) by Jehovah is really contingent upon the sacrifice of the high priest—his sin-offering (the bullock), and its acceptance as set forth in his burnt-offering (the ram) which followed it. How true it is that the Church’s share in the sin-offering is acceptable for the people (the world of mankind) only because the ransom merit of Jesus was accepted by God and made our justification and consecration possible! Thus our consecration virtually becomes a baptism for the dead (world). (See 1 Cor. 15:29; also F455) And how else could we offer a “living sacrifice” unto God, “holy,” and “acceptable”? (Rom. 12:1)

The sacrifices and offerings of ancient Israel fell into two general classes: those which were voluntary, i.e., of the offerer’s own free will, and those which according to the Law were mandatory, i.e., required for sin-atonement. David prophetically puts these words into Jesus’ mouth:

“Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire … burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required [of me] … Lo, I come … I delight to do thy will, O God, yea, thy law is within my heart.” (Psa. 40:6-8; see also Heb. 10:5-9)

Since Jesus was “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners” Jehovah could not require a sin-offering of him, nor could he demand from him a “burnt-offering” because to do so would have been contrary to its free-will feature. But Jesus, because he so loved his Father and delighted in all of his will (John 8:29), would, in himself, meet all that the divine Law could require for the sinner condemned. This he would do of his own free, voluntary will!

It appears that the calf (bullock) and the ram which in Leviticus 9 were offered by Aaron as his own sin-offering and burnt-offering, respectively, reflect these two aspects of Jesus’ one, great sacrifice—the ransom sacrifice for the sin of the world!

Since in a sense the sacrifices of Leviticus 9 and of Leviticus 16 represent one and the same sacrifices being offered in the antitypical atonement day

—the Gospel age (T79)—it stands to reason that the bullock offered on the eighth day of the first month, and that offered on the tenth day of the seventh month, both represented the great ransom-sacrifice of Christ Jesus:

“The sin-offering of Israel’s Atonement Day shows the same sacrifice of Jesus which constitutes the ransom-price, but it is a different picture; for it shows how God appropriates the merit of Christ in behalf of the law which provided the Day of Atonement. The sin-offerings were its principal feature. There were two. First, was the bullock of sin-offering, which was furnished by the priest himself, the blood of which was made applicable to the priest’s own family and tribe. This we see represented the death of Jesus, and the primary imputation of his merit to the church of the first-borns.” (R5873:3)

True, the Tabernacle types were not intended to teach the ransom but rather, its application. However, before one can apply ransom merit, he must find it: and we believe it is to be found in these two offerings of Aaron, perhaps more particularly in the bullock’s blood, which in due course, was sprinkled on and before the Mercy Seat, to make atonement. Surely this bullock (Lev. 9:2,8), like that of Leviticus 16, represented Jesus at the age of thirty years—“the perfect man who gave himself and died on our behalf … the only possible ransom for men—a perfect man’s life— 1 Cor. 15:21.” (T61)

We are not told that these animals which Aaron offered were yearlings, though this might quite reasonably be conjectured. However, in dealing with the people’s offerings, with the exception of the goat of the sin- offering, we are specifically told that the two animals constituting the burnt-offering, were “of the first year” (yearlings), as well as “without blemish.” (Lev. 9:3) This, we believe, is significant.

Since the burnt-offering was to show how a sacrifice was accepted by God (T45), we assume that the type here was intended to reflect that the Church’s sacrifice (represented by the goat for the people) would be acceptable on the basis of our High Priest, Jesus’ sacrifice, previously offered. The same kind of animals as constituted Aaron’s sin- and burnt-offering were used for the people’s burnt-offering!

It should be remembered in this connection, that all of the atoning merit was supplied by the bullock (Jesus’ sacrifice) and that for this reason, the goat (the Church’s sacrifice) might have been completely eliminated. (Lev. 9:7; T79)

“In the matter of sin atonement, ‘we were children of wrath even as others,’ and therefore we had nothing wherewith we could procure 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 merit in us; but when he gives us a share of this, or imputes it to 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)

Since the sin-offering and the burnt-offering reflect one and the same sacrifice or consecration (R4389:3)—here, that of Christ Jesus himself—it becomes quite clear as to why these animals had both to be “without blemish.” Aaron’s calf for the sin-offering and the ram for the burnt-offering reflected the spotlessness and the sinlessness of the man Christ Jesus.

We are not told that the goat—the people’s offering (representing the Church)—was “without blemish.” This does not necessarily imply that it was blemished. However, it is significant that we are not told that it was without spot or blemish. As already suggested, its acceptance was based on the High Priest’s sacrifice, here represented in the two animals constituting the burnt-offering of the people, and which we are told were “both of the first year” and “without blemish.” Thus is Jesus most beautifully identified for us, not merely as the spotless, sinless One, but also that his sacrifice was that of a “yearling” inasmuch as it was made when he was exactly thirty years of age.

“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

… 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 from the moment of consecration … 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)

Meal Offering

The meat [meal] offering followed the burnt-offering and consisted of fine flour, oil, and frankincense (Lev. 2:1), and as was common with all other offerings, it was seasoned with salt (Lev. 2:13).

In all the sacrifices thus far considered, individual identity of the separate parts is clearly maintained: in the sin-offerings the bullock represents Christ Jesus and the goat represents the Church; in the burnt-offerings, the unwashed head more particularly represents Christ, and the washed “inwards” and “legs” represent the body members, the Church. In the meat [meal] offering, however, an offering which is intended to show forth the identical sacrifices but from a different standpoint, the identity of all the separate and individual parts or members is completely lost in a single mass or lump, bread (see 1 Cor. 10:17) for the meat [meal] offering could be baked in an oven (Lev. 2:4).

Flour is made by grinding wheat into a very fine powder—a process whereby the individuality of each and every kernel is completely and everlastingly lost. What a picture this is of the Christ, the true wheat class, for whom the afflictions (of Christ)—the trials, besetments and hardnesses of “the way”—are the grinding processes by which all individual identities are lost, so that they who lose them may be found in the Christ. Paul well recognized this great and fundamental truth and rejoiced in it (Col. 1:24); and it was also he who declared that for him to live was Christ (Gal. 2:20); and that in him all other identities are lost. Hear him as he says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) Accordingly, it is suggested, that in this type the flour represents “the actual purity of Jesus as a man, and the imputed purity of the Church as men” (T46) offered as one sacrifice upon this altar of burnt-offering. And are we not admonished to present this body “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” and is not this called our “reasonable service”? (Rom. 12:1) Yea, and is this not the very manner in and by which we worship Jehovah, our God and Father?

The oil used in connection with this meat [meal] offering probably is intended to represent the sanctification that is by way of the anointing and indwelling of the spirit of God, which spirit comes upon all those identified with Jesus in this covenant of sacrifice.

The frankincense offered in connection with the meat [meal] offering represents that characteristic which marks all the anointed of this wheat class, who, upon coming in contact with the fire of the altar, yield instead of murmurings and repinings, “fragrant,” sweet praises unto Jehovah.

Accordingly, the meat [meal] offering of this ritual would represent the worship and praise which redound to Jehovah on the part of that priest-hood which by way of sacrifice is being consecrated for its “future work as kings and priests, to restore and rule over and bless mankind.” (T39) Note, however, that it is specifically stated that no meat [meal] offering was ever to be offered containing leaven. (Lev. 2:11) How significant! Surely, no worship or praise is acceptable to Jehovah if tainted, be it ever so slightly, with leaven of malice or wickedness. Those who would worship God must worship him with the bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor. 5:8)

Regarding the salt with which it was seasoned, let it be remembered that salt is a preservative because it arrests the natural processes of destruction (decay). 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 his saints die a natural death; it must be sacrificial, the result of a definite slaying and the fire of God’s altar. Therefore, “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.” (Psa. 116:15)

Yet only a “memorial” of this meat [meal] offering was placed upon the altar (Lev. 9:17; 2:2; 6:15), but this was Aaron’s handful. How sweet the thought! The remainder of the meat [meal] offering was appropriated by the priest to himself.

There are two things which always accompany the faithful presentation for sacrifice of the bodies of the Lord’s saints: (1) the afflictions which make possible the quick destruction of the flesh—“the outward man” must perish; and (2) the building up of the spiritual being—“the inward man,” the priest for whose account there is being laid up “a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:16,17). Perhaps the “memorial” was always by far the smaller part. At least we do know this, that our afflictions after all are “slight” and “but for a moment” and we do reckon “that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.” (Rom. 8:18)

It should be observed that no meal-offering was offered in connection with the High Priest’s burnt-offering (Lev. 9:12-14); but there was with the people’s burnt-offering (Lev. 9:17). Note that only the “memorial” of this meal- offering was burnt upon the altar; and that the remainder, therefore, must have been appropriated by the priest—eaten by him as per the Law of the Meal-Offering (Lev. 6:14-16). Such would not have been the case if the meal-offering had been the priest’s, for then it would have been completely burnt upon the altar (Lev. 6:23), and no part thereof would have been eaten!

Peace-Offerings

“Let us then, on no account, miss this lesson from the order of this ritual; before the peace-offering, the burnt-offering; before the burnt-offering, the sin-offering. Or, translating the symbolism, perfect fellowship with God in peace and joy and life, only after consecration; and the consecration only possible in fulness, and only accepted of God, in any case, when the great Sin-offering has been first believingly appropriated, according to God’s ordination, as the propitiation for our sins, for the cancelling of our guilt.” (Kellogg, The Expositor’s Bible, “Leviticus,” p. 228)

Next Aaron offered the peace-offering. Like the burnt-offering of the people, it consisted of two animals; and it is interesting to note they are here too of the same species as the sin-offering and burnt-offerings of the high priest, viz., a bullock (calf) and a ram. (Compare Lev. 9:2 with Lev. 9:4.) So does the type clearly set forth the fact that both the acceptance of the people’s sin-offering, and the consequent peace are predicated upon the acceptance by Jehovah God of the priest’s own offering.

“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 to 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 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 of peace, 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 be enabled to obey the perfect law and live forever.

“ ‘And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them; and came down from offering the sin-offering and peace-offerings.’ Here we see illustrated in the type the fact that though the blessing is not fully due to come upon the people until all sacrifices are finished, yet a measure of blessing comes upon mankind from the members of the Priest, even now, during the age of sacrifice, before we all go into the ‘Most Holy’ or spiritual condition. And how true is this to the facts: wherever the royal Priests are, a blessing more or less pronounced flows from these to their neighbors.” (T81)

The peace-offering of Leviticus 9 was very unique. It was not the peace-offering of the priest, for it is definitely stated that it was “the people’s offering.” (Lev. 9:3,15,18) And yet it was, strictly speaking, not the peace-offering of the people for had it been such, it would most likely have been but a single animal brought by one of the congregation, or a representative of the whole congregation, who, after placing his hands upon its head, would also have slain it. (See Lev. 7:29,30; 3:1,2,8,13) In this instance, how- ever, we are specifically told that it was Aaron who offered it. (Lev. 9:7,18)

Offered in connection with the ritual of Leviticus 9 it was incidental to the consecration of the priesthood, and this in turn was indirectly for (or in behalf of) the people; for without this consecration service of Leviticus 9 there never could have been the national atonement of Leviticus 16.

The picture is a most beautiful one, for it shows that our consecration, while made in the present Gospel age, is really for the future—the Millennial age, i.e., to prepare us for our future work as kings and priests, to restore and rule and bless mankind (T39). Thus, as the Apostle Paul sug- gests, our “baptism” is for the dead! (1 Cor. 15:39)

In this ritual, it is quite evident that the basis for the acceptance of any sacrifice on behalf of the people was the sin-offering of the priest—the bullock! The ram of burnt-offering (Lev. 9:2,7,12) showed the manner of its acceptance—that though the sin-offering was burned partly upon the altar of burnt-offering (Lev. 9:10) where it was a “sweet savor” unto God and partly “without the camp” (Lev. 9:11) there creating a stench in the nostrils of the people—it was nevertheless accepted by Jehovah as though like the burnt-offering, it had been completely consumed by the altar. Of course, these two sacrifices were typical of the sacrifice of Jesus; and though his death supplied the atoning merit for the sins of the whole world, its direct application has as yet been made only for the church of the “first-borns.” In due time, however, this merit is to reach the world, but God has ordained that the church which is “his body” is to be the channel through which that merit is to flow.

In the type then, the goat (Lev. 9:3,15) represented the church and was offered as a sin-offering for the people by the priest who had already offered the bullock. The acceptance of this secondary sin-offering of the priest for the people was predicated upon the sacrifice of that very bullock; and this is very clearly set forth in the fact that the burnt-offering for this secondary sin-offering consisted of two animals which were identical in kind with the sin-offering and burnt-offering for the priest, viz., a “calf (bullock) and a lamb (ram).” (Lev. 9:3)

So too, with the peace-offering. A “bullock and a ram” (Lev. 9:4) seems to indicate that the peace established by way of the sin-offering (offered for the people) traces back to the merit of the initial sacrifice of the priest, and its acceptance by Jehovah!

But there is still a further lesson to be gathered here, and this is based upon the fact that a peace-offering could be used to express thanksgiving (Lev. 7:15) or the assumption of a vow (Lev. 7:16), either of which would of necessity be a voluntary offering. Since this ritual concerned itself with the consecration of the priesthood and no national atonement was accomplished thereby, it seems evident that the peace-offering here referred to, was not a thank-offering of the people, but rather a covenant-offering made for (or on behalf of) the people, whereby the anointed priest assumed the vows or covenants under which the people were to be blessed.

Those who by way of the covenant of sacrifice have become identified with Christ Jesus, in due time to be members of the world’s High Priest, surely have assumed vows, obligations and covenants, in the interests, and on behalf of all the people. Truly, they have been “baptized for the dead.” It has been ordained of God that the faithfulness unto death of these, shall bring about the sealing of the New Covenant, by, and under which Israel and all mankind will be blessed. Thus, by way of sacrifice, do these members of the “royal priesthood”—Christ Jesus and his church—become able ministers of the New Covenant (Mal. 3:1; 2 Cor. 3:6), and thus are they perfected unto every good work. In this connection the Apostle Paul says,

“Now the God of Peace … through the blood of the everlasting covenant make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight.” (Heb. 13:20,21).

“ ‘The blood of the everlasting Covenant make you perfect,’ refers not to a perfecting of the flesh—not to anything which refers to us as natural men. It refers to us as new creatures who have been begotten of the holy Spirit; because, after we were justified through faith in the blood of Jesus, we presented our bodies living sacrifices, holy, and acceptable to God as a part and parcel of our Lord Jesus’ sacrifice and, under his Headship, to be associated with him in his sacrifice for the sealing of the New Covenant and by and by to be associated with him in the glorious work of establishing that New Covenant, after it shall have been sealed for the blessing of Israel and the world. It is through our obedience to our Sacrificial Vow to be ‘dead with Christ’ as joint-sacrificers in connection with the sealing of the New Covenant that we may become members of his body, the Vine. It is this sacrificing with him which will make us perfect as new creatures and give us a share with our Lord in his glory, honor and immortality.” (R4495:4)

“The wine represents not only our Lord’s blood but also the blood of the church—that we are sharers with him in his sacrificial sufferings.—1 Cor. 10:16,17.” (R5342:3)

In a sense, the ancient priest was indeed a mediator inasmuch as he stood between God and the people, who despite the atoning sacrifices, and the peace thus established, because of their lack of faith, and their inability to keep the Law, were nevertheless ever and always out of harmony with God. Nor could Moses, the Mediator of the old Law Covenant, either inspire them with faith or make them perfect so as to be able to keep the Law and live. The great world’s High Priest will be a mediator too; for despite the fact that the sin-offerings of the Gospel age have an atoning merit, these will not have made the world of mankind perfect, and the peace thus established will, as in the case of Israel of old, be but in part. It is only after the people themselves have been established in righteousness, that peace for them will become perfect and complete. And this is the work of the great Mediator during the Millennial age. Is not this mediatorial Priest to be after the “order of Melchizedek” who first “by interpretation” was “King of Righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of Peace.” (Heb. 7:2)

The term “mediator” is here used in the generally accepted sense of the word, meaning, as it were, a “middle man” (Young), “one who mediates; esp. one who interposes between parties at variance to reconcile them” (Webster), “an intercessor” (Winston). This is also the sense in which the world’s High Priest (Christ and his Church) will function on behalf of the world during the Millennium. In a more specific sense, however, Aaron may be said to have acted as an “advocate,” standing with, or for Israel, before the bar of divine justice, under the terms of the Law Covenant, which Moses mediated. (R4309:1)

The typical priest of old, it will be recalled, wore as a part of his “garments of glory and beauty” an ephod (Exod. 28:2,6,7). Arrayed in these garments, was he not an “impressive and significant type of the world’s High Priest, undefiled, and clothed with power and authority to fulfill Jehovah’s covenant”? (T30)

“[The ephod was] made of cloth of purple, blue, scarlet, white and gold threads, skillfully and beautifully interwoven. It was of two parts, one hanging in front and the other over the back. These two parts were fastened together by two gold clasps which rested on the shoulders. The ephod typified the two great covenants—the Abrahamic Covenant represented by the front part, and the New Covenant represented by the back.” (T30)

“The scarlet, blue, purple, etc., which composed the ephod, indicated the conditions of the two covenants. The scarlet shows how God provides redemption from the Adamic curse through the blood of the ransom. The white linen indicates the restoration of man to his original purity. The blue vouchsafes to him the aid, the ability, faithfully to maintain his righteous character. The purple proclaims the royal power of the Kingdom cooperating. All of these blessings woven together are made sure by the divine power of the anointed priest, represented in the interwoven thread of gold. Thus Jehovah has laid both of these covenants, as they relate to men, upon one who is both mighty and willing to execute these glorious covenanted blessings—‘in due time.’ ” (T34)

“We thus see that Aaron, robed and anointed, represented the entire Christ—the complete Seed of Abraham, in which God is about to bless all the families of the earth. But let us not forget that we have been viewing the Great Deliverer from God’s standpoint, and with looking down to the time of his manifestation—the dawn of the Millennial Day—when all the members shall have come into the Body, and when the ‘holy oil’ shall have run down ‘to the skirts of his garments,’ anointing every member. (Lev. 10:7) Then he will begin the work of blessing mankind. For the glorious reign of this Kingly Priest we constantly pray,—‘Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth.’ ” (T38)

As thus suggested, there are two covenants by way of which the world of mankind is to be blessed: the Abrahamic Covenant that during the Gospel age develops the “Seed” which during the Millennial age will bless all the families of the earth; and the New Covenant which supplies the means to this latter end. It is under the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant that the priesthood of blessing is prepared; and this covenant required no mediator for the New Covenant. It should be recognized that so long as people are imperfect, their relationship to God can be only through a mediator. So was it with Israel of old, and so also will it be with the world of mankind during the Millennial age.

“The Atonement Day sacrifices represented the cancellation of Adamic sin by the sacrifice of Christ; but during the Millennium, while the benefits of the atonement are being applied to the world, while they are being gradually restored to actual perfection and life and harmony with God, errors will be committed for which they will be in some measure responsible. For such they can be again in harmony with God through Christ, their Mediator.” (T94)

The time will come, however, when through the faithful ministrations of the Great Mediator of the New Covenant, the world of mankind will have been restored to human perfection, and when each and every living, human being will have come into a personal covenant relationship with God. Then there will no longer be a need for a mediator.

“Covenant relationship with God means perfection. Mankind will be reaching this during the thousand years of Christ’s kingdom. But they will not enter into it until the end of the thousand years, when the Mediator will turn them over to God. At the close of that time, they will be privileged to enter into this covenant relationship with Jehovah. Then they must stand or fall individually. As we read, at the end of the thousand years Satan shall be loosed for a little season; and all that love unrighteousness will be deceived by him. The remainder of mankind having passed their test successfully, will be received into everlasting life. Then they will be in covenant relationship with God—without a mediator—just as Adam was in covenant relationship with his Creator before sin entered into the world. (R5293:6)

But the fact that there will be no need for a mediator then, does not imply that the New Covenant shall come to an end, for it, like the Abrahamic Covenant is an “everlasting covenant,” and it will continue to bless human-kind with life and peace forever. Then, the glorified Christ—head and body—will undoubtedly bear the same blessed relationship to all man- kind as did Melchizedek of old, to the people of ancient Salem. He will be the King of their peace, and all the earth will be a Salem—a city of peace.

“And the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.” (Isa. 9:6,7)

Though it is not expressly so stated, it may be reasonable to suppose that Moses and Aaron entered the Most Holy after the offering of the peace-offerings, there to jointly appear before the Shekinah Glory, representing the presence of God. The account says, “and Moses and Aaron went into the Tabernacle of the congregation.” (Lev. 9:23). This may mean merely that they entered the Holy and went no further. On the other hand, the expression, “the tabernacle of the congregation” may be a synecdoche, in which event it would include the Most Holy too. Nor are we sure as to just what they did there aside from presenting themselves before God; but of this we may be certain: there was no putting of the blood upon the horns of the incense altar in the Holy or any sprinkling thereof, on and before the mercy seat in the Most Holy. As to what was done with the blood—yea, all of it—is most definitely stated in the account: that of the sin-offerings was put on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering and poured out at its base (Lev. 9:9,15,16); that of the burnt-offerings was sprinkled round about the same altar (Lev. 9:12,15,16); so likewise that of the peace-offerings (Lev. 9:18). But there was a judgment to be manifested, and this upon the faithfulness of the anointed priest in carrying out every detail of this divinely imposed ritual. It was one thing for the priest in a moment to offer the sacrifice upon the altar, but quite another thereafter so to deport himself as to merit the glory still to be revealed in him; and God would judge the former (the sacrifice) by the latter (the faithfulness of the priest). In this connection, and commenting on the words of the Apostle Paul, as recorded in Heb. 9:27,28, Bro. Russell says,

“ ‘And as it is appointed unto men (Aaron and his successors, who were merely types of the High Priest of the new creation) once to die (typically, as represented in the animal slain), and after this (following as a result of those sacrifices) the judgment (of God, approving or disapproving of the sacrifice), so Christ was once offered (never will it be repeated) to bear the sins of many (‘every man’); and unto them that look for him he shall appear the second time, without sin (neither blemished by the sins borne, nor to repeat the sin-offering, but) unto salvation’—to give everlasting life to all who desire it upon God’s conditions of faith and obedience.—Heb. 9:27,28.” (T87)

“Moreover, since the typical Priest represented the ‘body’ as well as the ‘head’ of the antitypical Priest, the Christ, it follows that each member of the Church must pass this ‘judgment’—that although many have been called none will be chosen as finally acceptable ‘members’ of the Christ Body, branches of the true Vine, except as they shall be ‘overcomers’—faithful unto death. (Rev. 3:21) Not, however, that such must attain perfection of the flesh, but perfection of heart, of will, of intent: they must be ‘pure in heart’—the treasure must be of pure gold tried in the furnace, though its present casket be but an imperfect earthen vessel.” (T89)

In the type, Aaron, the High Priest, did pass this judgment, for we read: “And [they—Moses and Aaron] came out [of the tabernacle], and blessed the people.” (Lev. 9:23) They did not die at the threshold of the Most Holy.

“So in the incoming age, the Christ will bless all the families of the earth (Gal. 3:8,16,29; Gen. 12:3); yet not by setting aside or ignoring the Law of God, and excusing sin, but by gradually restoring man to human perfection, in which condition he will be able to keep the perfect law of God, and be blessed by it. Blessed by the Priest, made perfect and able to keep it, the Law,—obey and live—‘He that doeth righteousness is righteous,’ will be a great blessing; for whosoever will may then obey and live forever in happiness and communion with Jehovah.” (T83)

“And the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people.” (Lev. 9:23)

“As the blessing progresses (restoring and elevating the race, mentally and physically), the results will become manifest. The people—the world in general—will recognize God’s gracious love more and more each day. Thus it will be that ‘the glory of the Lord will be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’ (Isa. 40:5) They will come to see, gradually, of the length and breadth and height and depth of the love of God, which surpasseth all understanding.” (T83)

“It is doubtless this same blessing of all the people—salvation from death and its sting, sin—that Paul refers to, saying: ‘Unto them that LOOK for him shall he appear the second time without sin (not again as a sin-offering, and without contamination from those sins borne for sinners) unto salvation.’ (Heb. 9:28) The world has seen the Priest—Head and Body—suffer as a sin-offering during this age; Jesus was manifested to the Jews in the flesh (as a sin-offering), and as Paul could say, so can all followers in his footsteps say, ‘Christ is manifest in our mortal flesh.’ (2 Cor. 4:11) As the whole Christ has thus been manifest and has suffered in the flesh, … ‘the glory (the blessing and salvation) of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.’ When he shall appear, we also shall appear with him in glory.—Col. 3:4.” (T84)

“ ‘And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.’ (Lev. 9:24) The fire symbolized God’s acceptance; its recognition by the people showed that the world will realize the sacrifice and its value in God’s estimation as the price of their liberty from death and the grave, and when they realize it they will worship Jehovah and his representative, the Priest.

“That this is not yet fulfilled is evident. God has not yet manifested his acceptance of the great Atonement Day sacrifice, by fire; the people have not yet shouted and fallen on their faces in worship of the Great King and his representative. No, the world still lieth in wickedness (1 John 5:19); the god of this world still blinds more or less nearly all mankind (2 Cor. 4:4); dark- ness still covers the earth,—gross darkness the people. (Isa. 60:2) Nor need we look for the great restitution blessings prefigured in this type until all the members of the Church, the ‘Body’ of the great high Priest, shall have first gone beyond the Second Vail (actual death), into the Most Holy, by resurrection change. Nor will this ‘blessing’ of the type be fulfilled until after the great time of trouble. Then, chastened, sobered, humbled, the world of mankind will very generally be ‘waiting for’ and ‘looking for’ the great Christ, the Seed of Abraham, to bless them and lift them up.” (T89)

“Christ and the glorified Church, made ‘partakers of the divine nature,’ will be spirit beings, invisible to men. Our Lord’s presence will be manifested to the world by exhibitions of power and great glory. He will not be visible to natural sight, but to the eyes of understanding, as these shall open to an appreciation of the great changes which earth’s new Ruler shall effect. His presence and his righteous authority will be recognized in both the punishments and the blessings which will flow to mankind from his reign. Our King will reveal himself gradually. Some will discern the new Ruler sooner than others. But ultimately ‘every eye shall see (Greek, horao, discern) him.’ ” (R5992:1)

“We have seen that the way in which the world will see the glorified Church will be by mental perception, in the same sense that a blind person may properly be said to see. In the same sense we now see the prize, the ‘crown of life,’ ‘while we look not at the things which are seen but at the things which are not seen (by physical sight); for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.’ (2 Cor. 4:18) It is in this way that the entire Church of this age has been ‘looking unto Jesus’; thus ‘we see Jesus’ (Heb. 2:9; 12:2) Thus, with the eyes of their understanding, the ‘Watchers’ discern the second presence of the Lord in its due time, by the light of the divine Word. And later on the world, every eye, shall see him in similar manner, but by the light of the ‘flaming fire’ of his judgments.—2 Thes. 1:8.” (T85)

“Only ‘those who look for him’ will be able to recognize the Christ as the deliverer who will save them from the dominion of death, yet this will embrace all the world; for the manner of revelation will be such that ultimately all must see. ‘Every eye shall see him’; and all in their graves, being then awakened, even they that pierced him, will realize that they crucified the Lord of glory. ‘He shall be revealed (in the sky? NO!) in flaming fire (judgments), taking vengeance on those that know not (acknowledge not) God, and (also those) that obey not the gospel of Christ.’ It will not take long for all mankind to recognize him under such circumstances. Now the good suffer, but then shall ye discern ‘between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not’; for in that day the distinction will be manifested. (Mal. 3:15-18). Then all, seeing clearly, may, by accepting Christ and his offer of life under the New Covenant, have everlasting life; for ‘We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.’—1 Tim. 4:10.” (T86)

“At that time many nations shall say, ‘Come let us go up to the mountain of the Lord’s house. He will show us of his ways and we will walk in his paths.’ (Isa. 2:3) Another Scripture assures us that, when he shall appear, we also, the bride class, shall appear with him in glory. It is after the sacrificing is all finished and the church glorified that he comes forth the second time unto salvation, saving and blessing all the people. The high priest in the type did not return into the Most Holy again, but lifted up his hands and blessed the people. Then the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people, and the people gave a great shout and fell upon their faces. (Lev. 9:23,24) So the people of the world will prostrate themselves before the great Messiah. And this will be the work of Christ during the thousand years—uplifting mankind and giving them the benefit of the Atonement Sacrifice.” (R5655:6)

“Some years ago we had the impression that possibly some signs of physical restitution to humanity would be due in this ‘harvest’ or lapping period; but all question on the subject is dispelled for years past, as we have seen most clearly that the new order of things and its blessing must wait until the entire ‘body’ of the great Priest has been completed—until the entire work of atonement has been finished—then the High Priest, Head and body complete, will lift up his hands and bless the people, in glorious garments, i.e., clothed in the majesty of divine power and authority, as the foretold Prophet, Priest and King in one.” (R2901:2)

“ ‘When the judgments of the Lord are abroad in the earth the inhabitants thereof will learn righteousness.’ As an illustration of how it may be, sup- pose a man tried to pick somebody’s pocket—his hand might become paralyzed. After a while he might recover the use of his hand and then try it again, but with the same result. He would soon realize that he had better get into a different business. Also if a man were to try to burglarize a store and just as he was about to use the key he would go blind. He would soon find that the business did not pay as well as it used to before.” (Q621)

The wave offering of Lev. 9:21 consisted of the breasts and right shoulders of the people’s peace-offering, and corresponded to that of the ram of consecration in the ritual of Leviticus 8; and has much the same significance. Concerning the latter we read:

“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 … 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)

Role of the Underpriests

We must keep in mind the fact that when Aaron offered up the bullock for the sin-offering and the ram for the burnt-offering, he represented Jesus, and Jesus alone! The bullock here, as well as in Leviticus 16, represented Jesus’ ransom sacrifice (T51). This, of course, is reason enough for the sons of Aaron in the type having had nothing to do with it.

The ram of burnt-offering, likewise, represented Jesus, and only Jesus, in the identical consecration, but reflects it from a sightly different stand-point (R4389:3), that of divine acceptance. God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice as one wholly consumed upon his altar. As already set forth, the ram represented Jesus’ own consecration to the will of God (Heb. 10:5-9). The Church had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Hence, in the type, the ram was slain by Aaron, with apparently no assistance from the underpriests. However, they were privileged to present its blood to Aaron (Lev. 9:12) with which the altar was then sanctified, making subsequent sacrifices acceptable thereon, and the pieces and the head, the inwards and the legs, after these had been washed by Aaron (Lev. 9:13,14) for burning upon the altar.

Since the ram represented only Jesus in his own consecration unto God, what could be the significance of Aaron’s sons presenting these items to Aaron? We believe it was intended to show that the antitypical priesthood, the Church, would be in fullest accord with Jesus’ consecration of himself unto death, because by way of this, they in turn would likewise be privileged to sanctify themselves for others as he did, in a consecration unto death, unto God.

“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 the great atonement sacrifice on behalf of the dead world … We are baptized unto 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)

Hear Jesus as he says, “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be (truly, KJV margin) sanctified through the truth.” (John 17:19)

The type shows that the sons of Aaron assisted Aaron with the blood of his sin-offering (Lev. 9:9) and also with his burnt-offering (Lev. 9:12,13) before the goat, the sin-offering of the people (Lev. 9:3), was slain (Lev. 9:15). This, it would seem, should be quite significant.

Even before Pentecost, i.e., before Jesus’ disciples could have become acceptable “sacrifices” unto God, they were, as it were, in a justified attitude—having a willingness to be identified with him (cf. Matt. 20:22), yea, even to die with him (John 11:16). And God looked with approbation upon them. It seems that for this reason, Jesus said unto them that they might call God their Father (Matt. 6:9), and that the Father himself not only knew what they had need of (Matt. 6:8,32), but that also, He loved them (John 16:27).

“Spirit-begetting was not possible in its full, proper sense until Jesus had made reconciliation for the sins of the world, or, at least had prepared the way for reconciliation by his own death. In one sense of the word, however, his death had already occurred; namely, in that he had presented himself a living sacrifice, and that the Father had accepted that sacrifice. But that death must be finished, and Jesus must ascend into the presence of God and present the merit of his sacrifice, before the divine blessing would descend upon any, permitting them to be sons of God.

“Jesus spoke in an anticipatory or prophetic sense as to their relationship to God. Because they believed in him and were seeking to do his will, they were in full line with God’s arrangement for their becoming sons. Just as after a person has adopted a child and while the papers are in the process of being drawn up in legal form, the child might be spoken of as a son, or he might address the one adopting him as Father or Mother; so these would have the privilege of addressing God as their Father and their privileges would depend on their faith …

“Thus our Lord spoke to his disciples as if they were already new creatures, had already become sons of God and had already received the holy Spirit, even though both he and they knew that this was not completely accomplished, until, as he told them, ‘not many days hence’ they should actually and personally have received it at Pentecost. Addressing the disciples from this standpoint the Master said, ‘Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of.’ ” (R5623:2)

On the other hand, there must have been in the heart of everyone that consecrated during this Gospel age, before he was acceptable as a living sacrifice, not only an appreciation of the sacrifice of Jesus, but also the desire to become identified with him. This, surely is what it was that moved us on to make the full and complete consecration of our all unto the Lord. May it be this that is reflected in this particular part of the type?

It will be noted also that not a word is said about the sons assisting Aaron in connection with the sacrifice of the people’s sin-and burnt-offerings. At this point it might be well to remember that in Lev. 8:14,18,22, the priests all laid their hands upon the heads of the animals to be offered, as if to signify that these animals were to represent them. (T41) Though there is no such laying on of hands in Leviticus 9, the significance of this act carries over from Leviticus 8 as does also the general, basic anointing of the priesthood. There is, however, a difference because in Leviticus 8 it was Moses exclusively who furnished the animals: the bullock of the sin-offering, and the two rams (Exod. 29:1; Lev. 8:1); but in Leviticus 9 Aaron supplied a bullock (calf) and a ram (Lev. 9:2) for himself (Lev. 9:8), and the people brought for themselves the remaining animals (Lev. 9:3,4). In Leviticus 8 the bullock represented not only Aaron, but the underpriesthood as well (T41); but in Leviticus 9 the bullock represented Aaron’s sacrifice alone—antitypically, Jesus only! The Church’s share in the sin-offering was represented in the goat brought by the people. (T81)

The fact that the underpriests who assisted Aaron before the goat was slain did not assist him in connection with its offering suggests that we (the Church) have absolutely nothing to do with our presentation upon the Lord’s altar. It is entirely the work of our High Priest, Jesus. While it was possible for the disciples, even before Pentecost to show their appreciation and approbation of Jesus’ consecration to the Father, they could not do the same about their own: for would this not have savored of pride? All that was left for them to do was to place themselves into Jesus’ hands—be sub- missive, assured that their sacrifice, if offered by him, would be acceptable unto the Father. We do not offer ourselves.

“Even in the sin-offering the church does not offer the sin-offering. The High Priest offered the bullock, and the High Priest also offered the goat. It is not that the High Priest offered the bullock and the underpriests offered the goat—as though we offer or sacrifice ourselves. The utmost that we can do is to consecrate ourselves to be willing sacrifices. It then remains for the High Priest to come forth and impute of his merit in order to make an acceptable sacrifice of this class represented by the ‘goat.’ Thus it is seen that we do not share in the sin-offering in the sense as does our Lord. The High Priest’s offering was of two parts, the ‘Bullock’ and the ‘goat’—the bullock representing his own person and the goat that of his followers.” (R4747:3)

Immediately after Aaron’s offering of the goat of the sin-offering, and its associated burnt-and meal-offerings, he proceeded to offer the people’s peace-offering, and was again assisted by the underpriests (Lev. 9:18). This shows, we believe, how that after we are “sacrificed” and have become new creatures, identified with Christ Jesus, we are then able to be associated with him in all of his work.

“Some one might inquire, Where, then, does the church appear? We answer that the church does not appear in the ‘goat’; but the consecrated human being is represented in the ‘goat’ which was presented. When the sacrifice is made (the offering of the High Priest, having been accepted), we become members of the High Priest, his underpriests. From then on, as his members, we have a participation with him in everything that is good, sacrificially and otherwise.” (R4747:3)

“It is of much interest to see how the ‘sons of Aaron’ appear in this chapter as presenting the blood to Aaron and delivering the burnt-offering to him. They are sympathetic with all that he does and, we might say, cooperate with him in it. It suggests the assembly as a company with understanding of the necessity for Christ offering himself, and who are intelligent as to his offering and as to the fruit of it. Before the moment when the public result of that offering will fill the world with blessing at the ‘appearing of the glory of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2:13), the assembly (‘assembly’ here has reference to the Church) is in accord with Christ as to His offering work, and as to all that will result from it in the blessing of Israel and of all the ends of the earth.” (Coates, An Outline of the Book of Leviticus, p.105)

Blessings

The careful student will see certain differences between the rituals of Leviticus 9 and 16. The former deals more particularly with the matter of consecration of the priesthood while the latter is almost exclusively concerned with the atonement for the people. He will notice that while Leviticus 16 mentions the change from the linen garments of sacrifice to those of typical “glory and beauty” (Lev. 16:23)—apparently preparatory to Aaron’s coming forth to bless the people—not a word is actually said about such a benediction having been given. In Leviticus 9, however, no mention is made of the change of garments, but two separate and distinct blessings of the people are specifically mentioned (Lev. 9:22,23).

Of course there is a reason for this, and we believe it to be that God intended to show by way of the type of Leviticus 9 that any blessing of the people was contingent upon, and incidental to, the faithfulness of the priesthood in the matter of their consecration. Thus, we may reasonably conclude that without the consecration of the priesthood as depicted in Leviticus 8 and 9, there never could have been an atonement for the people (Leviticus 16), with its consequent favor and blessing. Does this not most beautifully set forth that our consecration is really, as the Apostle Paul suggests, a “baptism” for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29), i.e., in the interests, and on behalf of the whole world of mankind? Surely, it is the faithfulness unto death of the antitypical priesthood (as represented in the slain sin-, burnt-, and peace-offerings of Leviticus 9) that brings about atonement with God, and the consequent blessings to “all the people.”

Before entering in upon the discussion of the two blessings of Leviticus 9, it is suggested that the sacrificing in this ritual, like that of Leviticus 16, must have been done while Aaron was arrayed in his garments of sacrifice—the linen garments. The change to the other garments was made at the time when Moses and Aaron together went into the Tabernacle of the Congregation (Lev. 9:23) just prior to their coming forth to bless the people. If this suggestion is correct, it follows that the first blessing by Aaron alone (Lev. 9:22) was while he was still robed in the garments of sacrifice, and the second blessing, given by both Moses and Aaron (Lev. 9:23), was while the latter was adorned in his “glorious garments.”

While the type seems to show that neither blessing is due the people until all sacrificing is ended, it can be noticed that the priest did bless the people before he came down from the altar. This, we believe, signifies that a blessing is due from the Church to the people, even before she has gone “beyond the vail.” There is a sense in which the sacrifices here typed were accomplished 1900 years ago, by our High Priest Jesus; but he has not yet come down from the altar. Nevertheless, throughout this whole Gospel age, he has been dispensing blessings to the people, and this, of course, through the members of his body—the church, still in the flesh.

“The members of the body do not offer up themselves; they present themselves; but the offering, so far as God is concerned, must be done by the Priest, Jesus, the High Priest of our profession. The Apostle says that this he did once, and we answer, Here the thought is one fulfillment of the one type. In the type there were two sacrifices offered, and it is here called his sacrifice.

“Our Lord offered himself at Jordan, and he offered all the members of his body, the church, at Pentecost. The offering of himself personally at Jordan was accepted of the Father, and the remainder of Christ’s sacrifice was merely the fulfilling of the terms of the sacrifice. So the presentation of the church before the Father was accomplished at Pentecost, though it required the entire Gospel age to complete the sacrifice.” (R4965:3)

“ ‘And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them; and came down from offering the sin-offering and peace-offerings.’ Here we see illustrated in the type the fact that though the blessing is not fully due to come upon the people until all sacrifices are finished, yet a measure of blessing comes upon mankind from the members of the Priest, even now, during the age of sacrifice, before we all go into the ‘Most Holy’ or spiritual condition. And how true is this to the facts: wherever the royal Priests are, a blessing more or less pronounced flows from these to their neighbors.” (T82)

This blessing of the people by the Christ still in the flesh, results from their faithfulness and loyalty to the principles of Truth and Righteousness, by those whom Jesus was pleased to call “the salt of the earth.” (Matt. 5:13)

“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; and it is said that even yet some of the Arabs would be faithful to death to any person in whose home they had eaten salt. To them it seems to mean a pledge of loyalty.

“Jesus used salt as a symbol, representing his own loyalty to God and the loyalty which all 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 preserver of 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)

How often has the presence of one of the Lord’s “Little Ones” like salt, been the means of retarding, or completely arresting the powers of evil and corruption which might otherwise have been rampant among those with whom he came in contact in the world, in the home, in the school, etc. Surely, this too is a blessing for the people, 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 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. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily, I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” (Matt. 10:40-42)

“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)

“And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat, and when the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.” (Lev. 9:24)

There is nothing in the account of Leviticus 9 which definitely says that the sacrifices as offered upon the altar of burnt-offering were completely consumed at the time when Aaron “came down from offering the sin- offering and the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings” (Lev. 9:22). In fact, from what follows, it may reasonably be assumed that they were yet smoldering, and that a column of smoke was still ascending heavenward, when Moses and Aaron came out of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and blessed the people (Lev. 9:23).

Let it be carefully noted that the “glory of the Lord” appeared unto all the people, before the “fire came forth from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat,” and that it was then, after this manifestation, that the people “shouted, and fell on their faces.” (Lev. 9:24). The expression, “burnt-offering,” is here evidently used in the generic sense, and refers to all that still remained incompletely consumed of the sacrifices upon the altar of burnt-offering.

In the type, Moses and Aaron together blessed the people after coming out of the Tabernacle. Antitypically, this second blessing “is not fully due to come upon the people until all sacrifices are finished” (T82). Technically, the typical sacrifices were “finished” when Aaron came down from the altar, and when with Moses, he entered the Tabernacle. It is true, as already suggested, that neither the animals nor their fat had at this time been entirely consumed. The reason for this, we believe, will soon be obvious.

“When this day (age) of sacrifice is over, the complete Priest (Head and Body) will appear before God, and give evidence of having met all the claims of Justice against the people (the world) … The going of Moses into the Tabernacle with Aaron seems to say, The Law is fully satisfied and its righteousness vindicated in the sacrifice of Christ. The Law (represented in the type by Moses) will testify on behalf of those who were under the Law— Israel after the flesh—that all condemned under it were also justified to life through the sacrifices of the Priest who ‘offered up himself,’ once for all.

“When presented, the entire sacrifice was ‘holy, acceptable to God,’ this being evidenced by the fact that Moses and Aaron did not die at the threshold of the Most Holy. And Moses and Aaron came out and together blessed the people. So in the coming age, the Christ will bless all the families of the earth (Gal. 3:8,16,29; Gen. 12:3); yet not by setting aside or ignoring the Law of God, and excusing sin, but by gradually restoring man to human perfection, in which condition he will be able to keep the perfect Law of God, and be blessed by it. Blessed by the Priest, made perfect and able to keep it, the Law,—obey and live—‘He that doeth righteousness is righteous,’ will be a great blessing; for whosoever will may then obey and live forever in happiness and communion with Jehovah.” (T82)

“As the blessing progresses (restoring and elevating the race, mentally and physically), the results will become manifest. The people—the world in general—will recognize God’s gracious love more and more each day. Thus it will be that ‘the glory of the Lord will be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’ (Isa. 40:5) They will come to see, gradually, of the length and breadth and height and depth of the love of God, which surpasseth all understanding.” (T83)

The work of the exalted Church, the world’s High Priest, is to reveal unto all people the glory of God, as did also Aaron unto the typical Israel of old! But the antitypical High Priest arrayed in his “garments of glory and beauty” will not be visible to the physical sight of the people, and recognition on the part of those “that look for him” will be by way of a mental perception! (T85) This great invisible High Priest will be “seen” (recognized) in those things which he brings to pass on behalf of, and in the interests of, all mankind—“blessing and salvation.” Like Israel of old at the close of that eighth day, the world of mankind eagerly awaits the “appearance” of this great High Priest, for we read: “The whole creation [humanity] groan- eth and travaileth in pain together … waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God.” (Rom. 8:22)

However, since it is possible to receive a gift without fully appreciating the giver (as was so often the case with typical Israel), the world of mankind will need some experiences through which they will be brought to true worship of Jehovah. As in the type, the blessing received by the nation of Israel at the hands of Moses and Aaron did not bring them to their knees, but the fire which came forth from the Lord caused them to shout and fall on their faces; just so, and for similar reasons, there will have to be the “flaming fire” of his judgments (2 Thes. 1:8) for the world of mankind throughout the Millennial age. Truly, God will reveal his glory through his duly appointed and anointed Priest, “taking vengeance on those that know not [acknowledge not] God, and [also on those] that obey not the Gospel of Christ.”

“It will not take long for all mankind to recognize him under such circumstances. Now the good suffer, but then shall ye discern ‘between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not’; for in that day the distinction will be manifested. (Mal. 3:15-18). Then all, seeing clearly, may by accepting Christ and his offer of life under the New Covenant, have everlasting life; for ‘We trust in the living God, who is the savior of all men, specially of those that believe.’—1 Tim. 4:10.” (T87)

And so the column of ascending smoke from the “finished” sacrifices corresponds to the remembrance on the part of those, who because of the lives we lived among them, will recognize that we have been born in Zion (Psa. 87:4-6). But the fire from the Lord which consumes what still remains unconsumed of the sacrifices, will be the God-given evidence to all the people of His judgments being administered by those whose sacrifices made the glory—“blessing and salvation”—possible. It will be, therefore, a call for their recognition of the faithfulness unto death of the consecrated priest-hood, and of God’s acceptance of these sacrifices to this end. This is the reason why the seven animals are here grouped together and called “the burnt-offering.” (Lev. 9:24)

“And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them.” (Lev. 9:22)

“Keri and Kethib, so frequently found in the margins and footnotes of the Hebrew Bibles, exhibit the most ancient various readings, and constitute the most important portion of the critico-exegetical apparatus bequeathed to us by the Jews of olden times …

“The word keri, may be either the imperative or the participle passive of the Chaldee verb … to call out, to read, and hence may signify ‘read,’ or ‘it is read,’ i.e., the word in question is to be substituted for that in the text. Kethib, is the participle passive of the Chaldee verb … to write, and signifies ‘it is written,’ i.e., the word in question is in the text … The two terms thus correspond substantially to the modern ones margin (Keri) and text (Kethib). We may add that the Rabbins also call the Keri, ‘mikra,’ scripture, and the Kethib ‘masorah,’ tradition; but according to our ideas, these terms should be reversed.” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia)

One such instance occurs in the text of Lev. 9:22, where the King James Version has rendered the Hebrew word as “hand” but most other versions and translations render it “hands”; to wit. the Revised Version (Standard), the Revised Standard Version, Rotherham, Moffatt, Leeser, the Jewish Publication Society, the Douay, the Confraternity (Revised Catholic), and the American Translation. Rotherham, however, very clearly states that: “hand” (written), “hands” (to be read).

“The k’ri … in the plural, according with the vowel points; so 20 MSS and all the ancient versions except the Sam. The plural is probably correct.” (Lange, Commentary, Lev. 9:22, note 16)

The Tabernacle types are indeed very rich: for one type may contain a number of different pictures, each one of which must be viewed independently, and from its own particular angle! For example: In Leviticus 8 the anointing of Aaron with the holy anointing oil may be understood to reflect the fact that only Jesus—our High Priest—received the direct anointing of the holy Spirit. On the other hand, one may also consider that Aaron here represented the complete Christ, head and body members, as partakers of the one anointing of the holy Spirit (Psa. 133:2). But Leviticus 8 also reflects the fact that we—the Church, the underpriesthood—required the merit of the blood ere we could receive the holy Spirit: for in the type the blood of the ram of consecration had to be mingled with the holy anointing oil ere it could be sprinkled upon the underpriests. (Lev. 8:24, 30) (T46)

It can be reasoned that Aaron wore the linen garments of sacrifice while carrying on the ritual of Leviticus 9, though nothing is said about any change of garments from those he had worn during the preceding seven days in the ritual of Leviticus 8. It may be reasoned that antitypically our High Priest, Jesus, has been carrying on the work of this Gospel age in the “linen garments of sacrifice.”

“The High Priest all through this Gospel age is carrying on the work of sacrifice; it was not only when he offered himself, but during all of this age he continues to be the sacrificing priest, and although he has passed beyond the veil, he is still, so to speak, in the linen garments of sacrifice; and his secondary offering, that of the antitypical goat, will be accomplished in the linen garments, when he will enter in beyond the veil and present the blood of his body, which is the church, at the close of the antitypical Atonement Day, when the church shall have filled up its share of the sacrifice of Christ. Our Lord, the High Priest, will then, the second time sprinkle the blood, the merit, upon the mercy seat, thereby sealing the New Covenant and applying his merit on ‘behalf of all the people.’ ” (R4602:1)

There are those who because no word is said about any change of garments, believe that Aaron continued to wear the glorious garments throughout the “eighth day.” We do not concur in this thought. If it can be proven (and we doubt that it can) that Aaron did wear the glorious garments throughout the ritual of Leviticus 9, it would then merely reflect the fact that while we, the underpriesthood, are still arrayed in the linen garments of sacrifice, our High Priest, Jesus, whom we are assisting, has already entered into his own personal “glory and beauty” beyond the veil. In this sense,

“Christ in glory is not a man, not an earthly being, not the sacrificing one as before. He is the glorified kingly priest, in power and great glory now as king of the saints, able and willing to succor them in all their trials and difficulties.” (R5472:3)

It should be remembered that in Leviticus 8 Aaron did none of the sacrificing, so that the “glorious garments” then worn by him reflected merely the fact that they were but the “earnest” of his inheritance; the garments were not really his as yet, for he had not yet proved his worthiness of them. This worthiness he could prove only by way of faithfulness to an implied covenant of sacrifice! In Leviticus 9, however, Aaron is called upon to sacrifice; and why should he not be in the garments especially set apart for this purpose—the garments of sacrifice!

A Sacrifice for the Dead [World]

“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.” (Heb. 10:5-7)

The sacrifices in which God took no pleasure were such as were brought for sin. Obedience is ever better than sacrifice. (1 Sam. 15:22) However, there are sacrifices in which God delights, and these are such as reflect consecration—a devotedness, a dedication to the will of God. He says, “Gather my saints together unto me; those who have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.” (Psa. 50:5) Naturally, such sacrifices are identified with praise and thanksgiving, and are designated in Holy Writ as the food—“the bread of God.” They are brought not for sin nor by the sinner! He who offers them must himself be holy and undefiled, presenting them of his own free will— voluntarily, as a bubbling forth out of the abundance of his heart. “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” (Psa. 40:8)

It is interesting to note in this connection that no son of Aaron, though a priest, could offer the “bread” of his God upon the altar if in any way he was blemished. (Lev. 21:17) If he suffered defective vision, was lame, had a flat nose, had broken feet, or a crooked back, was dwarfed in stature, having scurvy, or otherwise blemished, he was automatically disqualified from this particular service at the altar. (Lev. 21:18-21) Surely, by this standard, there is not one of us qualified to offer the sacrifice unto God.

Who is there among us that has perfect “vision”? We “see” only “in part,” i.e., we often see only what we want to see—the short-comings of others; yet never our own! We are so nearsighted that we murmur and complain against the providences of God, not being able for the moment to see that even adversity will work out for the highest good of the “elect” of God. Or, on the other hand, we are so farsighted that we fail to see the opportunities of service to one another that frequently lie at our very door.

Who is there among us that is not “lame”? We are biased, aren’t we, and rarely in anyone else’s favor; but ever and always in our own! And so “flat- nosed” are we that we are unable to sense the savory elements in another’s sacrifice, imputing, as we often do, evil motives to those whose sacrifices before God may be even more acceptable than our own. Then there are also our “superfluous” members! Isn’t there always just a little too much of our “flesh” that gets in the way, interfering with our spiritual progress all the time, and in almost every way? Are we not often moved to cry with the Apostle, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24)

But though we be thus disqualified from “offering the bread” of our God upon his altar, he has nevertheless provided us with an High Priest who is “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners” who because of this is able to offer our sacrifices for us. It is to this High Priest—touched with the feeling of our infirmities—that we come to present our sacrifices. He in turn offers them as an acceptable “bread” unto God. But grace does not end here, for though disqualified from offering the “bread” we are nevertheless privileged to “feed” with God upon it. (Lev. 21:22,23) Thus it is that a consecration faithfully carried out (even though it be marked by imperfection) God deems to consider acceptable food when offered by the only priest who could meet the necessary qualifications.

How do we feed upon this “bread”? Well, when we see some dear saint of God in earnestness and sincerity, and often under the most adverse condi- tions, living to the best of his ability the Christ-life, are we not inspired by the same? If so, we are feeding upon his consecration, even as does God! Surely, another’s faithfulness to God nourishes us, makes us stronger.

Sacrifices like these, in which God delights, can never be made for one’s self—but ever and always, in the interests of others, i.e., to bless them. It is this that is so beautifully set forth in the ritual of Leviticus 9. Of course, Leviticus 9 was intended to show more particularly the manner in which the anointed sacrificing priesthood was to work out its “calling”—i.e., how by way of a consecration unto death, it was to become the blesser of the people.

Neither in Leviticus 8 nor 16 is anything said about the High Priest blessing the people. Yet twice in Leviticus 9 this is definitely brought to our attention: once, before Aaron comes down from the altar, when he raises his hand in blessing toward the people (Lev. 9:22); and again, when both Moses and Aaron emerge from the Tabernacle and bless them (Lev. 9:23). Why is this blessing of the people referred to here and not in the other two rituals? Not because Aaron did not come forth at the close of the Day of Atonement to bless the people, though it is not so definitely stated; and the silences of God are as often important, as when he speaks. Rather because he would here show that the blessing of the people with atonement comes only by way of the faithful consecration of the priesthood!

It must, however, be kept in mind that Leviticus 9 is not an account of the national atonement effected for Israel on the tenth day of the seventh month. But there are similarities between the rituals of Leviticus 9 and 16, and in these they both differ from Leviticus 8. The similarities we refer to are those involving the sin-offerings, of which there were two—a bullock and a goat. Nor must we forget that the goat offered in these rituals, while being a sin-offering for the people, was not a sin-offering of the people. The latter are brought to our attention in Leviticus 4 where the sin-offering for the whole congregation was a bullock (Lev. 4:13,14), not a goat; and that for any one of the common people was a female goat or lamb (Lev. 4:27,28,32).

It is interesting to note that of the seven animals offered in Leviticus 9, six of them are paired. The remaining one—the goat—just seems to stand out from all the rest by virtue of the fact that it cannot be so paired. The sin-offering for the High Priest was a bullock and his burnt-offering was a ram. The burnt-offering offered in connection with the goat (the sin-offering for the people), consisted of these same two animals—a calf (bullock) and a lamb (ram) (Lev. 9:2,3). And so too, the peace-offerings for the people were a bullock and a ram (Lev. 9:4)! Since, then, the burnt-offering and the peace-offering for the people consisted of the same animals as were offered by the high priest for himself, and his house—a bullock and a ram, the type seems to say that the acceptance of the sin-offering for the people, and its consequent peace, were contingent upon the high priest’s own sin-offering, and its acceptance by Jehovah.

Leviticus 9 clearly shows that the goat might have been dispensed with, that it wasn’t really necessary because all the merit of the atonement had been supplied in the sacrificed bullock. (T79) And thus it pleased God to establish here a type which reflects his purpose concerning the Church which was to be identified with Jesus in the “sin-offering.” Let us not forget, the sin-offering is not the ransom (the thing of value, of merit); but rather a figure of its application. The full and complete atoning merit for all the world (including us) lies in Jesus’ own sacrifice, and in it alone! He was the “bullock” of the antitypical Day of Atonement. However the Scriptures clearly show that God intended to limit its application in the present time to the household of faith—the priest’s own “household”; and also that this merit was not to reach “the people” (the Camp) until it would be released by the priest’s “household.” This release of the merit by the Church can be effected only by its death! Note how beautifully the type shows this: the goat—representing the Church’s humanity—had to be offered on the identical altar where the bullock had been sacrificed, and by the identical priest, who in turn took its blood into the Most Holy, there to sprinkle it, as he did that of the bullock, “on and before the Mercy Seat.” Only then, could atonement “reach” the Camp of Israel.

Thus have we been “baptized for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29). (F456) Note carefully, this death is in the interest of others: we die, so that by way of death we may become the channel of blessing unto all the world of mankind. This is undoubtedly the reason that we find the blessing by the high priest of all the children of Israel set forth in the ritual of Leviticus 9 rather than in those of Leviticus 8 and 16. Indeed, we are being consecrated by way of the antitypical sacrifices “unto death” for “our future work as kings and priests, to restore and rule and bless mankind.” (T39)

Events of Leviticus 10

“Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer, and put fire in it, and offered unholy fire before the LORD, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came forth from the presence of the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron. This is what the LORD has said, ‘I will show myself among those who are near me, and before all the people I will be glorified.’ And Aaron held his peace. And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest ye die; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations. You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.” (Lev. 10:1-3,8-11, RSV)

“Every part of the religion of God is Divine. He alone knew what he designed by its rites and ceremonies, for that which they prefigured—the whole economy of redemption by Christ—was conceived in his own mind, and was out of the reach of human wisdom and conjecture. He who therefore altered any part of this representative system, who omitted or added anything, assumed a prerogative which belonged to God alone, and was certainly guilty of a very high offence against the wisdom, justice, and righteousness of his Maker. This appears to have been the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and this at once shows the reason why they were so severely punished. The most awful judgments are threatened against those who either add to, or take away from, the declarations of God. (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18,19) (Clarke, Commentary)

“But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, and they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgement. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no clean place.” Isa. 28:7,8)

“Although not directly so stated, there is sufficient ground for the inference that the sin for which Nadab and Abihu were smitten by the Lord, was committed while they were under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The basis for this inference is that immediately following the description of their wrong doing and its punishment comes the Lord’s injunction—‘Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die; … that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.’ (Lev. 10:9,10)

“The two young men smitten in the prime of life were Aaron’s oldest sons; there were two younger brothers. All had just been consecrated to the priesthood, under their father Aaron as the chief priest, by the direction of their uncle Moses, carrying out the divine arrangement. With many advan- tages every way, they had corresponding responsibilities, as well as grand prospects for the future, all of which were destroyed because of their lack of reverence for the Lord—their carelessness respecting his regulations, and the vows which they had just taken upon themselves as his special servants. Their experience furnishes an excellent temperance lesson. How many have similarly blighted their prospects in life, hastened their death, and brought sorrow upon their kindred! …

“There is however, a deeper lesson for us in the experiences of the two priests under consideration. As they were members of the tribe of Levi, so those whom they typified would be members of the ‘household of faith.’ As they went further than this and consecrated to the priesthood and were truly and properly accepted of the Lord as priests, their antitypes must be persons, classes, who have come under the terms of the ‘royal priesthood’ in the full, proper sense of the word. They do not represent merely nominal Christians—merely such as imagine themselves consecrated to the Lord through a misunderstanding, as is the case with many in the nominal church of today: they represent persons, classes, in the true, consecrated Church of the Lord.

“The Scriptural account does not specify respecting the wrongdoing of Na-dab and Abihu. The expression ‘strange fire’ does not clearly indicate to us whether their wrongdoing consisted in using an incense other than the kind that the Lord had prescribed, or whether they used it at the wrong time, or in a wrong place, or whether the fire which enkindled the incense was taken from some other place than the altar, as the Lord had prescribed, or whether their incense was repulsive to the Lord because the offerers were in a state of intoxication—possessed of a wrong spirit. The latter as we have suggested, seems to be implied in Lev. 10:10, respecting holy and unholy, clean and unclean conditions of approaching the Lord.

“The great lesson here for the royal priesthood is not so much in respect to intoxicating liquors, as in respect to a wrong spirit and unclean condition of mind and heart in approaching the Lord. We are bound to suppose that those who have made a consecration to the Lord and are seeking to ‘cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God’ (2 Cor. 7:1), will not be guilty of literal intoxication. Those who have received to any degree the spirit of the truth and have come to appreciate in any measure the spirit of a sound mind, surely realize that in our soberest and most favorable condition, our minds are none too sound;—they realize that continually the Lord’s people have need of his assisting grace supporting their imperfect judgments, and they could not ask for such grace to help were they not also using their best endeavors to preserve and exercise what sense they have naturally.

“The lesson for the consecrated, therefore, is in accord with what the Apostle has written, ‘Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.’ (Heb. 4:1) Our consecration through faith in the Lord has brought us under the anointing of the holy spirit, has permitted us to enter into the holy and to enjoy the privileges and favors of those ‘deep things of God’ which none can see or appreciate without the anointing of the spirit. Outsiders—not of the consecrated and accepted class, not of the royal priesthood, the peculiar people, and who therefore have no privilege in the way of offering incense to the Lord, have no such opportunities as we of offending the Lord by offering him unacceptable sacrifices,—unacceptable prayers, unacceptable services. As we do not know in which way these two sons of Aaron offended against the divine arrangement or whether they both offended alike, we may lay to ourselves, as the antitypical priesthood, lessons all along the line.

“(1) When we approach the Lord we are not to come to him under the influence of an evil spirit, intoxicated with the spirit of the world or of Babylon, by whose wine it is declared all the nations have been made drunken.— (Rev. 14:8; 18:3)

“(2) When we would approach the Lord even in a right spirit, we must make sure that we have the proper incense which he has stipulated will be accept- able to him, whose ingredients represent the perfections of our Lord Jesus reckonedly appropriated to us.

“(3) Additionally, we must be sure that we do not get fire for our incense from any other quarter than from the altar—consecrated fire or zeal, sanctified by the merit of our Lord’s sacrifice.

“In Tabernacle Shadows of the Better Sacrifices we have offered the suggestion that these two priests possibly represent two different classes in the church—two classes amongst those who have made consecration to the royal priesthood and have been accepted, both of which classes will fall from the priesthood. We have suggested that one may represent the class who will die the Second Death (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26,27) and that the other may represent the class who lose their membership in the royal priesthood because of an insufficiency of zeal to make their calling and election sure; but who, nevertheless, are at heart loyal to God and will be ‘saved so as by fire,’ through great tribulation. (Rev. 7:14) True there is nothing in the type to indicate any difference between these two, nothing to indicate any hope in the future for either of them. We think it not unreasonable, however, to surmise that the type merely shows that both men lost their standing in the priestly company by reason of their failure to rightly appreciate their privileges. We are assured that all these matters are typical, yet we find it difficult to suppose this type to mean that one half of all who consecrate to the Lord as members of the royal priesthood, will suffer the Second Death. Yet this would seem to be the only alternative interpretation, if we reject the thought that the two men merely represented the two classes who lose the priesthood without indicating their proportion as respects the whole. The two should have a meaning:—either as one half of the whole or as two classes. We accept the latter view; because the Scriptures clearly show two classes who will lose the royal priesthood, and because the other proposition, that they represented one-half of the consecrated lost in Second Death, seems to us wholly untenable.

“In any event the lesson to those who desire to be faithful to their privileges, is a strong one; having made our consecration to the Lord, having received of his anointing, let us seek carefully to ‘make our calling and election sure’ to the blessings and privileges of the future—as the dispensers of divine bounties to mankind in general, in the millennial Kingdom, associated with our Lord. Let us take all the lessons out of this that we can, as respects due reverence to him with whom we have to do, and due appreciation of the proper spirit, the proper incense and the proper zeal to be used in coming before the Lord, that we may abide in his love and favor.” (R3054:3-3055:6)

“Since the priests, the Tabernacle and all the services connected were particular types, foreshadowings of higher and better things, it follows that the death of these two sons of Aaron must have a typical signification. They must typify persons who lose their standing in the antitypical priesthood, some who fail to make their calling and election sure, some who were originally accepted and anointed as members of the Body of the great High Priest, but who lose that glorious position because of failure to follow the divine directions. The Scriptures tell us of three ultimate divisions of those originally accepted of the Lord as members of the Body of Christ and anointed with the holy Spirit.

“(1) The faithful who will come off more than conquerors and constitute the Very Elect, the Royal Priesthood of the Millennial Age.

“(2) A ‘great company, whose number is known to no man’—who, failing to be of the little flock, rejected from the priestly office, but nevertheless refusing to deny the Lord, will ultimately constitute the servants of Christ in glory, the antitypical Levites.

“(3) Another class of the consecrated who will fail to appreciate and properly use the Lord’s favors, and under the tests prove entirely unworthy of eternal life, and fall into the hands of the living God for utter destruction in the second death.

“If an attempt were made to indicate these three classes amongst the sons of Aaron by proportionate numbers it would apparently have necessitated one of the five representing the little flock, three of the five representing the ‘great company,’ and the other one to represent those who would go into the Second Death. But such an illustration was not made and would not have been consistent with the divine plan, for it evidently was not intended to indicate in any manner what proportion would go into the Second Death nor what portion would fail of the priesthood and go into the ‘great company.’ On the other hand, to suppose that both the priests who died typified those who would go into Second Death would imply that two-fifths of all the consecrated would perish. Besides, it would leave the type incomplete in that it would make no showing of the ‘great company,’ who consecrated and were accepted as priests, but who failed to prove faithful to the end, failed to become members of the Royal Priesthood of the Kingdom.

“It is for these reasons that we understand the two priests set before us in this lesson to represent the two classes who will fail to make their calling and election sure as members of the Body of the great High Priest of glory.

Nadab we understand to represent those who will fall from the priestly office to the Levitical as members of the ‘great company.’ In allowing one priest to represent each of these classes nothing is indicated respecting the proportionate numbers of either, but simply the fact that there will be two classes who will fail of the grace of God after they have been anointed with the holy anointing oil for membership in the Royal Priesthood.

“It seems to us consistent to thus represent by one person each, two classes, whose numbers are not definitely fixed by the divine decree, but merely composed of those who fail to give heed and to rightly use their blessings and opportunities. The names of these two sons who died may be construed in harmony with these suggestions. Nadab signifies spontaneous, self-acting, and suggests to us the class who will go into the Second Death because of their self-will—their failure to hold the Head. As for the one who we believe represented the ‘great company,’ his name, Abihu, signifies son of God. This, too, seems appropriate. The ‘great company,’ like the little flock, are begotten of the holy Spirit and will be born of the Spirit—sons of God on a spirit plane, though not on the divine plane. They are thus, as well as the little flock, differentiated from the remainder of mankind, who will be recognized as the sons of Christ—receiving their lives by restitution from him who bought them with his precious blood.” (R4030:5)

Here is another thought from Bro. Russell on the matter of the significance of the two sons of Aaron who were destroyed with fire from the presence of the Lord:

“As we come more clearly to recognize the high attainment of character required of all who will ever be accorded life on any plane, and how few seem to make any serious profession of or attempt at perfect love as a governing principle in their lives, we are led to wonder if the two sons of Aaron who were destroyed by the Lord were not intended to typify the large proportion of consecrated and spirit-begotten ones who have failed to reach the high standard of heart necessary, and who will consequently not be worthy of life, but will, on the contrary, sink into oblivion—the second death.” (T119)

Tabernacle Shadows was written in 1881, but as early as 1895 Bro. Russell suggested the thought that the two sons of Aaron who were destroyed with fire from the presence of the Lord, typified the Second Death class.

“The destruction of the two presumptuous priests who thus attempted to present themselves before the Lord in other than his appointed way, illustrates the teaching of the Lord and the Apostles that the second death will be that ‘sorer punishment’ which those of the antitypical priesthood will incur who attempt to appear before the Lord and to offer strange fire— strange incense which he did not authorize and cannot approve.” (R1837:1)

This thought of Bro. Russell’s by which the two sons of Aaron—Nadab and Abihu—represent the one class—the Second Death class—seems also to be borne out by the names and general experiences of all the underpriest-hood: Nadab means “liberal” and Abihu means “he (i.e., God) is father.” This would seem to say that the class represented by these two sons of Aaron—Nadab and Abihu, who sinned a sin unto death—once recognized God as their Father, but became so liberal and broad as to allow a worldly spirit to come into their hearts and lives, first by beclouding their spiritual vision, then destroying it, thus causing them to lose their membership in the Royal Priesthood, and to merit Second Death.

Eleazar means “helped of God.” Eleazar was the only son of Aaron who actually attained unto the high priesthood. The class thus represented is the “little flock” which because of their faithfulness in the matter of their covenant is helped of God, thus attaining actual membership in the glorified “Royal Priesthood.”

Ithamar means “island of palms.” Ithamar never attained the high priest- hood—in fact, none of his line attained it until the time of Eli. Thus the entrance into the priesthood of Ithamar’s line is sufficiently removed from the scenes and experiences under present consideration as to establish in type the fact that Ithamar was not to inherit the priesthood. The class here represented is undoubtedly the “great company” who miss the opportunities of membership in the Royal Priesthood, but who have an isolated victory—the glorious privilege of bearing palms before the throne! (Rev. 7:9)

“Then the Lord gave a message to Samuel respecting Eli—foretelling the sad end of the lives of his two sons and Eli’s own death, and that Eli’s family should nevermore serve the Lord as priests.” (R5615:5)

Eli’s line does continue beyond his immediate descendants, Hophni and Phinehas¹. Nothing is said about Hophni having had any offspring, but Phinehas had two sons, Ichabod (1 Sam. 4:19-21) and Ahitub (1 Sam. 14:3). The next in line was Ahimelech (probably the same as Ahiah²— 1 Sam. 14:3), the father of Abiathar, who during the reign of Saul allied himself with the rebellion and in due course was compelled to flee for his life (1 Sam. 22:20; 23:6). However, it was not until during the reign of Solomon that he was thrust out of the priesthood “to fulfil” as it were, “the word of the Lord which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.” (1 Kings 2:27) And though these descendants of Eli functioned as priests, let it be remembered it was never with divine approbation. In this sense of the word, the priestly lineage of Eli (and Ithamar) terminated as God declared, “Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house … and this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them.” (1 Sam. 2:31,34)

“Eli … was of the line of Ithamar. What was the exact interval between the death of Phinehas and the accession of Eli, what led to the transference of the chief-priest from the line of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, and whether any or which of the descendants of Eleazar between Phinehas and Zadok (seven in number, viz. Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub [1 Chron. 6:50-52]) were high-priests, we have no positive means of determining from Scripture. Judges 20:28 leaves Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, priest at Shiloh, and 1 Sam. 1:3,9 finds Eli high-priest there, with two grown-up sons priests under him.” (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia, v. 4, p. 247, 248)

1. Do not confuse Phinehas the son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron (Exod. 6:25) who DID succeed his father into the High Priesthood with this Phinehas the son of Eli (of the line of Ithamar) who was slain in the carnage of battle after the Ark of the Covenant had been lost to the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:10,11).

2. “The name ‘Ahiah’ or ‘Abijah’ is shown to be a short form for Ahimelech, a son of Ahitub (1 Sam. 22:9,11,20).” (Zondervan’s Encyclopedia of the Bible)

David divided the priesthood into 24 courses (1 Chron. 24:3-18). The lines of both Eleazar and Ithamar were divided by lot, “one sort with another; for the governors of the Sanctuary, and the governors of the house of God.” (1 Chron. 24:5) During the reign of King David there were two high-priests functioning at one and the same time: one of the house of Eleazar and the other of the house of Ithamar. These were designated, respectively, as “governor of the Sanctuary” and as “governor of the house of God.” Perhaps this was because of the fact that the Ark of the Covenant was at the time in a tent furnished by David at Jerusalem, and the Tabernacle and its altar were at Gibeon. (1 Chron. 16:1-7; 2 Chron. 1:3-5) Zadok, of Eleazar’s line, ministered before the Tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:39) and Abiathar had the care of the Ark at Jerusalem, though not exclusively as appears from 1 Chron. 15:11 and 2 Sam. 15:24,25,29.

Bro. Russell suggests that the numbers, i.e., the proportions, may not be significant, but are probably merely to show that a large number of those called—who consecrated and were accepted—will be found unworthy of life on any plane.

“Once we were inclined to believe that the final results of God’s great plan of salvation would show the vast majority of his creatures saved and granted eternal life through faith in Christ and obedience of heart. However, as the years roll by and as our view of the divine requirement becomes more clear, our expectations are considerably modified. From our present viewpoint it will not surprise us if the number going into second death will be a consider- able one.

“This does not mean that our clearer sight shows the love of God to be less than we had at first supposed, nor that the provision made will come short and fail to grant a full opportunity of eternal life to every creature. It does mean that daily we are coming to see in a clearer light the high standard which God will require of all who will be granted life eternal at any time and on any plane.” (R4400:2)

“And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded. And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD? And when Moses heard that, he was content” (Lev. 10:16-20)

Some commentators (e.g., Clarke, Lange, and others) have suggested that the goat referred to in Lev. 10:16 which Moses sought as the priests’ portion of the sin-offering, since its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary to make atonement for sin, and whose flesh, etc., was not burnt without the Camp, was that of Lev. 9:3—the sin-offering for “the children of Israel.”

If these commentators are correct, then this sin-offering was not treated the same way as was the priest’s; for the latter was definitely burnt with fire without the Camp (Lev. 9:11) and no portion of it was left to be eaten. This would mean that we would have to regard the “offered it for sin as the first” (Lev. 9:15) as applying merely to the fact that its inwards were offered to the burning of the carcass without the Camp! According to these commentators, a portion of this goat was to have been eaten by the priests, and it was their failure to reserve this portion for this purpose that aroused the anger of Moses. (Lev. 10:16-18)

We do not concur in this thought. Despite the fact that Leviticus 10 begins with “and,” we believe the events recorded took place at some time subsequent to the “eighth day” of the first month (Lev. 9:1); and that both of the sin-offerings of Lev. 9:2,3,11 were burnt with fire without the Camp as were those of Lev. 16:3,5,27. This, to us, seems to be implied in Lev. 9:15, which reads: “And he brought the people’s sin-offering, and took the goat, which was the sin-offering for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the first.”

The sin-offering of Lev. 10:16, we believe, was evidently for one of the common people (Lev. 4:27-31), or perhaps even for a “ruler” (Lev. 4:22-26); for in either event it was “the people’s sin-offering,” in contradistinction to the priest’s sin-offering. In neither instance was the blood of the goat brought into the Sanctuary (Lev. 4:25,30); thus leaving the flesh to be eaten by the priests (Lev. 6:26,29). Such, of course, was not the case with the sin-offering for the congregation as a whole, which had to be a bullock, whose blood had to be brought into the Sanctuary (first of the Sanctuaries—the Holy), and the carcass had to be burned without the Camp (Lev. 4:13-21). And though the sin-offering “for the people” on the Day of Atonement was a goat, its blood having also been brought into the Sanctuary (second of the Sanctuaries—the Most Holy), the carcass had to be burnt with fire without the Camp (Lev. 16:15,27), leaving none of it to be eaten by the priests.

As for the lesson we may learn here, undoubtedly Aaron, the High Priest, represented Christ Jesus, our “Advocate.” Note how beautifully he inter- ceded for Eleazar and Ithamar, the underpriests who here probably represent the “little flock” and the “great company” respectively, who fail to carry out perfectly all the details of God’s will and often incur the righteous indignation (anger) of God, here represented by Moses.

Let it be noted that Moses was not displeased with Aaron, but with Eleazar and Ithamar (Lev. 10:16); but it was Aaron who responded on their behalf; and whose intercession or advocacy satisfied Moses. So we too, have an Advocate who stands with us when we have failed—Jesus Christ, the Righteous. (1 John 2:1)

The “Eighth Day”

it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons.” (Lev. 9:1)

Leviticus 8 was undoubtedly intended to show forth the “call” to consecration of those who would constitute the antitypical priesthood of God. It will have been noted in this ritual that Moses, who typified Jehovah God, did everything. He brought the animals to be offered on the altar of burnt- offering, the clothes with which the priesthood were to be robed, the oil with which they were to be anointed and besprinkled, and the basket of unleavened bread, whose contents this priesthood was to feed upon during the seven days of their initial consecration. Moses himself washed, clothed, anointed and besprinkled them; he slew the animals and offered them upon the altar. All this, we believe, was to show that in the matter of our consecration it is God who justifies us, and it is God who sanctifies us. Is it not God who “calls” us? Is it not God who cleanses us? Is it not God who makes us partakers of Jesus’ anointing? Is it not God himself who supplies us with that which makes it possible for us to offer an acceptable sacrifice before him? Thus, is it not God who sets us apart and gives us the pure and unleavened bread of Truth to feed upon all the days of our consecration, during which period he also privileges us to abide in “the secret place of the Most High, under the shadow of the Almighty” (Psa. 91:1)?

Let it be particularly noted how passive were both Aaron and his sons during the ritual of Leviticus 8. Then contrast this with their activity in Leviticus 9. Leviticus 9 is, however, a part of the same consecration, but it is not intended to picture the “call” but rather the “way” in which the “called” are to work it out. Surely we are aware of the fact that the antitypical priest-hood is to “work out” its own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12); and to make its own “calling and election” sure (2 Pet. 1:10). In this type (Leviticus 9) it was not Moses (typifying God) who did the work of sacrificing, but Aaron and his sons (typifying Jesus and his Church). While in this ritual there were two sin-offerings—a bullock to represent the perfect humanity of Christ Jesus, and a goat to represent the justified humanity of the church. Note carefully that they were both offered by the identical priest as one, i.e., as his own sin-offering! Yet in this ritual the under- priests too were given a share in carrying this out, as is clearly shown in Lev. 9:9,13,18,20.

But of special interest in this ritual, we believe, is the fact that God, specifically directed Moses that it was to take place on the “eighth day” (Lev. 9:1). The “eighth day” is, of course, again a “first day”—the day which in New Testament times commemorates the resurrection of Christ Jesus. The great event did take place on the morning1 after the Sabbath, (cf. Mark 16:1,2) thus, of course, on an “eighth day.”

1. “The waving of the barley sheaf of first-fruits, on the 16th of Nisan (‘the morrow after the Sabbath’ or Passover Feast of the 15th—Lev. 23:5,6,11,15-17), typified the resurrection of Christ our Lord, as ‘the first-fruits of them that slept.’—1 Cor. 15:20.” (R5191:5)

It would thus appear to be linked antitypically to the resurrection, or rather, to the “resurrection life.” Is this not exactly as we find it? The typical priests were to seek on the “eighth day” to do the things which pleased God, i.e., to carry out the ritual exactly as it was conceived in the mind of God. Nor could they have done this unless God had first made known unto them His will concerning them. In the type of Leviticus 8, whatever Moses did was to be carefully observed by the “called” during the seven days of their initial consecration, so that they in turn could follow the pattern thus established for them. (Lev. 8:33,35; Exod. 29:35-37) What is the work of the underpriests of this Gospel age if not to carry out their consecration vows by way of sacrifice? Is this not also according to the pattern established for them by God himself—“good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10) and which he so beautifully set forth in the types and shadows of old? To whom, but the consecrated child of God has He thus revealed His will? And what does consecration mean to such an one, if not an identification with Christ Jesus by way of a “baptism” into his death, and a sharing with him, the power of his resurrection? It is to this “resurrection life” that the Apostle Paul refers when he says, “if ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above.” (Col. 1:2; 3:1)

It will be remembered that Jesus at the time of his consecration died, as it were, to the flesh, and figuratively (as a dead man) was buried by John under the waters of the Jordan. It was from this moment that in God’s sight the man Christ Jesus was dead; and it was as a new creature—quickened in the Spirit—that Jesus came up out of the waters, to live, as it were, the “resurrection life.” As an anointed priest, he was now to carry out this consecration by a faithfulness unto death. Only in, or by, death, could he attain the resurrection of which the “resurrection life” and begettal of the holy Spirit were but the “earnest.” So, indeed, must it also be with us: the time of our initial consecration marked the time of our “death” to the flesh; and the quickening by the Spirit, evidenced our having been raised up together with Christ, to sit with him in heavenly places (Eph. 2:5,6), sharers of his resurrection. It is this “resurrection life” that affords us the opportunity of becoming daily, yet more and more identified with Christ Jesus, until we, like the apostle, are able to say, “for me to live is Christ.” (Phil. 1:21) What an intimacy this implies, a knowing of him by the closest association with him in living his life, suffering his afflictions, dying his death, then eventually sharing with him the resurrection of the dead.

“That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” (Phil. 3:10,11)

The living of this “Christ-life” is thus an “eighth day” experience in which the world is daily crucified unto us, and we unto the world. (Gal. 6:14) It bespeaks the “cutting-off” of the flesh, the true circumcision of the heart! (Rom. 2:29) In this connection it is interesting to note that the fleshly circumcision of the “covenant people” also took place on the “eighth day” of a male child’s life. (Gen. 17:10,12)

“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” (Gen. 17:10-13)

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” (Col. 2:11)

“In Joshua 4 we read of Israel crossing Jordan dryshod; in Joshua 5 we read of their circumcision. As soon as they are over Jordan, so soon are they all called to be circumcised. Though the seed of Abraham, there had been no circumcision for Israel in the wilderness; but as soon as they come into the land, circumcision begins at once. Need I explain what this is, or shew how exactly it answers to ‘the eighth day’ of the original institution? Circumcision was to be ‘on the eighth day.’ (Gen. 17:8; Phil. 3:5) To those at all familiar with the types, I need not say that ‘the eighth day’ is always typical of resurrection. The eighth day, the day after the seventh or Sabbath, answers to ‘the first day of the week’ on which Christ rose: it is however ‘the first day’ in reference to seven having gone before. Seven days include the periods proper to the first creation. The eighth day, as it takes us beyond and out of these—that is, beyond the limits of the old creation—brings us in type into a new order of things and times, in a word, into the new creation or the resurrection. With regard to circumcision, we are taught in Peter, that it represented ‘the putting away the filth of the flesh.’ (1 Pet. 3:21) To do this was the great attempt of the whole Jewish dispensation, and that attempt ended in failure; for resurrection, the place beyond Jordan, was not yet occupied by Israel. But since Christ, the true Joshua, has passed through Jordan, and since all the Church is dead and risen with Him,—therefore it is called to be circumcised, and to put away the filth of the flesh. ‘If ye be risen with Christ … put off anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy.’ (Col. 3:1,3,5,8) True circumcision of the heart is only known and attained to in proportion as we know the power of the resurrection.” (Jukes, The Law of the Offerings, “The Types in General,” p. 29)

“If then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled.” (Lev. 26:41)

“Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.” (Deut. 10:16)

“And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart to love the LORD thy God with

all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.” (Deut. 30:6)

“Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised of heart and ears, ye do always resist the holy Spirit, as your fathers did, so do ye.” (Acts 7:51)

“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart.” (Jer. 4:4)

“He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Rom. 2:28,29)

“But St. Paul tells us that as the natural seed must maintain their faith in circumcision to mark their separateness from the Gentiles, so the spiritual seed of Abraham must have an antitypical circumcision of the heart—still more effective, separating them from the world and from sin—marking them off as God’s peculiar people zealous of good works.” (R5170:4)

“Circumcision of the heart signifies a cutting off—a separation from the flesh, its aims, hopes, desires, etc.” (R3022:3)