[1] Now six.

[2] It may be well, at this point, to inform the reader that the Hebrew word which is rendered "burn" in the case of the burnt-offering is wholly different from that which is used in the sin-offering. I shall, because of the peculiar interest of the subject, refer to a few of the passages in which each word occurs. The word used in the burnt-offering signifies "incense," or to "burn incense," and occurs in the following passages, in some one or other of its various inflections: Lev. vi. 15—"And all the frankincense, ... and shall burn it upon the altar;" Deut. xxxiii. 10—"They shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt-sacrifice upon Thine altar;" Exod. xxx. 1—"And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon;" Ps. lxvi. 15—"With the incense of rams;" Jer. xliv. 21—"The incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah;" Cant. iii. 16—"Perfumed with myrrh and frankincense." Passages might be multiplied, but the above will suffice to show the use of the word which occurs in the burnt-offering.

The Hebrew word which is rendered "burn" in connection with the sin-offering, signifies to burn in general, and occurs in the following passages: Gen. xl. 3—"Let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly." Lev. x. 16—"And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it was burnt." 2 Chron. xvi. 14—"And they made a very great burning for him."

Thus, not only was the sin-offering burnt in a different place, but a different word is adopted by the Holy Ghost to express the burning of it. Now, we cannot imagine, for a moment, that this distinction is a mere interchange of words, the use of which is indifferent. I believe the wisdom of the Holy Ghost is as manifest in the use of the two words as it is in any other point of difference in the two offerings. The spiritual reader will attach the proper value to the above most interesting distinction.

[3] That is to say, sin-bearing is not prominent. Of course, where there is atonement, sin must be in question.

[4] "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." (?e??e??? e? ???a????, ?e??e??? ?p? ????.) This is a most important passage, inasmuch as it sets forth our blessed Lord as Son of God and Son of Man.—"God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Precious testimony!

[5] How important to see, in the above beautiful passage, that doing God's will brings the soul into a relationship with Christ of which His brethren according to the flesh knew nothing, on merely natural grounds! It was as true with respect to those brethren as any one else that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Mary would not have been saved by the mere fact of her being the mother of Jesus. She needed personal faith in Christ as much as any other member of Adam's fallen family: she needed to pass, by being born again, out of the old creation into the new. It was by treasuring up Christ's words in her heart that this blessed woman was saved. No doubt she was "highly favored" in being chosen as a vessel to such a holy office; but then, as a lost sinner, she needed to "rejoice in God her Saviour," like any one else. She stands on the same platform, is washed in the same blood, clothed in the same righteousness, and will sing the same song as all the rest of God's redeemed.

This simple fact will give additional force and clearness to a point already stated, namely, that incarnation was not Christ's taking our nature into union with Himself. This truth should be carefully pondered. It is fully brought out in 2 Cor. v.—"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (Ver. 14-17.)

[6] The "breast" and the "shoulder" are emblematical of love and power—strength and affection.

[7] There is much force and beauty in verse 31—"The breast shall be Aaron's and his sons'." It is the privilege of all true believers to feed upon the affections of Christ—the changeless love of that heart which beats with a deathless and changeless love for them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reader will observe that chapter v. 1-13 forms a part of chapter iv. Both are comprehended under one head, and present the doctrine of the sin-offering in all its applications, from the bullock to the handful of flour. Each class of offering is introduced by the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses." Thus, for example, the sweet savor offerings (chap. i.-iii.) are introduced by the words, "The Lord called unto Moses." These words are not repeated until chapter iv. 1, where they introduce the sin-offering. They occur again at chapter v. 14, where they introduce the trespass-offering for wrongs done "in the holy things of the Lord;" and again at chapter vi. 1, where they introduce the trespass-offering for wrongs done to one's neighbor.

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

[12] I would desire it to be particularly remembered that the point before us in the text is simply atonement. The Christian reader is fully aware, I doubt not, that the possession of "the divine nature" is essential to fellowship with God. I not only need a title to approach God, but a nature to enjoy Him. The soul that "believes in the name of the only begotten Son of God" has both the one and the other. (See John i. 12, 13; iii. 36; v. 24; xx. 31; 1 John v. 11-13.)

[13] Some may find difficulty in the fact that the word "voluntary" has reference to the worshiper and not to the sacrifice; but this can in no wise affect the doctrine put forward in the text, which is founded upon the fact that a special word used in the burnt-offering is omitted in the sin-offering. The contrast holds good whether we think of the offerer or the offering.

[14] The statement in the text refers only to the sin-offerings of which the blood was brought into the holy place. There were sin-offerings of which Aaron and his sons partook. (See Lev. vi. 26, 29; Numb. xviii. 9, 10.)

[15] We have a singularly beautiful example of the divine accuracy of Scripture in 2 Cor. v. 21.—"He hath made Him to be sin [aa?t?a? ep???se?] for us, that we might become [????e?a] the righteousness of God in Him." The English reader might suppose that the word which is rendered "made" is the same in each clause of the passage. This is not the case.

[16] The epistle to the Ephesians furnishes the most elevated view of the Church's place above, and gives it to us, not merely as to the title, but also as to the mode. The title is assuredly the blood; but the mode is thus stated: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph. ii. 4-6.)

[17] There is a fine principle involved in the expression, "against the Lord." Although the matter in question was a wrong done to one's neighbor, yet the Lord looked upon it as a trespass against Himself. Every thing must be viewed in reference to the Lord. It matters not who may be affected, Jehovah must get the first place. Thus, when David's conscience was pierced by the arrow of conviction, in reference to his treatment of Uriah, he exclaims, "I have sinned against the Lord." (2 Sam. xii. 13.) This principle does not in the least interfere with the injured man's claim.

[18] From a comparison of Matt. v. 23, 24 with Matt. xviii. 21, 22, we may learn a fine principle as to the way in which wrongs and injuries are to be settled between two brothers. The injurer is sent back from the altar, in order to have his matters set straight with the injured one; for there can be no communion with the Father so long as my brother "hath aught against me." But then, mark the beauteous way in which the injured one is taught to receive the injurer.—"'Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?' Jesus saith unto him, 'I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.'" Such is the divine mode of settling all questions between brethren. "Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." (Col. iii. 13.)

[19] A comparison of the epistle to the Ephesians with the first epistle of Peter will furnish the reader with much valuable instruction in reference to the double aspect of the believer's position. The former shows him as seated in heaven; the latter, as a pilgrim and a sufferer on earth.

[20] Lest any reader should be troubled with a difficulty in reference to the souls of Nadab and Abihu, I would say that no such question ought ever to be raised. In such cases as Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus x, Korah and his company in Numbers xvi, the whole congregation, Joshua and Caleb excepted, whose carcases fell in the wilderness (Numb. xiv. and Heb. iii.), Achan and his family (Josh. vii.), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v.), those who were judged for abuses at the Lord's table (1 Cor. xi.),—in all such cases, the question of the soul's salvation is never raised. We are simply called to see in them the solemn actings of God in government in the midst of His people. This relieves the mind from all difficulty. Jehovah dwelt, of old, between the cherubim, to judge His people in every thing; and God the Holy Ghost dwells now in the Church, to order and govern according to the perfection of His presence. He was so really and personally present that Ananias and Sapphira could lie to Him, and He could execute judgment upon them. It was as positive and as immediate an exhibition of His actings in government as we have in the matter of Nadab and Abihu, or Achan, or any other.

This is a great truth to get hold of. God is not only for His people, but with them, and in them. He is to be counted upon for every thing, whether it be great or small. He is present to comfort and help. He is there to chasten and judge; He is there "for exigence of every hour." He is sufficient. Let faith count upon Him. "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I." (Matt. xviii. 20.) And, assuredly, where He is, we want no more.

[21] Some have thought that, owing to the special place which this direction about wine occupies, Nadab and Abihu must have been under the influence of strong drink when they offered the "strange fire." But be this as it may, we have to be thankful for a most valuable principle in reference to our conduct as spiritual priests. We are to refrain from every thing which would produce the same effect upon our spiritual man as strong drink produces upon the physical man.

It needs hardly to be remarked that the Christian should be most jealous over himself as to the use of wine or strong drink. Timothy, as we know, needed an apostolic recommendation to induce him even to touch it for his health's sake. (1 Tim. v.) A beauteous proof of Timothy's habitual self-denial, and of the thoughtful love of the Spirit in the apostle. I must confess that one's moral sense is offended by seeing Christians making use of strong drink in cases where it is very manifestly not medicinal. I rarely, if ever, see a spiritual person indulge in such a thing. One trembles to see a Christian the mere slave of a habit, whatever that habit may be. It proves that he is not keeping his body in subjection.

[22] Some, perhaps, may think that the wording of Leviticus x. 9 affords a warrant for occasional indulgence in those things which tend to excite the natural mind, inasmuch as it is said, "Do not drink wine nor strong drink ... when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation." To this we may reply that the sanctuary is not a place which the Christian is occasionally to visit, but a place in which he is habitually to serve and worship. It is the sphere in which he should "live, and move, and have his being." The more we live in the presence of God, the less can we bear to be out of it; and no one who knows the deep joy of being there could lightly indulge in aught that would take or keep him thence. There is not that object within the compass of earth which would, in the judgment of a spiritual mind, be an equivalent for one hour's fellowship with God.

[23] The reader will observe, in the above passage, that the words "the sins of" are introduced by the translators, and are not inspired. The divine accuracy of the passage is completely lost by retaining those uninspired words. The doctrine laid down is simply this: In the first clause of the verse, Christ is set forth as the propitiation for His people's actual sins; but in the last clause, it is not a question of sins or of persons at all, but of sin and the world in general. In fact, the whole verse presents Christ as the Antitype of the two goats, as the One who has borne His people's sins; and also as the One who has perfectly glorified God with respect to sin in general, and made provision for dealing in grace with the world at large, and for the final deliverance and blessing of the whole creation.

[24] Verses 16 and 17 demand special attention. "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people." This is a most seasonable admonition for the people of God in every age. A talebearer is sure to do incalculable mischief. It has been well remarked that a talebearer injures three persons—he injures himself, he injures his hearer, and he injures the subject of his tale. All this he does directly; and as to the indirect consequences, who can recount them? Let us carefully guard against this horrible evil. May we never suffer a tale to pass our lips; and let us never stand to hearken to a talebearer. May we always know how to drive away a backbiting tongue with an angry countenance, as the north wind driveth away rain.

In verse 17, we learn what ought to take the place of talebearing. "Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him." In place of carrying to another a tale about my neighbor, I am called upon to go directly to himself and rebuke him, if there is any thing wrong. This is the divine method. Satan's method is to act the talebearer.