So as sacrifice for sin He was sent, but therefore simply in the likeness, not in the reality, of flesh of sin; though as really man born of woman as He was God. It was in that likeness, because He was born of a woman who, though a virgin of David's house, not less than any other human being had flesh of sin. How then was the difficulty to be solved? By divine grace and power, through His conception by the Holy Spirit, our blessed Lord was, though as truly a man as any other, the sharer neither of human taint, nor, if one may so call it, of that attainder which had fallen on the race through sin. This was effected, as Luke 1 lets us know, by the power of the Highest overshadowing the virgin Mary; wherefore her Son was called the Son of God. Indeed it was absolutely essential. He must derive His flesh and blood really from His mother; but, by that miraculous power which wholly exempted His humanity from all spot or motion of evil, He in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted from which He was clearly void both in His flesh and in His spirit. From that moment when the virgin was declared to be about to conceive and in due time become the mother of our Lord, a total immunity from sin was secured for Him: “A body didst Thou prepare for Me” (Heb. 10). Otherwise the sin-offering could not have been worthy of God, or efficacious for man. “It is most holy,” was the voice even of the law respecting it: how much more was this true of Christ? Still He was in the likeness of flesh of sin, because His mother was certainly of sinful race like others, unless you prefer tradition or superstition to God's word.
Thus is seen how impious is the heterodoxy introduced of late, the so-called immaculate nature of the virgin. Rome predicates of her what is only true of Him, the natural result of the idolatry of the mother so much more prominent and popular, in fact, than worship even of the Father and of the Son, from Whom they stand at a distance and in dread. It is the Bona Dea of heathenism in a christened shape, which exactly suits those who know not God, if not those also who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. To the simple Christian the enemy there betrays his hand. But the Lord Jesus did take blood and flesh, as it behooved Him, when He became a man, in all things made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation (or atonement) for the sins of the people. Clearly this was by His death. What other way could be than by the shedding of His blood? Consequently to suppose that a fresh and subsequent work was in heaven, after death and before resurrection, is to depart from God's word, and expose yourself to danger as well as delusion. Whatever be the ordinary place of the high-priest, it is not so when expiation is made in the raiment of linen. According to its force, it very suitably described our Lord as the Holy Offerer and offering for sin.
Very differently is our Lord viewed when in heaven He was crowned with glory and honor. Aaron exceptionally wore the holy garments of linen in the most holy place. The reason is that propitiation had to be effected on the only day when he could enter the holiest of all; and when he did so enter, he wore the unusual garb that indicated his undertaking the work of atonement, whether for his own family or for the children of Israel generally. Is not the difficulty some find in the verse happily anticipated by the type? Beware of the one-sidedness that will not hear of our Lord as High Priest in any sense or exceptional purpose, until He went on high for His proper function before God. You must however allow this latitude, unless indeed you deny propitiation on the cross.
Whilst the N. T. is clear that propitiation was by the High-Priest, it excludes all supposition that it was only to be accomplished by our Lord's going to heaven, The work was done and finished, when He was “lifted up.” This may not have been strictly on the earth, but it was before He went to heaven. It was when He was crucified, when man poured on Him the deepest scorn and hatred. Then did God give Him to accomplish that work whereby, from all eternity, His grace had designed to save the guiltiest, making it the ground of His righteousness. Without this sacrifice God must have simply destroyed, or in saving forfeited, His character and word. By the cross of Christ He can love, as He has judged, to the uttermost, and thus maintained all—yea, won a fresh and everlasting glory. For what else could God do for sinners? Or how preserve His rights intact, if He without the cross of Christ simply, forgave sins?
If God had acted on our sins, it could only have been as Judge, and He must have destroyed all the sinners. On the other hand, if God had only acted according to the love of His nature, it must have been giving up that equally in His nature which detests and must punish sin. Thus but for Christ and His cross all had been ruin, and confusion, and dishonor. Without it God's moral glory had been totally undermined, and the salvation of the lost impossible. But in Christ God would neither destroy the sinner nor make light of the sins. Hence He gave His Son to be a propitiation. This propitiation was through His death and blood-shedding. This alone suited either God or lost man. This alone accounts for the prevalence of sacrifice—no doubt debased and corrupted among the heathen; but in itself it pointed to “A sacrifice of nobler name, And richer blood than they.” This Satan endeavored too successfully to falsify, as he loves to seize everything for evil. The meaning of it, however, was never seen fully till the Lord came and died on the cross, wherein was not the mere shadow but the very image. Directly the Lord died atoningly, it was the true propitiation which God had prefigured, and thenceforward has before Him as an accomplished fact in all its value.
After the peculiar work of the day was done, Aaron divests himself of the garments of holiness, puts on his ordinary clothing, and going forth offers his burnt-offering and that for the people. These might have been offered by others on any other day: but on that day the high-priest was, in all that was of moment, the actor exclusively, though it might be no longer a specially characterized offering. It represented the Lord Jesus by the eternal Spirit offering Himself, without spot, unto God. The two Burnt-offerings were for himself as well as for the people (ver. 24). From Lev. 1 as well as here, we find the Burnt-offering was to make atonement; but this of course only in a general way. It did not express the peculiar solemnity of the great Day of Atonement. When an Israelite brought the offering in the fullness of his heart, to express his sense of dependence on the goodness of God, it always had an atoning character. God could not accept an offering without blood to make atonement. Neither faith nor the true God slurs over sin. Hence, where all went up to God, acceptably, as it was invariably offered on the brazen altar—the first point of approach between God and man, the Burnt-offering had an atoning character.
There is another notable fact here: “The fat of the sin-offering shall he burn upon the altar” (ver. 25). This was reserved for the altar of God, though the slain goat and the bullock were offered for sin, The fat of the Sin-offering was not consumed with the carcass outside. The blood, we have seen, was carried into the holiest. What could be a more remarkable indication? It witnessed to the perfect acceptance of Him Who deigned to be a Sin-offering, however cast out by man and judged by God. If the Antitype, the One Whose love identified Himself with bearing our sins, must experience in His person death and judgment—like the goat and the bullock burnt outside the camp—the fat (which, had there been any intrinsic defilement would have been the first to show it) was burnt upon the altar of acceptance. How strikingly this testifies to the inward purity of our Lord Jesus He was altogether righteous and holy, not in acts only but in nature. Then, after mentioning that he who let the goat go must wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water before returning to the camp (ver. 26), it is laid down that the bullock and the goat, whose blood had been brought into the sanctuary for atonement, were to be carried forth, and burnt in the fire, skin, flesh, and dung, without the camp (ver. 27), whilst he that burnt them must wash his clothes and bathe before coming into the camp (ver. 28). Here we are not left to our conjectures about the meaning. In the Epistle to the Heb. 13:11-1311For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. (Hebrews 13:11‑13) the apostle gives us invaluable light. “For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” There can be no question that under this shadow lies a weighty principle and practice too for us. What is the connection with Christ? “Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.” The application is as sure as the duty; for there is no call so near the Christian's heart as association with Christ practically.
The Jews were God's chosen people within “the camp,” the ground-plan of the Epistle being the wilderness, and not the holy land. This position characterized them in contrast with the Gentiles, from whom they were separated. What access they had to the sanctuary was merely through the priests and the high-priest: and we have often seen how distant, occasional, and precarious this was; for the law made nothing perfect. Yet they, and they alone had on the earth the title of God's people. This was in the wilderness marked by their having a camp, wherein was the tabernacle where God dwelt in the holiest. But the law kept the people rigorously outside that sanctuary. The way into the holiest was not yet made manifest; now it is by Christ and His work for us, for the veil is rent.