Post by Lee on Apr 5, 2014 1:41:21 GMT
The Red Heifer: Red symbolised sin
Without spot: Thus Christ was spotless in his character, but his flesh was red (not spotless), which was the same flesh as we all have.
The heifer was to be one “upon which never came yoke.”
Jeremiah, lamenting over Jerusalem, says “the yoke of my transgressions,” which God had bound upon him. But Christ had no yoke of transgression,
upon him “never came yoke.”
The slaying of the heifer: The crucifixion
The burning completely: the complete destruction of the flesh by sacrifice
The ashes united with the water of separation represent the name of Christ for application and cleansing, and separation, and, at last, deliverance from death.
Then we notice likewise that this law prescribed that a clean man should gather up the ashes of the heifer, and put them in a clean place without the camp; what is the antitype here? Again the very language of the New Testament indicates the substance beautifully. To whom was the Christ sacrifice committed in its application to the world of Jews and Gentiles, after his death? Ah, not to the High Priest, not to the priests in Herod’s temple, they would have none of it—but to a “clean man” antitypically, even to those members of the “one Man,” to whom he had said, “Now ye are clean through the word that I have spoken to you.” Peter, foremost among them, used the Christ-name “without the camp,” be it observed, and it was a remarkable thing that it meant excommunication, in a way. This law prefigured excommunication, and that feature is particularly alluded to in the chapter mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews, which contains so much instruction concerning the law. In the end of that epistle we remember the apostle says this exact thing:
1915 Christadelphian p208
Without spot: Thus Christ was spotless in his character, but his flesh was red (not spotless), which was the same flesh as we all have.
The heifer was to be one “upon which never came yoke.”
Jeremiah, lamenting over Jerusalem, says “the yoke of my transgressions,” which God had bound upon him. But Christ had no yoke of transgression,
upon him “never came yoke.”
The slaying of the heifer: The crucifixion
The burning completely: the complete destruction of the flesh by sacrifice
The ashes united with the water of separation represent the name of Christ for application and cleansing, and separation, and, at last, deliverance from death.
Then we notice likewise that this law prescribed that a clean man should gather up the ashes of the heifer, and put them in a clean place without the camp; what is the antitype here? Again the very language of the New Testament indicates the substance beautifully. To whom was the Christ sacrifice committed in its application to the world of Jews and Gentiles, after his death? Ah, not to the High Priest, not to the priests in Herod’s temple, they would have none of it—but to a “clean man” antitypically, even to those members of the “one Man,” to whom he had said, “Now ye are clean through the word that I have spoken to you.” Peter, foremost among them, used the Christ-name “without the camp,” be it observed, and it was a remarkable thing that it meant excommunication, in a way. This law prefigured excommunication, and that feature is particularly alluded to in the chapter mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews, which contains so much instruction concerning the law. In the end of that epistle we remember the apostle says this exact thing:
1915 Christadelphian p208