Post by Lee on Jan 7, 2014 2:54:57 GMT
There was a possibility of a leprous man being cured of his malady. What then? Was he to resume his place in the congregation forthwith? Not so: a special process of atonement was provided for his case, as if to mark off with a special sense of reprobation the class of sin signified by leprosy, and to magnify the grace that extends reconciliation to such a class of offenders. It was more elaborate than all other individual atonements, and had some features not to be found in any other.
Two birds were to be brought, alive and clean, with accompaniments of cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop. One of the birds was to be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. The living bird was then to be dipped in the blood of the slain one, along with the adjuncts of cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop. The leper was also to be sprinkled with the blood of the slain bird, and the living bird was then to be let free into the open field. The leper was then to wash all his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe his body in the water, after which he was allowed to return into the camp, but not to take up his abode in his own tent. The process of re-instatement was only half accomplished. For seven days he remained in semi-exile in the midst of the camp.
Then, on the eighth day, he was to bring two he lambs, one ewe lamb, a liberal meal offering of fine flour, mixed with oil, and a log of oil (or if poor, he could omit two of the lambs and two-thirds of the meal offering). The priest was to offer the he lamb for a trespass offering, putting of the blood of it on the tip of the leper’s right ear, the thumb of his right hand, and the great toe of his right foot. The priest was then to put some of the oil in his left hand, and with his right finger sprinkle of it seven times before the Lord, and then touch with it the right ear, right thumb, and right great toe of the leper, on the spots that had been touched with the blood. The rest of the oil he was to pour on the leper’s head. Then he was to offer one of the ewe lambs as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, on the altar—after which, the leper was pronounced clean, and at liberty to return to his own house.
These are the things to which Jesus referred when he said to the cleansed leper, “Show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them” (Matt. 8:4).
The meaning of this elaborate ceremonial has become, in some measure, manifest in previous chapters. Sin offering, trespass offering, burnt offering, have frequently come under our consideration. The allegory of the two birds is an extra feature. We are not told what it means. It differs from other sacrificial types, though having the same underlying implication—that God must be exalted before a sinner can be saved. It is the only instance (with the exception of the two goats) in which a creature is introduced to represent the redeemed purely and simply. All sacrifices typify the redeemer who redeems by death, but here is a creature that does not die, and is only associated with death, having the blood of the slain bird put upon it.
The general meaning is evident—redemption. No other meaning can conceivably attach to the ceremony. of a living bird being dipped in the blood of a dead bird, and being set free, especially in view of its connection with a healed leper about to be re-admitted into fellowship with the congregation.
But the mind seeks the connection between the process and the result. Orthodox preaching finds it in a moment: ((THEY CLAIM)) the first bird is the crucified Christ, and the second bird the poor sin-imprisoned soul, which soars to heaven on the magic touch of the first bird’s blood. There is a certain rough-and-ready completeness in this view that obtains for it an easy reception. But the simple way of a thing is not always the right way, as instanced in the case of those who would get rid of all difficulty in connection with the death of Christ by saying that “Christ died because he was killed”.
The objection to the orthodox view begins when we discover there is no soul such as it imagines, and no going to heaven for souls of any kind, and that death was not possible to the Christ of their theology, and that blood can have no relation to the condition of the supposed immortal soul of their belief. The difficulty increases when we discern that there is no conceivable principle in their system, upon which the death of a righteous man in the place of a wicked man, could be imagined an acceptable offering to a righteous God: neither any principle upon which the resurrection of said righteous man should be necessary to complete the redemption effected by his death.
Turning from the confusion inseparable from a false view of the nature of man, and a false view of the divine dealing with sin, we find a key in the teaching of the apostles, which we have often had to look at in the course of these chapters, and need not now repeat beyond the brief definition, that the death of Christ was the representative condemnation of sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3), for the declaration of the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:25), in the person of a righteous man possessing the very nature of the race condemned in Eden, with which condemnation repentant sinners might identify themselves (Rom. 6:4–6) with a view to their obtaining the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 13:38), through the intercession of this very man raised, because of his righteousness, for the justification of all who should come unto God by him (Rom. 8:33–34; Heb. 7:25).
This indubitable and most important view of the matter contains the key to all the Mosaic parables. We have been able to use the key successfully hitherto. How does it apply to the mystery of the two birds? It points to both birds as referring to Christ (and only to sinners in so far as they afterwards come unto him). Both were clean birds. Cleanness as foreshadowing character could only apply to Christ. Both were the natural denizens of the air, which earth-cleaving man is not, but which might in a sense be affirmable of him who said, “I am from above … . I came down from heaven to do the will of him that sent me”, This heavenly bird of the air was killed in an earthen vessel—the very flesh and blood of the fallen human race; over running water —that is, in juxtaposition with the Spirit of God, which inhabited him, which begat him, and fashioned him all his life long, as “righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” for us “of God”, In the living bird, we have the same kind of bird, and therefore not the type of a sinner, but of the man represented by the first bird in the second phase of his redeeming work: resurrection, proclamation, and intercession. Why should the living bird be dipped in the blood of the dead bird on this view of matters? To represent the truth declared by Paul when he says that “by his own blood he obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12), and that it was through the blood of the everlasting covenant—his own shed blood—that he was brought again from the dead.
This is only a difficulty with those who do not realize the position occupied by Jesus while yet a mortal man. He was the Sin Bearer in every way in which such an expression can be under-stood—an expression which excludes by its very form all suggestion of his having been himself a sinner: a sinner could not be a sin-bearer in the sense of a taker-away of sin, for this required spotlessness—sinlessness—that resurrection might come after death had put the sin away. At the same time, it is an expression that involves this other idea, that there was something for him to be cleansed from. Three facts tell us what: he possessed our mortal nature, which is an heir of death because of sin: he came under the personal curse of the law in the mode of his death (Gal. 3:13). God had laid on him the iniquities of us all in the sense that He was going to deal with him as a representative of all, that He might forgive us for his sake, “that he might be just and the justifier” at the same time (Rom. 3:26).
That the second bird should be dipped in the blood of the first bird is, therefore, in harmony with what has since been revealed concerning Christ as the anti-typical sacrifice. He was cleansed by his own death from the stain of death to which he was subject in common with us, as a decendant of the first sinner, and as the appointed sufferer from it that he might take it away. When he rose, he was “the living bird let loose in the open field”—“made higher than the heavens”, “set far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come” (Heb. 7:26; Eph. 1:21).
The cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop associated with the living bird in its contact with the blood of the slain bird, typify the cleansing work which the risen Christ would perform among men through the apostles in the preaching of him as “a Prince and a Saviour, to grant repentance and remission of sins” —the high priest to make intercession for us—the only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved (Acts 5:31; Heb. 2:17; Acts 4:12).
Roberts, R. (1987). The Law of Moses (electronic ed.). Birmingham, UK: The Christadelphian.
Two birds were to be brought, alive and clean, with accompaniments of cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop. One of the birds was to be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. The living bird was then to be dipped in the blood of the slain one, along with the adjuncts of cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop. The leper was also to be sprinkled with the blood of the slain bird, and the living bird was then to be let free into the open field. The leper was then to wash all his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe his body in the water, after which he was allowed to return into the camp, but not to take up his abode in his own tent. The process of re-instatement was only half accomplished. For seven days he remained in semi-exile in the midst of the camp.
Then, on the eighth day, he was to bring two he lambs, one ewe lamb, a liberal meal offering of fine flour, mixed with oil, and a log of oil (or if poor, he could omit two of the lambs and two-thirds of the meal offering). The priest was to offer the he lamb for a trespass offering, putting of the blood of it on the tip of the leper’s right ear, the thumb of his right hand, and the great toe of his right foot. The priest was then to put some of the oil in his left hand, and with his right finger sprinkle of it seven times before the Lord, and then touch with it the right ear, right thumb, and right great toe of the leper, on the spots that had been touched with the blood. The rest of the oil he was to pour on the leper’s head. Then he was to offer one of the ewe lambs as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, on the altar—after which, the leper was pronounced clean, and at liberty to return to his own house.
These are the things to which Jesus referred when he said to the cleansed leper, “Show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them” (Matt. 8:4).
The meaning of this elaborate ceremonial has become, in some measure, manifest in previous chapters. Sin offering, trespass offering, burnt offering, have frequently come under our consideration. The allegory of the two birds is an extra feature. We are not told what it means. It differs from other sacrificial types, though having the same underlying implication—that God must be exalted before a sinner can be saved. It is the only instance (with the exception of the two goats) in which a creature is introduced to represent the redeemed purely and simply. All sacrifices typify the redeemer who redeems by death, but here is a creature that does not die, and is only associated with death, having the blood of the slain bird put upon it.
The general meaning is evident—redemption. No other meaning can conceivably attach to the ceremony. of a living bird being dipped in the blood of a dead bird, and being set free, especially in view of its connection with a healed leper about to be re-admitted into fellowship with the congregation.
But the mind seeks the connection between the process and the result. Orthodox preaching finds it in a moment: ((THEY CLAIM)) the first bird is the crucified Christ, and the second bird the poor sin-imprisoned soul, which soars to heaven on the magic touch of the first bird’s blood. There is a certain rough-and-ready completeness in this view that obtains for it an easy reception. But the simple way of a thing is not always the right way, as instanced in the case of those who would get rid of all difficulty in connection with the death of Christ by saying that “Christ died because he was killed”.
The objection to the orthodox view begins when we discover there is no soul such as it imagines, and no going to heaven for souls of any kind, and that death was not possible to the Christ of their theology, and that blood can have no relation to the condition of the supposed immortal soul of their belief. The difficulty increases when we discern that there is no conceivable principle in their system, upon which the death of a righteous man in the place of a wicked man, could be imagined an acceptable offering to a righteous God: neither any principle upon which the resurrection of said righteous man should be necessary to complete the redemption effected by his death.
Turning from the confusion inseparable from a false view of the nature of man, and a false view of the divine dealing with sin, we find a key in the teaching of the apostles, which we have often had to look at in the course of these chapters, and need not now repeat beyond the brief definition, that the death of Christ was the representative condemnation of sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3), for the declaration of the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:25), in the person of a righteous man possessing the very nature of the race condemned in Eden, with which condemnation repentant sinners might identify themselves (Rom. 6:4–6) with a view to their obtaining the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 13:38), through the intercession of this very man raised, because of his righteousness, for the justification of all who should come unto God by him (Rom. 8:33–34; Heb. 7:25).
This indubitable and most important view of the matter contains the key to all the Mosaic parables. We have been able to use the key successfully hitherto. How does it apply to the mystery of the two birds? It points to both birds as referring to Christ (and only to sinners in so far as they afterwards come unto him). Both were clean birds. Cleanness as foreshadowing character could only apply to Christ. Both were the natural denizens of the air, which earth-cleaving man is not, but which might in a sense be affirmable of him who said, “I am from above … . I came down from heaven to do the will of him that sent me”, This heavenly bird of the air was killed in an earthen vessel—the very flesh and blood of the fallen human race; over running water —that is, in juxtaposition with the Spirit of God, which inhabited him, which begat him, and fashioned him all his life long, as “righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” for us “of God”, In the living bird, we have the same kind of bird, and therefore not the type of a sinner, but of the man represented by the first bird in the second phase of his redeeming work: resurrection, proclamation, and intercession. Why should the living bird be dipped in the blood of the dead bird on this view of matters? To represent the truth declared by Paul when he says that “by his own blood he obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12), and that it was through the blood of the everlasting covenant—his own shed blood—that he was brought again from the dead.
This is only a difficulty with those who do not realize the position occupied by Jesus while yet a mortal man. He was the Sin Bearer in every way in which such an expression can be under-stood—an expression which excludes by its very form all suggestion of his having been himself a sinner: a sinner could not be a sin-bearer in the sense of a taker-away of sin, for this required spotlessness—sinlessness—that resurrection might come after death had put the sin away. At the same time, it is an expression that involves this other idea, that there was something for him to be cleansed from. Three facts tell us what: he possessed our mortal nature, which is an heir of death because of sin: he came under the personal curse of the law in the mode of his death (Gal. 3:13). God had laid on him the iniquities of us all in the sense that He was going to deal with him as a representative of all, that He might forgive us for his sake, “that he might be just and the justifier” at the same time (Rom. 3:26).
That the second bird should be dipped in the blood of the first bird is, therefore, in harmony with what has since been revealed concerning Christ as the anti-typical sacrifice. He was cleansed by his own death from the stain of death to which he was subject in common with us, as a decendant of the first sinner, and as the appointed sufferer from it that he might take it away. When he rose, he was “the living bird let loose in the open field”—“made higher than the heavens”, “set far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come” (Heb. 7:26; Eph. 1:21).
The cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop associated with the living bird in its contact with the blood of the slain bird, typify the cleansing work which the risen Christ would perform among men through the apostles in the preaching of him as “a Prince and a Saviour, to grant repentance and remission of sins” —the high priest to make intercession for us—the only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved (Acts 5:31; Heb. 2:17; Acts 4:12).
Roberts, R. (1987). The Law of Moses (electronic ed.). Birmingham, UK: The Christadelphian.