Handbook for Bible Students

“O” Entries

Offering, Three Objects Presented.—In each offering there are at least three distinct objects presented to us. There is the offering, the priest, the offerer. A definite knowledge of the precise import of each of these is absolutely requisite if we would understand the offerings. HBS 359.1

What, then, is the offering? what the priest? what the offerer? Christ is the offering, Christ is the priest, Christ is the offerer. Such and so manifold are the relations in which Christ has stood for man and to man, that no one type or set of types can adequately represent the fulness of them. Thus we have many distinct classes of types, and further variations in these distinct classes, each of which gives us one particular view of Christ, either in his character, or in his work or person. But see him as we may for sinners, he fills more than one relation. This causes the necessity of many emblems. HBS 359.2

First he comes as offerer, but we cannot see the offerer without the offering, and the offerer is himself the offering, and he who is both offerer and offering is also the priest. As man under the law, our substitute, Christ stood for us toward God as offerer. He took “the body prepared for him” as his offering, that in it and by it he might reconcile us to God. Thus, when sacrifice and offering had wholly failed,-when at man’s hand God would no more accept them,-then said he, “Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” Thus his body was his offering: he willingly offered it; and then as priest he took the blood into the holiest. HBS 359.3

As offerer, we see him man under the law, standing our substitute, for us to fulfil all righteousness. HBS 359.4

As priest, we have him presented as the mediator, God’s messenger between himself and Israel. While as the offering, he is seen the innocent victim, a sweet savor to God, yet bearing the sin and dying for it. HBS 359.5

Thus in the selfsame type the offerer sets forth Christ in his person, as the one who became man to meet God’s requirements; the offering presents him in his character and work, as the victim by which the atonement was ratified; while the priest gives us a third picture of him, in his official relation, as the appointed mediator and intercessor. Accordingly, when we have a type in which the offering is most prominent, the leading thought will be Christ the victim. On the other hand, when the offerer or priest predominates, it will respectively be Christ as man or Christ as mediator. HBS 359.6

Connected with this there is also another particular, the import of which must be known to understand the offerings. I refer to the laying of the offerer’s hands on the head of the victim offered. This act in itself was nothing more than the expression of the identity of the offerer and offering. In each case the giving up of the offering represented the surrender of the person of the offerer. The offering, whatever it might be, stood for, and was looked upon as identical with the offerer. In the one case, in the sweet savor offerings, it represented the offerer as an accepted worshiper, wholly surrendering himself upon the altar of the Lord, to be a sweet savor to Jehovah. In the other case, as in the sin and trespass offerings, where the offerer came as a sinner with confession, the offerer in his offering surrendered himself as a sinner to God’s judgment, and was cast out as accursed into the wilderness. We know him who stood in both these relations, when in the body prepared for him “he gave himself.”-“The Law of the Offerings,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 36-38, 17th edition. London: James Nisbet & Co. HBS 359.7

Offering, Burnt, Distinctive Character of.—In its contrast to the other offerings, at least four points may be enumerated: It was, (1) A sweet savor offering; and, (2) Offered for acceptance; in these two particulars it differed from the sin offerings; (3) Thirdly, it was the offering of a life: in this it differed from the meat offering; (4) Fourthly, it was wholly burnt; here it differed from all, and particularly from the peace offering. [p. 47] HBS 360.1

1.... Now the burnt offering was of the first class, a sweet-smelling savor; as such in perfect contrast with the sin offerings. We are not here, therefore, to consider Christ as the sin-bearer, but as man in perfectness meeting God in holiness. The thought here is not, “God hath made him to be sin for us,” but rather, “He loved us, and gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savor.” Jesus, blessed be his name, both in the burnt offering and sin offering, stood as our representative. When he obeyed, he obeyed “for us;” when he suffered, he suffered “for us.” But in the burnt offering he appears for us, not as our sin-bearer, but as man offering to God something which is most precious to him. We have here what we may in vain search for elsewhere,-man giving to God what truly satisfies him. The thought here is not that sin has been judged, and that man in Christ has borne the judgment; this would be the sin offering. The burnt offering shows us man going even further, and giving to God an offering so pleasing to him that the sweet savor of it satisfies him, and will satisfy him forever. With our experience of what man is, it seems wondrous that he should ever perfectly perform his part to Godward. But in Christ man has so performed it: his offering was “a sweet savor unto the Lord.” [pp. 48, 49] ... HBS 360.2

2. But the burnt offering was not only “a sweet savor,” it was also an offering “for acceptance,”-that is, it was offered to God to secure the acceptance of the offerer. So we read (I give the more correct translation), “he shall offer it for his acceptance.” To understand this, we must recur for a moment to the position Christ occupied as offerer. He stood for man as man under the law, and, as under law, his acceptance depended on his perfectness. God had made man upright; but he had sought out many inventions. One dispensation after another had tried whether, under any circumstances, man could render himself acceptable to God. But age after age passed away; no son of Adam was found who could meet God’s standard. The law was man’s last trial, whether, with a revelation of God’s mind, he could or would obey it. But this trial, like the others, ended in failure; “there was none righteous, no, not one.” HBS 360.3

How, then, was man to be reconciled to God? How could he be brought to meet God’s requirements? One way yet remained, and the Son of God accepted it. “He took not on him the nature of angels; but he took the seed of Abraham;” and in his person, once and forever, man was reconciled to God. In effecting this, Jesus, as man’s representative, took man’s place, where he found man, under law; and there, in obedience to the law, he offered “for his acceptance.” The question was, Could man bring an offering so acceptable as to satisfy God? Jesus as man did bring such an offering. He offered himself, and his offering was accepted. Even with our poor thoughts of what Jesus was to the Father, it seems wondrous that he, the Blessed One, should ever have thus offered “for his acceptance.” But this was only one of the many steps of humiliation which he took, as our representative, “for us.” [pp. 50-52] ... HBS 360.4

3. The third point peculiar to the burnt offering was, that a life was offered on the altar. “He shall kill the bullock before the Lord, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar.” In this particular the burnt offering stands distinguished from the meat offering, which in other respects it closely resembles. In the meat offering, however, the offering was “corn, oil, and frankincense.” Here the offering is a life. HBS 360.5

The right understanding of the precise import of this particular will help us to the distinct character of the burnt offering. Life was that part in creation which from the beginning God claimed as his. As such,-as being his claim on his creatures,-it stands as an emblem for what we owe him. What we owe to God is our duty to him. And this, I doubt not, is the thought here intended. Of course, the offering here, as elsewhere, is the body of Jesus, that body which he took, and then gave for us; but in giving God a life, in contradistinction to offering him corn or frankincense, the peculiar thought is the fulfilment of the first table of the decalogue. Thus the life yielded is man’s duty to God, and man here is seen perfectly giving it. Am I asked what man ever thus offered? I answer, None but one, “the man Christ Jesus.” He alone of all the sons of Adam in perfectness accomplished all man’s duty to Godward; he in his own blessed and perfect righteousness met every claim God could make upon him. Again, I say, he did it “for us,” and we are “accepted in him.” HBS 361.1

4. The fourth and last feature peculiar to the burnt offering is, that it was wholly burnt on the altar. “The priest shall burn all upon the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice unto the Lord.” In this particular the burnt offering differed from the meat and peace offerings in which a part only was burnt with fire; nor did it differ less from those offerings for sin which, though wholly burnt, were not burnt upon the altar. HBS 361.2

The import of this distinction is manifest, and in exact keeping with the character of the offering. Man’s duty to God is not the giving up of one faculty, but the entire surrender of all. So Christ sums up the first commandment,-all the mind, all the soul, all the affections. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” I cannot doubt that the type refers to this in speaking so particularly of the parts of the burnt offering; for “the head,” “the fat,” “the legs,” “the inwards,” are all distinctly enumerated. “The head” is the well-known emblem of the thoughts; “the legs” the emblem of the walk; and “the inwards” the constant and familiar symbol of the feelings and affections of the heart The meaning of “the fat” may not be quite so obvious, though here also Scripture helps us to the solution. It represents the energy not of one limb or faculty, but the general health and vigor of the whole. In Jesus these were all surrendered, and all without spot or blemish. Had there been but one thought in the mind of Jesus which was not perfectly given to God; had there been but one affection in the heart of Jesus which was not yielded to his Father’s will; had there been one step in the walk of Jesus which was not taken for God, but for his own pleasure,-then he could not have offered himself or been accepted as “a whole burnt offering to Jehovah.” But Jesus gave up all: he reserved nothing. All was burnt, all consumed upon the altar. [pp. 53-56]-“The Law of the Offerings,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 47-56, 17th edition. HBS 361.3

Offering, Meat, Distinctive Character of.—Five points here at once present themselves, which bring out what is distinctive in this offering. The apprehension of these will enable us to see the particular relation which Jesus filled for man as meat offering. HBS 361.4

1. The first point is that the meat offering was a sweet savor. In this particular it stands in contrast to the sin offering, but in exact accordance with the burnt offering. [p. 67] ... HBS 361.5

2. The second point in which the meat offering differed from the others, is seen in the materials of which it was composed. These were “flour, oil, and frankincense;” there is no giving up of life here. It is in this particular, especially, that the meat offering differs from the burnt offering. [p. 68] ... HBS 362.1

The import of this difference between the burnt and meat offerings may now be surely and easily gathered. Life is that which from the beginning God claimed as his part in creation; as an emblem, therefore, it represents what the creature owes to God. Corn, the fruit of the earth, on the other hand, is man’s part in creation; as such, it stands the emblem of man’s claim, or of what we owe to man. What we owe to God or to man is respectively our duty to either. Thus in the burnt offering the surrender of life to God represents the fulfilment of man’s duty to God; man yielding to God his portion to satisfy all his claim. In the meat offering the gift of corn and oil represents the fulfilment of man’s duty to his neighbor; man in his offering surrendering himself to God, but doing so that he may give to man his portion. Thus the burnt offering is the perfect fulfilment of the laws of the first table; the meat offering the perfect fulfilment of the second. Of course, in both cases the offering is but one,-that offering is “the body” of Jesus; but that body is seen offered in different aspects: here in the meat offering as fulfilling man’s duty to man. The one case is man satisfying God, giving him his portion, and receiving testimony that it is acceptable. The other is man satisfying his neighbor, giving man his portion as an offering to the Lord. [pp. 69, 70]-“The Law of the Offerings,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 67-70, 17th edition. London: James Nisbet & Co. HBS 362.2

Offering, Peace, Distinctive Character of.—In its contrast to the other offerings, it may be sufficient to enumerate two chief points: (1) It was a sweet savor offering; and, (2) The offerer, God, and the priest were fed by it. In the former of these particulars, it differed from the sin offerings; in the latter, it differed from all others. HBS 362.3

1. It was a “sweet savor” offering. On the import of this distinction I need here say little, since we have already more than once examined it. Suffice it to say that here, as in the burnt and meat offerings, we are presented with a view of the offering, not as offered with any reference to sin, but rather as showing man giving to God that which is sweet and pleasant to him. HBS 362.4

But the burnt offering and meat offering were both “sweet savors.” This particular, therefore, though distinguishing the peace offering from the sin offerings, gives us nothing by which we may distinguish it from the other sweet-savor offerings. I pass on, therefore, to the next particular, in which the peace offering very distinctly differs from the burnt and meat offerings. HBS 362.5

2. The second point in which the peace offering differed from others was, that in it the offerer, the priest, and God, all fed together. This was the case in no offering but the peace offering. In this they had something in common. Here each had a part. They held communion in feeding on the same offering. HBS 362.6

We have first the offerer’s part; then God’s part; then the priest’s part; and included in this last, though separately mentioned, the part which was fed upon by the priest’s children. HBS 362.7

And what a view does this give of the efficacy of the offering! How does it magnify “the unsearchable riches of Christ”! God, man, and the priest, all fed together, all finding satisfaction in the offering. God first has his part and is satisfied, for he declares it to be very good. “It is an offering made by fire of a sweet savor unto the Lord.” Man (in Christ) as offerer has his part, and is permitted to share this offering with his friends. And the priest, that is, Christ in his official character, is satisfied also, and his children are satisfied with him. What a picture is here presented to us! The offerer feasts with God, with his priest, and with the priest’s children.—“The Law of the Offerings,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 98-100, 17th edition. London: James Nisbet & Co. HBS 362.8

Offering, Sin, Distinctive Character of.—The burnt offering, the meat offering, and the peace offering, much as they differed, were yet alike in this, that in each of them the offering was the presentation of something which was sweet to Jehovah, an oblation to satisfy his holy requirements, and in the acceptance of which he found grateful satisfaction. But here, in the sin and trespass offerings, we read of sin in connection with the offering. Here is confessed sin, judged sin, sin requiring sacrifice and blood-shedding, yet sin atoned for, blotted out, and pardoned. HBS 363.1

It might perhaps be thought that this view of the offering, as leading to the knowledge and discovery of sin, might be less blessed, less full of joy and consolation, than those views of the offering on which we have already meditated. Such might be the case were we other than what we are, and were the sin offering other than God has provided. Were we sinless beings who knew no sin, this view of the offering might not be needed by us, save as revealing the grace of Him, who, though the Holy One, could be “just and yet a justifier.” But to us, who, knowing ourselves to be sinners, and as such subject to God’s just wrath and judgment, have yet believed in Him “who was made a curse for us,” this view of the offering is perhaps of all most comforting. The sin offering shows that sin has been judged, and that therefore the sense of sin, if we believe, need not shake our sense of safety. Sin is indeed here pre-eminently shown to be exceeding sinful, exceeding hateful, exceeding evil before God: yet it is also shown to have been perfectly met by sacrifice, perfectly borne, perfectly judged, perfectly atoned for. HBS 363.2

And the fact is, that the view of Christ as sin offering is sooner apprehended than those prefigured in the burnt and meat offerings. Experience abundantly testifies this. As in the type the sin offerings, though last in order of institution, were invariably the first in order of application; so in the experience of saints, Christ is first apprehended as the sin offering. Long before there is any intelligence of all the details of Christ’s perfect work, as fulfilling all righteousness as man, and being accepted of God as a sweet-smelling savor,-long before there is any thought of his offering as that wherein God takes delight and finds satisfaction, the weak Christian sees Christ as sin-bearer, and his offering as a sacrifice for sin. And though, as the type will show us, this view may be very indistinct, confused, or partial; and though it may be apprehended by different believers with an immense difference as to the measure of discernment and intelligence, yet in same form or other it is, I may say invariably, the first view of Christ’s offering apprehended by the Christian. [pp. 129-131] ... HBS 363.3

The sin offering in contrast with the other offerings-three particulars will give us all the outlines: (1) First, it was, though without blemish, not of a sweet savor. Then (2) it was burnt, not on the altar in the tabernacle, but on the bare earth without the camp. In these two particulars the sin offering was in contrast to the burnt offering. Lastly, (3) it was an offering for sin, and this as distinct from an offering for trespass. In this, as I need hardly observe, it stands contrasted particularly with the trespass offering. HBS 363.4

1. First, the sin offering, though without spot or blemish, was yet not a sweet-savor offering. I have already dwelt more than once on what is implied in a “sweet savor.” I need not, therefore, here do more than refer to it, to show how Jesus, the spotless one, could be “not a sweet savor.” HBS 364.1

The distinction is this: the sweet-savor offerings were for acceptance; the others for expiation. In the first class, sin is not seen at all; it is simply the faithful Israelite satisfying Jehovah. In the sin offerings it is just the reverse; it is an offering charged with the sin of the offerer. In the burnt offering and other sweet-savor offerings, the offerer came as a worshiper, to give in his offering, which represented himself, something sweet and pleasant to Jehovah. In the sin and trespass offerings, which were not of a sweet savor, the offerer came as a convicted sinner, to receive in his offering, which represented himself, the judgment due to his sin or trespass. In the sin offerings, as in the burnt offerings, Christ is offerer: but here he is seen standing for us under the imputation of sin. For though in himself without sin, “the Holy One,” yet he became our substitute, confessed our sins as his sins, and bore their penalty. [pp. 133, 134] ... HBS 364.2

2. The sin offering was burnt without the camp. The other offerings were, without exception, burnt on the altar in the tabernacle. Here “the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, his inwards, etc., even the whole bullock shall he carry without the camp, ... and burn him on the wood with fire.” The import of this we have more than once noticed in passing. It testified how completely the offering was identified with the sin it suffered for; so completely identified that it was itself looked at as sin, and as such cast out of the camp into the wilderness. A part indeed, “the fat,” was burnt on the altar, to show that the offering, though made a sin-bearer, was in itself perfect. But the body of the victim, “even the whole bullock,” was cast forth without the camp. “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” He was cast out as one who was unfit for Jerusalem, was unworthy a place in the city of God. [pp. 137, 138] ... HBS 364.3

3. The third peculiarity we may note in the sin offering is, that it was an offering for sin, not an offering for trespass. This distinction, like all the rest which God has recorded, is full of instruction and of comfort to our souls. It is as definite, too, as any of the other differences which we have dwelt upon. The want of apprehension respecting it only arises from our so little knowing either what man is or what God is. With our shortsightedness, our inability to see beyond the surface, we naturally look at what man does rather than at what he is; and while we are willing to allow that he does evil, we perhaps scarcely think that he is evil. But God judges what we are as well as what we do; our sin, the sin in us, as much as our trespasses. In his sight sin in us, our evil nature, is as clearly seen as our trespasses, which are but the fruit of that nature. He needs not wait to see the fruit put forth. He knows the root is evil, and so will be the buddings. HBS 364.4

Now the distinction between the sin and trespass offerings is just this,-the one is for sin in our nature, the other for the fruits of it. And a careful examination of the particulars of the offerings is all that is needed to make this manifest. Thus in the sin offering no particular act of sin is mentioned, but a certain person is seen standing confessedly as a sinner; in the trespass offering certain acts are enumerated, and the person never appears; in the sin offering I see a person who needs atonement, offering an oblation for himself as a sinner; in the trespass offering I see certain acts which need atonement, and the offering offered for these particular offenses. [pp. 140, 141]-“The Law of the Offerings,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 129-141, 17th edition. London: James Nisbet & Co. HBS 364.5

Offering, Trespass, Distinctive Character of.—As to the distinctive character of this offering, four particulars may at once be noted, the first having reference to the broad distinction between the trespass offerings and the whole class of sweet-savor offerings; the next bearing on the general distinction between the offerings not of a sweet savor, namely, the sin and trespass offerings: the other two are more definite, and have to do with certain details connected with and flowing from the distinction between the nature of sin and trespass, and their atonement. HBS 365.1

1. On the first particular I need not here enter, for the distinction between what was and what was not of a sweet savor has so often been dwelt upon. I therefore merely notice the fact that the trespass offering was not a sweet savor. Christ is seen here suffering’for sins: the view of his work in the trespass offering is expiatory. HBS 365.2

2. The next particular, too, we have already considered, namely, that this offering was a trespass offering, as distinct from a sin offering. [pp. 164, 165] ... HBS 365.3

In every case of trespass, wrong was done; there was an act of evil by which another was injured. And the offering for this act, the trespass offering (in this a contrast to the sin offering) was offered by the offerer, not because he was, but because he had done, evil. Accordingly, in the trespass offering we never get sight of any particular person as a sinner; the act of wrong is the point noticed and dwelt upon. [p. 166] ... HBS 365.4

In the trespass offering, besides the life laid down, the value of the trespass, according to the priest’s valuation of it, was paid in shekels of the sanctuary, to the injured party. Then, in addition to this, a fifth part more, in shekels also, was added to the sum just spoken of, which, together with the amount of the original wrong or trespass, was paid by the trespasser to the person trespassed against. These particulars, respecting the payment of money in connection with the offering, are not only very definite, but very remarkable. It may be well, therefore, before we consider them separately, to note how distinctly all this differed from the sin offering. HBS 365.5

In the sin offering we see nothing of money: there was no estimation by tne priest, nor any fifth part added. Indeed, from the nature of the case, there could be neither of these, for they depend entirely on the nature of trespass. In the sin offering the offerer was a sinner: and his sin was met and judged in the victim. A perfect victim bore the penalty; a sinless one was judged for sin. In all this the one thought presented to us is sin receiving its rightful wages. We see due judgment inflicted on the sinner’s substitute; and this having been inflicted, justice is satisfied. In the trespass offering, with the exception of “trespass” instead of “sin,” we have all this precisely the same as in the sin offering. The victim’s life is given for trespass: judgment is inflicted, and so far justice is satisfied. But in the trespass offering there is more than this,-arising, as we shall see, out of the nature of trespass,-the original wrong or evil is remedied; and further, a fifth part is added to it. [pp. 169, 170] ... HBS 365.6

3. In the trespass offering we get restitution, full restitution, for the original wrong. The amount of the injury, according to the priest’s valuation of it, is paid in shekels of the sanctuary to the injured person. The thought here is not that trespass is punished, but that the injured party is repaid the wrong. The payment was in shekels: these “shekels of the sanctuary” were the appointed standard by which God’s rights were measured; as it is said, “And all thy estimation shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary.” Thus they represent the truest measure, God’s standard by which he weighs all things. By this standard the trespass is weighed, and then the value paid to the injured person. HBS 365.7

And God and man, though wronged by trespass, each receive as much again from man in Christ through the trespass offering. God was injured by trespass in his holy things, his rights unpaid, his claim slighted; for man was ofttimes a robber, taking for himself the fat or life, God’s claim in the offerings. Thus, if I may so say, God through man was a loser; but at the hands of Christ the loss has been repaid; and whatever was lost through man in the first Adam, has been made up to the full in the second Adam. Whether honor, service, worship, or obedience, whatever God could claim, whatever man could rob him of, all this has he received again from man in Christ, “according to the priest’s estimation in shekels of the sanctuary.” [pp. 172, 173] ... HBS 366.1

4. But this is not all. Not only is the original wrong paid, but a fifth part more is paid with it in the trespass offering. Not only is the original claim, of which God and man had been wronged, satisfied, but something more, “a fifth,” is added with it. [p. 173] ... HBS 366.2

Accordingly, the payment of “a fifth” henceforward, wherever we meet with it in Scripture, is the acknowledgment that the person paying it has lost and forfeited that whereof “the fifth” was offered. It is a witness not only that the sum or thing yielded up, has been yielded of necessity, as a debt, not as a free gift, but that the whole of that whereof the fifth was paid, was the right and property of him to whom its “fifth” was rendered. Thus its import in the trespass offering seals the character of the offering, testifying that what was given was indeed a debt, and not a free gift. HBS 366.3

But while this was the import of giving “the fifth part,” yet by the addition of this fifth the injured party became in truth a gainer. So far from losing by trespass, he received more back again; and this is what we have now to consider. Wonderful indeed are the ways of God; how unsearchable are his counsels and wisdom! Who would have thought that from the entrance of trespass, both God and man should in the end be gainers? But so it is. From man in Christ both God and man have received back more than they were robbed of. All things are indeed of God; yet it is from man in Christ, and this in consequence of trespass, that God, according to his wondrous purpose, receives back more than that of which sin had robbed him. In this sense, “where sin abounded,” yea, and because sin abounded, “grace did more abound.” [pp. 175, 176]-“The Law of the Offerings,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 164-176, 17th edition. London: James Nisbet & Co. HBS 366.4

Offerings, Law of.—Such is “the law of the offerings.” It gives but one view of Christ: yet how much is involved in it, both as to our walk and standing. Do we not need this truth? Surely if ever there was a time when the truths connected with Christ’s sacrifice were needed, that time is the present. As in the days of Christ, so now God’s truth is used as the prop of error. Just as then the law, which was given to prove man’s sinfulness, was used by Pharisees to exalt man’s right-eousness; so now the gospel, which was given to lead us to another world, is being used to make this world a more sure abiding place. HBS 366.5

I speak what is notorious: it is the boast of our age, that Christianity is doing what it never did before. It is giving temperance to the world and peace to the nations, it is vindicating the liberty of the slave; in a word, it is making for man a better home, a safer resting-place, on this side the grave. And all the while the world is still the world, and the slave still, as before, the slave of lust. HBS 366.6

Time was when Christians gave up the world. They now can mend it: they need not leave it. Oh, cunning device of the evil one, too easily followed by a deluded age! God’s truth now, instead of laying man in his grave with the certain hope of a resurrection morning, is used on all hands, misused I should say, to perfect man in the flesh, almost to deify him; used to prop “the things which must be shaken,” instead of leading us to those “which cannot be moved;” used to give an inheritance on this side death instead of in the glory which shall be revealed. HBS 367.1

Oh, how does the Offering judge all this! It speaks of sacrifice, even to the cross. It tells us that, as one with Christ, our portion in him must yet be his portion. What had he here? He suffered under Pontius Pilate; he was crucified, dead, and buried; he rose again the third day; he ascended up into heaven; he sitteth at the right hand of God; he shall come again to judge the quick and dead. What had he here? Nothing. He took not as his home a world unpurged by fire, a creation still under the curse. He passed through it as a rejected pilgrim. We, too, if we would be like him, must do so still. As Luther said, “Our spouse is a bloody husband to us.” He will not let us have this world till he has it. His day is at hand: for that day he waits. Let us be content, “yet a little while,” to wait with him. And while many are anticipating his kingdom, in a kingdom without his presence, and without his saints, let us look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.—“The Law of the Offerings,” Andrew Jukes, pp. 205-207, 17th edition. London: James Nisbet & Co. HBS 367.2

Old Testament, Structure of.—There are two methods by which we can proceed in investigating the organic structure of the Old Testament. We must take our departure either from the beginning or the end. These are the two points from which all the lines of progress diverge, or in which they meet in every development or growth. [p. 7] ... HBS 367.3

If, then, the structure of the Old Testament has been read aright, as estimated from the point of its beginning and its gradual development from that onward, it consists of four parts; viz., HBS 367.4

1. The Pentateuch, or law of Moses, the basis of the whole. HBS 367.5

2. Its providential expansion and application to the national life in the historical books. HBS 367.6

3. Its subjective expansion and appropriation to individual life in the poetical books. HBS 367.7

4. Its objective expansion and enforcement in the prophetical books. HBS 367.8

The other mode above suggested of investigating the structure of the Old Testament requires us to survey it from its end, which is Christ, for whose coming and salvation it is a preparation. This brings everything into review under a somewhat different aspect. It will yield substantially the same division that has already been arrived at by the contrary process, and thus lends it additional confirmation, since it serves to show that this is not a fanciful or arbitrary partition, but one grounded in the nature of the Sacred Volume. At the same time it is attended with three striking and important advantages: HBS 367.9

1. The historical, poetical, and prophetical books, which have hitherto been considered as separate lines of development, springing, it is true, from a common root, yet pursuing each its own independent course, are by this second method exhibited in that close relationship and interdependence which really subsists between them, and in their convergence to one common center and end. HBS 367.10

2. It makes Christ the prominent figure, and adjusts every part of the Old Testament in its true relation to him. He thus becomes in the classification and structural arrangement, what he is in actual fact,-the end of the whole, the controlling, forming principle of all, so that the meaning of every part is to be estimated from its relation to him, and is only then apprehended as it should be when that relation becomes known. HBS 368.1

3. This will give unity to the study of the entire Scriptures. Everything in the Old Testament tends to Christ and is to be estimated from him. Everything in the New Testament unfolds from Christ and is likewise to be estimated from him. In fact, this method pursued in other fields will give unity and consistency to all knowledge by making Christ the sum and center of the whole, of whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things. HBS 368.2

In the first method the Old Testament was regarded simply as a divine scheme of training. It must now be regarded as a scheme of training directed to one definite end, the coming of Christ. HBS 368.3

It is to be noted that the Old Testament, though preparatory for Christ and predictive of him everywhere, is not predictive of him in the same manner nor in equal measure throughout. Types and prophecies are accumulated at particular epochs in great numbers and of a striking character. And then, as if in order that these lessons might be fully learned before the attention was diverted by the impartation of others, an interval is allowed to elapse in which predictions, whether implicit or explicit, are comparatively few and unimportant. Then another brilliant epoch follows, succeeded by a fresh decline; periods, they may be called, of activity and of repose, of instruction on the part of God, followed by periods of comprehension and appropriation on the part of the people. HBS 368.4

These periods of marked predictive character are never mere repetitions of those which preceded them. Each has its own distinctive nature and quality. It emphasizes particular aspects and gives prominence to certain characteristics of the coming Redeemer and the ultimate salvation; but others are necessarily neglected altogether or left in comparative obscurity, and if these are to be brought distinctly to view, a new period is necessary to represent them. Thus one period serves as the complement of another, and all must be combined in order to gain a complete notion of the preparation for Christ effected by the Old Testament, or of that exhibition of Messiah and his work which it was deemed requisite to make prior to his appearing. [p. 9-11]-“The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,” William Henry Green, D. D., LL. D., pp. 7-11. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. HBS 368.5

Old Testament, Unity of.—The Old Testament is a product of the Spirit of God, wrought out through the instrumentality of many human agents, who were all inspired by him, directed by him, and adapted by him to the accomplishment of his own fixed end. Here is that unity in multiplicity, that singleness of aim with diversity of operations, that binding together of separate activities under one superior and controlling influence, which guides all to the accomplishment of a predetermined purpose, and allots to each its particular function in reference to it, which is the very conception of a well-arranged organism. There is a divine reason why every part is what it is and where it is; why God spake unto the fathers at precisely those sundry times and in just those divers portions, in which he actually revealed his will. And though this may not in every instance be ascertainable by us, yet careful and reverent, study will disclose it not only in its general outlines, but also in a multitude of its minor details; and will show that the transpositions and alterations, which have been proposed as improvements, are dislocations and disfigurements, which mar and deface the well-proportioned whole. HBS 368.6

In looking for the evidences of an organic structure in the Scriptures, according to which all its parts are disposed in harmonious unity, and each part stands in a definite and intelligible relation to every other, as well as to the grand design of the whole, it will be necessary to group and classify the particulars, or the student will lose himself in the multiplicity of details, and never rise to any clear conception of the whole. Every fact, every institution, every person, every doctrine, every utterance of the Bible, has its place and its function in the general plan. And the evidence of the correctness of any scheme proposed as the plan of the Scriptures will lie mainly in its harmonizing throughout with all these details, giving a rational and satisfactory account of the purpose and design of each and assigning to all their just place and relations. But if one were to occupy himself with these details in the first instance, he would be distracted and confused by their multitude, without the possibility of arriving thus at any clear or satisfactory result. HBS 369.1

The first important aid in the process of grouping or classification is afforded by the separate books of which the Scriptures are composed. These are not arbitrary or fortuitous divisions of the sacred text; but their form, dimensions, and contents have been divinely determined. Each represents the special task allotted to one particular organ of the Holy Spirit, either the entire function assigned to him in the general plan, or, in the case where the same inspired penman wrote more than one book of different characters and belonging to different classes, his function in one given sphere or direction. Thus the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi exhibit to us that part in the plan of divine revelation which each of those distinguished servants of God was commissioned to perform. The book of Psalms represents the task allotted to David and the other inspired writers of song in the instruction and edification of the people of God. The books of Moses may be said to have led the way in every branch of sacred composition, in history (Genesis, in legislation (Leviticus), in oratorical and prophetic discourse (Deuteronomy), in poetry (Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 32, 33), and they severally set forth what he was engaged to accomplish in each of these different directions. The books of Scripture thus having each an individual character and this stamped with divine authority as an element of fitness for their particular place and function, must be regarded as organic parts of the whole. HBS 369.2

The next step in our inquiry is to classify and arrange the books themselves. Every distribution is not a true classification, as a mechanical division of an animal body is not a dissection, and every classification will not exhibit the organic structure of which we are in quest. The books of the Bible may be variously divided with respect to matters merely extraneous and contingent, and which stand in no relation to the true principle of its construction. HBS 369.3

Thus, for example, the current division of the Hebrew Bible is into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the K’thubhim or Hagiographa. This distribution rests upon the official standing of the writers. The writings of Moses, the great lawgiver and mediator of God’s covenant with Israel, whose position in the theocracy was altogether unique, stand first. Then follow the writings of the prophets, that is to say, of those invested with the prophetical office. Some of these writings, the so-called former prophets-Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings-are historical; the others are prophetical, viz., those denominated the latter prophets-Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets so called, not as though of inferior authority, but solely because of the brevity of their books. Their position in this second division of the canon is due, not to the nature of their contents, but to the fact that their writers were prophets in the strict and official sense. Last of all those books occupy the third place which were written by inspired men who were not in the technical or official sense prophets. Thus the writings of David and Solomon, though inspired as truly as those of the prophets, are assigned to the third division of the canon, because their authors were not prophets but kings. So, too, the book of Daniel belongs in this third division, because its author, though possessing the gift of prophecy in an eminent degree, and uttering prophecies of the most remarkable character, and hence called a prophet (Matthew 24:15) in the same general sense as David is in Acts 2:30, nevertheless did not exercise the prophetic office. He was not engaged in laboring with the people for their spiritual good as his contemporary and fellow captive Ezekiel. He had an entirely different office to perform on their behalf in the distinguished position which he occupied at the court of Babylon and then of Persia. The books of Chronicles cover the same period of the history as 2 Samuel and Kings, but the assignment of the former to the third division, and of the latter to the second, assures us that Samuel and Kings were written by prophets, while the author of Chronicles, though writing under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was not officially a prophet. HBS 369.4

As classified in our present Hebrew Bibles, which follow the order given in the Talmud, this principle of arrangement is in one instance obviously departed from; the Lamentations of Jeremiah stands in the Hagiographa, though as the production of a prophet it ought to be included in the second division of the canon, and there is good reason to believe that this was its original position. Two modes of enumerating the sacred books were in familiar use in ancient times, as appears from the catalogues which have been preserved to us. The two books of Samuel were uniformly counted one: so the two books of Kings and the two of Chronicles: so also Ezra and Nehemiah: so likewise the Minor Prophets were counted one book. Then, according to one mode of enumeration, Ruth was attached to Judges as forming together one book, and Lamentations was regarded as a part of the book of Jeremiah: thus the entire number of the books of the Old Testament was twenty-two. In the other mode Ruth and Lamentations were reckoned separate books, and the total was twenty-four. Now the earliest enumerations that we have from Jewish or Christian sources are by Josephus and Origen, who both give the number as twenty-two: and as this is the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, while twenty-four is the number in the Greek alphabet, the former may naturally be supposed to have been adopted by the Jews in the first instance. From this it would appear that Lamentations was originally annexed to the book of Jeremiah and of course placed in the same division of the canon. Subsequently, for liturgical or other purposes, Ruth and Lamentations were removed to the third division of the canon and included among the five small books now classed together as Megilloth or Rolls, which follow immediately after Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.—“The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch,” William Henry Green, D. D., LL. D., pp. 2-7. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. HBS 370.1

Old Testament, Kingdom of Heaven in.—Concerning this “kingdom of heaven,” which was the great message of John, and the great work of Christ himself, we may here say, that it is the whole Old Testament sublimated, and the whole New Testament realized. The idea of it did not lie hidden in the Old, to be opened up in the New Testament, as did the mystery of its realization. But this rule of heaven and kingship of Jehovah was the very substance of the Old Testament; the object of the calling and mission of Israel; the meaning of all its ordinances, whether civil or religious; the underlying idea of all its institutions. It explained alike the history of the people, the dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the prophets. Without it the Old Testament could not be understood; it gave perpetuity to its teaching, and dignity to its representations. This constituted alike the real contrast between Israel and the nations of antiquity, and Israel’s real title to distinction. Thus the whole Old Testament was the preparatory presentation of the rule of heaven and of the kingship of its Lord.—“The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,” Rev. Alfred Edersheim, M. A. Oxon., D. D., Ph. D., Vol. I, p. 265. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1896. HBS 371.1

Old Testament, Rejuvenation of.—Our old Old Testament of the beginning of this century has now become a new Old Testament. This rejuvenation of the old book is due to the large progress made in explorations, discoveries, and decipherment of antiquities during the present century, and pre-eminently during the last half of it. Almost every Bible land has been laid under tribute to this cause, and some of them have poured into our archeological coffers more than we can as yet measure or interpret. Private and public expeditions are at work today in several of these Oriental lands, and they promise to yield fruit as fast as we can care for it. Remains of all the principal peoples mentioned in the Old Testament now decorate the cases of our museums, and tons of new material are being gathered in at the end of every season. This work cannot be too strongly supported. Every additional fact added to our knowledge simply elucidates some hitherto unexplained difficulty, and every spade plunged into an Oriental mound is merely a step toward the discovery of some new fact. HBS 371.2

The scope of the results of these discoveries is immeasurable. They touch almost every part of the Old Testament.... The largest contribution is that made to the historical setting of the children of Israel in the different periods of their history. Archeology comes in for no small share in the permanent good derived from this source. A new and definite location of events formerly assigned to semioblivion gives additional vividness to the narrative. The determination of the exact time of the occurrence of events has also added interest to many of the facts in the Old Testament. But there is no more fascinating department of new information than that pertaining to the ethnology of early Oriental peoples. There are few names of peoples now remaining in the Old Testament about whom we have not secured some new facts. The religions, too, of the contemporaneous nations are better known than they were a half-century ago. The meanings of some words in the Old Testament have assumed a new importance since the opening of the magical Babylonian-Assyrian cuneiform tongue, a half-sister to the Hebrew. This larger meaning for the words of the Old Testament assures us of a better understanding of the original Hebrew, and a more expressive and sympathetic meaning for the words penned by the writers of the Old Testament. HBS 371.3

In surveying the whole sweep of discoveries in the historical line, one may well be amazed at the galaxy of characters now drawn up to view. Beginning back at the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, we find evidence of the existence of the leader, Chedorlaomer, of the great Elamite campaign against the cities of the plain. The probabilities of a Hyksos domination in Egypt when Abram and Joseph reached the Nile land are increasing with each new Egyptian discovery touching this period. The possession at Gizeh Museum of the mummy of the Pharaoh of the oppression, Rameses II, and a tablet of the time of Meneptah II, bearing the name “Israel,” add great vividness to the bondage of Israel in Egypt. Portraits of some of the Canaanitish peoples show us the kind of soldiers that disputed with Joshua the occupation of the Promised Land. Shishak’s portrait of his captives from Canaan bears evidence on the face of it of the verity of the king’s record of that event. The Moabite Stone tells us that Mesha of Moab (2 Kings 3:4) was no less a king than represented by the compiler of Kings. Shalmaneser II’s own record bears testimony to the existence of Ahab, of Benhadad, and Hazael of Damascus, and of “Jehu son of Omri.” Tiglath-pileser III has left most valuable documents in which he mentions Azariah (Uzziah) and Ahaz of Judah, and Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea of Israel, and Rezin of Damascus. Sargon II describes his capture of Samaria and of Ashdod. Sennacherib’s records are full of facts regarding his illustrious campaign of 701 b. c., where we find Hezekiah mentioned by name, the siege of Lachish pictured on his walls, and the amount of tribute paid the invader. Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal both mention in their lists of tributaries Manasseh of Judah. The overthrow of Nineveh, pictured in Nahum, is attested by a small inscription of Nabonidus. The policy of Nebuchadrezzar, and his administrative ability, are evident in his own records. The annals of Nabonidus and of Cyrus picture the fall of Babylon and the governmental policy of Cyrus outlined in the Old Testament. Belshazzar is seen to be the son, co-regent, of Nabonidus, the last Semitic king of Babylon. The construction of the palace of Susa is found to correspond in every important respect to the descriptions of the book of Esther. In brief, we now have several new and corroborative chapters of history, as one immediate result of the decipherment of the new documents dug out of the earth within the last half-century.—“The Monuments and the Old Testament,” Ira Maurice Price, Ph. D., pp. 291-294. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1907. HBS 371.4

Ophir, Location of.—These ships go to Ophir, which some have thought to be in India, from the fact that the words used for ivory, peacocks, apes, etc., are South Indian words for the same animals. But there was an old coast trade between India and Yemen, and Indian traders probably brought to Ophir Indian products, which Solomon’s servants brought up the Red Sea. Ophir seems clearly to be in Yemen or southern Arabia; evidently, too, the same place from which the Queen of Sheba came; and it is said she came with camels, etc. (1 Kings 10:2), which shows hers was an overland journey, and that the fable of her coming from Abyssinia has not grounds of fact to rest on.—“The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” Henry A. Harper, pp. 284, 285, 4th edition. London: Alexander P. Watt, 1891. HBS 372.1