Now, the more minutely we compare all the details of the burnt-offering and the sin-offering, the more clearly shall we apprehend the truth of what has been above stated in reference to the laying on of hands and the results thereof in each case.
In the first chapter of this volume, we noticed the fact that "the sons of Aaron" are introduced in the burnt-offering, but not in the sin-offering. As priests, they were privileged to stand around the altar and behold the flame of an acceptable sacrifice ascending to the Lord. But in the sin-offering, in its primary aspect, it was a question of the solemn judgment of sin, and not of priestly worship or admiration, and therefore the sons of Aaron do not appear. It is as convicted sinners that we have to do with Christ as the Antitype of the sin-offering: it is as worshiping priests, clothed in garments of salvation, that we contemplate Christ as the Antitype of the burnt-offering.
But, further, my reader may observe that the burnt-offering was "flayed," the sin-offering was not; the burnt-offering was "cut into his pieces," the sin-offering was not; "the inwards and the legs" of the burnt-offering were "washed in water," which act was entirely omitted in the sin-offering. Lastly, the burnt-offering was burnt upon the altar, the sin-offering was burnt without the camp. These are weighty points of difference, arising simply out of the distinctive character of the offerings. We know there is nothing in the Word of God without its own specific meaning; and every intelligent and careful student of Scripture will notice the above points of difference, and when he notices them, he will naturally seek to ascertain their real import. _Ignorance_ of this import there may be, but _indifference_ to it there should not. In any section of inspiration, but especially one so rich as that which lies before us, to pass over a single point would be to offer dishonor to the divine Author, and to deprive our own souls of much profit. We should hang over the most minute details, either to adore God's wisdom in them, or to confess our own ignorance of them. To pass them by, in a spirit of indifference, is to imply that the Holy Ghost has taken the trouble to write what we do not deem worthy of the desire to understand. This is what no right-minded Christian would presume to think. If the Spirit, in writing upon the ordinance of the sin-offering, has omitted the various rites above alluded to--rites which get a prominent place in the ordinance of the burnt-offering, there must assuredly be some good reason for, and some important meaning in, His doing so. These we should seek to apprehend, and no doubt they arise out of the special design of the divine mind in each offering. The sin-offering sets forth that aspect of Christ's work in which He is seen taking judicially the place which belonged to us morally. For this reason we could not look for that intense expression of what He was in all His secret springs of action, as unfolded in the typical act of "flaying." Neither could there be that enlarged exhibition of what he was, not merely as a whole, but in the most minute features of his character, as seen in the act of "cutting it into his pieces." Nor yet could there be that manifestation of what He was personally, practically, and intrinsically, as set forth in the significant act of "washing the inwards and legs in water."