Many of the points on which we have been dwelling will, with the divine blessing, come before us with increasing clearness, fullness, precision, and power as we proceed with the offerings. Each offering is, as it were, thrown into relief by being viewed in contrast with all the rest. All the offerings taken together give us a full view of Christ. They are like so many mirrors, arranged in such a manner as to reflect in various ways the figure of that true and only-perfect Sacrifice. No one type could fully present Him. We needed to have Him reflected in life and in death--as a Man and as a Victim, Godward and usward; and we have Him thus in the offerings of Leviticus. God has graciously met our need; and may He give us an enlarged capacity to enter into and enjoy His provision. CHAPTER II. We now come to consider the meat-offering, which presents, in a very distinct manner, "the Man Christ Jesus." As the burnt-offering typifies Christ in _death_, the meat-offering typifies Him in _life_. In neither the one nor the other is there a question of sin-bearing. In the burnt-offering, we see atonement, but no sin-bearing[3]--no imputation of sin--no outpoured wrath on account of sin. How can we know this? Because it was all consumed on the altar. Had there been aught of sin-bearing, it would have been consumed outside the camp. (Comp. Lev. iv. 11, 12, with Heb. xiii. 11.) [3] That is to say, sin-bearing is not prominent. Of course, where there is atonement, sin must be in question. But in the meat-offering, there was not even a question of bloodshedding. We simply find in it a beauteous type of Christ as He lived and walked and served down here on this earth. This one fact is, of itself, sufficient to draw the spiritual mind to the close and prayerful consideration of this offering. The pure and perfect manhood of our blessed Lord is a theme which must command the attention of every true Christian. It is to be feared that great looseness of thought prevails in reference to this holy mystery. The expressions which one sometimes hears and reads are sufficient to prove that the fundamental doctrine of incarnation is not laid hold of as the Word presents it. Such expressions may very probably proceed from misapprehension as to the real nature of His relations, and as to the true character of His sufferings; but, from what cause soever they arise, they should be judged in the light of holy Scripture, and rejected. Doubtless, many who make use of those expressions would recoil, with just horror and indignation, from the real doctrine contained in them were it put before them in its broad and true characters; and, for this reason, one should be sorry to attribute unsoundness as to fundamental truth, where it may merely be inaccuracy of statement.