Sanctification

by Edward Hoare

First, then, what is meant by it?

I am not aware that the expression is ever met with in any portion of the New Testament except the Epistle to the Hebrews, and this may at once suggest the idea that it has a Levitical signification. The great object of that Epistle is to expound the types of the book of Leviticus, and to show their fulfilment in our most blessed Saviour. Accordingly in two out of the three passages there is a direct reference to the ancient types. It is therefore only natural to expect that the phraseology employed in the Book of Leviticus, respecting the types, will reappear in the exposition of those types in the Epistle. And if we would understand the Epistle, we must learn from the Book of Leviticus what was the nature of that sanctification which was effected through blood in the law of types.

Some people seem to think that these sacrifices produced no result except in so far as they pointed typically to the Lord Jesus. But I do not think they will find that opinion borne out in Scripture. They will find there that, in addition to their typical and prophetic character, these sacrifices were, at the time of their being offered, effectual in God’s purpose for the bestowal of certain most important blessings. Thus this passage says, ‘If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:’ the blood then of bulls and of goats did actually ‘sanctify to the purifying of the flesh.’

There was a certain act of sanctification there and then wrought through the application of that blood. It was not merely that in it through faith believers laid hold on the future atonement by the coming Saviour, but there was something done for them at the time; so that after the sacrifice they were in a position different to that in which they stood before it.

Take the two cases referred to in this verse. First, there is the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock, as on the day of atonement. On that occasion the altar was sprinkled with the blood. (Levit. xvi. 19.) Now the altar was not actually purified by the sprinkling, as if it had been washed with water. Yet you read, ‘He shall sprinkle of the blood upon it—and cleanse it, and hallow,’ or sanctify, ‘it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.’ In that case the altar was cleansed from legal guilt. In consequence of its contact with the sin of guilty man it was regarded before God as an unclean thing, and by the sprinkling of blood it was sanctified, or legally cleansed. Before the sprinkling it was polluted, but afterwards it was clean, or, in other words, all legal impurity was removed.

The purifying of the flesh by the sprinkling of the ashes of an heifer was of exactly the same character. The clearest account of it is given in Num. xix., the passage to which the Apostle apparently refers. There you find the description of certain persons who were accounted unclean: as, e.g., those who had touched a dead body. And those persons, being unclean, were cut off from the sanctuary. But when, after seven days, they were sprinkled with the ashes of the heifer, their legal uncleanness was removed, and they were restored to the congregation as clean persons. They were not really more pure than they were before, but they were no longer accounted as defiled, and thus they were reinstated into all their privileges.

The sprinkling of blood and of the ashes, therefore, did produce a real result. It did not change the inward state of the heart, but it did alter the position. It was God’s appointed ordinance for the removal of legal guilt; and it did remove it. It was effectual for its purpose, and after it had taken place the uncleanness was no more: it might soon accumulate again, and become possibly worse than ever; but the past defilement was gone, and the unclean man was clean.

But it did not touch the heart or conscience. It was an outward act affecting the outward person, and restoring a man to the sanctuary and congregation; but, if his heart was broken by the bitter sense of indwelling sin, it could not restore him to God: if his conscience was grieved by the bitter memory of sad sin, the ashes of the heifer could not heal that. Suppose a man had something weighing on his conscience: he might bring his kid to the altar; but unless he was able in that sacrifice to see the coming Christ, he would have the bitter pain of past transgression still festering in his heart. He might be sprinkled with the ashes of the heifer, and take his place in the sanctuary of God as if all was right; but that would not take away his burden. If that were all he would go back from the sanctuary with a heavy heart. He would be just like thousands amongst ourselves who have experienced the utter failure of any external remedy for the wounded conscience. They have been through the whole outward routine of a correct Christianity,—prayers, Bible reading, Church services, sacraments,—and you may truly say they are sanctified according to the flesh. But there is a heartache still within the soul; there is an uncleanness there too deep to be touched by anything external,—so deep that it baffles every effort to cleanse it, and appears to rise with fresh power at the very time that they endeavour to apply their remedy. It is this that has always been the great difficulty in our endeavours to serve the living God, for till this burden is removed it is sure to keep us in a position of bondage and inability. I once saw some poor prisoners driven to their work with a long and heavy chain riveted on their ankles; and what heart or power could they have for service? And what power can he have who is toiling on in dreary discouragement with the chain of unforgiven sin riveted on his soul? It is only the free man that can walk with God and serve Him.

And now let us turn back to the text, and see how it deals with the difficulty. It draws the contrast between the purifying of the flesh and of the conscience, and it shows how the sprinkling of the ashes of the heifer could accomplish the one, but how the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ could alone affect the other; for it is that, and that alone, that could ‘purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.’ The reason is obvious. That atonement wrought out by Him, was the atonement planned in the eternal covenant of God, and, when the time came, completed on purpose to meet the case of all sin,—not merely of outward acts, but the deep inward corruption of the heart; not merely by external restoration, but by complete, internal restoration to God’s love. It concerns the depths of the soul; and so completely blots out all sin, that the soul itself, whatever it has been, is now in Him spotless before God. This is the one secret both of peace and service. Till your conscience is thus purged through the blood of Christ, you will never know what it is really to serve the living God.

And now look at the great contrast of the text, and mark well the difference between those sacrifices and ours.