Part 1: The Background | Part 2: What It Meant

If the burning of the sin offering “outside the camp” meant that

• Israel’s sin is so vile, so revolting, so contagious, so polluting, that its very offering cannot be burned where the other offerings—the peace offering, the thanksgiving offering—are. It’s as though the very smoke of the offering is contaminating;
• Israel is called to reject its sin as it would reject its own sewage or its own murderers. Get rid of it. Get as far from it as you can;

then what does it mean that Jesus was executed similarly “outside the camp”?

We’ve noted that the author of Hebrews specifically ties the death of Christ outside the city of Jerusalem to the significance of the burning of the sin offering “outside the camp” (He 13.11-12). This is not a coincidental parallel; God wants us to regard the Crucifixion as a sin offering, with all the significance that an immolation outside the camp would bear in the Jewish mind.

So what can we conclude?

First, at Calvary Christ became unclean for us.

The Scripture directly states this truth:

• The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Is 53.6).
• For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2Co 5.21).

We’ve all heard teaching about the physical suffering involved in Roman crucifixion, and I don’t want to minimize that for a moment. Crucifixion was designed to be the most painful way to die.

But I would suggest that Jesus’ physical pain throughout that experience, as extreme and agonizing as it was, was the least of his worries.

For that time, he was guilty of all the sin of all the people who had ever lived. What kind of pain did that cause to his utterly undefiled conscience?

“Every bitter thought, every evil deed,” indeed.

But there’s even more.

Second, at the cross Jesus the Eternal Son was rejected—

• By his own people, for alleged uncleanness (Is 53.3-4; Lu 4.28-29; Jn 1.10-11; Mk 15.6-15)—

³He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows  and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not (Is 53.3).

¹⁰He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. ¹¹He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him (Jn 1).

• And by his own Father, for genuine uncleanness—as far from the Tabernacle, the visible manifestation of God’s presence with his beloved people, as he could possibly be.

Outside the camp.

Expelled. Rejected.

There could have been no greater pain, real or imagined.

“My God, my God! Why hast thou forsaken me?!”

I find it interesting that when Jesus cried these words, the bystanders thought he was calling for Elijah.

They didn’t recognize a line from their own hymnbook (Ps 22.1).

They didn’t recognize the name of their own God.

Yet he died for them.

We don’t hate our sin, or love our Savior, nearly enough.

The author of Hebrews makes a further application:

Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured (He 13.13).

We are “in Christ” (Rom 8.1):

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

The Father no longer rejects us, but the world does. 

• Let’s not be surprised by rejection for his sake. 

• Let’s bear his reproach (cf Heb 10.32-34). 

When Satan tempts us, let’s respond, “I’m with him.” 

When our culture takes his name in vain, when our coworkers and neighbors raise an eyebrow, when we face a choice between listening to our conscience or listening to our civil leaders, whatever the situation, whatever the sacrifice, let’s stand up, move swiftly and resolutely to his side, and say, “I’m with him.”  

Christ, our sin offering, is sacrificed for us. 

Why should we want anything else?

Photo by Bakhrom Tursunov on Unsplash

Part 1: The Background

To understand the significance of Jesus’ death “outside the camp,” I’d like to probe a couple of questions, one in each of the next two posts:

• What did it mean in the Mosaic economy to be “outside the camp”?
• What, then, does it mean that Jesus was executed similarly “outside the camp”?

So first, what it meant originally.

The Old Testament uses the expression “outside the camp” 26 times in 25 verses (NASB95). Many of these occurrences refer to the disposition of the burnt and sin offerings, as noted in the previous post. But there are some other references as well—references that I think shed light on the meaning of the concept and thus help illuminate the significance of disposing of those two types of sacrifices in that way.

As you might expect, latrines were placed outside the camp (Dt 23.12-14). I speculated in the previous post whether there might be latrines in more central locations, appropriately distanced from nearby tents; but if the Israelites were following the Lord’s direction explicitly, they were walking half a mile or more every time they had to go to the bathroom.

Even today, when we set up a campsite, we designate an area for excretion that is away from the sleeping and eating areas. Why is that? For hygiene. There are substances in our excrement that can make us sick—coliforms most notoriously, but lots of other nasty stuff as well. You don’t want that junk in or near your living spaces.

There are other biblical instances of placing unclean things outside the camp. People with leprosy were forced to live away from their fellow citizens, because leprosy was communicable (Le 13.46; Nu 5.1-4). We read the specific instance of Moses’ sister Miriam being struck with leprosy and thus excluded (Nu 12.10-15), and centuries later King Uzziah suffered the same fate within the land of Israel (2Ch 26.21).

And it wasn’t just physical uncleanness; ceremonial uncleanness was isolated as well. In the wilderness, a group of Midianite prisoners of war were isolated (Nu 31.1-19), as was the family of the Canaanite believer Rahab during the conquest (Jos 6.23).

Being kept outside the camp might mean that you were unclean, a source of pollution.

But uncleanness doesn’t account for all the instances. An obviously different case is that the Tabernacle itself was moved outside the camp for a period of time after the golden-calf incident (Ex 32.30; 33.7). Surely the Tabernacle was not to be seen as unclean! So why the repositioning? I’d suggest that by worshiping the calf—which Aaron had identified as “the LORD,” Yahweh (Ex 32.5)—Israel had rejected the explicit commandments of Yahweh, even though not (in their minds) going after a different “god.” Moses reminded them of this fact by moving the Tabernacle outside the camp, as though they had expelled or rejected it.

This idea of rejection is confirmed, I think, by several instances of capital punishment being executed outside the camp. By Yahweh’s direct command, a man who had blasphemed The Name was executed outside the camp (Le 24.10-14). Similarly, again by direct divine command, a man who had violated the Sabbath was executed there as well. And in a much more familiar case, the deacon Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was driven outside the city by the Sanhedrin to be executed (Ac 6.15-7.1; 7.54-58).

This was an act of utter rejection.

I think we have a good foundation, then, for understanding what it meant for the sin offering to be slaughtered, then dragged outside the camp, and then consumed by fire.

• Israel’s sin is so vile, so revolting, so contagious, so polluting, that its very offering cannot be burned where the other offerings—the peace offering, the thanksgiving offering—are. It’s as though the very smoke of the offering is contaminating. 
• Israel is called to reject its sin as it would reject its own sewage or its own murderers. Get rid of it. Get as far from it as you can. 

Next time we’ll follow the application of the author of Hebrews to where it unavoidably leads us.

Photo by Bakhrom Tursunov on Unsplash