‘For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the holy place through (dia) the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. For which reason Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate.'
He now likens Jesus to the special sacrifices whose blood is brought into the Holy Place. If by the Holy Place he means the Holy of Holies then these are the Day of Atonement sacrifices. Otherwise they also include the sin offerings for the priests and for the people as a whole. In all cases the bodies of such beasts had to be burned outside the camp because they were especially holy.
‘Those beasts (zo-on.' This is not the usual word for beasts, especially sacrificial beasts, in LXX. In 2 Peter 2:12; Jude 1:10 it refers to natural brute beasts. It is used in Revelation 4 of the ‘living creatures' around the throne. But the writer is probably trying to make a comparison with Jesus and therefore uses this more startling contrast signifying natural brute beasts in comparison with the heavenly Christ.
For let them recognise the significance of Christ being offered outside the gates of Jerusalem. As all his readers knew intimately, under the Jerusalemite ritual what is dealt with outside the camp belongs wholly to God. Man cannot partake of it. It is sacred. They can only participate of sin offerings offered on the altar in Jerusalem, the blood of which is not taken within the Holy Place, and the carcases of which were not burned outside the camp. We could call them the lesser sin offerings. Those alone may be retained within the camp, and be partaken of. And the consequence is that if Jesus was offered outside the camp, as He was, it is clear that He is inaccessible to them unless they are willing to leave the camp and put their trust in Him, and leave behind their faith in the Jerusalemite ritual once and for all. Otherwise He is forbidden to them by their own laws.
In order to understand this we must be aware of the niceties and significance of Old Tetament ritual. All sin offerings were offered on the altar, but these were basically divided into two groups. In one group are the sin offerings which were for the whole people, and those which were for the priests as the anointed of God. In these cases the blood was offered within the sanctuary and the carcases could not be eaten, and apart from the fat which was burned on the altar, had to be burned in their totality outside the camp in a clean place. These included the great sacrifices on the Day of Atonement, the blood of which alone was presented in the Holy of Holies (in the other cases it was before the veil at the altar of incense). See Leviticus 16:27, and compare Leviticus 4:12; Leviticus 4:21. Any sin offering whose blood was presented in the Holy Place was to be treated in the same way (Leviticus 6:30). And finally the ashes which were taken from the altar each day, while restoking the fire which had to burn continually, were also taken outside the camp to a clean place for they might contain elements of the above offerings (Leviticus 6:9-11).
Then there were the sin offerings for individuals. These were offered on the altar and the blood of the sacrifice presented to God by means of that altar, and the fat was offered on the altar. The blood was not taken within the Holy Place. The edible meat from these sacrifices was then partaken of by the priests, while the remainder would be burned up on the altar.
What must be noted about all these offerings is that even the lesser sin offerings were all ‘most holy' to the Lord (Leviticus 6:25; Leviticus 6:30 to Leviticus 7:1. See also Exodus 29:34). That is why all that could be eaten was to be eaten within the precincts of the tabernacle, and only by the anointed priests who because of what they were, were thereby also holy, while the other remains were burned on the altar in the court of the tabernacle. This being so these other sin offerings of which none could partake, and which were carried out of the camp and burned there in a clean place, being thereby given to God, must be even more holy. The fact that they had to be burned in a clean place demonstrated that they were certainly holy. Indeed they were so holy that apart from the fat which was burned on the altar because it was God's they were burned outside the camp of Israel in their totality. The same occurred to burnt offerings which were for the totality of the people. This suggests that these sacrifices were seen as exceptionally holy, so holy that they belonged only to God.
So when we learn that ‘Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate' we are made to recognise that His offering of Himself was also to be seen as exceptionally holy. Not only were the remains dealt with outside the camp, but the whole sacrifice and offering was made there. Even the tabernacle/temple itself was not holy enough for this offering. How holy then must be the holiness with which He sanctified His own. And God did this that it might be clear that no one who partook of the Jerusalemite ritual could have part in this sacrifice.
For the reason that ‘they' could not partake of that altar was because what was sacrificed on it was a sin offering for the whole world, the type of offering of which none in the camp or even in the sanctuary could eat, but which had to burned outside the camp (thereby being given to God) because of its great holiness.
And now that the ‘camp' had in the eyes of the Jews, religiously speaking, become Jerusalem the remains of these sacrifices were now in fact specifically burned outside Jerusalem. Thus Jesus sacrifice was seen as taking place outside the camp because it took place outside the city gates.
Burning outside the camp was the regular way of dealing with anything that had been ‘devoted' to God, or that belonged wholly to God, or that was so excessively holy that man could have no part in it, and religiously Jerusalem was seen as the equivalent of the camp, and Jesus as being offered outside the camp.
Note on The Camp.
The concept of the camp was an interesting one. It was to be kept as holy by the people, in that nothing unclean must be allowed in it, including human excrement (Deuteronomy 23:14 see also Leviticus 26:11-12), because the Lord walked there ‘The Lord walked there' probably means that He was present in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle for the verse also refers to His warlike activities which were connected with the Ark (Numbers 10:35-36). So the very presence of the Tabernacle ‘in the midst of the camp' meant that the camp must be kept free from anything unclean, because God was there. That is why anything ‘unclean' had to be removed from, or disposed of, outside the camp and anyone who had sinned presumptuously had to be put out of the camp, in order to be stoned, and thereby not touched (Leviticus 13:46; Leviticus 24:23; Numbers 5:2-3; Numbers 12:14-15; Numbers 15:32-36; Numbers 31:19; Numbers 31:24; Deuteronomy 23:10-11; Deuteronomy 23:13-14). This did not include temporary uncleanness which could be coped with by staying in their tents. But the camp had to be kept ritually ‘clean'. This was, however, a lower level of holiness.
But in contrast, anything more positively holy had to be dealt with in the Tabernacle precincts (e.g. Leviticus 6:16; Leviticus 6:26), while it would seem that anything excessively holy had to be dealt with outside the camp in a clean place. This last is why the total remains of sin offerings for the whole community and for the priests had to be burned outside the camp in a clean place, in contrast with the remains of the lesser sin offerings which were dealt with in the tabernacle area. Because they represented the whole of Israel or God's anointed priests the former were seen as excessively holy (Leviticus 16:27; Leviticus 4:12; Leviticus 4:21; Leviticus 8:17; Leviticus 9:11; Exodus 29:34). The remains of other sin offerings could be burned within the tabernacle.
The red heifer also was slain outside the camp and the ashes of the heifer, which were to be used for preparing the water of purification, must be kept in ‘a clean place' outside the camp (Numbers 19:9). We must presume that its presence in the camp would defile the ashes, or alternately that the presence of these holy ashes in the camp would make it dangerous for men and women to walk there lest they approach too close to the ashes. How the clean place was made clean we are not told. A further possibility is that the ashes were not allowed within the tabernacle and the camp because they were for dealing with the taint of death. Whichever it was, the fact that they were to be stored in ‘a clean place' emphasises their holiness.
Furthermore anything that was ‘devoted' to the Lord had to be burned outside the camp, and thereby God received it (Joshua 7:24-25).
The Tent of Meeting where Moses met with God prior to the erecting of the tabernacle was also sited outside the camp ‘afar off' (Exodus 33:7-11). There he met with God ‘face to face'. It must not be contaminated by the camp. This was, however, followed by the tabernacle which was ‘in the midst of the camp, once they had been received as His people (although it took time to make). But then it was surrounded by the sub-camps of the twelve tribes, with a special enclave within the camp which was especially holy, in which the tabernacle stood, surrounded by the Levite camp (Numbers 2:17).
When God gave the covenant which included the ten commandments the people were called from the camp to hear it and God gave it from Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:17).
So we may conclude that the camp was modestly holy, the precincts of the tabernacle were truly holy, and outside the camp was divided into clean places for what was excessively holy, and other places which could swallow up what was unclean. And it was there that the One Who was excessively holy was met with.
End of note.
Thus in the same way as the sin offerings for the priests and for the community were seen as excessively holy, and had to be dealt with outside the camp, so the One of Whom we partake is also seen as so excessively holy in that He also had to be offered outside the camp, with His sacrificed body also being dealt with ‘outside the camp', that is outside ‘the gate' of Jerusalem (this description is clearly of the site where He was crucified for that was where He ‘suffered'). In His case the offering also took place there, and that could be allowed because it was not to be tied to tabernacle/temple ritual, but was offered by Himself as of a different priesthood and was uniquely holy. His offering of Himself was thus both uniquely holy, and offered by a unique High Priest. This demonstrated that according to the Jerusalemite ritual the worshippers under that ritual were unable to partake of it. Unless they came ‘outside the camp' they could have no part in it. And this was because it was of a type which was of such holiness that it was forbidden.
For, as we have already noted, ‘the camp' (now Jerusalem) could never retain what was exceptionally holy. The camp was too secular. It was not therefore a fit place for God's supreme holiness, and for the Holy One of God. And as we have seen this was evidenced by their own ritual. So when they sent Him out to be cursed, although they did not realise it they were paradoxically revealing His exceptional holiness, and even more drawing attention to the fact that the way to God could not be fully open for the people who still looked to Jerusalem, because their sacrifices could not make them perfect (Hebrews 9:9-10; Hebrews 10:1-3). Their sacrifices were not effective to fully cleanse and make fully holy. Thus they could not cope with God's holiness. That is why, says the writer, Jesus suffered outside the camp, outside physical Jerusalem, because He was so holy, too holy for a ‘camp' where the offerings were not sufficiently effective.
Of course the Jews stated that it was because He was accursed. They had sent Him to die outside Jerusalem as a judgment on Him. What they had failed to realise was that it was a judgment on themselves. For the real reason that it had happened in God's eyes was that it was Jerusalem that was accursed, and that He was too holy for Jerusalem and what it represented. That was why He died outside the camp. It was another sign of Jerusalem's rejection.
And it is because of this unique holiness that He is able to offer His full holiness to His people, that He is able to sanctify them, making them holy in God's eyes, and making them fitted to meet God through His blood (Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14). And it is also the reason why they are able actually to spiritually partake of Him in spite of the fact that He is the sin offering for the sins of the world. Such an offering was, under the Law, something so holy that it was beyond being partaken of even by the levitical priesthood itself, but those who have come to Him have through Him a superior holiness and can actually know Him and touch Him and participate in Him spiritually as He now is in Heaven. Such is the efficacy of His sin offering that because of its effectiveness those who receive atonement by it can also eat of it because they have been made sufficiently holy. They, through Christ, are thus of an equal level of holiness to His offering of Himself and unlike the levitical priests can freely partake of Him.