sin as a constant habit and condition in a more general sense, and together with this there was an expression made of the entire consecration of the life and substance of the worshipper to his God. In the case of the peace- offering, the characteristic feature was, that after the sin had been confessed, imposed, and atoned, the fat and richer portions of the sacrifice were burned upon the altar, and thus given to Jehovah, while the offerer and _ his friends feasted upon the remaining portions. ‘“‘ This was the symbol of established friendship with God and near communion with him in the blessings of his kingdom, and was associated in the minds of the worshippers with feelings of peculiar joy and gladness.” +
As it is undeniable that it was the sin and trespass offering that were most specially typical of the work of Christ, and since it was in these that the idea of expia-
* Kurtz’s Sacrificial Worship of Old Testament, 2 85. 7 Fairbairn’s Typology, vol. ii., p. 821.
SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 123
tion was most explicitly set forth, it will abundantly suffice our purpose if we establish the truth of our general position with regard to them. It is, moreover, altogether unnecessary that we should complicate our investigation by discussing the long-debated and really obscure question as to the distinction between the sin- offering and the trespass-offering. Whatever that differ- ence may have been, it can sustain no relation to our present discussion. As far as expiating sin and propi- tiating God by a pena vicaria is concerned, “as the sin- offering is, so is the trespass-offering ; there is one law for them” (Lev. vii. 7).
I shall attempt to make good my position, that the sin-offering expiated sin and propitiated God on the principle of vicarious punishment, by noticing—-1. Their occasions ; 2. The qualifications and sacrificial desig- nations of the victims; 3. The ritual of the sacrifice ; 4. Their declared effects; 5. The testimony of the in- spired prophets, and of ancient heathens, Jews and Christians :—
1. The law of the sin-offering is recorded, Lev. iv.—vi. 13. From this record it is plain, (a) that the occasion of the sin-offering was some special sin; (b) that this in- _ cluded moral as well as ceremonial transgressions, lying, stealing, false swearing, licentiousness, &c.; (c) that sins were in this respect divided into two classes—those which admitted of expiation and those which did not. Sins of ignorance and infirmity fell into the former class, and sins committed “presumptuously” or “with an high hand” were embraced in the latter class. The point to be ob- served is, that whenever a priest, or the whole congrega- tion, or a ruler, or one of the common people, became conscious of a sin, the punishment of which, if unex- piated, would have involved exclusion from the fellow- ship of the covenant people, he, or in the case of the
CHAPTER VIII.
Sacrifices. Their oc- casions,
CHAPTER VIII.
Qualifica- tions and designa- tions of victims.
124 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
whole congregation, their representatives the priests, were directed to bring the bullock or the goat and offer it in their stead.*
2. The bleeding sacrifices, which were to suffer death in the place of men, were to be exclusively either sheep or bullocks or goats, or pigeons in a few cases. These last, in the economy of Jewish life, took the place occu- pied by the domestic fowl among us, and all classes were chosen from the highest classes of clean animals, those most immediately associated with man, and therefore of all possible living substitutes for man’s life the most nearly human. These were to be selected, each indi- vidual the most perfect of its kind, as to age, health, and physical excellence (Lev. xxii. 20-27; Ex. xxii. 30; xxix. 1, &c.). This physical perfection of the animal was symbolical of spiritual perfection in the man, and indicated that only an innocent and pure life could be accepted as a sacrificial substitute in the stead of a pol- luted one; thus typically foreshadowing the character- istics of Him who was offered as “a lamb without blemish and without spot.” And yet, notwithstanding the ceremonial perfection of the selected victim, con- sidered in itself, the common name for them, considered as vicarious sacrifices bearing and expiating another’s sins, were nxon, sin (Lev. iv. 3; vill. 20—28), and nwxy, guilt (Lev. v. 6, 16, 19, &., &e.). The victim is called sim or guilt, obviously because its entire character as a sacrifice is summed up in this, that it is a substitute for a sinner, and that its death is the punishment of sin. In perfect consistency with the type, it is declared of the ever-immaculate Jesus that he who, considered in him- self, knew no sin, was, as our vicarious sacrifice, “ made sin for us” (2 Cor. v. 21).
* See Fairbairn’s Typology, vol. ii., p. 801. Outram, De Sacrificiis, D. 1, 18, 24; and Kurtz, 2? 39-92.
SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 125