In general we should distinguish two stages in the thou"ht of the apostles on this subject. In the |)re-Christian stage they had believed in the full ellicacy of the Levitical .sacrifices, and in the Christian they regarded them as chiefly valuable because of their witness to their own inadequacy, and to the complementary work of Christ.
ii. The rEEFECT Sacrifice of the New Covenant. — It was, then, axiomatic for the NT writers that the system of OT sacrifices had been abolished by Christ. This conclusion was not, however, founded on the belief that sacrifice was a superfluous rite, but on the conviction that the OT sacrifices, which had possessed some value rela- tive to their time, had been superseded by a sacrifice of a nobler nature and of absolutely certain efficacy. This was the sacritice offered u]> by Christ. In the NT doctrine of Christ's sacrifice, now, we may distinguish five points, on three of which the testi- mony is unmistakable, while the other two are left in some obscurity. The points on which the teaching is clear are (1) the sacrificial character of Christ's death, (2) the blessings which proceed and flow from it, (3) the conditions on which these are apjiropriated. The debatable ground is reached when it IS attempted to fix the NT conception of
(4) the nature or material of Christ's offering, and
(5) the manner in which it operated towards God as the procuring cause of the blessings of redemp- tion.
(1) The interpretation of Chriit's death as a sacrifice is imbedded in every important type of the NT teaching (Kitschl, ii. p. 161 ; C.ive, p. 284). The silence of St. James and St. Jude raises no presumption against the idea being part of the common stock of Apostolio doctrine. It has been denied that St. Paul adopts the category (Sclunidt, Die paul. Christologie, p. 84), but the denial rests on dogmatic rather than on exegetical grounds (Kitscnl, ii. p. 161). The interpretation was given by Jesus in connecting His death with the Sinaitic sacrifice of the Covenant (Mt 26^, Mk U~\ 1 Co 11^), and it is expanded and presented by the apostles under various points of view.
The evidence for the Apostolic construction Is as follows : — (a) It is expressly stau>d that Christ was offered as a sacrifice —tft^t'f (Eph 6', He 9'''), Bko-.* (Eph 62, Ue 9^). ((,) A saving efllcacy is ascribed to the blood or the cross of Christ, and in these cases the thought clearlv points to the forms of the altar (Bo 3'^ 69, 1 Co lOiu, Eph 1' 2i3, Col !»>, Ho lUl '«, 1 P 1*- iw, I Jn V b^- **, Uev l^). (c) The correspondence is worked out between Christ's death and tlie different OT sacrifices— esp. the Siii-olTering (Ko 8^, He 13", 1 P 3i»), the Covenant- sacrifice file 91'*''^. the sacrifices of the Day of Atoneinent (He 2" 912U ), and the Passover (1 Co 57). (d) The distinctive acts of the OT sacrificial ritual are shown to have been repeated in the experience of Christ — the slaying of the Immaculate victim (llev (,» 13S), the sprinkling of the blood, both In the sanotuary as in the sin-olTering (Ho 0i3'f-)and upon the people as in the Covenant-sacrifice (1 P 1-), and the desmifiioii of the victim, as in the case of tlie Sin-offering, without the gate (Ho 13i>) (Hitachi, 11. p. l.'i'lT.; San'lay ■ Ileaillani, Jiomant, n. 91). fill The s))ecific effect of sacrifice— ex|iiation or pardon of sin— oeiiig ascribed to Christ's death, points in the same direction lib.).
Nor for the apostolic ago was the description of Christ's death as a sacrifice of the nature of a mere illustration. The apostles held it to be a eocrifice
344
SACEIFICE
SACEiriCE
in the most literal sense of the word, .'uitl it is not difficult to apjireciate various reasons why thej' clung to, and even gloried in, this interpretation of the deatli. It was not merely that they received it with the impress of Christ's own authority. It pro- vided tliem with their best defemeajrainst a popular calumny : without altar and ofVering Christianity lent colour to the suspicion tliat it was at bottom irreligious if not atheistic, and the one ellective means of removing the natunil prejudice was to show that it embodied the doctrine of a literal and necessary sacriliie. Further, it solved to their own minds the speculative difficulty arising out of the death of Christ. Judged by acknowledged canons, His crucifixion had the aspect of a retributive judgment, — at the least, of a repudiation of His mission by God ; but this explanation, in view of their faith in Christ and the event of tlie resur- rection, was an impossibility. On the other hand, it was not intellectually satisfying to treat it as a mere mystery, and to point to the fact that it had been foretold by the prophets. The needed intel- lectual relief was found in bringing it under the category of the victim-death which God had of old appointed, not as the punishment of the victim's sin, but as a means of blessing to others, .\bove all, the sacrificial interpretation met a religious want — the need, all but universally felt, of a ground of confidence external to self on which to rest in approaching the majesty and holiness of God.