world, can be explained only on the ground that he thought of Clirist's propitiatory work as having primarily an efficacy Godward, and manward only as a conse([uence.
(r) The Epistle tv the Hebrevjs. — According to He 2'^, propitiation is made for sin. It is made by Christ as the antitype of the high-priesthood of the OT. From the whole scope of the Einstle up to 10^" it is made as He otters His own blood as the perfect antitype of the imijerfect sacrificial system of the old economy, which was thereby fulfilled and then abolisiied. Through His sacrifice a ' purifi- cation of sins' (!•'), a cleansing of the 'conscience from dead works ' (9^^), is wrought, and access to God assured (10**"-'^). The eternal takes the place of the temporal, the perfect of the imjjerfect, tiie inward of the outward and fleshly, the real of the symbolical and typical. To the question whether Christ's work ettected something objectively for us as well as provided for a subjective work in us, the answer is clear. By His sacrificial death He 'made purification of sins' (1^), 'obtained eternal redemption ' (9^-), ' put away sin ' (9-''), ' perfected for ever them who are sanctified' (10"). All this is regarded as already accomplished for us in Christ's sacrificial death, and not as still to be wrought in us through its influence. This work for us, as prior to that in us, is its necessary con- dition and ground, as apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission (9-'^). The author of Hebrews uses ' sanctify,' 'purify,' and ' perfect' in these passages in the Pauline sense of 'justify.'
The sacrifices of which that of Christ was the antitype did not give access to God's favour by removing a hindrance within the soul of the ofl'erer, but by removing one that was objective. The interpretation which would make the author of Hebrews restrict the efficacy of Christ's work to its influence upon men, dislocates it from its whole setting, destroys its plainest antitypical signifi- cance, and would make his meaning unintelligible to the HebreAv readers for whom it was doubtless prepared. Neither are there wanting iiints as to how Christ's work had this objective efficacy. The emphasis put upon the fitness of Christ's sharing man's nature and condition in order to do His work for them as high priest and sacrifice (ch. 2) is significant, and the statement that He tasted death for every man (2^) and bore the sins of many (9'^^), taken in connexion with His antitypical relation to the sacrificial system, can scarcely mean less than that He represented men in some way, so tiiat He could bear their sins for them and die on tiieir behalf.
Wliat, then, does ' to make propitiation for the sins of the people' (ei's to iXdcrKea-dai rots d/xaprias) mean as embedded in the author's general thouglit? The verb is in the middle voice witii an active .sense. Doubtless Winer is right in regarding it as elliptical, and meaning ' to propitiate God for the sins of the people.' The condition of making tiie propitiation is Christ's identification with humanity in nature and condition. The propi tiatory value is in His blood, as He tastes death for every man so as to bear the .sins of all, in a way analogous to tiiat in which tiie sacrificial victim bore those of the offerer. The propitiation thus effected was objective for us, and not subjec- tive in us. Through it forgiveness and access to God are possible. The propitiation puts away sin once for all — puts it out of the way as an obstacle to the Divine favour and forgiveness. How- the sin is removed by His death is not explicitly stated, but the whole sweep of thought is favourable to the view that it was as a satisfaction to that in God which sin oflends — call it holiness or righteous- ness as one will — and is in substantial agreement i with St. Paul's conception. The view that the
444
PROSELYTE
PROSELYTE
autlior of Hebrews thought of propitiation as eti'ected by a ' mysterious inherent quality ' he attributed to Christ's blood giving it direct ' in- herent power to cleanse the life' (Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 88 f. ), is too vapid to be credited to hiui.
If the writer of this article has succeeded in coirectly interpreting Scripture thought on this central doctrine, then our Lord neither broke with the tliought of the OT, nor did the writers of the Epistles break with His conception. They were interpreting His death in the fuller light of His own teachings after His resurrection and with the Spirit's iielp. We are justified in interpreting His own allusions to what was done by His death in view of both. Beneath the superficial variations due to the aspects of truth treated and the special aim of each of the NT writers, there is an under- lying unity of thought as to what was effected by the death of Christ, and how it had etticacy to this end. See also artt. Atonement, Death of Christ, Ransom, Reconciliation, Redemption, Sacrifice, Vicarious Sacrifice [the last two Avritten from a different standjjoint].
Literature. — In addition to the works referred to above : — Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, 164 ff. ; Driver, art. ' Propitiation ' in Hastings' DB ; A. Schwoller, ' Das Wesen der Siihne der altest. Opfertora ' in SK, 1891 ; H. Schultz, AJTh, 1900, p. 286; Denney, The Death of Christ; Gess, ' Zur Lehre von Versohnung' in J ahrbilcher fiir Deutsche TheoL, vols, iii. iv. ; Lomas, ' Fernlev Lect.' 1872; Du Bose, Soteriolotjy of NT(IS92), 107 ; Vincent Tyniras, Chr. Idea of Atonement (1904), 191 ; W. M. Ramsay in ExpT x. (1899) 157 ; and also Literature under articles on Atonement, Reconciliation, Sacrifice, etc.