' Vicarious sacrifice ' is not a Scripture expression, but is used by theologians to represent the meaning of a large number of passages found in the NT, in which the substitutionary character of Jesus' suffer- ings are referred to, as, e.g., the one in which Jesus describes the end of His coming as a \&rpov clptI TToWCoi', a ransom for many (Mk lO'^^). These passages have generally been held to teach vicarious sacrifice ; but just how the words are to be under- stood, in what sense the sufferings of Jesus were vicarious, whether we are to consider the terms to mean 'in behalf of,' or 'in the place of,' whether the vicarious sacrifice was made in the interests of God (Satisfaction theories), or of men (Moral and Sympathy theories), or both (Mediation theories) — these questions have constituted some of the most disputed problems of theology, and have been the
* Cf. Just. M. Dial. c. Tryph., ed. Sylburg, p. 225 C : Se'o; yip
6pdii; (ihov, ccvi^ocvtrtS t( r,hto-r7i ytvircct rots ixfjuXiruvtv ccvtov;.
ground on which have been developed diverse con- ceptions which for hundreds of years have agitated the Church. As far as the words ' Vicarious sacrifice ' are concerned, they can be used in either sense, for Christ's sacrifice would be vicarious if it were made to propitiate the offended dignity of God, or uphold His justice, or maintain His law, or satisfy the demands of His ethical life, or reveal the content of His ethical nature in a supreme manifestation of saving love. To deter- mine in which sense the words are to be understood, that they may reveal to us the true teachings of Scripture, it is necessary to make a careful study of those passages which they are used to sum up or represent.
In doing this we meet with the following serious difficulties. (1) The lack of unity in the Biblical mode of representation, the view-point of Christ's work and sufferings being diverse and manifold. (2) The fact that Christ's work is set forth both by Himself and the Apostles in metaphors and symbols which cannot be given a close logical interpretation. It has been well said, ' We make a mistake if we take their symbols of thought as equivalents of spiritual realities, or if we treat their sentences as propositions from which we may deduce the uttermost corol- laries. Their figures are illustrations, not definitions ; their expressions were forced on them by their past thought and experience, and are flung out towards truth as their best means of approximating to it ' (Lewis). (3) While' some of the figures are rooted in popular conceptions of religious service and are drawn from the Jewish sacrificial system, others are bold strokes of the imagination, and are capable of various meanings. (4) The different views held of the Jewish sacrificial system from which the NT figures and expressions are drawn constitute a difficulty. Some regard them as close types and symbols of Christ's work, and give them expiatory value (P. Fairbairn) ; while others affirm that ' they disclose no trace of the idea of vicarious substitution, nor of propitiation' (Westcott). (5) Some texts used singly seem to teach what other texts contradict, showing that they are loose statements, not to be taken with logical exactness ; or that they represent phases of a doctrine and not the whole of it, or that they are metaphorical. (6) The fact that there are two ideas of sacrifice in the OT — one of the priests and the other of the prophets ; and that Hebrews and Jn. seem to have worked out their ideas on the basis of the Levitical standpoint, while Jesus and St. Paul represent more the ideas of the prophets. (7) The difficulty of freeing ourselves of a priori ideas in our interpretations of Scripture, dogmatic con- ceptions having been planted in our minds in childhood, and become a part of the religious atmosphere in which we move. (8) Finally, the difficulty of getting at the meaning attached to terms among the Palestine Jews of Jesus' time, such terms, for example, as 'ransom,' 'redemption,' 'propitiation,' and certain legal expressions. In studying the Scriptures, therefore, to ascertain in what sense we are to understand Christ's vicarious sacrifice, we are to note the individualism of the expressions, their figurative character, their lack of logical exactness and definition, their relation to their time, and the fact that their authors are concerned with stating facts and results rather than developing theories. We are to interpret the passages in a free and vital rather than in an exact and Uteral way, note the general impression they make, the essential truth thej' reveal, and the conception of their meaning which will best harmonize the variant and diverse statements into a consistent unity.
1. The teachings of Jesus in the Synoptics. — Our
first source of information concerning the way we are to understand the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus must be His own teachings. Too many have over- looked this and started with the conceptions of St. Paul, as if the human teacher were a clearer witness than He who was Himself the revelation. If there is any squaring to do, St. Paul must be squared with Jesus, not Jesus with St. Paul, for the Master did not preach a partial gospel. As we study His sayings concerning His sacrifice, we note that He regards it as necessary, voluntary, vicarious, and redemptive, and that He relates it (1) to the estab- lishment of the Kingdom, (2) to tlie remission of sins, (3) to the ratifying of the covenant. (1) Jesus considers His vicarious sacrifice as necessarily in- volved in His work of establishing His Kingdom. He opened His ministry with the announcement, ' The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand' (Mk l'^ cf. Mt 4^"). The Kingdom of God was not tlie ' politico-ethical commonwealth ' (Pffeiderer) which Jewish prophecy had described, but a spiritual society, established by the grace of God, of righteous men having fellowshi}) with one another and with a common Father. To the