(2.) New-Testament Explanation. — Without entering directly on the great subject of the atonement (which woidd be foreign to the scope of this article), it will be sufHcient to refer to the connection established in the N.T. between it and the sacrifices of the Mosaic system. To do this, we need do little more than analyze the Epistle to the Hebrews, which contains the key of the whole sacrificial doctrine.
(ff.) In the first place, it follows the prophetic books by stating, in the most emphatic terms, the intrinsic nidlity of all mere material sacrifices. The "gifts and sacrifices" of the first tabernacle could "never make the sacrificers perfect in conscience" (Kara tnn'eidijrny) : they were but "carnal ordinances, imposed on them till the time of reformation" {SiopBwmiog) (Heb. ix, 9, 10). The verv fact of their constant repetition is said to prove this imperfection, which depends on the funda- mental principle "that it is impossible that the blood of bidls and goats should take away sin" (x, 4). But it does not lead us to infer that they actually had no spiritual efficacy if offered in repentance and faith. On the contrary, the object of the whole epistle is to show their typical and probationary character, and to assert that in" virtue of it alone they had a spiritual meaning. Our Lord is declared (see 1 Pet. i, 20) " to have been foreordained" as a sacrifice "before the foundation of the world;" or (as it is more strikingly expressed in I!ev. xiii, 8) "slain from the foundation of the world." The material sacrifices represented this great atone- ment as already made and accepted in God's foreknowl- edge; and to those who grasped the ideas of sin, par- don, and self-dedication symbolized in them they were means of entering into the blessings.which the one true
SACRIFICE
226
SACRIFICE
sacrifice alone procured. Otherwise the whole sacrifi- cial system could have been only a superstition and a snare. The sins provided for by the sin-offering were certainly in some cases moral. The whole of the Mo- saic description of sacrifices clearly implies some real spiritual lienefit to be derived from them, besides the temporal privileges belonging to the national theocra- cy. Just as Paul argues ((ial. iii, lo-29) that the prom- ise and covenant to Abraham were of primary, the law only of secondary importance — so that men liad under the law more than they had % the law — so it must be said of the Levitical sacrifices. Thej' could convey nothing in themselves: yet, as types, they might, if ac- cei)ted by a true, though necessarily imperfect faith, be means of conveying in some degree the blessings of the Antitype. See Tvi"k.
(b.) This typical character of all sacrifice being thus set fortli, the next point ilwelt upon is the union in our Lord's person of the priest, the offerer, and tiie sacrifice. See Pkikst. Tlie imperfection of all sacrifices, which made them, in tliemselves, liable to superstition and even inexplicable, lies in this: that, on the one hand, the victim seems arbitrarily chosen to be the substitute for, or the representative of, the sacrificer ; and that, on the other, if there be a barrier of sin between man and God, be has no right of approach, or security that his sacrifice will be accepted; that there needs, therefore, to be a mediator, i. e. (according to the definition of Hel'. V, 1-4), a true priest, who shall, as being one with man, offer the sacrifice, and accept it, as being one with God. It is shown that this imperfection, which neces- sarily existed in all types, without which indeed they would have been substitutes, not preparations for the antitype, was altogether done away in him : that in the first place lie, as the representative of the whole human race, offered no arbitrarily chosen victim, but tlie will- ing sacrifice of his own blood; that in the second place he was ordained l)v God, by a solemn oath, to be a high- priest forever, "after the order of Melchisedek," one " in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," united to our human nature, susceptible to its infirmi- ties and trials, yet, at the same time, the true Son of God, exalted far above all created things, and ever liv- ing to make intercession in heaven, now that his sacri- fice is over; and that, in the last place, the barrier be- tween man and God is by his mediation done away for- ever, and the most holy place once for all opened to man. All the points in the doctrine of sacrifice which had before been unintelligible were thus made clear.
(r.) This being the case, it next follows that all the various kinds of sacrifices were, each in its measure, representatives and types of the various aspects of the (itonement. It is clear that the atonement in this epis- tle, as in the N, T. generally, is viewed in a twofold liglit.
(i.) On the one hand, it is set forth distinctl}' as a vicarious sacrifice which was rendered necessary by the sin of man, and in which the Lord ''bare the sins of many." It is its essential characteristic that in it he stands absolutely alone, offrring his sacrifice without any reference to the faith or the conversion of men — offering it, indeed, for those who " were still sinners" and at enmity with (Jod. Moreover, it is called a "propi- tiation" ((\«(T/((ir or Wanrij^nov), Hom. iii, 'i-l ; 1 .John ii, 2; a "ransom" {('nTtt\l>T()wnic). Horn, iii, 'i.'); 1 Cor. i, :5it, etc.; which, if words mean anytliing, must im)ily that it makes a change in the relation between (iod and man, from separation to union, from wrath to love, and a change in man's state from bondage to freedom. In it, then, he stands out alone as the m"<liator between Goil and man; and his sacrifice is offered once for all, never to be imitated or ref)eated.