The Orthodox Doctrine Proved by the Fact That Christ Effected Salvation by Acting as the High Priest of His People

Fthhat our doctrine as to the nature of Christ’s work, Jas above stated, is true, we claim is established by our fourth argument, namely, that the Scriptures clearly set forth Christ as acting and suffering as the High Priest of his people. It is essential to the Moral Influence Theory to consider Christ solely as the medium through which God exerts a saving moral influence upon man.* The point of the controversy of the Church with the advocates of that theory, as was truly stated by Limborch, is, whether Christ, by his death, removed obstacles to our salvation existing in the nature of God, as well as those existing in the nature of man. In opposition to their error, I propose to prove that the characteristic function of the ancient priest, and especially the high priest, was, that he represented the people before God; that, taken from among men, he was ordained to act in behalf of men in those matters which have a bearing upon God (TO. 7r/?6c rbu Oeov), that he may bring near to God both gifts and sacrifices for sin. Heb. v. 1. It is essential to the Governmental Theory to assume (a) that the work of Christ, in itself considered, accom-

* See Young’s “Life and Light of Men,” p. 27, and note.

plishes only the salvability, and not the actual salvation, of any, and (6) that it is general and indefinite in its reference, having respect to no particular individuals, but to all sinners of mankind as such. In opposition to their error, I propose to prove that the ancient priest and high priest (a), in every instance, sought and obtained remission, not remissibility — reconciliation, not merely the possibility of reconciliation — for those for whom they acted; and (6) that hence the work of the priest had a definite reference to particular persons, whom he represented, for whom he offered expiation, and in whose behalf he interceded.

I. The distinctive character of the priest was, that he was divinely ordained to act in behalf of men in those matters which have a bearing on God. As the general character of the prophet was that of one qualified and authorized to speak for God to men, so the general idea of a priest is that of one qualified and authorized to treat in behalf of men with God. When Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and their colleagues, rebelled against the assumption of an exclusive priestly character on the part of Moses and Aaron, on the ground that it belonged to every member of the holy nation in common, Moses appealed to God, saying, “Even to-morrow Jehovah will show who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him; even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.” Ni jub. xvi. 5.

Hence a priest was one — 1. Taken from among men to represent them. “Every high priest taken from among men was ordained for men, in things pertaining to God.” Heb. v. 1. Especially did the high priest, in whom the entire pi :estly character culminated, act in all respects as the literal representative of the whole congregation. (1.) He bore the names of each trilre graven on his shoulders and on his breast-plate over his heart. Vitringa,* quoted by Fairbairn, says, u This high priest represented the whole people. All Israel were reckoned as being in him.’7 Ex. xxviii. 9-29. (2.) If he sinned, it was regarded as the sin of the whole people. Lev. iv. 3. (3.) He made atonement and offered intercession in behalf of the whole people. He placed his hands upon the scape-goat and confessed the sins of the whole people, and laid them upon the head of the goat. Lev. xvi. 15-21.

2. He was chosen by God as his special election and property. “Jehovah will show who are his, and him whom he hath chosen to come near unto him.” Numb. xvi. 5. “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” Heb. v. 4.

3. He must be holy; that is, both morally pure and consecrated to the service of God. He wore, circling his head, a band of pure gold, on which was engraved “HOLINESS TO THE LORD.” Ex. xxxix. 30, 31. “They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of Jehovah, made by fire, and the bread of their God, do they offer: therefore they shall be holy.” Levit. xxi. 6; Ps. cvi. 16.

4. The priest’s grand distinction was, that he had a right to draw near to God. Hence the common designation of priests was “those who draw near to Jehovah.” Ex. xix. 22; Numb. xvi. 5; Ezek. xlii. 13 and xliv. 13. The distinctive rriestly act which marked Hs great

* Obs. Sac., p. 292.

function was to bring near, anpn- -translated habitually to offer. Lev. xvi. 6, 9, 11, 20, &c. Every offering which it was the office of the priest to bring near to God is distinctively called pnp, or that which is brought near to God, or offered, — translated in our version, oblation, offering, or sacrifice. Lev. ii. 1, 4, 5, and xxvii. 11, &c. The fat, as the most excellent part of every sacrifice, was always entirely burnt by the priest on the altar, and so sent up to God as his portion. This is constantly called “God’s food” or “God’s bread,” which it was the priest’s grand prerogative to present to him. Lev. iii. 11; xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21, 22; xxii. 25; Ezek. xliv. 7; Mai. i. 7, 12. This altar, upon which the priests presented their offerings to Jehovah, is called “God’s table.” Mai. i. 7, 12; 1 Cor. x. 17, 21, and Heb. xiii. 10. The offerings which it was the distinctive duty of the priest to bring near and to present to God, when properly presented are habitually said to be “a sweet savour, an offering to the Lord.” Ex. xxix. 18, 25; Levit. i. 9, 13, 17; Numb. xv. 7, 14, 24, Ac., &c. The distinction of the priest was that he was the minister of the sanctuary or temple. Here he came and discharged all his priestly functions as the representative of man and as the familiar of God. Only the priests could enter daily into the Holy Place, and only the high priest himself once a year into the Most Holy, in the presence of the Schekinah — and that in connection with the expiatory sacrifices — to sprinkle sacrificial blood on the altar of incense and on the Capporeth, and to present the incense symbolical of prayer. The constant biblical designation of the temple, to which all the priest’s functions had reference was the “dwelling” or “house” of Jehovah. Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; Deut. xxiii. 18; Josh. ix. 23, and “tabernacle of the meeting;” that is, properly the tent of meeting between God and man, where God, propitiated by blood, met the Church through their representatives, the priests, who brought the propitiating blood into his presence.

5. Hence the two grand functions of the priest were (a) to propitiate with bleeding sacrifices, Heb. v. 1-3; and (6) to make intercession for the people. The nature of the former function I have sufficiently discussed in the last chapter. The symbolical design of the presentation of incense before the Lord is very clearly set forth in Scripture to be representative of prayer — the prayers of God’s people in mass; and in the case of the priests, the representatives of the people, intercessory prayer. The altar of incense was placed on the outside of the veil, over against the mercy-seat or propitiatorium. Ex. xxx. 6. Incense was daily offered by the priests before the veil, behind which God sat enthroned. During the “time of incense” it was customary for the whole multitude of the people to be praying without. Luke i. 10. On the great day of atonement it was carried within the veil by the high priest, “that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not.” Lev. xvi. 13; Ps. cxli. 2; Rev. v. 8 and viii. 3, 4. All this proves beyond any question that the priest, as the representative of the people, as the minister of God’s house, having authority to come near and to bring near, to present God’s food on his table, and to present to Jehovah sacrifices, affording to God an odour of a sweet smell, — that in this capacity the priest was for sinful men the only medium of acceptable approach to God. The priest’s work terminated on God, and made return to God objectively possible to the sinner. The Moral Influence Theory makes Christ’s work terminate on the sinner, causing the sinner to be subjectively disposed to return to God. But herein the New Testament Priest thoroughly corresponds to the Old Testament type. Jesus testifies of himself,” I am the WAY, the truth and the life: NO MAN

COMETH TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.”

II. The work of the ancient priest secured the actual and certain remission of the sins of all for whom he acted, and it bore a definite reference to the persons of all those whom he represented, and of none others.

1. The priest is never in one single instance represented in Scripture as offering a sacrifice, the immediate design or effect of which was to produce a moral effect upon the transgressor, or to place him in a position in which remission is a possibility, subject to other conditions, or to exhibit God’s determination to punish sin. The professed and uniform design and effect of the priest’s work was to secure the remission, and not the remissibility, of the penalty due the sin of the person or persons for whom he acted. When an Israelite sinned, he went to the priest, who presented a sin-offering in Irs stead — life for life — and the immediate effect was forgiveness, remission of the penalty due. The constant promise attached to the command to sacrifice is, “and it shall be forgiven him.” Lev. iv. 20, 26, 31, &c., &c. The sacrifice, and not something else following the sacrifice, ipso facto, absolved.

2. The Jewish high priest offered intercession for precisely the same persons — for all of them, and for none others — for whom he had previously made expiation He bore the names of the tribes of Israel upon his breast. He confessed the sins of the entire congregation, and made atonement for them with the goats of the sin-offering. He appeared before God, within the veil, in behalf of all the congregation. The entire work of the priest was one work. To speak the language of Christian theology, the office which they discharged, both in the impetration and in the application of benefits, had respect to precisely the same persons. They sacrificed for, they interceded for, they blessed precisely the same persons, and none others. Numb, vi. 22-27.

III. Christ was a real, and not merely a metaphorical priest, and his priesthood was, as to its essential characteristics, shadowed forth by the priests of the Mosaic economy.

1. The entire Epistle to the Hebrews is an inspired witness to the fact that the Levitical priests were types of Christ, and that he acted as the literal High Priest of his people. In this short letter he is called Priest six times and High Priest twelve times. Of the earthly tabernacle it is declared that it “stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us... For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures

M the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us... For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never, with those sacrifices, make the comers thereunto perfect... But this man, after that he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God... For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Heb. ix. 10-24, and x. 1-14.

2. His work of propitiation, therefore, must have been real and not metaphorical, because it is declared to be the substance of which the services of the Levitical priests were the “shadows/7 “figures,” or “types.” But shadows are cast by literal substances, not by metaphors; and a type or image necessarily implies real characters and attributes which it represents.

3. This is rendered certain from the following facts. (1.) He was expressly declared to be a priest both in the Old Testament and in the New. “Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” Ps. ex. 4, and Heb. v. 6; vi. 20. Of the man whose name is the BRANCH, it is said that he shall be “a priest upon his throne.” Zech. vi. 13. (2.) The New Testament account of his person and character ascribes all the literal characteristics of a real priest to him. (a) He was taken from among men to represent them. Compare Heb. v. 1, 2, with Heb. ii. 14-18, and iv. 15. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same... Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren; that Iw might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things

TOV Osov, to make reconciliation for the sins of his people.” (b) He was chosen by God to his office. Heb. v. 4-6. (c) He was perfectly holy. Luke i. 35; Heb. vii. 26. (d) He possessed beyond all others the right of nearest access to the Father, and the greatest influence with him. “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and go to the Father.” He said to the Father, “1 knew that thon hearest me always.” “If the blood of bulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,” avail to the salvation of our souls? “For Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands,... but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (uTtsp fjfjiajv). John xvi. 28; xi. 42; Heb. i. 3; ix. 11-14, 24. (3.) And finally, both the Old and the New Testaments declare that he literally discharged the functions of a priest. These are (a) expiation. Is. liii. 10, 12. Daniel declared that after such a time the Messiah “should be cut off, but not for himself,” and that he would make “an end of sins and reconciliation for iniquity.” Dan. ix. 24-26; Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 26; x. 12; 1 John ii. 2.* (b) Intercession. “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” Rom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25; 1 John ii. 1.

4. Lastly, we maintain that the priesthood of Christ was a real and literal priesthood, because the whole history proves that the elaborate system of Levitical *See our chapter on the Sacrifice of Christ.

types, being images or shadows of his work, were preparatory to him, and found their fulfilment in him. Thus, for example, the apostle John declared that the fact that the soldiers did not break the limbs of Jesus, as they had done those of the two thieves, was in fulfilment of the law with regard to the Pascal lamb. John xix. 36; Ex. xii. 46; Numb. ix. 12. The instant of Christ’s death the veil of the temple, which had from the beginning marked the line between the priests, bringing near the offerings, and the unapproachable Jehovah, dwelling between the cherubim, “was rent in twain from top to bottom.” Matt, xxvii. 50, 51. This was true not only of each type or prophetic symbol in detail, but also of the entire system as a whole. It is a grand historical fact that the ancient temple, its ritual services, and its ministers and their functions, prefigured and prepared the way for the advent and work of Christ for nearly two thousand years. It is also a grand historical fact that the priestly work of Christ immediately and definitely superseded the work of the Levitical priesthood. The sacrifice of Christ made the Levitical priest, ipso facto, funetus officio.

Hence we argue, since the ancient high priest was a type of Christ, and since he was a literal and not a metaphorical High Priest, that it certainly follows — (1.) That since “Christ is the one Mediator between God and man” in his character of High Priest (compare 1 Tim. ii. 1, with Heb. ix. 11 — 15), he cannot be primarily the medium of divine influences upon men, but, on the contrary, the mediating person, propitiating God in lpehalf of men, acting in behalf of men in those things which have a bearing upon God. (2.) It follows that

Christ must have been ip a strict sense the Representative of those for whose benefit he acted. (3.) That the design and eifect of Christ’s piacular sacrifice of himself as the High Priest of his people could not have been to bring all men into a salvable condition, in which the remission of their sins is possible; but they must have been to secure with certainty the actual remission of the sins of all those for whom he died. And (4) it follows that Christ must make intercession for all those for whom he made expiation. But (a) Christ’s intercession is always efficacious. It is offered from a throne at the right hand of his Father. His formula of intercession is “Father, I will.” His testimony is that the “Father heareth him always.” And (6) he intercedes only for his “own people.” John xvii. 9. “/ pray not for the WORLD, but for them which THOU HAST GIVEN ME.”