Conflicting Theories of Types and Shadows

He Christian application of the ritual laid down in the book of Leviticus has been denied positively by some writers, and so explained by others as to divest it of all importance as the basis of an evangelical argument. Dr. Young says,! “Atonement, in the sense of expiation for sin, has no place whatever in the Mosaic ordinances. The sin to which alone these ordinances refer throughout is wholly ceremonial, ritual, not moral, that is, not real sin at all, And not only so, for it has been proved very distinctly, that the sacrifices even for ceremonial offences were in no sense meant to be expiatory, but were simply the ordained and significant mode in which the people expressed their desire to reconcile and restore themselves to God.” And again,” “An ignorant and barbarous people were to be disciplined for a lofty and god-like mission, of the real nature of which, its mystery, its vastness, its grandeur, they were to the last almost as unaware as others. By means of a stringent and all-embracing form of worship, which affected every hour of the day, and every element and aspect of their life, they were brought into peculiar and constant relation with the one true Jehovah, and. taught to believe and feel that they were His people. By a succession of never-ending rites, every one of which even at the peril of their lives, they had to observe scrupulously, to the veriest

1 The Life and the Light of Men,’ p. 256. 4 Ibid... p: 261.

jot and tittle, they were not only habituated to the thought of God, but inspired with profound awe of Him, and educated in the conviction of His constant presence, His unerring observation, and the perpetual reverence which He demanded.” The object being, you observe, to try them and prove them, and bring them to obedience and constancy through manifold and severe discipline. And again,’ “We look back on the entire Jewish economy, on the tabernacle and the temple, on the burnt-offerings and the sin-offerings, and the trespass-offerings, and the peace-offerings, and the wave-offerings, and the meat-offerings, and the drink-offerings, on the daily morning and evening sacrifices, the special services for Sabbath days and for new moons, on the three great festivals, and especially on the most solemn of them all, the feast of atonement, and we learn without misgiving, that those all sanctified only to the purifying of the flesh, but nothing more. They did not touch real sin, and they were never intended to touch real sin. Ceremonial reconciliation to God, outward restoration to this worship, they could and did secure, but rea: forgiveness, forgiveness of real sin, then, as now and always, was dispensed only to humble, simple faith in the pure, free mercy of the holy God.”

To this it may be replied that the Epistle to the Hebrews does make distinct and continual reference to the Jewish ritual, and does in some way make the work of Christ superior to it. But such a comparison would be out of harmony with itself if the things compared were absolutely unlike one another; even as unlike one another as the defilement of a vessel or a garment, and the corruption or sinfulness of the soul. Moreover, the question may arise: If so much was required by way of acknowledging and removing merely ceremonial defilement, will not much more be needed in the confession and pardon of spiritual

1 “The Life and the Light of Men,” p. 267. sin? And is not this the very argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews,! “If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” If the reference in Leviticus is wholly to the purifying of the flesh, the reference to the Hebrews is wholly to the purging of the conscience; so that the former is in some sense typical or adumbrative of the latter. The comparison is even more distinctly indicated when it is drawn as between Moses and Christ, the whole work of the one being set in opposition to the whole work of the other; “Moses was verily faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after, but Christ as a Son over His own house.”? It is impossible, then, to read the Epistle to the Hebrews without going back to the book of Leviticus, and impossible to escape a very severe mental strain if we have to read the words “sacrifice,” “blood,” and “offering,’ as having no relation to a physical and objective priesthood. As the first terms (in Leviticus) are undoubtedly to be read in a natural sense — this being unanimously agreed by all expositors — we must do violence to thought in immediately changing these very terms to directly opposite meanings, without, as it may appear, gaining any advantage.

Speaking of the Mosaic sacrifices, Dr. Bushnell says: 3 “They are certainly ‘types, ‘shadows, when looked back upon by us, of good things that were to come; but it does not follow that they were either types or shadows, or anything but simple facts of knowledge, and practical

1 Heb. ix. 13, 14. 4) Heb.aiii.’5,°6: 3 “The Vicarious Sacrifice,” p. 390. observance, to the people who were in them. Nor is there any the least probability that, in using them, they were taking a gospel by forecast.” In estimating the value of those sacrifices, Dr. Bushnell says: 1 “First of all there is a certain expense and painstaking incurred by the worshipper, in providing the victim and in making a journey, commonly toilsome, and consuming many days’ time to get his offering duly made,” and three other advantages he specifies, all bearing upon the discipline and culture of the worshipper himself; and he sums up in these remarkable words:2 “I cannot go over all the sacrificial terms and expressions of the New Testament, or even the very deliberate exposition of whole chapters in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the correspondence, or analogy, between Christ and the ancient sacrifices, is carefully traced. I will only say, in general, that a very important oversight, in respect to all the altar phrases of the Gospel, needs to be corrected. They are cited to prove atonement in the sense of satisfaction, or of an offering made to reconcile God. Hence there is nothing made of the lustral figures, that almost always go along with them; which, if they had any meaning given them, would conduct the mind straight in upon the conclusion, that Christ is offered, not to satisfy God, but to take away sin, to cleanse, purify, make alive and holy, the moral state of sinners.”

To which this reply might be made: It is overlooked by upholders of the moral theory of the Atonement that all the lustral effects of Christ’s work are due to the fact that He first satisfied God; if His offering or sacrifice of Himself had not first of all been accepted of God it would have been absolutely worthless as in any sense an instrument for the moral recovery of mankind: the satisfaction of God was the cause, the cleansing was the personal and practical effect. What if on both sides of the controversy

1 “The Vicarious Sacrifice,” p. 400. 2 Ibid., pp. 406, 407. the word “satisfy” as applied to God has been unduly narrowed ‘in being restricted to one of His attributes, namely, His justice, instead of comprehending His whole Being? Satisfaction is the Godward side of the work of Christ, Purification is the human side. If God had not been satisfied, the purification would not have followed; and when God is satisfied all His attributes conspire in the tender benediction pronounced at the Baptism and official inaucuration of the new High Priest.

The very fact that the sacrifices were all appointed by God, the sex, age, quality, of every living animal, specifically determined by Himself alone, may carry with it the whole doctrine, broadly understood, of Divine satisfaction. God would not have commanded offerings with which He was dissatisfied; the satisfaction, therefore, had actually taken place before the sacrifice was presented, and it was that very pre-established satisfaction which made the sacrifice acceptable. So clearly was this the case, that if any defect attached to the animal that was offered, the spurious worship was not only null and void, it was “an abomination unto the Lord.” The question as to offerings was, What will satisfy God? No man sufficiently knew the mind of God to be able to answer the question, but God answered + Himself by the mouth of His prophet and servant Moses, Suppose, then, that the Israelite had said in reply to a heathen inquiry, We have done this to satisfy God, the answer (from his point of view) would have been true, simple, and sufficient, and yet it overlooks the all-explaining fact that it satisfies God because God Himself actually appointed it. If the heathen had retorted, Would not God have been satisfied without this? the Israelite could only have answered distinctly and approvingly in the negative. It was not the Israelite’s own device, selfishly arranged for the purpose of averting God’s wrath, it was God’s own plan; given in mercy; perfectly adapted to the end that was to be secured; and every animal offered in sacrifice was taken from the “cattle upon a thousand hills,” which are all the Lord’s. Say, that the Israelite had in the intolerableness of his penitential agony, or even in the bitter consciousness of his ceremonial ime purity, resolved to attempt the appeasal of God by slaying and burning and offering sacrifices all the day long, and you pervert and distort the truth; the whole weicht of evidence is absolutely opposed to so false and monstrous a suggestion; no such idea ever occurred to the Israelite; his entire religion was a revelation from God; God told him what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and gave him all the substance with which he was to do it; so much so that the Israelite could truly say unto the Lord after every day’s sacrifice and worship: “Of thine own have we given rhees’

It may now be in place to point out how vividly typical in this particular were the Mosaic ordinances of the work of Christ. Carefully setting aside everything that is merely Jewish, local, accidental, or temporary, there remains the eternal fact that in both instances the idea was not man’s but Gods. At any other point than this the controversy is a mere battle of words; at ¢izs point there is no serious controversy. Suppose, then, it should be said that in both cases there was a satisfaction of Divine justice, the statement may undoubtedly be so explained as to give man an undue prominence, and wherever man is exaggerated God is dishonoured; but it may also be so explained as to show that the Christian way of salvation is not an ingenious human invention for escaping penalty, but a Divine conception as strong in righteousness as it is tender in mercy. An undue prominence would be given to man if he were credited with the remotest share even

Conflicting Theories of Types and Shadows, 14 3

in suggesting the work of his own salvation. He must, in utter self-renouncement, say, “I love God because He first loved me,” — ‘“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Possibly, too, it may follow that as man did not originate, and never could have originated, the way of salvation as represented in Christ Jesus, so he never can sufficiently understand it to be able to explain away all its mystery: he may come to see after many useless attempts to establish a philosophy of Christ’s priesthood, that men are called not to understand the gospel but to belzeve it; not even to argue the gospel but to declare it. If the gospel has to be received through the medium of the understanding, implying clear and final definitions of all terms, phrases, histories, institutes, and symbols, then salvation is by so much of works and not faith, for a man may work with his understanding as well as with his hands, and bring himself to the persuasion that he owes whatever he may suppose himself to enjoy of Christian security and blessedness, to the penetration and strength of an intellect which has worked its arduous way to a complete understanding of truths which are still mysterious to dimmer and feebler minds.

2. There is another term found in the Mosaic ordinances which is transferred to the Christian dispensation,and which is therefore divested of all Jewish exclusiveness. It is, indeed, a word which is older than the Mosaic ordinances. The term is Priest. Melchizedek was called “the priest of the Most High God.” 1 Afterwards “they that are of the sons of Levi, received the office of priesthood.”? Then came Jesus, who continuing for ever hath an unchangeable priesthood. Now the point to be observed is that there is a distinct contrast drawn between this priest (the min-

1 Gen, xiv. 18, + Heb. vii. 5.

—sister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle) and the high priests “which had infirmity,’+ they “not being suffered to continue by reason of death,” and He being “the Son who is consecrated for evermore.” On the moral theory of the work of Christ the question arises, Vhy should men have required a Priest? They required, say the believers of that theory, a Teacher, an Example, a Sympathiser, One who should reveal to them the infinite mercy and love of God; but at what point, and for what reason, do they require a Priest? We must put this question plainly, and request an explicit answer. A priest is one who stands between God and man, because man has in some way disqualified himself for having immediate personal access to God; and not only does the priest stand there, but he is ordained for the express purpose of “offering gifts and sacrifices,’ 2 — that is to say,if he had nothing to offer he would not be a priest; a fact which is brought out very clearly in the contrastive statement respecting Jesus Christ, “Wherefore IT IS OF NECESSITY that this man have somewhat also to offer,’? intimating that this necessity attaches to universal priesthood. The question, thus explained, returns with increased urgency, Why should any priest be required as between God and man? If there was nothing but love on the part of God, overflowing and yearning mercy calling piteously and tenderly upon man to return to his forsaken Father, why should it have been ordained “that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the Lord,” * and that there should be “a mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus?” And what did this mediator offer? He “offered up Himself,’° — “He offered Himself without spot to God,” ° — He gave “Himself for us an offering and

1 Heb. vii. 28. 3 Heb. vill. 3. 5 Heb. vii. 27. 2 Ibid, viii. 3. 4 Num. xvi. 40, 6 Thid. ix. 14.

Conflicting Theortes of Types and Shadows. 145

a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour;”? and “for this cause He is the mediator of the New Testament.”? The moral theorist (who in no case to my knowledge has fully discussed this question of priesthood) says that the term “priest” as applied to Christ is figurative. But (1) where is his authority for saying so? (2) Of what is the term figurative? Is it figurative of something needless or meaningless? Jesus is called Priest, Advocate, Mediator; our prayers are to be offered in His name; He ever liveth to make intercession; in heaven He appears in the presence of God for us: these cannot be merely figurative terms; if they are figurative, then as in all other cases, the thing signified must be greater than the sign, and our necessity for a Priest is something more than we have yet been able to conceive.

With such conflicting opinions before us we may well say :3 “When reading the impassioned denunciations of the Idea of the Atonement, which are to be found in the pages of some modern writers, it is hardly possible to resist the conviction that in their opinion those who receive it and those who reject it worship different gods, and belong to forms of religion which, in their fundamental principles and essential spirit, are mutually antagonistic and destructive.” This is not only true, it is even alarming. If scholars, divines, gentlemen, thus differ in the interpretation of words supposed to be inspired, how can the ignorant and the impious, tell that which is true from that which is false? Is religion a controversy of phrases, and does the way to God lie through entangled thickets of metaphysical niceties which even scholars themselves cannot arrange and determine to their own universal satisfaction? Or is there a more excellent way? I have failed of my purpose if I have yet given my decision upon the

S aphev. 2..’s «3 Heb, ix, 15, * R. W. Dale on the Atonement, K nS controverted doctrines. Up to this point my anxiety has been carefully to state both sides in impartial outline; my next duty will be to point out the difficulties of both theories, and then to inquire where rest may be found amidst theological tumults which sometimes threaten to carry the very mountains into the midst of the sea.

?

—5st