SUPPLEMENTARY.

I am thankful to have received objections to the preceding papers:thankful, not of course that there should be objections, but that being existent they should be made known, and fully examined. The difference of view itself the Lord would use for various blessing, that, exercised by His Word, we may be ruled by it,-not blindly follow one another, or any special teacher, however gifted. Persuaded as I am, that whatever may be our hindrances to receiving it, yet the truth once clearly known would have the allegiance of all, I am encouraged to take up what has been urged against me, not doubting that there will be blessing in it, on whichever side the truth may appear to be. And first, it has been said that-

" if we want to understand about the making of atonement, we must turn to Lev. 16:for information; for there only, in the ritual appointed for the day of atonement, shall we fully learn-as far as typical teaching can illustrate it-what is comprised in the thought of making it. . . . What was required to make atonement is the subject of God's communication to the lawgiver on that occasion. The noun "atonement" is not once met with therein. The verb only is used, to call attention by typical teaching to the making it."

Is this correct ? No doubt the day of atonement is exceedingly important for the doctrine of atonement :one could not dispute that. But is it the fact that we may limit ourselves to the sixteenth of Leviticus in order to see what is involved in making it? And what is the force and value of the fact that the noun is not found in the chapter, but only the verb?

First, as to the word "atonement:" the noun is found but eight times in the Old Testament. Three times we have the expression, " sin-offering for atonement" (Ex. 29:36; 30:10; Num. 29:ii). Once we have "the ram of atonement " (Num. 5:8). Once, " the atonement-money" (Ex. 30:16). And in the remaining three occurrences (Lev. 23:27, 28; 25:9) the application is to the "day of atonement" itself!

It is surely remarkable enough, if the omission of the noun in chap. 16:has the significance said to attach to it, that three out of the eight occurrences should actually be found to apply to the day of atonement!

If I understand the argument aright, "atonement" as a noun (kippurim) being used, would direct our attention to what in itself atonement is, the use of the verb to that which makes it. What, then, about the "day of atonement"? Would not that direct our attention to what atonement is, as much as the sin-offering, or the ram, or the money of atonement ?

On the other hand, in all the detail of the offerings in the first seven chapters of Leviticus we have equally no use of the noun "atonement," while the verb occurs no less than thirteen times ! How, then, does the argument apply here ?

And must we not in fact go to those earlier chapters in order to know the meaning of the day of atonement itself? What are sin-offering and burnt-offering here without the previous detailed explanation? Are these not the very means by which atonement is made ?

Coming now to the making of atonement, it is further said –

" Now, to do that, four things were absolutely necessary. I. An offering must be found which God could accept (Lev. 16:6) ; and that offering must die, because It is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul (Lev. 17:11). 2. A substitute must be found to which the sins of the guilty should be transferred, and by it carried away into the land of forgetfulness:This was foreshadowed by the scape-goat (Lev. 16:10). 3. Blood of the sin-offering must be presented inside the vail, by sprinkling it on and before the mercy-seat,-an act done by the high-priest, and by him only, and when alone with God (Lev. 16:14-16; Heb. 9:7). And 4. Divine judgment must be endured by the victim, typified by the consuming of the burnt-offering, and the appointed parts of the sin-offering on the brazen altar (Lev. 16:24, 25). These are essential elements of atonement, without which it could not be made."

Again, I am compelled to make serious objections to this. If we are to take the day of atonement as our pattern, why should the work at the altar before the Lord be omitted (10:18, 19) ? Five essential elements may be thus reckoned instead of four; and with better reason.

A more serious objection still with regard to our present subject is, that for the priestly house, as is well known, there was no scape goat. For them, not a goat but a bullock was offered, and one bullock only. Was complete atonement made for them ? None surely can doubt that. Yet one of the four elements deemed essential is not found in it!

And this touches nearly some common thoughts about propitiation and substitution. There is no doubt that for the priests these two are found together in the one bullock of the sin-offering. The blood of propitiation is in this case the blood of the substitute; or to which of the goats, the Lord's lot or the people's lot, does this bullock answer ?

And this shows that what is essential in atonement may be implicitly contained in what explicitly does not teach it. Thus, Job's burnt-offering could be accepted for sin; and blood could ordinarily make atonement at the altar (Lev. 17:ii), which on the day of atonement was carried within the vail. The priests' bullock went beyond the two goats in reality, as the bullock was in typical meaning beyond the goat; while what was expanded indeed in the latter was yet contained in the former.

As a fact, was there no atonement made in Israel except upon the day of atonement ? Yet if the objection be rightly made, this must have been the case.

And again, is it not dangerous to take for truth our interpretation of a type, rather than the plain teaching of the New Testament? Would so important a matter as what constitutes atonement (or propitiation either) be left for the shadows of the law to unveil ? But to go on with the objections:-

" So far, then, we can all see what were essential elements of atonement-the death of the victim; substitution both in sin-bearing and bearing divine judgment; and the dealing with the blood inside the vail by the high-priest. In the making atonement, then, substitution, as this chapter shows, was an essential element, as well as the high-priest's work inside the sanctuary. Had either been omitted, atonement would not have been effected. Now, were these two services the same? Clearly not. Wherein did they differ? In the scape-goat, or in the service at the brazen altar (Lev. 16:24), we see typified One who was a substitute for others. In the picturing the blood on the mercy-seat, nothing of that was delineated, though it was the blood of the substitute which the high-priest presented to God."

Why "substitution both in sin-bearing and bearing divine judgment"? How can you separate between these? Was not sin-bearing really wrath-bearing? Or, if you speak of the scape-goat, were not the sins borne away by the very fact of the victim's death for them ? Why make differences in the work itself of what were only different aspects of the work? It is just this modeling of the truth by the type instead of interpreting the type by the truth, which has made propitiation a different work from substitution, whereas the one is but the Godward side of that of which the other is the manward.

But the type itself refuses this by the fact that for the priestly family (which represents the Church) there was no scape-goat. Yet the truth conveyed in it is ours surely (Heb. 10:17).

The service at the brazen altar (5:24) is, then, classed with the scape-goat as substitution, and not propitiation ! Necessitated as it is by the argument, it is indeed remarkable that it should not be seen how completely the argument is broken down by it. For the burnt-offering, although for man indeed, and substitutionary as every sacrifice was, went up directly to God, the whole of it, as a sweet savor! It was thus expressly denominated the olah, "that which ascends," as it is also said, " to make atonement for " the offerer, and to be " for his acceptance." (5:3; see R. V.) Yet this, which actually typifies all the preciousness of the work for God,-the glorifying of God in it,-is simply substitution in contrast with propitiation ! Does not this show how merely technical is the meaning given to "propitiation" in this reasoning?

It is settled otherwise that there is no propitiation but in the holiest; therefore, of course, the burnt-offering is not propitiation. Yet-if there is any meaning in words -it propitiates! But no :the burnt-offering is but substitution, the sin-offering glorifies God in " His holiness and righteousness" above the burnt-offering,-sweet savor though the latter is, in contrast to the former.

Let us look at things, not words merely, and the mists will surely disappear. The New Testament must interpret the Old, the antitype the type, and there is then no difficulty.

But again:in the blood on the mercy-seat "nothing of that"-substitution-"was delineated, though it was the blood of the substitute " ! But if it was, how shall this thought be kept out? Notice that, according to this, the whole work below-sin-offering, burnt-offering, and all- was substitution. Yet in presenting it to God upon the mercy-seat, an element is somehow found in-for we must not say, "introduced into"-the work below, which all these types of it fail to present! It would indeed scarcely be too much to say that one work was done outside the holiest, and another work presented inside !

Or shall we say, the burnt-offering was substitution, the sin-offering was not ? No, we may not that, for it has been acknowledged that the blood presented to God is the blood of a substitute. Does God, then, when it is presented to Him, not take notice of the substitution ?

But to go on :-

"And a marked difference-which helps us greatly in the understanding the character of the service within the vail-was this, that the blood was carried in to God because of the uncleannesses of the people, as well as for their transgressions in all their sins; whereas over the scape-goat Aaron confessed their iniquities, and their transgressions in all their sins, but not their uncleannesses. Not only, therefore, was there a substitute required to bear in the sinner's stead what he had deserved, but the holiness and righteousness of God had also to be met by blood for the uncleannesses as well as for the sins. Now, this last service is meant when we speak of making propitiation. An essential part of atonement it was, but not the whole of it, and markedly different from substitution. In this last the sinner's deserts and needs were portrayed. In the other, God's nature was first thought of and cared for."

Here, then, we are to find the meaning of propitiation. " The blood on the mercy-seat met the uncleanness of the people, as well as "-mark-"their transgressions in all their sins." Notice, then, this latter first. The blood did meet their "sins." Yes:"He is the propitiation for our sins."

But this last is the effect of substitution, is it not? The confession of the sins over the scape-goat is said to mark the substitutionary character. Why not here, then, in the holiest of all ? The addition of something else cannot take away this, at least. Addition is not here subtraction- like adding the law to grace; for there is here at least no essential contradiction.

Propitiation is, then, (so far, at any rate,) by substitution. The blood on the mercy-seat, whatever else it is, is surely-admittedly-the sign of an accomplished substitutionary work. And it is not according to Scripture to say that "nothing of that was delineated" in it.

But the uncleanness of the people-the meeting that -is the peculiar feature of propitiation. Strange, then, that in the New Testament we find nothing of this! "He is the propitiation for our sins." Precisely that which we are told is not the distinctive feature of propitiation is the very thing and the only thing which the New Testament insists on ! Will not our brethren now awake to the unscripturalness of all this? What is stated to be the peculiarity of propitiation is absolutely not found in the New-Testament use of it at all. And what is found is exactly that which it is attempted to distinguish from it !

Yet we are getting now upon the track in which we shall find, not indeed what propitiation is in the abstract idea of it, but what this propitiation in the holiest of all implies. It is expressly said to be an atonement for the holy place (10:ii, 17, 20, 23). That is its peculiarity; and that is the reason why "uncleannesses" are spoken of as well as "sins." " He shall make an atonement for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation (tent of meeting) that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness."

What is "uncleanness" in this connection? Is it not tendency to defile the holy dwelling-place of Jehovah among them? What would defile it ? Any thing else than sin? Are not their sins just in another aspect their uncleannesses? What else ?

You may say, perhaps, there were ceremonial unclean-nesses, as in the fifteenth chapter, which were not sins. True; but you will hardly say that the great peculiarity of the work in the holiest was to provide for these. To say so would be to remove the whole matter from having any significance for us, such as is contended for, at least; and we need not wonder if the New Testament does not even notice it.

But the "purification of the heavenly things" the epistle to the Hebrews does notice (chap. 9:23), and I have elsewhere referred to it. It need scarcely be taken up again.

Now, if the blood on the mercy-seat be for uncleanness and sins, even if these should be considered different, how is "God's nature" more in question by the first than by the last? If you conceive of difference, would not even the reverse of this be true? And is not God's nature vindicated and glorified by the burnt-offering or the peace-offering, or the sin-offering whose blood never came into the holiest of all? Did the fire of the burnt-or sin-offering not vindicate God's nature ? How can it be that the blood itself-the very same blood-did not vindicate God when outside the sanctuary, and did as soon as it was brought in ?

No, it was the blood itself-the work implied in it- which glorified God, and made propitiation, and the bringing in once a year maintained (for Israel) God's holiness in dwelling among them; for us, throws open the glorious sanctuary in the heavens.

Now, as to propitiation in the New Testament, we need not go into so much detail. The objections made have been mostly met. The breadth of substitution and propitiation has been more than once examined. Substitution is not for the world as such, true; and propitiation is " through faith" only for it (Rom. 3:25). There is no difference here; and none, therefore, can show a difference.

As to the Septuagint, it is not at all a question between verb and noun, which could not make any essential difference of meaning. Indeed, the noun is more variously rendered than the verb, and so more loosely. But it is true that the Septuagint uses exilaskomai and exilasmos, while the New Testament in both cases omits the ex. The force of ex here being merely intensive, and the words given in the lexicon with precisely the same meaning, I did not apprehend any difference which could affect the argument; nor do I. As for Gen. 32:20, the passage seems to speak for itself. Translate it literally all through, allowing the correction, it will be:"I will cover his face with the present going before, and afterward I will see his face. Peradventure he will accept my face." It will surely be seen that there cannot be here the idea of hiding from his sight, and that " his face " may, as in other places it does, stand for "him."

A more serious question is, whether God can be said to be "propitiated" or "appeased." With Luke 18:13 before us, in which the Lord Himself puts into the lips of the publican what is literally "God be propitiated (hilastheti) toward me, a sinner," it seems strange that we should be bidden to " remember that God is never said in Scripture to be propitiated or appeased." The verb only occurs once beside (Heb. 2:17), so that it is not so strange that the expression should occur but once. Can it be supposed that the Lord puts a wrong thought into the mouth of one who is in designed favorable contrast with the Pharisee of the same story ?

And what, then, is propitiation ? and to whom is the propitiation offered ? God is not said to be reconciled in Scripture, true :for He never was man's enemy; but was there not righteous and necessary wrath to be appeased ?

As to propitiation being made outside the sanctuary, it needs to be shown that it cannot. And it is not contended that it could be completed without blood. But that God was really thus far propitiated when the wrath-cloud passed from the cross, has not been met, nor can be. Death surely had still to be endured, and that I have always said. But if propitiation had any meaning that we can recognize, it was accomplishing, not accomplished, before the Lord's actual death. If you say, No, the blood must be shed, your type-teaching will lead you farther than you wish; for you will have to say that the work was not completed till after death, and that there was no blood of atonement until the soldier's spear had brought it forth.

We want things, not words merely:all these truths are the deepest realities for the soul. What does propitiation mean? what is its power ? tell me. If it is not appeasal, what is it? for I want to know. If it is wrath removed,- if it is death borne by Another-precious and efficacious before God, then we shall surely soon agree about it.

Now for the question of the priesthood:"We learn that the priests were consecrated in connection with death, and as that having previously taken place-for the ram of consecration had to be killed for Aaronic priests to be consecrated to their office" (Lev. 8:22, 23). True; but the previous anointing of the high-priest alone without blood (5:12), has that no meaning? The high-priest, when associated with the priests, was a sinful man like them, and even on the day of atonement offered for his own sins. Alone, and simply the type of Christ, he is anointed with the oil without blood.

"We learn, too, that in their sacrificial service they normally had nothing to do till the victim had been slain." One of two exceptions to this is found, strange to say, in the very place to which we have been directed to look to see how atonement was made ! It is "the case of the high-priest on the day of atonement, who in the capacity of offerer, it would seem, killed the victims." No remark is made upon this, and I shall make none. But the trouble is all through that it is the type teaching (or supposed to be teaching) the truth, not the truth making plain the type.

What about the work at the altar? That must be confessed priestly. Does it typify what took place in heaven, or on earth ? Will the former be contended for, because it was after the death of the victim ? Surely not. But then the argument is gone, or rather it is on the opposite side; for the priest is then typically a priest on earth. Let us go on.

"Further, we learn that propitiation was made by the high-priest alone, and that in the holy of holies, not at the altar."

According to the type, which is the first view, where do we learn this? As we have seen, the word "propitiation " is not found, except we take the Septuagint, and then it is found where, according to this view, it should not be ! How, then, is this propitiation exclusively in the holy place to be made out ?

But the Lord, it is said, was " perfected through sufferings," and some would render this " consecrated." In the first place, it has the undoubted meaning of "perfected," and the apostle is speaking directly of the Captain of salvation, not the Priest:"to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."

We have no need, then, to "limit these" to sufferings short of death; and His entrance upon His Melchisedek priesthood was actually after this, as I believe, and have said elsewhere. What has been said before as to Heb. 8:4 is simply not noticed. Should it not be ? There is, I believe, no thought of "getting over" it at all; and the argument should be met.

The paper which I am reviewing was printed before my last one on "Priesthood," and naturally fails to answer what is there said. But it is strange to read-

"Now bring in His death between the commencement of His priesthood and His present exercise of it, and He ceases to be Priest after the order of Melchisedek."

If it had been stated that the Lord had been all through Melchisedek Priest, this would perhaps be true. I say "perhaps," for I read, "having neither beginning of days nor end of life, abideth a Priest continually." Now, if this apply to His human life simply, it had "beginning of days;" if to His divine nature, that had no "end of life." Any way, it does not affect the position which I believe to be the scriptural one.

But now, how, if death could interrupt His priesthood, could it possibly begin in death,-the view contended for against me? The argument that would affect the one side must surely equally affect the other. How strange to begin in death a priesthood taking character from an uninterrupted life !

Lastly, it is quite true that, as ministering in the sanctuary, the Lord would not be a priest on earth, and that there are only two sanctuaries,-the earthly and the heavenly. The service in the heavenly sanctuary begins only after resurrection.* *I have no need of the argument as to the cross not being on earth, although I had used it on a former occasion. Longer thought and deeper exercise in relation to this subject has led me to a different judgment on some points to that expressed in the letter I speak of. But I do not on that account accept the argument from Deut. 21:as to one hanging on a tree. The question cannot be so settled. The cross was not merely a malefactor's death. But I have raised no question of this in the preceding papers, as I am assured a broader ground must be taken as to the Lord's priesthood.*

So far from this view " bristling with difficulties," then, it is alone, as it seems to me, free from the difficulties which beset all others. Let brethren judge. The Word is open to all; the Spirit, blessed be God, given to us all.