NOTES ON PROPITIATION
Q. 37.-"The spirit in which the article in Help and Food for September introduces the subjects of 'Priesthood and Propitiation' is very commendable. As one who has had much exercise as to these questions, and not yet clear, I make some notes, more in the way of inquiry than in the spirit of controversy, and more as looking into than teaching on the subjects.
" In the article, it is asked, ' What was it to make propitiation?' It is said to be 'appeasable'-'satisfaction.' Rom. 3:25 is quoted (R. F.), 'A propitiation through faith, by His blood.' This 'shows what propitiates.' It is the blood. This is very distinct. In what follows, where it shows that we have 'only to substitute propitiation for atonement] things are not to me so clear. It looks rather like a begging than a solving of the question. But let us test it. The scape-goat is ' presented alive before the Lord to make propitiation with him.' Now we have it from Scripture that it is the blood that propitiates. Then the death of the victim must have taken place before the blood is obtained. This animal is alive,-there is no blood shed, hence this is propitiation without blood. Does this not show that the substitution of ' propitiation ' for 'atonement' will not answer? Is the one term the real equivalent of the other? Is 'atonement' not a generic, and ' propitiation' not rather a specific, term ? That is, does ' atonement' not apply to all in Lev. 16:, while ' propitiation ' only applies to one element-the presentation of the blood on the mercy-seat ? It seems simplest to think of propitiation when that which propitiates is actually applied to the place of propitiation. Then, strictly speaking, if this is so, we would have propitiation only when these two things are brought together. Then propitiation would not be made 'both in the holiest and outside of it,'and certainly not by the scape-goat. It would be made in the holiest, on the mercy-seat alone.
"Now as to the antitype. The article says, 'Let us remember, then, the wrath is borne, exhausted, before He dies. The blessed Substitute has been presented to God as that. Sin laid on Him by Jehovah as such, wrath poured out, an actual dealing of God with His soul in view of sin ; and that is ended, the burden is removed; …. Thus He can say, ' It is finished ;' for though He had to die, death is nothing now. Needed for atonement as the governmental penalty of sin, He can meet it with the weight off His spirit, for the cup He feared is drained."
"Then, bearing in mind that it is the blood that propitiates, and that the mercy-seat, not the altar, is the propitiatory in the wrath-bearing as just described, there is no blood, no mercy-seat, hence no propitiation. ' The life of the flesh is in the blood,' so can it be said that there is blood till the life is taken, or given up? 'Without shedding of blood is no remission.' But we are told of 'wrath poured out,' 'the burden in this respect removed,' and that 'death is nothing now.' Then we have 'appeasal'-propitiation-before death, without blood, apart from the mercy-seat, and outside the sanctuary. But we have seen that it is the blood that propitiates ; that, as the life is in the blood, death is necessary; that the mercy-seat is the propitiatory ', and that is inside the sanctuary. These seem fatal objections to the paper.
" It is asked, as to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar after it has been sprinkled on the mercy-seat, ' Is this, too, for the acceptance of the blood a second time? And if not, why, then, the first ? How is this expressed in the sprinkling of the mercy-seat, as it is not expressed in the sprinkling of the altar ?' One might regret and indeed object to the reasoning, yet reply that the mercy-seat is the propitiatory, which the altar is not. The former was God's throne, which the latter was not. This makes a decided difference.
" Then the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy-seat was not always associated with entrance into the holiest. The idea of access to and acceptance with God, as usually connected with propitiation, seems to be rather overlooked in the paper. The case of the publican, as quoted, indeed, is in point:' God, be propitiated unto me a sinner' gives the thought of acceptance before God on His throne. This important feature drops out of view rather when propitiation is connected with the altar, and also when viewed as taking place before the death on the cross.
"The question of the high-priest one may leave, as the paper is to be continued; but so far, it does not clear me on the important subject of propitiation."- W. C. J.
Ans.–I am unfeignedly thankful for our brother's communication. The Word is able to resolve all questions as to its own teaching, and on our part we ought to be able to submit all our own views to the test of the Word. Nor is this at all what can be rightly termed a fundamental doctrine. Where Christ's blessed work upon the cross is owned on all sides as that which alone brings us to God, a difference of understanding as to some lesser points cannot be fundamental. And it is well if examination of the subject leads to a clearer realization of this. Scripture is plain as to it. While it speaks as clearly as possible of the sacrificial work of Christ as the only resting-place of the soul before God, it leaves many a thing as to it of .great importance to be learned individually as we go on with God. To raise the cry of "fundamental error" wherever a doctrine dissented from relates even to fundamental truths is itself a grave mistake, and tends only to prevent a fair and full investigation of the matter. It acts upon many true souls by their fears, and like the cry of "heresy," is often the resort of weakness and ignorance merely. If there be fundamental error involved, we are in duty bound to show it not only to be " error," but to be "fundamental" also; but if it be, its full examination in the light of Scripture is only the more necessary.
Now for the first point raised by our brother,-the equivalence of " atonement" and " propitiation." The facts stand thus :In the Old Testament, we have but the one word for both; that must be conceded. In our version, there is no " propitiation," but " atonement" only. It is atonement in the holy place, atonement out of it, atonement by the scape-goat, and so on. Now the word for this is uniformly rendered in the Septuagint version–in every place in which our version gives "atonement"- by the word "propitiation." It is propitiation in the holy place, propitiation out of it, propitiation by the scape-goat:this cannot be denied.
Turning, then, to the New Testament and the Revised Version-confessedly more exact than the common one- we find this same Septuagint word "propitiation" used as translating the Old-Testament word for "atonement," and no other word used for it at all:"atonement" has dropped out, and "propitiation" takes its place. In other words, so far as we have any thing at all to guide us, the New-Testament and the Septuagint use is one. Surely, then, this is some ground, to begin with, for believing that they are one. If one, the question is not "begged" at all; it is settled-perfectly settled. If not, then reason must be adduced why it is not. It is well known that in general the Greek of the Septuagint is that of the New Testament. That here we have an exception, it seems to me impossible to prove.
Now as to propitiation without blood by the scape-goat, it is surely no greater difficulty than atonement without blood. Let us remember that in the Old Testament there is, all through, one word for atonement, and that the positive statement of Lev. 17:is, "It is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul." How is there any difficulty as to "propitiation," then, which there is not as to "atonement" ?
Although it is the " Mood that maketh atonement for the soul," yet in the lowest grade of the sin-offering, it is made by an offering of "fine flour" (Lev. 5:11-13), all(J in Num. 16:46, 47, by incense. Have we any warrant for saying that the same word shall be translated in the one case "propitiation," in the others, "atonement"? Surely none.
May not the difficulty be settled in this way, that whereas the, blood was the ordinary and proper showing forth of what was required to put away sin, yet in certain cases another method might be adopted, not at the will of man, but of God ?
At least, the word is the same-confessedly the same :the Old Testament indicates no difference; and the New Testament, so far as I am aware, none.
"It seems simplest," W. C. I. says, "to think of propitiation when that which propitiates is actually applied to the place of propitiation." Yet God says, " I have given it you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls." Now, granting, for the moment, that atonement may be generic, propitiation specific, the generic term must include, all the species:the smaller must be included in the larger. But it will be said, This clashes with propitiation in the holy place in any way. I answer, It makes the altar the first necessity, that is all; but that is very important for our purpose.
The mercy-seat was God's throne in the midst of Israel- where He dwelt between the cherubim. Thus it was of all importance that there should be a special testimony to the atoning work. The sevenfold sprinkling before it shows what is in question. We have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." No wonder, then, that here we should find a special "propitiatory." But the altar, it is said, was not that. Here, the point is, then, what does this mercy-seat, or propitiatory, imply? Surely for this we must look to the day of atonement, when alone the blood was sprinkled there, and see for what purpose it is stated to have been sprinkled. This, it seems to me, should be decisive. " He shall make propitiation 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 that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness."
Thus the mercy-seat is a propitiatory, because it enables God to remain, in mercy, among a sinful people. The blood sprinkled there propitiates the holiness of God in this respect, for them surely most important. But this is only a special application of the blood, already acceptable and accepted for the putting away of sin before this, -a propitiation as soon as shed,-propitiating, therefore, as to whatever it was applied to.
No doubt, then, there is a difference as to the mercy-seat and altar ; but the blood was put on each for an exactly similar reason, and so it is stated. This, our brother does not seem to have taken fully into account.
And now, lastly, as to the blessed Antitype:what I have said, should clear this. But I would press only that there was wrath borne, (was there not ?)-a cup of wrath actually drained before death. When He cried, " Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit," was He still under wrath ? Nay, did He pass out of the body and bear it up to the throne of God, only there to be accepted ? Let it be but a moment, if you please:principle, there is no difference between a moment and an age:I ask earnestly, Did He do this?
I believe no Christian heart will say He did. And if He did not, the question which we have been here considering is completely settled.
Of course, apart from death atonement could not be:so I have said. Propitiation required man's full sentence to be borne. Yet it is true that when the cup of wrath was drained, propitiation was thus far accomplished. That is not, surely, " propitiation without blood," when it is said that death was still "needed for atonement." But I believe our brother must agree that, in comparison with the cup of wrath, "death was nothing." Is it not just this that makes the cross different from any mere martyr's death ?
But I would add that the difficulty in all this matter seems rather a difficulty of clear interpretation of the Old-Testament types, and of the phraseology employed, than a difference as to the atoning work itself. No one of us really doubts that the Lord bore sin only upon the cross, not after it, or up to heaven. Thus, even in the type, the offering was always "before the Lord." (Lev. 1:3, 5, etc.) He was not afar off in heaven, or shut up in the holiest merely. Offerings that in no way went in there were distinctly owned as accepted of him, and sin removed from him who offered them. No one can question this, and it entirely corresponds with all our thoughts as to atonement.
But the difficulty is here:that wherever the blood is sprinkled, in the Mosaic ritual, "atonement" is said (as it were, afresh) to be made by it. It is a definite application of atonement to this or that person or thing; but this is with us differently expressed. A Jewish priest could in this way "make atonement" again and again with the same blood; bat for us, how would this repetition of atonement consist with our thoughts of it? For us, the purging would be manifold, but the atonement one. The thought is the same, however,-the expression different.
Now when we approach the subject of the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, we must keep this in mind. There is here this added difficulty, that approach to God on the mercy-seat is now ours, as it was not theirs. The way into the holiest is for us made manifest, and our blessings are in the heavenly places. For them, the mercy-seat was God's throne on earth,-His dwelling-place in the midst of His people. They approached there only by a representative, and never freely, while on this account their ordinary meeting-place with God was at the altar of burnt-offering. (Exod. 29:43.) This is very significant, that God could meet them elsewhere, and that at the very place where He gave the blood to be an atonement for their souls. An entering into the heavenly places was for them unknown.
But the mercy-seat exhibited to them the atoning blood as perpetuating God's dwelling-place among them,-hence was the true propitiatory, or place of atonement, in that sense of which I have just been speaking. For upon this, all their manifest relationship with God as His peculiar people depended. Thus, on the day of atonement, the blood was sprinkled first here, and then upon the altar, but for the same purpose in each case, to preserve them to the people by the purging of their sins.
For us, there is entrance into the heavenly places, and Christ Himself is our Propitiatory, or Mercy-Seat. Gone in, a Man, into the presence of God, His being there thus shows how indeed the precious blood by which He has entered abides before God forever. And by it we have boldness to enter into the holiest.