I. PROPITIATION.

The subject of our Lord's High-priesthood has been exercising many hearts of late. I propose to look at it, as He may enable me, not in the spirit of controversy as I trust, but as seeking the Scriptural solution of certain questions as to it which have been raised.

First, granting, as all must, that it is heavenly in character, where did it begin to be exercised-on earth or in heaven?

Secondly, what is propitiation? is it true priestly work? and when and how has it been effected?

In awakening attention to these subjects, God has surely purposes of blessedness for us-more blessing, perhaps, than we can realize yet at all. Nothing but good can come from the free discussion of them. To shun to follow where He leads would be cowardice or indifference. Satan would turn it indeed to conflict, drive away the timid by the noise of battle, incapacitate others by the heat of it, and divert us from the blessing. But we are not ignorant of his devices; and if by grace we have conquered our own spirits, we need not fear him, nor with Isaac yield our wells of water to the Philistine. Faith may turn even Eseks and Sitnahs to Rehoboth’s; the living water is God's gift to all.

We come then to Scripture to seek its teaching as to priesthood and propitiation. And the first question we have naturally to ask is, what is the idea of priesthood, and what the office of the high-priest, as to this ?

Now the high-priest is, of course, only the priest par excellence; and his office in its essential character is defined for us in the epistle to the Hebrews, where alone indeed the doctrine of our Lord's priesthood is unfolded. "Every high-priest taken from among men," then, we are told, "is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; who can have compassion on the ignorant and them that are out of the way, for that he himself is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people so also for himself, to offer for sins." (Chap. 5:1-3.)

Here we have only the Jewish high-priest, " taken from among men," and are warned afterward not to apply to the Lord, the being compassed with infirmity, on account of which he must offer for his own sins as well as others. Our high-priest is one " holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." " The law maketh men high-priests which have infirmity, but the word of the oath maketh the Son." (Chap. 7:26-28.)

With these exceptions, then, manifestly the description applies in the fullest way to the Lord; and we have it so applied in chap. 2:17-18:"Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation"-so rightly the R. V.-"for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."* *The last sentence has, with some, raised a question of the meaning of the preceding one, and in the English there is perhaps some real difficulty. The succoring those that are tempted is a very different thing from making propitiation for their sins ; and the Lord's sympathy here is not with men as sinners, but with saints in resisting sin. But the difficulty proceeds from want of knowledge of the language, in which the "for" is not an explanation of what precedes, but a further deduction from His being a merciful and faithful High-priest. We might render it more clearly perhaps by "indeed." Examples of this use of "for" (Har) may be found in the following passages, where it is omitted in the A. V. " [for] neither can they die any more" (Luke 20:39); " [for] neither came I of Myself." (Jno. 8:42.) In the following it is translated "indeed:" (1 Thess. 4:10), "And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren;" (Rom. 8:7), "Neither indeed can be." Many similar cases could be given, but these are enough to show the use.*

These two things are ascribed to the Lord in His character as High-priest-the making of propitiation, and succoring the tempted. The first has to do with men as sinners, the second, as saints. For both these things He had to be made like unto His brethren, to be a partaker in flesh and blood. Both these things are the work of the High-priest as such, and the making propitiation, or offering sacrifice for sins, is distinctly marked out as belonging both to the typical and antitypical priest. In particular it is pressed as to the Lord Jesus, that His being a merciful and faithful High-priest was to make propitiation.

It is impossible, therefore, to maintain that propitiation is not a priestly act; that indeed it was the priest who did it, but only because what Christ was in Himself cannot be separated from what He did. On the contrary it is distinctly, positively asserted that Christ was the High-priest to do this; it was part of His strictly official work, if any thing was.

But we must now ask further, what was it to make propitiation ? The expression we have not again in Hebrews; but in 9:5 the mercy-seat is indeed by its equivalent in the Septuagint, and what far better than our English word represents the Hebrew,-" the propitiatory," or place of propitiation. This is found also in Rom. 3:25, where Christ is called " a propitiation through faith, by His blood." So the R. V. better translates it, as it shows what propitiates,-the blood which was sprinkled on the mercy-seat, and made it such.

Twice, also, in the epistle of John we have Christ named as "the propitiation for our sins." (i Jno. 2:2 ; 4:10.)

The use of the word for " mercy-seat" extends our view to the Old Testament, in which, by the help of the Septuagint, we find that the word "propitiation " is a regular equivalent for what in our common version is "atonement," and there is no other word to express this. We may thus easily follow out the study of the word with our English Bibles only.

It is to the day of atonement that the epistle to the Hebrews refers all through. It was then that the high-priest entered the holiest with the blood of atonement, and the whole work of the day except only the letting go of the scape-goat, and the burning of the sin-offerings (Lev. 16:26-28), fell upon him. No other could intrude. Even the killing of the victims, which ordinarily was not priestly work, was on this day committed to his hand (10:11-15.) Now, if we follow the ritual of that day as we find it in the 16th of Leviticus, and only substitute "propitiation" for "atonement," as we are entitled to do, we shall realize in what way propitiation was made,-in what way the passage in Heb. 2:is to be interpreted.
First, then, (5:6) " Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make propitiation for himself and for his house " . . . . (5:10); "but the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to make propitiation with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness."

Then follow the details of the sin-offering work:"And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself, and shall make propitiation for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bullock …. and take of the blood and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy-seat eastward."

So with the goat for Israel,-" he shall sprinkle the blood upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat, and he shall make propitiation for the holy place, …. and there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make propitiation in the holy place, until he come out and have made propitiation for himself and for his household and for all the congregation of Israel."

But this does not end the work:"And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make propitiation for it, and take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about."

After the dismissal of the scapegoat further, Aaron "shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the offering of the people, and make propitiation for himself and for his people."

Thus "propitiation" is made both in the holiest and outside it, by sin-offering, burnt-offering, and even scapegoat. Did we pursue our inquiry further this wide application of the word would be shown continually, but we need not go beyond the day of atonement.

What is "propitiation"?

" Propitiation" is " appeasal," " satisfaction." This is undoubtedly the ordinary force of the Greek word outside of the New Testament. Here, too, the Lord puts in the mouth of the publican in the temple the prayer, " God be propitiated," as it literally is, "unto me a sinner. (Luke 18:13.) In the Old Testament we have similarly the use of the Hebrew word where Jacob says of Esau, " I will appease (or propitiate) him with the present going before (Gen. 32:20). There are no more instances of this use in Scripture, but these suffice to show the analogy of the two words used in the original.

Every sacrifice was a propitiation then, whether or not the blood was brought into the holiest. The blood was given for propitiation, and given upon the altar for propitiation, so it is expressly stated (Lev. 17:11). Yet no altar stood in the holiest. And while the slaying of the victim was not necessarily priestly, and was not propitiation, as it has been strangely taken to be, the offering of the blood was strictly confined to the priest.

Only the blood of the victim burned without the camp could enter the sanctuary. Neither trespass-, peace-, nor burnt-offering could be represented there. Yet the blood of the goat for Israel enters as freely as that, of the bullock for the priestly house (the Church typically). The burning without the camp is the well known figure of wrath and distance from God, which, borne by a substitute, are removed, and the soul brought nigh to God in peace. It is this exhaustion of wrath which allows the blood to enter the sanctuary. So the apostle clearly states, "For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin are burned without the camp; wherefore Jesus, also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate (Heb. 13:11, 12).

Another expression of this solemn reality we find in the darkness which fell in mid-day like a pall over the cross, and out of which the Lord's voice was heard in the question of the 22nd psalm-a
question not unanswered though,-" My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Darkness is the withdrawal of light, and " God is light." Here was indeed the outside place of sorrow, hopeless save to Him who could there illumine it with His moral glory, and glorify God in the depths of unequaled distress. For three hours-from the sixth to the ninth*-He remains under it, passing out from it to die indeed, but with the assurance, " It is finished," and the cry of " Father," once more upon His lips. * Those who can read the spiritual meaning of Scripture numerals will realize it here. Six speaks of evil under the hand of God, limited and restrained; 9 is 3 x 3, the number of divine manifestation intensified by self multiplication. With this the darkness passes, the same number 3 measuring and characterizing its whole duration. (See "The Numerical Structure of Scripture," pp. 33-34.)*

We must learn to distinguish here, if yet we have not, two very distinct parts of the Lord's atoning work. Death and judgment were upon man. He must take them both in order to redeem. But with man, death introduces him to judgment, which is thus final and eternal. The Lord takes them in inverse order, judgment first, which, having fully borne, glorifying God in stooping to the full penalty of sin, He dies-atonement is completed.

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 in this respect removed; and why removed? there is one answer possible- only one:because the work is accepted; if not, could He who had laid on Him the heavy burden lift it off? 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 from off His spirit, for the cup He feared is drained.

And now comes a main point for consideration:Is the acceptance of the atoning work looked at in the type as taking place in the sanctuary ? or does the entrance of the blood there imply that it is already accepted ?

Scripture shows clearly that the latter is the truth. Could the entrance of anything questionable be permitted in the holy place? Assuredly not by God. The blood enters, not under suspicion, but by its own power and value with Him. It enters "to make propitiation for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins ; " but this implies no question of the blood which does this! The dwelling-place of God has been in the midst of a sinful people, spite of all their sins accumulating for a whole year, and the blood comes in its power to vindicate His throne in remaining thus. Notice, that after it has been sprinkled on the mercy-seat, it passes out from thence to the altar, exactly in the same way to be sprinkled upon it, and make propitiation for it, "to cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." Is this, too, for the acceptance of the blood a second time ? and if not, why then the first time?

How is this expressed, in the sprinkling of the mercy-seat, as it is not expressed in the sprinkling of the altar? In both oases it is for propitiation; in both it is cleansing for sin. By the one the throne is established; by the other the altar. How does either raise or show a question as to the blood which does this? The only answer can be, in neither case is there any.

The propitiation in the holy place is only the application to the throne as to the altar, of satisfaction rendered to God, not in the holy place but outside it. Confessedly it is this as to the altar; equally must it be so as to the throne. And with this the interpretation in the New Testament agrees fully. The type is in the epistle to the Hebrews put side by side with its fulfillment. Let us look at it as stated there.

(To be continued.)