A 11 - Jesus a Sacrifice and Priest.
CHAPTER 11. JESUS A SACRIFICE AND PRIEST
PROBABLY no part of the gospel is more offensive to carnal reason, than what may be termed its glory-spot — the vicarious death of its author.
Too proud to acknowledge the need of atonement, too ungrateful to honor him who has made such atonement, haughty man passes scornfully by, nor turns a look to the cross, on which expires the Redeemer of the world.
Thus has “Christ crucified” always been “to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness.” The hero who, at the expense of tails, and sufferings, and blood, has liberated his country, is loudly praised; the man who risks his own life to rescue from death his friend, is never forgotten. But Jesus, the author of salvation — Jesus, who has reconciled us to God by his own blood, is, alas! too often despised; and despised too, because of his wounds — because of his sufferings — because of his cross!
All know, that nothing in the history of Jesus was more obnoxious to the prejudices of the ancient Jew, than his death on Calvary. His birth in a stable was offensive; his origin at Nazareth was an objection; his humble and mean appearance caused many to reject him: but it was over his crucifixion that the whole nation stumbled. This offended them more than every thing else. “What!” they were ready proudly to ask, “What! can a malefactor save us? Can the condemned deliver us? Can one, who has been crucified be the Christ, the chosen of God?” The same objection exists at present in the mind of the modern Israelite. Notwithstanding all the typical sacrifices which his forefathers offered, and the constant use they made of blood to cleanse the unclean, still he sees in the death of Jesus an insuperable objection to his being the Messiah. With such an objection it is our province to reason. The first remark I here make is, that the doctrine of sacrifice for sin is neither contrary to reason, nor repugnant to the sentiments of mankind.
Wherever wrong has been done, justice requires that satisfaction should be rendered. Hence, in all civil laws, such satisfaction is usually demanded by the civil code itself. When, too, the offender is made justly sensible of his crime, and is brought to a proper repentance for it, his own heart prompts him to some mode of restitution. He becomes willing either to apologize, to make payment, to serve, or to suffer, as the case may demand. The very same feeling is awakened in the human bosom, where God is the party offended. Not only is it admitted and felt in this case, that the offender should be punished, but so strong is this conviction, that wherever the hope of forgiveness is entertained, there is always a resort to some mode of penal satisfaction. Either the body is lacerated, or a fine is imposed for religious purposes, or a child is slain, or an animal is sacrificed. No one at all acquainted with the history of mankind, can doubt the truth of these statements. This inward sense of the need of sacrifice to take away sin, is so much a component part of human nature, that it has not only existed in all nations, but may be said to have pervaded the principal institutions of every country. In proof of this, I offer the two following authorities. In the days of Tullus Hosttitus, king of Rome, a celebrated rencontre took place between the Curiatit and Horatii — -one of the Horatii alone survived. Provoked at the lamentations of his sister for the lover he had killed, he stabbed her to the heart. He was tried and condemned as a murderer. Through an appeal, however, made to the people by his father, his punishment was remitted. A sense of justice, however, produced the following mode of its remission. “Itaque ut caedes manifesta aliquo tamen piaculo lueretur, imperatum patri, ut filium expiaret pecunia publica. Is, quibusdam piacularibus sacrificiis factis, transmisso per viam tigillo, capire adoperto, velut sub jugum misit juvenem.” 1 “Wherefore, that so plain a case of murder might be expiated by some sort of atonement, it was required of the father, that he should expiate his son’s crime at the expense of the state. He, certain propitiatory sacrifices having been offered, caused his son to pass under a beam suspended across a road, with his head covered, as if under a gallows.” As murder was a crime against the state, the father of Horatius made the murderer pass under a beam, as a public recognition of his desert of death; but since it was also a crime against the gods, certain expiatory sacrifices were offered. The next authority is that of a learned Jewish Rabbin Abarbanel gives the following explanation of the import of ancient sacrifices. “They burned the fat and kidneys of the victims upon the altar, for their own inwards, being the seat of their intentions and purposes, and the legs of the victims for their own hands and feet; and they sprinkled their blood, instead of their own blood and life, confessing that in the sight of God, the Just Judge of things, the blood of the offerers should be shed, and their bodies burnt for their sins: but, that through the mercy of God, expiation was made for them by the victim being put in their place, by whose blood and life, the blood and life of the offerers were redeemed.” I remark, again, that if the object of the mission of the Messiah be moral and not political; if it refer to deliverance from sin and misery, and not from national oppression, then was it necessary that he should bring with him some adequate sacrifice or satisfaction, in order to redeem men from the condemnation under which they were lying. The law of God had been violated; it must therefore be honored. Divine wrath had been justly provoked; it must therefore be appeased. But how can this be done without a price — without a sacrifice? Had the Messiah, therefore, appeared as our great Deliverer, and yet brought with him no means of deliverance, no ransom for our souls, his mission would have been altogether abortive. Divine justice would still have held its captives, and Divine wrath would still have continued upon the offenders of a holy God.
Precisely what this sacrificial offering should be, on the part of the Messiah, human reason is not prepared to say. It might consist in the sacrifice of himself, or it might consist in some other mode of ransom.
Mere human reason could never decide this question. But that a price should be brought, that satisfaction should be made, is the obvious dictate of the sentiments and consciousness of mankind on this subject.
I remark, thirdly, that the Jewish scriptures universally teach, that the Messiah was to be a sacrifice for sin. This is taught in the very first promise of a future Savior. “He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” The following exposition of this passage is given in Poole’s Synopsis: “Christi caput est Divinitas; calcaneum Humanitas, quam dum offendit et occidit Daemon, occisus est.” “The head of Christ is his divinity, his heel his humanity; which while Satan persecuted and killed, he was himself destroyed.” 3 The same interpretation is given to this passage by Dr. Adam Clarke: “And Satan bruises his heel. God so ordered it, that the salvation of man could only be brought about by the death of Christ.” 4 Henry also says, “Christ’s sufferings and death were pointed at in Satan’s bruising his heel, which is his human nature.” 5 Thus is the very first ray of gospel light, tinged with a streak of sacrificial blood; thus does the first promise of deliverance for man, indicate a suffering Deliverer. The same truth is also exhibited in all the human types of a coming Messiah. Is Adam a type of that Messiah? It was upon him that the sentence of death was pronounced. Was Abel a type of the Messiah? He was wickedly and unjustly slain by his brother. Was Noah a type of Messiah? He was for more than a year enclosed within an ark, and buried, as it were, in the bosom of a flood. Was Isaac a type of Messiah? His father’s hand and knife were lifted up against him, and just ready to make him a burnt-offering, had not Jehovah prevented. Was Joseph such a type?
He was hated of his brethren, cast into a deep pit, sold into Egypt, thrown into prison, and only by sufferings made his way to the throne. Was Moses such a type? He lay in infancy exposed to the crocodiles on the banks of the Nile, and was afterwards threatened with death by Pharaoh. Was David a type of Messiah? He was for years persecuted by Saul, and hid in the caves and dens of the earth. So of all the human symbols of the great Redeemer. Their lives were all characterized by suffering; and in this respect they prefigured Him who was “a man of sorrows,” and “who gave his life a ransom for many.”
It is, however, in the animal types of the ancients, that we more clearly learn the sufferings of a promised Messiah. The sacrifice of animals as a religious rite, had its origin at a very early period of the world. The first allusion to such a practice, was in the days of Adam. Genesis 3:21. That Abel offered such sacrifices, is distinctly stated. Genesis 4:4. The practice was also common in the days of Noah. Genesis 7:20; Genesis 7:21. From these early patriarchs this custom extended itself among almost all the nations of the earth.
Now, whence the origin of this religious ceremony? It certainly was not a device of man. It must, therefore, have been from God. But if from God, what was its design? It certainly was not a vain ceremony; much less could it have been a mere act of cruelty. This practice was evidently introduced, as indicating some method of removing sin. Either the death of the animal excited compunction on the part of the offerer; or, the animal itself was considered as his substitute; or, such sacrifice was typical of a nobler offering for sin. In the first of these methods alone, sin could not be removed. However deep one’s sorrow for a crime, such sorrow can never make amends for the crime itself. The thief is not liberated because of his tears; nor is the murderer released when he repents. Nor can sin be removed by the second method. A mere animal can never be a legal satisfaction for sins committed against Jehovah. Even for crimes against a neighbor, the Jewish law required, not only sacrifice, but also restitution.
Leviticus 6:1-30. There were many crimes too, where sacrifice was inadmissible but the criminal suffered death as the only adequate punishment. If, too, animal sacrifices were real atonements for sin, then ought they never to be abolished; for men would need them now as much as in past ages. It is evident, however, that such sacrifices were not considered by God as real atonements, nor were they so regarded, by the better informed of the Jewish nation.
What then was their design? They were evidently intended to prefigure the vicarious death of the Messiah, as the only adequate substitute for the guilt of man. They originated with the promise, “the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head;” and they were abolished when Jesus exclaimed upon the cross, “It is finished,” and yielded up his spirit. It was then that “sacrifice and oblation were caused to cease, and that real “reconciliation was made for iniquity.” Daniel 9:24; Daniel 9:27.
Every sacrifice, therefore, that was offered under the Jewish economy — the dove, the lamb, the goat, the bullock — were all expressive of a suffering and dying Messiah. The sacrifices of Adam and of Noah, of Greeks and Romans, indeed of the whole world, were expressive of this truth. But there are also many plain and express texts of Scripture, which assert, that the Messiah was to be a sacrifice for sin. In the 22d Psalm, the following language is put in the mouth of the Messiah by the pen of inspiration — “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint’ my heart is like wax: it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me to the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” 14-18. That this Psalm refers to the Messiah is almost absolutely certain. “By far the greatest number of interpreters,” says Hengstenberg, “acknowledges the Messiah as the exclusive subject of this Psalm. This interpretation was followed by a portion of the older Jews. It has also been the prevailing one in the Christian church.” 6 If, however, this Psalm refer to the Messiah, then was that Messiah to be a suffering and dying Messiah. Indeed, the very manner of his death is predicted — that of crucifixion, “they pierced my hands and my feet.”
Another passage even more explicit is found in the 53d chapter of Isaiah — “He is despised and rejected of men. He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” “The Jews,” says Hengstenberg,” in more ancient times, unanimously referred this prophecy to the Messiah.” 7 In this interpretation he also asserts “the best interpreters” to be agreed. “What impostor,” asks Barnes, “ever would have attempted to fulfil a prophecy, by subjecting himself to a shameful death? What impostor could have brought it about in this manner, if he had attempted it? No. It was only the true Messiah that could or would have fulfilled this prophecy.” 8 But, if these passages refer to the Messiah, then was that Messiah to die as a sacrifice for sin. The prophet Zechariah employs on this subject the following language — “Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts. Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” 13:7.
Daniel is even more explicit. “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.” 9:26.
All these, together with a great number of similar passages, plainly foretell that the Messiah was to suffer death, and that that death was to be a sacrifice for sin. Was the death then of Jesus, truly and properly such a sacrifice? That he died, neither Jews nor Christians will deny. It is the nature of that death about which we are concerned. On this subject I offer the following remarks. The death of Jesus was evidently not for crime. We have already noticed that in all the relations and duties of life, “he was harmless and undefiled.” Nor was he guilty of the specific crime alleged against him before the Governor. That crime was treason. His judge himself; however, declared, “I find in him no fault at all.” John 18:38. Nor was the death of Jesus a matter of coercion. True, he was bound by the soldiers, and afterwards violently condemned and crucified. Still he had all the power necessary for his deliverance. Even at this period of apparent weakness and desertion, “twelve legions of angels” stood ready at his call.
He must then have suffered death voluntarily. But if he suffered death voluntarily, and was yet free from all crime, there is, to say the least, a strong probability that his death was of a sacrificial and not of an ordinary character. But I remark thirdly, that Jesus uniformly taught, that reconciliation or atonement was to be effected by his death. “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:27; Matthew 26:28. The following testimony given after his resurrection is still more explicit: “And he said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24:46; Luke 24:47. The Apostles also put the same construction upon the death of their Master. They never for once considered him to have died as a martyr, much less as a criminal. They uniformly declare, that his death was vicarious, that by it forgiveness of sins was obtained, and that it was that alone which reconciled us to God. “For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21. In his Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle also declares, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Hebrews 9:28. And again, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”
Galatians 3:13. This is their uniform testimony; and it was this fact — the redemption that is in Christ Jesus — which animated their hearts, and inspired them with a zeal, which no persecutions could allay, which no sufferings could extinguish. They gloried in the cross, as an expiatory offering for sin, and were willing to rest, not only their lives, but their souls, upon its sufficiency and validity.
Why then should the Jew, or the infidel stumble at the cross of Jesus? Have they no sin to be removed? or, do they imagine that sin can be pardoned without a sacrifice — without an atonement? Or if a sacrifice is necessary, why is it, that this one provided with so much cost, with so much preparation, should be despised? The death of Jesus as a sacrifice for sin, was predicted in the garden to Adam; it was even “foreordained before the foundation of the world.” All the types and symbols of the preexisting systems refer to it; and it was the burden of much of that Scripture which holy men of God dictated, “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Whatever use, however, Jew or Gentile shall make of the death of Jesus, still will it stand to the end of the world, as an irrefragable proof of his Messiahship. It was predicted of the Messiah, that he should be “bruised,” that he should be “set at naught,” that he should be “pierced,” that “his soul should be made an offering for sin.” All these things, even in the most minute manner, have been fulfilled in Jesus; and they have been fulfilled in no other. The very cross, then, its wood, its nails, its spear, its blood and death, all proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of men. But the Messiah was also to be a priest. “The term Messiah,” says a Jewish writer,” is applicable to a king, to a prophet, and also to a high priest.” 9 In proof of the last, he quotes from Exodus 29:7; “Thou shalt also take the anointing oil and pour it upon his (Aaron’s) head and anoint him.” The passage of Scripture which more clearly exhibits the priestly character of the Messiah than any other, is Psalms 110:4. “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” That the Messiah is the subject of this Psalm, has been almost universally believed. The Jews themselves in the days of Jesus, did not pretend to deny it. Matthew 22:41-46. And although their opposition to Christianity has induced many of them to consider Hezekiah, Zerubbabel, the Jewish nation itself, or even Abraham, as its subject, yet says Hengstenberg, “the weight of the internal evidence, and the authority of tradition induced many of the older Jews to adhere to the Messianic interpretation.” 10 The Christian Church generally, and the early fathers in particular, considered this as the only true sense of the Psalm. Says Theodoret, “if David, who stood on the highest eminence of human greatness, called another his Lord, that person must of necessity possess more than human dignity” — (ouk ara monon anqrwpov, alla kai qeov ). If, however, the Messiah was the subject of this Psalm, he was to be not only a king, ( °lm ) but also a priest ( ˆøhk ). In the part of this Psalm, in which the priesthood of the Messiah is asserted, the following particulars are to be observed. His priesthood is introduced with an oath — “the Lord hath sworn and will not repent.” This intimates not only the certainty of the event, but the vast importance of the priesthood itself. It is also asserted in this passage, that this peculiar priest was to arise, not after the order of Aaron, but after that of Melchizedek. He was to be a priest, not by human, but by express divine appointment. His priesthood, too, was to be perpetual; it was never to cease; “thou art a priest for ever.” Nor was this perpetuity of the priesthood to result from a succession of different priests; it was to be confined to one person, THE MESSIAH. Do the New Testament Scriptures then teach, that Jesus possessed any such priesthood? On this subject, we must refer particularly to the Epistle to the Hebrews. This Epistle was written by a Jew, was addressed to the Jews, and it discusses this very subject. In chapter 3, the Apostle says, “Wherefore, holy brethren, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.” Again, in chapter 4, he says, “We have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.”
Again, in chapter 9, he declares that, “Christ being come an 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.”
There is, then, a Christian as well as a Jewish priesthood. This Christian priesthood has been set up in the person of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. It is not an earthly, but a heavenly office; nor is it temporal; it is to last to the end of the world. Being set up in one who rose from the dead, who is really immortal, it cannot be abrogated or changed by death.
Now there is no similar priesthood to this among the Jews; nor has there ever been. “a priest for ever,” they have never known; nor have they had one set up “after the order of Melehizedek.” But such a priesthood the New Testament makes known to us. It represents Jesus as the very priest predicted in the 110th Psalm. And what makes this more striking is, that this Christian priesthood is exercised at a time, when the Jews have neither temple nor altar, High Priest nor Holy of Holies; yea, when their capital is in the hands of strangers, and they themselves are scattered to the ends of the earth! What means all this? Surely, either Jesus must be both High Priest and King, or else royalty and priesthood have perished in Israel.
We consider, therefore, the present priestly character of Jesus, both as fulfilment of prophecy, and as proof of his Messiahship. The prediction of such a priesthood has been fulfilled in no other; it has, however, been fulfilled in him. He it is, who is now sitting “at the right hand of the Father,” as a King and Sovereign; and who is also exercising a priestly office in heaven, not after the order of Aaron, but after that of Melchizedek.