The Christadelphian 1912, W.H. Boulton

“The Epistle to the Hebrews XIII”

Sacrifice.—Shedding of Blood.—The Basis of its Efficacy.—Putting Away Sin

IN accordance with a promise made in the previous chapter, we have now to look at the question of sacrifice with the object of seeing wherein the sacrifice which ratified the New Covenant was superior to those which were offered up in connection with the old. The matter has already received some slight attention in relation to the argument concerning priesthood, but it needs to be considered now in reference to the portion of the epistle at which we have arrived.

Sacrifice is the earliest appointment of religion; its origin is found in the opening chapter of human history. Sin, which caused a breach between God and man, made some means of approach to be necessary, and sacrifice from the earliest times has been the basis of that means. Although not specifically referred to it doubtless took place when coats of skins were provided for Adam and Eve. Throughout patriarchal times it was constantly practised by those who were faithful to God. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, all built altars and offered thereon sacrifices which God accepted. With the institution of the Mosaic law it became incorporated by divine enactment in the national code of Israel. Daily, weekly, monthly, and annual sacrifices were commanded, and every festival had its accompanying offerings.

It has already been pointed out that this constant repetition of the same sacrifices contained a lesson as to the weakness of the institution in relation to the taking away of sin. To what extent this was realised by the thoughtful Israelite is not clear. One cannot but think that observing the provision for constantly repeated sacrifices, and yet knowing of prophecies which provided for sins being remembered no more, it must have been realised that something far beyond the provisions of the Law was necessary. Those who thus reasoned may perhaps have wondered how such a consummation could be achieved. The New Testament supplies the only answer to the problem.

A first principle in relation to the removal of sin is expressed in the words: “Without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). This was no new doctrine, for the Law just as clearly expressed the same truth “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. . . . For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof” (Lev. 17:11, 14). In harmony with the principle thus enunciated blood was constantly offered upon Israel’s altars. But notwithstanding the agreement between the statement and the practice it is said of the latter that “the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered every year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. . . . For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. . . . Every priest standeth daily ministering and offering ofttimes the same sacrifices that can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:1, 4, 11). Shedding of blood was essential to the remission of sins; blood was constantly shed in accordance with the Mosaic legislation; yet it did not avail to the end in view. Why?

The answer to this question is of paramount importance, and nowhere is it more effectively answered than in the Epistle to the Hebrews. That answer may be gathered from two passages, as under, from which, after setting them out, we will endeavour to draw our conclusions.

(1) “But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself . . . So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9:26, 28).

(2) “Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me . . . Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:5, 7).

Two points stand out in these passages, and it was because they were combined in Jesus of Nazareth that he was the one sacrifice for sins for ever, whilst on the other hand neither of them could be associated with the animal sacrifices of the Law. In order to have a right appreciation of the subject, it will be necessary to look somewhat closely at these two points.

1. In the offering of himself Jesus put away sin. In orthodox circles this statement of the Bible is usually supposed to mean that in some peculiar way which cannot be defined the accumulated sins of all mankind were placed upon Jesus by imputation, and that thereby they were taken away in virtue of his death. Any further meaning is not simply ignored, it is repudiated with scorn. But a little reflection will show that if this were all that was needed, they could have been “imputed” to any Mosaic sacrifice, as indeed, by a figure, they were. There would, therefore, in this respect be no difference between the sacrifices of the Old and New Covenants. Consequently, this cannot be the meaning of the statement before us. Besides, the law was only a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things. If it were the case that the association between Christ and sin were precisely similar to that which existed between all previous sacrifices and sin, then shadow and substance would be identical in this most essential point, and that would be absurd. No shadow, nor any multiplicity of shadows, can ever equal the substance, which must be real, whilst the shadow is but intangible, though expressive of the substance. The statement that “He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” clearly implies that in some way sin was associated with Jesus Christ; it is, however, explicitly declared that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, he was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” yet he was the antitype of the High Priest who “offered up sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people’s” (Heb. 7:26, 27).

The difficulty, if such it may be termed, is only apparent. Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures; it has a physical as well as a moral meaning. When Adam and Eve were first created sin had no application whatever to them. They were very good. But when, by the sophistry of the serpent, they were led to disobey the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, a principle was established within them which is later defined as the law of sin and death. Their nature was defiled, and on the principle that none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean (and such they had by sin become) all descended from them became partakers of their defiled or sinstricken nature. The apostle Paul is very definite in his references to the matter of sin in the sense of a physical principle innate in human flesh—“The body of sin” (Rom. 6:6). In the seventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans, he writes, “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence” (verse 8), “sin revived” (verse 9), “sin deceived me” (verse 11), “that sin, by the commandment, might become exceeding sinful” (verse 13), “it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me” (verses 17 and 20), “the law of sin, which is in my members” (verse 23).

The following quotations from Elpis Israel will illustrate the point.

“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the Scriptures. It signifies, in the first place, ‘the transgression of law,’ and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh ‘which has the power of death,’ and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh,’ that is, flesh full of sin; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man” (page 113).

‘Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean. It is therefore written, ‘How can he be clean who is born of a woman?’ ‘Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.’ ‘What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous?’ . . . This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says, ‘God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin’; and this he explains in another place, by saying that He sent His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” in the offering of his body once. Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those he died for; for he was born of a woman, and “not one” can bring a clean body out of a defiled body, for “that,” says Jesus himself, “which is born of the flesh, is flesh” (page 114).

The importance of this teaching cannot be over-estimated. John’s warning is most explicit. “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:2, 3). As a member of the race, partaking of sin’s flesh (Heb. 2:14), Jesus was in a position, in harmony with the righteousness of God, which indeed was declared thereby (Rom. 3:25), to receive in himself the sentence pronounced against sin. Thereby “in that he died, he died unto sin once” (Rom. 6:10), and “what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3).

The matter is illustrated by the analogous case of the curse of the law. That rested upon every Jew, for the law hemmed him in at every point, and was therefore an effectual barrier to life eternal. That curse needed to be removed, and the method of its removal is indicated in the letter to the Galatians, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). By means over which he had no control, which involved no shadow of fault or responsibility, and which were only incurred by his obedience to the Father in fulfilling his mission, Jesus was brought under the curse of the law, and was thereby able to bear it away. His birth brought him into relation with the Adamic curse, his death with the Mosaic, and thus the one final act of obedience enabled him to become the Redeemer from both.

Of all Bible teaching concerning Jesus Christ, this is the doctrine upon which orthodoxy mostly stumbles. It is felt that the very suggestion is derogatory to him. Yet why should it be? No one is held responsible for the circumstances into which he is born. The possession of sin’s flesh is no disgrace, and implies no stigma. The real effect of the reception of the truth upon this matter is to greatly enhance our appreciation of Jesus. The temptation of an impeccable and immaculate Jesus, and his refusal to yield to such temptation, would convey very little comfort or exhortation to one suffering the enticement of lust (James 1:14). The triumphant emergence of one who could be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, because he was tempted in all points, like as we are, is a real incentive to every earnest follower who is learning, amid many failures, to crucify the flesh with his affections and lusts.

He once temptation knew,

That he might truly find

A fellow-feeling true

For every tempted mind.

There are many considerations arising out of this fact concerning Jesus Christ which deserve attention. An appreciation of them will strengthen faith, for in this matter the Truth is distinct from every teaching of the Apostacy, and some of the worst troubles in connection with the revival of the Truth in the latter days have arisen through an imperfect understanding of the doctrines regarding sin and its removal through Christ. It is not intended to enter upon an exposition of them here; they are set out in such works as Elpis Israel, The Law of Moses, The Slain Lamb, and The Blood of Christ. A perusal and study of these will be helpful to all who wish to realise the beauty of the Divine plan of atonement, a plan which, above all else, reflects the glory of God, and teaches true humility to man. Such a course will lead to the frame of mind exhibited by Paul. “O, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out! . . . For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever, Amen.”

The second reason adduced for the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ must be dealt with in another contribution, as it would considerably extend the present if it were entered upon now, and it is not desirable to pass it by without sufficient consideration.

W. H. Boulton.