be rendered thus: "For a covenant over dead sacrificial victims is firm, since it never has any force while the maker of it lives." That is, a covenant is confirmed on the basis and with the accompaniment of sacrifice, so that in reality it is without force or validity unless the covenant maker signify the surrender of his own life by the blood of the slain victims which he offers in the course of the solemn transaction.'

5. This Not a Covenant between Equals. In studying these illustrations which rest upon the customs and the symbolism of covenants we must not overlook the fact that any covenant between God and man cannot be a covenant between equals. Such a covenant is, however, a most striking assurance of the gracious condescension of the Most High, and Jesus, as the mediator of the new covenant, represents in his redemptive work the interests of both God and man. These considerations serve to show also how, in the mind of the writer, covenant maker, mediator, and sacrificial offering all unite in the Son of God who is so remarkably described in the opening words of this epistle. This adorable mediator is heir of all things, maker of the ages, effulgence of the glory of God, upholder of all things, and purifier from all sin. Only such a transcendent Son of God can be at once maker, mediator, and sacrificial victim of an eternal covenant.

6. Alexandrian Cast of the Epistle. The foregoing study of Christ's priesthood and mediation as set forth in the epistle to the Hebrews has doubtless put beyond question our statement that no other book of the New Testament furnishes so elaborate a discussion of this subject. The entire treatment is unique, and the learned critic and exegete cannot fail to note the Alexandrian cast of thought and the extensive and peculiar use of the Old Testament writings. These are recognized as a sacred deposit of heavenly truth; but the Septuagint version, not the Hebrew text, is uniformly quoted, and passages where this version differs notably from the Hebrew are made the basis of special argument and illustration. The tabernacle and its holy places are looked upon as

Westcott has written so ably on this passage that we here add one more citation: "In ordinary covenants the death of the persons who made the covenant was represented of necessity in symbol only, and both parties were alike liable to change. Here fresh considerations offer themselves which underlie the argument of the passage. The covenant to which the writer looks is not one between man and man, who meet as equal parties, but between man and God. The death of the covenant victim, therefore, assumes a new character. It figures not only the unchangeableness of death, but also the self-surrender of death. Christ was himself the covenant victim. In this aspect he attested the inviolable force of the covenant which he established."-The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 302.

Most notably so in x, 5, where a citation of Psa. xl, 6, reads, according to the Septuagint; "a body didst thou prepare for me," but the Hebrew text of this passage reads, ears thou hast dug for me," the word dug most naturally referring to the

figures of heavenly realities opened to us through the mediation of Jesus Christ, and Melchizedek is extolled as a type of our high priest who is now seated at the right hand of the throne of God. But with all these and other peculiarities, which scientific exegesis must duly note, the teaching of this epistle on the subject of Christ's mediation is in fundamental harmony with the other books of the New Testament. The writer treats the death, exaltation, and everlasting intercession of our Lord much after the manner of Paul. Neither of these writers seems to know much of Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh, but they both magnify his heavenly exaltation. Paul emphasizes the idea of righteousness, and the writer to the Hebrews that of holiness; but so closely do they agree in the main that the epistle to the Hebrews was long believed to be the work of Paul, and this opinion has not been without some advocates in quite recent times. On the offering of the body and blood of Christ the teaching of the epistle is also remarkably like that of the first epistle of Peter.

7. Substantial Agreement of All the New Testament Writers. We find, then, that on the sacrifice and mediation of Christ all the New Testament writers are in substantial agreement. After showing due respect to the various classes of writings, and to their obvious individual peculiarities of thought and diction, we are compelled to acknowledge that according to all the scriptures of the New Testament there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ crucified, "nor is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved." Peter and John and Paul and the author of Hebrews have their own ways of setting forth this truth, but none of them gets away from the doctrine which we trace in the words of Jesus at the Last Supper and at all those other times when he spoke of giving his life a ransom for many, or of laying it down in behalf of others.

hollow cavity of the ear. However the error of the Greek version arose, the author of the epistle makes the word body significant by regarding it as the organ of Christ's incarnation and the means of doing the will of God. This is seen further in verse 10, where "the body of Jesus Christ" has obvious reference to this citation from the psalm. God "takes away the first," that is, sacrifices and offerings, "that he may establish the second," that is, the will of God.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY OF THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE

HAVING now examined with some care the import of the language of the biblical writers touching the mediation of Jesus Christ, we shall conclude this section with a brief statement of the principal truths which may be read in these scriptures and clearly proved thereby. Our statements in this epitome of doctrine are of the nature of so many expressions of conviction as to the real teaching of the various portions of Scripture which we have examined and endeavored to expound, and they should, accordingly, be read as the results of a faithful exegetical study of the word of truth rather than as the dogmas of a formulated creed.

1. A Continuous Process, Not a Finished Work. Our first observation is that the mediatorial ministry of Jesus Christ is a continuous process, not a finished work. We are not authorized by any biblical teaching to maintain that such terms as atonement, propitiation, expiation, and redemption, as applied to the saving ministry of our Lord, imply that he has completed or is near the completion of the work for which he came into the world. He truly died, and thus offered himself "once for all" (Rom. vi, 10; Heb. vii, 27; ix, 12, 26, 28; x, 10; 1 Pet. iii, 18); that fact is simple and definite matter of history; but that particular event was, relatively, only an incident in the vast work of Christ's mediation. It was only the passing of our great high priest into the heavenly Holy of holies "through his own blood," that he might appear in the presence of God for us, and there abide forever as our high priest and mediator. How could his being "delivered up for our trespasses" have availed had he not also been "raised for our justification"? (Rom. iv, 25.) According to Paul, “It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us" (Rom. viii, 34). And according to this apostle it is also the Holy Spirit that "maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God" (Rom. viii, 27), and in 2 Cor. iii, 17, he calls our Lord himself the Spirit who transforms us into the image of the glory of God. The eternal Spirit and Christ and God are one in all this ministry of reconciliation, and the Lord Christ has no more finished his work of mediation than has the Holy Father

or the Holy Spirit finished yearning for mankind. The heavenly redemption is thus seen to be a process that must needs go on so long as there remains one sinner to be saved.

2. Largely Set Forth by Symbols and Metaphors. The nature of Christ's mediation is largely set forth by means of metaphors and symbols. This fact should admonish us that greatest care must be exercised in our interpretations of biblical texts bearing on this subject.' Human language is at best imperfect, and there are some figures of speech from which, perhaps, no two men would derive precisely the same idea. We need not wonder, therefore, that divers theories of atonement have sought support in what on close analysis appear to be only incidental features of an object referred to in a metaphor. We have seen that the New Testament writers speak often of the saving work of Christ in terms that plainly derive their significance from the sacrificial ceremonies of the Jewish people, and their language cannot be fairly interpreted without attention to Old Testament facts and teachings concerning the offering of blood upon the altar. Such words as atonement, propitiation, and expiation' are inseparable from sacrificial customs and the ideas such customs were adapted to inculcate. These customs and ideas are also part and parcel of the religious history of mankind. We have aimed to indicate in the foregoing pages the fundamental ideas which attach to the Old Testament ritual of sacrifices and offerings, and also to guard the reader against pressing incidental points of analogy and symbolism too far. Language and illustrations based upon popular customs should always be treated as popular, not as exact and scientific in its purpose. To apprehend aright the vicarious element in the self-offering of Christ, we must eliminate the pagan notion of

'Due regard must also be had for peculiar forms of expression which characterize particular writers. There are mystical sayings which are peculiarly Johannine, and for that very reason not to be understood as if they were of the nature of a dogmatic formula. There are also texts and paragraphs in Paul's writings which evince his rabbinical training, and also bold realistic statements which may by valid exegesis be resolved into mystical or ideal conceptions. It is a misleading procedure for anyone arguing in the interests of a disputed dogma to insist on a literal interpretation of such peculiar forms of speech.

The word atonement occurs in the New Testament but once, in the common English version of Rom. v, 11, where the Revised Version substitutes reconciliation. In the Old Testament it is the common rendering of some form of the Hebrew 155, the primary meaning of which is to cover, as we have elsewhere explained. Hence as an English word it can have no weight in determining the biblical conception. Propitiation is a Latin term, and appears in the New Testament only as a translation of aorhptov in Rom. iii, 25, which we have shown to mean a mercy seat (as in Heb. ix, 5), and of iλaoμóg in 1 John ii, 2, and iv, 10. The word in these two last-named texts has obvious reference to what Christ does for the forgiveness and removal of the sins of the world, but furnishes no explanation of the method of the propitiation. Expiation is not a biblical word, and so far as it suggests anything other than what Scripture teaches concerning atonement, propitiation, and reconciliation it has no place in a biblical theology.

placating a wrathful Deity, and look more deeply into the spiritual significance of "the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God."

3. Use of Current Forms of Speech. To make known a truth so far-reaching and profound, Christ and his apostles most fittingly appropriated figurative conceptions and forms of speech that were at once current and popular and sacredly associated with religious service. It is to be noted that our Lord chose the time of the passover for the laying down of his life in vicarious sacrifice, and that Paul speaks of the sacrifice of Christ as our passover (1 Cor. v, 7). Sacrificial worship, priestly intercession, and the lofty ideals of a covenant relation to God had furnished a large part of the providential preparation of the chosen people for the advent of the Christ. But the great prophets of Israel from Samuel onward had taught that sacrifices and burnt offerings were of no intrinsic value, and could not be acceptable before Jehovah unless expressive of a pure devotion of the heart of the worshiper and a faithful obedience to the word of God (comp. 1 Sam. xv, 22; Isa. i, 11-17; Hos. vi, 6; Mic. vi, 6-8; Amos v, 21-24; Jer. vi, 20; vii, 22, 23; Psa. xl, 6-8). Much more, then, may we suppose that our Lord and his apostles would penetrate beneath the forms of priestly service and of sacrifices (comp. Matt. xii, 5-8; 1 Cor. v, 7, 8; Rom. xii, 1, 2; Heb. ix, 9; x, 4), and fill their metaphorical allusions to them with the deepest spiritual significance. We should study in like manner to pass beyond the letter and to grasp the true spiritual import of such words as atonement and propitiation when applied to the sufferings of Christ. Our expositions, we trust, have shown that there is no need of loading the biblical writers with the pagan notions of placating a vengeful Deity, or of reconciling an offended God to the sinner. One may construct such a dogma, and many have so interpreted certain scattered texts of Scripture; but we think such a construction is unnecessary, and not justified in the light of the more authoritative statements of Christ and his apostles.

4. Necessity of Christ's Mediation. A certain divine necessity for the mediatorial sufferings of Christ is assumed in many scriptures (Matt. xvi, 21; xxvi, 54; Mark viii, 31; Luke ix, 22; xiii, 33; xvii, 25; xxii, 37; xxiv, 7, 26, 44, 46; John iii, 14; ix, 4; xii, 32-34; Acts iii, 18; iv, 12; xvii, 3; Heb. ix, 23); and aside from any such specific statement it would truly seem in the nature of things that such suffering and sacrifice must have been imperatively necessary or the only begotten Son of God would not thus have given up his life. Wherein, then, this necessity? Not, as we have read the Scriptures, in a demand of abstract justice to maintain God's honor