THE DIVINE WRATH AND ITS REMOVAL 323

the Old Testament, the definite points being only these: that it is the sin that is covered; that 'covering' it means withdrawing its power to provoke the anger of God; that usually it is God Himself who covers it; that the motives are drawn from His own nature, and the initiative is His; and that the means, where mentioned at all, are appointed by Him, though the motives and the means are usually identical.

:

In

There are two or three historical passages of considerable interest; for example, the instance of the golden calf made by Aaron (Ex. xxxii.), and the instance of the whoredom of the people in the plains of Moab in connection with Baal Peor (Num. xxv.). In these instances there are several things: (1) a breach of the covenant; (2) an outbreak of Divine wrath in the form of a plague; and (3) the intervention of a human agent in the one case Moses, who interceded with Jehovah; and in the other Phinehas, who executed vengeance upon the chief transgressors. both cases the covering of the sin of the people followed. Now the two points of interest are: (1) that the Divine anger to a certain extent took effect in the plague and slaughter. It was manifested and illustrated so far as in some degree to satisfy it. And (2) a human agent intervened to effect the covering of the sin. On what ground was the action of Moses or Phinehas a covering of the people's sin? It was, perhaps, on the principle of solidarity. The anger of Jehovah was kindled against the whole people, and threatened to consume them utterly. But these men were of the people. Moses was a mediator and representative of the people, and not in any way involved in their sin; and he was a prince and leader, and showed his zeal for the Lord. In point of fact, though many had broken the covenant, it had not been broken by the people as a whole. And God had respect to His covenant, and covered the offence of the sinners. It is this principle of solidarity, perhaps, that explains the intercession of the prophets. Amos twice interceded and was heard. But both Jeremiah and Ezekiel are warned that their intercessions will not be listened to.

But the other point is of chief interest in regard to the prophet Isaiah. Of course, to punish for sin and to cover sin are ideas opposed to one another. If the people bear their sin in Divine chastisement, there is no covering of it. But it is to be noted that the penalty of breach of the covenant is not mere chastisement, but destruction. Now the question suggests itself, whether chastisement to a less degree than destruction might not be held a covering of sin in God's mercy. Strictly, it was not a covering, but might it not be considered so? In this case there would be a union of means acting as covering': first, the satisfaction so far of the punitive wrath, and, second, the mercy of God intervening to regard it as enough-as it is said in Isa. xl. 2: "She has received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins."

4. Atonement by Priest and High Priest.

Anticipating in some measure what has to be noticed further on, we may say here that the points in connection with atonement in the sacrifices that entered into worship are not numerous, although they are of importance. They are two.

(1) The subject who atones in this case is no more God Himself, but the priest, or, when the atonement is made for the whole people, the high priest. This is not, perhaps, a great change, as the priest is appointed of God. But the procedure of atoning is now something ordinary, and not left to the mercy of God. In particular instances He has appointed standing ordinances and persons for accomplishing it. It is still an ordinance, proceeding in all its parts from Him; but it is now a standing ordinance.

(2) The object of atonement is still the sins of the offender, whether individual or people. In this case, however, the language differs considerably from that previously used. It is more commonly not the sins of the offenders, but the persons or souls or lives of the offenders that are covered. The change is due to the circumstances. The

THE EFFICACY OF ATONEMENT

325

persons in question now are not strictly sinners afar from God. They are His worshippers entering into His courts; and the danger is of His nature reacting against them and consuming them, as in Isa. vi. Of course the danger in the other class of cases was to the person of the sinner ultimately; but in these cases the sinner was not a worshipper in Jehovah's presence, and it was rather God's judicial sentence that he had to fear. If anything were needed to show that the danger feared is, so to speak, from the nature of God and His presence, it is the fact that not only the persons drawing near to Him needed to be atoned or covered by blood, but the same necessity existed for the tabernacle, or house itself, and all its furniture. These contracted uncleanness, perhaps, from the presence in them of sinful men, and they had to be covered by sacrificial blood. This is a very profound idea of the Divine holiness; and when we extend it from the mere idea of worship to His universal presence, it becomes very suggestive.

(3) The means of atonement in this case are always the blood of the sacrifice. Sometimes the efficacy appears to be ascribed to the whole sacrificial arrangement, but never unless the arrangement contained a bleeding sacrifice. The chief atoning sacrifices are the sin-offering, the guiltoffering, and the whole burnt-offering.

The passage in Lev. xvii. 11 gives the fullest account of the principle of atonement. "The life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for the blood atoneth in virtue of the life." This law prohibits the eating of blood, and states the reason. The life is in the blood, and the blood is given to make atonement; and this atonement the blood effects in virtue of the life which it contains. Atonement is here represented as made not for sins, but for souls or persons. The blood makes this atonement, covers the persons it does so because it contains the life. explanation is given of the principle how the the life in it covers the persons, i.e. atones.

But no blood with The passage

is silent on the principle; but the ordinance is an ordinance of God: "I have given it to you upon the altar."

Thus the Old Testament doctrine of atonement runs on two lines, which perhaps, in the Old Testament, do not meet or coincide.

The Christian doctrine, as expressed by St. Paul, has united the two, taking from the first that which creates the necessity of atonement, the moral righteousness of God; and from the second the means of atonement, the blood of sacrifice, and making the one answer the other. The apostle, of course, lays down universal principles applicable to all men, Jews and Gentiles. He regards all sins as inferring the wrath of God. All sins, in his view, belong to the category of sins done with a high hand; at least all men are guilty of such sins. Knowing that such things are worthy of death, they not only do them, but have pleasure in those that do them. All men are guilty of sinning wittingly. Thus the relation of God to all men is to St. Paul the same as His relation was to sinners in Israel with a high hand. He is Ruler and Judge; His righteousness and the sin come into connection. Of course, the apostle refers forgiveness to the same source as the Old Testament, the mercy or grace of God.

Then, as has been said, he unites the means used in the second class of offences with this primary class, making the sacrifice the means of atonement. The Old Testament has not gone so far as this. It recognises the moral righteousness of Jehovah, which manifests itself in wrath against sin. But for such sin there is not sacrificial atonement; the sinner's refuge is only in God Himself, in the prevailing direction of the Divine mind, which is towards mercy and compassion. And, secondly, it recognises infirmities and impurities adhering to men even when truly in fellowship with God as His people. And these infirmities of His worshipping people disturb the Divine holiness, which is in danger of manifesting itself destructively in opposition to these imperfections of men, and the infirmities must be atoned or covered. And the means of this covering is the

USE OF TERMS FOR ATONEMENT

327

blood of sacrifice in virtue of the life which it carries. It is not easy to remove from this second conception the elements of a relative kind which it contains, and the shade of physical conception of the Divine nature peculiar to it, so as to reach a pure general idea universally applicable.

5. The term " Atone.'

The references in the Old Testament are scattered through it, and have regard to particular cases. There is no single passage that states a formal or full doctrine upon the subject. It is probable that a full doctrine of Atonement can hardly be obtained from the Old Testament even by combining the passages. But traces of general ideas may be discoverable, which lead in the direction of the more complete New Testament doctrine.

(1) The word 'atone' is not now used in the Kal. In Gen. vi. 14: "Thou shalt pitch it with pitch," the word is a denominative from the noun, pitch.' The word is now used only in Piel and its derivatives. Further, the word is no more used in Scripture in its literal and physical sense, but always in a transferred metaphorical sense. The original meaning of the word, however, was certainly to cover, and so put out of sight, or do away with.

In the cognate languages it is used in the sense of to deny, i.e. conceal a fact.

That the word means to 'cover' originally appears from the synonyms, e.g. 2, to cover, put out of sight, and so out of activity or influence, to annul or invalidate, parall. to n, blot out. 23:

DA TE DE Neh. iii. 37 (iv. 5) quotes this thus:

"Thou hast taken away the guilt of Thy people, Thou hast covered () all their sin "; Ps. xxxii. 1: "Blessed is the man whose sin is covered." In this extra-ritual use of

that which is atoned or covered is sin or guilt; and from the passage in Jeremiah it appears that it is covered