Page images
PDF
EPUB

cause in it the Lamb is introduced but incidentally, and as furnishing the only adequate resemblance to that character, which was the primary object of the prophet's contemplation: whereas, in the Baptist's declaration that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world; the reference must naturally be to a Lamb before described, and understood as possessed of some similar or corresponding virtue, such as St. Peter alludes to when he says, (1 Peter i. 18, 19.) Ye were redeemed-with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish. In this an allusion is evidently made to a lamb, whose blood, under the Jewish law, bore analogy to that of Christ: that is, either to the Paschal Lamb, by the sprinkling of whose blood the Israelites had been delivered from destruction; or to the lamb that was daily sacrificed for the sins of the people, and which was bought with that half shekel which all the Jews yearly paid, εις λυτρον της ψυχης αυτών, εξιλασασθαι περί των ψυχων αυτων, as the price of redemption of their lives, to make an atonement for them, (Exod. xxx. 12, 14, 16.) With a view to this last, it is, that St. Peter most probably uses the expressions, Ye were not redeemed with silver and gold-but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb, &c. i. e. it is not by a Lamb purchased with silver and gold that you have been redeemed, but by Christ, that truly spotless Lamb, which the former was intended to prefigure; who, by shedding his blood, has effectually redeemed you from the consequences of your sins; or, as the Baptist had before described him, the Lamb of God that takeih away the sins of the world; and, as St. John, who records these expressions of the Baptist, again speaks of him in the Apocalypse, (v. 9.) the Lamb which had been SLAIN, and by its blood redeemed men out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, or in other words, that had taken away the sins of the world.

The author indeed admits, (what it it was impossible for him to deny,) that in the Apocalypse, Christ "is spoken of as a Lamb that was slain :" but then he says, that "he is not spoken of as a vicarious sacrifice, for the Jews had no sacrifices of that nature." (Vol. ii. p. 789.) Be it so for the present: it is clear however, that the Lamb to which the allusion is made in the figurative representations of Christ in the New Testament, is a Lamb that was slain and sacrificed; and that nothing but the prejudices arising from a favourite hypothesis could have led this writer to contend against a truth so notorious, and upon grounds so frivolous.

Q

130 MEANING OF THE WORD PROPITIATION, &c.

No. XXVI.-ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD PROPITIA TION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

PAGE 32. (b)-The word ouos, translated propitia tion, occurs in the New Testament but in the two passages noticed in the page here referred to; viz. 1 John ii. 2. and iv. 10. Its true force, however, is obvious; since, as appears from the application of the words ιλασμος, ιλασκομαι, eğiλaonoμai, by the Seventy in the Old Testament, it corresponds to the Hebrew word, and therefore implies, the making atonement, and thereby affecting a reconciliation with, or propitiating the Deity.-The Greek translation of Ezekiel, (xliv. 29.) has made it synonymous with son, a sin-offering: and thus H. Taylor, (B. Mord. p. 808.) asserts the word should be here translated.

But it is curious to remark, that this writer has been so far led away by a desire to maintain the system which he has adopted, that in two pages after he goes on to show that no one circumstance belonging to the sin-offering is to be found in the sacrifice of Christ. As producing indeed "the effect of the sin-offerings, remission of sins," he concludes it may be so called, though possessing no one ingredient that enters into the composition of a sin-offering. His radical error on the scripture use of the word reconciliation, (which has been already examined,) prevented him from admitting the term propitiation, or propitiatory sacrifice; sin-offering, he therefore substitutes, and then endeavours to fritter this away. It deserves to be noticed, that even Sykes, whose attachment to the orthodox opinions will not be suspected to have much biassed his judgment on this subject, considers Eğiσd to be correspondent to, and explains both by the words expiate, atone, propitiate, "whatever the means were, (he adds) by which this was to be done." Essay on Sacrifices, pp. 132, 135.

In Rom. iii. 25. Masego is translated in the same sense with ιλασμος, a propitiation or propitiatory offering, θυμα or Egy being understood as its substantive; and although it be true, as Krebsius observes, that the Seventy always apply this term to the mercy-seat or covering of the ark, yet strong

Ixasngrov-subaudiendum videtur egov aut Supa, expiatorium sacrificium, quemadmodum eadem ellipsis frequentissima est apud ras in voce anglov, et in agingov apud Auctores. Hesychius exponit Kadagiov eadem ellipsi, nisi substantive sumptum idem significare malis quod auov propitiationem, ut Vulgatus vertit consentiente Beza. Ejus generis substantiva sunt δικαςηρίον, θυσιαςήριον, φυλακτηριον, et similia; adeoque Christus eodem modo vocabitur nasngior, quo inaoμos 1 John ii. 2. et iv. 10. Elsner. Obs. Sacr. tom. ii. pp. 20, 21.

arguments appear in favour of the present translation. See Schleusner on the word: also Josephus, as referred to by Krebsius and * Michaelis. Veysie, (Bampt. Lect. pp. 219, 220, 221,) has well enumerated its various significations.

No. XXVII. ON THE TEXTS DESCRIBING CHRIST'S DEATH AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN.

Mat. xx. 28. xxvi. 28. Rom. iii. 24, 25. iv. 25. v.

Eph. i. 7. Col. 12—28. x. 10,

PAGE 32. (c)-Isai. liii. 5-8. Mark x. 45. Acts viii. 32, 33. 6-10. 1 Cor. v. 7. xv. 3. 2 Cor. v. 21. i. 14. 1 Tim. ii. 6. Heb. i. 3. ii. 17. ix. 14, 18. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. 1 John iv. 10. Rev. v. 9-12. xiii. 8.-All which, and several other passages, speak of the death of Christ in the same sacrificial terms that had been applied to the sin-offerings of old. So that they who would reject the notion of Christ's death, as a true and real sacrifice for sin, must refine away the natural and direct meaning of all these passages: or in other words, they must new model the entire tenor of scripture language, before they can accomplish their point.

Dr. Priestley indeed, although he professes (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 125.) to collect "ALL the texts in which Christ is represented as a sacrifice either expressly or by plain reference," has not been able to find so many to this purpose as have been here referred to. After the most careful research, he could discover but a very few; and of these he remarks, that "the greater part are from one epistle, which is allowed in other respects to abound with the strongest figures, metaphors, and allegories:" and these being rejected, "the rest he says are too few to bear the very great stress that has been laid upon them:" and thus they are all discarded with one sweeping remark, that they carry with them the air of figure, and that had Christ's death been considered as the intended antitype of the sacrifices under the law, this would have been

Michaelis says, (Translation by Marsh, vol. i. p. 187.) "Josephus having previously observed that the blood of the martyrs had made atonement for their countrymen, and that they were ag avruzov (victima substituta) της το εθνός αμαρτίας, continues as follows, και δια το αιματος των ευσεβών εκείνων, και το ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΥ σε θανατε αυτών η θεία πρόνοια τον Ισο βαελ διέσωσε.” On the use of the word angiov amongst Jewish writers, and the strict propitiatory sense in which it was used by the Hellenistic Jews, I deem this passage from Josephus decisive; and I have but little hesitation in defying the utmost ingenuity of Socinian exposition to do away the force of its application to the subject before us.-Michaelis in p. 179, remarks, that "in Rom. iii. 25. ago has been taken by some in the sense of mer. cy-seat, but that Kypke has properly preferred the translation, PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE."-Michaelis was surely no superficial nor bigoted expo. sitor of holy writ.

asserted in the fullest manner, and would have been more frequently referred to. We are here furnished with an instance of the most expeditious and effectual method of evading the authority of scripture.-First, overlook a considerable majority, and particularly of the strongest texts, that go to support the doctrine you oppose: in the next place assert, that of the remainder a large proportion belongs to a particular writer whom you think proper to charge with metaphor, allegory, &c. &c. then object to the residue as too few on which to rest any doctrine of importance: but lest even these might give some trouble in the examination, explode them at once with the cry of figure, &c. &c.-This is the treatment that scripture too frequently receives from those who choose to call themselves rational and enlightened commentators.

There are two texts, however, on which Dr. Priestley has thought fit to bestow some critical attention, for the purpose of showing that they are not entitled to rank, even with those few that he has enumerated, as bearing a plausible resemblance to the doctrine in question. From his reasoning on these, we shall be able to judge what the candour and justice of his criticisms on the others would have been, had he taken the trouble to produce them. The two texts are, Isai. liii. 10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin: and 2 Cor. v. 21. He made him six for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Against the first he argues from the disagreement in the versions, which he observes, may lead us to suspect some corruption in our present copies of the Hebrew text. Our translation, he says, makes a change of person in the sentence --HE hath put him to grief--when THOU shalt make his soul an offering for sin, HE shall see his seed, &c. in which, he adds, it agrees with no ancient version whatever. In the next place he asserts, that the Syriac alone retains the sense of our translation, and at the same time remarks, that this version of the Old Testament is but of little authority. He then gives the reading of the clause, by the Seventy and the Ara, bie, If ye offer a sacrifice for sin, your soul shall see a longlived offspring. He concludes with the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan, which is different from all. And from the whole he draws this result, that the uncertainty as to the true reading of the original must render the passage of no authority. (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 127.)

But the real state of the case is widely different from this representation: for 1. Our translation does not absolutely pronounce upon the change of person, so as to preclude an agreement with the ancient versions. 2. The Syriac is not the only version that retains the sense of ours: the Vulgate,

which Dr. P. has thought proper to omit, exactly corresponding in sense. 3. The Syriac version of the Old Testament, so far from being of little authority, is of the very highest. 4. The concurrence of the LXX and the Arabic is not a joint but a single testimony, inasmuch as the Arabic is known to be little more than a version of the * LXX, and consequently can lend no farther support, than as verifying the reading of the LXX at the time when this version was made: and that it does not even authenticate the reading of the LXX at an early day, may be collected from the Prolegom. of Walton, and Kennicot's State of the Hebr. Text, as referred to in the note below. 5. The Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan is remarkable (as Bishop Lowth states in his Prelim. Dissert.) "for a wordy allegorical explanation," so that an exactness of translation is not here to be expected. And lastly, the apparent differences of the versions, may be explained by, and fairly reconciled to, the present reading of the Hebrew text.

These several points will be best explained by beginning with the last. The state of the Hebrew text, as it stands in all our present bibles, at least in such of them as I have consulted, viz. Walton's Polyglot, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicot, Doederlein, &c. and scarcely undergoing any variation, however minute, from the prodigious variety of copies examined by Kennicot and De Rossi, is as follows: OD 778

Now these words as they אם תשים אשם נפשו יראה זרע

stand, manifestly admit of a two-fold translation, according as the word Own is considered to be of the second person masculine, or the third person feminine; viz. when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, or when his soul shall make an offering for sin and though, with Ludovicus de Dieu, our present translation of the bible has followed the former in the text, yet has it with Cocceius, Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Castellio, and almost every other learned expositor of the bible, retained the latter, inserting it in the margin, as may be seen in any of our common bibles. It deserves also to be remarked, that in the old editions of our English bible, (see Matthewe's, Cranmer's or the Great Bible, and Taverner's; see also the bibles in the time of Elizabeth, viz. the Geneva and Bishop's bibles; see all in short that preceded James's translation,) this latter reading is the only one that is given; and it should be observed, (see Newcome's Historic. View, p. 105,) that one of the rules prescribed to the translators employed in the last named version,

See Bishop Lowth's Preliminary Dissert. to his Translation of Isaiah-and Walton's Polyglot Prolegom. 15-also Kennicot's State of the Hebr. Text. vol ii. pp. 453, 454.

« PreviousContinue »