« PreviousContinue »
call, to account for the addressing of these through the medium of Jewish habits. A few of such places shall be mentioned.
One of them is..." Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast.”* Although the version under review has left this, substantially, as it was found; yet there seems to have been the design of weakening the force of its apparent sense, by substitut. ing“ slain” for “ sacrificed.” Doubtless, the signification of the Greek verbt has a reference to slaughter; and yet it is so constantly applied in the Septuagint to the peculiar species of slaughter, which is in sacrifice; that the latter idea ought to have governed in a passage, which must be explained by the rite of the Jewish passover. What occasion had St. Paul, in writing to a Church composed principally of Gentile converts, to express his sentiments through the medium of a transaction, not to be explained without a statement of the nature of a rite, in which there must especially have appeared the blood sprinkled on the side posts and on the upper door-posts of the houses? This is intelligi. ble, if taken as the type of a more precious victim
-such as is the Redeemer, according to the commonly received idea of his character; but is utterly insignificant, if limited to his enduring of death in attestation of his doctrine.
The like may be said of the following text...“ The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin." The version leaves the sense to be unlocked, by the key before given; but with what propriety such language can be applied to the parting with life, merely as the seal of a divine mission, must be submitted to every serious mind,
On other occasions however, they call the attention of their readers to the operation of their principle. Accordingly, they apply it to the following passage.-“ Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."* It is represented, that the whole effect of what is thus described, is deliverance from a state of heathenism, prejudice and vice. This was indeed an effect of redemption, but does not come up to the sense of the price paid for it; which, by its reference to the legal sacrifices, conveys the idea of its being for sin. It is also the legitimate construction of the twentyfourth verse of the next chapter...“ Who, his own self, bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” But here, the framers of the version conceive of an advantage arising to them from what is said...“ Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses;''t refer. ring to the words of Isaiah-.." He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows:'' which two places are considered as verified by Christ's miraculous healing of diseases, this being a necessary circumstance of the Christian economy. But it was not thus, that he took on him our infirmities and bare our sicknesses, relatively to the present life; to which the miracle of re. moving them from others does not apply. It was by that sympathy with the sufferers, which called his miraculous power into act. With this agree the two Greek verbsý made use of; the former of which may be rendered “ took on himself,” as where it is said..." took on him the form of a servant:"|| and the latter, sustain. ing or suffering in mind; as where it is...“ We *** ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.”q But in the interpretation under review, the aforesaid passage only of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is presented; which only was pertinent to the passage of St. Matthew: while other passages, in the next verse of the chapter, and in the first and twelfth verses are overlooked. These must have been the part in the contemplation of St. Peter. They are...“ He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniqui
* Rom. v. 7, 8.
| | John i. 7.
ties, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed:” Again" he shall bear their iniquities,” and “he bare the sin of many." These sayings fall in exactly with “ he bare our sins in his own body on the tree;" and the marked reference is further visible, in the apostle's adding, before the end of his sentence, the concluding words of those above quoted from the fifth verse of the chapter of Isaiah: thus showing the concurrence of the prophecy and of the fact.
- Whether the diseases spoken of be those of the body or of the mind-although the sorrows of the latter are here supposed to be the meaning—the Greek verbs and the Hebrew* to which they answer, express a bearing in person. But why does the evange. list apply the passage to circumstances in which there was no suffering from the consciousness, of sin? For no other reason than that of the general connexion between sin and suffering: as in the instances in which our Saviour tells persons healed by him—“ Thy sins are forgiven thee.” It is the contemplating of a connexion between the general principle, and a particular circumstance of the subject. Suffering originated in sin: which ceases to have its operation, in proportion as the penal. ties inflicted on it are put an end to.
It is a property of the version under review, that overlooking the circumstances of a passage the most directly pointing to the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice, it invites attention to some circumstance of less importance in this respect. Thus, interpreting the following passage-" Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
סבל נשא *
† Parkhurst's Lexicon, under the first of the two Hebrew words, selects the following as instances in which it signifies a vicarious bearing of sin—Exod. xxviii. 38.-Lev. x. 17– xvi. 22. But he says, under the latter of the words, that it impiies more labour than the other. The same lexicographer gives authorities for a similar interpretation of the two Greek words.
righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past; the version translates for “ propitiation”, “mercyseat." But there is put out of view, that whereas this, under the law, was the seat of the divine beneficence, and at the same time, the place to which there was brought the blood of the victim slain in sacrifice; so, under the gospel, its mercy seat, according to the text, and even as it stands in the version, was in the blood of Christ, and in the availing of this for the re. mission of sin. There can be no doubt, that the Seventy use the Greek wordt to denote the mercy seat. Its verbt signifies “to propitiate” or “ to appease.” The substantive immediately derived from ito signifies * propitiation:" not the act of pacifying the offended party, as the version affirms, when commenting on i John ii. 2, much less the contemplation of man as the offended party, which is evidently the sense intend. ed to be given. The word signifies, not the act, but the effect of it. From the same Greek verb, flows the substantive now especially under consideration: which the analogy of language would justify the rendering of “a propitiatory," if this were sanctioned by use. There can be no objection to the calling of it "a mercy-seat,” on the authority of the Seventy; who, however, must have taken the corresponding word, because its etymology is expressive of the idea of propitiation. According to this representation, the spirit of the original is retained in the common version: for although, as the authors of what is called an improved version say, the precise original word is never translated“ propitiation” in the other; yet this is the rendering of a kindred word in two places 1 John ii. 2, and iv. 10. Neither will it be irrelevant to have recourse to external authority, for the establishing of the meaning of the original word. Michaelis quotes a passage from the seventh section of Josephus's book on the Maccabees; wherein there is introduced the
Rom. iii. 25. + Ιλαςηριον. il Vol. 1, Part 1. Ch. ii. Sect. 14.
| Ιλασκων. .
word in the text, in the unequivocal sense of a vicarious atonement. And the said learned critick quotes Symmachus, a noted enemy of Christianity in the beginning of the fourth century, applying the same Greek word to the covering of Noah's Ark. Now the Seventy use the word, so as to answer to the Hebrew word, * by which a covering of sin, or a making of atonement for it was designated. By their choice of the Greek word, to be a substitute for that which, in the Old Testament, continually presents the idea of atonement, they give evidence of their considering of both the words, as uniting in the conveyance of the same sentiment to the reader. So little reason is there, in the endeavours to get rid of the word in this passage, expressive of propitiatory sacrifice-much less of the subject itself.
It will not be foreign to the point, as it relates to the liberties taken in exhibiting and interpreting the sacred text, to notice concerning the theory on the other side, its having carried its advocates two steps further and this by a natural operationleading them to affirm, that the said sacrifices were for ceremonial pollution only, having no connexion with departure from moral rectitude; and that they were taken from institutions merely human; animaļ sacrifices being not founded on divine appointe ment.
In opposition to the former of the two suggestions, it is but to turn to the fifth chapter of Leviti. cus, to find sacrifice enjoined because of the concealment of offences, and because of oaths affirmatory or promissory, rashly made; to the sixth chapter, to find the same for fraud, theft, and perjury; and to the twentieth, to find the same for the seduction of a betrothed bond-woman. But further, what are termed sins of ignorance, are not altoge. ther such as are unavoidable, but include what ori.