(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT IN ANCIENT TIMES—THE OLD TESTAMENT.

ANALYSIS.	REFERENCES.
I. The First Promise of an Atonement.	Genesis iii; Book of Moses (P. of G. P.), Chs. v and vi.
II. Adam's Sacrifices and the Atonement.	Hebrews Chs. ix and x. Dr. William Smith's Old Testament History, Chs. ii and Appendix to Book III, Sec. iv—"Sacrifices and Oblations."
III. The Mosaic Sacrifices: 1. The Sin Offering. 2. The Day of Atonement.	Smith's Bible Dictionary (Hackett Edition), Vol. IV, Art. "Sacrifices." Also Kitto's Biblical Literature, Art. "Sacrifices."
IV. The Christian Fathers on the Significance of Ancient Sacrifices.	Mediation and Atonement (Pres. John Taylor), Ch. xvi.

SPECIAL TEXT: "When Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. ix:19-22.)

DISCUSSION.

1. The Idea of an Atonement of Ancient Origin: From the earliest times the fact of an Atonement for man is foreshadowed. "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat," said Eve, to the Lord. "And the Lord God said unto the serpent * * * I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."^[A]

[Footnote A: Gen. iii:13, 15.]

In this passage Christians with justice have always seen the proclamation of the good tidings of the final victory over sin. "It is in Christ that the seed of the woman crushes the serpent."^[A]

[Footnote A: Dummelow's Commentary on Gen. iii.]

2. Atonement Foreshadowed in Ancient Sacrifices: The Atonement is also foreshadowed in the sacrifices of burnt offerings of Adam, his son Abel and the early Bible patriarchs. So meagre is the Bible account of the origin of sacrifices that some have doubted if they bore any relation to the sacrifice to be offered by the Christ, or were at all of divine origin.^[A] Our scripture, however, the Book, of Moses, sets the matter at rest for Latter-day Saints; for there it is written:

[Footnote A: "In tracing the history of sacrifice, from its first beginning to its perfect development in the Mosaic ritual, we are at once met by the long-disputed question, as to the origin of sacrifice; whether it arose from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned and guided by God, or whether it was the subject of some distinct primeval revelation. * * * The great difficulty in the theory which refers it to a distinct command of God, is the total silence of Holy Scriptures—a silence the more remarkable, when contrasted with the distinct reference made in Gen. ii to the origin of the Sabbath. Sacrifice, when first mentioned, in the case of Cain and Abel, is referred to as a thing of course; it is said to have been 'brought' by men; there is no hint of any command given by God. This consideration, the strength of which no ingenuity has been able to impair, although it does not actually disprove the formal revelation of sacrifice; yet at least forbids the assertion of it, as of a positive and important doctrine." (Smith's "Bible Dictionary"—Hackett ed.—Art. "Sacrifice," Vol. IV, p. 2770).

Was sacrifice in its origin "a human invention or a divine institution; and whether any of the sacrifices before the law, or under the law, were sacrifices of expiation. Eminent and numerous are the authorities on both sides of these questions; but the balance of theological opinion preponderated greatly for the affirmative in each of them. On the lower point, however, (viz., were the sacrifices sacrifices of expiation) most of those who deny that there was an expiatory sacrifice before the law, admit its existence under the law; and on the first, those who hold that sacrifice was of divine origin, but became much corrupted, and was restored by the Mosaic law, do not in substance differ much from those who hold it to have been a human invention, formally recognized, and remodelled by the law of Moses." Kitto's "Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature," Art. "Sacrifices." The difficulty and doubt in respect of both questions presented by these authorities is overcome by the passage which follows in the text from the Book of Moses.]

"And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence. And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord.^[A] And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord. And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him, I know not, save the Lord commanded me. And then the angel spake saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore. And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the only begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will."

[Footnote A: This doubtless gives the ground of explanation for the acceptance of Abel's offering for a sacrifice, the firstlings of his flock; and the rejection of Cain's offering, the fruits of the ground (Gen. iv:3-7). The one was brought in compliance with the appointment of God, the other was not of divine appointment, but was an unwarranted deviation from the commandment, hence, "the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering," but not unto Cain's. In Kitto's article on "Sacrifices" there is another very great reason urged as to why Abel's sacrifice was acceptable and why Cain's was not. It is reasonable, and in harmony with the importance of the whole doctrine of the Atonement, and I have nowhere else found the idea so well expressed. "It amounts then to this—that Cain, by bringing an eucharistic (expressing thanks merely) offering, when his brother brought one which was expiatory, denied virtually that his sins deserved death, or that he needed the blood of Atonement. Some go further, and allege that in the text itself, God actually commanded Cain to offer a piacular [expiatory, atoning] sacrifice. The argument does not require this additional circumstance; but it is certainly strengthened by it. When Cain became angry that Abel's offering was regarded with divine complacency, and his own refused, God said to him, 'Why art thou wroth; and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.' Now the word 'chattah,' translated 'sin' denotes in the law a 'sin-offering' and the word translated 'lieth' is usually applied to the recumbency of the beast. It is therefore proposed to translate the clause, 'sin-offering coucheth at the door; which by paraphrase would mean, 'an animal fit for a sin-offering is here, couching at the door, which thou mayest offer in sacrifice, and thereby render to me an offering as acceptable as that which Abel has presented." (Kitto's "Bible Literature," Art. "Sacrifice.")]

This clearly establishes the divine origin of sacrifices among the antediluvian patriarchs; and, indeed, of all antiquity;^[A] and also the fact, that they but foreshadowed the great sacrifice to be made in due time by the Son of God himself. Doctor Wm. Smith, the author of the "Old Testament History," says:

[Footnote A: A strong moral argument in favor of the divine institution of sacrifice, somewhat feebly put by Hallet (Comment, on Heb. xi:4, cited by Magee, "On the Atonement"), has been reproduced with increased force by Faber ("Prim. Sacrifice," p. 183). It amounts to this:

"Sacrifice, when uncommanded by God, is a mere act of gratuitous superstition. Whence, on the principle of St. Paul's reprobation of what he denominates will-worship, it is neither acceptable nor pleasing to God.

"But sacrifice, during the patriarchal ages, was accepted by God, and was plainly honored with his approbation.

"Therefore sacrifice, during the patriarchal age, could not have been an act of superstition uncommanded by God.

"If, then, such was the character of primitive sacrifice; that is to say, if primitive sacrifice was uncommanded by God,—it must, in that case indubitably have been a divine, and not a human institution." (Kitto's "Cyclopedia Biblical Knowledge," Vol. II, Art. "Sacrifice.")]

"The curse upon the serpent and promise to the woman point clearly to a Redeemer, who should be born of a woman, and by his own suffering, should destroy the power of the devil; and here we have the first prophecy of the Messiah. * * * There can be no reasonable doubt that the sacrifice of living animals was now instituted as a prophetic figure of the great sacrifice which should fulfill this promise. Animals must have been slain to provide the skins that clothed Adam and Eve; and wherefore slain, except in sacrifice? This might not seem conclusive in itself; but the whole reason for sacrifice began to exist now; its use is taken for granted in the next chapter (Gen. iv); and it continues throughout the patriarchal age without the record of any other beginning. Thus early, then, man learned that, "without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin;" that his own forfeited life was redeemed, and to be restored by the sacrifice of the coming "seed of the woman;" and that he was placed by God under a new dispensation of mercy. Nay, even his punishment was a mercy; for his suffering was a discipline to train him in submission to God's will. The repentance of our first parents is nowhere expressly stated; but it is implied here and in the subsequent narrative."^[A]

[Footnote A: We must not omit to notice the traces of these truths, which are found among many nations. The Greek legend of Pandora traces the entrance of evil to a woman; the Buddhist and Chinese traditions refer the beginning of sin to eating forbidden fruit and desiring forbidden knowledge; and most systems of mythology make the serpent a type of the power of evil, and a divine personage his destroyer. Delitzch well says, "The story of the Fall, like that of the Creation, has wandered over the world. Heathen nations have transplanted and mixed it up with their geography, their history, their mythology, although it has never so completely changed form, and color, and spirit, that you can not recognize it. Here, however, in the Law, it preserves the character of a universal, human, world-wide fact; and the groans of Creation, the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and the heart of every man, conspire in their testimony to the most literal truth of the narrative." The recollection of the tree of life is preserved in the sacred tree of the Assyrians and Hindoos, and in the other Eastern systems of mythology ("Old Testament History"—Wm. Smith—p. 29.)]

The fact of Adam's repentance, however, is clearly set forth in the Book of Moses, and his acceptance of the whole scheme of salvation through the atonement of Christ.^[A]

[Footnote A: See Book of Moses (P. of G. P.), Ch. v:4-16 and Ch. vi:48-68.]

3. The Atonement of Christ Foreshadowed in the Mosaic Sacrifices: It is very generally conceded that the sacrifices and oblations of the Mosaic ritual have a direct relationship to the great atoning sacrifice to be made by the Christ. From the ninth and tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is evident that "the law" was "a shadow of good things to come;" the law's sacrifices for sin and reconciliation with God but figured forth the greater and more efficient sacrifice to be made by the Son of God; nay, whatever of virtue there was in the sacrifices of the law were dependent upon the great sacrifice to follow. Of themselves, the sacrifices of the law had no virtue at all unconnected with the sacrifice to be made by the Christ;^[A] they were but symbols figuring forth that sacrifice in which the virtue was, the sacrifice of the Christ himself. "For it is expedient," says the Nephite Prophet Alma—"It is expedient that an Atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the eternal God, there must be an Atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the Atonement which it is expedient should be made. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled; every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law; every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God; yea, infinite and eternal."^[B]

[Footnote A: Hebrews x:1-10.]

[Footnote B: Alma xxxiv:9, 13, 14.]

The late President John Taylor upon this subject said:

"These sacrifices, which were offered up from the days of Adam until the time of our Savior's advent, were typical of the great expiatory sacrifice which He was to make by the sacrifice of himself. They were so many types, shadows and forms of which he was the great prototype—the substance, the reality prefigured and foreshadowed by the other sacrifices which had been offered up from the beginning.

"When the law was given to Moses, all the forms pertaining to the sacrificial ceremonies were revealed in detail, and the instructions in relation thereto were not simply of a general nature, but they entered into minute particulars in relation to all things connected with those who officiated, the form and pattern of the sacred utensils and of the vestments of the Priesthood, the creatures to be sacrificed, the order of the proceedings, and indeed of all matters associated with the observance of these rites. Almost the whole of the book of Leviticus, and considerable of the book of Numbers, is occupied with these instructions and kindred matters. This Mosaic law, with all its duties, observances, ceremonies and sacrifices, continued in force until Christ's death."^[A]

[Footnote A: "Mediation and Atonement" (1882), p. 124.]

4. The Sin Offering of the Mosaic Law: The Author of the Article on "Sacrifices," in Smith's "Bible Dictionary" (Hackett edition), Vol. IV—Rev. Alfred Barry, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in describing the "Sin Offering of the Mosaic law," says:

"The nature and meaning of the various kinds of sacrifice is partly gathered from the form of their institution and ceremonial, partly from the teaching of the prophets, and partly from the New Testament, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews. All had relation, under different aspects, to a covenant between God and man.

"The sin offering represented that covenant as broken by man, and as knit together again, by God's appointment, through the 'shedding of blood.' Its characteristic ceremony was the sprinkling of the blood before the veil of the sanctuary, the putting some of it on the horns of the altar, incense, and the pouring out of all the rest at the foot of the altar of burnt offering. The flesh was in no case touched by the offerer; either it was consumed by fire without the camp, or it was eaten by the priest alone in the holy place, and everything that touched it was holy. This latter point marked the distinction from the peace-offering, and showed that the sacrificer had been rendered unworthy of communion with God. The shedding of blood, the symbol of life, signified that the death of the offender was deserved for sin, but that the death of the victim was accepted for his death by the ordinance of God's mercy."

5. The Ceremonial of the Day of Atonement: "This [the truth of the preceding paragraph] is seen most clearly in the ceremonial of the 'Day of Atonement,' when, after the sacrifice of the one goat,^[A] the high priest's hand was laid on the head of the scape-goat—which was the other part of the sin-offering—with confession of the sins of the people, that it might visibly bear them away, and so bring out explicitly, what in other sin-offerings was but implied. Accordingly we find that, in all cases, it was the custom for the offerer to lay his hand on the head of the sin-offering, to confess generally or specially his sins, and to say, 'Let this be my expiation.' Beyond all doubt, the sin-offering distinctly witnessed that sin existed in man, that the 'wages of that sin was death,' and that God had provided an Atonement by the vicarious suffering of an appointed victim. The reference of the Baptist to a 'Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world,' was one understood and hailed at once by a 'true Israelite.'"^[B]

[Footnote A: Two goats were used in this ceremonial, one of which was killed and made a "sin offering" and the other a scape-goat to figuratively bear off the sins of the people.

"And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scape-goat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness" (Lev. xvi:7-10).]

[Footnote B: Smith "Dictionary," Vol. IV, p. 2774.]

6. The Paschal Sacrifice or Passover: In some respects the Paschal Sacrifice more perfectly than any other, perhaps, foreshadowed the future sacrifice of the Son of God for the deliverance of his people—those who would trust the sign of deliverance in his blood. The institution of the sacrifice and feast was as follows. When all other judgments upon Pharaoh failed to persuade him to let God's people go, then said the Lord to Moses:

"About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill; and all the first-born of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more. But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel."^[A]

[Footnote A: Exodus xi:4-7.]

When this terrible judgment was about to be executed the Lord provided the following means of deliverance for his people: Each family in Israel were commanded at a given time to take a lamb without blemish, a male of the first year, for a Passover Offering, and it was to be killed in the evening.

"And they shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side-posts, and on the upper doorpost of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. * * * And ye shall eat it in haste; it is the Lord's passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast: and against all the gods of Egypt, I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations: ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever."^[A]

[Footnote A: Exodus xii.]

Thus was the Passover established. Of it the late President Taylor said:

"It appears, that when the destroying angel passed by the houses of the children of Israel he found the blood of a lamb sprinkled on the doorpost; which was a type of the blood of Christ, the lamb of God. The angel who was the executor of justice could not touch those who were protected by that sacred symbol; because that prefigured the sacrifice of the Son of God, which was provided at the beginning of creation for the redemption of the human family, and which was strictly in accordance with provisions then made by the Almighty for that purpose—'the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world'—and accepted in full as an atonement for the transgressions of mankind, according to the requirements of eternal justice and agreed to by the Savior and his Father."^[A]

[Footnote A: "Mediation and Atonement," p. 106.]

Of course it cannot be doubted that this festival of the Passover was instituted as a great memorial of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and the birth of the nation of Israel; and there are not wanting those who maintain that this was its primary significance. But the leading feature in the festival, the Paschal Lamb, "a male, without blemish;" the killing of it; the blood sprinkled upon the door post, the sign of safety to God's people; the eating of the lamb in preparation of the journey; the subsequent honoring of this feast by the Christ with his disciples; the substitution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper for the Passover festival at the very time and on the very occasion of celebrating the feast of the passover among the Jews;^[A] together with the subsequent inspired reference to Christ as the Paschal Lamb of the Christians,^[B] are circumstances too numerous and too nearly related to doubt of the significance of the Passover festival having reference to the great sacrifice to be made by the Son of God through the shedding of his blood in atonement for the deliverance of his people. Of the Passover being a symbol of the sacrifice of the Son of God, the writer upon that theme in Smith's "Bible Dictionary" says:

[Footnote A: Matt. xxvi and Luke xxii.]

[Footnote B: I Cor. v:7.]

"No other 'shadow of good things to come' contained in the law can vie with the festival of the passover in expressiveness and completeness. Hence we are so often reminded of it, more or less distinctly, in the ritual and language of the Church. Its outline, considered in reference to the great deliverance of the Israelites which it commemorated, and many of its minute details, have been appropriated as current expressions of the truths which God has revealed to us in the fullness of times in sending his Son upon earth."^[A]

[Footnote A: Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible" (Hackett's edition), Vol. IV, p. 2355.]

7. The Testimony of Some "Christian Fathers:" Certain of the socalled Christian Fathers agree with this view of the Old Testament sacrifices figuring forth the sacrifice to be made by the Christ, both as to sacrifices in the early patriarchal times and under the law of Moses. Of these, first, is

(a) Eusebius of Caesarea: Born 264 A. D. (about); died 349 (about).

"Eusebius of Caesarea, in a passage too long for quotation, alleges, that animal sacrifice was first of all practiced by the ancient lovers of God (the patriarchs) and that not by accident, but through a certain divine contrivance, under which, as taught by the divine spirit, it became their duty thus to shadow forth the great and venerable victim, really acceptable to God, which was, in time then future, destined to be offered in behalf of the whole human race ("Demonst. Evang." i:8, pp. 24,25)."^[A]

[Footnote A: Kitto, Vol. II, p. 661.]

(b) Athanasius: Born 296 A. D.; died 373.

"Next we come to Athanasius, who, speaking of the consent of the Old Testament to the fundamental doctrines of the New, says: 'What Moses taught, these things his predecessor Abraham had preserved; and what Abraham had preserved, with those things Enoch and Noah were well acquainted; for they made a distinction between the clean and the unclean [animals], and were acceptable to God. Thus also in like manner Abel bore testimony; for he knew what he had learned from Adam, and Adam himself taught only what he had previously learned from the Lord" (Synod. Nicen. contr. Haer, Arian, Decret., Opp. i, 403).^[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid.]

(c) Augustine: Bp. of Hippo. Born 354 A. D.; died 430.

"Augustine, after expressly referring the origin of sacrifice to the divine command, more distinctly evolves his meaning by saying: 'The prophetic immolation of blood, testifying from the very commencement of the human race the future passion of the Mediator, is a matter of deep antiquity inasmuch as Abel is found in Holy Scripture to have been the first who offered up his prophetic immolation (Cont. Faust. Manich. Onp. vi:145). These testimonies certainly vindicate the opinion of the divine origin of primitive sacrifice from the charge of being a modern innovation, with no voice of antiquity in its favor."^[A]

[Footnote A: Kitto, Vol. II, p. 661.]