Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/923

 of sacrifice to ritual, venial and involuntary sins, and requires that the sacrifices should be offered at Jerusalem by the Aaronic priests; but these limitations did not belong to the older religion; and even in later times popular faith ascribed a larger efficacy to sacrifice. On the other hand, other passages protest against the ascription of great importance to sacrifice; or regard the rite as a consequence rather than a cause of forgiveness. The Old Testament has no theory of sacrifice; in connexion with sin the sacrifice was popularly regarded as payment of penalty or compensation. Lev. xvii. 11 suggests a mystic or symbolic explanation by its statement “the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your lives: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.” The Old Testament nowhere explains why this importance is attached to the blood, but the passage is often held to mean that the life of the victim represented the forfeited life of the offerer.

The atoning ritual reached its climax on the Day of Atonement,  , in the Mishna simply “the Day,” (Yōmā), observed annually on the 10th day of the 7th month (Tisri), in the autumn, about October,  shortly before the Feast of Tabernacles or vintage festival. At one time the year began in Tisri. The laws of the Day of Atonement belong to the Priestly Code. There is no trace of this function before the exile; the earliest reference to any such special time of atonement being the proposal of Ezek. xlv. 18-20 to establish two days of atonement, in the first and seventh months. No doubt, however, both the principles and ritual are partly derived from earlier times. The object of the observances was to cleanse the sanctuary, the priesthood and the people from all their sins, and to renew and maintain favourable relations between Yahweh and Israel. The ritual includes features found on other holy days, sacrifices, abstinence from work, &c.; and also certain unique acts. The Day of Atonement is the only fast provided in the Law; it is only on this occasion that (a) the Jews are required to “afflict their souls,” (b) the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies, (c) the High Priest offers incense before the mercy seat and sprinkles it with blood, and (d) the scapegoat or Azazel is sent away into the wilderness, bearing upon him all the iniquities of the people. In later Judaism, especially from about 100, great stress was laid on the Day of Atonement, and it is now the most important religious function of the Jews. On that day many attend the synagogues who are seldom or never seen in them at other times.

The idea of vicarious atonement appears in the Old Testament in different forms. The nation suffers for the sin of the individual; and the individual for the sin of his kinsfolk or of the nation. Above all the Servant of Yahweh appears as atoning for sinners by his sufferings and death. Again, the Old Testament speaks of the restoration of heathen nations, and of the salvation of the heathen; but does not formulate any theory of atonement in this connexion. The Old Testament, however, only prepares the way for the Christian doctrine of the atonement; this is clear, inasmuch as its teaching is largely concerned with the nation, and hardly touches on the future life. Moreover, it could not define the relation of Christ to the atonement. Later Judaism emphasized the idea of vicarious atonement for Israel through the sufferings of the righteous, especially the martyrs; but it is very doubtful whether the idea of the atonement through the death of the Messiah is a pre-Christian Jewish doctrine.

In the New Testament, the English version uses “atonement” once, Rom. v. 11, for  (R. V. here and elsewhere “reconciliation”). This Greek word corresponds to the idea suggested by the etymology of at-one-ment, the re-uniting in amity of those at variance, a sense which the word had in the 17th century but has since lost. But the idea which is now usually expressed by “atonement” is rather represented in the New Testament by  and its cognates, e.g. 1 John ii. 2 R. V., “He (Jesus) is the propitiation ( ) for our sins.” But these words are rare, and we read more often of “salvation” ( ) and “being saved,” which includes or involves that restoration to divine favour which is called atonement. The leading varieties of teaching, the Sayings of Jesus, Paul, the Johannine writings, the Epistle to the Hebrews, connect the atonement with Christ especially with His death, and associate it with faith in Him and with repentance and amendment of life.

These ideas are also common to Christian teaching generally. The New Testament, however, does not indicate that its writers were agreed as to any formal dogma of the atonement, as regards the relation of the death of Christ to the sinner’s restoration to God’s favour; but various suggestions are made as to the solution of the problem. St Paul’s teaching connects with the Jewish doctrine of vicarious suffering, represented in the Old Testament by Is. liii., and probably, though not expressly, with the ritual sacrifices. Christ suffering on behalf of sinners satisfies the divine righteousness, which was outraged by their sin. His work is an expression of God’s love to man; the redeeming power of Christ’s death is also explained by his solidarity with humanity as the second Adam, —the redeemed sinner has “died with Christ.” Some atoning virtue seems also attributed to the Resurrection; Christ’s sayings connect admission to the kingdom of God with susceptibility to the influence of His personality, faith in Himself and His mission, and the loyalty that springs from faith. In John, Christ is a “propitiation” ( ) provided by the love of God that man may be cleansed from sin; He is also their advocate ( ) with God that they may be forgiven, for His name’s sake. Hebrews speaks of Christ as transcending the rites and officials of the law; He accomplishes the realities which they could only foreshadow; in relation to the perfect, heavenly sacrifice which atones for sin, He is both priest and victim.

The subsequent development of the Christian doctrine has chiefly shaped itself according to the Pauline formula of vicarious atonement; the sufferings of Christ were accepted as a substitute for the punishment which men deserved, and so the divine righteousness was satisfied—a formula, however, which left much room for controversy. The creeds and confessions are usually vague. Thus the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins”; the Nicene Creed, “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven  I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins”; the Athanasian Creed, “Who (Christ) suffered for our salvation.” In the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England we have (ii.) “Christ suffered  to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men”; and (xxxi.) “The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world.” The council of Trent declared that “Christus  nobis sua sanctissima passione ligno crucis justificationem meruit et pro nobis deo patri satisfecit,” “Christ earned our justification by His most holy passion and satisfied God the Father for us.” The Confession of Augsburg uses words equivalent to the Articles quoted above which were based upon it. The Westminster Confession declares: “The Lord Jesus Christ, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the Eternal Spirit once offered up to God, hath