I was just thinking of writing to you, without any particular motive but that it was so long since I had, when I got your letter upon my arrival here in Zurich. As regards the text, Heb. 9:1212Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Hebrews 9:12), it has occupied all interpreters, and my own mind, in reading scripture. The whole matter is that S has trusted the English, or overlooked the commonest possible use of Std. "This is he that came by [διά] water and blood." Whatever characterizes, or is as circumstances surrounding, is expressed by διά; so Rom. 2:2727And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? (Romans 2:27), where the sense is unmistakable. So chapter 4:11 πιστευόντων δι ακρβυστιας; so chapter 14:20, διὰ προςκόμματος ἐσθίοντι; 2 Corinthians 2:44For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you. (2 Corinthians 2:4), διά πολλῶν δακρύων; so that γενέσθαι διά is used in the classics for the active verb. Rom. 8:2525But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. (Romans 8:25), δἰ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα; Heb. 12:11Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, (Hebrews 12:1), δἰ ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν. Further, it was not in virtue of the blood of bulls and goats that the high priest entered in; indeed, what was to hinder his dying himself was the cloud of incense. If it had been alleged that the bullock was for the church and the goat for Israel (not that I should pronounce this), my mind would have been otiose in hearing it; but when he says "both" in that sacrifice, he makes Christ distinct from the sacrifice. In the consecration, Aaron is sanctified alone, without blood; and then his sons with him, with blood, and their garments with him (not "them"), because without him they had no reality of existence. But that on which—rests all his system is wholly without foundation; it is a mistake as to the use of διά. When it is said that God brought Him from the dead, it is ἐκ, not διά. (Heb. 13:2020Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, (Hebrews 13:20).) The whole fabric of doctrine is therefore contradicted by an intelligent apprehension of the text of scripture.
The appeal to Psa. 110 is extraordinary; not only the whole psalm is based on setting Christ at God's right hand, but the whole reasoning of the apostle on it in Heb. 6; 7; and, indeed, the gist of the whole Epistle is to prove that it is in heaven and not on earth. "Such an high priest became us," who is "made higher than the heavens" in "the power of an endless life." He is consecrated εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, and He must be a man to be so. (See chap. 6:20.) Had He even entered into the holy place during His life as priest He would have done so without blood; but He entered in ἐφάπαξ, "once for all having obtained eternal redemption for us." The whole of this doctrine, therefore, is unfounded. I dread pursuing figures with an unsanctified spirit; they are most instructive when we have solid truth as the base, but the mind may run into all ideas by them.
The word "associates Himself" with sinners is in itself too vague to rest upon; where it comes in the pamphlet it is a contradiction; either it is substitution-and then it is not "both"-or Christ is distinct and presents Himself distinct as a sinner I do not know what identity with each other means; is it substitution, or is Christ for Himself apart, as other sinners (each for himself) are, though united in the need of the sacrifice? Where was the need of Christ's offering for Himself? Was it the in of others? Then it is substitution, or taking their place- or some entrance of His own into the place of guilt, not for others, but with-so that the sacrifice for Him, since He was sinless, was an untruth. I find much that is vague and uncertain. In the burnt-offering (p. 15) the animal's blood was shed, and shed for atonement. Again, "here, too, the Lord Jesus associates His people with Himself"-how "too"? His being associated with sinners as such is not associating His people with Himself; it is the opposite. All this is very unsolid ground, but hardly needs to be taken up and made a crime of.
I find on page 17 the same uncertain sound, but on a more serious point. "The same sacrifice serves for all, and brings them near to the same God, in the same place of acceptance." Now, that Christ is, as man, in the presence and favor of God, after being abandoned for others, is blessedly true; but if the same sacrifice serves for all, that is, Christ and His people, and brings them near, it makes Him afar off Himself, and needing to be brought near; all this is worse than loose. So, that the incense is the prayers of the saints 1 judge not sustainable, where Christ offers it: in Rev. 5 we find the thought, but not with Christ the offerer. I do not know what "we as priests, may sprinkle the blood" means, that is, I do not believe it has any true sense, or that—could give it any. But I do not doubt that many a poor saint enjoys the urging to priestly character in truth, and slips over the evil without noticing anything particular; only there is danger of imbibing with it. But they are bee-like; suck the honey from every flower. He has committed himself, by self-confidence, to a series of blunders, founded on ignorance of the use of 8,4, or inattention to it.
The talking of Christ's identifying Himself with Himself (for He is the victim), as if He was so associated with sinners that a victim was necessary for Him, and yet He was the victim for Himself as sinless enough to be so, is utter confusion. This is the theory of page 15. It may seem very profound, but it is far away from the simplicity of scripture. That He was made sin for us we believe; but was He made sin for Himself? (unless He be taken simply as the representative or substitute of His people, which, though it may be held innocently, is itself rather forcing expressions).... That Christ was a priest down here, I reject as fundamentally false, save as He, as High Priest, represented the people on the great day of atonement.
As regards the Notes on Leviticus, they were made by Miss T. from lectures at Plymouth, and though I do not doubt the substance in them, I must decline wholly being responsible for the expressions: even when one looks over such, if attention be not drawn to them, particular expressions are overlooked. Nor would I, when the purport is scriptural, make a man an offender for a word.
The part that pressed our own acting as priests in close union with Christ, is the part that has probably attracted pious persons who have not noticed the evil part, taking for granted that it was what is generally held. You have no idea how few are theologians, even in their faith.
I was very glad indeed to hear of the general blessing from God's gracious goodness. We have had a meeting in Guernsey, common to French and English, and the Lord's approbation and blessing was very sensibly felt. Of England I know nothing very recent; I think the brethren have an increased feeling that they must be devoted, and expectation of the coming of the Lord.
In France we cannot complain. There is a new and interesting field in the Charente, and in the Ardeche a good many conversions; in some places a want of energy, but in general the work maintains its ground and progresses; here and there one would be glad to see more energy in the work, though this does not apply to all, and God has raised up some new laborers. I sent dear——-some account I think of what has been going on in France; outside brethren, much evil, but a reaction of a very distinct character. The Lord willing, I purpose leaving in October for Canada, I suppose by Halifax and Boston.
The letter of——-to G. distinctly affirms the point in which he is wrong, and I have no hesitation in saying is founded on bad Greek. The English may be pleaded, but I am satisfied the translators never entered into the doctrine. The notion of Christ's being a priest forever, as he states it, is I think the most absurd idea I ever heard of; contradicting the whole doctrine of scripture and of Hebrews on the subject. He could not γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα, [chap. 5:5], was a priest without being a man without anybody to be priest for even, without blood; there is no end to the contradictions; He could not be consecrated, it was only when He was ρελειωθείς that He was saluted of God according to Psa. 110 (See Heb. 5:66As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 5:6).) The insisting on the word "art" is inconceivable; it is in italics even in the English Bible, Old [Psa. 110:44The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:4)] and New Testament, while in the New it is applied to the time of His being perfected, after His crying and tears. It is to be remembered that contrast is more found in Hebrews than comparison. But I close this; it is not my object to make a treatise, but you will understand why I thought that with explanation when needed it might have died de sa belle mort....
Ever affectionately yours.
Zurich,
August 12th, 1864.