This is ?the way of Cain? (Jude 11).? Per contra, see Crawford, Atonement, 259 ? ?Both in Levitical and patriarchal times, we have no formal institution of sacrifice but the regulation of sacrifice already existing. But Abel?s faith may have had respect, not to a revelation with regard to sacrificial worship, but with regard to the promised Redeemer and his sacrifice may have expressed that faith. If so, God?s acceptance of it gave a divine warrant to future sacrifices. It was not will-worship, because it was not substituted for some other worship which God had previously instituted. It is not necessary to suppose that God gave an expressed command. Abel may have been moved by some inward divine monition. Thus Adam said to Eve, ?This is now bone of my bones ?
(Gen. 2:23), before any divine command of marriage. No fruits were presented during the patriarchal dispensation. Heathen sacrifices were corruption of primitive sacrifice.? Von Lasaulx, Die Suhnopfer der Griechen und Romer, und ihr Verhaltniss zu dem einen auf Golgotha, 1 ? ?The first word of the original man was probably a prayer, the first action of fallen man a sacrifice?; see translation in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1:365-408. Bishop Butler: ?By the general prevalence of propitiatory sacrifices over the heathen world, the notion of repentance alone being sufficient to expiate guilt appears to be contrary to the general sense of mankind.?
(f) The New Testament assumes and presupposes the Old Testament doctrine of sacrifice. The sacrificial language in which its descriptions of Christ?s work are clothed cannot be explained as an accommodation to Jewish methods of thought. Since this terminology was in large part in common use among the heathen, and Paul used it more than any other of the apostles did, in dealing with the Gentiles. To deny to it its Old Testament meaning, when used by New Testament writers to describe the work of Christ is to deny any proper inspiration both in the Mosaic appointment of sacrifices and in the apostolic interpretations of them. We must therefore maintain, as the result of a simple induction of Scripture facts, that the death of Christ is a vicarious offering, provided by God?s love for the purpose of satisfying an internal demand of the divine holiness. Christ?s death removed an obstacle in the divine mind to the renewal and pardon of sinners.
?The epistle of James makes no allusion to sacrifice. But he would not have failed to allude to it, if he had held the moral view of the atonement: for it would then have been an obvious help to his argument against merely formal service. Christ protested against washing hands and keeping Sabbath days. If sacrifice had been a piece of human formality,
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?