Well, we return today to this
very crucial issue, a subheading under the General Doctrine of
the Atonement, the question, for whom did Christ die? And the way in which I've couched
the question at the beginning of each lecture has been to ask
the question in this manner, did Jesus Christ die for all
men indiscriminately and distributively, or for some men specifically
and exclusively. I find that the most helpful
way to state the question when we deal with what is commonly
called the extent of the atonement. Our approach has been to consider
the death of Christ for sinners in its related categories of
biblical truth. Since the doctrine of Christ's
atonement comes to us in scripture with a vital relationship to
these other categories, it is proper for us to consider it
in its own biblical setting. Now thus far we've looked at
the death of Christ for sinners in two of its related biblical
categories. Starting with the outer circle,
we considered the death of Christ in relationship to what is called
theologically the covenant of redemption, that inter-trinitarian
arrangement on behalf of the salvation of sinners. And then
we considered the next circle, the doctrine of the death of
Christ as it relates to the subject of Christ's relationship to his
people or the doctrine of union with Christ. We spent a couple
of weeks on that subject, and now we come this morning to the
third related category of biblical truth, apart from which no discussion
of the atonement of Christ is at all adequate, namely, the
doctrine of Christ's atonement in relationship to his position
and function as a priest. So that's our subject this morning.
the extent of the atonement in relationship to Christ's position
and function as a priest. In order to think our way through
this vital aspect of biblical truth, I'll lay before you several
propositions, each one forming the block upon which the other
ones will rest. So we have three propositions. I shall state the proposition,
then we shall look at the biblical proof or demonstration of the
proposition. and then finally some implications
of those propositions as they stand together. All right, proposition
number one. In accomplishing the work of
redemption, our Lord Jesus Christ functions in the official capacity
of a God-appointed priest. Now I'll run that by again. In
accomplishing the work of redemption, our Lord Jesus Christ functions
and that's a present tense verb purposefully, functions in the
official capacity of a God-appointed priest. Proof of that proposition? I
have two lines of proof. Number one, he is specifically
designated a priest. Secondly, his work is described
as consisting in priestly functions. First of all then, he is specifically
designated a priest. Charles Hodge, in his excellent
but brief treatment of this subject in his book on the atonement,
points out that in the book of Hebrews Christ is called priest
six times and high priest or great priest twelve times. Now I would refer you to just
a couple of these references in the book of Hebrews. Hebrews
chapter 3 and verse 1. In this particular passage, the
people of God are called upon to consider Christ in a very
self-conscious manner in terms of his official capacity as a
priest. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers
of a heavenly calling, consider, give careful attention to, the
Apostle and High Priest of our Confession, even Jesus. We are to consider our Redeemer
as a priest. Chapter 4 and verse 16, Having
then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession, for
we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling
of our infirmities, etc. Here we are enjoined to draw
near to the throne of grace on the basis of not only our understanding,
but our present faith in the reality of Christ's official
capacity as a high priest. So our proposition that in accomplishing
the work of redemption the Lord Jesus Christ functions in the
official capacity of a God-appointed priest is demonstrated by this
designation of him as a priest. Now that he was officially appointed
to this position is the teaching of chapter 5 verses 5 and 6.
We could back up to verse 4, No man taketh the honor, that
is, the honor of being a priest, unto himself, but when he is
called of God, even as was Aaron. If the function of a priest is
to stand between the people and God, to gain access to God on
behalf of the people, then it's obvious that no man can take
this upon himself. It is only God who can dictate
the terms by which men are able to approach it. And so the writer
says, no man takes this honor to himself. when he's called
of God even as was Aaron so Christ also glorified not himself to
be made a high priest but he that spake unto him thou art
my son this day have I begotten thee as he saith also in another
place thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek
now the point of the writer is that Christ comes to this capacity
and function of a priest by divine appointment and we read further
that it was with an oath that he came to this position, Hebrews
chapter 7 verses 20 through 22, that it was by the making of
an oath, something that was not true even in the Levitical order,
verse 20, inasmuch it is not without the taking of an oath,
for they indeed have been made priests without an oath, but
he with an oath, by him that saith of him, the Lord swear
and will not repent, thou art a priest forever. And the writer
goes on to demonstrate then, because he entered his official
capacity as priest with even greater solemnity than the Levitical
priests. They did not come to that capacity
by oath. They came by divine prescription
and appointment, but not without oath. Christ came with an oath
which further buttresses the supremacy of his office as a
priest. So then the first proposition
that in accomplishing the work of redemption Christ functions
in the official capacity of a God-appointed priest is proven by the specific
designation of him as a priest. He is called priest. Now notice,
it does not say that he is like a high priest or like a priest
after the order of Melchizedek. There you would have nothing
but two types and no anti-type. You would have all shadows and
no substance. God does not say thou art like
a priest. He says thou art a priest. so that the Old Testament priesthood,
whether the Melchizedekian priesthood or the Levitical priesthood,
were foreshadows or were foreshadowings of this substantial priest, the
true priest, who would minister in the true sanctuary, even our
Lord Jesus Christ. And we must never allow anyone
to say or even our minds to think that Christ being conceived of
his priest is just some kind of an analogy. No, no. It is
a substantial official capacity in which he accomplishes the
work of redemption. And that brings us to the second
proof of Proposition 1. His work is described as consisting
in priestly functions. Not described in terms of things
that have analogies in priestly function, but as true priestly
functions. Now in a very real sense this
aspect of the proof takes within its compass much of the entire
book of Hebrews, particularly chapters 7 through 10. And in
these chapters there are several major strands of emphasis. Let
me mention them and then we'll demonstrate them briefly. There
are similarities of appointment and function between the old
priesthood and Christ's functions as a priest. Another strand of
emphasis is the supremacy of Christ's appointment and function,
and thirdly, the finality and the efficacy of Christ's priestly
function. That there are similarities of
appointment and function is the emphasis of the first few verses
of chapter 5 in Hebrews. For every high priest, having
said that Christ is our high priest in chapter 4, 14 and following,
Then he says, for every high priest being taken from among
men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God that he may
offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin who can bear gently with
the ignorant and the erring, etc. And then he goes on to show
that there are similarities then between the appointment of Aaron
and his successors and the appointment of Christ. Chapter 8, verses
1 through 3. Again, we have these similarities. Now in the things which we are
saying, the chief point is this. We have such a high priest who
sat down in the right hand of the throne of the majesty of
the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle
which the Lord pitched not man for. Every high priest is appointed
to offer both gifts and sacrifices, wherefore it was necessary that
this high priest also have somewhat to offer. You see the emphasis?
He's saying that as there was a substantial and real priesthood
with real priestly functions in the old economy, so Jesus
Christ has a true and substantial priesthood with bonified priestly
functions in His priesthood. So there are similarities of
appointment and function. But then a second strand that
comes through is that there is a supremacy of appointment and
function. And this comes through in such
passages as chapter 7, verses 20-25. Jesus has become the surety
of a better covenant. They indeed have been made priests,
many a number. because that by death they are
hindered from continuing, but he, because he abideth forever,
hath his priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he is able to
save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him,
seeing he ever liveth to make intercession from him." Now the
point he's making is not that it is not a bona fide priestly
activity. But it is an activity that has
supremacy over the function of previously appointed priest.
In the functions of priesthood, they die. Therefore, a caste
of priest must be established. It will be the Levitical line,
it will be of the house of Aaron that the chief priests are appointed.
But he says, because Christ has a supreme priesthood, There is
this supremacy in terms of his ability to abide forever, not
to abide beyond the functions of a priest, but he is qualified
to carry on this continual priesthood because death does not have this
power over him. He ever lived to make intercession
for them. But you notice that the supremacy
is within the precincts of priestly function. He ever lives to make
intercession, that is, to do the bona fide activity of a priest. And then that third strand of
emphasis is on the finality and the efficacy of his priestly
function, and you find it in such passages as 9.26 He is contrasting, we could back
up to verse 24, For Christ entered not into a holy place made with
hands, like in pattern to the true, but into heaven itself,
now to appear before the face of God for us. For yet that he
should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into
the holy place year by year with blood not his own else must he
have suffered since the often have suffered since the foundation
of the world but now once at the end of the ages hath he been
manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself so the
emphasis upon the finality and the efficacy is strong in this
section but it is finality and efficacy within the orbit of
priestly function you see The finality and efficacy does not
leave him out of the priestly function, it is finality and
efficacy within the priestly function. So our first proposition,
I trust is amply demonstrated, in accomplishing the work of
redemption, our Lord Jesus Christ functions, present tense, in
the official capacity of a God-appointed priest. The point of all this detailed
instruction then in the book of Hebrews, particularly these
chapters from which I've quoted, is to establish the reality,
supremacy, and finality of Christ's work as a priest. Now the proposition
being established, we must then never think of Christ's work
of redemption separated from this category within which it
inseparably comes to us. The writer to Hebrews describes
the work of redemption as the work of Jesus Christ in the official
God-appointed capacity and functions of a priest. Now, if then the
work of the cross comes to us inseparably joined to that category,
do you see how we do violence to that work if we ever contemplate
it apart from that category? For instance, when the President
of the United States, Gerald Ford, makes a decision relative to
the disposition of a number of troops, he does so as commander-in-chief
of the armies of the United States. a position which he has by virtue
of his appointment to the office of the presidency. Now how foolish
it would be to discuss the disposition of so many divisions of troops
to Central Europe on the part of Gerald Ford and to divorce
it from the very framework within which he made that decision and
expressed that disposition, namely, Commander-in-Chief of the armies
of the United States. Well, likewise, if everything
that Christ did upon the cross he did in the official capacity
of a priest appointed to the priesthood by the Father and
if all that he does now he does in the official capacity of a
priest then how stupid it is how tragic it is any adjective
you want to use to divorce that work and any questions concerning
that work from this position within which or from which he
accomplishes that work. So this approach that I'm suggesting
is not the result of running out to find a specious argument
for constricted views of God's grace. It is simply gazing on
the atonement or rather the atoner as clothed in the priestly robes
with which the Father has adorned him. and we refuse to strip him
of those robes and to contemplate him in any other light. All right,
now proposition two. It's built upon the first. The
primary function of a priest was that of Godward action calculated
to put away sin and to secure access to God for those on whose
behalf he acted. Now I'll run it by again. The
primary function of a priest was that of God-word, g-o-d-w-a-r,
or you may want to make it into one word, God-word action, calculated, this was the end
in view, to put away sin and secure access to God. for those on whose behalf he
acted. The primary function of a priest
was that of Godward action calculated to put away sin and secure access
to God for those on whose behalf he acted. Now proof of that proposition? We might turn to the Old Testament
and see this abundantly demonstrated in the types and shadows of the
Levitical priesthood. However, the writer to the Hebrews
gives us a succinct statement on the whole issue in Hebrews
5 and verse 1. And this is one of the most critical
passages on the whole subject of the priesthood of Christ. Hebrews 5 and verse 1. for every
high priest being taken from among men is appointed for men
in things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices
for sins. Now notice some of the strands
of emphasis in this text. The key idea is expressed in
the words ta pros ton theon some of you may know them in Greek
the things the things pros towards ton theon the things towards
that have concern with reference to in the direction of God so
that the concern of a priest, if we may visually conceptualize
it, is indicated by the direction of his face. His face is toward
God, toward the veil, toward the mercy seat, toward the altar. His back is towards the people. Now, he is appointed four men. he is coming out of the people
on behalf of the people but his concern is the things toward
God if we may draw a contrast the prophet has his back toward
God and his face to the people his ear has heard the voice of
God and he says thus saith the Lord that's the posture of a
prophet to speak in the name of God to the people the posture
of the priest is 180 degrees the other way around His back
is toward the people. Having come out of the people,
on behalf of the people, his face is towards God. And all
of his activities have, as their primary concern, sacrifices for
sins. And the gifts and sacrifices
have reference to sins. And in a sense, even the thank
offerings are thank offerings of pardoned sinners or sinners
for whom sin has been passed over. Hugh Martin has an excellent
paragraph on this very matter, and I quote from him now, page
28, in his section on atonement and priesthood. The action which
he takes, speaking of the priest, has God for its object. Priesthood and all its direct
and immediate actings are directly and immediately toward God. He
is ordained in things pertaining to God. And then he quotes this
phrase from the Greek, Taphros tontaon. The whole aspects and
very of priesthood are towards God. It looks and acts Godward. Its immediate object is God. While it deals with the things
of God, it deals with them not in their aspects towards man,
but in their bearings on God himself, on God's sovereignty
and character and claims and law. Its object, we repeat, is
God. It propitiates God. It intercedes
to God. It satisfies God's justice. It pacifies God's wrath, that
is, the activities of the priest. It secures God's favor. It seals
God's covenant love and gives effect to God's eternal purpose
and grace. Herein it is conspicuously distinguished
from the prophetic and kingly offices of our Lord. These, in
their several actings, have not God for their immediate object,
but mainly the souls of his people. Christ executes the office of
a prophet by revealing to us, and this is a quote from the
Shorter Catechism, by his word and spirit the will of God for
our salvation. Christ executes the office of
a king in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us. And
when his kingly office takes wider action, it is in restraining
and conquering all his and our enemies. There is no possible
excuse, therefore, for confounding the sacerdotal, that is, the
priestly office with either the prophetic or the kingly. Now
you see the point that's being made. And we must keep that in
mind, that when we turn to contemplate the death of Christ in general,
or more particularly the question, for whom did Christ die? He did
that work of oblation with reference to his priestly function which
finds his face towards God. His face towards God, his face
on behalf of his people. Hebrews 9.24 is another key text
that brings this concept into sharp focus. Hebrews 9.24 for Christ entered not into a
holy place made with hands like in pattern to the truth but into
heaven itself now notice the next two phrases now to appear
before the face of God for us appearing before the face of
God for on behalf of us And of course
the us is a specifically identified group of people as he goes on
in this very context, nor yet that he should offer himself
often as the high priest entered into the holy place year by year
with blood not his own, else must he have often suffered since
the foundation of the world, but now Once at the end of the
ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself, and inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to
die, and after this cometh judgment, so Christ also, having been once
offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time apart
from sin to them that wait for him unto salvation. so that the
consummation of redemption is viewed as rooted in the work
that he accomplished in the once for all sacrifice in his appearing
in the presence of God for his people who shall be found at
the last day as waiting for him not unto judgment but unto salvation
so that the compass of the priestly work is very very plainly stated
in this passage to be those who actually come into the possession
of redemption in all of its glorious provisions. Well, we have two
propositions now. Proposition 1, in accomplishing
the work of redemption, our Lord Jesus Christ acts in the official
capacity of a priest. Proposition 2, the primary function
of a priest is Godward action calculated to put away sin and
secure access to God for those on whose behalf he acts. Proposition
3, the fundamental ingredients of priestly action are ovulation
and intercession performed for the identical objects
and securing the same end. The fundamental ingredients of
priestly action are oblation and intercession performed for
the identical objects and securing the identical end. or results. Fundamental ingredients
of priestly action are oblation and intercession performed for
the identical objects and securing the same end. Now the proof of
this? Well in the Old Testament ritual
we could see many examples of this where the slaying of the
victim upon the altar and the presentation of the blood before
the veil or on the annual day of atonement within the veil,
that blood actually sprinkled upon the mercy seat, these were
not to be regarded as two separate and distinct functions. They
were separate elements of one basic function, namely the putting
away of the sin of the people. Now the sin had to be put away
by the offering up of blood. Now there could be no offering
of blood without the slaying of the victim and the gathering
of the blood. But in a real sense, you see, the oblation, the actual
slaying of the victim and the gathering of the blood could
never be regarded as an end in itself. It was a means to the
end that it might be presented at the appointed place where
God says, there I will meet with you and commune with you from
above the mercy seat. And this is made abundantly clear
in the Day of Atonement ritual as outlined in Leviticus 16.
Let me refer you to that passage just briefly. Some of you may
not be familiar with this, so I don't want to assume it. And
yet many of you may be, so I don't want to be tedious in going over
the details. But in verse 9, we have the direction of God
concerning the setting apart of the animals that will be used
in the ritual and Aaron shall present the goat upon which the
lot fell for the Jehovah and shall offer him as a sin offering
but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be set
alive before the Lord to make atonement for him to send him
away for Azazel into the wilderness And then verses 11 through 14,
we have Aaron presenting the bullock of the sin offering for
himself. He must first of all make atonement
for himself and for his own house. That's why the writer to Hebrews
says the priest had to offer up sacrifices for themselves
and then for the people. The priest himself must be cleansed. Now notice how this is to be
done. He shall kill the bullet of the sin offering which is
for himself, and he shall take a censer full of coals of fire
from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet
incense, beat in small, and bring it within the veil, and shall
put the incense upon the fire before Jehovah. The incense gathered
from the altar where the animal had been slain is brought in
now within the veil. and then the coals from off that
altar and then the incense is placed upon those coals that
the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is
upon the testimony that he die not and he shall take of the
blood of the bullock, what blood? of the bullet that was slain,
you see, upon that altar, and sprinkle it with his finger upon
the mercy seat on the east, and before the mercy seat shall he
sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. You see how
God is underscoring the fact that there is an organic relationship
between what happens within the veil with the cloud of incense
and the sprinkling of the blood, and what happened the other side
of the veil in the actual slaying of the animal. lest any should
think that what happened outside the veil had distinct significance
of itself God says no I want you to take some of the very
coals from this side of the veil and I want you to take them to
the other side of the veil so that the incense that ascends
up as the type of the intercession that incense has no reality apart
from that altar outside the veil unless you have hot coals the
incense won't burn The only thing that can release the incense
is the coals from the altar. And likewise, the blood that
is to be sprinkled upon that is the blood that was shed upon
that altar. You see what God was doing? God
was showing them that these activities of the priest Though, because
they are in type and shadow, had, for the sake of illustration,
to be divided up the same way you could not have in the slain
victim the idea of the removal of sin, so you had to have two
ghosts. One that would be sent off in the wilderness to show
that the sins were taken from the people, put out of sight,
taken far from them. But God is saying by means of
this picture that you must never regard the activities of oblation
and intercession as two distinct entities in themselves. No. The
intercession draws its significance from the oblation and the oblation
has its significance as it flows into the intercession. Do you
see it? I don't want to labor the point
beyond what's necessary, but when we get hold of that and
see its application to the work of our Lord, it just opens up
a whole new dimension of appreciation for the death of Christ. Now
what was the whole end? of this business then, of oblation,
intercession, and presentation. Well, the whole end was the putting
away of sin. Chapter 16, verse 30, And on
this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you from
all your sins, shall you be clean before the Lord. Verse 34, And
this shall be an everlasting statute to you, to make an atonement
for the children of Israel, because of all their sins once in the
year. Alright? Proof then of this assumption,
or this assertion, this proposition, that the fundamental ingredients
of priestly action are oblation and intercession, perform for
the identical objects Aaron, his household, the nation of
Israel, securing the same end, that is, atonement, the putting
away of sin. Now in the Lord Jesus, the antitype,
These two functions are inseparably joined in his official capacity
as priest. His work of oblation in which
he himself becomes both offerer and offering. Something you could
never have in the Old Testament type. One of the household of
Aaron had to slay the bullock and offer it. The limitations
demanded two distinct personality, no, a distinct personality and
then the animal. But in the Lord Jesus, he is
able to be both offerer, priest, and offering the lamb that takes
away the sin of the world. And in that work of oblation
and subsequent intercession, In Christ, both things are inseparably
joined. And let's look at three key texts,
not in the book of Hebrews, and then we'll turn to Hebrews where
we have it taught with unmistakable clarity. 1 John 2, verses 1 and 2. Here is the problem
of sin in the lives of the people of God. How is it to be resolved? My little children, these things
write I unto you, that ye may not sin. The end of my instruction
is your progress in holiness. And if any man sin, we have an
advocate. This is John's word that would
be parallel to the concept of an interceding priest. It carries
with it perhaps more legal connotation. But notice, we have an advocate
with the Father. We have one, Jesus Christ the
righteous. whose presence at the right hand
of the Father materially affects the problem of sin in the life
of a believer. There is some relationship between
his advocacy and my sin. Now what's the basis of that
advocacy? And he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours
only but also for the whole world. So propitiation and advocacy
are joined together as the ground of the consolation of the sinning
saint. They are brought together into
an inseparable relationship. You find a similar emphasis in
Romans 8.34. This is the closest thing to
an allusion to the priesthood of Christ in the book of Romans.
an illusion in chapter 5. There may be one or two others,
but this is the closest. There is no explicit teaching
on the priesthood of Christ in the book of Romans, but this
is the closest. Romans 8 and verse 34. The Apostle
is rising to a climactic statement of the tremendous confidence
he has in the triumphs of grace in his life and in the lives
of the people of God. And he hurls this question into
the face of the entire moral universe in verse 34. Who is
he that condemneth? Who can condemn one who is in
Christ? Who can lay anything to the charge
of God's elect? Now he's going to tell us the
basis of that confidence. It is Christ Jesus that died. Oblation. yea, rather, that was
raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who
also maketh intercession for us." Then he asks the next question,
in the light of these realities, who shall separate us from the
love of Christ? So you see, he brings together
the functions or the work of oblation and intercession as
being the grounds of a Christian's confidence as he thinks of the
problem of sin that would otherwise condemn him, his confidence that
he will not be condemned is rooted not alone in the oblation, now
that's the point I want to make, but it finds its climactic expression
in the intercession. It is Christ that died, yea rather,
who is raised, who is seated, who intercedes. And it's in an
understanding of that work of intercession, which is a priestly
function, that his confidence finds, we might say, its strongest
pillar of reference. All right, now the clear teaching
of Hebrews that these two functions of oblation and intercession
are joined together. in the person and work of our
Lord, Hebrews chapter 7. Then I'm going to read a rather
extensive quote from Hugh Martin that stretched my head and after
it got stretched and then I began to understand what he was saying
warmed my heart and increased my appreciation for the work
of the Savior. Hebrews 7, the strand of emphasis here of
course is that Christ is entered with greater dignity as we mentioned
before in verses 20 and following those priests did not enter their
office with oath they were officially anointed and recognized but not
with oath but Christ enters his office as it were carried into
it by the oath of the father the Lord has sworn and will not
repent thou art a priest forever by so much also verse 22 hath
Jesus become the surety of a better covenant They indeed have been
made priests in number, because by death they are hindered from
continuing, but he, because he abideth forever, hath his priesthood
unchangeable. Wherefore also he is able to
save to the uttermost, that is, to the consummation completely,
he is able to accomplish every one of his saving designs, for
those that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth
to make intercession for them." The emphasis here falls upon
the priestly function of intercession which secures a completed salvation. Carrying right on then, verse
26, for such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled,
separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens, who needeth
not daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifices, first
for his own sins, remember what Aaron had to do, and then for
the sins of the people, for this he did once for all when he offered
up himself. Now where is the emphasis? Upon
the oblation. Therefore, in the mind of the
writer to the Hebrews, it doesn't bother him to move from the intercession
back to the oblation, both of which are witnesses of the perfect
salvation procured by our great High Priest. Now we turn to Hebrews
chapter 9, verses 11 and 12. Notice where the emphasis falls.
But Christ, having become a High Priest of good things to come,
to the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands,
that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of
goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in once
for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Here's the picture of the priest.
The offering has been slain. He's now entering into the inner
sanctuary to make the presentation, what we commonly call the intercession. And here the emphasis falls then
upon Christ's activity in this realm. And it's entering into
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. On verses
23-26 in this same chapter, it was necessary therefore that
the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with
these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices
than these, for Christ entered not into a holy place made without
hands, like in pattern to the true, but into heaven itself,
now to appear before the face of God for us. Nor yet that he
should offer himself often as the high priest entereth into
the holy place year by year with blood not his own, else must
he have often suffered since the foundation of the world.
But now, once at the end of the ages, hath he been manifested
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. The phrase sacrifice
of himself obviously refers to the oblation and yet it's in
a context in which he is appearing before the face of God for us. Intercession. So oblation, intercession,
it's as though the writer to the Hebrews almost uses the terminology
interchangeably. Now Hugh Martin catching that opens up what I think is a tremendously
significant vein of thought. And I'm going to read now this
rather extensive quote and pause to make little exegetical comments
on Hugh Martin as I go along. Yes, that's pages 59 and 60. The other reference I should
have given, a general reference along with 1 John 2 Romans 8.34
was the Isaiah 53.11. He bare the sins of many and
made intercession for the transgressors. Yes. Yes, much more being reconciled,
be saved by his light. That was one of the other, what
I would say, implicit references. Yes, that was one of the others
in Romans. You might put that down as a
parallel. Romans 5, 10 and 11. If when we were enemies we were
reconciled by his death, how much more should we be saved
by his life? All right, now put on your thinking
cap and try to follow as I read from Hugh Martin. For this reason we must proceed
a step further. We have seen that neither Paul
nor Isaiah nor John, having quoted these three verses, having spoken
of the atonement, imagines these introducing a generically new
thing when he introduces a reference to the intercession. They are,
that is, atonement, intercession, They are in their theology manifestly
most intimately related and in fact homogeneous. They flow into
one. But this is not all. Scripture
warrants us to affirm something more than a very intimate connection
between these two. That does not exhaust the scriptural
representation and indeed it seems impossible to exhaust the
profound truth on this point without betaking ourselves to
the language of paradox. Nor need that excite surprise,
for in all the more profound departments of thought, the occurrence
of paradox is an evidence of accuracy rather than of error.
Christ is truly God, as much God as though he were never man.
He is truly man as though he were never God. That's the paradox
that is the truth concerning the person of Christ. That's
the point he's making. The paradox to which we seem in this case
to be driven would be something like this. The essence of the
intercession is atonement, and the atonement is essentially
an intercession. Or perhaps, to put the paradox
more mildly, the atonement is real, real sacrifice and offering
and not mere passive endurance because it is in its very nature
an active and infallible intercession. while on the other hand the intercession
is real intercession judicial representative and priestly intercession
and not a mere exercise of influence because it is essentially an
atonement or substitutionary oblation once perfected on Calvary
now perpetually presented and undergoing perpetual acceptance
in heaven hang in there Now this will become evident if we can
adduce one passage of scripture which attributes the whole of
our salvation to the atonement, and another which attributes
the whole of our salvation to the intercession. He's saying
now if all our salvation is dependent on the intercession, then obviously
the intercession must include the atonement. If we find another
that puts the whole salvation on the shoulders of the atonement,
it must be because it's atonement including the intercession. I
think his point is a valid one. Like the passages that simply
say, believe, they include that it's a penitent faith. Others
that simply say, repent, it's a believing repentance. For we
know that involved in the saving complex of a true response to
the gospel is repentance and faith. Now the point Hugh Martin
is making is, if we can find a passage that says, we're saved
by the intercession, it must be intercession as the extension
of atonement. If we find one that says, saved
by atonement, it must be atonement issuing an intercession so that
we have oblation and intercession together as the one complex of
priestly activity which secures the redemption of the people
of God. Well, he finds such passages, and I've already read them to
you. Hebrews 10, 14. By this one offering he hath perfected
forever them that are sanctified. their perfection rests upon the
what? The one offering. Yet we read
in Hebrews 7.25, their perfection rests upon the perpetual intercession.
Wherefore he is able to say to perfection, to the uttermost,
Then that cometh to God by him, seeing he what? Ever liveth to
make intercession. Well, is the perfection of salvation
dependent upon the one offering or upon the perpetual intercession?
Well, Hugh Martin's point would be You don't make an either or
choice. In saying it rests upon the one
offering, it is the one offering in this biblical category of
a priestly function that has no significance apart from intercession. The shedding of the blood was
a means to the end of presentation. And the presentation had no significance
apart from the valid offering up of an innocent victim. Now
that's the point that he's making that just bristles with theological
implications. You see, our salvation does not
rest upon some general influence that Christ exerts upon the Father
in heaven. It is an influence rooted upon
the bloodletting of Calvary. And the bloodletting of Calvary
has no influence apart from the priest who presents its virtue
in the presence of the Father. You see it? and the two are wonderfully
joined together. Then he goes on to say, on reading
these utterances of inspiration it is natural or rather inevitable
to ask, if our salvation even to its perfection is secured
by the one offering, what need of the intercession? If our salvation
even to the uttermost is secured by the intercession, what needed
the atonement? How, on what principle, can the
offering and the intercession thus apparently mutually exclude
and ignore each other? The answer is that apparently
they mutually exclude each other because they do really mutually
and reciprocally include each other. The offering by which
alone we are perfected is not the passive endurance or suffering
of the cross, but that active priestly offering of the cross
which is prolonged without suffering unto the function of the intercession. You see, the point he's making
is that our salvation does not rest upon Christ, as it were,
being the innocent victim at the hands of His Father, who
just passively endured the wrath of God. No. He's saying upon
the cross it was a priestly action. And as Christ is both offering
and offerer, He is willingly giving up Himself to the Father. He is willingly placing Himself
upon the altar. He is willingly taking upon Himself
the wrath of God against human sin and what is the intercession,
but the continuous expression of that very willingness as He
now presents Himself before the Father on behalf of His people. saying, in essence, Father, here
are the living reminders of that which I willingly bore for my
people and for my sake. Give them all the blessings secured
and promised in that eternal covenant of redemption. Well,
I don't know what that does for you, brethren, but that's more
than I can bear to think that we have such a salvation as this.
The intercession by which we are saved even to the uttermost
is just the perpetual presentation of the continual burnt offering
of Calvary, which is an active offering, subsists in perpetuity
and belongs to eternity, while the suffering of the cross belongs
to history and the past. What did John see when the vision
was opened in heaven? He said, I saw a lamb as it had
been slain in the midst of the throne. Now, he doesn't bring
that text in, but it flashed into my mind when I read this.
See, the point Hugh Martin is making is that the agony and
the suffering of that priestly work is limited to time and space. It is finished. That aspect of
the work is done. But the virtue of that offering
and sacrifice is as presently before the Father now as the
moment in which the Lord Jesus died upon the cross. For as in
the typical dispensation, so in Christ, the antitype. The two altars of sacrifice and
incense were combined and correlative instruments of official action
to the priest in the one complete office of his priesthood. That
was the point I was making. You see the coals from the one
being brought to the other and they constituted component and
indispensable factors of one complete act of sacrificial worship. The same functionary or office
bearer, that is priest, transacted it both He transacted for the
selfsame person or persons, the blood of the selfsame sacrifice
that he had slain and offered on the one altar he sprinkled
upon the horns of the other. To dislocate or derange this
coordination would be to negate his official action in its intrinsic
importance, to annihilate the gracious results of his priestly
intervention, and indeed to evert his office utterly. His action
at the altar of atonement was prerequisite to his approach
to the altar of incense, and the successful achievement which
signalized his action at the latter, that is, he wasn't killed
when he was there within the veil, revealed beyond the possibility
of doubt the nature and efficacy of the services which he had
accomplished at the former. While only in virtue of the two,
in their combination and synthesis, was Aaron's priesthood a real
priesthood at all. Oh, think of what it meant for
an Israelite. There he is offering up the blood of that bullet where
he can be seen. Then he goes where he can't be
seen. And you say, does God accept what he brings? He's taken the
coals with tongs, put them in a bowl. He has the bowl of the
blood of the offering. He goes in. Is God going to pass
over our sins for another year? Will God be pleased with what
he's doing out of sight? He comes back out alive, man,
and they know that what happened here was accepted there and has
resulted in the raised hands of blessing. And I believe it's
significant the final posture in which the visible church saw
our Lord was what posture? You read the last words of Luke.
And as he parted from them, he lifted up his hands. Have you
ever caught that in Luke's account? Look at it. Luke chapter 24. Verse 15. He led them out until
they were over against Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and
blessed them. And it came to pass, notice now,
not after he blessed them, but while he blessed them, he parted
from them, and this carried him to heaven. Our Lord departed
with his hands raised in priestly blessing. He was slain upon the
altar when he offered up himself upon the cross. His resurrection
was the Father's witness to the acceptability of the sacrifice
made and in symbolic and I believe that this is what we have here
is a priestly action of our Lord he wants his people to know that
blessing is now their portion because sin is put away not only
because something happened upon the altar but because the priest
himself is going into the true sanctuary there to make this
perpetual presentation of the virtue of his own sacrifice in
the presence of the Father And so the fundamental ingredients
of priestly action are oblation and intercession performed for
the identical objects and securing the same ends. The Old Testament
priest, when he was offering up a sacrifice for himself and
his household, it included none but himself and his household,
but everyone within the orbit of the intention of his action. when he then began to act on
behalf of the nation, the people, he acted on behalf of those people,
not all the pagan nations around him, but he was the representative
of the nation and he acted on their behalf, securing the benefits
of that particular priesthood. And so when our blessed Lord
upon the cross takes the position of both priest and offering,
offerer and offering in those agonizing hours upon Calvary,
and then passes into the true sanctuary in the language of
Hebrews 9 ever living to intercede There's question now, does he
verbally intercede? Do we take a clue from John 17
and some theologians say no? Christ now in his exaltation
does not need to make petitions. That was part of his period of
humiliation. Just his presence is the only
plea the Father needs. Well, I wouldn't debate the issue
except if we're going to stick with scripture, I think we must
say that there is a form of asking that is yet his portion. Ask
of me and I will give thee. the nations for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." That's
the language of Psalm 2. Now whether Christ actually verbally
asked, that to me is impudent even to consider. I don't know
what the interactions between the persons of the Trinity are,
but I believe I am warranted to conceive of it in the categories
of Scripture. God accommodates Himself to my
weakness, and I believe it is right for me to think of my Lord
at the right hand of the Father. pleading, not with the plea of
doubt or uncertainty, but the plea of covenant engagement that
the Father would do in me everything Jesus Christ purchased to accomplish
in me. And the plea is rooted in the
reality of the presentation of Himself before the Father in
the virtue of all that He has accomplished for His people.
Now do you see what happens when you come to the question at hand?
For whom did Christ die? Did he die for all men indiscriminately
and distributively, the majority of which will never come to faith
and repentance, let alone to perfection? You see the relationship
of putting the cross in this category and its impingement
upon that question? Consider the consequences of
denying the definite design of the atonement. If we deny that
Christ died specifically and exclusively for his own people,
see what you do to this grand teaching that we've considered
this morning. The first tragic result is it fractures the two
facets of the priestly work. It fractures the two facets of
the priestly work. It makes the oblation to go out and encompass all the
world of mankind indiscriminately, and then it takes the intercession
and limits it only to those who ultimately believe. It fractures
what in the whole structure of the biblical notion of priesthood
must never be fractured. Oblation and intercession are
simply two aspects of the one act of putting away sin. The second tragic result is it
weakens the efficacy of his priestly work. His oblation then does
not really put away sin and become the basis of authoritative intercession
that applies all of the benefits of redemption to those for whom
he was a sacrifice. It weakens the efficacy of the
priestly work. We either have to say he actually
made an oblation for some who never come to faith, or he intercedes
for some who never come to faith. What efficacy is there? The whole
language of Hebrews is that he is a true priest. who accomplishes
what he set out to do. He has put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself. He doesn't say he's made putting
away of sin possible, hypothetically available. No, no. He has put
away sin. Now that's strong language. He's
actually put it away. And his intercession actually
secures the perfection of those for whom he intercedes. And then
the third tragic result of denying the definite design of the atonement
when considered as a priestly act of Christ is, it undermines
the ground of assurance based upon his priestly work. The doctrine of Christ's priestly
work, according to the Apostle Paul in Romans 8, is the pinnacle
point of assurance. Christ died, yea rather, is risen,
who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedeth. Well, you see, if there's non-efficacy
in the work of his priesthood, then what ground is there for
assurance? In spite of his praying, in spite
of his having put away sin by the oblation, I may yet put myself
out of the orbit of grace. What ground of assurance? If
he died and intercedes as much for Judas as he does for Paul,
what ground of assurance is there? So this is filled with many practical
implications. When the child of God begins
to grasp the wonderful truth that he has a high priest who
has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, who has
passed through the heavens infallibly to secure all the benefits procured
by his oblation, Then you see the language of the writer to
Hebrews becomes meaningful. Let us therefore come boldly
with confidence, with freedom to the throne of grace to obtain
mercy and find grace to help. Why? How can I come boldly to
obtain? Because that obtaining is rooted.
in what Christ by his oblation has won for me, and by his intercession
secures for me. Romans 8.32 He that spared not
his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not
with him also freely give us all things? See, when I begin
to understand that my salvation, as regards myself, is all a matter
of grace, but as regards Jesus Christ, it's all a matter of
debt. You got that? My salvation, and all that's
involved in it, is, with reference to me, a matter of grace. It's something I do not deserve,
and no facet of it is deserved by me. Paul says, I am what I
am by the grace of God. But my salvation, as it relates
to Christ, is a matter of debt. It is a matter of debt. Christ
is fulfilled all the obligations contracted in the covenant of
redemption on behalf of his people and therefore all that he procures
from me is a matter of debt to him and what a wonderful thing
when we understand salvation by grace and salvation by debt
and the two stand or fall together you see if I introduce any notion
that somehow Christ is not merited all that is necessary for my
salvation then you see I've got to contribute something and then
it's grace plus something grace plus my faith grace plus my repentance
grace plus my something else you see but when I understand
the biblical teaching of salvation it's all of grace to me and all
of debt to him and it's all of grace to me because it is all
of debt to him blessed be God for such a savior for such a
salvation. I read yesterday, and I want
to give you a little bibliography in closing. I read a sermon by Thornwell
on the priesthood of Christ that he preached at the commencement
of the College of South Carolina. He said on memorable occasions
like these, he said, I like to take fundamental gospel truths
and impress them on the minds of the hearers. And I thought,
what a privileged bunch they were. to have heard things that
here I am, considered middle-aged in a few years, and just beginning
to examine, as it were, the fringes of such wonderful things. And
I trust that God will so burn these truths into the hearts
of some of you men that your congregations and your wives
and children, whoever you influence, will, as it were, cut their teeth
in infancy upon these truths that are so central to scripture.
And I said to Mr. Fisher yesterday when we met
to talk and to pray, I said, where in the world have I been
all my life? It's something so central to the teaching of the
book of Hebrews. No one's ever opened it up to me. No one's
even tried to open it up to me. And all the consolations I've
been robbed of and all those that I've robbed my people of
because of my own constricted views. We can't go back and relive
the past, but we can sure hope and pray and labor for better
things in the days to come, and I trust that you men will prayerfully
absorb this wonderful teaching of the Word of God concerning
the death of Christ as the death of him who was in the office
of a priest, and feed your soul upon the great reality of it
in The point that Thornwell makes in that book that is so profound
is that he had obviously just been contrasting with an in-depth
study, the emphasis of Romans with the emphasis of Hebrews,
and his basic thesis is this, it's volume two, pages 263 to
290, Thornwell's works 263 to 290. His thesis is this, that
the main lines of emphasis in Romans are upon the legal aspects
of our salvation. that if God is to be just and
the justifier of sinners, then someone must meet all the demands
of law. And God has ordained that in
our federal representative, the Lord Jesus, that should be done.
The second Adam, the man from heaven, Romans 5, 12-21. But, the point he makes is that
we could assume from the book of Romans that our assurance,
standing at this point in time, looking up into the face of a
holy God with the problem of our cloud of sin, that our assurance
is primarily or exclusively based upon though there are these hints
in Romans 5 and a little hint in Romans 8 but the dominant
emphasis is that there upon the cross God poured out his wrath
upon his own son he was made a propitiation and now through
faith in his blood God is both just and justifier of him that
hath faith in Jesus so that the primary focus of our faith and
contemplation would be upon the past act in which the Lord Jesus
put away sin however he says what the book of Hebrews does
is to supplement this by showing us that all the virtue of that
past act is not efficacious before God now as he would speaking
humanly look back upon the death of his son but rather at his
own right hand is our high priest presently ministering in the
sanctuary of God making, as it were, eloquent, in the presence
of God, in the present moment, all the virtue of that oblation.
And so the language is, having then a great high priest, let
us draw near. You see? So that it brings it
all into the most intimate, personal realm of communion and fellowship
with Jesus Christ as our present priest. I just found that opening
up whole new dimensions. Will you forgive me if I'm rambling
now? My own mind has just been so triggered by this. And I think
that's a bona fide contrast, don't you, Don? That he's making,
not a contradiction, but a wonderful synthesis. And then it underscored
again what we had said, as we get involved in the training
situation, we've got to have an exegesis course in Romans
and in Hebrews. You see? And then to see that
two-fold emphasis being brought together for the benefit of the
people of God. All right, the rest of the bibliography,
oh, in volume 10, Or you may have the old edition that originally
came out that's just the death of death and the death of Christ,
and you'll have to look up the chapter that deals with this,
but in volume 10, it's pages 179 to 200. And he not only deals
with the concept of the death of Christ as a bona fide act
of priesthood, But then he deals with the objections to the arguments
based on his intercession. And he takes the objection that
some take the verse, well Jesus prayed for people who weren't
converted when he said, Father forgive them for they know not
what they do. Some of those things. And when Owen's done answering
the objectors, I wouldn't want to be one of the objectors. I think I'd go home with my tail
between my leg if not cut off. All right, and then Hugh Martin,
page 23 to 87 in this particular edition by Mack, which is no
longer available, but I'm going to find out where we can get
hold of Hugh Martin on the Atonement that is being reprinted by one
of the Scottish printing houses, I believe. It doesn't have Hodge's
book in front of it. This is the two books, Hodge
on the Atonement and Hugh Martin, page 23 to 87. And then Hodge's
work on the Atonement, pages 83 to 88. Just five pages, but
some very good biblical materials. So Owen, volume 10, 179 to 200.
Hugh Martin on the Atonement, 23 to 87. Hodge, 83 to 88. Thornwell,
volume 2, 263 to 290.