lesser typical sacrifice of the law.  If the Sacrifice of Christ be

'different', in that the Old Testament sacrifices merely 'covered' sin,

whereas Christ's Offering 'took it away', then the Sacrifice of Christ would

be different in kind rather than in degree.  The point at issue is, did the

Levitical sacrifices 'cover' sin, or did they foreshadow the only true

covering for sin provided by the offering of Christ?  We have seen the

following important facts:

There is not a single passage in the Old Testament where kaphar

is translated 'cover'.

The reference to 'pitching the ark with pitch' is separated from

Jacob's use of kaphar by seven hundred years, the confusion of

tongues at Babel, the call of Abraham, and the change of meaning

that is established by usage and special selection.

The conception of 'ransom' is found in a book that antedates the

time of Moses, namely the book of Job, which shows that even as

early as a few generations after Abraham the word had already a

fixed propitiatory meaning.

One further study seems necessary to round the matter off and that is a

consideration of the relation which the Scriptures have established between

the Old Testament sacrifices and the One Offering of Christ.  First of all

let us note what is common to both.

Sacrifice.  There is no need to quote chapter and verse for this word.

In the New Testament Christ is said to have appeared to put away sin by the

Sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26).  His Sacrifice is declared to be 'better'

(Heb. 9:23) but not different in kind.  'Christ our Passover is sacrificed

for us' (1 Cor. 5:7) not only brings out the term 'sacrifice', but the

specific offering of the Passover.  Moreover, Christ is said to have given

Himself 'for an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet -smelling savour'

(Eph. 5:2).  In these references, Passover, Sin Offering and Burnt Offering

are found to be fulfilled by the One Offering of the Saviour, together with a

fulfilment of such typical accompaniments as 'unleavened bread' and 'sweet

smell'.  The Lord Jesus is yet again set forth as 'a Lamb without blemish and

without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19), thereby recognizing that the physical perfection

of the Levitical offerings foreshadowed the moral perfection of the Saviour's

Sacrifice.  The essential element in the Atonement is 'the shedding of

blood'.  This is explained in Leviticus 17:11 to be because 'the blood makes

an atonement by reason (R.V.) of the soul'.  Of Christ it is said that He

'poured out His soul unto death', that His blood was shed for the remission

of sins (Matt. 26:28), and by it we today have 'redemption' (Eph. 1:7).  If

it was the body of Jesus Christ that was offered for our sins (Heb. 10), so

also 'the bodies' of those beasts, burned without the camp, whose blood was

taken into the sanctuary, became a type of Him Who suffered 'without the

gate'.  While the Epistle to the Hebrews stresses at every turn the

superiority of the Priesthood and Offering of Christ above all types and

shadows, there is equal stress that those priests and offerings were 'types

and shadows' and not something quite different.  After having spoken of the

priesthood of Aaron, Hebrews 5:5 says, 'So also Christ'.  Where the types

came short, is not in their character but in their natural incapacity.

Christ had no need, blessed be God, to offer any sacrifice for Himself.  He

entered into heaven's holiest of all not with the blood of others, but with

'His Own blood'.  He did not offer sacrifices 'continually', He offered 'one

Sacrifice for sins for ever'.