likeness of sinful flesh, and 'we are sanctified through the offering of the

body of Jesus Christ, once for all'.

The great difference between all typical offerings and the once -

offered Sacrifice of Christ is that they failed to purge the conscience, and

so were offered 'year by year', whereas His Offering 'perfecteth for ever'

those who are sanctified.  This feature is emphasized in the contrast between

the Levitical priest standing daily offering oftentimes the same sacrifices

that can never take away sins, and the Lord Jesus Christ Whose Offering was

so effective that 'after He had offered One Sacrifice for sins for ever, sat

The worshippers who offered the typical sacrifices were 'purged' or

'purified' so far as the flesh is concerned, but not as to the conscience.

The argument of Hebrews 9:13,14 is 'how much more' shall the blood of Christ

accomplish that which was only set forth in type and shadow, not that the

typical sacrifices did one thing temporarily, but that He did another thing

permanently.  Not only did Christ gather up all types and shadows in His once

-offered Sacrifice, He fulfilled their varied and peculiar intentions.  He

fulfilled the great type of the Passover (1 Cor. 5:7), and was the Lamb

without blemish and without spot (1 Pet. 1:19).  He fulfilled the type of the

Burnt Offering and its sweet savour (Eph. 5:2); as also the Sin Offering (2

Cor. 5:21) and the Peace Offering (Eph. 2:13,14; Col. 1:20).

A type or shadow must obviously fall short of the antitype, but

anything that foreshadows must possess an essential likeness to it; a shadow

cast by a cube, will not lead to the discovery of a globe.  We rejoice to see

how infinitely greater the Offering of Christ was, and must be, above all

typical offerings by whomsoever offered, but we also rejoice to realize how

clearly and fully His One Offering was foreshadowed and anticipated.  So much

so, that long before Christ came, David could speak of a washing that should

be 'whiter than snow'.

We return to our original question, and to the answer which the

subsequent pages of this study have supplied.  We believe that the word

atonement should be allowed to stand in Romans 5:11, for it links the

propitiation and reconciliation accomplished by Christ, with the Old

Testament atonement foreshadowed by the type.  We have seen that the idea of

a 'mere' covering is never found in the Old Testament; that the consistent

usage of kaphar from the days of Job and of Jacob to the end of the New

Testament is 'appeasement' or 'propitiation', and that the full idea of

kaphar is expressed by the words 'to cover by cancellation', a blessing set

forth in type and shadow by the sum of money taken as an equivalent for life

forfeited or the ransom paid, which looked forward to the greater Ransom, the

greater price paid, with its equally greater deliverance.

The definition of the Atonement offered by Morison, while suffering as

all such attempts must from the immensity of the subject, is nevertheless a

definition that has much to commend it:

'The Atonement is an expedient introduced into the Divine moral

government, consisting of the obedience unto death of Jesus Christ,

which has completely removed all legal obstacles standing between man

and the attainability of salvation'.

Robert Paterson of Blantyre commenting on this definition, re -

drafted it and presented it in the following form: