offered one sacrifice unto perpetuity, never to be repeated, yet we are equally taught that

that one offering has more than one aspect, and more than one effect. This will be still

further seen when we consider the references to the Cross, and to the Sufferings, both a

part of the one offering, yet capable of being viewed as distinct in their respective

We have seen that the Scriptures, while viewing the offering of the Lord Jesus Christ

as one, connect different results with the different phases of that one offering. The death

of Christ, we found, covered all who died in Adam, whereas the blood of Christ was shed

in a covenant capacity, or is essentially related to faith. We have already alluded to the

analogy of the various Levitical offerings. All our readers would agree, we trust, that the

sin-offering, the peace-offering, and the whole burnt-offering are directly typical of the

one sacrifice offered by Christ, yet we believe that they would equally assert that the

doctrine that pertains to the sin offering differs very essentially from that of the whole

burnt offering. As it is in the type, so it is in the Antitype, we must be prepared, in this,

to try the things that differ.

We now consider the teaching of the Scriptures concerning the cross of Christ. There

must have been some real reason in the divine plan that made so shameful a death a

necessity. Had death simply been necessary, there were various ways in which such

death could have been endured, without the suffering and the shame of the cross. The

death could have taken place without the necessity of the shedding of blood, hence, these

various aspects of the one great offering are to be distinguished, and their various effects

kept apart. To confound things that differ here at the very centre of things must of

necessity lead to grievous errors.  If the truth that Christ died for all is taken as

tantamount to teaching that He shed His blood for all, that He endured the cross for all,

that He suffered for all, then all without exception must receive the results. But if the

death for all is wider in its scope than the shedding of the blood of the covenant, then to

teach universal salvation from I Cor. 15: 22 may prove to be as illogical as it appears to

be unscriptural.

It is a fact that calls careful attention that the first references to a cross in the N.T. are

made by the Lord to His disciples, before He told them that He Himself was to be put to

death by crucifixion. This indicates that the cross had some definite association, and it

will be well for us to allow the Lord's own lesson to take its place before we attempt to

discover the deeper meaning of the cross of Christ.

Matt. 10: 38; 16: 24; Mark 8: 34; 10: 21; Luke 9: 23; and 14: 27 are the

reference to those passages which we quote in order that their combined testimony may

be unmistaken.