their part in the affairs of our earth and the beginning of the human
race upon it. I am passing by the evident allegory of Genesis as to
the earth origin of Adam and Eve. Our doctrine regard these first
parents of the human race as simply coming from another sphere upon a
mission to this earth to perform the work assigned them in peopling
the earth as prepared for them at their advent. The account in Genesis
of man's earth origin, of his being made of the dust of the earth, and
woman manufactured from man's rib gives in allegory the process of
the generation of human life. But human life is but a continuation of
pre-earth existing life which has no beginning and which will have no
end, being of the eternal things. So that in the system of philosophic
thought that is born of the revelations in which the New Dispensation
of the gospel has its origin, man was not moulded from the earth as
a brick nor woman manufactured from a rib; but, as well stated by
Elder Parley P. Pratt, the earth having been prepared and made ready
for the human race, "A royal planter now descends from yonder world
of older date, and bearing in his hand the choice seeds of the older
Paradise, he plants them in the virgin soil of our new born earth. They
grow and flourish there, and, bearing seed, replant themselves, and
thus clothed the naked earth with scenes of beauty, and-the air with
fragrant incense. Ripening fruits and herbs at length abound. When lo!
from yonder world is transferred every species of animal life. Male
and female, they come, with blessings on their heads, and a voice is
heard again, "Be fruitful and multiply." Earth, its mineral, vegetable
and animal wealth, its Paradise prepared, down comes from yonder world
on high a son of God, with his beloved spouse. And thus a colony from
heaven * * * is transplanted on our soil. The blessings of their Father
are upon them, and the first great law of heaven and earth is again
repeated, "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, the nations which have
swarmed our earth." "Key to Theology," Ch. vi.]
[Footnote B: Titus i:2. Also Book of Moses, Ch. v:1-12. For a fuller
consideration of the facts of the text see Seventy's Year Book II,
Lesson XI. Notes 5 and 6.]
[Footnote C: Book of Moses (Pearl of Great Price) Ch. v. 10-12.]
_4. Book of Mormon View of the Fall--Necessary to the Purposes of
God:_ After a most remarkable process of reasoning upon the fact of
opposite existences, good and evil, sin and righteousness, and reaching
the conclusion that there "must needs be an opposition in all things,"
the Nephite prophet applies his principles to the fall of Adam in the
following passage:
"To bring about his [God's] eternal purposes in the end of man,
after he had created our first parents. * * * It must needs be that
there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition
to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter;
wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for
himself. Wherefore man could not act for himself, save it should be
that he was enticed by the one or the other. And I, Lehi, according
to the things which I have read, must needs suppose, that an angel
of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven;
wherefore he became a devil, having sought that which was evil
before God, and because he had fallen from heaven, and had become
miserable for ever he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent,
who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he
said, Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye
shall be as God, knowing good and evil. And after Adam and Eve had
partaken of the forbidden fruit, they were driven out of the garden
of Eden, to till the earth. And they have brought forth children;
yea, even the family of all the earth. And the days of the children
of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they
might repent while in the flesh: wherefore, their state became a
state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to
the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men.
For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed
unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of
their parents. And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he
would not have fallen; but he would have remained in the garden of
Eden. And all things which were created, must have remained in the
same state in which they were, after they were created; and they
must have remained forever, and had no end. _And they would have
had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of
innocence,_ having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good,
for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the
wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be;
and men are that they might have joy."[A]
[Footnote A: II Nephi ii:15-25. For a treatise on "Opposite
Existences," see "New Witnesses for God," Vol. III, pp. 219-227.]
_5. Summary of Views of the Fall:_ I shall depend on the two
foregoing passages, to sustain, in large measure, the views of this
lesson, viz., that the fall of Adam was not an accident; that it did
not surprise the purposes of God with reference to man's earth-life,
much less thwart them; that the fall was as much embraced in the
sovereign purposes of God with reference to the earth-life of man as
was the Atonement; that without the first the second could not be; that
the transition from heaven conditions to earth conditions, the fall,
in some way was connected with the propagation of the earth-life of
man: "Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed"
is the declaration of Eve, allowed to stand in the Book of Moses as
an undoubted truth. But for the transgression of Adam, as the Prophet
Lehi tells us, in the above passage, "all things which were created,
must have remained in the same state which they were [in] after they
were created; and they must have remained forever and had no end. _And
they_ [Adam and Eve] _would have had no children_: Wherefore they
would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they
knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." But Adam made
the necessary transition from a state of mere innocence, he fell that
man might be, and that the experiences of earth-life might follow, and
eventuate in something better and greater than mere innocence, _viz._,
in virtue; which is goodness, and strength, acquired by conquest of
evil.[A]
[Footnote A: See Seventy's Year Book No. II, Part II, Lesson IX, p. 50.
On this distinction between mere innocence and virtue, Professor Joseph
Le Conte of the University of California says: "It will, I think,
be admitted by all that innocence and virtue are two very different
things. Innocence is a pre-established, virtue a self-established,
harmony of spiritual activities. The course of human development,
whether individual or racial, is from innocence through more or less
discord and conflict to virtue. And virtue completed, regarded as a
condition, is holiness, as an activity, it is spiritual freedom. Not
happiness nor innocence but virtue is the goal of humanity. Happiness
will surely come in the train of virtue, but if we seek primarily
happiness we miss both. Two things must be borne steadily in mind;
virtue is the goal of humanity; virtue can not be given, it must be
self-acquired. * * * Why could not man have been made a perfectly
pure, innocent, happy being, unplagued by evil and incapable of sin? I
answer: The thing is impossible even to Omnipotence, because it is a
contradiction in terms. Such a being would also be incapable of virtue,
would not be a moral being at all, would not in fact be man. We can not
even conceive of a moral being without freedom to choose. We can not
even conceive of virtue without successful conflict with solicitations
to debasement. But these solicitations are so strong and so often
overcome us, that we are prone to regard the solicitations themselves
as essential evil, instead of our weak surrender to them." (Evolution
and Its Relation to Religious Thought--1902--pp. 372-3.)]
LESSON IX.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT IN ANCIENT TIMES--THE OLD TESTAMENT.
ANALYSIS.
I. The First Promise of an Atonement.
II. Adam's Sacrifices and the Atonement.
III. The Mosaic Sacrifices:
1. The Sin Offering.
2. The Day of Atonement.
IV. The Christian Fathers on the Significance of Ancient Sacrifices.
REFERENCES.
Genesis iii; Book of Moses (P. of G. P.), Chs. v and vi.
Hebrews Chs. ix and x. Dr. William Smith's Old Testament History, Chs.
ii and Appendix to Book III, Sec. iv--"Sacrifices and Oblations."
Smith's Bible Dictionary (Hackett Edition), Vol. IV, Art. "Sacrifices."
Also Kitto's Biblical Literature, Art. "Sacrifices."
"Mediation and Atonement" (Pres. John Taylor), Ch. xvi.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "When Moses had spoken every precept to all the people
according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and
all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God
hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the
tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things
are by the law purged with blood and without shedding of blood is no
remission." (Heb. ix:19-22.)_
DISCUSSION.
_1. The Idea of an Atonement of Ancient Origin:_ From the earliest
times the fact of an Atonement for man is foreshadowed. "The serpent
beguiled me, and I did eat," said Eve, to the Lord. "And the Lord God
said unto the serpent * * * I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel."[A]
[Footnote A: Gen. iii:13, 15.]
In this passage Christians with justice have always seen the
proclamation of the good tidings of the final victory over sin. "It is
in Christ that the seed of the woman crushes the serpent."[A]
[Footnote A: Dummelow's Commentary on Gen. iii.]
_2. Atonement Foreshadowed in Ancient Sacrifices:_ The Atonement
is also foreshadowed in the sacrifices of burnt offerings of Adam, his
son Abel and the early Bible patriarchs. So meagre is the Bible account
of the origin of sacrifices that some have doubted if they bore any
relation to the sacrifice to be offered by the Christ, or were at all
of divine origin.[A] Our scripture, however, the Book, of Moses, sets
the matter at rest for Latter-day Saints; for there it is written:
[Footnote A: "In tracing the history of sacrifice, from its first
beginning to its perfect development in the Mosaic ritual, we are at
once met by the long-disputed question, as to the origin of sacrifice;
whether it arose from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned and guided
by God, or whether it was the subject of some distinct primeval
revelation. * * * The great difficulty in the theory which refers it to
a distinct command of God, is the total silence of Holy Scriptures--a
silence the more remarkable, when contrasted with the distinct
reference made in Gen. ii to the origin of the Sabbath. Sacrifice,
when first mentioned, in the case of Cain and Abel, is referred to as
a thing of course; it is said to have been 'brought' by men; there is
no hint of any command given by God. This consideration, the strength
of which no ingenuity has been able to impair, although it does not
actually disprove the formal revelation of sacrifice; yet at least
forbids the assertion of it, as of a positive and important doctrine."
(Smith's "Bible Dictionary"--Hackett ed.--Art. "Sacrifice," Vol. IV, p.
2770).
Was sacrifice in its origin "a human invention or a divine institution;
and whether any of the sacrifices before the law, or under the law,
were sacrifices of expiation. Eminent and numerous are the authorities
on both sides of these questions; but the balance of theological
opinion preponderated greatly for the affirmative in each of them. On
the lower point, however, (viz., were the sacrifices sacrifices of
expiation) most of those who deny that there was an expiatory sacrifice
before the law, admit its existence under the law; and on the first,
those who hold that sacrifice was of divine origin, but became much
corrupted, and was restored by the Mosaic law, do not in substance
differ much from those who hold it to have been a human invention,
formally recognized, and remodelled by the law of Moses." Kitto's
"Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature," Art. "Sacrifices." The difficulty
and doubt in respect of both questions presented by these authorities
is overcome by the passage which follows in the text from the Book of
Moses.]
"And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and
they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden
of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were
shut out from his presence. And he gave unto them commandments,
that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the
firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord.[A] And
Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord. And after many
days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou
offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him, I know not,
save the Lord commanded me. And then the angel spake saying: This
thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the
Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do
all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent
and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore. And in that
day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the
Father and the Son, saying: I am the only begotten of the Father
from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast
fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as
will."
[Footnote A: This doubtless gives the ground of explanation for the
acceptance of Abel's offering for a sacrifice, the firstlings of his
flock; and the rejection of Cain's offering, the fruits of the ground
(Gen. iv:3-7). The one was brought in compliance with the appointment
of God, the other was not of divine appointment, but was an unwarranted
deviation from the commandment, hence, "the Lord had respect unto
Abel and his offering," but not unto Cain's. In Kitto's article on
"Sacrifices" there is another very great reason urged as to why Abel's
sacrifice was acceptable and why Cain's was not. It is reasonable, and
in harmony with the importance of the whole doctrine of the Atonement,
and I have nowhere else found the idea so well expressed. "It amounts
then to this--that Cain, by bringing an eucharistic (expressing thanks
merely) offering, when his brother brought one which was expiatory,
denied virtually that his sins deserved death, or that he needed the
blood of Atonement. Some go further, and allege that in the text
itself, God actually commanded Cain to offer a piacular [expiatory,
atoning] sacrifice. The argument does not require this additional
circumstance; but it is certainly strengthened by it. When Cain became
angry that Abel's offering was regarded with divine complacency, and
his own refused, God said to him, 'Why art thou wroth; and why is thy
countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.' Now the word
'chattah,' translated 'sin' denotes in the law a 'sin-offering' and the
word translated 'lieth' is usually applied to the recumbency of the
beast. It is therefore proposed to translate the clause, 'sin-offering
coucheth at the door; which by paraphrase would mean, 'an animal fit
for a sin-offering is here, couching at the door, which thou mayest
offer in sacrifice, and thereby render to me an offering as acceptable
as that which Abel has presented." (Kitto's "Bible Literature," Art.
"Sacrifice.")]
This clearly establishes the divine origin of sacrifices among the
antediluvian patriarchs; and, indeed, of all antiquity;[A] and also the
fact, that they but foreshadowed the great sacrifice to be made in due
time by the Son of God himself. Doctor Wm. Smith, the author of the
"Old Testament History," says:
[Footnote A: A strong moral argument in favor of the divine institution
of sacrifice, somewhat feebly put by Hallet (Comment, on Heb. xi:4,
cited by Magee, "On the Atonement"), has been reproduced with increased
force by Faber ("Prim. Sacrifice," p. 183). It amounts to this:
"Sacrifice, when uncommanded by God, is a mere act of gratuitous
superstition. Whence, on the principle of St. Paul's reprobation of
what he denominates will-worship, it is neither acceptable nor pleasing
to God.
"But sacrifice, during the patriarchal ages, was accepted by God, and
was plainly honored with his approbation.
"Therefore sacrifice, during the patriarchal age, could not have been
an act of superstition uncommanded by God.
"If, then, such was the character of primitive sacrifice; that is to
say, if primitive sacrifice was uncommanded by God,--it must, in that
case indubitably have been a divine, and not a human institution."
(Kitto's "Cyclopedia Biblical Knowledge," Vol. II, Art. "Sacrifice.")]
"The curse upon the serpent and promise to the woman point clearly
to a Redeemer, who should be born of a woman, and by his own
suffering, should destroy the power of the devil; and here we have
the first prophecy of the Messiah. * * * There can be no reasonable
doubt that the sacrifice of living animals was now instituted as a
prophetic figure of the great sacrifice which should fulfill this
promise. Animals must have been slain to provide the skins that
clothed Adam and Eve; and wherefore slain, except in sacrifice?
This might not seem conclusive in itself; but the whole reason for
sacrifice began to exist now; its use is taken for granted in the
next chapter (Gen. iv); and it continues throughout the patriarchal
age without the record of any other beginning. Thus early, then,
man learned that, "without shedding of blood, there is no remission
of sin;" that his own forfeited life was redeemed, and to be
restored by the sacrifice of the coming "seed of the woman;" and
that he was placed by God under a new dispensation of mercy. Nay,
even his punishment was a mercy; for his suffering was a discipline
to train him in submission to God's will. The repentance of our
first parents is nowhere expressly stated; but it is implied here
and in the subsequent narrative."[A]
[Footnote A: We must not omit to notice the traces of these truths,
which are found among many nations. The Greek legend of Pandora traces
the entrance of evil to a woman; the Buddhist and Chinese traditions
refer the beginning of sin to eating forbidden fruit and desiring
forbidden knowledge; and most systems of mythology make the serpent
a type of the power of evil, and a divine personage his destroyer.
Delitzch well says, "The story of the Fall, like that of the Creation,
has wandered over the world. Heathen nations have transplanted and
mixed it up with their geography, their history, their mythology,
although it has never so completely changed form, and color, and
spirit, that you can not recognize it. Here, however, in the Law,
it preserves the character of a universal, human, world-wide fact;
and the groans of Creation, the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
and the heart of every man, conspire in their testimony to the most
literal truth of the narrative." The recollection of the tree of life
is preserved in the sacred tree of the Assyrians and Hindoos, and in
the other Eastern systems of mythology ("Old Testament History"--Wm.
Smith--p. 29.)]
The fact of Adam's repentance, however, is clearly set forth in the
Book of Moses, and his acceptance of the whole scheme of salvation
through the atonement of Christ.[A]
[Footnote A: See Book of Moses (P. of G. P.), Ch. v:4-16 and Ch.
vi:48-68.]
_3. The Atonement of Christ Foreshadowed in the Mosaic
Sacrifices:_ It is very generally conceded that the sacrifices
and oblations of the Mosaic ritual have a direct relationship to the
great atoning sacrifice to be made by the Christ. From the ninth and
tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is evident that "the
law" was "a shadow of good things to come;" the law's sacrifices for
sin and reconciliation with God but figured forth the greater and
more efficient sacrifice to be made by the Son of God; nay, whatever
of virtue there was in the sacrifices of the law were dependent upon
the great sacrifice to follow. Of themselves, the sacrifices of the
law had no virtue at all unconnected with the sacrifice to be made by
the Christ;[A] they were but symbols figuring forth that sacrifice in
which the virtue was, the sacrifice of the Christ himself. "For it
is expedient," says the Nephite Prophet Alma--"It is expedient that
an Atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the
eternal God, there must be an Atonement made, or else all mankind must
unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and
are lost, and must perish except it be through the Atonement which it
is expedient should be made. Therefore, it is expedient that there
should be a great and last sacrifice; and then shall there be, or it is
expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall
the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled; every
jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is
the whole meaning of the law; every whit pointing to that great and
last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of
God; yea, infinite and eternal."[B]
[Footnote A: Hebrews x:1-10.]
[Footnote B: Alma xxxiv:9, 13, 14.]
The late President John Taylor upon this subject said:
"These sacrifices, which were offered up from the days of Adam
until the time of our Savior's advent, were typical of the great
expiatory sacrifice which He was to make by the sacrifice of
himself. They were so many types, shadows and forms of which he
was the great prototype--the substance, the reality prefigured and
foreshadowed by the other sacrifices which had been offered up from
the beginning.
"When the law was given to Moses, all the forms pertaining to
the sacrificial ceremonies were revealed in detail, and the
instructions in relation thereto were not simply of a general
nature, but they entered into minute particulars in relation to all
things connected with those who officiated, the form and pattern
of the sacred utensils and of the vestments of the Priesthood,
the creatures to be sacrificed, the order of the proceedings, and
indeed of all matters associated with the observance of these
rites. Almost the whole of the book of Leviticus, and considerable
of the book of Numbers, is occupied with these instructions and
kindred matters. This Mosaic law, with all its duties, observances,
ceremonies and sacrifices, continued in force until Christ's
death."[A]
[Footnote A: "Mediation and Atonement" (1882), p. 124.]
_4. The Sin Offering of the Mosaic Law:_ The Author of the Article
on "Sacrifices," in Smith's "Bible Dictionary" (Hackett edition),
Vol. IV--Rev. Alfred Barry, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in
describing the "Sin Offering of the Mosaic law," says:
"The nature and meaning of the various kinds of sacrifice is partly
gathered from the form of their institution and ceremonial, partly
from the teaching of the prophets, and partly from the New Testament,
especially the Epistle to the Hebrews. All had relation, under
different aspects, to a covenant between God and man.
"The sin offering represented that covenant as broken by man, and as
knit together again, by God's appointment, through the 'shedding of
blood.' Its characteristic ceremony was the sprinkling of the blood
before the veil of the sanctuary, the putting some of it on the horns
of the altar, incense, and the pouring out of all the rest at the foot
of the altar of burnt offering. The flesh was in no case touched by
the offerer; either it was consumed by fire without the camp, or it
was eaten by the priest alone in the holy place, and everything that
touched it was holy. This latter point marked the distinction from
the peace-offering, and showed that the sacrificer had been rendered
unworthy of communion with God. The shedding of blood, the symbol of
life, signified that the death of the offender was deserved for sin,
but that the death of the victim was accepted for his death by the
ordinance of God's mercy."
_5. The Ceremonial of the Day of Atonement:_ "This [the truth of
the preceding paragraph] is seen most clearly in the ceremonial of
the 'Day of Atonement,' when, after the sacrifice of the one goat,[A]
the high priest's hand was laid on the head of the scape-goat--which
was the other part of the sin-offering--with confession of the sins
of the people, that it might visibly bear them away, and so bring out
explicitly, what in other sin-offerings was but implied. Accordingly we
find that, in all cases, it was the custom for the offerer to lay his
hand on the head of the sin-offering, to confess generally or specially
his sins, and to say, 'Let this be my expiation.' Beyond all doubt, the
sin-offering distinctly witnessed that sin existed in man, that the
'wages of that sin was death,' and that God had provided an Atonement
by the vicarious suffering of an appointed victim. The reference of the
Baptist to a 'Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world,' was
one understood and hailed at once by a 'true Israelite.'"[B]
[Footnote A: Two goats were used in this ceremonial, one of which
was killed and made a "sin offering" and the other a scape-goat to
figuratively bear off the sins of the people.