But what is important is to see the actual use, of ἀναφέρω, when used with sacrifice. Num. 14:34, and Isa. 53:11, are plain proofs that it is used for bearing sins penally. But now, as to sacrifice. The reader must bear in mind that the act of having the sin on the victim is not in itself the expiation. That puts the victim in the answering place; for the other, death and the judicial action of God must come in to put it away. It must be slain and offered on the altar; as it is said, “by means of death.” Christ had to take our sins on Him, and therefore die—give His life a ransom for many. Every one, therefore, believes He had taken them on Him before He gave up the ghost. The question is, Did He take them on Him in order to suffer on the cross, and suffer the penal judgment of them there; as the victim was brought up to the altar, then the sins confessed on his head, and then the victim itself, thus made sin, slain and burnt? Or was Christ born into this penal state, suffering it before He actually gave Himself up to be offered on the cross? Was He under the penal consequences of sin in the sufferings of His active service—was that penally from God? or in the sufferings of the cup He took to drink upon the cross from God? I believe the latter—that it was after the victim was presented as an offering to the altar (in Christ's case we must say presented Himself as a spotless victim to the cross) that the penal sufferings for sins were on Him, because our sins were on Him; and that it is to this bearing of sins alone that the passage in Peter applies. Christ offered Himself without spot to God. Jehovah laid then the iniquity upon Him. He Who knew no sin was then made sin. Did the Lord lay the iniquity upon Him before He offered Himself without spot, a proved spotless lamb? One Who knew no sin was made sin when He had bowed to His Father's will to drink that cup.
Offering in scripture, a double character. It is used for presenting the victim, or indeed any offering heevi or hikriv, “to cause to come nigh.” But ἀναφέρω ἐπὶ τὸ is not used for this, though in grammar I know not why it should not be. It is used for hard causes in judgment in Deut. 1:17, ἀνοίσετε αὐτὸ ἐπε’ ἐμέ “Ye shall bring it to me,” but not for offering that I can find. If the reader takes Lev. 1, he will find for these words προσφέρειν or προσάγειν, to bring up. This was the presenting the offering which was to be a victim. But as soon as the victim, or part of it, is spoken of as burnt on the altar (Lev. 3:5), then it is ἀνοίσουσιν, αὐτὰ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον. So in verse 9 the general idea of offering is προσοίσει hikriv, and in verse 11, the burning of it on the altar, ἀνοίσει ἐπὶ τό. And this is the regular use of it in Leviticus, and elsewhere, as Ex. 29:18, 25; 30:20; Leviticus 2:16; 3:16; 4:10, 19, 26, 31; 6:15, 26; 7:5; 8:16, 20, 21,27; 9:10, 20; 16:25; 17:6; Num. 5:26; 18:17. This last has the same force, but there is not ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον. That is, ἀναφέρς ἐπὶ is the technical expression for consumption or offering up to God by fire, when on the altar, in contrast with bringing up to the altar. When ἐπὶ τὸ is not used, it has practically the same force when used of offerings—that is, offering to God: but ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ has the proper peculiar force of bearing them as a victim on the altar, under the consuming fire of God, not of bringing up to. It answers to hiktir, not to hikriv. It is impossible that the use of language can be made plainer by the facts of that use.
There is another word for which it is used, which confirms this, hαla (Gen. 8:20; 22:2: so Ex. 24:5; Lev. 14:19, 20); where the reader will remark, comparing verse 13, that in both cases, of the sin or trespass-offering and the burnt-offering, they are killed before they are offered in this sense of the word. In Christ both went together; He died on the cross. But it is of importance to remark it here, because it shows that hala, as well as hatir, is not bearing the sins up to the altar, but the being offered (in consuming fire) on the altar to God. The word is used in some passages generally as a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, the sense being assumed to be known; but this shows the strict sense is, the ascending up to God as a sweet savor, under the proving and consuming fire, not the bringing up sin to the altar. And this is so true, that as these burnt-offerings were of a sweet savor, so no offering not made by fire was a sweet savor. Compare Lev. 2:9, 12, determining the use of this word in the most positive way. They were to bring it up (takrivoo) as an offering but they were not to offer it (yahaloo) as a sweet savor, very justly, as to the sense, translated “burnt” in the English. It was not to be made to ascend as a sweet savor—that is, to be burnt and mount up to God as such.
The general use may be seen in Num. 28:2 and Deut. 12:13, 14; chapter xxvii. 6 is a proof that the notion of ἐπὶ τό, i.e., ἐπὶ with an accusative (see below), is not so absolute, but proves that ἀνοίσει, in any case, does not mean necessarily bringing up to, for here it is used with the genitive. Judg. 13:19, again, shows distinctly what ἀναφέρω επὶ τὸ means (here ἐπὶ τήν, because it was a rock); for it is added, “For it came to pass, that when the flame went up,” behaaloth, “from off” the altar. The victim was offered on the rock, and in the going up of the flame. That was what hala refers to, not the, bringing up to the altar.
Additional cases will be found in Kings and Chronicles, David's and Solomon's offerings; but it is only repeating similar cases, which confirm, but are not needed, to prove the point. The words for which ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον are used (namely, burning or causing to ascend on the altar), and the uniform use of them, prove distinctly that the force of the word is the bearing under consuming fire on the altar, and not bringing sins up to it. I may quote another proof, strongly confirming the use of this word in in 2 Chron. 29:27. Verse 24, the victim was killed; verse 27, Hezekiah commands it to be offered, ἀνενέγκαι ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον. I add, on this occasion, it is never used for bringing or bearing sins up to the altar, it is used for bringing victims to the house; but this I quote because there it is not ἐπί. The sins were not yet upon them; they were the spotless victims that were to become sin-bearers, and sweet savors of offerings made by fire.
Ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον is never used for bringing or bearing sins up to the altar; what it is used for has been fully shown. But the supposition that ἐπὶ with an accusative means actively bringing up to, and then rest, is a mistake. There may be grammatically the idea by implication that that which is ἐπὶ τὸ is not always and naturally there; but as a matter of fact, it does mean resting on a place or thing at the time spoken of. Thus Matt. 13:2, “All the multitude stood” ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν. So Matt. 19:28, “Ye shall sit on twelve thrones,” ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους. Acts 10:17; 11:11, ἐπέστησαν ἐπὶ τὸν πυλῶνα ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν. Winer's “Grammatik” (section 583) may be seen for this use of ἐπὶ with a genitive for motion. See a singular example in Lev. 3:5, the pieces of the peace-offering on the burnt-offering, ἐπὶ τὰ—on the wood, ἐπὶ τὰ—on the fire, ἐπὶ τοῦ. This may be from the fire being always there belonging to the altar, whereas the wood was brought there: ὀὖσιν will be understood then before it. In many cases, I have no doubt that the real cause of the accusative is this; when the preposition of the compound verb implies motion, there will be the accusative, though the whole sense will be rest. I do not think you would ever have εἶναι ἐπὶ τό. With ἐφίστημι, you will have the accusative; so εἵστηκε ἐπὶ τὸ in contrast with Christ's sitting in a boat on the sea; but Mark ἤσαν ἐπὶ γῆς. But this is grammar, and I pursue it no farther.
Ιt remains only to adduce the cases of ἀναφέρειν, in the sense of bearing or offering. We have first Heb. 7:27, “who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice; for this He did once when He offered up Himself.” Now, here it is perfectly certain that it has nothing to do with the victim bearing sins up to the altar, but with what we have seen to be its usual and uniform sense—the high priest's offering it on the altar, where it was a victim. So, also, we have distinct proof that it is no vicarious life; for He did it once when He offered up Himself, and it was for sins. When, consequently, it may have a more general meaning of giving Himself up to be a victim, we have the word used for that in Leviticus, προσφέρω, Heb. 9:14. Hence we have in verse 28, “once offered [προσενεχθεις] to bear [ἀνενεγκεῖν] the sins of many.” Thus He was once offered, and offered to bear sins as thus offered, of which it is said that He had not to offer Himself often, for then He must often have suffered; but now He has appeared once in the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself: that is, His offering, His suffering, was the sacrifice of Himself. His being born was not His sacrifice. He offered Himself—One Who was a man, though by the eternal Spirit, or there could be no offering. That is, He was a man before He offered Himself, His own blessed voluntary act, the perfect act of Christ, though in obedience, and Himself already the spotless Lamb He was thus the Man, the spotless One, to bear the sins of many. This, there can be no doubt, refers to Isa. 53:12.
We have, further, James 2:21, “When he had offered up Isaac on the altar;” and 1 Peter 2:5, “Offer up spiritual sacrifices,” which give no proof; save that the last shows this, that it was the offering up to God, which is very important in this way, that it shows it was not the bringing up the sins, when laid on the victim's head, to the altar. The offering of the victim to God is προσφέρω. The consumption on the altar was its offering up as a sacrifice to God; this is ἀναφέρω. The notion of bringing up a living victim to the altar is unknown to scripture. The animal was slain when he had been offered (προσενεχθεἰς), slain by whom it might be, and the blood sprinkled on the altar, and the fat, or the whole victim, burnt. The altar had to do with death and the judgment of fire, and there was the sacrifice. A living victim bringing up sins to the altar is a thought foreign and contrary to scripture. When the victim had been presented, and the hands of the offerer had been laid upon it, it was slain at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Death was the way sin was dealt with in the victim (we know Christ's death was on the cross, as well as the full drinking of the cup of wrath); the thought of bringing sins up livingly, as if He offered Himself and His sins, is an impossibility. No; He offered Himself, and bare (ἀνήνεγκε) our sins when offered (προσενεχθεὶς) as a dying victim. Death was the wages of sin.
Thus I return to 1 Peter 2:24 with the fall evidence of scripture and the Greek use of the word. All the scriptural order of sacrifice, and the language of scripture, confirm it, so that the simple-hearted reader may rest in all confidence in his English translation, “He bare our sins in His own body on the tree.” The word “bear” (ἀναφέρειν) has a sacrificial character; but that no Christian reader ever doubted in this passage.
I do not see, I confess, how any scriptural location could be made more certain. I doubt that any other could have so ample and absolute a proof of its actual meaning, and refutation of the meaning attempted to be put upon it, and of the desired change in the Authorized Version. J. N. D.
(Concluded from page 111.)