(Excerpt
on Atonement continued….)
George
Storrs, of New York, in a small work on the Atonement, rejected the idea of
Christ dying in the stead of the sinner; and his views ought to be noticed,
especially as he represented a class. He said the atonement must correspond to
man’s nature, and to the demand of the law, for “it is such a satisfaction as
justice rightfully
- 93 - J.
H. Waggoner
demands.”
The best
satisfaction to law is obedience; an atonement is satisfaction rendered for
disobedience.
It is
indeed such a satisfaction as justice demands. But it would be difficult for
any one to explain why the Atonement must correspond to man’s nature, and to
the claim that justice has on man, if the death of the atoner be not
substitutionary. How otherwise could it meet the claim?
Again he
said that “by dying, though death had no claim on him, justice was vindicated.”
Now if
“death had no claim on him,” how could justice be vindicated in his death? And
is justice ever vindicated in the death of one on whom it has no claim? No; it
is rather a perversion of justice. But all admit that death had no claim on
Christ, so far as his own actions were concerned; therefore if justice was
upheld or vindicated in his death, it was because he died “in the room and
stead” of those on whom death had a claim. That there was a transfer of sin all
will admit; our sins were laid on him. But death has a claim on the sinner, for
the wages of sin is death. And if the sin was transferred, of course the claim
of death must also have been transferred. So death had a claim on him; but only
as he stood in our stead. He was made sin for us; therefore he was made a curse
for us. 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13.
2Co
5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Gal_3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:
for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
The idea
of vicariousness, or complete substitution, is as plainly taught as language
can teach it; and the wonder is that the question was ever raised by
Bible-readers, or that the possibility of the negative being true was ever
admitted.
We must
further notice the objection that if a complete substitute is accepted, justice
is satisfied, and the release of the accused is of justice, not of mercy. Many
respectable speakers and authors seem to have become strangely confused on this
subject. The objection seems, at first glance, to have force; but it is really
founded on a very partial and superficial view of the gospel plan.
It is mercy to the criminal for the
Government to accept a substitute; and mercy to him also for the substitute to
offer or consent to stand in his stead. It is nothing but mercy, pardon, free
gift, to the sinner, in every part of the transaction.
And it
would be so if he had himself procured a substitute; much more when the
Governor provides the substitute, and this even the Son of his delight, and
invites the sinner to return to his allegiance and obedience, that he may
receive pardon and life through his blood. It
has been noticed that justice and mercy must
The
Atonement - 94
unite in order to both honor the Government
and spare the sinner.
Paul shows
that they do unite in the gospel, for therein God can be just and the justifier
of him that believeth in Jesus.
Rom_3:26
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and
the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
His justice is shown by
maintaining the dignity and honor of his law, even at the expense of the life
of his Son; his mercy is shown by justifying us through his blood.
But
inasmuch as Christ was not a sinner, it would be very difficult to show wherein
God was just in the death of his Son, unless he died to meet the just desert of
our sin in our stead. Burge on the Atonement, a work which reflects a somewhat
popular view, says:— “If a man engage to perform a certain piece of work, for a
reward which is proposed, it makes no difference whether he do the work
himself, or procure another to do it for him. Let the work be done according to
agreement, and he is entitled to the reward. So, if Christ has done for
believers the work which the law required them to do, God is now bound, on the
principle of strict justice, to bestow the promised reward, eternal life. There
is no grace, but stern, unbending justice here.” pp. 202, 203. Barnes takes
substantially the same view, and both aver that Christ did not suffer the
penalty of the law, but something substituted for the penalty. Did this
illustration merely go to show the insufficiency of Christ’s obedience to moral
law to make an atonement, without the suffering of death, there could be no
objection raised against it. But it goes far beyond this. In order for an
illustration to be worth anything, there must be some analogy between its main
points and the thing illustrated. In this case there is none whatever.
Man is a
rebel, condemned to death; the law can only be satisfied with the taking of
life. Now in regard to rendering satisfaction to a broken law there cannot
possibly be anything existing between sinful man and his Creator, answering to
the nature of a contract, as this illustration supposes. But its defect is most
plainly seen in this, that man does not, and cannot, procure a substitute. If
man by his own efforts had procured the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ,
the Atonement would rest on an entirely different footing from what it now
does. Any illustration based on such an utter impossibility,
- 95 - J.
H. Waggoner
which is
so contrary to evident truths, and to the whole revealed plan of the Atonement,
cannot aid in a correct understanding of it. God has set forth his Son to be a
propitiation—to suffer death, the penalty of the law, for us; so that his
substitutionary sacrifice is the gift of God, even as Christ himself was the
gift of God. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.”
If we take for granted that the death of Christ meets every demand of the law,
yet so long as he is the gift of God, there is mercy in the transaction.
But Dr.
Barnes thinks there was no mercy if it met the requirement of the law. He
remarks:—
“If it
should be said that there was mercy in the gift of the Saviour, and that so far
as that is concerned the transaction is one of mercy, though so far as the law
is concerned the transaction is one of justice, it may be replied that this is
not the representation of the Bible. The idea of mercy pervades it throughout.
It is not only mercy in providing an atonement; it is mercy to the sinner.
There is mercy in the case. There is love. There is more than a mere exaction
of the penalty. There is more than a transfer. There is a lessening of
suffering,” &c. pp. 232, 233.
No one
doubts that in the Atonement there is mercy to the sinner; but we are not
prepared to admit that the transaction (death of Christ) is not one of justice
so far as the law is concerned.
We think
this is the representation of the Bible.
The death
of Christ either met the demand of law and justice, or it did not. If it did,
then it was, so far, a legal transaction; then “stern, unbending justice” was
honored in his death. But if it did not, then we fail to see how divine justice
is vindicated in granting pardon through him; how God can be just in justifying
the believer any more than he could have been in justifying an unbeliever,
seeing that justice had no part in the transaction. We have been accustomed to
regard this declaration of the apostle (Rom.3:24-26) as positive proof that
justice was satisfied in his death, in order that pardon might be granted to
the believer without slighting the claims of the law; and it does not seem to
be possible to vindicate the system on any other principle than this. And if we
only admit that Christ suffered the penalty of the law, which
The
Atonement - 96
was death,
as the Scriptures abundantly show, then there is no difficulty whatever in this
view. And we can only decide that “there is a lessening of suffering” by being
able to measure the extent or severity of the sufferings of Christ, which no
finite mind can do. Dr. Barnes’ statement is made on the supposition that the
sufferings of the lost will be eternal. But we have seen that the idea of
“eternal punishment” does not embrace eternal suffering, but rather eternal
death; “everlasting destruction,” as the apostle says. It is possible, and the
thought is not at all unreasonable, that the sufferings of Christ, the Son of
God, as far exceeded the sufferings of a human being, as he is high in his
nature above man, or as his blood is more precious and of more worth than that
of man. It is safe to say that that remark of Dr. Barnes was made without due
consideration.
(To be
continued)
(Excerpt
from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:
THE
ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE
(1884)
BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER
No comments:
Post a Comment