5=8,
The Leonard Library
Wpditlt College
Toronto
Shelf No.
&J
Register No
19.
THE
DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT,
TAUGHT BY CHRIST HIMSELF;
ti
THE SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT
EXEGETICALLY EXPOUNDED AND CLASSIFIED.
':
REV. GEORGE SMEATON,
T.OKESSOR OF EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
LONDON : HAMILTON & CO. DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. MDCCCLXVIII.
*
»
MURRAY AXD GIKI5, EDINBURGH, ['HIXTER3 TO IliiK JIAJKSTY'S STATIONEKY OFFICE.
^
PREFACE.
THE present volume is intended to be the first portion of a larger whole, which, if completed, will exhibit the entire New Testament teaching on the subject of the atonement. I purposed to survey the whole testimony of our Lord and of His apostles ; beginning with the former as fundamental. But as the subject grew in my hands, it was found necessary to reserve, in the meantime, the consideration of the apostolic testimony.
In these pages I have examined, according to the rules of exact interpretation, what Jesus taught on the subject of the atonement, and have given a classification of His sayings and an outline of the doctrine. This seems to be urgently demanded in our times. The necessity of correctly ascertaining, by the only means within our reach, what the Lord actually taught on this point, cannot be overstated, when we direct any measure of attention to modern thought, and to the conflicting views, often as ill-digested by their propounders as perplexing to the minds of others, which are at present given forth on the nature, design, and effect of the Lord's death. The one-sided views on this great theme, held not by scoffers at vital religion, but by earnest men, actually though not willingly deviating from biblical truth, are not to be corrected by any human authority, nor even by an appeal to the Church's past, which yet, as the voice of our mother, is entitled to some amount of deference. They can be effectually confronted and silenced only by the explicit testimony of the Church's Lord. The doctrine will
VI PKEFACE.
stand there, but will stand nowhere else. And every true disciple has this distinctive feature about him, that he hears the voice of Christ, but a stranger's voice he will not follow.
My task in this work has been simply to determine, by strict exegetical investigation, the import of Christ's words, and to reproduce His thoughts by the exact interpretation of lan guage. I have no other desire than to ascertain what He did say, and to abide by it ; and the principle on which alone it is safe to carry on investigations into doctrine on any point, is, I am fully persuaded, to go to the Scriptures, not for the starting- point of thought alone, but for the substance of thought as well, or for the rounded and concrete development of the doc trine in all its elements : and these will be found in Christ's sayings, if we but patiently investigate them. It is not, then, to the Christian consciousness that I appeal with some modern teachers, nor to Christian feeling and Christian reason with others, but to the sayings of the Great Teacher, and of His commissioned servants, employed as His organs of revelation to the Church of all time.
It is the results of exegesis that are here given, rather than the philological process, which would have compelled me to over load the pages with Greek words. With these discussions on Christ's sayings I have been much engaged in my professional work, and here reproduce some of them, with this difference, that I retain only a small portion of the original language, and give somewhat more of elucidation and enlargement than are deemed necessary in the class-room. I have endeavoured to bring out the results of exegetical investigation, not the process, and to put these within the reach of the educated English reader, to aid him in the great work of making himself ac quainted with the Lord's mind, through the medium of the language of revelation.
During the preparation of this volume, two things came, of necessity, to be much before my mind. While the main pur pose, from the nature of the investigation, was to define and
I' KM FACE. Vii
fix the true idea of the atonement as surveyed from Christ's own view-point, a second and less direct object, though not without its importance in the present discussions on the person and life of Christ, came to be frequently presented to the mind : the objective significance of His whole earthly life was pre sented to my mind, in a manner which the modern biographies of Jesus never touch.
It only remains, that I refer briefly to what has been done on this field by others. In no quarter has the importance of Christ's own teaching on this article been sufficiently recognised, nor its fulness, nor its extent, nor its formative character as regards the apostolic development. To the latter, attention has been mainly and often exclusively directed, as if little could be made of Christ's own teaching on the subject of the atonement ; and nowhere has any attempt been made to arrange and classify our Lord's sayings on the subject. It is true that a certain amount of attention has been directed to our Lord's sayings on the nature of His death by writers of an erroneous tendency, with an obvious desire to get His authority to countenance their opinions ; and the following may be named as among the ablest who have discussed a number of those sayings in the tendency opposed to the vicarious sacrifice — viz. : Flatt,1 De Wette,2 C. L. Grimm,3 H. Huyser,4 Hofstede de Groot.* A much abler writer than any of these — a keen dialectician and an accomplished exegete — V. Hofmann,0 in a work which may
1 Philosophisch • Exeyftische untersuchungen iiber die Lehre von der Vtr- sohnung Qoltes mit den Menschen, van M. C. Christ. Flatt, 1798. He reviews a number of the texts, explaining them in a moral sense, according to the prin ciples of the Kantian philosophy. He held that the death of Christ only declared the remission of sins, and only gave an assurance of grace.
De Wette, De Morte C/iristi Expiatoria, Berl. 1830.
<'. I,. Grimm, de Joannece ChristologicK indole, etc., 1833.
H. Huyser, Specimen quoJesu de Morte sua e/ata colliguntur et exponuntur, Gron. 1838.
Hofstede de Groot, in the Dutch periodical, Waarheid en Liffde for 1843.
Ilofinaiin, ,sVA/-/Y/iWv/X lir.>t edition, 1852. This work has called forth replies from Pbflippi, IftOBMHMb Ebnird, IMit/sdi, Weber, ete., on the subj.M of the atonement.
Vlll PREFACE.
be described as a sort of biblical dogmatics, has canvassed the sayings of Christ as part of the Scripture testimony on the atone ment; which he expounds in the same tendency with the writers just named, though with far more of the evangelical spirit. I must also mention Prof. Eitschl * of Bonn, who has examined the principal sayings of Christ in the same tendency. Though one is disposed to say of these writers generally, that, with all their acknowledged learning and ability, they have too much forgotten the simple function of the interpreter, and deposited their own unsatisfactory opinions or the spirit of the age in the texts which they professed to expound, this is particularly true of the last-named writer, whose papers are at once specu lative in doctrine, and conjectural in philology.
But there are others who have discussed the Lord's sayings in a general outline of the Scripture testimony to the atone ment, in a better spirit, and with more success. I refer, first of all, to Schmid,2 who treats, in a brief but felicitous way, the scope and purport of our Lord's teaching on the subject of His death, — only causing us to regret that his Biblical Theology is a posthumous work, and put together from imperfect notes, his own and others. A pretty full collection of Christ's sayings, in a chronological order, and consequently without any attempt to distribute them into classes, was attempted by Prof. Gess 3 of Basel, some years ago, in a series of papers which, with much that is worthy of attention, are defective in two respects. He repudi ates the doctrine of the active obedience, and allows it no place as an element in the atonement ; and then his erroneous depoten- tiation-theory of the incarnation renders it necessary for him to assign no influence to the deity of Christ in the matter of the atonement. I must also allude to a discussion of these sayings by two learned Dutch writers, who have written with very
1 Prof. Ritschl, in the Jahrlmchcr fur Deutsche Theolocjie for 1863.
2 C. F. Schmid, Blblische Theologie, 1859 (pp. 229-250).
3 Prof. Gess of Basel wrote these articles in the Jahrbiicher fur Deutsche Theologie in 1857 and 1858.
PREFACE. ix
dili.'ivnt degrees of merit. Professor Vinke's l essay, forming one of the publications of the Hague Society in defence of the Christian religion, is a valuable collection of most of Christ's sayings, and also of the apostles' sayings, on the sub ject of the atonement, with brief comments appended, evincing a warm attachment to the true doctrine of the atonement. It is only too brief, from the nature of his plan, and it at tempts no classification. The other Dutch writer, Van Willes,2 whose work was written for the same society, or at least by occasion of the prescribed theme, is limited to the eluci dation of the sayings of Jesus in reference to His sufferings and death. This acute and ingenious writer devotes atten tion to a number of philological questions connected with the sayings of Jesus, and expatiates, with not a little tact, on the connection between the sayings and the occasion which called them forth. But he does not attempt, in any one case, to bring out the doctrinal import of the sayings which he undertakes to elucidate. He stops short at the very point where we wish him to begin, and gives us nothing but philology or historical construction. It would be going too far to say that he supports a wrong tendency ; but he carefully conceals, throughout this treatise devoted to the sayings of Jesus, what the atonement is, or what it effects. He gives us language, not doctrine, and not the exhibition of the thought contained in the language. These are the principal discussions on the subject under our consideration ; and I have been at pains to analyze them.
I have only to add, that the preparation of this volume has given me much pleasant meditation; and I send it forth, with tin-, prayer that the Great Teacher may use it to turn men's minds away from unprofitable speculation, to listen to His own voice.
1 Prof. Vinke of Utrecht, Leer van Jejnts en de Apostel aang. zijn Lljden etc., in's GravensJiage, 1837.
2 Van Willi-s, Ojihrlitt /•<//// run de Gezedgen des Heeren betrekkdijk :/> L>j<l< n en sterven roor Zondarcn, Amsturd. 1837.
CONTENTS.
SECTION I.
PAGE
Preliminary Remarks on the Nature of our Investigation, . . 1
SECTION II.
The Number of our Lord's Testimonies to the Atonement, and the Cir cumstances connected with them, ..... 2
SECTION III.
Whether all the Testimonies of Christ on His Atoning Death are
recorded, ....... 7
SECTION IV. The Method to be followed in evolving the Import of His Sayings, . 9
SECTION V. The Importance of Biblical Ideas on Christ's Death, . . . 10
SECTION VI.
Divine Love providing the Atonement ; or the Love of God in Harmony
with Justice, as the only Channel of Life, ... 13
SECTION VII.
The Influence of Christ's Deity or Incarnation in the matter of the
Atonement, . . . . . . . . 21
SECTION VIII.
Single Phrases descriptive of the Unique Position of Jesus, or His
Standing between God and Man, .... 30
SECTION IX. Sayings of .), su.s ri-fi-rrinu' to a Sending by the Father, . . 33
Xll CONTENTS.
SECTION X.
PAGE
Sayings of Christ which assume that He is the Second Adam, and acting according to a Covenant with the Father in this Atoning Work, 40
SECTION XL
Separate Sayings which affirm or imply the Necessity of the Atone ment, ........ 47
SECTION XII.
The first Classification of the Sayings into those which represent Christ
as the Sin-bearer, and then as the willing Servant, . . 63
SECTION XIII. The Baptist's Testimony to Jesus as the Sin-bearer, ... 65
SECTION XIV.
The frequently repeated name, the Sou of Alan, further exhibiting Him
as the Sin-bearer, ...... 80
SECTION XV. Christ receiving Baptism as the Conscious Sin-bearer, ... 96
SECTION XVI.
Christ as the Sin-bearer taking on Him, during His earthly Life and
History, the Burdens and Sicknesses of His People, . . 104
SECTION XVII. The Historic Facts of Christ's Sufferings illustrated by His Sayings, . Ill
SECTION XVIII.
The Sayings of Christ as the Conscious Sin-bearer in prospect of His
Agony, and during it, . ... . . . 112
SECTION XIX.
Christ the Sin-bearer testifying that He was to be Numbered with
Transgressors during His Crucifixion, . . .127
SECTION XX.
Single Expressions used by Christ in reference to a Work given Him
to do, . . . . . . .140
CONTF.NTS. xiii
SECTION XXI.
PAGE
The Classification of Christ's Sayings as they represent the Effects of His Death, and, in the first place, as they set forth His Death as the Ground of the Acceptance of our Persons, . . . 147
SECTION XXII.
Christ describing Himself as Dying to be a Ransom for Many, . . 148
SECTION XXIII.
The Testimony of Christ, that His Death is the Sacrifice of the New
Covenant for the Remission of Sin, . . . .165
SECTION XXIV.
Christ Fulfilling the Law for His People, and thus bringing in a
Righteousness or Atonement for them, . . . .183
SECTION XXV.
Sayings which represent the Death of Jesus as His Great Act of
Obedience, and as the Righteousness of His People, . . 199
' SECTION XXVI.
Christ Offering Himself, that His Followers might be Sanctified in
Truth, ........ 203
SECTION XXVII. Sayings relative to the subjective Lifegiviug Effects of Christ's Death, 213
SECTION XXVIII. Christ Crucified the Antitype of the Brazen Serpent, and the Lifegiver, 214
SECTION XXIX. Christ giving His Flesh for the Life of the World, . . .227
SECTION XXX.
Testimonies showing the Relation of the Atonement to other Interests
in the Universe, . . .. . . . .238
SECTION" XXXI.
The Death of Christ in connection with the Raising of the Temple of
Uo.l, . 239
XIV CONTENTS.
SECTION XXXII.
PAGB
The Atonement of Christ deciding the Judicial Process to whom the
World shall belong, . . . . . .248
SECTION XXXIII. Christ, by means of His Atonement, overcoming the World, . . 254
SECTION XXXIV. The Atonement of Christ denuding Satan of his Dominion in the World, 258
SECTION XXXV. Christ's Vicarious Death taking the Sting out of Death, and abolishing it, 265
SECTION XXXVI.
Christ laying down His Life for the Sheep, and thus becoming the
actual Shepherd of the Sheep, ..... 270
SECTION XXXVII.
Sayings which represent Christ's Dominion, both General and Particular,
as the Reward of His Atonement, . . . 283
SECTION XXXVIII. The Influence of the Atonement in procuring the Gift of the Holy Ghost, 291
SECTION XXXIX.
Christ's Abasement as the Second Man opening Heaven,' and restoring
the Communion between Men and Angels, . . . 299
SECTION XL. Sayings of Jesus which represent the Atonement as glorifying God, . 304
SECTION XLI.
The Efficacious Character of the Atonement ; or the Special Reference
of the Death of Christ to a People given Him, . . . 312
SECTION XLII.
The Atonement extending to all Times in the World's History, and to
all Nations, ....... .326
SECTION XLIII.
Sayings which particularly relate to the Application of tin- Atonement, : 29
CONTENTS. XV
SECTION XLIV.
The Preaching of Forgiveness based on the Atonement, and ever con nected with the Atonement, ..... 330
SECTION XLV.
The Place which Christ assigns to the Atonement in the Christian
Church, . . . . . . 337
SECTION XLVI.
Christ's Sayings which represent Faith as the Organ or Instrument of
receiving the Atonement, ...... 341
SECTION XLVII.
Endless Happiness or Irremediable Woe decided by the manner in
which Meu welcome or reject the Atonement, . . . 346
SECTION XLVIII. The Influence of the Atonement, correctly understood, on the whole
Domain of Morals and Religion, ..... 353
APPENDIX OF NOTES AND ELUCIDATIONS.
NOTE ON SECTIONS 11. AND in. Number of the Sayings on the Subject of His Death, . . . 359
NOTE ON SECTION vi. (pp. 13-21). Harmony of Love and Justice in the Atonement, . . . 362
NOTE ON SECTION vn. (pp. 21-30).
Tin' Influence of Christ's Deity or of the Incarnation on the Atone ment, ......... 367
NOTE ON SECTION x. (pp. 40-46).
Chris! acting as the SiM-und Adam, or according to a Covenant with the
Father, in the whole of His Atoning Work, . . .372
NHTI-: UN Sr.rrniN xi. (j>p. 47-63). The Satisfaction to Divine Joitice neoeMKy, .... 378
XVI CONTENTS.
NOTE ON SECTION xin. (pp. 65-79).
PACE
The Lamb of God bearing Sin. . . . . . . 393
NOTE ON SECTION xiv. (pp. 80-86). The Title, Son of Man, ....... 402
NOTE ON SECTION xxn. (pp. 148-164). The Son of Man giving His Life a Ransom for Many, . . . 407
NOTE ON SECTION xxin. (pp. 165-183). Christ's Blood shed for the Remission of Sins (Historical Sketch), . 414
NOTE ON SECTIONS xxiv. AND xxv. (pp. 183-203). Christ fulfilling the Law, and bringing in Righteousness, . . 437
NOTE ON SECTIONS xxvm. AND xxix. (pp. 215-237).
Christ as the Brazen Serpent, the Lifegiver ; and Christ giving His
Flesh for the Life of the World, ... .444
INDICES.
I. Index to Texts, ... ... 453
II. Index to Subjects, . 457
III. Index to the Authors adduced, . ... 458
IV. Index to Greek Words elucidated, . . .460
SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
SEC. I. — PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE NATURE OF OUU INVESTIGATION.
THE doctrine of the atonement is put in its proper light, only when it is regarded as the central truth of Chris tianity, and the great theme of Scripture. The principal object of Eevelation was to unfold this unique method of recon ciliation by which men, once estranged from God, might be restored to a right relation, and even to a better than their primeval standing. But the doctrine is simply revealed, or, in other words, is taught us by authority alone.
Instead of commencing, according to the common custom, by fixing a centre and drawing a circumference, we wish to proceed liistorically. We shall not select a view-point, and then adduce a number of proof texts merely to confirm it ; and we do so for a special reason. It has always seemed to be a point of weakness in treatises on this subject, that the truth has been so much argued on abstract grounds, and deduced so largely from the first principles of the divine government. The im portance of these must be acknowledged, as they rationalize the doctrine, and establish it in the convictions of the human mind, wlum the fact is once admitted; but they have their proper force and cogency, only when the truth of the doctrine is based and accepted on a ground that is strictly historical. We here inquire simply what Jesus taught. We do not ask what <>in- eminent church teacher or another propounded, but what the
A
2 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
great Master said. We turn away our eye from every lower source of knowledge, whether called Christian consciousness, feeling, or reason, to the truth embodied in the words of Jesus.
The scope we aim at in the following disquisition, is to gather out of the sayings of Christ the testimony which He bears to His own atonement in its necessity, nature, and effect. And we the rather enter on this inquiry, because the subject, as a separate topic, has never received the prominence due to it ; and because, by men of all shades of opinion, the greatest weight must of necessity be laid on those statements which are offered by the Lord Himself in reference to His work
These sayings, beyond doubt, utter His own thoughts on the subject of His atoning death ; and they announce the design, aim, and motive from which He acted. That the expression of them is according to truth, without over-statement on the one hand, or defect on the other ; that they give not only an objec tive outline of His work in its nature and results, but also a glimpse of the very heart of His activity, will be admitted by every Christian as the most certain of certainties. In this light these sayings are invaluable, as they disclose His inner thoughts, and convey the absolute truth upon the subject of the atone ment, according to that knowledge of His function which was peculiar to Himself, — for His work was fully and adequately known only to His own mind. Here, then, we have perfect truth : here we may affirm, unless we are ready to give up all to uncertainty and doubt, that we have the whole trutli as to the nature of the atonement, as well as in reference to the design and scope for which He gave Himself up to death for others.
SEC. II. — THE NUMBER OF OUR LORD'S TESTIMONIES TO THE ATONE MENT, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH THEM.
The number of these sayings, it is true, is smaller than we should wish ; but the amount of information they convey is not measured by their number, but by their variety, by their
NUMBER OF OTJll LORD'S TESTIMONIES. 3
fulness, and by their range of meaning. They are not to be numbered, but weighed ; to be traced in their wide ramifications, not counted in a series. The comprehensiveness, the force, the pregnancy of meaning which these sayings, taken together, involve, are of more consideration than the frequency with wl i it'h our Lord touched on the theme. They will be found to contain by implication, if not in express terms, almost every blessing that is connected with the atonement ; and the apostles, who are commonly spoken of as expanding the doctrine, will be found not so much to develop it, as to apply it to the manifold phases of opinion and practice encountered by them in the churches. Thus the legalism of the Jewish converts required one application of it in Galatia, and the incipient gnosticism in Colossas and Asia Minor, another and a different. We cannot, in this work, investigate all the applications of it interwoven in the Epistles, so as to exhibit on every side this grand doc trine, which, in truth, makes Christianity what it is — a gospel for sinners. We single out at present, for separate investigation, the sayings of Christ Himself, — a field that demands an accurate survey.
No one could say beforehand what would be the peculiar nature of Christ's testimony to His sacrifice, nor in what precise form it would be presented to His hearers' minds. His allusions to it are for the most part fitted in to some fact in history, to some type belonging to the. old economy, or to some peculiar title or designation, which He appropriated to Himself, and which often had its root in prophecy. They are all pointed and sententious ; they are such as are easily recalled ; and they seize hold of the mind by some allusion to ordinary things. He spoke of the atonement according to the docility and free dom from prejudice, or according to the love of truth and the capacity to receive it, on the part of those who came to hear Him. The case of Nicodemus is an instance of this ; and the instructions communicated to him had the happy effect of preparing his mind to understand th«.- nature of the
4 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Messiah's death, and to take no offence at it when His hour was come.
We often think, indeed, that an allusion to His atoning work is necessary at various turns of His discourse ; and we expect to find it. We are surprised that the doctrine which forms the essence of Christianity, and the central topic of the gospel, should be announced with so much reserve. It seems strange that parables, such as that of the publican, that of the two creditors, and the like, meant to teach the gracious way of acceptance, should contain no allusion to the atonement. And hence some, unfavourable to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, think themselves entitled to draw from this an argument in proof of their position. But a little reflection is enough to satisfy us that He had reasons for the silence. The idea of a suffering Messiah had grown obsolete : His priestly office mentioned in the Psalm (Ps. ex. 4) was ignored ; there was none among the people, with the exception of Simeon, Zachariah, and the Baptist, to whom it seems to have been familiar, or, in the least, acceptable.
Not only so : He had to go back a step, and to take up opinion at a previous stage, just as the Baptist did to his hearers, in his preparatory ministry. They must first be taught the spirituality of the law, as He did in the sermon on the Mount. He found it of absolute necessity to awaken a spiritual sense for the divine ; to arouse conscience, and to preach re pentance, because the kingdom was at hand; to assail their hollow, external forms, and the neglect of weightier matters ; to explode their vain trust in Jewish descent, and the futile expectation that they would enter the Messianic kingdom, on the footing of being Abraham's descendants. He had, in a word, to turn them away from acting to be seen of men, and from the desire to cleanse the outside of the cup and platter. They must learn their needs as sinners ; acknowledge their defects; and have awakened in them a desire for pardon, before they could learn much of the nature of His vicarious death, or, indeed, be capable of receiving it.
Nl'MIlER OF OUR LORU'.S TESTIMONIES.
lie liad noxt to announce the kingdom of God as having , and to describe its nature and its excellence, the cha racter of its subjects, and its various aspects in the world. He had to set forth His divine mission, and to prove it by His many miracles; His more than human dignity; His divine Souship ; His being sealed and sent ; His unique posi tion in the world as the Great Deliverer and object of promise ; and the long-desired one of whom Moses wrote, and whom Abraham desired to see. His first object was to confirm men's faith in Him as the promised Christ ; to attach them to His person by a bond which should be strong enough to bear a pressure ; and to forestall the hazard of their being offended at that to which every Jewish mind was most averse. He sought, in the first place, to bind the disciples to Himself, and to deepen their faith in Him. This was His paramount and fundamental aim in His intercourse with the disciples from day to day.
But at this point a new difficulty presented itself. The disciples who were attached to His person, and received Him as the Saviour, would hear nothing of His death, — they would not believe it, nor take it in. On the occasion when Peter, in the name of the rest, declared his belief in Christ's Messiahship, and in His divine Sonship (Matt. xvi. 1G), we should have expected full submission to every part of His teaching; and that the explicit statement from the mouth of the Lord Him self as to His death, would have been accepted, in this the fittest moment, without any doubt. On the contrary, Peter began to rebuke Him for the language He had held on the subject of His death, — so possessed were they with preconceived ideas, and so hard was it to direct the Jewish niiiid into a new channel. They^viewed His kingdom as an everlasting kingdom, on which He was to enter at once without that atoning death which was to be its foundation and ground. They dreamed of places of authority, rank, and honour in the kingdom ; and the constant topic of dispute among them, even at the List Supper,
G SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
was, who was to be prime minister of state, and fill the post of greatest power. Even His true disciples mingled foreign elements with their conceptions of His kingdom. And hence, to keep His cause free from the risk of those political com motions, to which an open announcement of His Messiahsliip would have given rise, in a community where the true idea had been lost, we find that our Lord spoke sparingly, and with reserve; and on one occasion He constrained the disciples to get into a ship, when the excited multitude would have taken Him by force to make Him a king.
To men thus minded, little could be said on His atonement. The two ideas — the Messiahsliip, and the possibility of death — seemed in the highest degree incompatible. They could not suppose that the universal conqueror could be the conquered, even for a moment. They foreclosed inquiry, — they showed themselves unqualified for further instruction; nor did they, with teachable minds, apply for the information which He would have willingly supplied. He could leave, therefore, a record in their memory, only in a more indirect and incidental way, by means of His sermons in Galilee, and in Jerusalem (John vi. and x.) ; or by more expressly introducing this truth in connection with events in His own life, or with difficulties in theirs. But it must be allowed on all hands, that while the disciples felt their life was bound up with Him, they evaded the unwelcome fact of His death, although He frequently announced it, by some explanation of their own ; nay, though it formed the one topic of conversation on the Mount of Trans figuration between Moses, Elias, and Christ, the disciples con trived, on some plea, to explain away the fact. And when the Lord took them apart, and solemnly announced what was at hand, they were exceedingly sorry ; but, as if they had found out some evasion, they are soon engaged in their old dispute again. And the blank dejection into which they were thrown by the actual fact of His death, shows how little they were prepared for it, or understood its meaning. All this tends to
THE TESTIMONIES NOT ALL RECORDED. 7
prove, that as the disciples could not listen calmly, and without prejudice, to this topic, till they could look back upon the event as an accomplished fact, so His teaching could not possibly have all the fulness and freedom with which the truth could be treated after His resurrection from the dead.
SEC. III. — WHETHER ALL THE TESTIMONIES OF CHRIST ON HIS ATONING DEATH ARE RECORDED.
The question may be put, however, May not Christ have spoken of His atonement more fully and more frequently than is recorded ? As we have not a complete narrative of His words or works, may we not hold that He often alluded to His death, and to the saving benefits connected with it, when He found docile and susceptible minds, to whom it could be unfolded ? We have nothing beyond probabilities to guide us here. Thinly, our Lord did not make His sufferings and death the principal topic of His teaching, or taught in precisely the same way as the apostles did, when they referred to the finished work of Christ, and founded churches under the ministration of the Spirit. But this does not exclude the possibility of a larger number of allusions to His death, when He did meet with minds that could receive it, as Nicodemus did, in private. Pos sibly, the men of Sychar, who received Him with the utmost docility, heard this doctrine from His lips, — a doctrine not withheld from Nicodemus; for they held language in regard to Him as " the Saviour of the world," which seems to imply as much. Not less significant are the words of Christ spoken with reference to the act of Mary of Bethany, when she anointed Him with precious ointment : " She did it for my burial" (Matt, xxvi. 12). She seems to have received instruction from Him on the subject of His death, and ingenuously to have accepted the words in their proper sense. Many will have it, that Jeeofl \va< merely ]. leased to represent the matter in such a light, but that the woman designed nothing of that nature. But that
8 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
comment is not warranted by the language, which rather gives us a glimpse into her heart, and indicates that her whole loving- nature was moved. That groundless commentary has Wu adopted mainly because her faith was simpler, more enlightened, and more direct than that of the disciples. But why should that cause any difficulty, when faith is not always according to the opportunities ? Jesus seems to have instructed her in private as to the nature and efficacy of His death, which she now regards as certain ; and she had credited His words with a simplicity and directness which those who dreamed of posts of honour and distinction did not share. This, then, is almost a proof of His having given further statements on His death than is narrated in the gospels.
But after His resurrection our Lord held many conversa tions on His atoning death, which are not preserved. This seems to have been one of the principal objects of His sojourn of forty days. He spake copiously on that theme, to which they would not listen before ; and He said much that is not recorded, when He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself, beginning at Moses and all the prophets (Luke xxiv. 27). His words to the two disciples on the Emmaus road were : " 0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory ?" (vers. 25, 26). His great design was to unfold the necessity, nature, and design of His vicarious death, and to open their under standings to understand the Scriptures (Luke xxiv. 45) ; and we cannot but conclude, when we put all the hints together, that Jesus must then have said more to the disciples on the subject of His death for the remission of sins, than in all His previous communications addressed to them. The work was done, and it could now be fully understood. They knew the fact of His death, and He introduced them into a full acquaint ance with its design and efficacy in the light of the Old Testa ment Scriptures. The full outline of Bible doctrine, as con-
Till: MKTIIOD TO BE FOLLOWKD. !>
tained in tlu- l;i\v, in tin- 1'salins. ;unl in the prophets, concerning Chri>t, \\as opened up to their wondering gaze, as it had been fulfilled (Luke xxiv. 44). Who has not often wished to possess these unrecorded expositions of the Old Testament Sei -i'i it tires ? But though they are doubtless embodied in the New Testament, it has not seemed meet to the inspiring Spirit to ^reserve them in a separate form. The Lord had said, " I have many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now" (John xvi. 12) ; and they could bear them then.
SEC. IV.— THE METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED IN EVOLVING THE IMPORT OF HIS SAYINGS.
Our task will be to expound the import of those sayings which are preserved to us, to collect their import, to set forth what they truly mean. We shall for the present concentrate our attention on the Lord's own testimony to His death for our redemption — that is, on His redemption work, active as well as passive. We cannot wholly isolate these sayings from the old economy which pointed to Christ's coming, nor from the apostolic commentary which points back to what He said ; but we place ourselves upon the gospels, and occupy our minds with the Iledeemer's thoughts. Of course Moses and the prophets supplied, even to Him, matter which He received into His consciousness, and the practical exhibition of which He embodied in His life; and His words thus received a tincture from the past, as they lend a tincture to that which was to follow. But still it is the thoughts of Jesus finding expression in words with which our attention is to be occupied. We will insert nothing; we will deposit nothing; but seek only to evolve the Saviour's meaning, according to the Inn-t or language. And wu wish to withhold whatever can be re garded as ideas foreign to the import of the Saviour's words.
The testimonies of Christ, left to speak for themselves, or only so far elucidated as to bring out their import, will he
1 0 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
found to convey such a full and rounded outline of the atone ment, as to leave almost no corner of the doctrine untouched ; and in discussing them, it will be best to distribute them, and then notice them, as far as may be, singly and apart. This is better than to follow the custom of merely giving them in chronological order, without attempting to digest them under any heads or formulae which may classify them, and which may be supposed most accurately to comprehend them. The sayings of Christ, however, on this point, are, from their very nature, so vast and extensive, that they are little capable of anything artificial. . Our Lord's own testimonies are not only too compre hensive to be easily treated in this way, but are put by Him in such a concrete connection with His mission, person, incarnation, and design, that they cannot well be crystallized in the same way as any other sayings upon some thread of ours which, may promise to hold them together. They are, moreover, very diversified, and may be said to bring before us a new field of inquiry wherever He touches on the subject. They each give the key-note, as it were, to a whole series or class of similar sayings in the apostolic Epistles ; which may be said to take them up and to continue them, according to the practical neces sities of the churches, or the varying phases of doctrinal opinion which threatened them. The apostles take up those diversified sayings, and apply them in all directions ; and they give them manifold forms of application.
SEC. V. — THE IMPORTANCE OF BIBLICAL IDEAS ON CHRIST'S DEATH.
It is important to form clear and well-defined ideas of the atonement from the Lord's own words. When we reflect that all His statements are the expression of His own conscious ness, the Christian entering into their meaning will say, as the Christian astronomer did when he discovered certain laws of the solar system : " My God, I think my thoughts with Thee." This cannot be a trifling matter in theology. Yet many in
IMPORTANCE OF BIBLICAL IDF.AS. 11
these days who exalt the inner life at the expense of true and IWIJMT doctrine, are not slow to say that it is indifferent whether the death of Christ be regarded as the procuring cause and pound of pardon, or as the mere assurance of it. They will not inquire how the atonement was effected; they avoid the de- liuition of terms and all biblical precision of thought, as if it could be of little moment to a Christian, whether the death of Jesus is considered as a vicarious sacrifice, or an expression of divine love, — whether it display the evil of sin, or merely stand on a solemn revocation of the Old Testament sacrifices. They will have it, that these points are but theological debates or human speculations, from which they do well to stand aloof in the discussion of the doctrine. That is a process of unlearning, or of leaving all in uncertainty, which does not spring from a commendable zeal for truth, but from a wish to blunt its edge ; and it is tantamount to saying, that there is in Scripture no doctrine on the subject. This is the watchword of a tendency which is adverse to -clearly - defined views of doctrine or of Scripture truth.
The very reverse of this is our duty. We must acquire, as much as lies in us, sharply-defined ideas on the atonement from the gospels themselves ; which, in our judgment, are by this very topic far elevated above all mere human wisdom. What ever cannot be asserted from the Scriptures, or is overthrown by their teaching, can easily be spared ; and we are willing to dismiss it. But we must collect whatever is really taught, comparing text with text, and the less obvious testimonies with the more easy and perspicuous, if we would think our thoughts with God.
Nor is it less common for another school to allege in our day, that the death of Jesus was rather His fate or fortune than a spontaneous oblation, in the proper sense. These writers will make Christ fall a victim to His holy and ardent xral, while preaching religious und moral truth, and discharging a high commission as the Herald of forgiveness. His death thus
1 2 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
becomes a merely historical event or an occurrence ; which, however, it is alleged was the occasion of giving a weighty con firmation to that declaration of absolute forgiveness of which He was the preacher. That is an insipid half truth, which is seemingly right, and essentially wrong. It will offer a certain spiritual phase to those who are hostile to the vicarious sacrifice, and who will see nothing but love in God. They view Jesus as a mere preacher or herald of salvation, but not as a veritable Saviour, in the full sense of the term. They will go farther than this, and will extol Him as the Prince of Life, and as its Dispenser ; but it is Life unconnected with the price paid, or the ransom offered. And the prominence given to Christ's ex ample, or to the pattern of His life, is never free from a certain influence that operates like a snare. ~We shall try this view, which has many pretensions to spirituality, by the explicit testimonies of our Lord Himself. But, meanwhile, we indicate the danger from which it is not free. It never brings off the mind from legality, from self-reliance, and self-dependence. It perverts the spiritual life and the example of the Lord to be a ground, if not a boldly avowed argument, for fostering a certain self-justifying confidence. That is the vortex, within the attrac tion of which every school is drawn irresistibly, that offers no objective atonement, or perfect plea on which the soul can lean. Nothing so effectually carries off the mind from self- dependence as the atonement, — nothing so exalts grace, and humbles the sinner ; and on this account, God appointed that acceptance and forgiveness of sin should not be given without a Mediator, and without a dependence upon His merits. Hence the jealousy of the apostles and of all Scripture on this point. The apparent spirituality of any tendency will be no compensa tion for this hazard.
Those also who lay the greatest weight of their doctrine on the person of Christ, or on His incarnation, often make light of His cross in the comparison. Some of them, indeed, concede a little, and say, If any find benefit from the terms PENALTY,
LOVE AND JUSTICE IX HARMOXY. 13
PRICE, SURETYSHIP, and SATISFACTION to divine justice, let them lake the good of them. But that is said only to call in question their necessity. On the contrary, it will be found that in all true progress in spiritual knowledge, men will make advances in the knowledge of His atonement as well as of His person. The history of the disciples before and after His crucifixion is a proof of this. The more fully we enter into Christ's truly human experience, and trace His chequered course of joy and of sor row, the livelier will be our apprehension of his curse-bearing life, and of His penal death.
As to the more rationalistic and Socinian phases of opposi tion to the atonement, they will also be kept in view by us. But we wish to bring out positive truth or edifying doctrine much more than merely polemical discussion, — a considerable part of which may competently, and with more propriety, be thrown into the notes. Our object is, rather, positive trutli than refutation of error.
In short, we are not to ask what man holds or has pro pounded, so much as what Christ has said. The examination of this, and the attempt to enter into His consciousness, must primarily engage our attention.
SEC. VI. — DIVIXE LOVE PROVIDING THE ATONEMENT ; OR THE LOVE
OF GOD IN HARMONY WITH JUSTICE AS THE ONLY CHANNEL
OF LIFE. " For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son,
tliat whosoever bclicvcth in Him slwuld not perish, but liavc
everlasting life" — JOHN iii. 16.
To a previous saying on the necessity of the atonement this further testimony is subjoined, in order to make known more fully to Nicodemus the fact of the atonement and its source in divine love. That it forms part of our Lord's uddiv.-s and is not the commentary of the evangelist, is obvious to every one who has remarked the peculiar way in which John up-
U SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
pends his commentary on the Master's words. It is never left doubtful (see John vii. 39). The present testimony is intro duced by the grounding particle for, which shows a continua tion of the discourse, and gives a reason for the final clause in the previous verse (ver. 15).
The allusion to the atonement, with which we have specially to do, is obvious in the phrase, " He gave His Son." Though some have explained this as if it were equivalent to being sent, it rather has the sacrificial sense of being delivered or given up to death. Here it corresponds to the " lifting up " in the pre vious context. This giving of the Son does not go back to the divine purpose, nor go down to the individual's experience when Christ is given to the believer, but denotes a giving up to death. It is properly the giving up in sacrifice, because the presenta tion of the victim formed part of the act of sacrifice. The ex pression, He delivered, or gave, is not infrequent as a description of God's act of giving His Son to a sacrificial death ; and wher ever it occurs, whether as denoting the Father's act in giving the Son (Bom. viii. 32), or the act of the Son in giving Himself (Matt. xx. 28 ; Gal. i. 4), it is always descriptive of the sacrifice which He offered to God the Father. The mistake as to the import of this phrase is enough to show how much of misunder standing and debate is often due to an inadequate knowledge of language. It is not unworthy of notice, that some time ago it was made a question whether this phrase was to be understood in the sense of giving into actual possession, or in the sense of giving in the gospel offer. The dispute arose from regarding the phrase as simply intimating a gift, with a bestower and a receiver, apart from the received usage of language in a certain connection. In truth, it has neither the one sense nor the other, when used in connection with the death of Christ. For when God is tjaid "to give His Son," or when the Son is said " to give Him self," u:^ language must be understood in the sacrificial sense. Here, therefore, our Lord has in His eye, not so much His sending or His incarnation, though these are involved, as the
LOVE AND JUSTICE IN HARMONY. 1 .">
sacrifice of Himself, when He was lifted up, and was made a curse for us.
There are a few points here mentioned in connection with the atonement to which it will be necessary to advert.
1. The atonement is here described as emanating from the love of God. These words of Christ plainly show that the biblical doctrine on this point is not duly exhibited, unless love receives a special prominence ; and that it would be a misre presentation against which the biblical divine must protest, if, under the influence of any theory or dogmatic prejudice, love is not allowed to come to its rights. If even justice were made paramount, the balance of truth would be destroyed. As the text under our notice alludes to both, or describes love as giving the only-begotten Son up to a sacrificial death — which is just equivalent to the satisfaction of divine justice, — it is here proper to define the two. Love, then, may be fitly regarded as the com municative principle of the divine nature, or as the diffusive source of blessing ; and it receives different names, according to the modification of the relation in which His creatures stand to Him, or the varied course of action He pursues toward them. Justice, again, may be defined as the conservative prin ciple of the divine nature or the self-asserting activity of God, according to which He maintains the inalienable rights of the Godhead. It is just run up to this, that He loves Himself, and cannot but delight in His own perfections ; and hence, in de scribing it, the Psalmist says, " For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness" (Ps. xi. 7). In a just conception of the divine attributes, none of them can be said to predominate, their equi poise being so perfect that it could not be disturbed without ruin to the universe. It cannot be wondered at, that the opponents of the vicarious satisfaction repudiate this equipoise of justice and love in the work of redemption. They call it " the dualism of the divine attributes," — they would resolve justice into love. But the one can by no means be subsumed under the other. They are as distinct as love to Ilnusi-lf, and
1 6 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
love to mankind, or as giving and retaining. He gives Himself, in the exercise of love, to His creatures ; but He does not give up, and He cannot recede from, those rights which belong in alienably to Himself as God. And the same principle is daily practised by the man of active benevolence made in the image of God, and acting like God in the communication of diffusive goodness. He gives ; but when he communicates, he retains his own proper rights and prerogatives.
With regard to the love of God, several modern writers,1 in describing the divine attributes, avoid calling love an attribute at all; — chosing rather to call it a definition of God in His whole procedure toward men, or the united concurrent action of all the attributes. There seems no ground for this ; but, on the other hand, the selection of this one perfection as the most de scriptive name for God by an inspired apostle, furnishes suffi cient ground for giving a central place to it, and for investing it, as it were, with all the other perfections, if we would arrive at the most full and accurate idea that can be formed of God in His relation to His church. Were we to invest love with all the natural and moral attributes, and speak of omnipotent and holy love, wise and omnipresent love, we should not mistake the import of the phrase, GOD is LOVE (1 John iv. 8). Here the love is viewed as self-originated, self-moving, free and in finite ; the text before us, as Luther well describes it, being a little Bible in itself. The extent of the divine love delineated in these words of Jesus, may be surveyed from the three points here indicated — the great Giver, the infinite sacrifice of God's Son, and the unworthy objects.
But it must be further noticed, that when Jesus here sets forth the divine love in connection with the atonement, it is not stated simply to assure us of the divine love ; for He shows that it mainly consists in the sacrificial giving of the Son ; find this it is important to apprehend. There is a necessity on God's part, as well as on man's. While the death of Christ, as a 1 E.g. Sartorius, Lehre von der Liebe.
LOVE AND JUSTICE IN HARMONY. 1 7
costly declaration of divine love, removes the slavish fear and Ustrust which prompt men to flee from God, it does this only is it meets a necessity on God's part, and provides a vicarious sacrifice for sin. The text exhibits the harmony of justice and love — the demand of justice, and the provision of love.
This it is the more necessary to notice, because it is objected, i gainst any prominence to divine justice, that this is at the expense of divine love. The one, however, by no means excludes the other. If a divine provision is made at all, it could proceed from no other source but love ; and the greater the difficulty to be surmounted, and the more inflexible the necessity which insists on a satisfaction to justice, beyond the iompass of our own resources, the greater is the display of love. If love is in proportion to the difficulties to be overcome, and if redemption could be effected only at the cost of the humiliation and crucifixion of the Son of God, the love which did not allow itself to be deterred by such a sacrifice, was in finite. Then only does love fully come to light ; and they who do not acknowledge the necessity of the satisfaction can have no adequate conception of love. Thus the cross displayed the love of God in providing the substitute, and was the highest manifestation of its reality and greatness. If the demand or the necessity for such a fact in the moral government of God resulted from the claims of justice, the source from which it flowed was self-originated love.
2. But another point made prominent in this text is the value of the sacrifice from the dignity of the only-begotten Son. As the Lord in the previous verses designated Himself the Son of Man, the title of His humiliation, He here describes Himself by a title which calls up before us His divine dignity ; and it intimates that such a sacrifice was of infinite value, and sullicicnt In cancel sin infinitely great. The divine nature united to the human, incapable of suffering in itself, gave to the suffering of the Mediator an infinite value. The infinite dignity and worth of His suffering, as the atonement of the
18 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Son of God, had a perfectly expiatory efficacy for the redemp tion of all for whom He gave Himself to death.1
The design of this saying is to show that the communication of the divine life is attainable only when love and justice coincide in securing the acceptance of the person, and the expiation of the Son. All this is plainly put as the preliminary to life.
As to the clause, " He gave His only-begotten Son," the allusion, as we have seen, is to the sacrificial death of Christ ; the very idea of which, while it involves the utmost conceivable degree of love, implies that it has the effect of pacifying an offended God. The thought to which all these terms point is, that God cannot forego His inalienable rights when He has been wronged, but necessarily punishes, as a satisfaction to Himself; for He cannot deny Himself.
a. The plain meaning of this clause is repugnant to the notion, too widely current in our time, that pure love, without any tincture of wrath, is the sole principle of the divine action toward man; that we are not to speak of punishment borne, or of vicarious obedience rendered; that, in a word, it is not God's relation that is to be changed, but man's. The clause under consideration teaches the opposite, and shows that the love of God peculiarly appears in this, that He provides the very atonement which puts Him on a new relation to those whose sins had incurred His anger. The two principles, love to the race, and love to Himself, are so far from being incom patible, that they can be placed together in the atoning work of Christ. Punitive justice, which is just regard for His per fections, called for the penalty : love for our race provided the substitute to bear it. What is there of incompatibility in these two?
b. But as the atonement is the effect of the divine love according to this testimony, how is it also the cause of the divine favour? Does not love so great imply that He is
1 Sec sec. vii., on Christ's Deity.
AND JUSTICE IX HARMONY.
19
already reconciled? Here we must distinguish between the moving rails*1: and the meritorious cause. If we look at the prime source of the atoning work, then the incarnation and death of Jesus must be regarded as the fruit of love, and not its cause. But if we look at our actual acceptance, or the enjoy ment of divine favour, and the new relation on which God stands to the redeemed, the atonement is as much its cause as the counterpart Fall was the cause of divine wrath.
c. It may be urged yet further, that God does not hate man kind. But here, again, we must distinguish. It is the sin He hates and punishes, though He loves the creature so far as it is His workmanship; but He cannot impart the effects and visitations of His love, while the hindrances caused by sin are uuremoved. If men will continue to assert that God, without the intervention of any reparation or atonement, can take them into favour, and that He actually does so in the exercise of pure love, they assert what cannot be deduced from the divine perfections, which are ever in full equipoise, and what is contradicted by all the divine actions, in sending His Son, and " in giving " Him that we should not perish.
The final clause, introduced by the particle (fj>a) of design, intimates that the channel of divine life is opened only when the divine rights have been secured. It is the same clause which we find in the previous verse, but in a new con nection. In the former it was placed in relation to the indispensable necessity of the atonement; in the present, it is put in connection with the equipoise or adjustment between love and justice in rectifying men's relation to God, and this clause indicates that the eternal life flows out of it. It is the more necessary to put this matter in the proper light, because the parts of modern theology are so disjointed, and so imirh out of their due setting in respect of the divine life.
( >ui Lord and His apostles commonly adduce the redemption or the remission of sins as the immediate end ol the drath of Christ, But then the ulterior end of that new and adjusted
20 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
relationship is to secure a further end, — the communication of divine life. Thus the removal of the guilt of sin opens the way for the impartation of the eternal life, as a further end, and yet in causal connection with the death of Christ, through the acceptance of the person. The life is that to which every man has a right who enjoys the remission of sins; but the immediate link is the acceptance of the person, or the re mission of sins, which is in order before the sanctification of the nature.
It must be kept in view, then, that the design of Christ, in offering Himself a sacrifice, was to free us from sin itself. But it is also true that this end is reached only through the accept ance of the person, the immediate fruit of the atonement, and by means of the Spirit of life, for which the death of Christ paves the way. But neither the present, nor any similar passage, represents the life as the direct and immediate end of the death of Christ. To that a man can possess no right unless the guilt of sin upon the person has been removed. The person is accepted, and then the nature renewed.
To deduce from this passage and from others similar, that life is first in order, and that the acceptance of the man and the remission of his sins do not immediately flow from the redemp tion work of Christ, but immediately from the possession of life, is to pervert the exposition of language. The final particle used in such phrases is cogent. The argumentation from the tenor of the Old Covenant, "do" and "live," taken up and enforced by the apostles in all their expositions as the com petent interpreters of the Eedeemer's words (Rom. v. 17), is conclusive. The opposite opinion, too common and too much in vogue, just turns all upside down. These modern writers will not have a reconciliation through Christ, but in Him, of a merely mystic nature. They will have it that God cannot for give sin but in a way which is effecting its removal. And hence, if the latter has precedence, a previous satisfaction or atonement is superfluous — nay, impossible. But this testimony
INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY. 21
puts the relation between the atonement and the life quite otherwise.
SEC. VII. — THE INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY OR INCARNATION IN THE MATTER OF THE ATONEMENT.
So close is the connection between the doctrine of the atonement and that of Christ's deity, that they are always found, as history shows, to be either received together or denied together. The one is necessary to the other; and hence the true Church has always in every age confessed to both. The Lord connects the two as the two " heavenly things," on which He lays stress in His interview with Nicodemus (John iii. 13, 14).
It is the person of Christ, or Himself as a divine person, in the performance of a work given Him to do — not His teaching, merely, or the republication of lost truth — that constitutes the ransom. And one equal to the task of bringing a satisfaction or atonement for millions must needs possess a divine dignity. A mere man could as little redeem the world as he could create it ; and the Kestorer of man must be the Maker of man. It does not fall to our present task to refer at large to the proof of Christ's deity ; for our doctrine presupposes the incarnation, — the miracle of miracles, and the grand fact of history. Still less does it lie within our plan to notice the recent negative speculations which look askance on the whole miracle of Christ's life on earth. While they would explode a particular incarna tion as the unique fact of history, in order to assert a general one, or an incarnation of the race, their deep error utterly mistakes the ruin of mankind ; and it assumes the possibility of access to God, and of reunion to Him, without a mediator.
Our Lord, for obvious reasons, lays great stress on His coming into the world, or coming in the flesh to do a work which should at once rectify men's relation and bring life (John v. 24). His entire teaching proceeds on the supposition that
22 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the primeval harmony between love and holiness in promoting man's good, which was disturbed by sin, is restored only by His incarnation and death ; not by the incarnation alone — for then the grain of wheat would have continued to abide alone, — but by His incarnation and death. Not to speak of rationalism, which always assumes that God is willing, without any atoning intervention, to receive back the lost son .to favour, the more mystic theories of Christ's work, which lay all stress on the fellowship in Christ's life, and on the commencement of a new humanity, are not greatly different. They presuppose no work for which the incarnation is absolutely necessary, and which could not be as well done without it. They seem to say that the incarnation or the person of the God-man is itself the atonement ; and yet it soon appears that for the new humanity they plead for, the incarnation is very superfluous. That which places the Church upon Bible Christianity, and severs her from every phase of rationalism, is the firm belief that the atone ment of the incarnate Son is a provision offered by the divine love for the satisfaction of the inflexible claims of divine holi ness and justice.
The point to be noticed here is the influence of Christ's deity in the matter of the atonement. It may seem at first sight that our Lord has said extremely little on the subject of His deity, considered in this light. But the testimonies which touch it are not few when they are all put together ; and He has given the germ of all the subsequent statements made by the apostles. If we examine the history of Christ's life, as written by inspired men, we find that the two sides of His person are in a quite peculiar way brought out together ; and that the scenes which represent Him in His deep abasement always contain, if we only look for them, discoveries or out- beamings of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily. The whole person, as divine and human, is in some way brought out, — a peculiarity of the biblical narrative, which is wholly lost in human biographies of Christ. They cannot approach it.
INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY. 23
We meet in all the words of Christ — as was to be expected from Him who is one person in two conjoined but distinct natures — the utterance of one self-conscious I. It has been happily said by a modern writer : — " Considered in a purely exe- getical light, there is no more certain or clearer result of Scrip ture exposition than the position, that the I of Jesus on the (.•urth is identical with the I who was before in glory with the Father. Every sundering of the Son speaking on the earth into two I's, one of whom was the eternally glorious Word, and the other the humanly abased Jesus, is rejected by clear Scrip ture testimony." 1 We everywhere meet with the conscious utterance of the divine Word made flesh ; and there is a com munion between the two natures, of such a kind that the pro perties of either nature belong to the person. Thus the Son of God knows the human nature as His, and speaks of it as His, while the human nature in like manner speaks to us in the person of the only-begotten Son, and regards the divine nature as its own. Hence all that can be affirmed of one nature can be said of the whole person. And from this flows the infinite value of all He did and suffered. We are warned by the whole mode of speaking followed by Christ, to avoid such a notion of the union as thinks of a person who is neither properly God nor man, but an undefined third quantity.
The works of Jesus, accordingly, are the works of the person. The humanity belonged to the Son of God, not to another ; and the actions He performed were the actions of the Son of God.2 This is assumed in all Christ's words ; and this guiding prin ciple must be carried with us into our interpretation of all His language. If we ascribe, then, to the person what belongs to either nature, as we may and must do, more value attaches to the obedience and suffering of the Son of God than to the sinless service of all creation.
A right view of this important truth will conduct us
1 Liebner, in tin' J,ihr'>ii<-h> ,-fii,- />, -//>•-•/„ Theologie, p. 362. 1858. 1 As the scholastic writers i-xpiv^-.l it : actiones aunt m
24 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
through all the intricacies of this question; and it may be well to put it in a clearer light from His own expressions. Thus He speaks of the human nature as " My flesh," which I will give for the life of the world, or the flesh of Him who came down from heaven (John vi. 51) — meaning that the humanity is personally united to Himself. If the humanity was not His own flesh, but that of a man existing apart from the Son, and therefore independently of Him, however sanctified, and however occupied by God, it could avail nothing. There would be no merit of more than creature-value in His obedi ence, no atonement in His blood equivalent to our infinite guilt.
A biblical view of this truth is of the greatest importance for our present discussion ; for the foundation of our redemp tion is overthrown at once by any separation of the natures, or by any Nestorian division of them. When they are looked at apart in this matter, then we may say, as was once said1 in the hearing of Nestorius : " Mere man could not save : the naked Godhead could not suffer." The humanity of Jesus was not a separate person with a distinct standing, but was taken into personal union, and existed in the person of the Son, or was the Son made flesh. Hence our Lord commonly expresses Himself in such a way as to show that His humanity was that of the Son of God, and that the actions which were done in it possessed, on this account, altogether a peculiar value. Thus He speaks of " MY body broken for you" — intimating that the broken body of such a person alone could meritoriously wash away sin, and save the sinner exposed to deserved punish ment. If that body did not belong to the Son of God as His own, and as in His person, the suffering involved in the breaking of His body, and which was of brief duration, would not have been an equivalent. Again, when He speaks of His blood as " MY blood," the emphasis laid on the person, and on the blood,
1 Thus Proclus expressed himself in the large church of Constantinople in the presence of Nestorius.
INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY. !'-"»
as belonging to such a person, and not to another, cannot bo mistaken. The actions are the actions of the person; and hence the blood was of infinite value, because it was the blood of the Son of God.
On this point it must be noticed, too, that in the work of atonement, as well as in all other parts of His mediatorial activity, Christ acted according to both natures. They ever acted conjointly, but in their separate spheres. It is important to keep in mind that they never acted apart in anything that came within the mediatorial function. And this it is the more necessary to mention, because the notion has obtained currency in modern times, that the divine nature was for the most part in abeyance during His humiliation, just as it was formerly maintained, under the influence of other theories equally un- scriptural, that the Lord was Mediator only according to one of His natures, not according to both. But it must be laid down as an undoubted axiom, that Christ, from the very fact of the incarnation, did not, in any part of His mediatorial work, act as man simply, nor as God simply, but as God-man. With this concurrence of the two natures, however, to the production of the same result, it was not less one act, because the person was one, and is called one Mediator (1 Tim. ii. 5). It ought to be further kept in mind, that in all mediatorial action, the Godhead is the regulating principle, and that the humanity, as befits the lower nature, is subservient to the divine, to which it is con joined. This may be illustrated by the analogy of soul and body. As the soul acts principally, and the body becomes the subservient part, or instrument which the nobler part directs, so in all the official work of Christ, the divine nature is the principal cause.
These are first principles, which must be carried with us to direct us in the conceptions which are formed, and in tin- phraseology which is used, in regard to any part of Christ's mediatorial action, whether we think of Him during His earthly life, or in His present condition. And hence the atone-
26 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
ment is not apprehended according to His own representation of it, unless it is seen to flow from the efficacy of both natures acting each in its sphere. It is the work of the person which is one ; and the atonement, as one work or act, is the result of the concurrent action of the several natures.
Thus the sufferings belonged to the Son of God, just as we should say of a person suffering in his hands or feet, that it was borne by the person. The humanity was His, and so was the agony, though the deity could not agonize nor die. The inti mate connection of the atoning obedience with Himself may be inferred from a more remote union which He also calls Himself, viz. His redeemed people, who are regarded as His body or His members. They were called so by Himself, when He said to Saul the persecutor : " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou ME ?" Now, this is a union far less close and intimate than that of the humanity which he put on. Yet even in reference- to this He designates His people, or the joint heirs with Him self, as His body, and Himself. But as His own humanity is much nearer and more intimately joined to Him, He may affirm, as Scripture uniformly does, that the humanity is the body of God's Son; and that the obedience, suffering, and death are also His, and thus possessed of all the value and worth that properly attach to Himself.
This brings me more particularly to refer to the influence of the deity of our Lord upon His work of atonement. Accord ing to the plan we follow, we shall not go beyond the limits of exegetical investigation, nor beyond the import and significance of Christ's words. We find three effects or consequences de rived from the influence of His person, either directly taught, or easily deducible from His words ; and to these we shall allude with as much brevity as shall consist with the exposition of the language.
1. As one effect of His incarnation, Jesus had power over His own life : " I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again" (John x. 8). Many doubts, insoluble on mere
INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY. 27
humanitarian grounds, nmv disappear at once. We now appre hend hu\v one could be an atoning surety for millions, and act a part t<> which no creature was equal. A mere man, however endowed, could not act this part ; for he had no right to offer his own life ; and a surety must offer his own, not another's. Hence no one can be the master of human nature who is not the supreme God, producing and upholding it by his own power. But having such a nature in personal union with Himself, and therefore in a wholly different relation from that of an ordinary man or unit of the species, He had power to lay down His life, in order to satisfy the law in the room of others. He could offer the life over which He had full authority in man's room.
It is assumed that humanity in this union was exempt from any obligation to punishment or suffering ; and when He did incur it, it evidently flowed from some compact, with a view to obtain an end. He who owes nothing on his own account, and yet pays, must plainly be considered as acting in the room of others for the purpose of relieving the insolvent, or of setting free the captive. It could be given for others, because it was not required for himself; and it was wrought out by such a person only for this end. Our Lord says in the words adduced, that He had authority or right to dispose of His humanity; and He evinced this authority or power when He surrendered Himself into the hands of men, and when He spontaneously breathed out His life on the cross.
2. As another effect of the incarnation, it must be mentioned that infinite value or merit attaches to Christ's atonement. To this there is an obvious allusion when our Lord says, " God so loved the world that He gave His only-legottcn Son" (John iii. 16); and tin- various allusions to His mission, to His liumi- liatiiin as the Son of Man, to His coming into the world, point, more or less directly, to the influence of His deity in connec tion with His atoning work. From this we understand h..\\- the obedience of Jesus possessed such value in His eyes who jud-e.s according to truth, as to effect the remission of our sins,
28 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
and the acceptance of the sinner. It was the obedience of the Son of God. Considered in this light, there are several distinct effects which the deity of Christ must be regarded as producing.
a. Such a knowledge of sin must be acquired as could spring, only from a full discovery of all the sins of men, past, present, and to come, and must stand before His eye at a glance, with a view to be confessed for us, and expiated in our stead. This argues the omniscience of a divine person.
b. Not only so : the endurance of the curse or penalty was wholly beyond the resources of human weakness. Because the sufferer was God-man, He was able to make atonement for in finitely great sin. This involves the collision of infinitudes — infinite wrath for a world's guilt to be met by infinite endur ance ; the curse to be exhausted in order to be changed into a blessing, — things of such a nature that nothing short of omni potence could be put into the scale against them. The divine nature did not suffer, and could not ; but in virtue of its union to the humanity, the latter was able to encounter and bear more than a mere man could have borne, because supported and strengthened for that end. It does not follow, because the divine nature poured out influences to support the human, and to prevent it from giving way, that influences of a comforting character were also given in the same proportion. The opposite appears from the events in the garden, and from the desertion on the cross. He knew the infinite hatred of God to sin, and drunk the cup of merited penalty ; but the influence of divine nature supported the humanity in suffering through what must needs be borne. He was deserted, yet sustained.
c. But it must be yet further remarked, that the Godhead gave infinite value to -the suffering. This was due to His bi-in- the God-man. And because His suffering was of infinite value, it was sufficient to satisfy for all whose redemption He aimed at. This is the reason why the sufferings and obedience of Christ can satisfy for thousands. If He were a mere man, He could not satisfy for one; but being very God, the dignity of His
INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY. 29
person not only put (lie Lord Jesus into a position for surety — suffering such as no mere man could ever occupy, — but has an influence on the whole obedience. And Scripture accordingly fixes our attention on the person to deduce from it the value of His suffering. The suffering of finite creatures could never offer satisfaction, though their endurance of it were eternal. But the divine dignity of Christ countervailed the eternal dura tion of the punishment ; for the element of the duration is by no means essential to the satisfaction. He who can bear the infinite weight of God's wrath is not subject to its eternal dura tion. Thus the infinite value of the obedience is traced up to the divine dignity of His person ; the act of the Son of God in offering up His humanity being the culmination of His obedi ence, and constituting merit.
3. Another effect of the incarnation is, that the party bought must belong to Him who redeems them by the neces sary law of purchase. But man cannot be lord of man. To this proprietary right to His own sheep our Lord refers when He calls them His sheep (John x. 2), and proceeds to argue on the ground of His omnipotence and His Father's sovereign dominion, that none shall pluck them out of His hand ; and then subjoins that ever memorable testimony to His divine consub- stantiality with the Father as well as to His distinct per sonality : "I and the Father are one" (John x. 15, 27, 30).
Thus the influence of Christ's deity in the matter of the atonement appears in all conceivable respects according to His • i\vn testimony. The Son of God suffered in our humanity, and in that humanity was vilified, despised, and crucified, and bore punishment that must be borne in room of sinners. Thus the Son of God was by the incarnation put in the position of sin ners for the endurance of the punishment, supplying by the dignity <>t' His person what was awanting in the continuance of the sufferings of thirty-three years, — Christ being no ordinary man, but the Son of God.
30 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
SEC. VTIL — SINGLE PHRASES DESCRIPTIVE OF THE UNIQUE POSITION OF JESUS, OR HIS STANDING BETWEEN GOD AND MAX.
There are phrases and titles used in regard to Himself which argue that He was Conscious of a quite unique relation to the world, or, more strictly, to a flock or people whom He acknow ledges as His. Of these expressions we shall adduce a few. The terms commonly used in the doctrinal discussion of the atonement, and drawn from Bible phraseology, such as SURETY, MEDIATOR, HIGH PRIEST, ADVOCATE — all representing Him as our substitute, who appears in the presence of God for us, and conducts our cause, — are not indeed found in the Lord's own words descriptive of Himself. But, beyond question, the thing is there ; and He acts as fully conscious that, except through Himself, as Mediator, God could have no intercourse with man, nor man with God. He understands and consults the best interests of His people in every respect: He took flesh, and knows the infirmities of human nature by personal experience, that He may sympathize with their condition, and compas sionately conduct their concerns: He was lawfully called and appointed to this function. And not only so: the sacrificial language, which we find Him so frequently using, implies a Priest, though He does not expressly appropriate the term.
These titles, both numerous and various, imply that He had a relation to mankind which is unique ; that He stood between (God and man ; that He was not an individual unit of the race, as all the negative theology represents Him ; but acting in a representative capacity for it. He assumes a position that no one but Himself could dare to occupy. Thus, when He calls Himself THE WAY, in the saying, " I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John xiv. 6), He means that He is the exclusive Way ; not only paving the way for others, but constituting, in His o\vn person and Murk, the only way by which any could have access to God. That this is the meaning is evident from the subjoined words, " No man cometh unto the Father but by
UNIQUE POSITION OF JESUS. 31
Me." He on the one hand contrasts Himself with all other men; while on the other He links Himself to the lost and condemned, as their Physician and Deliverer (Matt. ix. 12; Luke xix. 10). And to convey the idea of His unique relation to mankind, He declares, in reference to all who set up rival claims : " All who ever came before Me were thieves and robbers" (John x. 8). He stood where no one but Adam ever stood, acting as one for many ; offering a ransom as one for many (Matt. xx. 28); shedding His blood as one for many (Matt. xxvi. 28).
The title of the BRIDEGROOM, which the Baptist ascribed to Jesus, and which the Lord also appropriated to Himself (John iii. 29 ; Matt. ix. 15), is specially noteworthy, as it exhibits, with definite clearness, the relation which He occupies to the Church, considered as a collective body, as well as to the several individuals who compose it. He is designated the Bridegroom who has the bride, as contrasted with all mere ministers as but ministering to her (John iii. 29) ; and the designation is one which brings out the tender love of Christ to the Church, as exhibited not only in His whole relation and course of action towards her, but, above all, in the fact that He gave Himself for her ; or, in other words, offered Himself sacrificially, that He might put her in this relation to Himself, and array her witli all the attractive graces of the Spirit.
We nowhere find, except in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the term Priest explicitly applied to our Lord. But that circumstance by no means forecloses the inquiry, but rather suggests it, whether there may not occur, in the course of our Lord's instructions, titles of similar import, or declarations from Hi> lips, where the idea of the Priest and of the priestly sacri fice, though not called so in express terms, must be held to lie at the foundation of the thought. And that we do find such savings us iiniuistakraMv imply the one High Priest between God and man is certain. Thus, when He announces that He came to give His soul or life for many, we cannot tail to notice,
32 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
whether we fix our attention upon the word LIFE or upon the sacrificial phrase TO GIVE, that He indirectly announces Himself as oui- High Priest (Matt. xx. 28). The same allusion to a priestly function comes out in connection with the saying that the flesh or sacrifice, which was to be eaten by His followers, for the enjoyment of spiritual life, was to be " given " by Him self, or, in other words, was to be offered for the life of the world (John vi. 51). This priestly oblation, in connection with Himself, and in which He was to be at once the Priest and the victim, is nowhere more distinctly stated than in the words, " For their sakes I sanctify Myself " (John xvii. 19). I only at present notice these passages as testimonies, explicit enough, though indirect, to His priestly function. They will be considered separately in the sequel.
All the phrases used by Him disclose a full consciousness of His peculiar and unique relation. Thus He represents Himself as standing over against the world, and mediating between God and the world ; in the family as one of it, and yet able, repre sentatively, to act for it. He is called the " Saviour of the World " — a title which the Samaritans must have learned from Himself (John iv. 42); the Light of the World (viii. 12) ; the Resurrection and the Life (John xi. 25) ; who came down from heaven with a charge to lose none that the Father had given Him (John vi. 39). And His words indicate that He stood in a representative relation even to the saints who had trod the earth before Him — as appears from His discussion with the Jews as to Abraham's relation to Him (John viii. 53). To the question, whether He was greater than Abraham, their common father, He replied, that the patriarch in two ways rejoiced in Him — (1) in the far past anticipating His day; and (2) in Paradise, when it came. He thus in effect declared that there was no other name given under heaven among men, whether they lived before His day or after it, by which they could be saved; and that there was salvation in no other. This fact proves that His mediatorial work was retrospective as well as
T1IF. SENDING OF JESUS BY THE FATHER. 33
prnsprrtivr, and therefore, that it must be something else than a mere example, however influential, as the latter can only iijirvute prospectively, or after the event, not conversely. He showed, in a word, by many titles and expressions, that He stood in the position of a MEDIATOR BETWEEN God and man, and that if men did not believe in Him they should perish in their sins (John viii. 24). But He abstains, for obvious reasons, from appropriating the title most of all familiar to the Jews, — that of MESSIAH. He used it only once among the simple and docile Samaritans (John iv. 26). The Jews had perverted its meaning ; and the use of it among them would not have con veyed the meaning He intended. But not only so : it seems that He could not have used it except, at the risk of civil con fusion and political complications, from which He would keep His cause clear.
SEC. IX.— SAYINGS OF JESUS REFERRING TO A SENDING BY THE FATHER.
There are few expressions more frequent in the mouth of Jesus than those which refer to His being sent. We find it used by our Lord in connection with all the three offices with which He was invested (John xii 49 ; Luke iv. 18). But we limit our inquiry, according to the plan prescribed to ourselves, to the sayings which have a reference to His priestly sacrifice, or to His work of atonement ; and, considered in this light, it was meant to represent God in the light, of the Supreme Director and sole fountain of the redemption-work. To this view of the sending we shall limit our attention ; and it will be found that, by the use of this phrase, the Lord uniformly inti mates that He did not assume or arrogate to Himself the dignity or office of being the Redeemer of sinful men, but that He was appointed to it, or ordained by God to it.
To show what emphasis the Lord laid on this sending, He says, " He that sent Me is true" (John vii. 28), — an epithet
34 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
which, as the Greek word intimates (afajQtvos 6 -replug /a,g), does not mean true as contrasted with false, but true as com prehending everything that constitutes sending in the highest sense of the word, or as exhibiting the highest ideal of a sender. It is noteworthy, too, that the title, " The angel of the Lord," or, literally, THE SENT ONE OF JEHOVAH, is just the Old Testa ment synonym for this expression. And this phrase, in Christ's mouth, will thus intimate, " I am the Angel of His presence, who appeared to the patriarchs, and who spoke to Moses at the bush ; who was the Director and Guide of Israel's wanderings, the centre of the Old Testament economy, and now made flesh to usher in the new covenant, or the new order of things."
We do not in this place consider the sending of Christ in connection with the thought that it involves the divine dignity of His person, and thus giving infinite value and efficacy to His whole work of atonement. That latter point has been noticed in its proper place. We limit our attention at present to the sending, as evincing that THE EEDEMPTION is OF GOD, and the effect of free, sovereign, and boundless love.
1. If we put together a few of the expressions used by Christ upon this topic, we shall find that He, first of all, leads us, by means of this phraseology, to the counsel of peace, or compact between the Father and the Son for man's redemption. Thus He says : " Say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into tlie world, Thou llasphemest ; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John x. 3G). This is quite of the same import with the declaration of Peter, that He was foreordained before the foundation of the world. It is plainly taught there that ( 'hrist was appointed by God from eternity to be tin- Knu-emer, or that He was foreordained, and furnishrd with all that was required for His task. By this phrase He would have men feel that the atonement emanates from God ; that it springs from self-moving love; anil that He arrogated nothing to Himself Nvln-u He brought it in. For, on the one hand, it could not have been extorted from God, but must have ireuly emanated
THE SENDING OF JESUS' BY THE FATHER. 35
from Him if it was brought in at all ; and, on the other hand, it could not have been procured by any finite intelligence. This realization of His sending, to which our Lord so often gives expression, was descriptive of His habitual consciousness; and the phrase implies, that because men were involved in helpless impotence, a divine purpose was formed to deliver them from ruin and condemnation ; and that, in the execution of the plan which had this end in view, the Father held in His hand the rights of Godhead, and sent His Son, in the capacity of a voluntary servant, to perform that work of suffering obedience which was necessary for man's ransom. To the same purpose are all those passages in the apostolic Epistles in which the atonement is immediately referred to God, and represented as emanating from Him, or as an arrangement appointed and ordained by Him, for the accom plishment of which .the Son was sent as the only Mediator.
2. When we follow the successive steps of this sending — and it is important to do so, according to the Lord's description, — we find Him, first of all, alluding to a charge, commission, or obligation, laid upon Him, and which it was incumbent on the surety to discharge : " / came down from heaven not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me " (John vi. 38). This commission, as the context proves, was of a very extensive nature, comprehending the end as well as the means, the atonement and its application to all who were given to Him. As to the significance of this sending, it is not quite identical with the incarnation, but differs from it as former and latter; I'm1 (luil M/// Him to be born (John iii. 17); while others can only be described as born and sent. According to biblical phraseology, we cannot say that He first received His mission after He waa born, ami then addressed Himself to its duties; for God sent His Son — that is, one who already was a person, ami who was the Sun. His mission being founded upmi Hi- eternal generation. And though the designation of " the Sent One" was given to Him anterior to the incarnation — for all
30 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the appearances of the Angel of the Lord, or of the Angel of His presence, were only preludes to His coming in the flesh, — the title was never used irrespective of that atoning work which was to be brought in by Him in the fulness of time. Not only so : tins sending of the Son implies a divine counsel or covenant and a voluntary condescension, but no real in equality between the sender and the sent. His mission differs from that of His apostles in this, that they were sent out as servants, He as an equal, — an ambassador, indeed, but yet with full equality. Nor does it involve local separation from the Father; for He was STILL IN THE FATHER'S BOSOM, while He trod this world (John i. 18). And the official subordination was not of such a kind as to carry with it a depotentiation in any of His inalienable divine perfections, but was only a means to an end, — though an end worthy of such stupendous means.
3. When we put together some of the many expressions which fell from Christ's lips upon this topic, in the order of natural sequence, we find it next said : " God sent not His Son into the world to condemn tlie world, but that the world through Him might be saved " (John iii. 17). This statement, taken in connection with the allusion in the former verse to the giri»f/ of His Son as a propitiation for sin — that is, in the sacrificial acceptation, as the phrase implies, — intimates that He was sent to be the atonement, and that by this means men are saved; for the sending was the cause of that effect. These two verses mutually explain each other ; for the sending comprehended in it, as its scope or intended object, the sacrificial death. And these two express, when viewed together, the plan or commission -ivrii. and the end or purpose contemplated, — the giving of His Son for our salvation ; which, as we have already seen, can only be regarded as sacrificial language.
4. When we advance, in the successive steps of this mission, we next find the Lord Jesus declaring that in no part of His redemption-work was He left alone (John viii. 29): " And He
THE SENDING OF JESUS BY THE FATHER. 37
(Jtttf *-nt ]\[e is with Me : the Fatlwr hath not left Me alone ; for I do always tliose things that please Him" This remarkable testimony, from Christ's own consciousness, intimates that He was continuously upheld as He went from step to step of His high work; and that the constant assistance, aid, or divine solace imparted to Him stood in an ineffable connection with His sinless obedience, and, in fact, was a constantly renewed reward for service done. "VYe here get a glimpse into the heart of Christ as the Mediator, and into the perpetual intercourse between Him and the Father, such as we get nowhere else. He was at every step anew rewarded.
Thus the " sending " intimates that the work of propitiation for our sins was all of God, from first to last. The sanctifica- tion or call of such a person for the purpose of being sent into the world (John x. 36); the commandment or obligation imposed upon Him, and which fidelity required Him to fulfil (John vi. 39) ; the divine presence imparted to Him for the full dis charge of His mediatorial work, lest He should fail or be dis couraged (John viii. 29; Matt. xii. 18); the repeated recognition of His obedience at different stages, — at His baptism, when His private life lay behind Him, — on the mount of the Transfigura tion, when His public ministry was drawing to its close, and when He must stedfastly set His face to go forward to a cursed death, — and in Jerusalem, whither He had come up to die (Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5 ; John xii. 28) — not to mention its final acceptance and endless reward, — all elucidate the significance of this sending or mission, the thought of which was never absent from Christ's mind. And what was in His thoughts came ot ten to His lips, as an ever present reality.
Tin- great truth intimated by all these phrases is, that the redemption is of God ; that the atonement to which the saints looked forward who were saved before His advent, and to which all look hack who are saved since, was effected according to the direction Off will of Him from whom the world had revolted; that the sender was the Father personally considered; and that
W SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the grand object of the sending was to atone for sin. The sending is thus an expression of authority, and a manifestation of every divine attribute working together to a definite object. But it is specially an exhibition of unmerited love or grace. The atonement emanated from sovereign grace, and was an expres sion of the boundless and incomprehensible love of God's heart to sinful men ; and we may affirm, in reference to this sending, that there was a twofold object — a proximate and an ultimate, — first of all to atone ; and then, by atoning, to secure the end that of all whom the Father had given Him He should lose none (John vi. 39).
5. But the Lord refers also to the reward awaiting Him after having finished the work given Him to do, when He says, " / go to Him that sent Me" (John vii. 33). This atoning work received its meed of reward in a twofold sense, which, indeed, is one: first, in the personal glory on which He entered; and next, as He is the forerunner, in that representative capacity which He occupied for the good of others. And it is in this sense that certain expressions are to be explained, which would other wise be far from obvious. And He had the reward always in view.
It may not be inappropriate, in this connection, to give a brief elucidation of a passage of considerable difficulty, and which has received very various expositions. I refer to John vi. 57 : " As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father [or, better, because of the Father], so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me [or, better, on My account, because of Me~\" An examination of all the Protestant versions, as well as of the patristic commentators, will show the strange per plexity into which they have all been thrown by this language. The Greek fathers refer the first clauses to the eternal Sonship, and to the -divine life proper to the Son, by eternal generation. They thus make these words parallel to John v. 26, which undoubtedly has that sense. The Protestant versions, and commentators generally, can make nothing of it, except by
THE SENDING OF JESUS BY THE FATHER. 39
altering the force of the Greek preposition,1 which, when construed with the accusative, means, and can only mean, because of, on account of. But the words will not be found of difficult exposition if we only attend to one point, which has always been missed — the priority of this sending to the life here mentioned. The life ascribed to the Lord Jesus in this passage is not that which preceded His being sent, — not that divine life, therefore, which belonged to Him as the eternal Son, but that life which followed His being sent ; or, in other words, which is the reward allotted to Him on the consumma tion of His work. The allusion is not to the divine life prior to His mission, but to the premial life which followed it, and which comes out in the passage, " This do, and thou shalt live." And all the mistakes seem to have been owing to not observing the priority of the sending to the life here referred to, which is certainly taken for granted in our Lord's words. There is thus no occasion, as there can certainly be no authority, for altering the force of a preposition to solve a difficulty. The allusion is to the mediatorial reward. Life is the reward of the sending, or, in other words, of the work accomplished ; and the present tense, I live, is just equal and similar to the present tense in " I go to the Father." The verse just intimates that He lives, (1) as the reward of His accomplished mission; and (2) lives, too, as the source of life to others, who live only on His account.
The phrases, however, referring to the sending of Christ are too numerous to be all noticed in detail ; and they are inter woven with the texture of Christ's teaching, so that we can refer to them only in general. They all imply, that in the
1 S/a TCI ftt.T\fa.. The Greek commentators explain it, for the most part, 3<« TO yitir.fava.i \x, %utrts -rctTfos. The interpreters since the Reformation, following pounded S/i here const nieil wit 1) the accusative, iii "the Bailie \vay MM they would have done had it been construed with the genitive. l?eza appeals to Aristophanes' I'lti/it*, ver. 470. Liuke quotes the Greek scholiast on it, to the ell'eet that sometimes I'* with the accusative has the same force as it has with the genitive. We have given the only tenable explanation.
40 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
matter of human redemption, two acting parties are presented to our minds, and that the Father deputed, commissioned, or sent the only-begotten Son, and that the Son, in the exercise of a boundless love, which appears at all points, came to give His life a ransom for many.
6. When Jesus refers to the acceptance of His mission by the world, He shows that full confidence in the fact of His sending by His Father is of absolute necessity to a due recep tion of Him and of His salvation : " He that receiveth Me, re ceiveth Him that sent Me " (Matt. x. 40). If this mission is not credited by those to whom the testimony comes, then they must conclude that He came unauthorized, and that the work on which He entered was planned and executed at His own dis cretion. He would thus be no Redeemer, called and competent to atone for men ; for God, in whose hand they are as prisoners, can alone discharge them, as the competent authority, and only in a way glorifying to His perfections or name. Hence the im portance of recognising this mission. It is the badge of true discipleship ; for they who believe on Him, believe on Him that sent Him (John v. 24). And the object aimed at by the organization, love, and unity of the Christian Church — at least one great object outwardly — is, as Christ declares, " that the world may believe that Thou hast SENT Me " (John xvii. 21).
SEC. X. — SAYINGS OF CHRIST WHICH ASSUME THAT HE IS THE SECOND ADAM, AND ACTING ACCORDING TO A COVENANT WITH THE FATHER IN THIS ATONING WORK.
In adducing some of those sayings of Jesus which bring out the idea of a federal transaction in connection with the atone ment, I shall limit my attention to those which bear more or less directly on the vicarious sacrifice. The deity of Christ and His personal relation to the Father are of course presup posed in any allusion to the covenant; where, as we at once per ceive, the persons of the Godhead are found acting according to
THE SECOND ADAM AND THE COVENANT. 41
the relation of natural order. A brief allusion to this great paction or counsel of peace will enable us to perceive with greater clearness the sphere in which the surety had to walk.
That there is such an agreement between the Father who give a commission involving duty, promises, rewards, and the Son considered as a public person, who appeared as a represen tative acting in the name of His people, is put beyond all doubt ; for it is referred to in various testimonies by Christ Himself. The life of Christ, it is true, presents to us only the pheno menal part of the mediatorial scheme, as it required certain words to be spoken, or actions to be done. But all this emanates from a covenant which proceeds on the ground that a representative work was absolutely necessary, as man could be saved on no other principle than on that which is found in connection with his fall. It takes for granted, too, the donation of a people in whose name He acted (John vi. 37). Jesus, knowing that He came from God and went to God, uses various words which show a commission and announce the second man.
Though the similarity between the first 'and second Adam is specially developed by the apostles in the fuller outline of doctrine which they were appointed to give, our Lord's sayings constantly assume an express counterpart or analogy between the first and second man. He appeals to Himself as " the Son of Man," a title which, as we shall afterwards show, brings out the idea of the second man with a peculiar modification. He announces that He was come that His people might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly ; which refers most naturally to that more abundant fulness of divine life which was brought in by the second man (John x. 10; Horn, v. 17).
To this correspondence or counterpart relation between the first and second Adam it is the more necessary to refer, be cause almost all the ditHcultiesand objections urged against the atonement at the present time proceed upon incorrect notions of the primeval constitution given to the human race in a single
42 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
man, or from a denial of that constitution altogether. The doc trine of the atonement cannot be understood at all, except on the principle that the same constitution is laid at the basis of that economy by which we are saved, as lay at the basis of that economy by which we fell. That constitution was to the effect that one man was regarded as the race, and that the race is still the one, — a constitution differing from that which was given to angels, who stood each for himself, or fell each for himself. This seems, clearly enough, deducible from the fact that only a part fell. It does not fall to man to object to such a constitu tion given to mankind, when it pleased a sovereign God to appoint it for reasons, the wisdom and goodness of which we may not question. Nor does it become us too curiously to in quire into those reasons : God's will is reason enough ; and we only incur the risk of darkening counsel by words without knowledge, when we venture on a field beyond our scrutiny.
The objection of self-righteous men against the counterpart provision of the atonement, has generally proceeded from a dis position to challenge the justice or the goodness of that consti tution which it has pleased a sovereign God to establish. Of course the world coidd be redeemed only on the same principle. When men, therefore, argue that if their own virtue cannot save them, they cannot be benefited by the work of another, how ever excellent, they only misunderstand, or fail to take into account, that peculiar constitution under which the Creator saw meet to place the race. The salvation of many by the righteous ness or atonement of Christ as the transaction of one for many, is not out of keeping with the primeval constitution, according to which the race stood related to Adam. The right relation of the man, as such, or of the person, is only in a public represen tative ; and so long as the person is condemned, of what avail are all his actions ? So fully are all the individuals represented by that one man, that we may say there have been but two persons in the world, and but two great facts in human history.
They who attach themselves to the new theology ignore
THE SECOND ADAM AND THE COVENANT. 43
this constitution given to the race; or if they nominally acknowledge a representative system, it is of such a character as makes it refer to the NATURE exclusively, not to the PERSON. It comes to be a mere individualism, as if the human race were but a sand-heap or granulated mass, without any public, corpo rate, or organic unity; and Christ is the mere Lifegiver by means of a mystic union to Himself, without any deed of meritorious obedience as the ground or foundation upon which premially God bestows that life. They take no account of the person as such, nor of the man in his relative standing, nor in fact of a moral governor, of law, of guilt, of acceptance through obedience. All that Paul sets forth in the fifth chapter of Romans is exhibited in the Lord's own sayings, with this ex ception, that He does not set over against each other, by the same formal comparison, the disobedience of Adam and the surety obedience which He Himself was bringing in. He gives the one side of the parallel, and He leaves us to supplement it, as the apostle has done by the running analogy or counterpart of the other. That we receive the justification of life by Christ, is not once, nor obscurely stated ; and that this is of course to be contrasted with being made sinners by the first man, is readily inferred. By the Son of Man we have the ransom (Matt. xx. 28), the remission (Matt. xxvi. 28), and life (John vi. 51) ; and this leaves us to infer, as all Scripture teaches, that we have the opposite by Adam.
The same thing appears from the peculiar engagement or covenant between the Father and the Son in behalf of a peculiar class, who are described as given to Christ, or committed to Him, with a special charge or command that none of them should be lost. Thus He says : " This is the mil of Him that sent Me, that of all tlmf !I< Imlli tf/n-n Me I should lose not/ti/iff, but should raise it up again at the last day" (John vi. 39). That l;i!i-ii;iu'' implies, beyond all doubt, a commission on certain conditions, whatever name may be employed to describe it — covenant, treaty, or compact, — the Father on the one side
44 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
prescribing the duty, and promising the help which should be required; the Son, on the other side, engaging His heart to appear before God in the capacity of a surety. The Gospel of John is so replete with testimonies to this effect on the part of Christ, that unless we take to our aid the elucidation sup plied by the idea of a covenant, there are many passages where we can scarcely apprehend the meaning. The whole of His mediatorial commission on the behalf of a multitude given to Him, and whom He is charged to keep (John vi. 39) ; His subjection mediatorially to His Father, who is from this one circumstance called greater than He (John xiv. 29) ; His de claration that He acted from the Father and for His glory (John vii. 16-18); His explanation of the engagement which bound Him to bring in others who were not of the Jewish fold (John x. 16) ; and, in a word, His whole intercessory prayer (John xvii.), — proceed so much on the idea of a covenant, and of a people given to Him on certain terms, that we cannot understand the language on any other supposition. And it is evident enough, from reasons drawn alike from God's moral government and from man's inability, that but for such a treaty or agreement on man's behalf, a remedial economy would have been impossible ; for no covenant between God and sinners could have been directly formed. Two parties are plainly brought before us in all these testimonies, — one party imposing conditions, and a second undertaking to comply with certain terms on behalf of a third party. That such a treaty exists, then, in the counsels of the Godhead, cannot be questioned by any one who will do justice to these words of Jesus. And whatever preconceived opinions may be entertained as to what is fitting or not fitting in the Godhead must be overruled, when the word of God, as a sentence in a court of last resort, has actually pronounced upon the point. AVe must refer to this covenant as His rule of action.
That covenant rested on this basis, that as God at first had created man under a representative constitution, or under a
TIIF. SECOND ADAM AND THE COVENANT. 45
system which was thai of one for many, so the surety must come on a footing precisely similar, nay, enter into the very provisions of that first arrangement (Bom. v. 10). Thus Christ and His people stand in the eye of law as one single person. There were, properly speaking, but two persons in the world — Adam and Christ, — in whom the whole seed, belonging severally to these two, must be considered as contained. On the principle just laid down, that Christ and His seed are viewed as one person, it is plain that the salvation of His people was vir tually to be wrought out in the obedience and death of the Son of God. The covenant rested on this basis, that the Son of God, condescending to be Son of man, should enter into our covenant of works, and that all who were given to Him should enter into the federal reward. That this may be rendered more clear, it will be necessary to sketch with all possible succinct ness the various conditions prescribed to Him.
1. It was necessary, according to that eternal paction, that the Son should take a body as an indispensable preliminary to His subsequent work of obedience, — a humanity that should be sinless to stand for the sinful, holy to stand for the unholy, and which could thus hide the stain of our original sin, as well as lay a foundation for all the work on which He was to enter. And the Father, who in every part of this great transaction must be viewed as at once the lawgiver and fountain of the covenant, prepared for Him a body (Ps. xl. 6-8).
2. The next thing prescribed according to the covenant was the peculiar work marked out for the righteous servant. He must be put under the law, and under that law as broken. Some would make it appear that He was not necessarily made under the law in the proper sense. But if it was to be a true obedience on His side, and a true substitution or vicarious action for others, He must stand under our covenant — that is, be made under the law of works, both as to precept and penalty.
.3. I pass from the prescription of duty to the promises of
46 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
assistance in His work, and of reward, when the work was completed, for Himself, and for all whom the Father gave Him. These are numerous ; comprehending, among others that might be named, the promise of unction by the Spirit (Isa. Ixi. 1), of a seed to serve Him (Isa. liii. 10), and of complete and final victory (Isa. xlii. 1-4).
This covenant on which we have but glanced, exhibiting the whole economy as springing from the Father's gracious will, and as a scheme of grace, and of nothing but grace, combines in a vivid way all the doctrines of special saving grace. It is peculiarly valuable as affording a bird's-eye view of the whole economy from its commencement to its final consummation. It is the unrolling of the map of God's procedure; and in putting together plan and execution, fact and theory, as we shall proceed to do, we obtain a juster view of the grace which projected the whole. It is of advantage to study in connection the scheme and the accomplishment ; and when the vast pano rama passes in review, we gain in comprehensiveness of view by the sublime and affecting spectacle in reference to all the work of Christ, and especially in reference to the great work of atonement.
But the covenant, while glorifying all the persons of the Godhead and all the divine attributes, is peculiarly useful as exhibiting the humanity of Christ in connection with a work given Him to do. The following sections will exhibit Him filling up this plan or scheme as replenished with the Spirit, and as the perfect representative of what humanity should be. Before the Eedeemer's MERITS can be fully seen, they must be read off from the covenant, and be viewed in connection with it; nay, it may be doubted whether there euiiLl bt- .MKKIT in the proper acceptation of the term, except on the ground of a com pact or covenant for the performance of a given work.
This brief outline of the covenant will bring us to the con sideration of the NECESSITY of the atonement.
NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 47
SEC. XI. — SEPARATE SAYINGS WHICH AFFIRM OR IMPLY THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
On several occasions the Lord refers to the necessity of His death, but often stops short at the fact that it had been fore told. Was there any deeper reason assigned by Him? Yes : there are various allusions, direct and indirect, to a deep inner necessity for His atoning work which we must now evolve. And it is the more important to raise the question, why God could not pass over sin without atonement, and to answer it from Christ's own conscious-point of view, because not a few regard the alleged necessity of the atonement in no other light than as a semi-philosophical theory, or as a merely traditional doctrine that has come down to us. The necessity of the atonement, or the why in the moral government of God, must, as far as possible, be assigned.
Our plan leads us to proceed in an exegetical way, and not to argue from general principles or from mere dogmatic grounds, except as the discussion of the words of our Lord conducts us to the confines of that field. Though our object is to investi gate in what way our Lord speaks of the necessity of atone ment, yet there are some cl posteriori arguments which may be noticed at the outset.
We cannot conceive of such a stupendous economy, if it were not necessary. There could be no other reason suffi ciently important for God to abase Himself and to be made in fashion as a man, and suffer on the cross ; for God would not subject His Son to such agonies if sin could have been remitted without satisfaction. To suppose that all this was appointed ninvlv in cniilirni Christ's testimony as a teacher, is a shock to reason; for that could have been effected by a martyr's death. To hold that it \vas meant to impress the human mind with ;i con\ictii.n of Cod's love, is no better; for the whole historic basis of Christianity would be little better than a mere drama or scenic arrangement, intended to make an inward impression,
48 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
but nothing real in the moral government of God, if the vicarious sacrifice were not necessary on God's part for the ransom of sinners, and to put away their sin. The facts are too momentous and solemn, and too closely connected with all the attributes of God and all the persons of the Trinity, to be brought down to the level of an imposing representation. To take this round about way of making a moral impression, if the death of God's Son was not necessary, would be repugnant to the divine goodness and wisdom.1
Our Lord, in addressing a people familiar with the ideas of sacrifice, did not deem it necessary to dilate on the necessity of an atonement, and for the most part narrowed the allusion to the sacrifice of Himself, assuming the necessity as an undoubted truth. God had from the first sought to develop the idea of SIN among the chosen people, and to keep their consciences alive to the fact, that it must needs be expiated by propitiatory sacrifices. Many laws were enacted for the purpose of awaken ing a sense of want: civil and ecclesiastical privileges were withdrawn for the violation of these laws, and many afflictive visitations were sent. The government of God was ever anew violated by sinful deeds or transgressions of the law, and fellowship with God was foreclosed. Every Jew was aware that, in consequence of a transgression, he was liable to the penalty which must follow ; and, in a word, that there was no enduring covenant, and no free access to the Holy One, without a complete fulfilment of the law. No approach could otherwise be allowed to God's presence in the sanctuary services; and there was, besides, a conscious guilt, which tended to estrange the sinner from God, and to make him apprehensive. This was an education of the people in the knowledge of sin.
To meet this deep-felt need of pardon, and as a method of remitting the penally incurred by a violation of the letter, sacrifices were appointed, which operated on the conscience of
1 Sic WiiMiis, De Economia Federum (lil>. ii. chap, viii.) ; and the Heidel-
IHTX < 'iiti-chisiu, (jiK'stiou 1'2, with its expounders.
NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 49
tlic Jew iii ;i peculiar way. They gave him a vivid view of tin* guilt of sin, and of the rectitude and holiness of the divine government. The whole Old Testament was thus calculated to bring into prominence the necessity of an atonement, and to sharpen the conviction that sin required a higher sacrifice ; and the sacrifice, presupposing the sinful deed, showed the inviolability of the law and covenant. If the Jewish wor shippers neglected the sacrifices of atonement, they incurred the curses of the law. If they brought the sacrifices, they were purged from their defilement, and had access re-opened to God in the sanctuary service, without impediment from without or fear within.
With this doctrine of sacrifice the Jewish mind was familiar. They all admitted the necessity of a sacrifice of atonement in order to avert punishment. Tliis was the great idea, for the full development of which the nation had been peculiarly separated from other people, and which was to be learned by them in order to be diffused over the earth. They acknowledged these atonements as the method of averting the threatened penalty, however much they perverted them from the divine purpose by extending their effects to moral tres passes, instead of limiting them, as they should have done, to ceremonial defilement. They held the necessity of expiation ; and our Lord, accordingly, in speaking to them, proceeds on this conceded truth. And hence His words take all this for ^ranted, wherever He makes reference to His work. With a deeper reference than was commonly attached to the sacrifices, and si Minding the depths which underlay them, He throughout assumed the indispensable necessity of an expiation. All His sayings contain this thought in their deeper relation. Tims, when we read of sin to be borne in a sacrilicial sense, (.John i. •-".': <>!' a ransom to be paid for the purpose of liberating captives to diviiie justice (Matt. x\. 28); of the law, both nmral and ceremonial, to be embodied in a sinless life and exhibited in a sacrificial death (Matt. v. 1 7) ; of the blood of the covenant
50 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
which puts men on a new footing, and in a relation of pardon and acceptance, to be dissolved no more (Matt. xxvi. 28) ; — all these allusions take for granted that an atonement is indis pensably necessary, and that the divine claims must be dis charged in full.
When we survey our Lord's teaching on the necessity of the atonement, we find reference to a subjective and objective necessity, or to the conscience of man on the one hand, and to the divine rights on the other.
1. Conscience demands a satisfaction or atonement. To this necessity on the side of conscience there are various allu sions by our Lord, and all of them full of significance. Thus, when He invites the weary and heavy laden, He plainly alludes to the state of an awakened conscience desiring a satisfaction or atonement which the individual is not able to offer (Matt. xi. 28). The thirsty invited to come and drink are those who are in a similar condition (John vii. 37). They who are de scribed in the Sermon on the Mount as hungering and thirsting after righteousness are obviously those who feel the oppression of conscious guilt, and who pant for that immaculate " righteous ness" or atonement which alone can fill and satisfy the wants of human nature (Matt. v. 6). Our Lord's words assume that such is the harmony between the voice of conscience and the claims of God, or, in other words, between man made in the image of God and the rights of 'Him whose image he bears, that nothing will satisfy conscience that does not satisfy the . perfections and law of God. As God's representative within, it is taken for granted that conscience will acquit only wlu-n God acquits, and possess peace only when God has spoken peace through the finished redemption. There is an inner or subjective necessity which must come to its rights.
Thus conscience acknowledges that wherever sin is, punish ment ought to be suH'cred. We see in the old economy the intense longing of the heart after sacrifices, and a conviction of their insufficiency in the ceremonial law. Till the waters
NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 51
of reparation and punishment quench it, guilt burns in the human heart, — nay, it would continue to burn in the human heart for ever if there were no sufficient atonement ; so that they who would have pardon merely by God's retreating from the demand of satisfaction would be followed, if they had their wish, by the inward pursuer wherever they went. And even as their holiness grew, they would be haunted by a keener sense of guilt, remembering that they were the same person still, and that no reparation had been made. They would be disturbed by self-accusations, by shame, and a gnawing conscience, till they would long to have the faculty of memory destroyed.1 We read that they who went to heaven before the finished redemption rejoiced when Christ's day came (John viii. 56), and that in some sense, and doubtless in this subjective sense, they were made perfect by sharing with us in that which we enjoy (Heb. xi. 40).
Thus it appears from all history and experience, that con science is so sensitive, that it will reject everything which may be offered to calm or heal it, till it finds repose and peace in the vicarious death of Christ ; and no atonement will avail which is not infinite. Man discovered to himself, and aware of his wants, will fall into despair, if the growing sense of guilt is not stilled by the great redemption of the cross. It is true that mere conscience cannot of itself tell what is an adequate atone ment ; that it is a dumb sense of want ; and that it often tries false remedies and vain reliefs. The man is a prisoner under
1 Marheineeke, iii his Fundamental Doctrines of Christian Dogmatics, p. 284, suys: — "Alan has the i-lunce of committing sin or not, but he has not the choice whether he will possess the consciousness of i;uilt or not, but him- knowldl^es that punishment should be suffered for the sin committed : aii'l, as is Mvii in the ease of great criminal.-., he goes out to meet punishment, and feels that he who has sin is not alile to free himself from its i,riiilt and pnni>h- nient." " Kven in the gn»>eSt sinner, OOOaeieDM is so sensitive, that ii • even tiling that is i. tiered to soothe it as a deliverance from juini.-hnienl, tip- rlenieiiey of the magistrate, etc. The only tiling that man ean do is to feel a i'l r a satisfaction which he is not able to offer, — a divine feeling which lives even, in the most degraded sinner."
52 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
guilt, and knows it. God alone knows and provides the ade quate atonement ; and the unburdened conscience attests that it is found. But no one can persuade conscience that an atone ment is unnecessary.
2. There is an objective necessity founded on the divine rights and man's creaturehood. It would require a separate treatise to discuss the question of the necessity of the atone ment against all the impugners of the doctrine, and against the pantheistic leaven of our age, which is to us just what the leaven of the Sadducees was in the days of our Lord, which assumes sin as one of the elements of humanity, and virtually holds " whatever is, is right." But as our present undertaking limits our view to what the great Teacher lias said, or, at the utmost, to what His words imply and presuppose, it would carry us into a wholly different field, were we at any length to discuss, on abstract grounds, or in a dogmatic form, the momentous question of the necessity of the atonement. We shall merely glance at some of its elements ; or, as Johnson would have said, " shine on the angles of the thought."
The divine rights, to which the question of the necessity of the atonement must very much be run up, differ in one import ant respect from human rights. Men can in many cases recede from the assertion of their rights, whereas the divine rights are inalienable. The Most High cannot allow any infraction of them, any withholding from Himself of that which is His due, or any spoliation of that declarative glory for which the uni verse exists, and which a personal God has an interest in secur ing to Himself. The supreme justice, which is no other than the personal God Himself, puts forth its highest exercise in asserting His rights in the universe, which exists not for itself but for its Maker. This follows from the concrete relations of a personal God ; who could not denude Himself of His rights, or be without the exercise of His justice from the moment a created being occupies a relation toward Him as its maker, governor, and upholder. He has from that moment rights of
NECESSITY OP THE ATONEMENT. 53
whieh He, cannot denude Himself; for the creature exists not independently of Him, but for Him.
A right anthropology, that is, a correct conception of the doc trine of man, also shows the necessity of the atonement. The inquirer must read it off from human duty and human will. So far as the conditions of the problem are concerned, the atone ment is in reality nothing else than the taking up of man's obligations at the point where the primeval man failed, with, of course, the additional element which his fall had entailed — the awful fact of sin. We may well aftirm, then, that a correct anthropology, as well as a due conception of the attributes and rights of a personal God, is indispensable to a correct notion of the necessity of the atonement. This comes to light in the most emphatic manner in certain portions of the Pauline Epistles, where the argument proceeds on the supposition that the second man must needs enter into the position, obedience, and full responsibility of the first man (Eom. v. 12-19). But the same thought is not obscurely exhibited in all those sayings and phrases where our Lord refers to Himself as the Son of Man. He intimates that He entered with a true body and soul into all the conditions of the problem ; that after the revolution of ages He took up the task for the reparation of the wrong, and entered into the conflict where the battle was lost.
The point at which the discussion must begin is the rela tion which a personal God occupies to SIN. As the entrance of sin is a spoliation of the tribute or revenue of honour which the intelligent creature should have rendered to the Creator; as n in n w; is made to render this homage by a pure nature and a God-glorifying obedience, such as a moral representation of the divine image in this world alone could render, — a restoration of tins honour to the full, nay, to a still larger degree, is only what supreme justice owes to Himself before salvation can lu- bestowed. Not that the glory of God essentially is capaMe either of addition or of diminution. But in reference to His declarative glory — in other words, in reference to what He pro-
54 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
posed to make of human nature, — God lost, when His rights were denied, and God regains when they are restored. Thus the necessity of the atonement is seen to rest on the divine claims, and on the concrete relations of a personal God to the world.
But the atonement must not be considered barely in relation to the consequences of sin, but in relation to SIN ITSELF. And this leads us to see its absolute necessity, on the supposition that a redemption was to be effected. Sin in its magnitude and criminality is a fact for which an actual provision must be made in some way, — a disharmony in His universe who is the God of order and not of confusion, and that must be dealt with in the moral government of God. One grand lesson taught by the Old Testament, economy, which was not an education for one people merely, but for mankind in general, through that single people, was that sin is such a tremendous evil or disorder that there is an indispensable necessity for a satisfaction, or for punishment. Unlike those phases of opinion which set forth that sin is nothing positive, but only a law of being, and owe their origin to a period of speculation when the idea of a per sonal God and His relations to the world were forgotten or disowned, the doctrine of the atonement, as exhibited in the sayings of Jesus, is based on the magnitude and enormity of sin. It is the very reverse of those men's theory, too numerous in our time, who admit imperfection, but not guilt; who ignore the divine claims, as well as the holy anger and moral govern ment of God ; who resolve justice into love, and wrath into benevolence.
The entire elements of this momentous question are put in their due place, only when a true conception of SIN and of its infinite evil is adequately apprehended. The atonement is not a mere governmental display before creation, as if the principal end of punishment in the government of God were a mere spectacle to deter from sin. So long as men theorize as to God acting before a created public, only to impress and awe their minds, or seek an object apart from God Himself, they are
NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 55
yielding to a course of thought which only tends to subvert or deny His punitive justice. Such a principle may be called into play in human rule, but has no application in the divine govern ment, where the only public worthy of regard is God Himself, and the harmony of His attributes. To hold with certain emi nent writers, such as Michaelis, Seiler, and others, that the in fliction of punishment, though not absolutely necessary, is yet fitted to serve an important end in deterring other rational beings from sin, is at once destitute of biblical authority, and puts the question on a false foundation. On this supposition, punishment is not an end in itself, but only a means to an end. On the contrary, as Scripture always puts it, God's moral per fections demand satisfaction ; justice links the sin and punish ment together ; and the recompense is uniformly proportioned to what is deserved. We find the statement adduced again and again, both in the -Old Testament and in the New: "Vengeance is Mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Rom. xii. 19 ; Heb. x. 30). The meaning of that significant statement is, that puni tive justice belongs essentially to God as a perfection of the divine nature ; that it belongs to no other but to Himself, except in so far as He has been pleased to delegate it in certain special cases to the magistrate acting as His representative ; and that in consequence of this divine perfection, wherever moral evil is committed, natural evil, or punishment corresponding to it, must ensue.
a. But here we are met by the latitudinarian tendencies of the age, which take exception to the necessity of the atonement, on the ground that we are to view God only as occupying the l>;itrin;il relation to mankind. Not a few repudiate from this supposed vantage-ground, which has a foothold in Scripture, all the representations otherwise given of God as a lawgiver and a judge. They will have it, that we are to conceive of God only as a source of goodness, or as a fountain of influences, but not as the sovereign Lord or moral Governor ; that His dominion is only Ihul of a father ; that the divine laws wholly differ from human
56 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
laws sanctioned by threats and punishments ; and that, when God does punish in any case, it is as a father, and not as a judge. By such representations, which are partly the specula tions of a false philosophy, partly the after-thoughts of men writing in the interest of a tendency, the modern assailants of the necessity of the atonement would change laws into counsels, and punishments into corrections. They would sunder the link between sin and punishment, on which, as will appear in the sequel, all religion and all morals depend; for nothing could appear more detrimental to human welfare than the circulation of the doctrine that men are irresponsible to a judge.
The only thing that entitles this speculation to any weight is, that it professes to have a biblical sanction. Tar be it from our thoughts to ignore the Fatherhead of God and the tender relation formed by grace between Him and His children ; but when men come into this relationship, which henceforth exempts them from everything properly penal/ that is the privilege of saints, not of natural men. It is a gift of grace, not a right of nature nor a universal boon ; for all are by nature the children of wratli (Eph. ii. 3). It cannot be affirmed that it belongs indiscriminately to all men, unless we obliterate the distinction between converted and unconverted men. But God's Fatherhead does not exclude His relation as a lawgiver and a judge. "We rather affirm, without entering into a new question foreign to our undertaking, that the one rests upon the other.
But the answer to all these modern theories, which are advocated with the avowed purpose of withdrawing the mind from the judicial relations of God, and so impugning the necessity of the atonement, is,^that they run counter to the entire scope and spirit of that ancient revelation in which Jesus was nourished up to manhood, and which He expressly declares He did not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Unless men are prepared to make a violent severance between the Old and New Testament, and bring the one into violent collision with the other, to the obvious injury of both, these
N K< 'KSSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. f> 7
notions must lie set aside as wholly out of keeping with the (Mil Testament, and as having no warrant in the New. The expressions which describe divine justice as a perfection proper to the Supreme Being, and prompting Him to punish trans gressors, are peculiarly emphatic and strong (Gen. xviii. 25 ; Ps. xi. 5-7; Ps. xcvii. 2; Ps. 1. 21). The divine displeasure at sin, and His holy hatred of it, are forcibly delineated as the impelling cause of punishment (Hab. i. 13; Prov. vi. 1C). When He revealed His name and memorial in all generations, He designated Himself as the God who by no means clears the guilty (Ex. xxxiv. 7) ; and in the immutable law, which is the transcript of His perfections, He is represented as a jealous God, visiting iniquity upon them that hate Him (Ex. xx. 5-7). There are passages which show that God is not only extolled by His saints on earth, but by the saints above, for the exercise of punitive justice (Deut. xxxii. 43 ; Eev. xix. G).
b. It is further urged, in the interest of the same tendency, that the visitations commonly called punishments are only the natural consequences of sin. This would indeed overthrow the necessity of the atonement, and also its possibility; for it involves the bearing of positive punishment in the room of others. But the whole Scriptures, from first to last, are replete with instances of positive punishments. The deluge, the over throw of Sodom and Gomorrah; the case of Pharaoh, of Nadab ami Abihu, of Korah; the expulsion and destruction of the Canaanites; and, in a word, the whole history of God's trans actions with His own people and with other nations, contain the most obvious examples of positive punishments, — not the mere consequences or natural concomitants of a course of con duct. We call these positive punishments rather than arbitrary ; which is not so suitable, an epithet, nor so applicable.
All tli e bililie;il statements argue the existence of positive punishments. Thus, when we read of "the, \vrath to mine" (Matt. iii. 7), which does not follow sin immediately, ami by mere natural sequence, we have a proof of positive punish-
58 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
ment. When we read of forgiveness, what does the term imply but the remission of a certain retributive doom or recompense which is not the mere natural concomitant of sin ? Without the idea of positive punishment emanating from the punitive intervention of God, we could not explain, in any adequate sense, the doctrine of retribution; for how could there be a retribution or recompense of reward, if sin were followed by no other consequences than such as are but the natural issues or results of a course of conduct in the direct order of sequence ? Does this not properly begin, in the full sense, after the great judgment ? The evils which are naturally connected with sin, and which are manifold, are, in truth, of a different sort from the punishments which are inflicted by the intervention of the judge. To give the name of punishments, indeed, to the natural consequences of sin, is a fallacious use of language, and contrary to the dictates of a sound understanding. When men express themselves loosely, they may so speak of the con nection between conduct and experience. But in the proper use of terms we understand by punishment the suffering which is directly and expressly awarded by the sentence of a judge, not that which follows by the mere law of sequence. Hence, when punishment is justly inflicted, as in the case of the great retribution awarded by the just Judge, it is for sin committed or for injury done, by which the moral Governor is aggrieved. It thus differs from the natural effects of sin. It differs, too, from correction or chastisement, which aims at something pro spective in connection with one whom we only seek to impress with a salutary fear, or to deter from a wayward course.
c. But the same impugners of the necessity of the atonement take exception to the above-mentioned doctrine at a point still further back : they argue that God cannot be said to be wronged or injured. They maintain that this language can be fitly enough held when it is applied to an earthly monarch, whose authority is hurt by the violation of his laws and by the dis honour done to him, but that the Supreme God is far exalted
NECESSITY OF THE ATONKMI1M.
59
a 1 mve wrong or injury. There could not exist two opinions Unit this is indisputably true, if it were a question of man's goodness extending to God, or of man's rebellion tending to the prejudice of God's essential blessedness; but it is a question of His declarative glory, and of His relation to the world, existing only to bring back to Him a revenue of praise. The rational intelligences, created to be a mirror of His perfections, bring back this revenue of praise by cordial dependence, by the subjection of their will to the will of God, and by being an eye to trace His wisdom and goodness. Certainly, God cannot be deprived of anything that is His by the sinner. But it does not follow that He does not regard those as offenders who rebel against Him. His relation to the creature is violated by sin, and He cannot be an unconcerned spectator of the con duct of His reasonable creatures ; and sin is in proportion to the person against. whom it is committed. The creature can form plans and execute purposes which God regards as hateful. He can do something that is opposed to the divine will. He can, however insignificant, insult, offend, and wrong God. . .
Hence punitive justice, which is an adorable perfection of the divine nature, and worthy of Him who is infinitely perfect, demands satisfaction for sin. It is as eternal and necessary as anything belonging to His self-existing nature. It must be maintained that God punishes sin as a satisfaction which must needs be made to Himself; that He punishes out of love to His own justice, or because the righteous God loveth righteous ness (Ps. xi. 7), — in other words, that He punishes out of love in II ini^lt'. Nor can the retribution due to sin be omitted from the very ground that He is possessed of immaculate justice ; for of God it may be said that He cannot but punish sin, just as we affirm of Him that He cannot lie. God is thus under obligation to no third party, but to Himself and to His mvu perfections, to exercise punishment; and Ilr < ;iimot forego or renounce His right to do so unless there be an atonement or vicarious sacrifice. But even then sin is duly punished.
GO SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
But we must add that, in thus speaking of divine justice, we must take in the full import of the word: we must avoid one-sidedness. There is a preceptive rectitude, — that is, justice in that acceptation of it, whereby He demands what is His due, or what He has a right to claim, — as well as a judicial rectitude. There is a punitive justice, according to which He- punishes disobedience; and a remunerative justice, ac cording to which He distributes reward, — the two latter being different sides of the same exercise of this perfection. This justice is met in both its aspects — in its preceptive as well as judicial phase — by the active and passive obedience of Christ, or by a subjection to the law in its precept as well as in its penalty. As the rights of God find their adequate expression in the moral law, it is useful to survey the doctrine under our consideration in the light of the divine law, as well as from the more abstract ground of the divine justice. They cover each other; they explain each other. The objection is often uttered : " Where does Scripture ever use the expression current in discussions on the atonement, ' the satis faction of divine justice ?'" But no one can presume to demand authority for a phrase with which the former may be alter nated, and say, " Where do we read of the necessity of ful filling the divine law ?" After the Socinian discussions began, and principally turned on the point of punitive justice, it be came common to speak out on the necessity of satisfying divine justice with more precision than had been used before. What the rationalistic party repudiated, the evangelical Church asserted as a precious and important truth; and in this way the phraseology found its way into the Church's symbols, and into current use. It became in course of time, however, to con tract a certain one-sidedness, as the course of discussion was narrowed to the inquiry, whether there was a judicial exercise of justice. But the language ought to comprehend the function of the lawgiver as well as of the judge ; and hence it is im portant to interchange the expression " the satisfaction of
NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
Gl
divine justice" with the equivalent, but commonly less re stricted, phrase, "the fulfilment of the divine law," — that is, its fulfilment in the positive precept of love as well as in the endurance of the curse. This brings in the law as the true and exhaustive expression of the divine rights. It is a biblical phraseology somewhat broader, and entitled not indeed to supersede the use of the former expression, but to be at least alternated with it.
But we pass now to the inquiry, What express doctrine is there from the mouth of Christ in regard to the necessity of the atonement ? There are various allusions explicit or indirect to the necessity of His atoning death.
John iii. 14: " So MUST the Son of Man le lifted up." As this text must be considered by itself, we limit our attention at present to the import of the must here uttered by Christ. Plainly, the necessity is not to be referred to the fact that the prophets had foretold it. Though the faithfulness of God must needs be maintained on account of the type, there was a further reason, which must be traced up to the divine decree, and to the divine justice.1 It was not a mere necessity to fulfil the type, but had its ground in the purpose of redemption, and in the end to be attained. Some, toning down the language, would represent it as arising from the present condition of the world, as if the cross were only an occurrence befalling Him in a world of rebels, and where all was out of course. But that
some interpreters limit the Si? to the necessity of fulfilling prophecy, that plainly does not extract its meaning. Others, in a still more superficial way, as //<,/>/.,/. ,!,• Groot, explain it as a moral muM, on account of the sinful condition of men. He argues that Si? differs from «»ay*n, according to classical of course it dors : aviyxri would bring in the notion of physical neces- Mty or constraint, if \\v were to t'ol]..w the classical usaiv in elucidating the difference between the two. I'.ut according to the language of Revelation, by which alone we arc guided in such ipicstions, $<? is often used to denote that a tiling must lie according to t lie fnitlij 'n!n, s.< or jit. -if ice of God, or u-nr<l of Cod (Malt. xvi. U ; l.uke xvii. u;,). Valckcnaer says'in his Scl,>,n,i In .\ . T. : " Al. ista ligandi virtute llnxit ea qiue vulgo viget in S«r signilicaiite </«•</, <>/,<, rt>t." Marckius says on Su: " Ex etcrno et immutabili decreto " (///.-/. L'.ralt. (7</-<V;, lib. i. cap. 10, sec. 15).
G2 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
does not approach the meaning ; and the history of Jesus shows that, except in so far as He chose to subject Himself to the course of things, He was exempt from their power, and beyond their reach. They could not touch Him till His hour was come. The words here uttered mean, that in order to heal and save, He must needs be crucified, — the must indicating a neces sity flowing from God's decree, and from His justice, if men were to be saved.
There are utterances of Christ not less emphatic, though spoken from another point of view.
Matt. xxvi. 42 : " If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me" The argument from this utterance of Christ for the necessity of His atoning work is of the strongest. There can be no reason assigned why the cup did not pass from Him, except that the divine claims required the endurance for the expiation of sin. The only-begotten Son, notwithstanding this request to the Father, who always heard Him, must drink the cup. And to say that the impossibility of removing it did not spring from the divine justice, is plainly untenable. It cannot be supposed that, except on the ground of indispensable necessity, God would be so inflexible as to visit His Son with all that was comprehended in that cup. The suffering was indispensable — the atonement was necessary — that the cup of suffering might pass from His people.1
The same thing is proved by passages which describe the irremediable consequences of neglecting the atoning work of Christ. The result of not believing on the crucified Clirist is condemnation (John iii. 18).
Mark viii. 37 :" What shall a man give in c.n-lm ,>//>' pjetter, what ransom shall a man give] for li /* x<ml .' '' These words occur in a connection which contains an allusion to the rejection or denial of Christ, and are intended to teach that there is a ransom attainable through the reception of Clirist, but no ransom to such as neglect the opportunity, or depart this life
1 See Triglandius, Anlapoluyia, cap. 4, p. 73.
FIRST CLASSIFICATION OF THE SAYINGS. G3
without finding the only sacrifice. He virtually says, There is no more sacrifice for sin, since they have denied Me, the only ransom or means of deliverance. But this indisputably alludes to a ransom, and takes for granted its necessity, — implying that it is only found in Jesus, who has expiated sin, and paid the ransom in the sinner's place.
The whole question of the necessity of the atonement is also taken for granted in the INTERCESSION of Christ. He pleads on a ground of justice as well as mercy, recognising a demand which had been made, and pleading a satisfaction which had been rendered.
John xvii. 25 : " 0 righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee," etc. Our Lord bases His intercession on the rectitude or justice of God, when He prays that they who had been given Him might be with Him in His glory. Though there is a gracious reward conferred upon the saints for every work done, these words of Christ cannot refer to any recompense of that nature, because it is not of strict justice. But our Lord can appeal to justice when He asks the eternal glorification of His redeemed and their fellowship with Him where He is ; for He merited eternal life for them, and at the costly price of His passion. It is righteous that the people of Christ should reign in life with Him and tlirough Him. As the justice of God was displayed on Christ and satisfied by Him ; as He had met the demand, " This do, and thou shalt live," He can appeal to the rectitude of God that His people may be put in possession of the reward. And this presupposes the necessary demand of the atonement.
SEC. xii. — Tin: HR>T CLASSIFICATION- OF TIIH SAYINGS INTO TIIOSF.
WHICH JMTKKSFNT CHRIST AS THE SIX-BEAKKII, AND TIIKN AS TIIK WIU.INti SERVANT.
Thriv ;nv undoubtedly two sets of sayings, or two allied but still distinct vu-\vs uf I'luist's earthly career, that are
G4: SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
presented to our minds as descriptive of the nature of the atonement in the sayings which we have now to notice. The Lord represents Himself just as He was represented both before and after His coming, as the curse-bearer, and as the active doer of a work of obedience. Though these two views, as different sides of truth, may be said to presuppose and to imply each other, they must needs be separately apprehended. His position as a sin-bearer is of course involved in the very notion of an atonement. But the other side of His mediatorial work — His position as an active doer of a work of obedience — would have been necessary though man had never fallen ; and the fact of the fall cannot of course exempt man, or exempt Christ as our surety, from the obligation. These two elements may be and must be distinguished by us in idea, but they cannot be disjoined or isolated in this great transaction, as if they were to be represented as separately meritorious. On the one hand, as the mere active doer of man's primeval work of obedience, His incarnation would not have reached our case, or really have availed us, had He not also been, in the fullest sense of the term, a sin-bearer. And just as little would His vicarious suffering, as the sin-bearer, have availed us without the holy promptitude, and the cordial delight of the righteous servant in bearing what His Father imposed according to His divine perfections. The two integral parts of Christ's work are not to be considered as if they were separately meritorious.1
As a curse-bearer Christ is first presented to us. This comes out, as we shall see, very clearly in His own consciousness, His language proving that it was never absent from His mind. But as this was so essential a point, the Baptist's testimony to
1 These two dements of Christ's work are well delineated in their unity in two recent German works, \i/.. : Tliomasiiis' Cltrixti /'</•>•<•// mid II "«/•/•, .'ite Tlieil, ]8".r>; and Philip^i's A'/'/v7///'c//c <;/<i ///«•//.-•/, // /•». iv., 1863. The work devolving on Christ as the surety of men, and of sinning men, is undoubtedly twofold. And yet the obedience, far from lie in;,' divided into two distinct achievements, is one obedience in the twofold sphere of action and suffering.
THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 65
Him, spoken in His hearing, and as an objective echo of Christ's consciousness, was uddi-d to show that Jesus appeared as the sin-bearer. We shall begin with this, and next take up Christ's own testimony from His own consciousness.
SEC. xiii. — THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY TO JESUS AS THE
SIN-BEARER.
" Belwld the Lamb of God, which taketh away [better, beareth] the sin of the world." — JOHN i. 29.
Here the Baptist, looking upon Jesus coming to him, points Him out to the multitude as the person concerning whom he had a commission to preach, and directs attention to Him as the heaven-appointed sacrifice that was to expiate the sin, not of the Jews only, but of the world. It is a testimony that stands as a heading to the whole series or class of similar sayings, which represents the Lord Jesus as bearing our sins in His own body. 1 To whatever occasion we may trace it, whether to the pastoral country where it was uttered, or to the recent baptism of Jesus leading John's mind into a new line of in quiry, or to the passover near at hand — and all these occasions have been conjectured, — the thought itself, that one was to be a sin-bearer for others, was familiar to the ancient Church. The identification of the Lamb of God with Jesus of Nazareth was the only thing in this testimony of the Baptist specifically new ; ;md He is called the Lamb OF GOD, just as He is styled "the Bread OF GOD" (John vi. 33), partly because He was graciously provided by God, partly because He was the truth of the types, or the reality of what was foreshadowed by the Lamb in the old economy; or, it may be, the Lamb that belongs to God,* — that is, which is to be offered as a sacrifice to Him.
Whether the entire idea is borrowed from Isa. liii. 7, and ver.
lE.g. 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; Isa. liii. 5 ; 1 Pet. ii. 14. 2 So Storr and Meyer ; the former of whom quotes from the Septuagint, tvrlai Sicu (Lev. xxi. 16).
E
SYYINGS OF
JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the question what ** that had no rela-
^-s out of the coca ^
in vogue tot a number of } ears pa aUusion is just to aU those sacnfi- , u a ^ ^ The most-natural explauaUon », ft .t J«'' those
one particular offering, but, m a con-px-u, ^ of ^ ^
sacrinces where a la,nb,. , » ^
4e, in /«*-» ~ Ie«8c - '
Utrecht, 1546.
THE SIX-BEAKIXG LAMB OF GOD. C7
thDg ^ te ViCWed' indeed' "* the fu"J~l the covenant people. The blood-the principal
^£Z^KK
b ?ruent passovere
fn , ' C°ntmUed to secure wat ™ ^
fen,d, and partook of the same character with the first
fe lur / T15' ™ ^^ teStim°ny D° l6SS includej 'he &>»* o an atonlng element is clear, since it is said to be accepted for a
ap-
Nor did the Baptist less include the lamb of » which was offered when son, *fcj[ >l..pper from the 6ongregation of the Lord We read
Thus, in the threefold distribution of the sacrifices to which
- adverted, we find that a lamb was offered to ob±t
Sr, T fr°m Cerem°nial defil'!ment- Il» — rtion '" '«ad. and repeated in the interest of a certain tendency
- ^™ offered in sacrifices which we,,
°n "
1 See Oehler, in Herzog's
it Opfercult
68 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
But the word in this testimony which has the chief emphasis is that which is rendered, "taketh away." The majority of expositors render the phrase, "beareth sin:" some prefer the rendering, " taketh away ;" l others comprehend both, and among these is Calvin; but the one thought does not exclude the other. If we render, " that taketh away," we must understand it thus : that taketh away by bearing it. If we render, " that beareth sin," we must understand it thus : that bearcth, in order to take away. On either view, it is sacrificial language. We prefer beareth.
• The two clauses of this statement are so closely connected and so mutually interwoven both in point of thought and language, that they cannot be taken apart or construed apart. To give a complete idea, the one clause is necessary to the other ; and if we take this guiding principle with us to its interpreta tion, we shall find that all the one-sided views which tend to alter the true meaning and import of the language can be easily set aside by simply maintaining the connection of the clauses ; thus : —
1. Some hold that in this saying we have nothing beyond a figure or comparison, and that the allusion is made simply to the moral innocence and meekness of Jesus. Such a con struction might perhaps be allowed, if Jesus were likened or compared to a lamb ; but the conjunction of these two clauses cannot be limited to the bare notion of purity or innocence. Plainly, the first clause is not a simple comparison, — it is the use of a type ; and such a transfer of names or interchange of language, natural enough in a divinely-instituted type, is out of keeping with the language of comparison. The twofold notion here put together — that of a lamb and that of a sin-bearer — precludes the supposition that we have brought before us nothing beyond the idea of a meek and patient person suffering under indignity and wrong.
1 On the phrase i atfuv, see Meyer on John i. 29, who prefers the rendering, ' ' who taketh away. "
THE SIX-ISKAKIXG LAMB OF GOD. G9
2. Nor can we refer the words to the effects of Christ's in struction as a good and gentle Teacher. It is not possible, on any principle of interpretation, to regard these two propositions or sayings as equivalent : " Christ bears the sin of the world," and " Christ has pointed out the way to the world to be on its guard against sin for the future." The Baptist could not mean to say that Christ makes men wiser and better by His doctrine, and that in this manner He takes away or bears the sin of the world. 13ut suppose such a sense could, without violent strain ing, be put upon the latter clause, it must be remembered that it does not stand isolated and apart. If it were for a moment allowed that the Lord Jesus could be said to bear sin or to remove it by directing men to the pursuit of virtue, and by supplying the motives and warnings, the exhortations and encouragements, which are fully sufficient to turn them away from evil, it must not be forgotten that He is said to do this only as the Lamb of God. The language is plainly borrowed from the Mosaic worship ; and it cannot refer to the moral im provement resulting from the instructions of a teacher, but to the effect of a sacrifice or to the merited punishment of sin.
3. Nor will this union of the two clauses, so necessary to the full sense, permit us to refer the language to inward deliverance from sin. This is a sacrificial deliverance from sin ; and how ever closely the moral deliverance may stand — and always will be found to stand — in an inseparable connection with it, it is not a subjective deliverance alone. And who does not see, in point of fact, that experience contradicts that moral interpre tation and shows its incorrectness ? In no such sense has Christ taken any moral evil from the world, and removed the wi -;ik nesses and imperfections of our fallen nature.
All tlirsi! comments throw humanity back upon itself, and upon its own strength and resources in the last resort, instead of presenting to the mind the adequate object of faith; and therein lies their danger.
The Baptist, in speaking of sin, speaks of it in the singular,
70 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
" the sin of the world." Not that he had in his eye merely the root-sin/ the original sin of the race : rather, the sins of man kind are viewed as a collective whole, and regarded as a heavy burden, and the Lamb of God is said to bear whatever has the character of sin, or the whole mass and assemblage of it, — the term " world " comprehending men who lived before the nativity of Christ as well as after it. Some have indeed taken the word SIN as synonymous with punishment, but the phrase takes in sin with the guilt and consequences involved in it.
But the phrase, " to bear sin," demands more particular consideration. Wherever the language occurs, it carries with it the notion of an oppressive burden, or of penal endurance. But let us consider the phrase in examples. It occurs, first, in the sense of living under the frown or punitive hand of God : thus the Israelites " bore their iniquity " according to the number of the days in which they had searched out the land, each day a year (Num. xiv. 34) : it is used as synonymous with being guilty (Lev. v. 17; Num. v. 31): it is found as equivalent to being cut off (Lev. xx. 1 7 ; Num. ix. 13): it occurs in the sense of being punished with death (Num. xviii. 22, 32. Compare also Ex. xxviii. 43; Lev. xxiv. 15). In all these instances it refers to a person bearing his ov;n sin. Where the reference, again, is to the sins of others, it means to undergo punishment for them, or to feel the penal effects and the unpleasant consequences due to the sins of others (Lam. v. 7 ; Ezek. xviii. 19). Hence, if we abide by the iisage of language, the phrase can only mean, in this passage, to endure the penal consequences inseparable from the sins of mankind.
And as to the origin of the figure, it is taken from lifting a
burden in order to carry it, or to lay it on one's shoulders. But
as the language is sacrificial, it points to the victim bearing the
sin which the offerer laid upon it, by the laying on of the hand.
1 So Bcza unhappily expounds it, referring to Rom. v. 12.
THE MX-T;I:AI;IXG LAMB OF GOD. 71
The language, rightly understood, can only mean that Jesus was put in connection with sin ; that He took SIN AS SUCH, and not the mere consequences of it, or the element of punish ment alone; that He bore sin considered as guilt in its relation to the moral Governor; that He was made the world's sin, and bore it, — thus becoming, not personally but officially, the proper object of punitive justice, and enduring the penalty due to the sins of mankind. The words prove that the work of Christ was a provision for sin as such, — that is, for sin considered as demerit and guilt ; and only as the atoning work of Christ is adapted to this end, and divinely accepted, does it reverse the conse quences of sin. A canon of easy application is, that the inter position of Christ implies that the burden of sin which was transferred to Him pressed heavily on the world, and that mankind could not rid themselves of it, and could do nothing to remove it ; and the language implies that the Lamb of God made it His — His heritage or property, — bearing in His own person what we had committed.
It must be noticed, further, that the verb Icarcth, which is in the present tense, is not used as a prophecy,1 neither as an allusion to the constant efficacy of the sacrifice, z but as indi cating that Jesus was even then the sin-bearer. He never in fact appeared " without sin " during His humiliation (Heb. ix. 28) ; and His coming in the likeness of sinful flesh was at once a proof that sin was borne by Him, and that this was already a part of His satisfaction. He was, even then, bearing sin, and many of the penal effects of it. It is a mistake to say, then, that the thought of the passage is an allusion to the abolition of sin ; for the first idea of a sin-offering was not so much the consuming of moral evil — though that undoubtedly follows, and is a necessary consequence at the next remove — as the bearing of .uuilt. And an Israelite dreading divine wrath ever thought of the sin-ofi'uring in tins light, as liberating him from its burden or its pressure.
1 So Mi'ViT on thr •. • - Bo Hcngstenberg on the 1
72 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
As to the purpose for which the Lamb of God bore sin with respect to mankind, it is not here distinctly stated in express terms; but it can be easily inferred. "With what conceivable object can He be supposed to have placed Himself in men's stead, and to have borne their sin as a piacular victim, but with a view to free or to redeem His people, and to exempt them from their burden, — a burden which He bore in their stead? This is the obvious inference: any other interpretation is intolerable. Nothing can be more forced and unnatural as an interpretation, than to hold that Christ bore the sin of the world for any other object than to set His people free from their merited doom or obligation. The whole burden or penalty and doom of sin must be seen, accordingly, upon the Lamb of God, and as borne by Him for others. He is an adequate and sufficient atonement.
Thus the Baptist, looking into the new economy from his view-point in the Old Testament, fixes attention upon the important place, or, rather, the paramount place, which the doctrine of the atonement was to hold in Christianity. To a religious Jew, indeed, looking for the accomplishment of pro phecy, and for " the righteous servant " to be the reality of all the types and shadows, the new economy would not otherwise have commended itself. He could not have accepted it unless it had provided for the expiation of sin, to which the whole Old Testament pointed. As the preparatory arrangement of Judaism provided for the expiation of sin annually, so the Baptist's words pointed to what adequately met this expecta tion, — with this peculiar difference, that it was a provision, not for the Jews only, but for the world. And it was spoken probably in Christ's hearing as well as presence.
The atonement was equally important for all mankind; and hence it is that the Baptist announces with so much emphasis, that it was a gracious provision, which comprehended a refer ence to the world at large, without distinction of nationality. Christ and His apostles were soon more clearly to unfold the
THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 73
universality of this expiation, as a provision equally intended for every tribe and country. And the exclamation BEHOLD ! was meant to direct attention to Him, and to invite all who were either burdened by a sense of sin, or expecting a vicarious sacrifice by which it might be borne. This is incontrovertibly the import of the words according to the significance of language and the connection of ideas. '
To all this interpretation, however, a twofold objection has been raised by those who, under the influence of preconceived ideas or philosophical reasonings, have adopted views at variance with the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. One doubt has reference to the supposed extent of the Baptist's knowledge on the subject of Christ's death ; and a second exception is taken to this mode of interpretation, on the ground that this sense cannot be held to be the uniform and constant import of the phrase, " to bear sin." We must consider what force, if any, attaches to these two objections.
1. As to the first objection, taken up and repeated in so many quarters, it amounts to this: that the doctrine of the atonement, as theologians now hold it, could not possibly have been known to the Baptist, when so many of his contemporaries were ignorant of it. To this objection it may suffice to answer, that the vicarious sacrifice of the Messiah was well known to Isaiah, and to all the ancient believers, who apprehended the nature and significance of the types, or who saw the bearing of the prophecies. Not only so : we may argue that John the Baptist was instructed by his father, Zacharias ; and as the redemption of Israel by a mediator was well known to the latter (Luke i. 77), the Baptist may well be regarded, on this ground alone, as possessing clearer and more accurate views than were current among the Jews of his day, on the whole subject of .the Messiah's person and atonement. Besides, the Baptist must have been well acquainted with the Old Testa ment Scriptures generally, and with Isaiah's prophecy in particular (Isa. liii.), when his very office was to go before Him
74 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
as His herald and forerunner. "We should have been surprised had no such testimony been given by the messenger who was to go before His face, and who, according to Christ's own words, was the greatest of those born of women. It would seem, however, that John understood this truth, not merely by a study of the law, and the prophets testifying to it, but also by special revelation. And though the atonement is not again so expressly mentioned by him except on the following day (John i. 36), yet all his teaching assumes it and presupposes it. Nor can any doubt be drawn from the subsequent message of inquiry, when he sent from the prison where he was confined two of his disciples, to ascertain the Messiahship of Christ from His own lips. The Baptist might desire to meet some new phase of doubt, either in his own mind or in the minds of the. disciples, blinded as they were by many prejudices.
2. The second objection is based upon the alleged want of uniformity or constancy of meaning attaching to the words, " bearing sin," in the fourfold application in which it occurs. Thus we find it applied — (1) to the sinner ; (2) to the sacrifice ; (3) to the priest ; and (4) to God Himself. As to the two first there is little difficulty. It is common, however, to explain the two latter applications, but especially the last, as denoting " to take away or to pardon sin." With regard to its application to the priest, there is no cause for deviating from its ordinary meaning. They were said to bear sin by eating of the sin- offerings (Lev. x. 17); and the high priest was said to bear the iniquity of the holy things in virtue of the inscription, HOLINESS TO THE LORD, as shadowing forth the holiness of Christ engraven on the plate worn upon his forehead (Ex. xxviii. 38). The priesthood, holy by separation and by peculiar rites, partook of the flesh of the sin-offering in order to point out that they assimilated or incorporated with themselves the sacrifice or sin- offering laden with the impurity of the worshipper, and which, passing over to the victim, was thus consumed by being brought into connection with a divinely-appointed priesthood. All this
THE SIX-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 75
to a time when priest and sacrifice should be one. Tim* tin- phrase, "to bear sin," as applied to the priest, has the same sense as in all the other applications, though a typical one adumbrating a coming reality.
The main difficulty, however, connected with the phrase, " to bear sin," is to determine whether we are able to maintain this uniform sense, or whether we can show cause for abiding by the same import of the phrase when it is applied to God. How can GOD BE SAID TO BEAR SIN ? And yet what warrant have translators and expositors for deviating from the render ing given to the phrase here and in Isa. liii., as well as in many similar passages, with a common consent ? The general inter pretation of the phrase when it is applied to God, is, that in such a usage it can only mean, " to forgive iniquity." The Septuagint led the way here, and has been implicitly fol lowed ever since. Alive to the difficulty, it interpreted the expression in this application of it : " to forgive iniquity ;" and all the subsequent expositors and lexicographers in the Protestant churches, as well as among the Fathers, followed in the same direction. And thus the authorized English version translates the expression, "to forgive iniquity," wherever it occurs in this usage. (See Ex. xxxiv. 7 ; Mic. vii. 18 ; Ps. xxxii. 5, Ixxxv. 3 ; Isa. xxxiii. 24 ; Ex. xxxii. 32.) Now, is that a warrantable interpretation ? Though it is a question which requires to be weighed with the utmost philological nicety, as well as with the utmost caution in a theological point of view, yet it deserves to be seriously pondered whether preconceived notions as to what is a fitting or unfitting mode of speech as applied to God may not in this case have exercised a mislead ing inlhienee, and whether that fear did not lead to a wrong decision in the present instance. It is possible that the ordi nary solution may turn out to be a wrong one, and may yet come to be repudiated \\ ith as common a consent as it has been adopted since the Septuagint led the way in intrmhu-ing it. . On the other hand, it is held by many writer*, ancient and
76 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
modern, who oppose themselves to the vicarious satisfaction — by the Socinians of a former day, and by some eminent names1 in our own time, — that the application of this phrase to God decides upon its import wherever it occurs. They will have a uniform and constant interpretation ; and, on this account, they vehemently urge and maintain that the phrase cannot in any case mean, to bear sin, to eocpiate iniquity, or to satisfy for it, because God cannot be said to bear sin. The opponents of the vicarious sacrifice or substitution insist on a uniform interpre tation, because they think, that by this means they have an incontrovertible argument in their favour.
Most of those who maintain the doctrine of substitution have felt the difficulty of asserting a uniform and constant in terpretation, and have distinguished between the sacrifice and the priest, between the sinner and the pardoner. And even those 2 who are disposed to abide by some shade of the ordinary meaning, conclude that in the passages where God is said " to bear sin," it can only mean a forbearance to punish it, as con trasted with taking vengeance, or a patient bearing of the wrong for a time.
One eminent writer,3 while discussing the phrase in all- its various applications, contends for a uniform and constant sense even in those cases where it is applied to God. CEder holds that, so used in the Old Testament, the phrase must be understood as referring to the Son of God, and to His work as the bearer of sin. " Ex. xxxiv. 7 is objected," says he, " to our argument, that the adversaries may not seem to have said nothing. The purport of their statement is: as the words to bear sin, when used respecting God, do not mean that He laid them on Him self to satisfy for them, it follows that when we read the same words respecting Christ, they have not this meaning. But if
1 See Hofman's Sclmfflxweis, vol. ii. p. 285 : "Gott triigtdie Siinde, nimmt Sie liin, lasst Sie sich gefallen ohnc Sic zu strafen. "
2 See Cocceius' Hebrew Lexicon on the word. Compare, too, Stockii Clairis.
3 Oider in his Refutation of the Racovian Catechism (Lat.), p. 802.
THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 77
you inquire whether the Socinians themselves believe that the signification of the words take away in John i. 29 is the same as at Ex. xxxiv. 7, they will most certainly deny it ; for, say they, God took away sin by forgiving it, Christ by pointing out the way by which wre may deliver ourselves. But yet these men are not ashamed to object to us a passage which they them selves understand otherwise. But let us come nearer to the point. I deny, and persist ia denying, that the expression, to bear sin, in Ex. xxxiv. 7, and in such like texts, has any other mean ing that that which is found in so many passages elsewhere. Nor does that passage treat of God the Father, but of God the Son, who is truly the sin-bearer" " We have consulted and weighed with considerable care all the passages which contain this phrase, and that can be referred to in this sense. They are: Mic. vii. 18; Ps. xxxii. 5, with which I would compare verse 1 and Isa. xxxiii. 24; Ps. Ixxxv. 3; Ex. xxx. 32, — all which are so beautifully ex pounded of Christ the sin-bearer, that nothing can be finer."
This interpretation may not be accepted by all. It may seem to some an incongruous phraseology to apply to God vicarious language of this nature, or it may appear to others too much .of a New Testament view to occur to the be lievers in the remote past. But some expressions, long treated as strong anthropomorphisms, cease to be so when we appre hend them in connection with the Messiah, who was not only the angel of the covenant, but Jehovah, God of Israel. Thus the phrase, " they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced," was regarded by the Septuagint as only a figure of speech, or as an obvious anthropomorphism ; and. it would have been so regarded by every one but for the apostolic commentary1 upon it ; which leaves to the New Testament Church no room to doubt its literal application to the pierced and wounded Saviour. There are other turns of expression and forms of speech, the full import of which is evolved only by the incarnation and by the atonement ; and this may be one of them. 1 See John xix. 37.
78 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
We have only further to add, in connection with this inter pretation, that when these words are put together, it will be found that the Son of God took sin upon Him, and bore it simultaneously with the taking of the flesh, nay, in a sense even prior to the actual fact of the incarnation. The peculiar character of the Lord's humanity, which was, on the one hand, pure and holy, and yet, on the other, a curse-bearing humanity, plainly shows that in some sense He was the sin-bearer from the moment of His sending, and, therefore, even prior to His actual incarnation. And when it is said that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, we have the very same thing. Whether, therefore, We affirm or not that the phrase, " to bear sin," in its application to God, treats of God the Son, it may suffice to say that it refers to the God of redemption. There is, I think, ground to hold that the same constant and uniform rendering should be retained even in this connection. This will intimate that sin was borne by God, not alone in the sense of forbearance, but in such a sense that it was laid on the sin-bearer, to be expiated by a divine fact in the true and proper sense. We assert, then, the constant and uniform sense of this phraseology in all its four fold application ; and when challenged to go through with our interpretation, we reply that we do go through with it. And certainly this last usage furnishes no loophole through which its proper force can be evaded^ as has been so of ten. attempted by Socinianizing writers, in former as well as in more recent times.
Thus the Lamb of God appeared without inherent sin or taint of any kind, but never without the sin of others. The sin of man was not first imputed to Him or borne by Him when He hung on the cross, but in and with the assumption of man's nature, or, more precisely, in and with His mission. The very form of a servant, and His putting on the likeness of sinful flesh, was an argument that sin was already transferred to Him and borne by Him; and not a single moment of the Lord's
THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 79
earthly life can be conceived of in which He did not feel the harden of the divine wrath which must otherwise have pressed on us for ever. Hence, " to hear sin" is^ the phrase of God's word for freeing us from its punishment.
Because He bore sin, and was never seen without it, it may be affirmed that the mortality which was comprehended in the words, " Thou shalt surely die " — that is, all that was summed up in the wrath and curse of God, — was never really separated from Him, though it had its hours of culmination and its abatements. Hence, without referring further at present to the character of the suffering, it evidently appears that, as the sin- bearer, He all through life discerned and felt the penal charac ter of sin, the sense of guilt, not personal, but as the surety could realize it, and the obligation to divine punishment for sins not His own, but made His own by an official action ; and they who evacuate of their true significance these deep words, " that beareth the sins of the world, " allowing Christ to have no connection with sin, and only dwelling on His purity and spotless innocence as our example — they who will not have Him as a sin-bearer, who took sin to Himself, and wrapped Himself in it — are the most sacrilegious of robbers and obscurers of His grace. This deep abasement is the glory of His in carnation.
If, then, we put together the elements of this testimony to the Lord's atonement, they are these: (1) It was of God's gracious appointment — " the Lamb of God ; " (2) it essentially lay in the vicarious element of the transaction, — it was the bearing of the sin of others, or of the world ; (3) it was a bearing or a penal endurance; (4) it was sacrificial, being the truth of the shadows in the previous economy; (5) it was without distinc tion of nationality.
It follows, that if Christ bore sin, His people do not need to hrar it. It follows, also, that since God has appointed this way of deliverance, there is no other way.
80 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
SEC. XIV. — THE FREQUENTLY REPEATED NAME, THE SON OF MAX, FURTHER EXHIBITING HIM AS THE SIN-BEARER.
This phrase, which has, wherever it occurs, some reference to a work of substitution, is much in our Lord's mouth. Of all the titles He assumed, indeed, it is by far the most frequent. No fewer than eighty instances occur, or, if we deduct the re petitions, fifty-five instances where He announces Himself by this title. And it cannot escape observation, that He makes use of this name not less systematically than He abstains from the title Messiah. The reason of this will perhaps be obvious, when we ascertain the true import of the phrase by which, as will appear, He eighty times, either more or less directly, refers to some phase of His representative work in itself, or in respect to its reward. Not to forestall, however, what must be proved, we shall now proceed to investigate its meaning in the contexts, in the light of the very various comments which it has received. We select only a few of the interpretations for special notice.
1. The expression, Son of Man, cannot be limited to a description of His person, irrespective of His office. The patristic writers, and those who follow them, for the most part stop short at this. But the title will be found to be much wider and more extensive in its meaning. The incarnation is in it; but that is not all. It may seem, indeed, that when Christ calls Himself Son of Man (John iii. 1 3), and in the next verses the Son of God, He means merely to describe His whole person by one of His natures, the only way by which the God- man can be spoken of (John iii. 16). But that, though plau sible, will be found to be untenable. The phrase, " Son of Man," is more than a designation of His person described by its human side, or by the humanity belonging to it.
2. Nor is it a mere Hebraism or circumlocution equivalent to the simple expression, Man. This sense, though countenanced by many eminent names of the Reformation age, can no longer
THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 81
be maintained. We find that men and the Son of Man are ideas too clearly distinguished and contrasted in many passages by the Lord Himself, to render this interpretation even probable (John iii. 13 ; Matt. xii. 32). Still less can the phrase be so evacuated of significance as to denote merely a certain man, this man, or the man here present, — comments betraying a low exegetical sense, and properly the growth of a rationalistic age. They have only to be repudiated.
3. Nor can we interpret the phrase as denoting, the man by eminence — the most excellent of all men. Modern commen tators, with whom this is the favourite view, take it for the most part as a title of dignity and distinction ; and they think themselves warranted to deduce this comment from Daniel's vision, where one like the Son of Man is brought near to the Ancient of days to receive dominion (Dan. vii. 13). But we shall find that it is not properly a title of dignity or eminence at all, though the latter idea is often mentioned in connection with it as a reward. And those who limit the allusion to Daniel's vision of His kingdom lose sight of two things, — (1) the foundation on which this kingdom is reared — His abasement ; and (2) the important rule of interpretation supplied to us by the apostle : " Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth ? " (Eph. iv. 9). Not dignity and eminence, but abasement and mean ness, are the ideas expressed by the title. Thus, when God addressed a prophet with the designation " son of man," it was to remind him of his meanness as dust and ashes, lest he should be exalted by the revelations made to him.
\\V may here make one or two preliminary observations, as elements for directing our inquiry, or tending to aid us in ;irriving at the import of the phrase.
1. It must strike every one who attentively examines our Lord's use of this title, that we never find it used after His resurrection. The reason seems to be, that it was not de>
tive of His resurrection state ; that it belonged only to the F
82 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
days of His flesh ; and that there was no longer any occasion for using it, when He had left behind Him the servant form in which He appeared among men. This is further confirmed by a striking expression which He addressed to the disciples in the hearing of the Pharisees : " The days will come when ye will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall not see it " (Luke xvii. 22) ; which can only mean one of those days they then enjoyed, or the days of His flesh. They would wish them back again. This decides on the meaning of our phrase.
2. Nor does He ever use the expression, Son of Man, in His prayers to God, — as if it were not in keeping with the peculiarly close relation subsisting between Him and God the Father.
3. Neither does He use it in His capacity of teacher. When announcing any truth, or expounding any principle of duty, He says, " Verily, verily, I say unto you." Nor is it any exception to this observation, that we find Him saying in the parable of the tares, " The Sower of the good seed is the Son of Man." For that allusion is not to the function or office of a teacher dealing with all men indiscriminately, but to the efficacious illumination which the Lord dispenses as the head of His Church, on the ground or basis of the priestly work which He had already finished.
4. Another observation forces itself on the attention of every one who examines the several passages where this phrase occurs. It is a title used only by Christ Himself. He is seldom or ever so called by His disciples. He appropriates to Himself the title, Son of Man, as the special definition of His condescending grace; and as displaying to those who heard Him, not the divine relation, which was natural and proper to Him, but the new condition which He had taken to Himself, and into which He had stepped down, for tin- attain ment of an object worthy of such abasement. And when Stephen on one occasion uses the phrase, " Sou of Man," he
THE TITLE, SON OF MAN.
nearly quotes our Lord's own words, before the same council, at His trial (Acts vii. 56). And when John uses it, in Revelations, it is only a quotation of Daniel.
As to the origin of the title, there seems no cause to doubt that it has a primary reference to the words in Ps. viii. 4 : " What is man, that Thou art mindful of him ? and the son of man, that Thou visitest him?" The word for man in the ori ginal does not signify the high and eminent, but the opposite, — the low, despised, and miserable. The same phrase is found in other passages in this acceptation ; as, for example, in Ps. xlix. 2, Job xxv. 6. The psalm, as applied to the second man, means that he seemed so utterly neglected and abandoned, that there was no hope of his being ever visited by God or rescued from the doom into which he had sunk as the substitute of others. This is plainly the apostolic comment given in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. ii. 9, 10) ; and our Lord's use of the phrase ology is in harmony with it. The sight of his low condition called forth that language from the psalmist; and when our Lord applies the language to Himself as the most descriptive of all names, it must be understood as akin to the expressions, " I am a worm and no man" (Ps. xxii. 6) ; "A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" (Isa. liii. 3). The expression inti mates that He was not only man of man, but that " He made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man ; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death." The phrase, then, is not a mere circumlocution nor a mere synonym for Jesus : it has a proper significance. We think it will IK- found, on a full and accurate examination of all the several passages, that tin- following elements are contained in this title : true humanity or the real ;:>Mini]it ion of our nature 1>\ the Son of God; the idea of the second man or second Ailam ; the aliaseiueiit , ,urief, ami shame with \\hidi He was ai-quainti-d during His earthly lot.
1. The first of these three ideas is accepted by all evai
84 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
men without hesitation, and we do not require to establish it. To the two latter only we shall allude a little more in detail.
2. When Jesus called Himself Son of Man, He plainly taught, under a certain measure of disguise, that He was the second man or second Adam, who was to bruise the serpent's head, or, in other words, to destroy the works of the devil. This allusion to the second man, or second representative man, is wider than a mere relation to the Jews, and goes back to the human race as such. He occupies a similar relation as the first man to those who lived before as well as after His coming in the flesh. Against this element of the phrase now widely recognised among a good school of commentators, no valid ob jection has ever been advanced : we accept it frankly. But by many who accept it, the sense is, we think, unduly extended, so as to take in His glorified state as well.
3. This brings us to notice the other idea already referred to — the mean condition or the curse-bearing life, which, we think, is essentially connected with our Lord's expression, and contained in it. This idea is. perfectly compatible with the other. The two ideas, so far from being discordant, are the complement of one another. He could not, in truth, be the second Adam without being the substitute of sinners. The sense will be, then, when we put the three ideas together : the second Adam abased or made a curse for us, and who hid not His face from shame. We cannot but discern this sense in the following passages.
Mark ix. 12 : "And He ansicercd and told them, Elia* rr, •/'/// comdh first, and restorcth all things ; and hmv it is written [or better, interrogatively, how is it written T] of the Son of Man, f/mf He must suffer many things, and be set at nought." — These words set forth, with sufficient clearness, two things : that, as the Son of Man, Christ was the subject of prophecy ; and that, in this light, He was that great sufferer alluded to in the psalms and prophets, whose sorrows alone were of sufficient importance to mankind to be distinctly foretold. There is here an allusion
THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 85
to Isaiah's prophecy, if not an express quotation of the words, " despised and rejected of men" (Isa. liii. 3). Jesus in sub stance says, I, as the Son of Man, am the man of sorrows of the prophet
Matt. viii. 20 :" The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests [better, roosting-places], but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His liead." — A certain scribe had offered to follow Jesus wherever He went ; and he was told to count the cost, and to dispossess his mind of any secret hankering after worldly wealth or property. Jesus declares that He Himself was with out a home or fixed abode, and that He might even be con trasted with the foxes and birds of the air, which have a resting- place in this world, but He had none. Now, as this is said in connection with His being the Son of Man, it is impossible not to observe an allusion to His abasement and to His substitution in our room; for He endured this only as He led a curse- bearing life. He was subjected to the consequences of sin, and was treated as a sinner ; because man, having been disinherited, had no claim to ought in the world. He who was rich for our sakes became poor to reinstate us ; and thus the Sou of Man was never seen without sin while He was here.
Matt. xx. 28 : " The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" — We omit the second clause at present, as our immediate object is to determine the meaning of the pin-use, Son of Man. The connection in which it is put with ministering or serving, proves that it is significant of abase ment, not of eminence. The Lord frowned on the ambition of James and John, who wished the seats of honour in His kingdom, reminding them of His own example, which must be followed, and that, unlike the kingdoms of men, the funda mental rule of His kingdom was humility. But there is a further thought. Speaking of Himself as the second Adam and the substitute of sinners, He intimates that His \\..rk involved the very opposite of ambition, — man's sin having ln-rn ail aspiring to be more than u dependent ereature. The .second
86 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
man came in the form of a servant, and to do a servant's work to the souls and bodies of men. Our phrase denotes, then, the abasement of a substitute.
John v. 27 : " And He [the Father] hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man." — As a proof how important it is to apprehend this phraseology aright, it may be noticed that this verse has been generally misinter preted, because the point of this phrase has been missed. Thus those patristic commentators who construe the verse as we do (for some of them divide it in two, and read the last clause with the following verse), are much at a loss what meaning to attach to it ; for, according to their interpretation of this phrase, as only meaning that He had assumed our nature, it seemed to say that His humanity must get this authority elsewhere. Others have put upon it the sense, that man must be judged by man, or by a judge who can be seen. Others interpret the second clause as, as far as He is tlic Son of Man; as if it intimated that He acts as man, but that the action is really that of the Father in Him. But that comment misses the import of the causal particle, because. Nor does the verse convey the sense : this man saves men, this man judges men. The true explanation is easy when we view the title, " Son of Man," as descriptive of abasement. He receives this authority as a reward : the cross is the foundation of the glory ; and the authority to judge, the culminating point of His exaltation, is the recompense of His curse-bearing life. It is just parallel to the words in Philippians, " He became obedient to death ; WHEREFORE God also hath highly exalted Him."
Matt. xi. 19: " Tlie Son of Man came eating and drinking." — This expression is not meant to intimate that our Lord adopted a freer mode of intercourse than the Baptist, as a mere phase of teaching, or as a mere example to His followers; still less does it indicate, as rationalists will have it, that He had n great relish for the hilarities of life. The phrase, Son of M;m. intimates that He went there as part of His humiliation, the
THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 87
sinless amid the sinful, in the execution of His office. He used the world as not abusing it, and, by voluntary abasement, entered into all its spheres, even where temptation was most rife, and God had been so much dishonoured. His presence there was a part of His curse-bearing life, but He never was off His guard ; and so was sanctifying society to His followers. Hence they called him a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber.
Luke xix. 10:" The Son of Man is come to seek and to save tlutt ichich was lost" — This title, as has been. already noticed, is always significant, and not a mere expletive or circumlocution. But for the peculiar shade of thought derived from this phrase, which brings in the idea of the surety in His abasement, we might have referred the language more to the application of redemption than to its procuring cause. But the title, Son of Man, with the expression, is come to seek, points out what is the design of Christ, and proves that He describes His substitution in the room of others as standing in causal connection with the seeking and saving of the lost : the former is the basis of the latter. The allusion, then, is, not to the kingly office alone, but to the second man, the humbled substitute in His representa tive work, — the ground and basis of the other.
Though we cannot adduce all the passages where the expression Son of Man occurs, we do not hesitate to affirm that, wherever it is found — whether referring to His poverty or to His betrayal — to His condemnation or to His crucifixion, — it alludes to vicarious punishment. The Lord, by means of this expression, utters His own consciousness of appearing in the likeness of sinful flesh, and states that He passed through the various grades of a humiliation, which can only be considered as the steps of a vicarious curse-bearing life. He intimates, by His use of this phrase, that He not only had assumed a true Immunity, but stood in the position of the second man ; in other words, was the surety self-emptied and abased. \\ e may put it in many other forms, but this is the sense.
The same meaning attaches to the expression when the
88 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Lord uses it in connection with a present exercise of authority. To some of these cases it may be proper to refer, as they have been considered by some as adverse to the view already given, and as lending countenance to the opposite opinion, that the phrase rather contains the notion of dignity or eminence. A few instances will serve to prove that they do not invalidate, but confirm the interpretation above given.
Matt. ix. 6 : " That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith He to the sick of the 2ialsy?) Arise." — Jesus seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, as soon as they brought him into His presence, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; which only drew down on Him a charge of blasphemy, because He claimed to Himself a power competent to God alone. He uses in reply to them an argument of irre sistible cogency. As all disease was acknowledged to be the effect of sin (whether there might be any special sin in the present case or not), the instantaneous removal of the effect will prove that He had power to remove the cause ; and He declares that He will prove His authority to remit sin, and its actual remission, by making the man perfectly whole. But the style of language which He uses cannot be interpreted, with one expositor, as but referring to the power which has its seat and source in God ; nor can it mean, as another will have it, that He is the authorized representative of God in heaven. The allusion to the Son of Man means something more than the declarative action of a prophet. He means that, as the second man or substitute, He had power on earth, by anticipa tion or beforehand, to forgive sins, — an authority which He possessed, because He was then in process of expiating sin by His abasement and death. The connection is one of cause and effect. He had authority not merely to promise forgiveness, but to bestow it. Just as He said in relation to the judgment, that He had authority to exercise it, because He was the Son of Man, so He says in reference to forgiveness, that He had authority to dispense it even by anticipation, because He was
THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 89
the Son of Man. The one is the reward, the other is the pro curing cause, or the merit by which it is effected ; and this is always connected in the closest manner with the second man, the Lord from heaven. Not to mention the general analogy of Scripture, which uniformly deduces all the benefits of His nature from Christ's atoning work, the phrase under considera tion is in itself decisive to this effect. Christ's suretyship is the meritorious or procuring cause of them all.
Mark ii. 28 : " The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath" — Some have explained this verse, on account of the peculiar connection in which it stands, with the previous verse (ver. 27), as intimating that man, as man, is lord of the Sabbath. But to that interpretation there are two objections : (1) There is always in our Lord's style a sharp and well-defined difference between the two terms, man and the Son of Man. (2) It would be no valid argument to reason as follows : The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore man is lord also of the Sabbath. Man, or, to go back to the class who heard Him, Israel, was not lord of the Sabbath, but ser vant of it, and bound to observe it ; whereas Jesus declares that He was Lord of the Sabbath in a sense in which no other shared. From the occasion on which the saying was uttered, the tenor of our Lord's words bears, that as the Sabbath was not one of the unalterable moral laws, it might be dispensed with in certain cases of mercy and necessity, for the preserva- tiun <>t' life and health ; for these are of paramount importance ; and the Sabbath was made for man, not man for it. That is maintained in the plainest terms. But we find a sudden turn -iven to the expression in the words of Mark: "Therefore the Son oi' ^lan is Lord also of the Sabbath." This train of thought/ may lie easily explained. .Man is warranted in cases of neces sity to break its rest, on the principle that man was not made for it, but that it was made lor man ; though he cannot on this account be called lord of the Subbatk, because this very per mission is from the Lord. But Christ has a dispensing power
90 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
over it from a ground which is unique and wholly His own, — because He is the Son of Man. There is no allusion to the other precepts of the decalogue here; nor indeed could this dispensing power be exercised in reference to them — since they are the expression of His own divine nature and divine will — without running counter to Himself and contradicting Himself. But as the abased and humbled substitute. consulting for men's salvation and for their highest interests, He has been made Lord of the Sabbath. This is His reward. He had authority to alter and adjust the Sabbath, and to exercise a dispensing power in regard to it, as He deemed best, because He was the Son of Man. There is no word of abrogating it, but only of adjusting it, and adapting it in such a way as would be most conducive to the spiritual interests of His disciples. He, and He alone, had this authority in the very same way as He had authority to pardon and authority to exercise judgment, because He was the Son of Man, or the substitute of sinners, and the second man. And He showed that He was such a Lord of it, when He altered the day of the week. He on this occasion vindicated the disciples who ate the ears of corn ; and not only so, He had a dispensing power to give them this permission as Lord also of the Sabbath.
The passages already adduced, and others to be met with as we proceed, demonstrate that the idea uniformly attached to the phrase is humiliation or abasement. Nor is this accepta tion refuted by those texts which at first sight seem to run counter to it, and involve an allusion to His glory. On the contrary, they mean that He who then spoke in the abasement of the curse would appear in His mediatorial exaltation ; and, as was natural, His thoughts were much directed to the joy that was set before Him. Thus, when He told the disciples that they should be rewarded "when the Son of Man should sit on the throne of His glory," He intimated that His present poverty and meanness should give place to infinite glory. At His trial before the Sanhedrim, when He declared to the high
THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 0 1
pri.-st, "Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power," we have just the same thing. He first avowed His supreme deity as the Son of God, and then im mediately reverted to the view-point from which He usually spake — that of the despised and rejected of men, the bearer of the world's curse. And as they set Him at nought in His abasement, He intimates the majesty and glory in which they should one day behold Him. And the same explanation must be given of all the other passages where this title is found in connection with an allusion to His glory.
The preceding discussion gives us, so to speak, a biography of the Lord Jesus from His own consciousness, and, in fact, a wholly different view of the life of Christ, than we should otherwise have been led to form. This language proves that He was fully aware of the fact that He was the sin-bearer, and called to lead a curse-bearing life, throughout His whole earthly career. The human biographies of Christ, which in too many things betray their incompetence to reproduce that wondrous portrait, are specially defective here. They rarely take account of this aspect of Christ's earthly life, or find any allusion to it in the Lord's own words. Without this element, however, our whole view of Christ's life is one-sided, and imperfect in the highest degree. Thus the principal use derived from it by many men, otherwise sound in the faith, is limited to His teaching or to His example, or, at furthest, extended to the mode' in which the Prince of Life communicates the spiritual life to men, and unites them to Himself. However true and important all these aspects of His life may be, they are still defective. Seen from the true view-point, or read off from the consciousness of the Lord Himself, His life is pervaded from first to last with another element. He is conscious of being the sin-bearer and the curse-bearer ; and every utter.mn- that falls from His lips as the Son of Man, discovers that He rriilixed at every step of His arduous work the position <>f vicarious suffering and abasement.
92 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
It is important to notice how He came to occupy this position as the substitute of sinful men, and so to act out that exchange of places which His whole atonement presupposes and implies. With a view to bring out the truth on this point, it may be proper to refer, negatively, to some of the theories current or in vogue on this subject, without entering very largely into their refutation.
1. He did not first take sin upon Him, or was first made sin, upon the cross. He was not first a man, and at a subse quent period the sin-bearer or the curse-bearer. "What has been truly and correctly said as to the assumption of humanity may be equally applied to this. He was not first a man, and then incarnate, or assumed into the personality of the Son ; for the humanity never existed but in that personal union. In like manner we may say that the humanity never was without this imputation of sin ; for that 'assumption of sin by which He became the sin-bearer, was IN, WITH, BY, and UNDER the assumption of our nature, though the sin is separable and distinguishable from the humanity. Nay, we should rather say that, according to the order of nature, the sin was imputed and assumed simultaneously with His mission, and therefore, in a certain sense, prior to the actual incarnation ; though it became His in point of fact, only with the possession of a common nature. They who limit the sin-bearing to the three hours on the cross — a too widely diffused notion — have far diverged from biblical language and ideas.
2. Nor did Jesus become the sin-bearer by any necessity of nature in virtue of taking the flesh. This was the error of Menken and Irving, who thought that He assumed sin simply in virtue of taking humanity ; as if sin and humanity were one and the same. Their theory was, that our Lord took to Him self a portion of the lump or mass, and that, in consequence of this, He personally and not officially, by necessity of nature and not by voluntary consent, came under the obligations of that humanity of which He had assumed a part. This is a
THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. .93
confusion of thought, which does not discern the things that dillcr, as well as perilous theology. But sin is not of the substance of man in such a way that they cannot be disjoined. They are so interwoven and interpenetrated, indeed, that we may not be able to sunder the workmanship of God, whicli is good, from the corruption which has tainted it. We can distinguish them, however, in idea; God distinguishes and separates in fact. Redemption, it is obvious, implies this separation : regeneration implies it : the incarnation presup poses it. If it were not so, man's nature could not have been a capable subject of redemption. And the fact that the Son of God entered into humanity by a true incarnation, is a sufficient proof that sin and humanity are not one and the same ; for He could not have united Himself to sin. Christ became the sin-bearer by free consent, not by necessity of nature ; by voluntary susception, not in consequence of any indispensable condition adhering to Him in virtue of His birth.
This theory, under any modifications, is a deep untruth, and carries with it consequences that may well repel every Christian mind. Even on the supposition that He took sinless humanity and only assumed the curse, objectively considered, by the necessity of nature, it would still be a theory which no biblical divine could admit or endure. His death, on this supposition, would not be an official act, but a personal doom ; not a free oblation, but a due punishment. The guilt would be His own, and the curse a necessary debt, which He personally owed. The atonement, if we could still suppose such a trans action, on that principle, would have been for the race, on a ] trine ij ilc of universal ism, wit In tut selection or distinction. And to come under the curse in this way. lie must needs have be. H Himself in Adam's covenant,— the very tiling from which, with all its consequences, the supernatural conception was meant to give Him full exemption. The uniform language of Scripture is opposed to all this, ;unl is -,\. constant testimony to the fact
94 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
that Christ died solely in the exercise of a priestly obla tion, without any personal liability whatsoever. It was as bearing sin not His own in consequence of an act of will, but not by any indispensable necessity, that the Lord encountered death.
3. It cannot be maintained, however, that the Lord took humanity in all respects as it was in Adam before the fall. That is to ignore all the effects and consequences that man's sin neces sarily introduced, and it puts the Lord Jesus outside the family of man. He took human nature distinct and separate from sin, which was no part of its essence ; for sin and humanity are separable quantities. He took humanity also apart from the imputed guilt of Adam's covenant, descending to Him indi vidually, as if He were a mere unit in the race, and not the second man. But He took it in such a way as also to assume, by His voluntary act and at the same moment, the sin of His people, and the curse, which was its sure attendant ; which is just what Paul intimates by " the likeness of sinful flesh," or by His appearing at His first coming with sin, as contrasted with His "appearing the second time without sin" (Heb. ix. 28). He must be regarded as bearing the penalty of sin from the first moment of His incarnation, or even from His sending by the Father. We cannot survey the meanness and abasement of His birth, made lower than the angels ; the poverty of His condition; His manual occupation, — earning His bread with the sweat of His brow, according to the doom on all the race ; His temptation by the foul spirit ; His privations ; His endur ance of hunger and thirst ; the agony and bloody sweat ; the arrest ; the chains by which He was bound ; the trial ; the accusation and rejection by His nut ion; the condemnation pronounced upon Him by the Gentiles; and the shame of a public execution, — without the full conviction that all this was included in our doom, and related to our punishment. All these griefs in the Man of Sorrows tended to the satisfaction for sin, and were comprehended in the primeval threat of death.
THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 95
Thus the Lord officially appearing on our world as a sin- bearer, and not such a person as was innocent and without sin, must of necessity take a humanity not as He now has it in heaven, nor even as it was in Adam before the fall : " Because the brethren were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same" (Heb. ii. 14). He assumed humanity in its meanness, abasement, and poverty, — assumed, that is, not a mere body and soul, but the form of a servant under sentence of death. The only difference was, that He took our common nature without any of the individual infir mities found in particular men; that is, without any of the disorderly mental conditions or any of the germs of sickness which are either transmitted or developed in the individual. He was free from disease and free from the incursion of death according to the ordinary course of nature, — the exemption from both being due to the fact that sin and its consequences did not belong to Him as a personal thing, but as they were assumed by His voluntary act.
We now come back to the fact that, as the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus was never from the very first without sin and its consequences. He felt all through His life what it is to be made sin and to be reputed a sinner. And who knows what soul- trouble, agony, and desertion He endured when no eye but His Father's and that of worshipping angels saw Him? These times of agony only, so to speak, crop out here and there in His recorded life ; but He was always as the Son of Man, made sin, and always suffering ; and all this abasement was owing to the fart that lit; was the Son of Man.
It does not fall within this topic to describe the nature of this sum-ring, its ingredients, or its intensity. It may suffice j . that, though tin- hither while acting the part of a jud^v did not lay aside the person and relation of a Father, II< inflicted real siil'lt-ring. penal sulirnn-, whirh struck the sub stitute, because it struck upon the sin which He made His; and there were gradations, too, in this curse-bearing life from
96 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the manger to the cross which were just degrees, or descending steps, in His humiliation. The cross was its culminating point ; but it was by no means limited to the cross. Though we read little of His private life, or of the way in which His secret hours were spent, He was, no doubt, in those intervals fre quently called to realize, as the Man of Sorrows, that he was on the earth in order to bear the sins of many ; and nothing can be conceived more terrible even to the Son of God than to feel the loss of God — the bitterest ingredient in the cup of woe, — or to realize that He was, in the sense in which the sinless one could be so, the object of the condemnation, loathing, and hatred due to sin, or worthy in any sense of receiving it. The Son of Man was treated as if He were the sinners, with whom He had exchanged places before God.
We have seen, then, from the title, Son of Man, and from the allusions which He made to Himself, that Christ's life was from first to last a sin-bearing and a curse-bearing life. This is one essential element of the atonement.
SEC. XV. — CHRIST RECEIVING BAPTISM AS THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER.
" Suffer it to be so now : for thus it l)ecometh us to fulfil all righteousness" — MATT. iii. 15.
This testimony is replete with meaning, whether we consider the occasion of it or the import of the terms. It may be called a key to that large class of passages which speak of Christ's obedience as the righteousness of Hia people, or represent Him as made of God unto us righteousness, because He was first of all made sin for us (2 Cor. v. 21).
As to the occasion which called forth this saying, we find it uttered on the memorable day of Christ's baptism, when He came to the Baptist, the new Elias, the culminating point of the Old Testament prophecy, and its voice. John may be regarded
nniisT nr.rnviNG BAPTISM AS SIN-BEARER. 97
here us tin- living expression of the law and of the prophets, which had during many ages witnessed to the coming Messiah, and which now,' by their greatest representative, were to intro duce the Christ into His office. As the Lord Jesus recognised them, so they were to inaugurate Him as the truth of the pro phecies, and as the substance of the types or shadows. So close in every point of view is the connection, rightly apprehended, of the old and new economy, that the one is incomplete without the other. But though Jesus was fully conscious of His mission from the day when the boy of twelve first trod the courts of the temple, and declared that He must be about His Father's business, He would take no step towards the public discharge of His office till He was formally inaugurated into it by an authorized prophet on the one hand, and by divine testimony on the other ; and our Lord well knew that John was sent on this very mission, by means of which a something was to be conferred upon Him that He had not before received.
The Baptist, as a sinner, feeling that it rather became him to exchange places with Jesus, and to be not the giver but the receiver in the interview, refused, for a time, to confer his baptism on the Bedeeiner. He could not conceive what the Christ had to do with a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, — what it was to Him, or He to it. But that reluc tance was overcome by the explanation which our Lord sub joined: "Suffer it to be so xow"1 — that is (for the now is emphatic), in my present state of humiliation, and as an action suited only to my state of substitution in the room of sinners. And the plural number, " it becometh us," may either refer, as in sonu- similar cases, to Jesus alone ; or, with a greatly modified sense, may include a reference also to the Baptist.
lUit the Lord subjoins an explanation as to the prim'iple and end for which He sought John's baptism: "For thus it be- eonieth us tn lultil all righteousness." It is not the spr* : of baptism to which alone allusion is here made. The lan_
98 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
is more general, though the occasion was particular. There is nothing to warrant the limitation of the words, which must be accepted in the full force of the phraseology. The Lord had a confession to make ; and the words here used furnish a key to the whole action. We must then, first of all, notice the import of these His words of confession : it becometh its to fulfil all righteousness. The Lord virtually says, " It is not unworthy of the Son of God to go down so far ; for it is not a question of dignity or pre-eminence, but of fulfilling all righteousness." The reception of baptism was only a voluntary act, and not personally necessary or required on His own account ; for He acted of free choice when He became incarnate. But it became Him to fulfil His undertaking, and in doing so, He was not free to omit this or any part of His work ; for though He was under no obligation to take the flesh, yet there arose a certain duty from His engagement to the Father, from His mediatorial office, and from the old prophecies. There was a certain hypo thetical necessity or propriety which required His acting as He now did, if the end was to be gained. It may be thus put : " It becometh Me to appear in the likeness of a sinner, and to fulfil all righteousness."
But, it is further demanded, what significance had baptism for Christ, and what application could it have to Him ? This is the very difficulty which presented itself to the mind of the Baptist, and which is still a difficulty to many an expositor in explaining it. It must be borne in mind, in the first place, that, as the surety, Jesus was made under the law, and that sacraments, as prescribed by the second commandment, were among the DUTIES with which He complied. But while that side of the question is clear enough, the difficulty lies in the other aspect of a sacrament : how they could be for Him the outward signs by which the divine promises were sealed and the faith of the receiver confirmed ; and they undoubtedly were so to Him.
In this matter it is obvious we must distinguish between
CHRIST RECEIVING BAPTISM AS SIN-BEARER. 03
the sinless person or individual and the official duty assigned to the surety, the neglect of which distinction has been the chief cause of the difficulty. When we speak of Christ's parti cipation of the sacraments, it must always be on the supposition that He was acting as the Mediator between God and man, and that there is a strict limitation of His actions to a sphere that excludes not only all personal taint, but also all the mental exercises corresponding to it, — which, however, are involved in our use of the sacraments of the Church. Impurity of His own He had none. But He had truly entered into humanity, and come within the bonds of the human family ; and, according to the law, the person who had but touched an unclean person, or had been in contact with him, was unclean. Hence, in submitting Himself to baptism as Mediator in an official capacity, the Lord Jesus virtually said, " Though sinless in a world of sinners, and without having contracted any personal taint, I come for baptism ; because, in my public or official capacity, I am a debtor in the room of many, and bring with Me the sin of the whole world, for which I am the propitiation." He was already atoning for sin, and had been bearing it on His body since He took the flesh ; and in this mediatorial capacity promises had been made to Him as the basis of His faith, and as the ground upon which His confidence was exercised at every step.
It is of course obvious that baptism had not the same signi ficance to Him as it has to us, and could not have. But it had an important significance even to Him, — first, officially, and then, as His faith was thus confirmed and established, personally. Some writers have perplexed and complicated this whole question by drawing a superfluous distinction between the obedience due by Christ as a rational creature and that which He owed as the Mediator or Surety acting in the name of His people, and bet \\vni the promises made to Him in the one capacity and those which were made to Hint in the other. It is only an embarrassing distinction, which should be dismissed.
100 SAVINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
It is much better to hold that Christ was not made under the law on His own account, and that humanity, existing in the person of the Son of God, came under no law, and was bound to no obedience, except as He spontaneously stooped to become officially the surety of His people. We are not to distinguish here, as some have unduly done, between the man and tin- Mediator. We meet in this whole scene, then, an inward offering of Himself, or a full mental dedication to bear the sin of the world, and, in so doing, to fulfil all righteousness. The administration of the rite, accordingly, was a symbol of the baptism of agony which He had yet to be baptized with, and which, with the utmost promptitude, He here, and all through His history, offered Himself to undergo : " I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accom plished !" (Luke xii. 50.) And this mental dedication ran through all His subsequent career, and gave a tincture to His entire life, till it confronts us afresh as a completed act upon the cross. He had fulfilled all righteousness till now ; and this gives us a glimpse into His purpose and resolve for the future. It consisted of these two parts : that Christ, in the likeness of sinful flesh, should condemn sin, — in other words, that He should perfectly fulfil the law of love in heart and action as one for many ; and that, according to the same representative system, man should satisfy for man, by fully entering into the lot of sinners under punitive justice. He avowed His prompt and cordial willingness, as the physician of the sick, to take upon Himself their sicknesses and their diseases, though He well knew that He was now at the threshold of His public ministry, and entering on a scene of conflicts and trouble of which Nazareth had given Him no experience.
It might be added, that this mm-ly mental offering of Himself in His baptism was crowned with a divine recog nition (Matt. iii. 1C). But on this we do not insist, as it does not come within our purpose. It may suffice to say, that this divine act of recognition showed that not only was His
CIIKIST KKrr.iviNK BAPTISM AS SIX-BEAREH. 101
past career well-pleasing, but that this dedication, as a thing that was to lit- daily renewed, was peculiarly so, and would be at the close nio>t gloriously rewarded. The words which our Lord uses at a later period, " I have a baptism to be baptized with, and ho wain I straitened till it be accomplished !" discovers in what light Christ will have His baptism to be regarded. It was a symbolic representation of those sufferings and sorrows to which He must submit as the voluntary sacrifice in the room of His people,— ^an emblem of the way in which He was to bear the floods of wrath in bringing in the ever lasting righteousness, or in fulfilling all righteousness. We do not need, then, to make two things out of the baptism, but may rest content with the symbol and the reality.
To all that has just been said, however, there are two objections, which must now be obviated. It is argued that we cannot class this .passage among those which set forth a meri torious obedience for man, and in man's stead, for these reasons: — (1) Christ speaks of Himself and of John together, and the obedience of the latter cannot be held to be meritorious for men ; and (2) it refers principally to baptism, which was not received by Christ in man's stead. These objections are easily met and removed.
As to the first objection, that Christ speaks of Himself and of .John together, and that the obedience of the latter cannot be meritorious, the answer is at hand. It seems to be, as in many other places, the plural of eminence (comp. John iii. 11). I'.ut if the words do include a reference to John, in a certain modified sense, the meaning will be, that he, the Baptist, had duly to fulfil the terms of his commission, and not refuse his baptism to one who sought it, as our Lord now did upon this occasion.
. As to the second, the allusion is not to a single rite or to any one observance which had been appointed by divine authority, and the observance of which was a rijjit thing. That does not by any means exhaust the meaning. The
102 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
expression used is, that He must needs fulfil all righteousness in a humiliation of which He was not ashamed, and in which John must acquiesce; and it can only refer to the sinless One offering in the room of sinners the great atoning act, or to the whole mediatorial righteousness. His greatness and His abasement are equally brought out in the work to be done.
This will help us to understand in what sense it can be said that Christ, by receiving baptism, " fulfilled all righteousness." This is the point of the passage in reference to the subject for which we have adduced it ; and it must be precisely appre hended. The phrase, "to fulfil all righteousness," can only mean, in this connection, that by what was here involved and sym bolized in the rite employed, the Lord Jesus would bring in an approved fulfilment of the divine law, as the work of one for many; that there must be an exact correspondence between that which is required and that which is actually rendered, — a coincidence between the two. Though it is not necessary to refer to the essential righteousness of God, by which He wills and loves all that agrees with His perfections, further than to say that the creature's righteousness is to be measured on that attribute, or on the law which is the transcript of it, yet it is necessary to bear in mind that this human righteousness is fulfilled only when men reflect the image of their Maker in their heart and nature, in their life and actions. As it was not a divine righteousness, but a creature righteousness, that was required at our hands, so it was this that the Mediator ren dered, — in other words, it was the same in kind with ours, though the person who came to bring it in was possessed of a divine dignity, which gave His work ;i validity and value all its own. It consisted in" an obedience to the divine law in precept and in penalty, complete in all its parts, and up to the measure of man's capacity ; for as nothing less was claimed, so nothing less was rendered by the Mediator, who was made under the law as broken, and who acted in the room of others. Thus man
CHRIST RECEIVING BAPTISM AS SIN-BEARER. 1 03
satisfied for man, and, furthermore, fulfilled the law of love in heart and life.
We cannot limit the phrase to anything short of full obedi ence to the law, as the rule of righteousness. And when we look at the terms here used, it will be found, that as the epithet righteous always carries with it the notion that the person so described is approved by a competent tribunal as following a line of conduct which is conformable to the law, so righteous ness l is that quality, personal or official, which marks one out as the fit object of that approval. The allusion here is to the righteousness due from the creature, and exhibited in the great sacrifice which was here mentally offered by the Mediator in our stead. This is the meaning, as is obvious on many grounds. Expositors have propounded various other explanations, which are not tenable.
We may set aside, then, as faulty and inadequate, (1) the comment that the language is equivalent to saying that Christ fully taught the doctrine of true religion, or that He embodied in His example an outline of all He taught to others. As little will it suffice to say, (2) that the phrase means, " it becomes us to do what is right, or to carry out, even to the smallest duty, that which God has appointed." There is as little ground for the explanation, (3) that humility is the principal part of righteousness. The defect of all these comments is, that they take no account of Christ's mediatorial position in this act, without which we cannot understand His words, or see their proper scope. He was already in this public act mentally offer ing the sacrifice of Himself to the Father, and so fulfilling all righteousness.
1 This is tin- meaning of $<*«<«ri/'»». That the verb ItxaioZ, denotes one who is urquittril ami ar.rpf'l, is admitted (iii all hands ; but the mistake too com monly committed is, that the same meaning has not Ixrn tarried out to these cognate words, e.g. li*«,,etu*n, $/*«<«.
104 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMKNT.
SEC. XVI. — CHRIST, AS THE SIN-BEARER, TAKING ON HIM, DURINU HIS EARTHLY LIFE AND HISTORY, THE BURDENS AND SICK NESSES OF HIS PEOPLE.
In the Gospels there are several passages to be found which bring out far deeper views on the subject of Christ's curse- bearing and suffering life than have commonly been adopted, or, at least, than have been taken up in earnest in the Church. Most readers who merely read the narrative of Christ's life as they do a common history, see nothing more in these sufferings than the opposition of ungodly men to the cause of God, or limit the endurance of the curse on the part of Jesus to the hours when He hung upon the cross. But the curse-bearing career of Christ was by no means of that nature, nor limited to that time.
Neither is it enough to say, as the views of others iiiiply, that as Jesus endured the collective elements of the curse on the cross, it serves no purpose to trace it piecemeal and in detail in other spheres and at other times. For on that theory it would not have been necessary for Christ to be an infant, child, youth, and man, if we are to limit attention to the one point which was undoubtedly the climax both of the obedience and of the curse. His previous life, considered in the double light of sinless purity and of curse-bearing endurance, was not less necessary in the divine economy than the cross, and not less provided for in the wisdom of the divine counsels. His entire life was pervaded by the curse ; and He encountered it in every sphere where His people were required to bear it. We may trace from His history how He met it in all those spheres and departments where the bitter effects of sin, beyond doubt, assail mankind. The opposite \k-\v may seem to have more simplicity in it ; but it overleaps the eartlily life of Christ. God's wisdom, however, was plainly different. And this endurance of the curse from the commencement of Hi-
CHKIST r.KAKixc ins PEOPLE'S BURDENS AND SICKNESSES. 105
life to its close, in every one of those departments or spheres win-re the bitter consequences of sin had entered, must be viewed as necessary, not only in the way of fitting the Lord Jesus to become a merciful and faithful High Priest (Heb. ii. 1 7), but also in the moral government of God for the expiation of sin.
As it is easy to err by excess here, many are content to err by defect. Thus Menken and Irving egregiously erred by bringing Christ into the circle of human nature as it now is. But many, on the other hand, have been deterred, in conse quence of their mistake, from even venturing to approach the subject. The regulative principle, however, which is by no means to be lost sight of at any point, and which will guide us in our inquiry here, is, that sin is not of the essence of humanity, and that we can distinguish between it and God's workmanship.1 While Christ sustained our persons and entered into our position by a legal exchange of places, He was incar nate in a humanity according to its idea, and not as it now is in us. It was not an exchange of either a physical or moral nature when He officially took our place, and the Sinless One took the curse upon Himself, and bore it through life, solely by spontaneous choice, and not by necessity of nature. All this was voluntarily assumed, not taken by the necessity of His incarnation. Hence, viewed in the twofold light of the
1 One important thought in connection with the incarnation, and capable of receiving an application to the case in hand, was brought out during the dis cussions railed forth by the theory of Flacius Illyricus, that sin had become of tin- essence or substance i»f humanity. The churches recoiled in horror from thai oviT<lo7n' speculation, and replied that we may and must distinguish en Cod's workmanship, which is good, and the ruin or defilement which has invaded it. (See Fm-iiinln ('mn'ofilin', <lt- fxri'tifo arii/iiii*.) \\Y ean dis tinguish in idea, ami Cod distinguishes in fact. If it were not so, there could n.it have been an incarnation. Humanity could not have been assumed except on tin' ground of Mieh a distinction in point of fact. Christ assumed humanity without its taint ; which indeed was not of its substance, nor essential to it. And this assumpt ion of our nature according to its idea, rather than according M what it has become, is quite consistent with the fact that He took on Him, by voluntary susception, not unly all the parts of our curse in all the spheres where it is dill'used, but also many sinless infirmities, such as hunger and thirst, wc.iri- i I pain, and sorrow and death.
106 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
sin-bearer and of the sinless second man, His entire life was expiatory or atoning. Tor He was at every moment bearing the curse of that sphere through which He passed, or in which He lived at any given time, and yet fulfilling in it all right eousness, such as man was required to render, or was capable of rendering. He went through all life in a double capacity, and must be regarded at every moment as at once the curse- bearer and the fulfiller of all righteousness. We shall notice some of these spheres, though by no means in an exhaustive way.
Thus Christ's human development took place within the circle of FAMILY LIFE, where the deepest principles of all that is purely human are called into action. And as the curse lies there as well as upon every other human sphere, He lived in it to bear this curse, and also to sanctify by His sinless purity the domestic constitution to all His followers. There are sides of domestic life which often try the mind and involve a deep conflict, all the more trying because the relations are so close ; and from this the Lord Jesus was not exempt. Thus we read that His brethren did not believe on Him, and therefore could not comprehend Him (John vii. 1-7).
He entered also, as we have every reason to conclude, into the PKIMEVAL CUESE OF LABOUK. When we find Him designated not only the carpenter's son, but the carpenter (Mark vi. 3), the language plainly refers to the fact, that during the course of His private life the Lord Jesus followed the occupation of a carpenter. We are constrained, both on exegetical and on dogmatic grounds, to decide for this interpretation. And there seems no ground to doubt that Jesus earned His bread by the sweat of His brow, whether we look at the plain words used by the evangelist, or at the necessity devolving on the substitute of sinners of entering into every part of our curse. And He has in consequence transformed the curse of labour into a blessing, and sanctified not only manual and mental labour in every form in which it can be viewed, but also the entire earthly calling to all His followers till the end of time.
CHRIST BEARING HIS PEOPLE'S BURDENS AND SICKNESSES. 107
During His private life, as well as afterwards in His public ministry, the Lord Jesus, as the sin-bearer, felt, too, in every variety of form, the infliction of the divine wrath.1 And no mortal man can conceive through what agony and desertion He was called to pass, or what He may have endured on those occasions, when it is said that He went apart, or retired from the society of man, to wrestle with God in secret. We can only figure to ourselves what it may have been, and warrantably conclude that it was similar to the scenes on record. Nor need I refer to Christ's TEMPTATION in the wilderness, the counterpart of Adam's temptation in the garden, further than to say, that the fact of His being the sin-bearer affords the only explanation how Satan could obtain such power over Him, or venture into the presence of the Son of God, and appeal to the same elements in human nature, though from a wholly different point of view, in order to seduce Him, if that were possible. His position as the curse-bearer can alone explain that marvellous abasement.
There are many other spheres or departments into which the curse had entered according to the judicial sentence of God, such as poverty and pain, hunger and thirst, weariness, reproach, and sorrow. It may suffice to say, in reference to all these parts of the curse, that as Christ's people had given their members instruments to sin, and had deserved to suffer, so Christ stepped down into their place, and bore the wrath of God for them in every variety of form.
There is one sphere, however, to which I must more particu larly advert ; and the rather, because it has not received in any
in-
1 It is the more necessary to notice this aspect of our Lord's earthly life, iismueh us the very best among the biographies of Christ rhvulating among the ehmvhes give no prominenee to it, if they even allude to it. Their object is to bring out the active sinless life of Jesus ; and they apprehend this earthly life
only on this side, while they ignore the sin-bearing element. The language of I'l'Mims ami ( )[( vianus in the Heidelberg Catechism is happy : "eu»t (<>(<> <jtiidt m vitce sixr tempore, quo in terris eijif, pneeipue vem in ejus extivmo, irani IVi sidvei-sns peeeatum universi generis huniani corpora et unima snstinuis.se." Quest. 37.)
108 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
quarter the attention due to its importance. I refer to the sense in which Christ is said to have taken on Him our SICK NESSES AND DISEASES. The question arises: If they are part of the curse, can it be said that He took them on Himself; did He bear them to any extent, and in what way ? If diseases are the effect of sin, and part of the woe which sin has brought into our world, in what sense are we to regard Christ's relation to disease, or explain His interference with the due infliction of this penal sentence in the performance of His miraculous cures? -When we examine His miraculous cures, several things are evident. That they not only fatigued Him, but cost Him much in the way of sympathy, and even of endurance, may be inferred from vari ous incidents, and especially from the fact that He often sighed in the performance of the cure (Mark vii. 34), and was troubled (Johnxi. 33) ; and from the fact that He was sensibly conscious of virtue going out of Him, as if a mutual transfer, in some sort, took place in every instance of a cure (Mark v. 30).
Now, in the first place, there can be no doubt that the miraculous cures were only a result or effect of that ransom which was to be paid in all the extent to which man was made subject to the curse. If Christ was to annihilate sin as the cause, then the effect, as a matter of course, must disappear whenever He spoke His healing word. He thus removed disease by anticipation, because, as the surety of sinners, He undertook their obligations, and satisfied for all that was the cause of the disease. The effect was virtually removed by the removal of the cause, though in no case was the cure effected without the actual exercise of His omnipotent fiat.
This brings me to notice, in the next place, the additional idea contained in a remarkable apostolic commentary on Christ's miracles. This is exhibited in a somewhat difficult passage in Matthew, where Jesus is said to have taken on Him our sicknesses. The Lord had, during a day of labour, dispensed blessings to many, and, wearied with incessant activity, He needed rest. But when evening came, instead
CHRIST BEARING HIS PEOPLE'S BURDENS AND SICKNESSES. 109
of a season of repose, there came a new company who had all manner of diseases and possessions, and He healed them all. When Matthew narrates this fact, he subjoins a quotation to the effect that all this was the fulfilment of what had been spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, " Himself took our infir mities and bare our sicknesses" (Matt. viii. 17). The words of the evangelist must be accepted as an exact quotation of Isaiah's words, and also as a faithful reproduction or transcript of the meaning of the prophet. It is an apostolic commentary, of which the evangelists supply many. The fact that the inspired writer quotes the words in this connection and with his appended explanation, is conclusive as to their meaning. Whether the words can bear a wider sense, it does not lie within my present purpose to inquire ; and that this is the meaning, is rendered all the more certain by the formula of quotation, " that it might be fulfilled," which will not admit the application of the theory of accommodation which certain writers use to evacuate a passage of its meaning.
This brings out, then, a new thought, which is quite in harmony with the explanation which has been already given. If diseases were removed by Christ just because the sin which was the cause of them was to be expiated by His atoning death, and if He could say, " Whether is easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, Arise and walk ?" (Matt. ix. 5,) this additional thought is quite consistent with that view. The con nection between the atonement and the cure is only further illustrated by the fact, of which there is little doubt, that it cost Him something, — in other words, that He suffered in mind and body when He healed all manner of sickness and disease. That Ilf took them upon Himself in some sense, is affirmed liy Matthew in that passage. But in what sense ? Perhaps as gnnd an answer as has ever been furnished was otu-ivd l>y Dr. Thomas Goodwin. " Christ," says he,1 " when He came to
1 See Goodwin's tivntise, entitled The Heart of Christ In //«>>•• on Earth, vol. iv. p. 138; Kdin. Edition. (Edir, in his r. filiation of tin-
110 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
an elect child of His that was sick, whom He healed, His man ner was, first, by a sympathy and pity, to afflict Himself with their sickness as if it had been His own. Thus, at the raising of Lazarus, it is said that ' He groaned in spirit, etc. ; ' and so, by the merit of taking the disease upon Himself, through a fellow-feeling of it, He took it off from them, being for them afflicted as if He Himself had been sick. And this seems to be the best interpretation that I have met with of that difficult place in Matt. viii. 1 6, 1 7." That Jesus would enter into this department of the curse was only what was to be expected, because it fills so large a part of human life in the case of multitudes, and because it extends, in some measure, to every member of the human family. Though disease could not touch Him as it assails mankind in general, in the way of contagion, it needs no proof that this voluntary assumption, or bearing of it, in some sense, in His sinless body, or the transfer of it to Himself, was of the greatest moment to us. It was spontane ous, not constrained. But His miracles alone were so numerous as to make Him acquainted with all manuer of sickness and disease. He took them on Himself for us. And may not pious minds derive the highest comfort from the fact that the Saviour took upon Himself not only the sin, which is the cause of disease, but also the DISEASE ITSELF, in some sense, however mysterious and undefinable that may be, just as He took poverty and grief on Himself for us ? (Comp. Heb. iv. 15.)
Racovian Catechism, p, 806 (Francofurti, 1739), has some striking remarks on this topic : " Hie ntinam non esset fatendum, in multas vias itum esse ah inter] >i < - tilms, nostratibus eticim, ut in concordiam rcili^iint I'rophetam et EvaiiLjelistani. Namque ilium primo, de spiritualibus morbis, h. e. peccatis loqui existiniant, turn vero ea ita suseepta nae a Christo, nt propric ferret, h. e. pcenas his debitas sustineret, Mattha>uin contract de corporis inlinnitatihus vei ! u non
a < 'hristo toleratas sen in ipsum translatas intelli^i velle, scd ablatas sanando, ut medicus non in se transfert febrim, qua medieameutis suis le^rntum libcrat. Non satisfecerunt, quod sine vituperatione summorum ingeniorum die -turn velim, iiunii's interpretes 071111111111 religiomnn." See the best diseii.ssiim I know of this ditlienlt point in that passage of (Kd.-r (pp. Soil M'IM, who maintains that, in some sense, tin- diseases were transferred by ( 'lirist to Himself. The opposite view i.s maintained by Sebastian Schmid in his commentary on Heb. iv. 15.
CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS ILLUSTRATED BY ins SAYINGS. 1 1 1
SEC. XVII. — THE HISTORIC FACT OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS ILLUSTRATED BY HIS SAYINGS.
The department to which we here allude is too much omitted by those who handle the sayings of Christ, or who dis cuss the question of the atonement. And yet the FACTS and history of the Lord's passion must needs be correctly appre hended in the light of His sayings. Their full meaning, indeed, cannot be seen from the proper point of view, or thoroughly ascertained, unless the import of His sayings as to the doctrine of the atonement has been correctly understood. On the other hand, the true doctrine of the atonement, by the aid of the key thus furnished, may, and must, be read off from the facts of His suffering and death, if we are to do justice to either.
There is a double line of inquiry here presented to us. There is one class of facts of a more subjective character, descriptive of Christ's own feelings, and another class more objective in its character, which seems to contain only incidents or events which were permitted to befall Him. But both assume that Jesus was the conscious sin-bearer ; and can only be correctly understood from this point of view.
With regard to the more subjective class of facts, we find a few utterances of Jesus in the form of exclamations during His soul-trouble, which bring before us what He felt under the infliction of His Father's hand and the hiding of his Father's face. The whole texture of Christ's life may be said to consist of suffering, sorrow, and bitterness. As the curse had diffused itself through every scene of life, not a sphere can be named, nor a moment thought of, in which He did not, as the surety of sinners, feel, more or less, the bitter ingredients of that cup of woe, which must otherwise have oppressed His people for ever. The bare fact of taking our nature was an acknowledg ment of the debt ; and as He went about in the likeness of sinful flesh, His entire history was a proof that sin was laid on
112 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Him. And these varied sorrows in every sphere in which 1I>' moved, and especially in the exclamations of agony which burst from Him on different occasions, only prove that Jesus, in the double capacity of sin-bearer and of sinless second man, was, in part at least, offering the satisfaction in all these scenes, till at last the whole cup of suffering was put into His hand at once. That this is the meaning of this class of facts cannot be doubted or denied.
With regard to the more objective class of facts connected with Christ's experience as the conscious sin-bearer, they are not less significant. We find a series of historic facts connected with the arrest, the trial, the sentence, and execution of the Lord Jesus, which can only be explained on the supposition, that while the Lord was placed before the bar of man, He was really standing before another bar as the sin-bearing representa tive of His people ; and that the transactions of that earthly court only exhibited to the eye of man the foreground of the scene, and gave us the means of apprehending what was taking place, though invisibly, in the court of heaven.
These two series of historic facts in the course of Christ's passion are in the highest degree significant, and must be correctly apprehended, if we would not lose sight of some of the most essential and indispensable elements in the doctrine of the atonement.
SEC. XVIII. — THE SAYINGS OF CHRIST AS THE CONSCIOUS SIN- BEARER IN PROSPECT OF HIS AGONY, AND DURING IT.
The narrative of the evangelists contains many clear proofs that our Lord from the first looked forward with deep .solemnity to the period of His sufferings. Nor, in truth, was He ever without some experience of the curse in the numerous spheres through which it had diffused itself, though these sufferings had their ebbs and flows. They were not always equally intense. Thus, m the first stages of His ministry, He speaks
EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 113
of His death with a certain measure of calmness (John iii. 1 4 ; John vi. 51). There can be little doubt, however, that when He did so speak of His approaching death, there is a certain measure of the same experience which afterwards reached its height in the garden and on the cross.
At a further stage His statements are delivered with a greater amount of feeling ; and they awaken also more atten tion among the disciples, as well as a certain degree of fear and awe, because they could not but see a deepening solemnity upon His mind, and the first traces of something more than a mere anticipation of the future (Matt. xvii. 17-22 ; Mark ix. 31).
It was in the last journey to Jerusalem that He spake out with a distinctness and an amount of feeling that impressed His disciples with fear (Mark x. 32). This was owing to the way in which He spoke of His death as a cup that He must drink of, and as a baptism that He must be baptized with (Matt. xx. 22). And when He says, " How am I straitened till it is accomplished !" (Luke xii. 50,) He intimates that there was upon His spirit a pressure, anxiety, or straitening, which it may be difficult for us to define, but which must allude to an inner experience akin to the fact that He was the sin- bearer.
The sufferings of Christ may be distributed into those whieh were an immediate infliction upon His soul from the hand of God, and those in which soul and body alike shared. To the former belong all those exclamations which fell from Him in society or in solitude, without any infliction of pain from the hands of men. There are at least two of this nature, win -re we cannot but trace the evidences of mental agony, — the soul-trouble manifested in the presence of the inquiring Greeks on the day of His public entry into Jerusalem (John xii. 27), and the agony in the garden of Gethseinane (Matt. xxvi. 38) ; to which must be added, as a third, the cry of desertion on the cross, which, though accompanied \\ilh corporeal suffering, arose
114 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
mainly from mental distress (Matt, xxvii. 46). One thing is obvious enough in reference to all these three exclamations. They cannot be explained on any supposition which does not fully admit the vicarious death of Christ. We shall notice them separately.
I. The exclamation of the sin-bearer on His entry into Jeru salem. — The evangelist John alone records this exclamation of agony and soul-trouble : " Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save Me from this hour : but for this cause came I unto this hour" (John xii. 27). The trouble of soul here announced by Christ Himself is not to be explained by the mere recoil of sinless nature from the approach of death. It is to be explained by supernatural causes, — that" is, by the divine anger against sin, as it was borne by the substitute of sinners ; and the allusion to His death in the previous context seems to have given the occasion for letting in upon His soul, by a special avenue, a sense of the divine wrath.
The next words, " Save Me from this hour," convey, in substance, the same petition that comes before us in the Gethsemane scene. This request discovers nature as at a loss, and embarrassed under the pressure of the overwhelming trouble due to us for sin. Some read this clause interrogatively, as if Christ were to be regarded as asking whether He should thus pray, and as if His submission to God lay specially in this, that He did not so ask of God. But it is better to read it with out the interrogation, as the latter brings in a train of self- reflection, which is not appropriate to such a scene of vehement emotion. We may suppose one of two explanations. We may either suppose that He does not ask deliverance from the death, but only from the accessories or accompaniments of it, which were so ovenvlu'lining, that the horror and anguish seemed to Him insupportable. It will thru In- a prayer for such a mitigation of tin- anguish, that Hr ini-lii .finish the work of human redemption successfully. Or VST may suppose that He prays to be saved from the punitive justice, the cup,
EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 115
or the baptism, within the sphere of which He was now brought. The latter seems the better exposition, though it has far greater difficulties, and brings us up at once to the inscrutable mystery of pure humanity asking with submission, and asking sinlessly, under the stunning sense of present anguish, whether there was no possibility of being saved from that hour.
But the next clause points out in what way His mind returned to its rest : " But for this cause came I unto this hour." He reverts to the vicarious suffering as the design of His incarnation, as the very end of His coming. Those expositors are much mistaken who refer the words to His glorification ; as if the Lord meant to say that He came into the world for this cause, that He might be glorified. The immediate context is, not that He might be glorified, nor that the world might be saved, nor that He might be delivered, — all which ideas have been offered by commentators as the reason for which He is here said to have come into the world. The immediate context is found in " this hour," and the thought is that Jesus came to endure this hour of suffering.
This whole scene discovers the two great features of the atonement, — sin-bearing and sinless obedience. The exclama tion, beyond doubt, is extorted by the pressure of the divine wrath. Nor is this invalidated, in any measure, by the fact that the Scripture represents the Lord Jesus as the object of the divine complacency and love ; and the more so, because He laid down His life for the sheep (John x. 17). It is urged by those who have inadequate views of the vicarious satisfaction, that the beloved Son could never be the object of the Father's aimer, and, therefore, that this exclamation could never arise IVi'in any such experience. That objection, urged against the view already given, proceeds on a mistaken view of what is meant, and confounds the personal with the official relation ui' the Son of God. In His personal capacity He WOB, and could nevei cease to be, the In-loved Son. But ill His otlieial capacity He was tin- substitute ut' sinners, the sin-bearer and the curse-
116 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
bearer, who came into the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself; and the personal relation in which He stood to the Father lent to the official all its efficacy and value. Nor is that all.
Such an exclamation as the present cannot be regarded as worthy of Christ if His sufferings were not vicarious. On the supposition that Christ's death was but a martyr's death, it would be a strange and inexplicable enigma. Suppose the death of Christ to have no higher significance than that of attesting the truth of His doctrine and of serving as an example, we should have expected to find in Him a bright example of forti tude and magnanimity, of patience and composure, of calmness and triumph, without any tincture of dejection or fear; and the more so, because He was exalted above all other witnesses of the truth by the greatness of His person. And on that theory of His work, men may well be astonished to find the opposite. Whence so many signs of fainting, when no inflic tion came from the hand of man, and only a dim anticipation of something looming in the distance hung over Him on the theory in question ? How shall we explain His anguish, dejection, and fear, more than has been evinced by many of His own servants and martyrs ? No satisfactory account can be given of His mental anguish and heaviness if Christ were but a martyr or an example of patience ; and this gains force if we add, as we must do on that theory, that divine wisdom actively devised whatever would make His example worthy of our imitation.
The only position which we can maintain is, that these exclamations of Christ argue the conscious sin-bearer and a vicarious suffering.
II. The exclamation of the sin-bearer in Gcthscmanc. — The second exclamation, which evinces how Christ's sold wrestled with a heaviness and agony greater far than any bodily ju in afterwards inflicted, was uttered in Gethsemane. It is thus given by Matthew : " Then cometh Jesus with them unto a
EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 1 1 7
place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceed ing sorrowful, even unto death : tarry ye here, and watch with Me. And He went a little farther, and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 0 my Father, if it lie possible, let this cup pass from Me : nevertheless not as 1 will, but as Thou wilt. And He cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What ! could ye not watch with Me one hour ? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, 0 my Father, if this cup may not pass from Me, except I drink it, Thy will le done. And He came and found them asleep again : for their eyes were heavy. And He left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words" (Matt. xxvi. 36-44). Many theories have here been proposed by way of explanation of this scene, — some referring the sorrow on Christ's mind to a single cause, others referring it to a variety of concurring causes. It seems more natural to deduce the strong and vehement emotion of Christ from one cause than from several ; for experience tells us, as well as a right view of the human mind and of its laws, that very great emotion is never produced by a variety of con current causes.
We must now consider to what the deep agony and sorrow of our Lord are to be traced. Of the great variety of explana tions that have been given — some of them so shallow and groundless as not to deserve a moment's thought, — there are three, in particular, that have much more probability. And a lining these we must choose.
1. Some ascribe the agony in the .uar.lni In the temptations of Satan. It is argued that Satan, who left Him for a time1 (Luke iv. 13), or, as it may mean, till the lit time for renewing
1 1 8 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the attack, returned when He was in the garden. It is thought that there is enough of harmony between the two occasions to lend countenance to this supposition. But then there are no hints or intimations of any such thing in the actual narra tive of the evangelists. It does not clearly appear that the tempter, after being so completely foiled in the first encounter, ventured to renew the conflict in the same direct way. It may be so ; but it is not recorded. And certainly it would be strange that Luke should mention the appearance of an angel on the scene, to strengthen and confirm our Lord, and make no mention of another agent from the invisible world, if such a hand-to-hand encounter had taken place. Nor does the language of Jesus on the eve of His going out to the garden imply a new conflict of temptation: "The prince of this world cometh" (John xiv. 30). It seems much more cor rect to say that the prince of this world now came through the instrumentality of men, imbued with his spirit, and filled witli his influence, to crush the Lord Jesus by violence.
2. Nor can the agony of Christ be traced alone to the vivid view of His approaching crucifixion. This very common ex planation assumes nothing but a- mere foreboding or anticipa tion of a dread reality near at hand, but without any higher influence. This comment has been propounded in two different forms, neither of which is satisfactory. The lower theory of the two is, that all Christ's sufferings came from the hands of men, and not from any direct infliction at the hand of God ; and, consequently, that He was, and must be, the object of God's delight in such a sense that no mysterious extraordinary power could come from God to aggravate His sorrow.1 On this theory of Christ's agony in the garden it only remains for expositors to appeal to the fact, that a violent death must have been • peculiarly awful to Christ's pure and tender and sensitive
1 This is the view supported in the two prize essays of Rii-hm and Van Williir", published in 1S51 l.y the Hague Society for the defence of the Chris tian religion, over Jiet Ifooggaande Ujden van Jesus in Get/isemane.
EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 119
humanity. And though the further thought may here be added, that death is the divine sentence against sin, and that Christ realized His death in connection with the why and wJwrcfore of such a sentence on the world's sin, the whole theory is highly defective. It does not explain the pertur bation and sorrow of Christ's mind ; it gives no adequate explanation of the bloody sweat; and it fails to give any just account of the other accompaniments recorded in the Gospels.
The other is a deeper theory, but also insufficient, because it goes no further than mere anticipation or foreboding.1 This view takes for granted that the Lord Jesus, without anything beyond the exercises of His own mind, was filled with heavi ness and exceeding sorrow even unto death, because a lively view was presented to Him of the unutterable wrath of God due to sin, which the surety made His own. But this second supposition is also defective, because the whole scene on this theory becomes, to an undue degree, a mere subjective impres sion. It does not explain the phenomena ; it leads to the inference that the mind of Jesus was overwhelmed by a fore boding, which we can scarcely suppose ever rising to such a climax as threatened to master His perfectly-balanced mind; it transfers the actual suffering forward to the hours when He hung on the cross, as if He had none before ; and it assigns no adequate reason why an angel came to strengthen Him. The fact of the angel's appearance for such a purpose implies real ami not merely apprehended suffering. And His confirming message, of whatever kind it was, would at least bring some- thing objective before Him, and point to the joy set before Him, as well as promise adequate support.
3. Another and a better explanation than either of the two
1 Srr tin- exposition df tin- a^'oiiy in the <$mlen on this principle, in n sermon l.y Principal Kdwanls, of Aim-rica, which, though it allords a most striking sketch of the Lord's nient.il a^.my, is still defective, inasmuch as he regards it ;us only pruspe> the, m-t pi.
120 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
former is, that the sorrow of Gethsemane was due to the posi tive privation of the divine presence, or to the loss of God.1 Of all the ingredients in the agony of those who encounter the penalty of sin, this is by far the worst element in their cup of suffering. The suffering of Christ in His capacity as substitute was the same in its character, so far as outward causes are con cerned, as the penal infliction awaiting the finally condemned. It was an objective and positive punishment from the hand of God that fell on the Lord Jesus, who occupied the place of our representative ; and the exclamation proves that He was the conscious sin-bearer. The agony did not visit Him as a just and holy person, but as He was the surety, made sin by His voluntary act. And it may be added, that these two mental acts — the sense of the divine wrath, and the utmost filial con fidence, — though they are distinct, are by no means incompatible. The one was due to His office as the sin-bearer ; the other was expressive of His personal relation. Nor are we to suppose that this penal privation of the divine presence was always equally intense, and that no intervals of relief were allowed to Him ; for, in the present case, the opposite appears from the fact that He returned in such intervals to the disciples, who were heavy with slumber.
As to the accompaniments of this inscrutable scene, they were the following: — (1) A sorrow unto death (a^owa), a horror and oppressive sense of sinking, till the functions of the mind were well-nigh suspended. It has been likened to the stopping of a clock, not by any intrinsic defect in its mechanism, but by the application of an outward force suspending its motion. (2) The bloody sweat arising from the inconceivable emotions of
1 This was the prevailing and common view in former times. I may refer to n remarkable discussion de agonia et desertione Christi, on this acceptation of it, by Gisbert Voetius in his Selectee Disputationes, vol. ii. pp. 164-188. Among the more modern writers, Saurin, Disc. t. x. p. 251, Seller, and others, still take the same view. The recent exegetes who are opposed to the vicarious sacrifice, object to it as the vicarious view, just as a former generation objected to it as the supernatural view. But no other is at all tenable, or can be made even plausible.
EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 121
sorrow, dejection, and fear, so strong as to turn the current of the blood out of its course. (3) The more earnest prayer (tzr&- vtartpov) occasioned by the amazement and deep perplexity of His soul. All this shows what He endured as the conscious sin-bearer from the hand of an angry God, who, while He ever regarded Jesus as His beloved Son, visited sin with its adequate recompense.
Though these sufferings partook of the same elements with the agonies of the finally lost, in as far as the external cause was concerned, there was also a very wide difference. This comes to light, whether we consider His mental exercises or His personal relation to the Father. It was a holy endurance of the penalty without one flaw or taint of imperfection. His agonies were neither eternal nor accompanied with the worm of conscience, — ingredients in the cup of the finally condemned. But no one can peruse the scene in Gethsemane, without corn ing to the conclusion that Christ there suffered immediately in His soul ; and that the theory which limits those sufferings to His body, whether advocated by Eomanists or by Protestants, is destitute of scriptural foundation. The principal part of the agony fell, without doubt, upon the soul of the Lord Jesus, and comprehended every element of eternal death that could be endured by such a person, or could justly be exacted from Him.
It belonged to the divine plan that He should experience the fear of death for us, which we should otherwise have been i iMiged to wrestle with all our life long. He must have felt the menaced sentence, and the tormenting execution of it, " Thou shalt surely die." The words of Jesus in Gethsemane \vnv uttered under a heaviness and fear which seemed to inti mate that body and mind were alike ready to give way, and for ever be rendered unfit for discharging the task assigned Him with the fortitude and stedfastness, the putinm- and endurance, that were required. He felt that humanity could bear no higher degree of sorrow. Though His humanity was
122 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
strengthened secretly by the support of the divine nature, it seemed to Him that His mind and body could not bear more, without dissolution or wholly giving way under the pressure. He needed an objective something ; and the angel's appearance seems to have brought it.
But the difficulty arises, Why did He pray that the cup might pass from Him ? Did He wish to get rid of His media torial office, and repent of His suretyship ? No ; but though He knew that He must suffer, the humanity did not know, without direct and actual experience, either the bitterness of the cup, or the extreme to which it must go. As in the former excla mation, so in this scene in Gethsemane, we may either suppose that He prayed for an abatement of the agony and for a speedy termination to it, or that sinless humanity asked with all sub mission whether the exaction of punitive justice might not pass from Him. The latter, though confessedly the comment that has by far the most difficulties, seems the best adapted to the occasion.
But how, it is asked, can we maintain the infliction of divine wrath at all when Jesus was the beloved Son ? Did He not even here call God FATHER, and pray with filial confidence and affection ? To this there is an easy answer. Jesus occu pied, by the very fact of the incarnation, a twofold relation, — an official relation as well as a personal relation; and unless He had come to occupy the place of sinners, there was no indis pensably necessary cause for His incarnation at all. The per sonal, however, is the basis of the official capacity ; and during the course of His career on earth, these two always presupposed each other. They were not mutually exclusive; they were not incompatible in the one person. On the contrary, Jesus, as the sin-bearer or representative of sinners, regarded God as a righteous judge, who would visit, and could not but visit, for sin. But, at the same time, He was conscious of being the only-begotten Son, and of exercising a filial confidence, which was never abandoned, nor even interrupted, during the severest
EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 123
infliction of wrath due to us for sin. The Gethsemane scene is memorable, just because it brings out these two points so vividly : the exclamation of the sin-bearer, and the unswerving obedience and trust of the Son.
III. The cry of desertion on tJie cross. — The third exclamation of the conscious sin-bearer was the cry, " My God, My God ! why hast Thou forsaken Me ?" (Matt, xxvii. 46.) It was like all His sayings, according to truth ; and it becomes us carefully to investigate its import and significance. Though it does not fall within my present object to refer to the several sayings on the cross in their order, it is noteworthy, that when Christ had given utterance to certain sayings that had reference to others, when He had uttered the comforting promise to the penitent thief, and had prayed for His persecutors, and had commended His mother to the care of the beloved disciple, He next turned to God alone, as if lie had now done with man. The remaining space was to be specially occupied with God alone, as if His work with men was now done.
No sooner were His mind and attention turned away from His relation to men around Him, than a striking phenomenon presented itself. Darkness all of a sudden enveloped the fac« of nature, and eternal death seemed to seize hold of Him. Whatever view may be given of that darkness, it doubtless stood connected with the chief figure in this whole scene, and with the mental state through which the substitute of sinners was now to pass ; and it must plainly be held to be symbolical as \vell as miraculous. We have not, it is true, any authorita tive ex]>l;ui;itinn of its meaning in the Scripture. But as the inner darkness of Christ's soul and that darkness on the face of the earth were simultaneous, no explanation has so much probability as that which regards the menacing gloom, as meant to intimate that our sin had separated between God and the surety, and that our iniquities had hid the Father's face from Him ;Isa. lix. 2). That is every way a Letter explanation than the more current one, that it was meant to convey an
124 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
sion of the divine displeasure for the indignity offered and the crime committed by the Jewish nation against the Christ. But however we interpret the meaning of this mysterious dark ness, it certainly seems to have had one effect. Under the awe which it produced, there seems to have been diffused among the bystanders a death-stillness, which for the time freed the sufferer from the scoffs and mockery of the mad multitude, and left Him alone, and comparatively undistracted, with God. The silence was broken at last, after an interval, by these words of awful import, " My God, My God ! why hast Thou forsaken Me ?" What the Lord Jesus thus uttered was His actual experience ; and as it was from the faithful witness, it was according to truth. He who was the light of the world was under the hiding of His Father's face.
The inquiry into the causes of this peculiar mood of mind, substantially the same as in the two former exclamations, need not occupy our minds so long. The question is much more narrowed in this case ; nor is there so much difference of opinion among divines and expositors. The words to which our Lord gave utterance are plainly a quotation from the 22d Psalm, which is unquestionably Messianic, whether it had any immediate reference to the Psalmist or not. As to the interpretation, much depends on the question whether we take the word forsake in its full significance, or whether we tone down its meaning to the mere notion of " delay to help." Some even of those who admit that the death of Christ was a propitiatory sacrifice, object to the interpretation that our Lord must be understood as uttering this language as an expression of real desertion, and in a moment of real desertion. And according to them, the words will only mean, " Why leavest Thou Me ? " or, " Why delayest Thou to free Me from my suffering ? " The word why is thus an expression of complaint, but involving a petition. In favour of this interpretation, it is argued that God is said " to forsake" one, or to be far from one, when He does not send help, and to "be near" when He delivers.
EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 125
Tli us, according to this interpretation, there will be no particular emphasis on the word forsake. The whole import of the exclamation becomes flat and meaningless, according to this exposition. And the supporters of it, while they do not deny the atoning sacrifice of Christ, hold merely by one side of the truth, — namely, that the Father surely loved the Son with unabated love, and could not withdraw His favour from His Son ; nay, that the Son deserved it all the more when He was bringing His obedience through the deepest humiliation to its highest elevation. All that is true, and not to be questioned in any quarter.
But all this is one-sided, and argues much confusion of idea. It loses sight of the distinction, to which we have already alluded, between the personal and official capacity of our Lord ; and it argues as if the supporters of the penal infliction of the divine wrath on Jesus as the sin-bearer also maintained the removal or withdrawal of the divine favour from Him in a per sonal point of view. That desertion undoubtedly involved the privation of the sweet sense of divine love and of the beatific vision of God, but no loss of the divine favour, and no with drawal of the grace resulting from the personal union. It was not accompanied with a dissolution of the principle of joy, though it was accompanied with a suspension of the present experience of joy. It was for a time, not for ever. It was not attended with despair or doubt, but with the full confidence of faith, as is expressed in the words, " My God." To sum up all in a few words : it wras borne in our name, and not for Him self, — in the capacity of the sin-bearer or surety, and not in that of the beloved Son. It was voluntary, and not enforced ; by the imputation of our sin, and not for anything of His own. It was not because He had no power to remove it, but out of love to us. And in that desertion He encountered all the elements of eternal (U'ath, as far as they could fall on such a sult'erer. It involved the removal not merely of the tokens of divine love, but the privation of God, or that loss of tiod.
126 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
which is the very essence of the second death, awaiting the finally lost. Though this departure of God is accompanied, in the case of the sinner, with despair and with the worm of an evil conscience, it could be executed in a somewhat different way on our sinless Lord. But it must needs be exe cuted, if He was to occupy the place of a real substitute and surety for sinful men.
The Lord asks why, with a force and significance which bring us to the margin of the inscrutable. It may be wiser to stand and adore than to grope our way into the meaning of this why?- The language certainly does not mean that the cause of the desertion was unknown to Him as the conscious sin-bearer, who was passing through the flaming fire of the divine wrath for our salvation. But the inquiry, so put, seems to utter a desire that He may not be uninformed, but fully acquainted with the absolute necessity of all these pangs and agonies of desertion. He seems desirous to be assured sub jectively, or convinced within His inmost soul, that all this must needs be so. He wishes to rest or anchor His mind in that conviction of its indispensable necessity.
The vicarious position of Christ during all these exclama tions cannot, therefore, be doubtful to any one who has duly understood them. He bore (1) the soul-trouble, that His people might not bear it ; (2) He drank the cup of the garden, that they might not drink it ; (3) He was forsaken on the cross, that they might never know that desertion. He felt what sin is, and what it is to be severed from God, that we might never taste
1 See Thomasius' Christi Person und Werk, iii. p. 71, and also Philippi's pamphlet in reply to V. Hofmann on the Vernolniiuii^ und lliclitf, li'ujnmlehre, p. 39, 1856. From the latter I shall quote the following sciitciic'-s : — " ! die Hollfiistrafe bt-steht wesentlich und hauptsiirhlich in der Gottvcrlassrnhi'it, und in der positiver Auschliessung und Yrrstossun^ ans drr GottesgemeinachafL Diese objective gottliche That refiYctirt sich nursul>jivtiv ln-i clem Sunder in dnn boaen Grwisscn und d<-r YcmvriihuiLC an drr Siidi-nvcr^clninj,', kann alu-r aufh ohne diesen sulijrrtivni, JIHlrx an dcm llrilix<'ii si>'h Yoll/idicu. Das warum d<'s -i-l 1'sahiR's k-kundct cine unscLuklige Uottvcrla.s.si'iilu'it Lei gut em Ge- wissen. "
CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 127
it ; and He proclaimed with a loud voice the inconceivable agonies of that desertion, that He might convey to those who heard Him, or who should afterwards peruse His sufferings to the end of time, a due impression of the infinite weight of sin, and of the penal desertion it entails. As to the mental condition of the Son of God during this penal loss of God, and retribution for the sin which He made His own, it may be safely affirmed that He then experienced the essence of eternal death, or that sense of abandonment which- will form the bitterest ingredient in the cup of the finally impenitent. This was the meaning of the sentence, " Thou shalt surely die."
Had the second Adam been a mere man, there could have been no such vicarious work, because He would have been bound to full obedience on His own account, and that obedi ence could not have extended to others. But the second man, being the Son of God, rendered a vicarious obedience, and en countered a vicarious suffering, not necessary for Himself, and of infinite value. And, because of His divine person, the brief period of His agony was a fully adequate and perfect satisfac tion for the sins of His people, from the infinite dignity and infinite merit of the sufferer.
SEC. XIX. — CHRIST THE SIX-BEARER TESTIFYING THAT HE WAS TO BE NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS DURING HIS CRUCI FIXION.
As our plan directs us rather to the doctrine of the atone ment than to the history of the transaction, so far as man is concerned, we can bring out the actual history of the crucifixion scene in only a few of its salient points; and in doing so, we shiill re! IT to the cross only in such ;i way as shall connect the fact and the doctrine together. The simple narrative of the scenes of Christ's suffering, as given by the evangelists, is so limited to the Uire facts, and so simply historical in its outline,
128 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
that it requires to be read with the commentary supplied by the prophecy of Isaiah on the one hand (Isa. liii. 1-12), and by the apostolic Epistles on the other. There we find the rationale of the whole suffering career of Christ.
But even those outward scenes, where we see Jesus face to face with man, must be read off, if we would fully understand them, from the great fact of His substitution in the room of sinners.1 It must be kept in mind that He was a sacrifice from the very commencement of His earthly life, and that His collective sufferings must be viewed as belonging to His work of substitution, and as the one discharge of His mediatorial work. Hence, even in those historical events, which put Him in connection with a human judge and with a human court of justice, we are by no means to dismiss the idea of an exchange of persons. He was, even then, truly sustaining the person and occupying the place of the guilty, — that is, was the just in the room of the unjust, the sinless in the room of the sinful, the innocent in the room of the guilty. His person was in the room of our persons; and such was the exchange, that our punishment became His.
There are several sayings of Christ descriptive of His delivery into the hands of men, and of the treatment to be received from them when so delivered, which proceed upon the supposition of a very deep and peculiar relation. These sayings we must now investigate. All the attempts made against Him were, up to a definite time, impotent and wholly futile. He eased Him of His adversaries by retiring with
1 We have followed the example set by V. Hofmann in introducing a refer ence to the historical facts of Christ's sufferings. He sees in iliese unly -,\ />•;,/, ,•- j'ti/ir/iifis; we see in them His vicarious work and saeritiee in ]>n>ee>s <if execution. It is well remarked by Weber in his work, Vom Zorne Gottfs ; Erlangen, 1862 : " Hit den selbstaussngen ,|CMI von der Medeiitmij:, seines Leidens und Sterbens vergleiehen wir den gesehiehtlieheii Yollxug desselben. JIan hat das fruher bei Eniiittlung dcr l-'ra^e, in \\irfeni.Iesiis dim h si in Leiden und sterben uns mit Gott versolmt lial>e, nnterlassrii: aber mil reeht hat V. Hofmann in seiner P.ir- .stellung des Yrrsulniun.^swei'kes i/ii (!< xrhir/t/e. der Passion vorangestellt : denn an ihr muss es sich bewiihren, ob die aussagen iiber die liedeutung des Leidens .lesu riehtig verstanden wordun sind " (p. 244).
('II RIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 1 2 9
majestic ease beyond the reach of their machinations. Thus Hi- withdrew from the infuriated men of Nazareth, His fellow- townsmen, when they attempted to take Him and to cast Him headlong from the brow of the hill whereon their city was built (Luke iv. 29). They could not touch Him till they received divine permission. The rulers also sent officers to seize Him, and they returned paralyzed and conscience-struck, unable to execute the charge (John vii. 32.) At another time the assembled crowd whom He addressed took up stones to cast at Him (John viii. 59), and He passed through the midst of them, and so passed by. In a word, till His hour was come, or, in another form of expressing it, till He spontaneously con sented to be apprehended, He had a perfect immunity from all their violence.
Now the inquiry that confronts us, and which demands an answer, is this : When He was arrested at last, as the first step to the violent death which was to be endured, is this to be ascribed to the ordinary course of events, and to be regarded as His fate ? By no means. That is, in modern theology, ar too common mode of speech on the part of those who cannot adjust their views to the doctrine of the exchange of places, or to the representative position which Jesus must be regarded as occu pying. That is the language commonly held at present by the supporters of a tendency. But they who speak of Christ as coining within the ordinary laws of human society and the ordinary incidents of life, and who describe His death as an occurrence in the operation of the common course of history, know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm. They mis take His position in the world, and they misinterpret the moral government of God.
He had a double immunity from the common incidents of life. He had an immunity, first, as the sinless man on whom the taint of evil had never fallen; and next, as the Son of <unl. from all those consequences of sin and those ordinary incidents befalling sinful men in a sinful world. Xo injury could assail
I
130 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Him till He was judicially delivered up as the sin-bearer. He could be seized only when His hour was come. He was to be delivered up only at the time when, having finished His period of sinless obedience for the space of a generation, as read off from the length of human life, and having ended His public ministry, He voluntarily consented as the surety to take our place, and to sustain our person in His trial and condemnation. It was the sinner who was there brought up for sentence. It was not only for sin in a vague, abstract, indeterminate sense that He was delivered up, but in the room of the sinners given to Him, and whose place He representatively occupied. It was only in their room and stead that Jesus was placed at the bar as a criminal. And this was a real transaction before the tribunal of God, not a semblance of a trial. The sinner was there, but Jesus took his place,. And only in this way can we explain either the prophetical sayings which describe Him as wounded for our transgressions (Isa. liii. 5), or those apostolic sayings which represent believers as co-crucified (Gal. ii. 20), as co-dying (Rom. vi. 8), and as suffering in the flesh (1 Peter iv. 1), when in point of fact the Lord appears to human view single and alone in the historic narrative of the evangelists. He spontaneously took our place, however, and was acting at every step as a public person, or as the second Adam.
Unless there had been this voluntary self-surrender, no earthly power could have apprehended Him. Not to refer to His own divine dignity, which sufficiently secured Him, while He willed it, there could not have happened in the moral government of God such an anomaly as that of a perfectly pure and sinless person subjected to any kind or measure of suffering, except as He appeared to sustain the person of sinners, ami was made sin by His own consent. Nor was this perfect exemption from violence or injury at the hand of men a mere isolated fact. It wa.s part of the general scheme or of the understood relation to human life occupied by Christ. He was not to dash His foot against a stone (Ps. xci.). Disease in the ordinary course, or as
CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 131
it is commonly contracted, could not touch Him, because He did not come within the power of sin in the world ; and hence we never read of His contracting any distemper or disease like other men. Nor could death in any of the thousand forms in which it comes to other men, come to Him, till He consented, by a priestly act of self-oblation, to lay down His life. He who was exempt on His own account from any part of the curse, came within its operation in any sphere only by His own consent ; and on this footing He came within the curse in every sphere in which it was diffused. On this general ground, no one, till His hour was come, that is, till the appointed time arrived in the Father's purpose, could put forth a hand to arrest Him. This is repeated again and again, as an explanation why His enemies had no power over Him. A judicial act on His Father's part, and a voluntary surrender on His own part, were necessary before He could be delivered into the hands of men.
We find that our Lord brought out this truth very emphati cally in reply to an arrogant remark of Pilate laying claim to a power to crucify Christ or to release Him : " Thou couldst have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee from above " (John xix. 11). This saying puts our Lord's subjection to human power in its true and proper light. It has been very variously interpreted, and sometimes very superficially. It is not a general statement spoken with reference to the magistrate as the minister and deputy of God. Nor is it an allusion to the general question of providence, as if Jesus would intimate that nothing takes place without the direction of divine provi dence, and that what befalls the true servants of God takes place only by divine permission. Nor is it a statement of the general truth, that in ;i world of sinners the righteous, possessing as they do a sinful nature, receive many a wrong and indignity, because they come within the range of those general lav>s which OJK T.itc in UK- u nrld. None of these conmie nt s which i Christ's reply as referring to a general truth, touch the. LM! point of His answer; nay, they pervert it. Pilate hud spoken,
132 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
with a specific allusion to Christ, claiming such judicial autho rity over Him as was competent to one who had Him wholly in his power. Pilate intimated that it was entirely at his dis cretion to crucify or to release Him ; and the answer of Christ is equally specific.1 The Lord means that Pilate could have no power at all over Him considered in His proper character as the Son of God, and as the sinless man. He intimates that the power which the Eoman governor possessed could be turned against Him, not absolutely, but simply on the ground that our Lord was there in a capacity which properly belonged to others, not to Himself. He intimates not obscurely that He was there as the representative of sinners and as the sin-bearer. Hence the power over Him was given indeed from above to a human judge, but given for an end worthy of such abasement on His part. But because He sustained our person, He is no more to be treated as if He were innocent. Personally sinless, He occupies the place of sinners, and sustained their character by taking their sins and responsibilities upon Himself. We have to notice in this light the arrest of Christ and His trial ; for, as we have already noticed, no power on earth could touch Him till He gave them permission to proceed.
I may here notice another saying of Christ quite analogous to the former, and containing also a deep significance, which can only be apprehended when we read it in connection with Christ's suretyship or representative character. He said, before leaving the upper room, where He celebrated the last supper : " This that is written of Me must l yet be accomplished in Me, And He was numbered among transgressors" (Luke xxii. 37). Now, are we to
1 The remarks on this passage by the profound Lutheran divine, Gerhard, in the Harmonia Evangelica, the joint work of Chemnitz, Lyser, and Gerhard, 1628, are well worthy of being read and pondered. He justly argues for the specific reference.
2 See some interesting remarks l>y AYelier, Vom %<>>•/» (;«/>•. <, p. 259, on the words SK" TiXso-^va/ t> ifjt.ni, as against the notion supported by V. Hofinann, that Christ's sufferings were merely caused l>y Satan's inlluenu' and opposition, and that they were no more than a >ri>l< rfaftrniiw, and meant to be but a means zur Bewiihrung.
CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 133
this remark of Christ, which embodies a quotation from Isaiah's prophecy, as containing nothing more than a descrip tion of the opinion entertained by men respecting Him ? Does it mean that He was treated as if He had been a transgressor, or in a way which might have led a hasty observer or an undis- cerning spectator to conclude that He was, or might be, a trans gressor ? No ; by no means. Our Lord plainly takes the words in all their fulness of significance. He uses them not as denot ing a mere as if, but as descriptive of the real sentence due to transgressors, and of the doom or punishment consequent on that righteous sentence carried out against transgressors. That is the meaning of the words ; and the rationale is supplied by the fact, that the expression occurs in a chapter which, beyond doubt, predicts the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and repeats again and again the great thought, " that He bore the sins of many" (Isa. liii.). " No candid interpreter, interpreting simply by language, can have any other impression than this, that the righteous servant there named delivers many by a vicarious atonement. And Jesus, by quoting this statement as awaiting its accomplishment in Himself, manifestly applies that whole chapter of Isaiah to His own sufferings and death. We can interpret our Lord's words only in the sense that He was to be judicially numbered among transgressors, that is, num bered agreeably to the execution of a judicial sentence with transgressors. When Mark applies the same quotation to the position assigned to Christ between the two thieves at His crucifixion (Mark xv. 28), he brings out its meaning in all its compass of allusion. But He by no means excludes the pre paratory stages of its accomplishment, or that which preceded the fact adduced as its fulfilment. The words, " He was num bered with transgressors," were accomplished not only when He shared a common lot with the malefactors, but also in all that preceded the erection of the three crosses on Golgotha, and, in fact, from the moment of His delivery into the hands of nu-n. It was thus a judicial numbering of Christ with transgressors.
134 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
1. The AftREST of Christ in the garden as if He were a criminal "was the first step to the accomplishment of the pre diction. He was there treated as a seditious man and as a male factor in the room of us sinners, who had forfeited our freedom. "We are evil-doers in so far as our relation to the city of God is concerned, that is, men who had renounced their dependence and allegiance, and who acted in all things as disobedient subjects. That arrest by the hand of justice was a real transaction at the hand of God, — was, in fact, the arrest of the guilty criminal in the person of the representative. And if the veil had been drawn aside, it would have been seen that all this was in the room of the sinner who should have been so apprehended. This is a real, not a symbolical transaction. And if the repre sentative is seized, they whom He represented must go free. There is such a meaning in our Lord's words : " Let these go free " (John xviii. 8). Our Lord deeply felt, indeed, the rude arrest in His tender human feelings when He said : " Are ye come out as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take Me ? " (Mark xiv. 48.) But He well knew, that though person ally sinless, He was there in the room of sinners, and that the officers, acting as the ministers of God, seized Him as the sinner should have been seized. But, at the same time, to show how little human power could have prevailed against Him, unless He had given His consent, it was deemed fitting to let out some display or outbeaming of His majesty ; and the utterance of the simple words, " I am He," prostrated the officers and band to the ground (John xviii. 6). Though innocent of the charge of sedition and blasphemy on which He was ostensibly arrested, His people were not; and hence He must needs be seized and bound in His capacity as the sinner's representative. When we see the Son of God bound in chains, what does the transaction exhibit but the captivity consequent upon our sin, which He had made His own, or the chain binding the sinner to the judgment of the great day ? His arrest is His people's liberty ; His bonds are their release.
CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 135
2. Not to mention all the intermediate points in the suc cessive steps of Christ's sufferings, we shall notice, next in order,
HjS TRIAL AND SENTENCE BEFORE THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURT, ON
THE CHARGE OF BLASPHEMY. In this whole transaction, when sentence of death was pronounced by the high priest, we have but the visible part of the great assize. He must, as the sub stitute of sinners, be found innocent, and yet made guilty, — be proved personally spotless, and yet be treated by the sentence given as one who was to be regarded as officially worthy of condemnation. And this anomalous trial brings together at all points these two things. The sentence by which He was con demned only indicated or announced the sentence passed by God upon the sin-bearer. The accusation on which He was tried in the Sanhedrim, AS BROUGHT AGAINST us, is not false. Moses accuses us, that the revelation given in the name of God has been disregarded and despised, and that the divine perfec tions have only been blasphemed by us. The accusation is so true and so undeniable, that there is no need of witnesses. The representative of sinners in His official capacity is silent, and puts in no plea in arrest of judgment. But His personal innocence must be apparent. And it was only His own true declaration of what He was as a divine person which brought down on Him, in lack of other evidence, the sentence that He was worthy of death.1 He thus appears personally innocent, but representatively guilty ; and unless we carry with us these two ideas as the key to the whole trial, the narrative will be inexplicable, and the fact in the moral government of God an impenetrable mystery. That earthly court, dealing with the chavp' of blasphemy, or dishonour to the name and works and word of God, sentenced the sinner's surety, and pronounced upon our sin, much in the same way as the shadow on the sun-dial roisters the movements taking place in another sphere. He was personally innocent; but as He stood there for us, He
1 Wclicr says, p. 2C2: " Mit ihncn hat erallewi-gc nirhN zu thun, als das zu bekenuen und zu sagen, was sie treiben wird, ihn zu vmirtheilen."
136 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
was truly chargeable with all the accusation which was then adduced. His silence at that tribunal opens our mouth to cry, " Abba, Father."
3. The MOCKERY, the shame, and the indignity to which He was subjected, constituted the next part of His vicarious suffering. They were undeserved by that meek and patient sufferer, but well merited by us, in whose name He appeared, and whose person He bore. The wicked " shall rise to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. xii. 2). And from that merited scorn due to sinners from all holy beings the sinless substitute was not exempt. He hid not His face from shame and from spitting.
4. Omitting the desertion of His disciples and the denial of Peter, we advance to the next public act in connection with Christ's sufferings, — THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION AT THE BAR
OF THE ROMAN GOVERNOR, ON A CHARGE OF REBELLION OR SEDITION.
This is very much of the same kind with the trial before the high priest upon a charge of blasphemy, and is to be considered in a similar light. The course of our Lord's sufferings may with advantage be traced, as we have already done, on the sinner's history, and read off from it. The surety encountered, at each successive step, what should have taken place in the history of man's relation to God. For the very same relations, and not merely analogous ones, were occupied by the surety when He was tried and sentenced and condemned. It is note worthy that at Pilate's bar Jesus, was silent x (Matt, xxvii. 14). The explanation is to be found in the fact, that though per sonally sinless, He really, and not nominally, occupied the sinner's place. Hence the silence. He puts in no plea in arrest of judgment or in self- vindication. He was there not in His personal capacity, but in His official capacity, as the repre sentative of sinners and the voluntary sin-bearer. He has nothing to adduce in extenuation or in exculpation, since every mouth must be stopped, and the whole world become guilty 1 " And He answered him to never a word, ua-rt (nv^a^in rev riyi^ava x/«»."
CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 137
before God. He accepts the charge of guilt ; and as the doom is the sinner's, not His, He submits to it as merited. When Pilate wished to deliver Him, if Jesus would only be aiding in His own defence, the Lord continued silent before His accusers, amid all the accusations adduced against Him. He was then making a real appearance at the bar of God, of which that earthly court of justice was but the foreground. He was personally innocent, and officially guilty. Hence His silence.
We must notice this anomalous trial specially in connection with the fact that He was sentenced as guilty while pronounced innocent.1 The examination of the judge was meant to serve the important purpose of manifesting the innocence of Jesus. And the startling fact, that a judge pronounces Him innocent, but condemns Him as guilty, must be historically brought about in the adorable providence of God, in order to exhibit the personal and the official in the Lord Jesus; or, in other words, to discover the sinless one and the sin-bearer. No man could more emphatically testify to Christ's innocence than Pilate. He had examined the accusations; he had heard all that the witnesses could adduce against Him, and was perfectly informed of everything in the case ; and five times he declared that he found no fault in Him. This was done, too, in public, before His accusers, and in the presence of the vast multitude. And, not content with that public announcement, he, when he yielded at last to the clamour for the crucifixion, confirmed his judicial testimony to His innocence by the significant symbo lical action of washing his hands, and declaring that he was innocent of the blood of that just man. It was fitting that all this should be done by a judge, and from the judicial bench, that Christ's innocence might be made apparent; and next, tha
1 Sec the Heidelberg Cate.-hisin, No. 28, and the numerous expounders of it, on the reason why Jesus sullered under Pilate, — viz.: " Ut innocens corani judice jxiliti'-o dainnatus nos a sever.) l>.i judieio (juod onmes nianebut, exinurit." See also Calvin on Christ's trial ami sullorings.
138 SAYINGS OF JESUS OX THE ATONEMENT.
the inference might be drawn that the doom of the guilty was transferred to Him as standing in a vicarious position. Thus He was personally innocent, though He was by no means to be accounted so in that official and vicarious capacity, in which alone He stood at Pilate's bar. There is no way of elucidating that anomalous trial, which went through the due forms of law, unless we hold that He was truly innocent, but officially guilty.
5. The last step of Christ's sufferings, THE CRUCIFIXION, immediately followed the sentence of Pilate. The intermediate details, such as the mockery, scorn, and indignity inflicted on Him in many forms, we shall omit; though these, too, were vicarious, as appears from the words, " by His stripes we are healed." We shall omit, too, the Lord's words to the daughters of Jerusalem when they wept for Him tears of sympathy, as He toiled along the public way under the burden of the cross, — tears which, He shows them, were out of place as shed for Him. We shall limit ourselves to the crucifixion itself and to the closing acts of His life.
The crucifixion, a Eoman mode of punishment, was not only peculiarly painful and ignominious in the sight of man, but was meant to indicate the amazing fact, that Christ, by being suspended on the tree, WAS MADE A CURSE. The words of Moses quoted by Paul are express to this effect (Gal. iii. 13).1 The Lord Jesus was thus, personally considered, the beloved Son and the sinless man, but, officially considered, the curse-bearer in the room of sinners. The Son of God, truly bearing sin with a view to condemn it in the flesh, was exhibited as made a curse by the very fact of enduring this punishment. We have thus to draw the same distinction, as we already mentioned, between Christ considered personally and Christ considered officially. If there ever was a spot where sin could be laid
1 The Dutch commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, translated from the Latin papers of A. Schultens by Barueth, on questions 37, 38, 39, gives some striking views upon this point.
CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 139
•without entailing the inevitable doom of a righteous condemna tion, it was here when it was borne on the sinless humanity of the incarnate Son ; and we see that even there sin was con demned in the flesh and righteously visited. The surety was tried, sentenced, condemned, and made a curse for us, that we might not come into condemnation.
During those awful hours on the cross when made a curse for us, the Lord Jesus sustained that desertion, which was just the endurance of the death of the soul, when sin separates between God and the soul, and when God hides His face from us. To this it is not necessary to refer further, after what was said in the previous section. 'The actions of the Lord Jesus when He hung on the cross, were in the highest degree momen- ' tons and significant. These expiatory sufferings, " an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour" (Eph. v. 2), were so efficacious, that they were made the ground of two signal displays of grace, even while He was on the cross. The one of these was the salvation of the dying malefactor, who was made an eminent trophy of His redemption work, and was enabled to recognise Him as a sufficient Saviour, even in that deep abasement and humiliation. The other was the prayer for forgiveness to His crucifiers, whether we regard the scope of the prayer as comprehending the individuals then before Him, or as extending to the preservation of the Jewish nation.
After these hours of inconceivable sorrow and desertion on the cross, under a darkness which just resembled the blackness awaiting the lost, the Lord felt that His work was accomplished ; and llf ^ave utterance to that saying which has brought light, rest, and liberty to so many minds : " It is finished " (John xix. 30).1 He meant that the expiatory sufferings had reached
1 -rtTi^irrai. This cannot refer merely to the fulfilment of all the prophecies, :is many yet remained to be fulfilled, but specially to the fulfilling of all the ricariooi sutr.-rin^ and meritorious obedii-ner m-rrssary for man's rademptfaa. This is better than the comment of the modern exegetes, of whom the recent lexicographer, t'remer, }\'ur(< rt>uch (It r X. T. (.,'nicit'it, 1868, may be taken as a i. picseiitative, and who writes: " Ttrix««rT«» : Welches sich somit auf die
140 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
their climax, and were sufficient, that the guilt of mankind w:ia fully atoned for, and that there was nothing left undone. He felt that God and man were reunited and reconciled ; and now He had but to resign His spirit into His Father's hands. As PRIEST AND VICTIM, He had only now one act to perform, — to lay down His life by the priestly act of commending His spirit to God. Nature was not exhausted, nor did life ooze away ; for He still had power over His own life, and no man took it from Him (John x. 18). After having done all and endured all, He deemed it fitting, without more delay, to resign His life or spirit into His Father's hand as an acceptable sacrifice. It was the High Priest offering up His soul to God that said, " Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." And He uttered it with a loud voice, to show that strength still remained in Him, and that, by His own authority, He released the spirit from the lacerated and wounded body.1
The curse was, " Thou shalt die ;" and now it was exhausted, and sin annihilated. Now heaven and earth were reunited; God and man were at one again.
SEC. XX. — SINGLE EXPRESSIONS USED BY CHRIST IN REFERENCE TO A WORK GIVEN HIM TO DO.
Under this section we may put together some other expres sions which fell from the lips of Christ in reference to the second element of the atonement, that is, to the nature of the
Vollstiindige ansfiihrung dessen, wodurch die Schrift erfiillt wird bezieht, nieht erfullen." On the contrary, Wolfius, with much more accuracy, said in his Curce, 1741 : " Interpretes hactenus onmes verlnim illud de consummation omnium, quse ad salutarem perpessioneni pertinehant aeeeprrunt."
1 Thr removal of the desertion and the return of light to Christ's soul before He expired are affirmed by many great divines. That return of light is not improbable, though it is not more than a probability. (See Weber, Vom Zorne Gottes, p. 266; Dods on Incarnation; Hnlsholf, X> mion*, etc., who altirm it.) The desertion may have terminated with the darkness spread over all nature. But there is one caveat necessary when- this is held : the COTM was not, and could not be, fully exhausted till death ensued— the wages of sin.
SIXHLE EXPRESSIONS OF CHRIST ABOUT HIS WORK. 141
atonement as a mediatorial work given Him to do. We refer here to a work of active obedience not coincident with His teaching on earth, or with His life-communicating activity in heaven. For both the teaching and the life-giving activity presuppose that mediatorial work, and proceed upon it.
Such a work of obedience, distinguished from the suffering which He bore, may be called the obverse of the titles to which we have already adverted. It is another element or side of divine truth, and may be regarded as the complement of those sayings which represent the Lord Jesus as the sin-bearer. He who bore sin, not on the cross merely, but all His life through, was, regarded in Himself, the sinless doer of a divine work, and one Avho knew no sin. So little are- these two elements disjoined in fact, though necessarily distinguished in idea, that the sinlessness of the Lord is presupposed in His whole work of sin-bearing and expiation. He must be holy to stand for the unholy, pure for the impure, innocent for the guilty. And these two elements taken together — the curse-bearing life on the one hand, and the career of unsinning obedience on the other — furnish the rounded and complete idea of the atoning work which Christ finished in the days of His flesh.
It is the more necessary to bring out this side of divine truth in connection with the atonement, because the whole subject of Christ's excellence, as the realized ideal of humanity, has of late received such copious elucidation. The question, indeed, was canvassed in another interest than that which now engages our attention. The reality of this historic person, as tin- mural miracle in our world, has been discussed as the life- question of the Church in our age, in opposition to a negation that would, if possible, call it in question. The victory has liccu won. The reality of His appearance in our world as the Idliit'^t standard of mural excellence has been established lip- yond doubt or cavil.1 Men have been compelled to confess that
1 We may say that the attacks of Strauss and of the Tubingen school of r.uur, and that the \\t_-ak trho of the same tendency in Kenan, have already
142 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
such an ideal could only exist in the conviction of the Church, because the actual reality had appeared. And even minds estranged from the true sense of Christianity have been so over powered by the moral glory of that character as to acknowledge virtue how lovely, and to express their enthusiastic admiration of it.
But the matter cannot rest there. The character of Christ is not a mere spectacle to be gazed upon as the embodiment of holiness or standard of perfection, without the light of which the world would be dark indeed ; nor is it a mere example to be followed, though the Church of all time will fix her ev,e upon it, to ennoble, elevate, and purify all her aims. It must be further regarded as underlying all His atonement, and as the work of one for many. The defect in the modern delineations of Christ's character is, that while He is represented as the realized ideal of humanity, it is still too much as if He were but a unit in the species. Not so does the Lord describe Him self. It is worthy of notice, that in every context where He mentions His work of obedience, He gives indications, more or less express, that He was conscious of standing in a unique position between God and man, and of mediating between them. And He never leaves His hearers to suppose that He was but one of many. He uniformly speaks of Himself as performing a work in a mediatorial capacity, and acting as one for many.
Having already referred at large to the utterances of Christ which represent Him as leading a curse-bearing life through His whole course, we have next to notice His sinless obedience through the same extent of time, and in the very same actions.
passed into neglect. The historic truth of Christ's appearance and His ideal moral excellence have been triumphantly established. In the course of the dis cussion in which Neander, UHmann, Lunge, and many others ,li,l ^,MM1 service, the sinless perfection of Christ, and the function as the life-giver, were set in full prominence. (See rilniann's StiinHuxiijkeit Jesu. 1846.) But the defect in all these delineations was, that they stopped short at this point, as if it were enough to have a faultless pattern.
SINGLE EXPRESSIONS OF CHRIST ABOUT HIS WORK. 143
These are the two sides of His one work, and the one is as essential as the other for the expiation of sin. Not that there is a double work, or that these two sides are separately meri torious ; but the sin-bearer was necessarily one who knew no sin, — which, however, could not have been had there been any sin of omission or of commission. They concur in the one work of atonement for sin. In entering, then, on this obedience of three-and-thirty years as an indispensable element in the atonement, we shall commence at the point where the human consciousness of Christ first comes to light, as apprehending His work ; and it is descriptive of His whole private life.
Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business1? (Luke ii. 49.) This first recorded utterance of the Lord shows that already, at the age of twelve, He knew His peculiar character. The fact that the boy lingered in the temple, occupied with meditations bearing xm His office, hearing and asking questions after the parents had set out on their homeward journey, only discovered His exalted mind, from which all boyish things were removed, His deep judgment and quick understanding, and His ardent desire to be prepared for the high destiny before Him. When His mother put Him on His defence, asking, with a certain measure of complaint, why He had so dealt with them, the reply was, that there was a sacred must in it, that His Father's authority was paramount, and that to Him He owed a higher obedience. It does not alter the meaning whether we translate, " in my Father's house," or " in my Father's things," as the one involves the other. This may be taken, then, as the rule or formula of Christ's subjection to 111:111. It was controlled or regulated, — sometimes, as in this suspended by the higher claims of His Father's service.1 And lie gently reminds the parents that they should have known this: -u-ist ye not? They might have known it iVmn what had been announced to them, in many ways. He thus
1 This is tli,. vi,.\v roTmn.mly L,'i\vn hy tin- Lutheran divino, as Lutlu-r, Chemnitz, etc., and by Riggenbach, more recently.
144 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
showed paramount obedience to His Father above what could be claimed by man, as if He would say, " This is no disobedi ence to you, but only an act of higher obedience to my Father." It argues holy zeal, an unreserved devotedness to God, and deep delight in the things of God.
1. The sinless excellence of Christ was, in one aspect, only the evolution or acting out of His inner nature. As man, corresponding to the idea of man, His nature possessed an intrinsic purity and elevation before any of His deeds were done. There must be being before doing ; and in this light His deeds and words only revealed what He already was. But that by no means exhausts the idea of the Lord's sinless obedi ence, which takes for granted that He was to be proved and tested ; and hence He is described as learning obedience by the things He suffered.
2. / seek not mine own will, 'but the will of Him that sent Me (John v. 30). The single principle that guided that holy life was obedience to the will of God. And never was a step taken or a moment spent but in unconditional subjection to the will of God, which was more to Him than His necessary food (John iv. 34). And, notwithstanding the objection taken by some, and especially by the Eomanists, to the idea that Jesus exercised faith, it must be maintained, on the clearest grounds of Scripture, that His whole obedience flowed from faith and love. They were the root of it. Neither are we to imagine that, in a world of sin, the sinless obedience of Jesus could be exercised without a certain measure of conflict with natural inclination. Possessor of true humanity, and witli feelings far more susceptible than are found in ordinary men, He naturally recoiled, as we do, from pain and suiU-ving, agony and woe. But His will was ever in subordination to the Father's will, and in harmony with it, notwithstanding the sinless conflict of natural inclination which may be traced in ( u'thsemane and elsewhere. It only shows, indeed, that He \\ as very man, with human feelings and susceptibilities. But
SINGLE EXPRESSIONS OF CHRIST ABOUT HIS WORK. 145
never was one formed purpose, aspiration, or desire either entertained or cherished, that was not in full, everlasting, perfect accord with the will of God. And hence His obedience was ever acceptable and entitled to reward, because it was never a yielding to natural liking, or out of keeping with the appointment of His Father.
3. "/ seek not mine own glory" (John viii. 56). In this humility lies the foundation of Christ's moral excellence. The humility of Jesus found expression in a constant renunciation of His own honour. It shows that He lived in another element and before another public than that of human opinion, which attaches weight only to that which is ostentatious, of comes recommended by success or marked superiority in the race of life. His public before which He acted was not human opinion, but the eye of His Father, before whose perfections all the distinctions of man, as well as all their praise and honour, are little and puny indeed. He did not wish to rise, but to abase Himself : " I am among you as one that serveth." Though so exalted and excellent, He was more humble than any crea ture in the universe.
4. " / do always those things that please Him" (John viii. 29). This constant service, uninterrupted in duration and perfect in degree, is described by Him as extending over all the stages of human life, and as filling all its spheres. The history of Jesus of Nazareth brings before us human life in its full-orbed completeness, and in the perfect equipoise of all the virtues. Yet this did not interfere with, but rather helped, the intense activity and energy in which He passed His life. There was nothing fitful, nothing done by mere impulse ; and even the consuming zeal which led Him to cleanse the temple twice, though it may be called an outburst of zeal, was full of calm, collected majesty. One grace or virtue did not displace or mar another. In the most distinguished saints some graces are more fully developed, while they are for the most part, in a number of points, left far behind by those who have no pre-
146 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
tensions to what ennobles them ; and hence a very different estimate may be made by the Judge of all. But in Christ they are all found, and all complete in measure. The scattered beauties of all the saints are jointly found in Him, — tempered, too, and adjusted to each other in such a way that there is free play for all ; and though we discern in His experience a change of mood or of frame from sorrow to joy, from calm repose to soul-trouble, the harmony is not broken, nor the balance per manently disturbed. And when we look at the social relations, we see Him doing the duty of the citizen and discharging the duty of the family, even to the last hour of life.
5. The moral code required to be embodied in a life, which should not only be an example of virtue to engage and win all hearts, but prove a work of which the intrinsic value should redound to our account. The life of Christ and the moral glory of His character are not aright understood, if we merely rest in it as an ideal or creative pattern, though in that light it is the most attractive spectacle ever presented to the world, and for all time. But that life was vicarious as much as His suffering, and must be viewed as ours, the obedience of one for many ; for perfect obedience in the exercise of holy love was the great task set before man at the first, and that which the Son of God came down from heaven to usher in.
Christ often expressed Himself as conscious of having such a work or task assigned to Him ; and He ever kept it in view from His first recorded utterance in the temple to the moment when He said, " It is finished." There is a testimony which we shall afterwards consider, and which very emphatically describes that work : " I have glorified Thee on the earth : I have finished the work Thou gavest Me to do" (John xvii. 4). The same thing is taught under other forms. He calls it a work (John iv. 34), a commandment (John x. 18), the Mill of Him that sent Him (John vi. 39). All these expressions show that the active cannot be separated from the passive obedience ; for voluntary obedience to the Father and ardent
CLASSIFICATION OF CHRIST'S SAYINGS. 147
love to us concur. The sinless obedience underlies the suffer ing as the two elements of one work.
6. It may be noticed that there was one special act or culminating point in the obedience of Christ ; and this had its counterpart in that testing-point in which the whole obedience of Adam was contained, — the abstaining from the forbidden tree ; for it would appear that a sinless nature with the law written on the heart must yet have its loyalty tested by some special act of obedience, in which all the elements of submission may be found to meet, and pure nature fitly express its self- denial and allegiance. The special act of positive obedience imposed on the Lord Jesus was, to die, as that imposed on Adam was, to abstain from the tree by an act of self-restraint, — all the lines of obedience meeting in that one act, the crowning act, and the culminating point of obedience appointed to com plete the work.1 Hence the constant allusion to the death or blood or sacrifice of the Lord. (Comp. John xvii. 19.)
SEC. XXI. — THE CLASSIFICATION OF CHRIST'S SAYINGS AS THEY REPRESENT THE EFFECTS OF HIS DEATH, AND, IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS THEY SET FORTH HIS DEATH AS THE GROUND OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF OUR PERSONS.
The Lord's sayings describe His death in connection with manifold RESULTS, EFFECTS, or ENDS which it was appointed to
1 Our Christian poet Cowper well puts this :—
" The Saviour, — what a noble flame
Was kindled in His breast, "When, hasting to Jerusalem,
Hi- nian-lit-d before the rest! " Good-will to man and xral for God
His every thought engross; He longs to be bapti/ed with blood, He pants to ivaeh the cross.
"With all His suH'erin^s full iu view,
And \vors io u -; unknown, Forth to the task His spirit flew,— T\vus love that urged Him on."
148 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
effect. These effects are either objective and immediate, or subjective and mediate; and we must now consider these in detail. Some refer to the acceptance of our persons, others to the communication of inward spiritual life. Without following the precise chronological order in which the testimonies were uttered, it will serve our object best to notice first in order some of those testimonies which bear on the acceptance of our persons; and after discussing those objective fruits of the atonement as set forth in the first three Gospels, we shall be able to follow more closely, though by no means chronologically, the order in which the other sayings are found in the Gospel of John.
With regard to the IMMEDIATE and direct effects of the atonement, in the first place, they are those which relate to the acceptance of our persons. There are three sayings in particular which may be adduced as peculiarly comprehensive and im portant: (1) where He speaks of giving Himself a ransom for many ; (2) where He speaks of His blood as the sacrifice of the new covenant for the remission of sins ; (3) where He speaks of the fulfilling of the law for righteousness. All these stand in relation to a counterpart want in man ; and it is important to trace them, if we would see their full significance and adaptation, on the dark background of human misery.
SEC. XXII. — CHRIST DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS DYING TO BE A RANSOM FOR MANY.
" The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto [to be served], but to minister [to serve], and to give His life [His soul] a ransom for [better, in room of] many." (Matt. xx. 28.)
This saying furnishes a key to a large class of passages descriptive of Christ's death as the price or purchase of redemp-
CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 149
tion.1 Though they may seem to be Old Testament allusions, they must also be regarded as based on this text.
As to the occasion of this condensed saying, , we find that our Lord, during His last journey through Perea, took the disciples apart to tell them of the certainty of His death. While He was doing so, the train of His remarks was harshly interrupted by an ambitious request on the part of Salome, to the effect that the two seats of honour in the Messianic king dom might be given to her two sons, James and John. The Lord Jesus replied that the chief places were not to be bestowed on such a principle of arbitrary choice, but on wholly different grounds. Then, calling His disciples to Him, He took occasion to refer to His own voluntary abasement, as an example of the spirit to be breathed by His followers, and thus led back the conversation to His death. He sketches, at the same time, a brief but comprehensive outline of the doctrine of the atone ment : " The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His soul a ransom in room of many." Every word in this condensed passage is replete with meaning.
I shall not dwell on the designation, " Son of Man," which has already been explained as implying that He who was Son of God in His own right condescended to become the abased or curse-bearing second Adam, and the representative of the sinner. I shall not refer to it further than to say that the curse-bearing abasement of this divine person is here emphati cally placed in connection with His redeeming work. This thought is the prominent one : that only the Son of Man, or the Son of God incarnate and abased, could in reality give the ransom, and be sufficient to give it. He says that He came not to be ministered to or to receive service at the hand of others, but to render service, — a phrase which comprehends His wliok- humiliation and His voluntary abasement. The last clause, referring to the nature and purpose of His death, is attached to the first clause in such a way as to interpret to us what that 1 E.g. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19 ; 1 Cor. vi. 20 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; Rev. v. 9.
150 SAYINGS 0? JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
service consisted in — viz. that He so ministered or served, that He gave His life for others. As to the word translated life 1 in the authorized version, it may be interpreted SOUL or LIFE or PERSON ; and it matters not in which of the three senses the word is here actually taken. But the rendering " soul " may he fitly enough retained as the literal meaning of the term.
We must next notice the scope or design of His coming. The commencing words of the sentence, " the Son of Man came," is connected with the last clause, " came to give His life a ransom," and sets forth in the clearest manner both the fact and the purpose of Christ's coming in the flesh. The great design of the incarnation, or the object which it was intended to subserve, was the expiation or propitiatory death of the Messiah. Though Christ's doctrine comes also within the scope of His mission, He in these words connects His coming with His redemptive death in such a way that we must regard this latter as the principal design of the incarnation, and as the principal object of our faith ; for we cannot interpret the words as denoting merely " to expose His life." He could not affirm more unambiguously than He does in this passage that He came into the world to act on the behalf of captives, and with the definite purpose of dying for the redemption of sinners. Thus His death must not be considered as an accident, nor as the result of the miscarriage of another plan, nor as the mere experience of the world's enmity to what is good, but as the very design of His coming. He came to give His life a ransom; and hence it appears that not our merits but our misery brought Him.
In this passage the Lord enunciates three weighty truths which, though they are all to be distinctly apprehended by us, must be regarded as only integral parts of one great thought. The elements of the statement are, (1) that of His own free choice He came to give up His soul or His life ; (2) that He gave it as a ransom, or in order to have redemptive effects ;
CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 151
(3) that in its true character this surrender of His life was a substitution in the room of others. These are the three predicates ; and it is plain that either of the latter two would have sufficed to bring out unmistakeably the great idea of a vicarious death. It would have been enunciated by the use of the term RANSOM singly, or by the preposition IN ROOM or,1 as it is here used singly. The combination of these three ideas, however, expresses the doctrine with a fulness, a force, and an emphasis which completely remove every shadow of doubt. We shall first consider them apart, and then combine them.
1. The Lord came to give His soul or His life. The lan guage, however, implies that He acted from the free bent of His own will, without compulsion or constraint of any kind. And this is a side of truth necessary to give completeness to the doctrine of the atonement, and especially to other passages which speak of a work laid upon Christ, and of the Father's sending Him and giving Him. But what is the precise import of " giving His soul " or His life ? At first sight it seems merely to signify, " to die." But it has a much greater signifi cance when the language is viewed as adapted to the Hebrew ideas. The term soul is emphatic; and the reason for declaring that He came to give His soul will at once appear from the sacrificial language of the law : " For the soul of the flesh (or the life of the flesh) is in the blood ; and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls : for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul " (Lev. xvii. 11). Thus the reason why the atonement was effected by the blood was, as is stated in the first clause of that verse, because the soul or life was in it ; and, accordingly, whenever the blood was offered, it was understood that the soul of the sacrifice was meant to stand for that of the offerer ; that one soul covered another; that what was executed on the one was only what the other had incurred. One life was thus offered in the room of another. This was the fundamental idea of sacrifice. The
152 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
words of Christ, considered in this point of view, represent Him as a Priest, offering to God an atoning sacrifice, and in this vicarious way giving His life for the life of men. There were reasons, doubtless, why our Lord did not directly apply to Himself in express terms the designation Priest during the days of His flesh, while He openly assumed the title of Prophet and King. But in the present passage, and in others similar to it, He beyond question supplied the germs of all the copious sacerdotal phraseology which we find applied to Him in the Epistle to the Hebrews. He speaks of Himself by implication, though not in express terms, as at once the Priest and the Sacrifice.
2. The giving of His soul or life was intended to be a ran som tfr a price x paid for the redemption of captives. Thus the idea of a sacrifice passes over into that of a ransom. The one idea becomes a sort of transition to the other; and it is important to notice this, that we may not confound two things which are certainly distinct. The word does not mean the redemption itself, but the price of it, or the price given to redeem another. And it will be found that the term " ransom," wherever it is used, involves a causal connection between the price, paid and the liberation effected, — that is, a relation of cause and effect. It is deliverance, not by a mere remission, in the absolute sense, but by a redemption price, that the term invariably suggests wherever it occurs, either among classical or Jewish writers.
Thus among classical writers the word always denotes the price paid for the liberation of a prisoner of war or the price paid for a slave, on condition that the holder shall forego his rightful authority or claim to the party in his power. Classical visage so indelibly stamped this meaning upon the word, that it became the paramount idea, and could not be separated from it, even when the word was used by Jewish writers.2
1 Xi/rfav.
2 Xi>Tf<». Every diligent student of the Septuagint will readily discover that the translators, in their use of this term, felt themselves controlled by a fi.xnl usage, and used this word only in those cases where the notion of a price could
CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 153
Not to speak, then, of the redemption of things (Lev. xxv. 14), and confining our attention to persons, this word, as employed by the Septuagint, is found to be used for " the ransom" by which a maid was redeemed from slavery (Lev. xix. 20) ; for " the ransom" of a prisoner of war (Isa. xlv. 13) ; for "the ransom" of a person who might go into voluntary servitude and sell himself till the year of jubilee (Lev. xxv. 51) ; for "the ransom" paid to the judges to expiate a fault, of which one very notable instance occurs in the case of the owner of a pushing ox (Ex. xxi. 30). If such an ox occasioned death or happened to kill a human being, the law pronounced death both upon the ox and its owner ; and, to be delivered from the
be naturally attached to it. But they resorted to another Greek word when a different idea was to be expressed, even though the original might have the very same term. This is decisive as to the fixed usage of language in this case. They felt that the language would not bend. We have referred to this fixed meaning of the word ^urpat, because a great amount of needless discussion and groundless refining has been indulged in by several writers, who, not content with a comparison of the Septuagint and Hebrew, argue back again from the wider meaning of a Hebrew term, as if that alone could warrant a different acceptation of the Greek \urfoi. On that groundless theory the notion was taken up in certain quarters, especially since Grotius led the way (see Grotius, De Satlsfactlone Christi, cap. viii.), that the word RANSOM might mean a victim or propitiatory sacrifice. But it does not in any case signify immediately the victim or the sacrifice : it is rather an advance upon the latter idea. The notion of sacrifice rather passes over into that of the ransom. Nor can this theory be argued, as Grotius has done, from the import of the Latin word lustrare (see Grotius, I. c.) ; as if a proof could be drawn from a word of similar origin in a cognate language. Hofmann, in his Schriftbeweis, argues from the Hebrew word *E3, which is translated AI/T/K>» by the Septuagint in several p;iss;iges (Prov. vi. 35, xiii. 8 ; Ex. xxi. 30), that we may render the Greek word Deckun<j. And Kitschl, in Jahrbiicher fur Deutsche Theologie, ii. Heft, 1863, .maintains that it may be rendered Schutzmlttel. But both argue incorrectly from the broader meaning of the Hebrew word, as if that were enough to control tin; nir;min^ of the On-ek Xurpoti. In point of fact, the Greek word was fixed ami intlexilile. Just as little can it be argued that the term ransom is capable of being understood of a deliverance which is considered as absolutely in tive of the idea of a price ; for however men may speculate as to the possibility of such a meaning, no example of that usage of the word is to be found either in a Greek writer or in the Septuagint version. In referring to the Alexandrine translation, then-lure, we *hull imt eumplirute the inquiry in the manner already mentioned, but limit our references to those passages where the same Greek word (XUT/>«*) is used that is here rendered ransom.
154 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
punishment threatened in the law for such a casualty, the owner might, in certain cases, pay " a ransom" or a pecuniary fine to save his life. On the other hand, it was provided that " no ransom" should be accepted for the life of a murderer, nor for one who had fled to his city of refuge (Num. xxxv. 31, 32).
The same term (Xyrpov) is used to denote the price paid for the liberation of a man from imminent danger, or the money given to induce another to recede from the merited or expected infliction of punishment, injury, or death. Thus it is said, " The ransom of. a man's life are his riches" (Prov. xiii. 8), — a state ment referring to the events of common life, and intimating that, by the payment of " a ransom," the rich not unfrequently free themselves from the dangers, exactions, and oppressions to which they would otherwise be subjected, or that by means of these they procure defenders for themselves in courts of law. Of an injured husband, for example, it is said, " He will not regard any ransom" (Prov. vi. 35), meaning that he will not be pacified by any ransom when his resentment is inflamed against the violator of domestic purity and honour. These are instances of the use of the term (Ayrpov) in man's relation to man.
But the same term, with the same sense, is also used in reference to man's relation to God. The first-born of the family, for instance, was exempted from attendance on the sanctuary only by the payment of "a ransom" of five shekels (Num. xviii. 15). So, too, we find that on the occasion when the tribe of Levi was accepted in room of the first-born of Israel, and the attendance of that tribe taken in exchange, " a ransom" was to be paid for all those persons exceeding the number of the Levites who took the place of the first-born. And " a ransom" was paid, accordingly, for 273 persons for whom no substitute was found provided by the 22,000 Levites (Num. iii. 49). But of all the instances of a ransom in money, by far the most significant and familiar was the redemption-money paid by every Hebrew male whose name was registered or entered on the muster-roll or census of the congregation. This
CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 155
ransom was a half-shekel, — the rich not giving more, and the poor not giving less. It was intended to signify that all who were of age were thus enrolled as the redeemed of the Lord ; and the phrase, " redeemed or ransomed" of the Lord, is a com mon and familiarly used Old Testament phrase (Ps. cvii. 2). It seems to have been paid as an annual tax or tribute in all the best times of Jewish history. Though many writers assert that it was not annually paid, there is no sufficient ground to warrant the opinion of those who would limit it to the first occasion. The allusions to this tribute or didrachma, which our Lord on one occasion was asked to pay, and which He paid (Matt. xvii. 24), suffice to prove that it was claimed from every male annually, or at least once, when he was enrolled among the chosen people (2 Kings xii. 4 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 9 ; Neb. x. 32). Every Israelite seems annually to have given that half-shekel or didrachma as a ransom for his soul. And we know that, as a ransom, it averted the divine displeasure, whether this was owing to the fact that it was set apart for the service of the sanctuary, or as it was a sovereign and inde pendent arrangement. And it showed that sinful men could not come nigh a holy God, or stand before Him, except upon the ground of a ransom paid for every worshipper (Ex. xxx. 11). These instances show that a ransom was necessaiy in that typical economy which was to find its reality in Christ.
Now, as to the application of this term to Christ, one thing is obvious at first sight. The redemption price is to be traced up to something which is done by another, and not to any personal merit on the part of the redeemed ; and it is described as the act of one for many. There are two questions here to which an answer, if not expressed, is implied : To whom was the ransom paid ? and with what was it paid ?
1. As to the first question, who is the imprisoning party, or the party demanding the ransom ? the answer is furnished by a correct idea of God's relation to His creature, and of the violated rights and law of God. The captivity is primarily to
156 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
divine justice, and only in the second instance is it a captivity to Satan, death, and hell; and, accordingly, a satisfaction to God's injured law and honour terminated the bondage, the ransom being paid to God, not to Satan. The captivity presup posed by the use of the term " ransom" has various elements. The Judge, by a just sentence, reduced the sinner to a state of bondage, because every attribute of the Godhead demanded vindication against him. He was made a captive primarily to divine justice, and then, secondarily, to Satan, death, and hell. The curse affixed to sin was death, or separation from God's countenance and favour. And not only so : Satan ob taining possession of mankind, and holding them by right of conquest, could be dispossessed only when the necessary ransom had been paid to that primary fountain of justice and law which pronounced the separation between God and man as right, and left the conqueror to hold his conquest. That captivity is capable of being reversed only by an interposition which, remounting to the original cause, altered the relation on which God stood to sinning man ; and, accordingly, when the law was fulfilled, and the curse exhausted by an adequate ransom, the bondage terminated. The same Judge who had pronounced the sentence awarding captivity, reverses it in the behalf of all for whom that ransom was paid, and who put their trust in it, or in Him who brought it.
2. And as to the second question, with what the ransom was paid, it cannot be every sort of act, but only a vicarious death. The captive was held by the inflexible grasp of justice ; and the ransom could only be a death which should be a proper punishment, or an adequate infliction of all the curse which was comprehended in the divine sentence ; or, in other words, a full equivalent paid by the Son of God, made the second man, and appointed by the divine commission to act as the represen tative of man. This is just life for life. The ransom, then, is a penal infliction in its full significance, and spontaneously undergone. No ransom could be found but in the death of
CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 157
Jesus ; or, personally considered, the ransom of the human race is just the dying Saviour representing us and acting in our stead.
3. The third element in this proposition is, that it is said to be in the room of many (avrl iroKkuv). With what are we to construe these last words ? They are referred by some to the acting party, or to the subject or person spoken of. They are connected by others with the object of the proposition, and placed in apposition to the term "ransom." I rather think that there is a threefold idea in the proposition, as has been already hinted, and that the notion (1) of the sacrifice, and (2) of the ransom, must be both connected with the. words, " in room of many." As the one idea passes over into the other, — that is, as our Lord intimates that He offers a priestly sacrifice, and then adds the idea of a ransom which delivers from captivity, — it is clear that we must construe the words, " in room of many," with both the ideas. This threefold distribu tion of the proposition is lost by both the modes of construing the words to which we have above referred. The Lord offered a sacrifice as a priest in the room of many. He paid a ransom also in the room of many. The one thought passes into the other as an advance upon it, or as an extension of its mean ing ; and in both modes of representation the thought unmis- takeably is, that the Lord Jesus was acting in a vicarious manner.
The true import of this phrase here used, as every scholar interpreting by language at once admits,1 is, in room of many. To adduce a few instances, it may be noticed that it is the same preposition (am) occurring in the phrases, " an eye for an eye" (Matt. v. 38) ; " who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright" (Heb. xii. 16) ;" will ye for a fish give him a serpent ? " (Luke xi. 11 ;) " recompense to no man evil for evil" (Rom. xii. 17) ;
1 See Meyer's commentary on this preposition as denoting snlistitution. Hofmann tries to escape from this, by confounding vipi r»xx»» with <*»*•/ raXxJr. ^See his tichriftbevxis.)
158 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
" Arehelaus reigned in his stead " (Matt. ii. 22.) In these instances, and in every other where the preposition is not used to signify against, the notion of substitution is the uniform and undoubted sense of the phraseology. The words here used convey the idea, that Christ gave Himself as a substitute; that He gave His soul in room of others ; and that this surrender of His life for others was further accepted, or regarded as the price or ransom by which the deliverance was effected. It is not enough to say that the death of Christ was for the good of others in some vague, indefinite, indeter minate sense ; for that is not warranted either by the meaning of the preposition used, or by the connection of the sentence. If we would apprehend the Lord's thought without offering violence to language, we must accept it as conveying the idea of a vicarious provision, and allow that the Son of Man under went the very death that others had incurred ; submitting to the penal infliction which they had deserved, and dying in their room that they might be rescued from the punishment. If it was only for the good of others in a general, indefinite, and abstract sense, the same thing might be said of any apostle or martyr. But if He gave His life vicariously, or surrendered His life in the room of others, what else does this convey but that He offered Himself to give death for death, and that He frees others by taking the punishment upon Himself? The Son of Man, very God and very man, came to do this in the room of many.
And as to the many referred to in the phrase, it must be noticed that He does not say all, \vhich might have been con sidered as limited merely to all the disciples present, who were not many. He speaks not of them alone, as if the efficacy of His death were confined to the disciples then present; nor of their nation alone, but of a seed out of every nation, countless as the stars, or as the sand upon the sea-shore. And He calls them many, either because He contrasts Himself with them as acting one for many — and so we find a similar phraseology
CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 159
in Rom. v. 19, — or rather because He has His eye upon the multitude out of every tribe and nation who were given Him by the Father ; or, in other words/ to the elect of God, the truly saved, or the redeemed from among men, for whom He offered Himself.
I would now say something by way of obviating the exceptions taken to the sense which we have just put upon the passage. These objections are principally two, and they are directed either against the reality of the substitution or against the reality of the ransom.
1. With regard to the objection made to the reality of the substitution or exchange of persons, it is sometimes of a more evangelical strain. Thus one modern writer * thinks himself warranted to object to the idea of substitution as not expressing Christ's relation to humanity, because " He is not ' another ' alongside of humanity and outside of humanity, but the Son of Man, in whom humanity finds its second Adam." He adds, " It is also not barely a vicarious act by which He reconciled us to God, — it is not barely through Him, but in Him, that we are reconciled." This objection may be said to express the strain of the new theology, or the mystic theory of the atonement so much in vogue, with all its one-sided and subjective bias. But in the words before us we find tjie Lord Himself, with unmistakeable precision, declaring .that the sur render of His life was a vicarious act in room of many. And a death which redeems another under death, and is declared to be in the room of others, is properly vicarious, if language is to be the interpreter's guide ; and a redemption merely by the communication of the inner life, or by union to the person of Christ, without any provision legitimately to reverse the divine sentence pronounced against sin, or to remove the actual curse, argues a very detective view of the relation occupied to mankind, both by the first and second Adam. It is to make no account of the necessity of personally standing
1 llufmauii, in his tichri/'tbewtia 011 the passage.
160 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
in an accepted righteousness, or of the reversal of the inflicted curse. It is to ignore the objective relation of our persons, which is as necessary as the inner nature, and it merges all that is relative or personal in the spiritual life.
The older Socinians, again, with nothing of the evangelical sentiment which we have just mentioned, repudiated the vicari ous element, or the substitution of Christ, on wholly different grounds. It would be tedious to mention, and to refute in detail, all their overdrawn inferences, and all their exaggerated difficulties. But to some of them we must refer. Thus they argue, that in the exchange of prisoners to which the language must primarily allude, both parties are freed and restored to their friends. This of course is true, when both are in the same condition, and no reconciliation is indispensably required, as is needful in the sinner's case. But we meet all these exaggerated and overdone details at once, by observing, that in all comparisons, just as in all parables, it is only one point in common, or a certain tertium quid, which challenges attention; and in this case it is the exchange of captives. And when it is still further rejoined, that in such an exchange Christ must have remained a captive, the reply is at hand, that He was certainly a captive, nay, all His life long a captive, till the ransom was completely paid, but that He redeemed us in such a way as to lead captivity captive, and to set us free. All these objections are nothing but the urging of inferential exaggerations.
But the chief argument of this class of writers is, that the question is somewhat different from an exchange of persons, and turns not so much on an exchange of persons as on a commutation between a thing or a price and a person. On the contrary, the preposition here employed, and the whole language of Christ in reference to His death, implies a com mutation of one person for another, — that is, of one person's suffering for what another should have borne and suffered. It is the exchange of one person's suffering for another person's
CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 161
suffering, aud therefore an exchange of persons, according to that representative system which must he accepted in the mediatorial economy, whether we look at the first Adam or at the second Adam.1
2. With regard to the second objection already mentioned, which denies the reality of the ransom, and reduces all to a mere figure of speech, it is easily obviated. It has always been maintained by Socinian expositors that this whole phraseology, which is taken from the redemption of a captive, is only a metaphorical use of language, derived from the custom of redeeming prisoners of war, but that it means no more than simply this, that we are discharged. To this we give a general and a particular reply.
As the language used in reference to a ransom or price has a well-defined significance, invariably involving the idea that it was necessary to pay a price for a captive, it were in reality tantamount to evacuating the import of Scripture and the proper sense of words, to reduce its meaning to a mere figure of speech. And let this principle be fully carried out, as it lias been to its legitimate consequences in modern mythism, and it will reduce Christianity to a system of mere ideas, dissociated from fact or from any historic basis in actual reality ; and on this principle of disconnecting Christianity from the under lying facts, all becomes notions and ideas and a mere world of thought. To be consistent, they must hold a figurative or metaphorical Christ, a figurative or metaphorical mediator, a figurative or metaphorical salvation. On the contrary, there is nothing in the language expressed in the passage that is not literally true. All is reality, not semblance or figure, — fact, not comparison or similitude. So much for the general reply to this objection.
A;j;tiu, to meet this objection more particularly and more in detail, it must be maintained, that as men are in a real and
-tillingflcet's sermons, On the True Reason of the Sufferings ofChritt, ic/urcin Crellius' Answer to Grotiusis considered, pp. 440-450. London, 1669. L
162 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
not a figurative bondage, so they are delivered by a real and not a figurative ransom. If the Redeemer gives His life for others, and gives it, too, as a ransom or as a price for captives, it follows, that if the first is a literal and real captivity, the other is not less a literal and real ransom for their deliverance. Nor will it avail to argue, that as the language is unmistakeably taken from the ancient sacrifices and only accommodated to Christ, it cannot be pressed any further. To this I reply, the types take their colour from the actual event, or from the reality reflecting its light upon them, not conversely. It was the coming event that cast its shadow before, and gave its colour to the type. It was not the type which gave a meta phorical representation to the fact.
The allegation is frequently made, too, that the writers of the New Testament use the term ransom for deliverance simply, without the accessory notion of a price ; and warnings are frequently addressed to the expositor as to the risk of insisting more upon the figure under which the truth is repre sented than upon the thing itself. But, plainly, we should run counter to all the canons and guiding principles of strict interpretation, were we to deal with the term ransom either as if it had not been used at all, or as if it had no precise and definite meaning. This would introduce the most arbitrary licence of interpretation, and it would make men expound not by language, but by preconceived ideas. Some men of name in theology1 have recently expounded the phrase as if nothing else were to be found in it but an allusion to the influence of Christ's doctrine confirmed by His death. And what is that but to reduce Christ to the level of a mere teacher or prophet ? It is very little different from this to urge, as some others have done, that Christ, in the use of such language, merely points to
1 See De "Wette, De Morte Christi, p. 139. Ritsrhl, again, in the Jahrliicher fur Deutsche Theologie, 1863, p. 222, sees no more in it than a sort of pro tection against death for those who fulfil the condition under which alone this can be available to them.
CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 163
men's liberation from the bondage of the Mosaic law, and refers to the fact that He was to set up a purer worship, and to preach to all mankind the absolute and unbought forgiveness of sins. The laws of sound interpretation will not allow any man to indulge in such wayward licence. The usage of language, and the full significance as well as connection of the thought, will allow an allusion only to the actual and real issue of Christ's death. The term ransom denotes not the deliverance itself, but the price of it ; and the thought is, that mankind are dis charged from bondage by a vicarious atonement, — the bondage and the ransom being equally real. They who contend that the passage announces redemption but without any allusion to a redemption price, while the discharge is held to be not less sure than if a price were actually paid, not only violate Christ's doctrine, but also the laws of language ; and as to the inter preter's fidelity, it may be added that he has no arbitrary dis cretion to change the meaning of Christ's words. There is no more arresting thought to him than this, how he shall answer for it at the bar of Christ, if under any influence or tendency he has been led on to pervert the meaning of Christ's teaching, and to evacuate the proper force and import of His language. And many do so on the preconceived idea that a satisfaction to divine justice is absurd. But, I ask, is it absurd to maintain that the divine law must be fulfilled in precept and in penalty, which is all that is implied in that statement that justice must be satisfied ?
The other objections to the above given interpretation of this verse, are only trifling and sporadic ; and they may be here omitted, as they have been anticipated in the previous exposition of the words. As to the objection, however, that the notion of a ransom is untenable because no one can be shown to whom it was paid — and it cannot be supposed no\v-;i-days to h:ivc Uvn paid to Satan, — the answi-r is at h.uul. It is not simply the case of a creditor receiving a pecuniary payment, but that of a criminal guilty of a capital crime, and deserving a
164 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
penal infliction by which the authority of law is maintained. It is paid to God, the Judge of all. (Comp. Eph. v. 2 ; Heb. ix. 1 4.)
We may put together the elements of this passage as fol lows : (1) the humiliation of a divine person, which gives value to His work ; (2) the priestly act of self-oblation ; (3) the assumption that men are captives to death ; (4) the ransom, with its redemptive efficacy ; (5) the persons for whom He was a substitute; (6) the necessary effect, — deliverance from. death by the death of such a substitute.
Having determined the import of the ransom, there is little else calling for remark. We may notice, finally, as to the signi ficance of this testimony, that the notion of delivering a captive by ransom or commutation is not alien to the thinking or cus toms of any people, that it underlies all theology, and that it commends itself to all minds.
The ransom is described in these words without any am biguity. The sacerdotal offering of Christ's life as the culmina tion of His obedience is further represented as the ransom ; and it has a direct or causal connection with present and future deliverance from divine wrath. The surrender of life for life is the only price or compensation to be offered for the sinner ; and we are taken to hear the expression of Christ's conscious ness to this effect from His own lips. There is a causal con nection between the ransom paid and the redemption or deliver ance effected. This deliverance or redemption has so wide a scope, that believers are " redeemed from all evil," present and to come. The ransom is the meritorious cause of the deliver ance, just as sin or the fall was the meritorious cause of the captivity.1
1 It would be tedious to enumerate all the di fferent -writers who have dis cussed this text against the various schools and tendencies which have impugned the proper notion of the atonement. Thus, against the Sociuian school I may mention Hoornbeck, Calovius in Socinlsjnus Profllgatus, Jlaresius, Arnold, Essenius, Turretin, Stein, De Satitfactione. In recent times this text has received a very satisfactory treatment from Philippi, Delitzsch on Hebrews (Appendix), "Weber, Keil, in the discussions caused by Hofmann's Schriftbeiceis. I shall notice it more fully in the Appendix to this volume. But I may la re
CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 1G5
I may add, the entire penal evil consequent on sin is denoted by the term, death, as taken in its full significance. The Lord gave life for life, or, in other words, encountered death in all its breadth of meaning, considered both as temporal and eternal, — thus depriving it of its sting. It henceforth ceased to be death in the proper import of the word to those who believe on Him (John viii. 51), — that is, because the Sinless One has died. It might seem, indeed, as if the atonement, considered as a ransom from captivity, had no reference to physical evil, because this is still found in the matter of it entailed upon believers after their acceptance as well as upon others. But though physical evil and death are not removed, the change which the atone ment merits and actually produces is so great in every respect, that in truth it ceases to be evil when that which is penal is altogether removed. The ransom changes the entire relation of the Christian to everything in the moral government of God ; and with regard to our relation to physical evil and temporal death, there is no more curse in them, nay, not a drop of wrath, but only fatherly discipline and a means of education.
SEC. XXIII. — THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST, THAT HIS DEATH IS THE SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN.
The words of Matt. xxvi. 26-28, Mark xiv. 22-24, Luke xxii. 19, 20 (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 23-25), may be harmonized as
follows : —
" And as tliey were eating, Jesus took bread; and having given thanks and blessed it, He brake it and gave it to the
quote the happy words of Tittmann, Opusc. Theol., p. 445: " Igitur in vnl>is Christ i quundo dixit se vitam ponere pretium redemptionis, tri;i iiiMint : (1) Christum mortuum ease nostro loco, nostra vice ; quam dicere solemus mortem Christi vicariam ; (2) Christum mortuum esse eo consilio, ut nos ivtliiiK'ret, peccatorumque veniam Christi jure nostro meritoriam •ppeQunu ; (3) Christum solvisse pretium sufficiens, hoc est, mortem Christi sufficere ad impetraudaia veniam peccatoruni, iiec opus esse ut aliquidtaddatur a nobis."
166 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my lody which is given (or broken) for you; this do in remembrance of Me. And in like manner, after supper, He took the cup; and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, and said, Drink ye all of it; and tJiey all drank of it. For, said He to them, this cup is the new covenant in my Uood, which is shed for you [and] for many, unto the remission of sins"
Of all the sayings which our Lord uttered on the subject of His death, there is none which can be regarded as either more important or more express than that testimony which He uttered at the institution of the Supper. He had previously called His death " a ransom ; " He had called His crucified flesh "meat indeed;" and in the present passage He calls His blood a covenant. This phraseology may be considered as a key to all those passages which announce a reconciliation to God through Him ; and also a key to all those passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as elsewhere, which speak of a covenant people as separated and sanctified, as saints and holy ones, or speak of the Church of God according to the new covenant relation in which believers stand.
With regard to the occasion of this saying, it requires no remark. As our Lord drew near His death, His language constantly became more explicit and clear in reference both to the fact of His death and to its nature. A memorial was to be instituted to commemorate that great fact, which takes Him wholly out of the class of mere instructors, and which gives Him a place apart, and a position wholly unique, among mankind. He used words which, no doubt, recall the language and the position of Moses at the founding of the Sinaitic cove nant, but which are of a description such as no mere teacher could ever have ventured to utter. He intimates that all ages onward to the end of time should have an interest in His death still more than in His words ; that He instituted the Supper as
CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 1G7
the commemoration of a fact which should be fraught with the most important consequences ; and that in His deatli He aimed at an object such as neither His doctrine nor His example contemplated. He deemed this symbolic action so important for all ages, that He did not leave it to His disciples to institute it after His departure, as He left many other things for them to found. He Himself instituted this memorial of His historic life and death. The better to inform the Church of His design, and to cut off every exception from future cavillers, who are ever ready to affirm that His disciples made several unwarrant able additions to His doctrine, and to declare that some undue and exaggerated importance came to be attached to His death by those who went forth to preach His gospel, our Lord insti tuted this memorial Himself, with His death full in view, on the night of His betrayal.
"With respect .to the words used at the institution of the Supper, and which are four times given, with only slight variations, and which should be accurately compared in the form in which they are given by the three evangelists and by Paul, they convey the most important instruction both on the nature and on the scope of the Saviour's death. They concur with the memorial which was then instituted to set forth the design and the effect of Christ's atoning death.
The saying is twofold ; and a certain interval of time must have elapsed between the utterance of the two. This, with other reasons which might be adduced, serves to show, that while they properly come within the category of parallel passages and under the appellation of parallel passages, there is a somewhat extended sense or further meaning attaching to the last of them. The one prepared the way for the other. I'.oth together, in some sort, interweave a historical reference. The first of the two sayings undoubtedly alludes to the paschal lamb, which was, according to the divine idea, regarded as at once a ransom to redeem, and as a spiritual food to nourish the receiver. This is set forth in the words, This is my
168 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
body given for you (Luke xxii. 19) ; broken -for you (1 Cor. xL 24).
The second saying, again, is, This cup is the neiv covenant in my Uood, shed for you, and shed for many (Luke xxii. 20).
This second saying, which adds an additional or further thought, goes back to another event in the history of Israel, posterior or subsequent to the passover, and yet closely con nected with it. It alludes to the Sinaitic covenant, which was to be superseded, in due time, witli all its typical arrangements, and to give place to the better covenant. An obvious enough link of connection bound these two events together — the insti tution of the passover and the founding of the Sinaitic covenant — in the history of the chosen people. As the direct issue of the passover, or as the immediate effect consequent upon it, the Israelites, delivered from the destruction which fell on Egypt's first-born, were led on to Sinai to be taken into a covenant relationship as a nation, or, in other words,, to enter, in a manner competent only to a redeemed and cleansed com munity, into a recognised relation to God, such as none else ever enjoyed. That people was now to be admitted into the privilege and dignity of being the peculiar people of God. That was, on the one hand, a true relation to God, but at the same time, too, a figurative history, which was in both respects to be reproduced in the fulness of time with a deeper signifi cance and with a wider and fuller meaning, — that is, with the real sacrifice, and not with the mere type. And it is this second thing that is represented, as well as the first, in the memorial of the Lord's Supper, instituted for the Christian Church. Thus, the sole ground of God's covenant with men is the great atoning sacrifice by which sin is taken away ; for God could admit no sinner to His fellowship, or to a participa tion in the standing of His own covenant people, without an atonement or satisfaction for sin.
Considered in this light, the two sayings are parallel ; and yet they are not simply coincident. They do not precisely
CHRIST'S BLOOD TUE NEW COVENANT. 1G9
cover each other. The second is rather an advance upon the first, and passes over into a wider and more enlarged meaning: And the two taken together announce that Christ gave Him self for the disciples, with the ulterior purpose or design that they might be taken into a new covenant relation and be God's peculiar people.
As to the first saying, I need not further advert to it, except to say that the words, my body given for you, as it is in Luke, or, my body broken for you, as it is in Paul, must be taken only in the acceptation that it is sacrificial language. We are not to understand this peculiar style of language as merely signifying a gift to us, but to interpret it as denoting a sacrifice given for us, or as denoting a victim delivered up to death for us. No doubt, if we were to expound the proper import of these sacramental emblems, and to set forth what is represented in the sacramental invitations, we should have our minds directed to the other point, and find a gift to vis. But in the present elucidation of this testimony I purpose not to deviate from the question of the atonement; and I shall therefore limit my attention to the peculiar import and bearing of the testimony here emphatically borne to it. When Christ speaks, then, in the present passage, of His body given or broken for His disciples, the allusion is obviously to the fact that the Father gave Him for us, and that He spontaneously surrendered or gave Himself, as an atonement or paschal sacrifice, for the salvation of His people. And once offered, He becomes there after to His people, onward to the end of time, their spiritual food, as they partake of His crucified flesh by faith.
It is on the second saying, however, that the chief emphasis may be said to rest in relation to the doctrine of the atonement ; ami it is this to which our remarks will be directed. This is the more lull and copious saying of the two, describing, as it does, the blood of Christ as the basis or condition of the entire new covenant. The words here used by Christ are peculiarly suggestive, as they recall the blood of sacrifices offered at tho
1 70 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
dedication of the Sinaitic covenant, when Moses sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, " Behold the blood of the covenant" (Ex. xxiv. 6). That covenant at Sinai was founded on the blood of a typical atonement, and could have had no place without that blood. And in the far deeper sense con tained in the reality as contrasted with the type, the one true and perfect sacrifice of the Son of God must be viewed as the foundation of the latter covenant. Christ here describes His blood, then, from a threefold point of view: (1) as shed or poured out for His disciples; (2) as the procuring cause of remission of sins ; (3) as the fundamental condition of the covenant. And we shall briefly advert to each of these points in order.
1. His blood was shed or poured out for many. Though the Greek construction in Luke is irregular and somewhat peculiar, plainly the participle shed or poured out is connected with the term blood, just as it is put in Matthew and Mark. There can be no doubt that this is the connection in point of thought, if not also in point of language.1 It is a sacrificial phrase, recalling how the priest was wont to shed the victim's blood, or to pour out the victim's blood, at the ratification of the covenant. Blood was shed on the great occasion when the covenant was first formed, and whenever it was subsequently to be confirmed and upheld, just as on the day when it was first founded. It was the blood of sacrifice expiating the sins of others. Some have alleged, indeed, that it is by no means of absolute necessity to view that class of sacrifices as expia-
1 Luke xxii. 20 : Tevro TO rorvpiov r> xaivn $iatvxv iv Ttji aip/xTi fi.au, TO i/T\f L/J.UV, ix%uvt>p.ivo*. This abnormal structure is differently explained. Thus, some refer the words TO iurip i/ftu> Ix^woftttev to <ro xerripiov (Kuthymius, Calovius, De "Wette, Winer Gram.). But every one is sensible of tin- harshness and unnatu- ralnessof the interpretation, "the cup which is poured out for you." However we explain the grammatical difficulty, there is no doubt that Luke, in point of thought, meant the participle clause, TO ix%vvop.ivor, to be referred to the «"/*««, though, in strict philology, we should have expected tx^uyo/niviu . (See Blcek, Synoptische Erkldrung der drti Ernlcn Ecantjdicn, vol. ii. p. 415, 1862 ; and Meyer's Commentary.)
CUEIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 171
tory which were intended only as the basis of a covenant, and that they may be regarded as but a covenant sacrifice. But the answer is obvious : Whenever an occasion occurred for God to enter into covenant relations with sinful men who were relatively severed and estranged from Him, it always was, and it could only be, upon the footing of a sacrifice of atone ment. This is based on the relation between sinful men and a holy God.
We need not here discuss the question whether the best rendering is, shed for many, or, poured out for many ; that is, whether it relates more to the slaying of the victim or to the sprinkling of the blood. We may omit this discussion, because, in point of fact, there was no sacrifice where either of these elements could be omitted; the sprinkling, as the more advanced step, having a special reference to the applica tion of the atonement. And the remission of sins here men tioned plainly shows that the allusion to that latter point of the sacrificial arrangements is not excluded, but really com prehended. That which makes the second saying wider and more comprehensive in its scope, however, is the unmistakeable allusion which is contained in it to the Sinaitic covenant, which here gives place to the new and better covenant.
As to the persons with whom the new covenant is under stood to be made, they are no further alluded to than merely as they are Christ's recognised disciples. It makes no difference in this respect whether they were directly in His immediate fellowship during His earthly career, or in subsequent times are ivuanlnl as belonging to a peculiar company who are His own, His sheep, and here designated MANY. And the Lord says absolutely nothing of any condition to be performed on their side, or of any prerequisite to this covenant relation; thus leaving it to be inferred that the covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional.
2. The Lord Jesus declares that His blood was shed or offered in order1 to obtain for others the remission of sins. And
1 72 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
in declaring that it was for, or rather unto,1 the remission of sins, He affirms that His blood, or dying obedience, is the pro curing cause, and remission the effect, — that the one is the direct result of the other. That these words are genuine, though found only in the narrative of Matthew, is a point beyond suspicion or challenge, because they occur in every manuscript and ancient version.2 And since they contain Christ's own declaration as to the scope and effect of His death, they prove that His death was intended to be, and therefore that it truly was, the cause of the remission of sins. This is the undeniable and obvious import of the language, if we are content faithfully to interpret words. We have only to observe the connection and the true force of the preposition unto or for (e/V), which expresses the object which the Lord had in view, to perceive that remission of sins is the effect, and that the blood of Christ is the cause. And no mind unbiassed and free from prejudice can fail to admit, that according to the natural construction of language, a causal connection between the two is signified.
As to the import of the term remission (tig cip&ffiv), it uni formly refers to the remitting of merited punishment, whether that be temporal or eternal. It is a judicial term ; and all the various modifications of phraseology and of expression by which forgiveness is denoted, uniformly bear this sense. The special point to which the phrase relates, is deliverance from all the punishment due to us for sin, rather than deliverance from its inward power, whether past or present. The Greek term rendered " remission " points out much better than our English word the immediate effect of the atonement ; implying that the sin was cancelled, and no more found, and that the person upon whom the sentence of acquittal is pronounced is again without guilt or charge, because it was put away, and
2 The doubts of rationalists and of the laxer school, on mere subjective grounds (e.g. De Wette, De Morte Christi), are unworthy of any attention.
CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 1 73
therefore annihilated by the sacrifice. That the death of Christ is the direct, sole, and' immediate cause of the remission of sins, without any other intermediate ground, is proved by the general tenor of biblical language on this head, by the analogy of the bloody sacrifices to which this text alludes, and by the express terms of the present passage.
3. The Lord Jesus, furthermore, speaks of His blood as the new covenant, or as constituting its fundamental condition. The sole ground upon which a covenant in any case is, or can be, constituted, is that of sacrifice; without which a sinner could not be allowed to stand in any friendly relation toward God. We find it was enough to institute a typical sacrifice for the temporary covenant, but the true sacrifice was indispensably necessary for the abiding covenant. At the founding of the two covenants, it appears that something similar took place ; and we can easily gather from the peculiarities of the typical covenant, that the blood of Christ must be viewed in the same light and as serving the same purpose that the blood of bulls and goats subserved in the institution of the covenant at Sinai. The blood was not a mere martyr's blood to confirm his testi mony, but the blood of sacrifice. It does not merely seal Christ's doctrine as true. There is no allusion, indeed, in these words of Christ either to His doctrine or to the sealing of His doctrine; for a covenant is not to be viewed as consist ing in bare doctrine. Eather it is the founding or erection of a new relation between God and man ; and in the present case it was a divine economy, order, or arrangement, by which, on the ground of Christ's atoning blood, as shed for the remission of sins, God becomes our God, and we become His people.
As to the peculiar nature of this covenant, it had its ob jective foundation and basis in pardon; and in its internal character it is in several passages contrasted with the economy of the outer letter, and is specially delineated in the prophet Jeremiah. The prophet says, " Behold, the days come, saith
174 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with" their fathers, in the day that T took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; (which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord ;) but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel ; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neigh bour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Comp. Jer. xxxi. 31 with Heb. viii. 8.)
The special difference between the two covenants, distin guished into old and new, was, that the Sinaitic covenant did not effectually provide for personal forgiveness ; and that it was, besides, rather national and Jewish than universal, — rather mundane and external in its blessings and promises than spiritual and transforming.
This new covenant, so called because replacing a previous one, is not to be regarded as equivalent to the federal trans action between the Father and the Son. We do not call in question the biblical foundation of that valuable scheme of thought.1 The language before us, however, does not contrast the two Adams, or recall to us, as some say, the difference between one covenant made without blood, or with man in his integrity, and another covenant mad*' with blood, or with man as fallen. Eather it is the twofold method of administering the one covenant — to which allusion is made in the words before us, — with a special antithesis between the typical or preparatory economy on the one hand, and with the reality or truth as come at last on the other. The former had for its object to prefigure 1 See before, at sec. x.
CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 175
or foreshadow the blood of the covenant. The blood of the new covenant is an allusion to a people purified by an atone ment, and thus permitted to enter on the enjoyment of full for giveness, which constitutes the substance, in no small measure, of the covenant, or at least its basis and its indispensable con dition on God's side. It is a covenant of union, or the formation of a new relation, first based upon the privilege of reconciliation, and then involving, as a further step, the inward renovation of the nature, or the writing of the law upon the heart. At the erection of the old covenant there was a manifold and repeated sprinkling of blood, — first the paschal blood, and then the blood of bulls and goats at Sinai; and besides all this, the annual pouring out and sprinkling of blood upon the great day of atonement as well as in the daily sacrifice. But the new covenant has but one blood of atonement, or one sacrifice, per fect and complete for ever, by which the covenant is at once founded, maintained, and perpetuated.1
I must now, however, obviate the current perversions in reference to both these last-mentioned truths, — the remission of sins, and the new covenant.
1. The first point — the remission of sins, as here put — has the greatest moment in the light of current thought. The Lord Jesus, in thus speaking of the remission of sins as the direct and immediate effect of His death, did not state, as some will have it, that He contemplated only an ethical result, or that He had before His mind no other than a moral redemption. Neither does He say that His religion proclaimed an absolute remission of sins apart from any expiation by blood. He lends no countenance to the supposition that pardon is so dispensed to us, or that Hi.-; death was meant only to confirm the truth of what lie taught, and thus merely to ratify the promise of an
1'1'ily rH'rrs to the one blood of the new covenant as eontrast.-d with tin- various Inrnis ,,f l.l.MHl-slii-.l.lin^, which stood conmrtc.l with the founding ami ]» -rprtuation of the old economy. (See his articles hi Jahrb'ucher Jar Deutsche Tteologie. 1857, 1858.)
176 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
absolute forgiveness. For language cannot be more express, that Christ's death was a sacrificial death to obtain for us the forgiveness of sins. Neither can the Lord be represented as laying all the weight of His teaching on the mere possession of spiritual life, while the atonement occupies, in comparison, an altogether subordinate place. Though many put it in that light at present, it cannot be -proved that Christ ever spoke as if His dying was not of any further moment than merely as it tended to perfect Him to be the Prince of Life, and to make Him the source of all divine communications to His Church ; while remission of sins only comes in at an after stage, and but as an incidental thing or accessory boon, for which no express provision was either made or required.1 The words of Christ in this passage are so explicit in their announcement of the vicarious sacrifice, that they contain the very opposite of such a notion, and are wholly incompatible with it. Far from speak ing of the remission of sins — according to the defective teaching of that school of modern theology which does not call attention to the acceptance of the person or the acquittal of the sinner, but only to the communication of life — as if pardon were a mere accompaniment or an attendant blessing which goes along with the later and riper stages of the Christian life, the Lord Jesus here puts remission of sins in immediate and causal con nection with His death. He makes remission of sins a boon of
1 Usteri, a follower of Schleiermacher, and a representative of the new theo logy to which so many now confess, thus puts the remission of sins in connection with inward renovation, or with the power of love in the heart, and not with the sacrificial death of Christ : " Wenn wir nun Keines von beiden annehmen wollen, so koinmen wir darauf zuriick, dass die Siindenvergebung sicli auf die in der Gemeinschaft Christ! tind seines Leibes, der Gliiubigen (verg. Joh. xx. 23 ; Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18), durch die Kraft der LIEBE entweder schon hervor- gebrachte oder noch im Werden begriffene Shiiii'.siiiidcrmig und Umwandlung (pircivota und *«TaXXay»i), des Menschen bc/iulir und diesem nach massgabe seiner Liebe (Luke vii. 47), bewusst werde (verg. Schleiermacher's Predigt u'ber dun ZoMameohaag xwisehen der Vergebung und der Licbe. Dritte Sammlung, Nr. xi. ). In diesem Shine warden wir also auch das Wort Christi fassen miissen, dass in I Uut vergossen werde f iir Viele zur Verzeihnng der Siindem (Matt. xxvi. 28, etc.)." (See EntwkTtelung det Paulinuichen Lehrbegri/es, p. 132. 1851.)
rilKIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 177
primary importance, and the first in order; nay, every true par taker of the Supper is supposed to possess this remission of sins, and to be conscious of enjoying it.
Remission of sins, then, is not dependent on the renova tion of the nature or on Christian love, however closely and inseparably they may and must be connected in the human mind. These words of Christ emphatically prove that remis sion is an immediate and direct fruit of Christ's atoning death, and not an effect procured or caused by those amendments. Remission of sins rather precedes them as their cause ; for the statement of our Lord, as given in this testimony, explicitly declares that Christ's blood was shed in order to effect remission of sins, and that the latter is the immediate fruit or conse quence or purchase of His death.
We think this conclusion may be safely left to every truth- loving mind, taking Christ's words as they stand, and to the judgment of every unbiassed interpreter desirous only to dis cover what is the undoubted truth of Scripture. The death of Christ is undoubtedly represented in these words as the im mediate antecedent or cause of the remission of sins. Nothing even specious- has ever been opposed, or can ever be opposed, to this biblical doctrine ; for this is an explanation from Christ's own lips both of the nature and effect of His atoning death. The Lord Jesus was given for this purpose, as the great mani festation of the divine love and rectitude for the remission of sins ; and we find notliing involving any difficulty, when we deduce from this language that remission of sin is attainable only through the cross, and that God would not, and could not, confer this pardon but through the expiatory death of Christ, regarded as the appointed and accepted substitute of sinners.
2. As to the second point, the nature of the new covenant there are many very superficial comments in circulation as to the foundation of this covenant, many of which are replete with error. Thus it is alleged by some interpreters * that the
1 So De Wette, De Marie Christ!, p. 141. M
178 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
language only implies, " this cup is the new religion in my blood, or that by which I seal the new religion." It is held by not a few averse to the vicarious sacrifice, that Jesus simply meant to say that He died in confirmation of His doctrine. These are all shallow interpretations, and are utterly defective and faulty. They ignore the great idea contained in the Saviour's words ; which plainly intimate with all the perspicuity with which language can say it, that His blood was shed really, and not typically, to expiate sin, and that the new covenant was based on His death, or, in other words, causally connected with it. The covenant was founded, then, with all its provisions, in Christ's atoning blood. The blood of Christ is the fundamental condition on which it rests. And they who take the emblems into their hands at the Supper do not view Him as a martyr merely, and as dying simply to confirm His message, but recall the great fact that Christ's atoning blood was offered, not in a vague, general, abstract way, but was specially and vicariously offered for them ; and that they become in consequence a cove nant people or peculiar people.
Thus Christ's blood is the blood of the covenant, not simply as it attests or confirms the truth of the gospel, but as it has an atoning character ; and the idea is not that Jesus merely died to confirm, to us the truth of the promises, or to seal them, or to ratify them. Moses did not sprinkle the blood to ratify the promises, but to cleanse the people by his atonements. And the disciples, in like manner, hearing of a new covenant founded and set up by the shedding of blood, naturally and necessarily reverted to the erection of- the Sinai covenant. Christ was the mediator of the new covenant in a higher sense than Moses was or could be in that covenant which was but typical and transi tory; and yet the typical mediatorship was all based on the blood of the covenant (Ex. xxiv. G). These shallow comments on the new covenant are faulty in two respects. They would make the words convey no more than an allusion to a new way or method of procedure which God introduced among men by
CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 179
Jesus Christ, without any objective ground or basis on which it can be seen to rest. They all tend, too, in a legal or semi legal way, to throw men back upon themselves and upon their own resources, will, or strength, instead of leading them away from self-dependence. For if the human heart does not lean on Christ's propitiation, it inevitably falls back, in some phase of it, upon self-dependence. Certainly it is but medieval mys ticism at the best without liberty.
With regard to the purport of this most important testi mony, then, we must understand Christ's language in the following way. The means by which the new covenant is formed with any individual or class of persons, is the real introduction of the indispensable condition on which it is based, — the true sacrifice for sin, which pacifies the conscience and purifies the heavenly things themselves. For as to the. mere cup, it could neither be nor make the covenant. The covenant is here explicitly said to be based or set up in the remission of sins, as effected by Christ's blood. God did not found the covenant by merely proclaiming or publishing the promise of pardon, irrespective of the blood of atonement. It is the latter alone that could put them in the place of a peculiar people or holy nation. This discharges us from the old covenant ; and the one true eternal sacrifice for ever keeps up and maintains the covenant, which would otherwise be daily violated.
This memorable testimony of Christ, then, decides on certain points of the greatest moment, to which it may be proper to advert a little more fully.
i'. The Lord, speaking from the conscious purpose which was in a lew hours to be accomplished, puts the remission of sins in immediate causal connection with His blood or sacrificial death. What is the biblical idea attached to the phrase, " the remission of sins?" It will be found to denote, \\herever it occurs in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, deliverance from the duo punishment of sin. And all the figurative terms employed to set it forth — ami they are numerous uml varied,
180 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
— such as, " to pass by " (Mic. vii. 18), " to cover " (Ps. xxxii. 1), "to blot out" (Isa. xliv. 22), "to hide His face" (Ps. li. 11), " not to impute sin " (Ps. xxxii. 2),— convey the same thought. It implies wrath, or liability to punishment, which would be inflicted if no provision were made — such as the sin-offering in the old covenant, and the great atonement of the cross in the new covenant — to effect the removal of the penalty threatened in the law. Our whole investigation is at present exegetical ; and d priori reasonings, outside the pale of revelation, do not affect or retard our present inquiry. The cavil only too com mon in these days, as it was a century ago, that the Deity did not need to be pacified by the bloody death of a victim, does not affect us in simply investigating what the Saviour taught, "We abide by the import of His language ; and remission of sins is here described as the design and effect of His death. Nothing is plainer than that the forgiveness of sins is here put in the closest connection with the death of Christ, that is, as effect and cause.1 That His death is a sacrifice, has been fully proved, and cannot be impugned. And when we place ourselves on the view-point of the old sacrificial worship, it cannot be doubted that the forgiveness of sins or the remission of the penalty is effected by Christ's death without any other intervening cause. His blood is the immediate cause of remission, and not a mere mediate cause ; that is, it was not dependent for its efficacy on the amendments which are the concomitants or attendants of a
1 The words of Morus on this passage, in his Dissert. Theol. et Ph'dol., vol. ii. p. 100, 1798, are very striking: "Hascautem vcrba . . . hunc sensum habent, eas res fieri hoc consilio, ut aifuri; sequatur ct continent : sic usurpatus de hac morte idem loquendi modus eundem sensum tcneat necesse est, nisi usum loquehdi velimus per arbitrium mutare. Quod si hunc utique sensum trm-re debemus : exstat vere in sacris libris liar doctrina, Jesum eo consilio et fructu vitam depossuisse, ut ciQtrif cum suis bonis sequeretur et contingeret, et hunc una cum suis bonis contingere propter ilium mortem cum n-s|nrtu ad cam. I'nHciva hsec verba, a."/** Ix^vgin ilf a<fnrit ad hanc conclusiuncm ducunt : ergo «#»,««» *•«!» outfit lia, rev a'lftares. Si ex ilia propositione lia'c CIIIK lusio ducitur : sequitur, ilia propositione describi mortem, proplcr quam sfquitur et contingit venia, aut quod idem est, cui hanc acceptam ferimus, sine qua hanc uunc quidem, re sic instituta, non nancischnur, cujus respectu haec contingit."
CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 181
religious life. When Christ, therefore, represents His blood as shed for the remission of sin, He must be understood as saying that He bore the penalty of sin in order to set us free from it as a deserved doom. This remission, consisting in nothing else than in the liberation of the man, or in personal liberation from any liability to punishment, is here meritoriously connected with His sacrificial death as its procuring cause. It is not denied, but rather assumed and implied at every step, that the remis sion of sins is a benefit to be traced up to God's grace, or to His gratuitous favour. But it is not the less affirmed that it is bestowed only because the atonement was offered by Christ as its procuring or meritorious cause. And remission by this means takes for granted that God was not a mere indifferent spectator of human guilt, but animated by just resentment till sin was expiated by atonement.
&. But a further inquiry confronts us : How do sufferings and trials that seem to come to us under the guise of punishment, remain after the full and complete remission of sins ? why are the consequences of sin suffered to remain, if sin is thus com pletely cancelled ? This fact does not invalidate the full remis sion of sins, which takes place at once the moment one believes. The man is perfectly forgiven, and the person fully accepted, and all that is strictly penal in the consequences of sin is brought to an end and terminated for ever. These effects of sin are transformed into a course of discipline. The sickness, suffer ing, and death which come to us in the ordinary course of tilings, and which could not be altered without a miracle, still remain to the Christian, but they are wholly changed in their charac ter. They are no longer penal, no longer part of the curse, which was quite exhausted on Christ, but means of spiritual improvement, or a part of the Christian's education in patience and hope. Though physical suffering is allowed to remain in the history of the redeemed, it is no longer an infliction of wrath or a channel of vengeance, but a fatherly chastisement or a salutary discipline, and through divine grace richly made
182 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
available for our growth in holiness. For we must always dis tinguish between correction and punishment in the proper import of the term ; and constant prosperity is so rarely advan tageous, that an alternation with the opposite is found profitable to the Christian.
c. Another point demanding attention is, that the remission of sins is here represented as the ground or reason of the other blessings contained in the covenant. This comes out not only in the saying under consideration, but in the words descriptive of the covenant, as they are given both by Jeremiah and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Forgiving grace is set forth as the source of every other benefit. " This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people : and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. FOR1 I will be merci ful to their unrighteousness and their sins, and their iniquities will I remember no more." The use of the grounding particle for (or/) intimates that the promise of forgiveness is not ap pended at the close as an additional blessing. On the contrary, forgiveness is represented as the REASON why the other benefits are conferred, or as the CAUSE, source, and origin from which they flow. It is as if it were said : " The reason or ground of all these other blessings, viz. regeneration, illumination, and fellowship, is to be traced to the remission of sins." That is
1 Heb. viii. 12 : en "Xia-f "itrtfji.au. On this clause let me refer to the Com mentaries of Seb. Schmidt, Alting, D'Outivin, and Piscator. The latter makes these happy remarks : " Observant! inn tinmn ilia tria ap*d pTOf&ebm proponi online inverso. Naturalis autem ordo hie est quod primo omnium Dfus electis re- in'Mlt peccata propter satisfactionem Christi ; deinde donat eis Spiritum Sanctum : qui primum illuminat mentes eorum cognitione gratise Dei per satisfactionem ( liristi acquisitse, deinde vero renovat voluntatem ad studium gratitudinis pro beneficio liberations sen redemptions per Christum. f:'f*i < aim remissionem peccatorum posiremo loco commemorat tamen illam prcecedtntiuus annictit ^<ir .conjunctionem causalem inquiens, ero enim," etc. »n <Xi»f.
CHEIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 183
the connection ; and it is not hard to trace the link between the two. It was sin that made the separation between God and man (Isa, Ix. 2), and the remission of sin paves the way for the new covenant relation. Before any are received, their sin must be, once for all, forgiven. And not only so ; but as there are daily sins and violations of the covenant, there must be a provision for a daily reconciliation.
SEC. XXIV.— CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW FOR HIS PEOPLE, AND THUS BRINGING IN A RIGHTEOUSNESS OR ATONEMENT FOR THEM.
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the propJiets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, sliall break one of these least com mandments, and s'hall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (MATT. V. 17-20.)
This passage brings under our notice the active obedience of Christ, to which we already referred in a previous section (section 20) ; but with this peculiar difference, that it is here put in relation to the divine law, and in connection with the previous economy or arrangements of God. The former eco nomy was, from the beginning, only a pledge of something yet to come, or an outline unfilled up, whrivas the present is its fulfilment. And this saying of Christ implies that for this event the whole previous history of man waited, and the history of Israel was in fact a pledge or preparation for its a]>i>t';iranre. He virtually declares that all previous ages looked forward to
184 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
this day, and that the whole divine economy was constituted and arranged only with a view to it. This saying emphatically shows that the event here referred to — the coming of the Son of God to fulfil the law — was the centre-point of the world's history, and therefore carrying with it retrospective as well as prospective consequences.
The testimony under consideration is worthy of attention, too, as expressing from Christ's own consciousness the great design which His incarnation had in view in reference to the law. It proves that if His whole career was, as we have seen it was, a curse-bearing life, it was not less a sinless career, or a life which had for its scope, at every step, to fulfil the divine law by a course of active obedience ; and it was this in a vicarious sense, or in the room of others. This testimony may therefore be called a key to all those passages, both numerous and varied, which describe Christ as the end of the law (Eom. x. 4), or as the counterpart of Adam in his act of disobedience (Eom. v. 19) ; and also to all those passages which represent the acceptance of our persons as effected by the work of Christ, and as irrespective of the works of the law (Eom. iii. 28). It is a pregnant saying, indicating in few words the distinctive features or the nature of His whole mediatorial work, which must have been obscure to those who first heard Him, but has now become, since its fulfilment, clear enough to all who can survey it from first to last upon the outline of the divine law and prophecy.
As to the occasion of this testimony, it may be referred rather to the calumnious accusations of Christ's enemies, who regarded His mode of teacliing as subversive of the law, than to the neutral state of some of His disciples desirous to escape from the yoke of the law. And the Lord enters upon the sub ject by a sudden break in the body of His discourse, — such as He sometimes uses when He breaks the continuity of His dis course and addresses Himself to the state of mind which His omniscient eye detected as prevailing among His hearers.
CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 185
When we inquire in what sense the words of this testimony are to be understood, it will be found that the interpretation of them varies according to the idea which may be formed of the authority with which Christ contrasts His own authority, and of the peculiar teaching to which He opposes His own teaching. Thus, it has been held by Socinians and rationalists, with a general consent, that the teaching with which Christ in this passage contrasts His own statements, is that of the Mosaic law itself, or the teaching of Moses. They will have it, that in the sequel of this chapter the Lord Jesus partly corrects, partly cancels and abrogates, the teaching of Moses, and that He puts a better legislation in its place. They would thus make Christ a legislator, not a Saviour, and regard Him as coming to usher in a new law. And, accordingly, they render the 17th verse in this way : " I am not come to destroy the law or the pro phets : I am not come to destroy, but to fill out or to expand them."1 And the same interpretation of the words is held, though sometimes in a considerably modified form, by several English as well as German interpreters, who deserve to be regarded generally as interpreters of an evangelical tone and sentiment. They will have it that Christ in this section con trasted Himself with the confinement and narrow political form of the Mosaic law, or with the stand-point of law as such ;2 and they contend for the translation, " to fill out."
But that interpretation, it is obvious, cannot be maintained, whether we look at the immediate context in which the word occurs, or at the import of language generally ; and a few words will suffice conclusively to show this.
1. The immediate context is opposed to that interpretation.
1 This very incorrect rendering is supported by Alford, Meyer, !)<• "\Vette, Olshausen, and others ; as ii' our Lord only meant to say that He came to set forth the ideal import of the law, or to give a deeper and holier sense t» it. This comment of the modern school is well refuted by Bleek in his Si/m^fitcl,,- K, -Wining, 1862, p. 248, and also in the Hindu n mi Kritlbu (at 186& N..r can \\v regard with any more favour the comment of Vitringa, who interpreted *Xtp«v» docere, from the usage of a Chaldee-Talmudie word.
2 So Neander puts it.
186 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
It would be a flagrant self-contradiction, if in one verse the Lord Jesus were to announce that He did not come to destroy the law, or, in other words, to subvert its authority, and then, in the sequel, proceeded to correct and modify it in many points of the greatest importance, — nay, to go so far as to abrogate and change it both in its principle and in its details. But He subverts the teaching to which He refers in the sequel (see ver. 43). That cannot, therefore, be the divine law which He overthrows at so many points and in a way tantamount to destroying it ; for He expressly declares that it was no part of His mission or design to destroy the law, but rather to fulfil it. It must, then, have been the traditions of the elders which He1 overthrows.
2. The usage of language is opposed to that interpretation which here adopts the rendering, to Jill out, in preference to fulfil (vrXripGjffcci). No example of such a usage can be adduced when the verb is applied to a law or to an express demand contained in the spirit of the law ; in which case it uniformly means, " to fulfil." Thus it is said, " He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law" (vofAOv ireirMjpuxs), (Rom. xiii. 8). The inflexible usage of language rules the sense in such a phrase, to the effect that Christ must be understood to say that He came not to fill out or to supplement the law by additional elements, but to fulfil it by obeying it or by being made under it.
But there are other arguments, not less strong, which may be urged from different points of view against that mode of rendering. And it may here be proper to adduce them with as much brevity as we can.
3. We add, then, as another conclusive argument, which may be adduced against the interpretation already mentioned, that such a sense as "fill out" is inadmissible as applied to the second term or object of the verb ; for Christ did not come to
1 Lechler shows this from the fact that Jesus does not say in any of the six examples which He adduces, "Moses said," but always, "ye have heard." (See Studien und Kritiken for 1854, p. 804.)
CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 187
Jill out or to expand the prophecies, but simply to fulfil the prophecies. Wherever, indeed, the word here used is applied to anything prophetical, it is always found in such a connection that it can mean only, " to fulfil ; " and hence we must by no means deviate from that meaning here.1
4. Another strong argument may be drawn from the ground ing verse which follows ; for the 18th verse must be regarded as grounding or giving a reason for the statement in the pre vious verse. Now, what sort of reason would be given for the 1 7th verse, if we were to render the connected verses thus : " I come to fill out or to supplement the law ; for verily I say unto you (CA^V yap \kyu}, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled ?" This would be illogical and inconsequent in the highest degree ; and no reverent interpreter will willingly ascribe such logic to the Son of God.2 The perpetual duration of the law mentioned in the 18th verse could not ground the 17th verse, if we were to interpret the latter by the rendering, "to fill out;" and hence that meaning must be held to be untenable.
5. We may argue to the same effect from the nature and peculiar scope of our Lord's personal ministry. He did not come in any peculiar sense to preach the law, at least as the main or prominent object of His teaching. But the rendering we impugn would imply that He came on the errand of filling out or enforcing and expanding the domain of the law, or of making the law the burden of His ministry; whereas His errand was, as every one knows, of a different kind — to usher in and to announce an economy of grace. And this very pas sage, rightly understood, will be found to preach not law, but
(See John i. 17.) But another inquiry confronts us at this point: What is the
well argues that the rendering, "to fill out," is possible only on the •oppontioil) that the vpeipriras refers to the legal or moral elements in \] phetu-il \\rit:
z See Philippi's treatise, Dcr thatlge Gehorsam Christi, 1S41, p. 30.
188 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
LAW here mentioned, and in what sense is it to be distinguished from the prophets ? Many expositors are disposed to take these two words, " the law or the prophets," in the sense of bearing reference to the ethical elements of the Old Testament, of which the Decalogue was the source and the prophets the expounders, just as when the Lord Jesus said in regard to an ethical prin ciple, "This is the law and the prophets" (Matt. vii. 12). But that is contrary to the peculiar language used, and is here wholly inadmissible ; for here the two terms are not put together in such a way as to comprehend a unity, or as merely indicat ing the spirit of the law by another word. The two terms are here put together by the disjunctive particle, OR, and therefore must each indicate distinct ideas familiar to the hearers.1 It has been alleged, indeed, that as there is no further allusion to prophecy as such in the entire Sermon on the Mount, this dis tinction between the law and the prophets is not to be admitted. But whether we have regard to the proper significance of the terms and to the disjunctive particle which separates them, or to the import of the fulfilling spoken of in these two verses, it is sufficiently proved that prophecy in the proper sense is here meant. And the design of Christ, therefore, was to inti mate that the whole Old Testament, in all its parts and ele ments, referred to Himself, and was accomplished in Himself.
As to the law, again, the Lord means the whole Jewish law. We are warranted to affirm that our Lord and His apostles were not in the habit of distinguishing, as we commonly do, between what was permanent in the law and what was transi tory, but that they accepted it as a whole; the moral law constituting the centre of it, or its core. That the allusion here is to the moral law primarily, may be argued from this, that the subsequent parts of the Sermon on the Mount directly
1 The disjunctive particle «, disjoining the law and the prophets, is utterly opposed to the notion that we can take the two terms as intimating the moral elements e. mimon. to the law and the prophets. It is true, "the law AND the prophets" are elsewhere put together in this sense (Matt. vii. 12 ; Luke xvi. 16), but they are here disjoined as distinct ideas.
CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 189
mid mainly refer to it. But we must add that the allusion is also to the types or to the law of sacrifice, and specially to the sin-offering; for it might well have been asked, if there had been no direct fulfilment of the sacrificial types, what had become of all the references in the law to the propitiatory sacrifices generally, and to all the typical system ? If Christ had not fulfilled them and offered the reality, they would have been an unfulfilled prophecy or pledge. The language of sacri fice, in fact, gave a sort of prophecy or pledge of a coming reality. The meaning of the passage, then, is this : The Lord Jesus came to fulfil the law and the prophets by an appropriate deed. It was pledge and type before, but became reality in Christ's obedience.
Nor must we omit to notice the significance of the phrase, " I am come to fulfil." It must be regarded as setting forth the end of Christ's coming into the world, the design and purpose of the incarnation. This fulfilling of the law was for man an absolutely necessary, though an undischarged duty. To Christ it was a free act. The perfect harmony of the human will with the law of God, or the constant exercise of holy love in the sphere of human obedience, was the great goal which was set before the race of mankind. And to keep this thought alive in the human consciousness, we find an express appointment to the effect, that the law which had grown dim and scarcely legible in the human heart should be afresh republished by the hand of Moses. Hence it is that the Lord of Life here announces that, in His capacity of Mediator, the special end for which He came was to fulfil the law and the prophets. He thus points out the grand design or scope of His whole work, and couches the description in a few simple words, intimating that He stands in the midst of a sinful world as the living law or the embodied law, which might be re garded, so to speak, as walk ing. before men in the one unique and sinless life that had appeared in the world's history. The law of God has thus, in the person of the incarnate Son, been
190 SAYINGS OF JESUS OX THE ATONEMENT.
once fulfilled upon the earth ; and this is the one great event which has had a far more important bearing on human destinies than any other that ever occurred, — a fact which, though accom plished in a remote corner of the world, was for all time. All previous ages had looked forward to it, as all after ages lean on it. This FULFILMENT OF THE LAW is the second fact in human history, as SIN was the first, and it is the corrective as well as the counterpart of the dire catastrophe which sin brought in. It underlies the world's renovation ; it is its second creation.
We may here give a sketch or outline of the sequel of this context before exhibiting the import • of the passage in a doctrinal point of view. Our Lord proceeds, then, to declare fully (ver. 18), that the law is immutable, and that it must needs be fulfilled ; which was only done, however, by His own obedience, as He indicated in the previous verse (ver. 17). He then subjoins the statement (ver. 19), that whosoever shall break one of these least commandments shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, — language which implies the perpetual and inflexible obligation of the law during the whole course of the kingdom of heaven. There are two senses or interpretations in which this verse has been taken by expositors. It may either be supposed to mean that one is called the least because he is not deemed worthy to have any part at all or any real inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God ; or it may mean that this -person shall be contemned, or held in such low repute and estimation by the fellow-citizens in the kingdom as to be esteemed and called the least. To this latter comment, which explains it of the New Testament Church, I rather incline. And if we accept this as the correct interpre tation, then tliis just shows that the teachers and members of the Church or kingdom of heaven shall all imbibe and shall perpetually hold this deep conviction of the immutable nature of the law.
But the next verse, introduced by a grounding particle (yap), makes an important addition (ver. 20); and the inquiry
CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 191
\B, What does it ground? It may either ground a tacit thought such as this : " and do not think that a pharisaic externalism is any fulfilling of the law ; FOR I say unto you." Or He may append another reason why He came to fulfil the law, — a reason taken from the nature of the kingdom into which none could enter without a perfect righteousness. Either of these modes of explaining the grounding particle FOR (yap) may be adopted. One thing is clear, our Lord argues from the nature and de mands of His kingdom, that none can enter it without a RIGHTEOUSNESS (StzaiOffuvrj), which shall at once accord with the claims of the law, and be much more abundant than the righteousness of the Pharisees. To what does He refer in the sequel? That our Lord does not refer to the pure ideal of righteousness, or to the perfect transcript of the divine holiness exhibited and taught by the Decalogue itself, but to the low, traditional exposition of the law which was usually given by the Pharisees, as delivered to them by the elders, may be established by many arguments. We shall limit ourselves to the argument that may be derived from the language used. The Lord does not say in any of the six examples which He quotes and amends, " Moses said," but, " ye have heard that it was said by them of old time."
It must be further noticed that our Lord's great aim in this portion of the Sermon on the Mount is not so much to teach us Christian ethics, or to adduce a number 6f practical duties, to be followed out under the force of Christian motives, such as we find enumerated at the end of the apostolic Epistles, as to awaken the consciousness of these somewhat legal hearers to whom He addressed Himself. For while the former use has been li'gitimali-ly made of the Sermon on the Mount by the Church of ;ill times, our Lord's view-point and scope are somewhat dill. -rent. Itcannot be said that He takes so much for granted; His Church was not yet founded. Rather, He expounds the law on this occasion, as He does in several other passages, in order to convince and awaken men to feel their need of a per-
192 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
feet righteousness. (Comp. Luke x. 25; Matt. xix. 17.) It was the ignorance of the law that was the true parent or source of Pharisaism, for they claimed to fulfil it in the outward letter ; and our Lord in this sermon aims to awaken conscience, by enforcing its true import and requirements.
It will be found, accordingly, that the Sermon on the Mount perpetually returns to one main thought, which is again and again applied with various modifications and peculiar turns. It aims to awaken in men a sense of need, and to shut them up to the righteousness which is of God.1 This object could be attained only by the spiritual application of the moral law, or by en forcing its inviolable import and the indispensable strictness of its demands. This alone convinces men that they need a righteousness which emanates from a divine person, and which much exceeds that of the Pharisees; and hence, to awaken this sense of need, we find that the Sermon on the Mount returns again and again to this one central thought in many forms and applications which are variously modified. (Comp. Matt. v. 28, v. 44.)
According to this design, which is the key to the whole discourse, we may affirm that the 20th verse is to be regarded as materially or substantially the sum of all that follows. It is the great principle or ultimate goal to which this entire exhibition of the divine law is to be run up. Here, then, the question arises, What is this righteousness ($ix,uK)Gvvq) which our Lord declares must needs be more abundant than that of the Pharisees ? That the allusion is not to inherent righteous ness, but to justifying righteousness, that is, to the righteous ness which meets the awakened sense of need, which it is the object of the whole discourse to produce, may be proved by various arguments. Thus, (1) the whole phrase plainly refers
1 The only writer known to mo who even hints :it this view of the Sermon on the Mount is Harnaek, in his separate treatise on this text, entitled Jeaus der Christ oder der Erf tiller <lcs Gesetzes und tl< r / V«v</»//V. 1860. But the longer I i-efleet on the scope of this discourse of Christ, the more certain does this view become.
CHRIST FtJLFILLING THE LAW. 193
to ver. 1 7, and has a very close connection with the statement that Christ came to fulfil the law : (2) it is the righteousness which is spoken of as the necessary condition or ground, on the footing of which a man is to enter the kingdom of heaven ; and therefore it is not the evangelical righteousness which is the fruit of our acceptance ; — it is rather the righteousness which is the ground of our acceptance, or the righteousness which is of God by faith : (3) it is that which far exceeds the pharisaic right eousness, and which is much more abundant in dignity, worth, and excellence : (4) it is the same righteousness after which the awakened hunger and thirst ; and therefore it is the surety- righteousness, rather than that which is personal and inward. And if it is alleged, as an argument against this interpretation of the word, that the Lord's purpose in the Sermon on the Mount was not to treat precisely of the article of justification, or to show in what the justifying righteousness peculiarly consists, the answer is obvious.1 Our Lord's words expressly treat of a righteousness which is necessary and indispensable as the ground or condition on which men are to enter this kingdom ; and the entire discourse, as we have already seen, has, for its object, to produce a sense of need.
Having elucidated the words and scope of this memorable passage in the Sermon on the Mount, it remains that we put together the doctrinal import of it in relation to the subject of the atonement.
1. In this fulfilment of the law and of the prophets, the Lord Jesus must be considered as acting in the capacity of a surety or substitute; and the obedience in both lights was, beyond doubt, vicarious. Hence His active obedience is for u<, and reckoned to our account, not otherwise than if we had ful filled it. The entire obedience of Christ was a compliance
1 Thi> interpretation of tixaieffvi*, for which we contend, was maintained \>y the divines iu-:irthr RfclBHMtkm age,— 4Qc]) as ( 'alovins, On.'iistt'il, IVrkins in his Kxpositifin of the Serinuii on tin- Mount, Van Til, and others. But it came too soon to give place unduly to the subjective interpretation, which has long become general
N
194 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
with the will of God as expressed in the law. And His con scious aim in His mission, as He here expresses it, was to fulfil the law. If, according to the federal agreement, the law was the special sphere of Christ's earthly work, it is obvious, that without a clear conception of the law, not only in the extent of its claims, but also in the extent of the curse which it entails, we cannot adequately know His obedience in our room. Hence we must look at the usual threefold division of human duty, in relation to God, to ourselves, and to our fellow- men, if we wTould adequately apprehend the extent and breadth of this obedience.
With regard to the duties towards God, the whole life of Christ shows that He was animated by supreme love to God (John xiv. 31) ; that a desire to glorify God was His grand aim in all things (John xvii. 4) ; and that, from love to His Father, He followed with an undeviating purpose the will of God in all things (John xv. 10). He gives expression to this at the threshold of the greatest trial : " But that the world may know that I love the Father ; and as the Father gave Me command ment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence" (John xiv. 31). The trust which He reposed in the Father, the prayers, and the thanksgivings, recorded in His history, all suffice to show this.
The second class of duties are those which we owe to our selves. And these, too, Jesus fulfilled in a perfect purity of conduct, in a self-denial which distinguished Him as the meek and lowly One (Matt. xi. 29), and in that marked feature of His character by which He pleased not Himself (Rom. xv. 3).
As to the third class of duties, again, those toward our neighbour, and which are summed up in the love which Paul designates the fulfilling of the law, the Lord Jesus speaks of it when He says, " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John xv. 13). This He did ; and He went about during all His previous life doing good (Acts x. 38). It was in the exercise of this love that He made intercession for His own (John xvii. 9), and prayed for
CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 195
His enemies (Luke xxiii. 34). And among these duties must be comprehended that obedience to His parents to which there is an early allusion (Luke ii. 51), and which shone out so brightly on the cross, just before the earthly relation toward His mother was dissolved for ever (John xix. 26).
Thus at every step we can trace the most prompt and un- deviating fulfilment of the divine law. It was no common obedience, however, which was necessary to constitute the ground of our acceptance, but one which must needs pass through unparalleled difficulties and sorrows, which we can but faintly conceive of, and which must possess a value, on account of the dignity of His person, such as is notliing short of infinite. The grand commandment laid on Him, and the culmination of His whole obedience, was, to die ; and hence it was in the spontaneous oblation of His life that the greatness of the obedience was peculiarly displayed.
2. It is one undivided obedience; for Scripture knows of only pne. service or work in which all the elements of sub mission or obedience meet. It was not a double obedience. The entire life of Jesus must be apprehended as one connected deed. But the obligation was twofold, including the perfect obedience of His life, as well as the suffering of death, or the obedience unto death. The right formula, then, is not " to obey or suffer;" for the claim to a service of love with all the heart still unalterably devolves upon man as man, just as it did in man's primeval state. Not only so : the person who expiates sin must of necessity accept the curse with the utmost alacrity and adoring love, and with a full sense that the infliction of it is to the glory of God. These two elements enter into the Lord's obedience, and neither could be omitted. Hence only a pevsun tree from all moral defilement, and therefore not needing to satisfy for personal defects, was in a position to underun the iiK'oneeival-le suffering due to sin. What He did concurred with what He suil'eml, to satisfy the divine law, and to place man in the position which he occupied before the fall,
196 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
or, rather, in a higher relation, because in a premial state, and in a state of confirmation.
Had the Church been left to herself without the attacks of error, the two elements of Christ's obedience probably would not have been so much sundered as they have often unduly been. We may distinguish, but not divide, the parts of that obedience which is one.1 But the obedience of Christ before His final sufferings, and during them, or, as it has been called, the active and passive obedience, may be vindicated, as two distinct but connected elements, in His propitiatory work. The active obedience belongs to the atonement, and is an essential part of the satisfaction to divine justice, in the wide and proper acceptation of the word justice. This is a question that has been canvassed long and earnestly ; and we the rather refer to it in connection with this passage, because the tendency to deny the element of the active obedience is so strong in modern theology. The question is not, whether the holiness and active obedience of Christ were necessary to sanctify His sufferings, which no one will call in question, but whether they were available for this alone. Nor is this the question, whether Christ's passive obedience is the ground of our salvation, but whether the one can be regarded as valid or efficacious with out the other. It is not, whether Christ's holy obedience was necessary to His person as a due prerequisite to that atonement which He offered, but, whether Christ, in His entire obedience as well as in His expiatory work, won an unchallengeable title to life for such as are willing to be dependent on Him, and who were unable personally to meet the law's demand: "This do, and thoti shalt live." The consequences of denying the active obedience of Christ are these : Either God must be supposed to recede from His rights, which would just be tantamount to
1 The theory of Karge among the Lutherans, anil of Pisentor among the Reformed, who both limited the atonement to the sufferings of Christ, and set aside the idea that Christ's active obedience was vicarious, has no biblical war rant ; and it is based on a false assumption, as we shall notice at the end of this section.
CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 197
saying that He denied Himself, or man must be held to pro cure a title to heaven by some services of his own, which are imperfect in their nature. Either supposition is inconsistent with the gospel. If, however, we dismiss all scholastic terms, the matter may be put in the following biblical way, to which no exception can be taken : " The law must be kept, and sin must be punished ; and divine wisdom and grace provided a man, that is, a God-man, who was in a position to accomplish both, and did so."
3. Christ's people are thus, through faith in Him, considered as if they had always fulfilled the divine law. This is the SECOND fruit of Christ's satisfaction, as sin-bearing is the FIRST. Thus, according to this essential element of divine truth, the Lord Jesus not only bore sin, but fulfilled all the claims of the divine law, and so put His people in possession of a perfect and immaculate righteousness, and secured for them its due reward. For as God could not have ceased to demand punish ment at the hand of sinners, from the very perfection of His nature, so He cannot but confer a reward from the same recti tude of His nature, when His law has been fulfilled for them in so complete a way, and by a person so excellent.
But to all these biblical views of divine truth not a few objections have been taken, and some of them of a nature that seem, at first sight, plausible and staggering.
a. Thus, it is asked, Was not Christ, as man, bound, in com mon with every rational creature, to render obedience to God on His own account ? * The answer to this is not difficult. A right view of Christ's humiliation will suffice to show that He did not owe obedience on His own account, and that He was not under the law by any necessity of nature. He owed obedience, not precisely because He took humanity, but because 1 1 c willed to be made under the law for us. The law was not
1 This was Piscator's and Karge's argument against the vicariousness of Christ's active obedience. And too many have conceded this first principle when it is but a fallacy.
198 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
given for the human nature in union with a divine person, except as He condescended to be abased, and was made under it by voluntary susception, as a means to an end. Christ became man for no personal object of His own, but only to be a Mediator for others, and in that capacity to fulfil the law. But for this, He would not have come into the world, or have become man. Hence the obedience which He voluntarily dis charged was only for His people, not for Himself ; and Scrip ture never deduces His active obedience from any natural or inevitable obligation, but always regards it as the end and scope of His mission. Nor can we regard the Lord Jesus as a mere man. He was still the Son of God, neither bound to assume humanity, nor to submit to the laws of humanity, nor to encounter any of those numerous temptations by which His obedience was to be exercised. And He did all this sponta neously and vicariously in a humanity which He had assumed, not to be a separate person, but merely as a rational and in telligent instrument or organ, by means of which that great work of vicarious obedience could be accomplished.
5. But it is asked again, How can one be righteous, because another was obedient ? The answer is obvious. The entire constitution of our race, as contradistinguished from that of other orders of being, was of this nature, that it stood or fell in a representative ; and Christ is the second man. Men may quarrel with this arrangement, and destroy themselves by proud and petulant rebellion. But it will stand, notwithstanding. Believers are treated in Christ as perfectly righteous, and as if they had done all that He did. The race is saved on the same principle on which it was placed at first; and we who believe are the fulfillers of the law in the second man, the Lord from heaven.
CHRIST'S DEATH THE TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS. 199
SEC. XXV. — SAYINGS WHICH REPRESENT THE DEATH OF JESUS AS HIS GREAT ACT OF OBEDIENCE, AND AS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF HIS PEOPLE.
As we noticed in the former section the testimony of Jesus, that He came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil them, in order to bring in the true righteousness, it is proper to consider, next in order, some of those sayings which set forth the righteousness of God from a somewhat different point of view. There are sayings which connect it with the death of Jesus as His great act of obedience. One testimony, as we have seen, refers it to His fulfilling of the law, while another refers the same benefit to His death. These two modes of representation, however, are by no means inconsistent with each other ; nay, the one presupposes and involves the other when ever allusion is made to either. And it will be necessary to bring together two classes of sayings, with a view to establish these two distinct but mutually connected truths, — that the death of Jesus was the climax of His obedience, and that it was also the true righteousness of His people.
1. "With regard to the first point, that the death of Jesus constituted His great act of obedience, it must be borne in mind, that while we trace the element of suffering in the death of the Lord, we are by no means to lose sight of the element of obedience. Willing subjection underlay the whole of His suffering, and that, too, of the most active character. Indeed, suHt-ring in itself, and considered merely as pain, is no obedience ; for a man may suffer, and not be obedient. But when he encounters suffering with his full consent, and evinces, during the course of it, a stedfast and inflexible tenacity of purpose, that cannot be turned aside from the straight path of obedience, what is that active fulfilment of duty or observance of the divine will, but patience ? And no virtue is of a more active character than patience ; while none in the catalogue is more
200 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
worthy to be called the queen of the virtues.1 We may affirm, respecting obedience generally, that it must needs be tested by some special or positive injunction, whether that may be pre sented in the form of restraint, or in the form of endurance ; the former being the test imposed on the first man, the latter being the test to which the second Adam was subjected. Thus it appears that even sinless nature, without a taint of defilement or imperfection, can have its obedience tested only in some such way ; and, accordingly, the Son learned obedience by the things He suffered (Heb. v. 8). When the Lord Jesus was required to display the reality and extent of His obedience by His act of self-oblation, and to go through life with this formed and definite resolve in His mind, we just see pure humanity, with the divine image inscribed upon it, and with the law in His heart (Ps. xl. 8), summoned to its highest act of obedience. The great commandment laid upon Him was, to die, just as Adam's special commandment was, to abstain from the forbidden fruit.
In speaking of Christ's great act of obedience, we shall not turn aside to the numerous references found in the sayings of Jesus, to the work of teaching also imposed upon Him by the Father (John xii. 49). We here allude only to His redemption work, and to that, too, merely as it is presented to us under the guise and designation of obedience.
The first saying which we shall adduce in this connection is the announcement just before He went out to Gethsemane : " Hereafter I will not talk much with you : for Hie prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me. But that the wwld may know that I love the Fatlier, and [that] as tJie Father gave Me com mandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence" (John xiv. 30, 31). These words, spoken on the threshold of His arrest, intimate His promptitude and readiness to undergo what lay before
1 See some valuable remarks by Ernesti in his refutation of Tbllner's treatise, which was directed against the active obedience of Christ (Ernesti, Neue Theo- loyisclie Bittiothek, ix. Band, p. 920).
CHRIST'S DEATH THE TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS. 201
Him, or His firm and inflexible resolve to give Himself an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour (Eph. v. 2). He first announces that the prince of this world was approaching and on the point of assailing Him with all the violence which united ingenuity and malice could either invent or inflict, through the medium of human power. But He adds, " He hath nothing in Me;" which may mean that Satan would find nothing which could be called his own,1 — nothing which could be charged against Him, or that could give the adversary any legitimate power over Him; and He intimates that, far from desiring to withdraw from the suffering that awaited Him, He was on the alert to meet and to undergo it. The words, " But that the world may know that I love the Father, and that I do as the Father gave Me commandment," must imply some such tacit thought as the following: "therefore, I will not withdraw." This, or some equivalent supplementary idea, is required for the sense. Jesus intimates, that He was about to surrender Himself to the impending sufferings with His full consent ; and He adds that He did so, in order that mankind might know that He both loved the Father, and unreservedly complied with His commandment.
A second testimony to the same effect is found in the declaration, that the Father loved Him because He spontaneously laid down His life for the sheep at God's command: "This commandment have I received of my Father" (John x. 18). He thus evinced the highest act of obedience, when at the divine' command He voluntarily laid down His life. Having fulfilled the whole law to the utmost measure, He closed His career by
1 We nowhere else find this mode of speech either in the Old or New Testa ment, though we find what some think similar and equivalent phrases, — such as r#«" TI x*™ rnk (Matt. v. 23 ; Apoc. iv. 14-20), and 1Xw r> *fit ™* (Acts xxiv. 19, xxv. 19 ; 1 Cor. vi. 1). But here it is, i» I/M) •&* 7#u «i«». There may, as Calvin thinks, be an allusion not only to Christ's purity, but also to His divine pi'Wi-r. Wf hay ^ivni, in pivfeivuci', the happy comment of Olshausni, who says that Jesus means, " Er besltzt in uiciuem iimuru nichts, cr kauii uichts sein iiennen."
202 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
a priestly act of self-oblation, which was the culmination of His work; for it is said that He was obedient unto death (Phil, ii. 8). Thus the final surrender of His life must be emphatically called the highest act of obedience. This thought, which shines through our Lord's words in many of His sayings, receives its fullest illustration in the memorable antithesis drawn between the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ in the Epistle to the Eomans (Rom. v. 19). While we cannot allow that the obedience of Christ as there described is limited to a single act, as is commonly affirmed by those who object to the doctrine, that the whole sinless life of Jesus was vicarious and redounding to our account, it is very evident that the death of Jesus is always represented by Himself and His apostles as the great deed in which the whole lines of His obedience met, and that by which His obedience was tested. This is the truth upon the point.
2. The second topic to which we must advert is, that the Lord Jesus represents His death as the true righteousness of His people in the following testimony: "And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment : of sin, because [better, that, or to the effect that, in respect that1 ] they believe not on Me; of righteousness, because [better, that] / go to my Father, and ye see Me no more" (John xvi. 8-10). The interpretation of the phrase, " I go to my Father," must be, first of all, ascertained. And of all the comments that have been given, by far the simplest and most natural is that which explains it of His sufferings and death as the pathway by which He returned to the Father.2 That this is a mode of
1 The «<n is best interpreted here as the an indicative ; that is, as showing wherein the sin and righteousness and judgment consist. (So Liicke, Meyer, Hengstenberg. )
2 Luther's comment, as given by Gerhard on this passage, is, " Demonstrabit per meum abitum, hoc est per meam passionem, mortem, resurrectionem, etc. , veram fidelibus restitutam esse justitiam." Gerhard adds, "Inter coeteras causaa Christus passionem et mortem suam ideo vocat abitum ad Patrem, ut significet, se passione et morte sua Deum reconciliasse " (Harmonia Evangelis- tarum, pars tertia, p. 330).
TRUE SANCTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S DEATH. 203
speech by no means infrequent in the Gospels, is proved by many tilings in our Lord's own style of address, and not least by the fact, that when Moses and Elias conversed with Jesus upon the Mount, they are said to have talked with Him about His departure or exodus, which just means the death by which He departed to the Father. This language, so understood, just proves that the true righteousness of which the Comforter con vinces men, and which plainly means the divinely-provided righteousness of God by which our persons are accepted, con sists in the sufferings and death of Christ.
Thus, that great act of obedience constitutes the atonement or righteousness of Christians. The great reason why the Lord Jesus assumed our humanity, and offered it by an act of self- oblation, was just to bring in this everlasting righteousness; or, to put it in a personal form, more adapted to the phraseology of the last-mentioned saying, the righteousness of Christians is the Son of God dying on the cross and going to the Father. Christ Himself is our righteousness or propitiation, which avails with God for the complete acceptance of our persons. Thus, the righteousness of God, viewed in this personal aspect, just coincides with the position that the dying or crucified Christ is the righteousness of His people, or made of God unto us righteousness ; and that not by a make-believe, but because what He did, His people are considered to have done in Him.
SEC. XXVI. — CHRIST OFFERING HIMSELF, THAT HIS FOLLOWERS MIGHT BE SANCTIFIED IN TRUTH.
" And for their sakcs I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth [better, sanctified in truth, or, truly sanctified.] " (John xvii. 19.)
This saying brings out another effect of the atonement, which may be said to be supplementary to the former. This effect be longs to the sphere of worship, or to that peculiar element which
204 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
may be called the priestly character of Christians. It presup poses pardon and acceptance ; taking up the thought at the point where the reconciled come before God in the free access of true worship. It is thus, in a certain sense, an advance upon the judicial or forensic idea ; presupposing the latter, and also essen tially comprehending it. Access to Israel's holy God, or wor ship from a people made nigh through blood, is the great idea with which the whole Old Testament is replete. And as the entire Old Testament was formed to bring a people before God in an act of worship, and as ever-recurring causes of separation necessitated sacrifice, and were ever removed in order to make way afresh for typical access, we naturally expect to find in our Lord's utterances some allusion to the true worship, with the true Priest and the true sacrifice.
The occasion of this saying was fitly furnished by our Lord's own prayer or act of worship. Nowhere could we expect to find this subject more naturally introduced or more fitly ex pressed, than when we find Him referring in this last prayer to His followers left behind Him in the world, and interceding for them, that they might be kept apart from the evil in the world. He is thus led, in the first place, to speak of the atonement as that which actually set them apart, or dedicated them as a holy people. The section begins with the appeal, " Holy Father " fver. 11) : the word " sanctify " occurs once and again; but the whole privilege of this priestly separation to God is here based upon Christ's act of self-oblation. We must first investigate the meaning of the phrase, " I sanctify myself for them, or for their sakes," and then consider their sanctification.
1. The word SANCTIFY, which is properly an Old Testament expression, denotes, in its common acceptation, to set apart, or to dedicate, from a common to a sacred or religious use. Hence arose other significations, such as, " to purify." But the most common signification arising out of that primary idea was, " to offer sacrifice," from the frequent necessity of atonement in the ancient worship. That is the proper signification of the ex-
TRUE SANCTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S DEATH. 205
pression here ; and so the Greek exegetes correctly interpret it.1 It is an expression for Christ's act of self-oblation, He being at once the priest and the sacrifice. Jesus could say with truth of the present activity in which He was engaged, " I sanctify myself," inasmuch as He was then in the act of executing the work devolved upon Him by the Father ; and He puts it in the present tense, because He was still occupied with it, and because His obedience was to last till it was consummated by death.
There are other interpretations of a different import, of which we may say in general, that they cannot stand examina tion. Thus some will have it, that our Lord had merely in His eye His consecration to be a teacher ;8 which is obviously quite untenable, on two grounds. It would represent Him as saying that He came self-commissioned, whereas He always describes Himself as sent ; arid the present tense is thus altogether lost sight of. Nor can the language refer, as others think, to such a sanctification of Himself as should aim at forming men to be apostles and teachers.3 The great objection to both such com ments on the ground of language is, that at the present stage, and within a few hours of His death, that teaching work lay behind Him ; and the Lord refers to it in the context only as to a past thing (vers. 1 1, 14, 18, 21, 23). But this expression in the present tense, while it cannot be referred to the work of teach ing or of moulding teachers, with which He had been occupied from the first, may be referred to that sacrifice of Himself which had just been figured forth by the emblems of the Supper, and which was now filling His mind as near at hand, — the climax of His obedience, the priestly self-oblation. And, naturally, it is spoken of as a present thing.
The expression, "I sanctify myself for them," is thus a
1 Thus Chrysostom, in his commentary on the passage, puts the question, ri irriv, «y/a£» Ifteturo* -, and answers the question as follows : rptrftf* tot tvrla*. - So Kuiiiwl. 3 So Tittnian on the passage, and also Nb'sselt.
206 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
priestly word, — the same word that many times occurs in the Old Testament ritual.1 It is to be understood of the sanctifica- tion which the Lord executed in Himself, when He offered to God the sacrifice of Himself as a sin-offering. The language is by no means rare in the Old Testament. Thus we read of sanctifying the paschal lamb (2 Chron. xxx. 17). And the sanctifying of the first-born of beasts is alternated with another similar expression, that of offering them (Deut. xv. 19-21). The phrase does not intimate that our Lord sanctified Himself for any new work of practical activity in the world ; for that was ended. Rather it means that He sanctified Himself to be made sin, or, in other words, to make an exchange of places with us, and to offer Himself, by an act of self-oblation, as the great sin-offering.
Here we distinctly perceive the two sides or aspects of truth which we developed at large in former sections, — sin-bearing and sinless action ; but not the one without the other, or iso lated from the other. The one could not avail without the other in this great transaction. They constitute, when taken together, the two essential elements of the atonement, and are inseparably conjoined in the production of one result. Not that we are to represent these two elements as separately meri torious ; for they are, from the very nature of the problem, con current. Hence, as sinless nature must, from the liabilities of those in whose room Christ acted as a surety, be subjected to a test, or tried, He learned obedience by the things He suffered (Heb. v. 8), — the meaning of which remarkable statement is, that His obedience increased ; in other words, that it was not fully expanded at the first, but became more energetic and vigorous as the trial advanced. Not that His life wanted the character of obedience at any moment, but it rose with the occasion, till it triumphed over every obstruction and hindrance, as we can distinctly trace in the garden. And all this is in full con-
1 See J. Alting, Opera Tkeol. iv. p. 98, who says that it is segregare . . . ut foret hostia pro pcccato.
TRUE SANCTIFICATIOX BY CHRIST'S DEATH. 207
sistency with His moral perfection, and only proves that His obedience was ever complete, but capable of increase with the trials to which it was subjected.
Thus the import of the saying on which we are commenting is, that the Lord Jesus sanctified Himself to be made sin, and to exchange places with us as the great sin-offering. And we may regard Him, accordingly, as here repeating, in His own words, and in language still more emphatically sacerdotal, what by the mouth of David He had long before announced : " Lo, I come to do Thy will, 0 my God " (Ps. xl. 8). The whole tenor of this language, together with the issue to which it leads, is just another mode of announcing that He took our place, that we might be set apart to occupy His place, and to stand in His relation before God.
The next question is, What is intimated by the preposition here rendered, for their sakes (y/rep UVTUV) ? It means, for the good of, for the benefit of. Though the preposition, in point of strict philology, does not exactly mean, in such a construction, in room of, it cannot be denied, that in several passages it not only may but must be accepted, in connection with several expressions employed in reference to the atonement, as denoting instead of. That latter thought, indeed, lies not so much in the preposition itself, as in the whole idea of substitution which is interwoven with the thought in such passages. The phrase, "to do something for one," may be employed to mean, for anotJier's advantage, or, for anotJier's good (Eph. iii. 1). But it cannot be denied by any one acquainted with the phraseology of Scripture, that it never was said of any mere man that he suffered or died for others in the sense, and to the extent, in which Christ is said to suffer and die for us.
1 1 mco, when the apostle, in one definite passage of much significance, takes occasion to reason on (he sul.ject of one dying lor another, and concedes what could by possibility occur in common life, he leaves us in no doubt as to the sense in which he would have the preposition to be understood (Horn. v. 7).
208 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
The idea of spontaneous self-oblation for the sake of others, and, from the nature of the case, in the room of others, is, according to his explanation, plainly contained in that expression ;x and the whole phraseology implies that Christ offered Himself, of His own proper motion, not constrained by any outward influence, and not overborne by enemies. Moreover, when the innocent suffers for the guilty, it is plainly with the intention of de livering the guilty from the penalty which impended over him as his due. Thus substitution is involved. The preposition FOR, or, FOR THE SAKE OF, carries with it, therefore, the following significance : that when the one representative of the children of God died for all, all died in Him, and were all judged to have suffered in Him (2 Cor. v. 15). He did this once for all, and it had everlasting efficacy.
2. But we now notice the effect of this self-oblation, or the design and end which the Lord had in view in offering it : " that they also might be sanctified in truth." We decidedly prefer this rendering, because the definite article is awanting in the original.8 The phrase may be regarded as equivalent to TRULY, or, IN TRUTH ; and so we find it in other passages (1 John iii. 18; Phil. i. 18; John iv. 24). They for whom Christ sanctified Himself, are thus set apart as the true worshippers of God in the highest sense.
With respect to the word SANCTIFY as applied to the dis ciples of Christ, it is necessary to keep before our minds a distinction which is not always observed, and which, in popular theological language, is too much disregarded. There is a sancti- fication of the Spirit by which we are inwardly made holy ; and
1 Some philologists put this in a form to which no exception can be taken. While they abide by the conclusion, that v*ip means for the benefit of, they iid.init that, from the nature of tlir trance! ion, the u*\f implies the a.tr\. "\Vin- ilisc •liinann, in his Commentary on Galatians, 1843, p. 15, says happily : "Man hat aich bemiiht in dem Gebraurh dirsn- PriipoMtionen [viz. trip and rt/ii] den Bospift' eines stillvertrett-ndm Todrs, ohne zu bedeuken dass dieser in der Sachc uu'l nicht bloss in dm "\Vortm liegt."
2 It aXwVa. The article, found only in some single iis.s. and in a Greek father, has no °laim to be inserted in the text.
TRUE SANCTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S DEATH. 209
there is, as contradistinguished from the former, the separation or sanctification of the person to God by Christ. It is in the latter sense that the word " sanctify" occurs here ; and this unquestionably lays the foundation for the other, which is more subjective, and follows in the order of nature after it. The question to be clearly settled in connection with this pas sage is, Whether are we to regard the sanctification here men tioned as the moral and spiritual renovation effected in us by the Spirit, and therefore the same with what is elsewhere called "the sanctification of the Spirit" (2 Thess. ii. 13), or, to interpret it as a direct fruit of the atonement ? Is it objective or subjective ? Is it a part of the Spirit's work, or an imme diate fruit of Christ's sacrifice? It must be specially observed, that in this clause the Lord does not allude to the sanctification of Christians in the moral sense, or in the sense of inward reno vation, but according to the acceptation of the word in the old Mosaic worship, and according to its import in the Epistle to the Hebrews1 (Heb. xiii. 12, ix. 13). It would be a wide departure, indeed, from the true meaning of our Lord's words, if we should interpret this clause of the inward renewing by the Spirit. The word SANCTIFY, as it occurs in the Old Testa ment ritual, has primary reference to those appointed rites used for consecrating the whole people, or any individual, to belong to the theocracy in due form. This was a standing won and retained chiefly by sacrifice. And the apostle to the Hebrews explains that, in like manner, the sanctification of Christians, or the dedication of them to belong to the true people of God, and to share in their services and worship, was effected by the sacrifice of Christ. To apprehend the precise meaning of the
1 The words of the acute J. Alting, Opera Theol, 1686, vol. iv. p. 98, are very pivi-i<r iintl arciuatr : " Ijisr MUI ista sanrtitiratione segregates fuit, et [ut?] iji>i quoque segregantur sed diversimode : ipse segregates est ut esset reatus et ]H ( i atuin : ipsiautem ne essent reatus etpeccatum." (Compare Storr, Dissertatio ,.,•<</< tii-it. ui Lihntrum N. T. Historicorum, alupiot loca, pars altera, p. 57 ; Lang, Zusatze zu Teller's Worterbuch d. n. Testaments, art. Heiligen.) Schleusner, Lex.
210 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
word " sanctify," it will be necessary to trace its usage in the ancient ritual of Israel.
The two words frequently occurring in the old worship, sanctify and purify, are so closely allied in sense, that some regard them as synonymous. But a slight shade of distinction between the two may be discerned as follows. It is assumed that ever-recurring defilements, of a ceremonial kind, called for sacrifices of expiation ; and the word " purify" referred to those rites and sacrifices which removed the stains which excluded the worshipper from the privilege of approach to the sanctuary of God, and from fellowship with His people. The defilement which he contracted excluded him from access. But when this same Israelite was purified by sacrifice, he was readmitted to the full participation of the privilege. He was then sancti fied, or holy. Thus the latter is the consequence of the former. We may affirm, then, that the two words, " purify " and " sanctify," in this reference to the old worship, are very closely allied ; so much so, that the one involves the other. This will throw light upon the use of these two expressions in the New Testament (Eph. v. 25, 26 ;x Heb. ii. 11 ; Tit. ii. 14). All these passages represent a man defiled by sin and excluded from God, but readmitted to access and fellowship, and so pronounced holy, as soon as the blood of sacrifice is applied to him. That is the meaning of the word " sanctify" in this verse.
a. Hence, when we trace the connection of sanctification
as here used with the atonement, it is a causal connection. It
is placed in direct and 'immediate relation to the atonement.
The immediate sequel to a state of personal reconciliation is
^the sanctification here referred to, or the access to be a people
1 The two words, ayia^M and xafapi^nn, both referring to the idea of a sacrifice,
and so nearly equipollent that th<' one involves tin' other, are put together in the phrase : vrxptiuxtt — '/»« avrtiv ccyiairri xa.8a.(i<ra.s (Eph. V. 2(i). Moms would put
into a pamithcMs the clause beginning with xatafiffo.;. But, at all events, the participial force of xa.(a.fltra.( in the aorist must be maintained ; and this will sufficiently indicate the relation, between the two verbs.
TRUE SANCTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S DEATH. 211
7;rur to God, or to be a theocratic people. Christ is thus said to sanctify us, as He makes' His people free from defilement and from the estrangement flowing from defilement, and restores us to the divine friendship ; and His people are said to be " sanctified in truth," because reality is contrasted with shadows, and the permanent with the transitory. They are set apart to God, and made a peculiar people, or a kingdom of priests, by the remission of sins.
6. Under this head it is necessary to refer a little more to the teaching of the Epistles ; for the meaning of this significant phrase is not exhausted, till we add from the Epistles, that they who are thus " sanctified in truth " by the atoning death of Christ are further regarded as conscioiisly near to God. They are described as worshippers once purged, and having no more conscience of sin (Heb. x. 2) ; and it is the same standing which Paul delineates in the Epistle to the Ephesians, when he shows that they who are saved by grace through faith are now made nigh : " But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ" (Eph. ii. 13). This is real, not typical nearness. The old Mosaic worship sanctified only to the purifying of the flesh (Heb. ix. 13) ; whereas they who have the application of Christ's atoning blood, have their consciences purged from dead works (ver. 14). They are purified, in other words, from an accusing conscience or an evil conscience, in order to be filled with the peace of God, and so brought into a state of conscious nearness to God by the sacrifice of Christ ; or, to quote another form of de- scribing it: "By one offering He hath perfected for ever them thut are sanctified" (Heb. x: 14). Thus, what was typically done in the- old Mosaic worship, is now done in truth by the self-sacrifice of Christ.
c. But, furthermore, it is a nearness to serve, or to act as priests; ami tla-y who so stand before God are purged in conscience to serve the living God (Heb. ix. 14). They are sanctified, or dedicated, as the ancient priests were, to a holy
212 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
service, by which everything is done as in the sight of God. It must be added, that their dedication to be a people near to God carries with it the further accompaniment, that all life becomes an offering, and all its activity a worship. Thus, a human life may become a hymn of praise, when it is passed in the presence of God, and done to Him, even to its minutest details. This is the natural result or sequel of being dedicated in truth. And not only so: the defilement, still inevitably adhering to all the actions of these sanctified ones, is constantly cleansed and covered by Him whose offering dedicated them (1 John ii. 1, 2). Their service as priests unto God is presented faultless, and acceptable unto Him by the continued interces sion of our great Advocate on high (1 Pet. ii. 5) ; they live in the holiest into which they have boldness to enter (Heb. x. 19) ; and they stand in the grace into which they have access or introduction (Bom. v. 2).
Thus it clearly enough appears that this expression on which we have been commenting is not to be interpreted of a moral amendment, or of a spiritual renovation, though that of course immediately follows, but according to the sacrificial and priestly phraseology of the old Mosaic worship.1 The meaning, as we have seen, is simply this : that the Son of God dedicated Himself in that act of self-oblation, that they who are far off, aliens and strangers, might be made nigh ; or that He was sanctified and set apart to be a sin-offering, to take our place, in order that we might be put in His place. Thus it is the atonement which sanctifies us in truth, or makes us a people near to God, not typically, but really, or a kingdom of priests to God.
1 Compare Zechariie's Biblische Theologie, vol. ii., Vorredc, where there are some just remarks on ayia%u», mingled with observations which are question able ; Vinke, leer van Jesus en de Apostel aang. zijn Lijden, 1837, p. 76 ; Herwerden on the passage, over het Evangelic van Joliannes, 1798 ; Lotze, over het Hoogepriesterschap van Jesus Christus, 1800, p. 104.
LIFE-GIVING EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S DEATH. 213
SEC. XXVII. — SAYINGS RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECTIVE LIFE- GIVING EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S DEATH.
We have already noticed several of the sayings of Jesus which refer to the more objective effects of His death, or which have respect to the acceptance of our persons and the remission of our sins. There is another class of sayings, which we shall, next in order, adduce, referring more to the inward or sanctify ing fruits of His death. The former, as we have seen, are to be regarded as the immediate results or fruits of the atoning work of Christ ; the latter are rather the mediate effects of His aton ing death, and presuppose the former. The acceptance of the person, or the right relation of the man, is communicated first in the order of nature ; for the " doing," according to the tenor of the law, is in order to the " life " (Eom. x. 5). It is im portant to notice, that of all these subjective or sanctifying effects of the atonement in men, there are none which are not to be regarded as following upon the liberation of our persons from the curse of the law. They all presuppose this ; so that the spirit of life, which comes to renovate the nature, is sent only on the ground of this acceptance to occupy the heart; or, to put it in Pauline language, the disciples of Christ are delivered from, or dead to, the law, that they may be married to another, that they may bring forth fruit unto God (Rom. vii. 4). Nor are the inward effects merely those which follow in the way of motive, or as an expression of gratitude. For how ever powerful the death of Christ is as a motive to influence the heart, there is another ground based upon the merit of His atonement which is much stronger, and exercises an influence, not on the human mind merely, but also on the government of God.
Among the sayings of Jesus which refer to the subjective effects of the atonement, there are several in John's narrative which speak of life: (1) the allusion to the brazen serpent;
214 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
(2) the allusion to His crucified body as the "bread of life; to which might be subjoined another already mentioned, the harmony of love and justice, as opening up the channel for the gift of life (John iii. 1C). All these are subjective and mediate effects of Christ's death. The teaching of our Lord and of His apostles proves, that as truly as the fall brought into the world death and bondage, so truly does the atone ment bring life ; and that there is thus the closest connection between the atoning death of Christ and the spiritual life of the soul, as the end or object to which the atonement always had respect.
It is the more necessary to notice this, in opposition to the modern school which puts the life first. They will have it, that the acceptance of the person does not directly flow from the death of Christ as its immediate result, but, conversely, that remission of sins flows from our grateful love.1 This is a per version of all Scripture ; it does not make pardon result immediately and directly from the cross ; and it differs little from mysticism, or legalism, or Popery. On the contrary, the communication of life and of growing sanctification is regarded by our Lord as the result which follows at the next remove, or as the further aim of the acceptance of the man, and of the remission of his sins. They who are liberated from the curse of sin are next liberated from the power of sin by the spirit of life. But our Lord's sayings put life, in connection with His death, as the reward, fruit, or purchase of the atonement.
SEC. XXVIII. — CHRIST CRUCIFIED THE ANTITYPE OF THE BRAZEN SERPENT, AND THE LIFEGIVER.
"And as Moses lifted up tlu serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man le lifted up ; that whosoever be-
1 So Usteri puts the matter, according to the Schleiermacherian representa tion. Entwkkelung des Paullnlschen Lehrbegriffes, p. 131.
THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 215
lieveth in Him should not perish, fait have eternal life" (John iii. 1 4.)
This significant saying points out the inseparable connection between the cross of Christ and eternal life, and the indispen sable necessity of the former to the latter. The occasion on which it was spoken demands particular attention. It forms part of the Lord's address to Nicodemus, when He opened up to him the nature of spiritual religion, step by step meeting the difficulties of the Jewish teacher. After drawing a distinction between " the earthly things," among which the new birth is classified, and which is so named because it is a blessing en joyed upon the earth, and thus a thing of human experience, and " the heavenly things," so called because they belong to what is divine and heavenly, and which must be regarded as included in the counsel of redemption, He proceeds to name two of the latter — His own deity (ver. 13), and His atoning work (ver. 14). They are put in connection with the new birth, and delineated as its indispensable prerequisites on God's part. By means of this type, which was intended to utter a language that should speak to all time, our Lord convinced Nicodemus that He must needs be crucified. And we find, accordingly, that when He actually died on the cross, it was less of a shock to Nicodemus than to any of His immediate disciples ; for he went along with Joseph of Arimathea, who also seems to have been prepared, by means of private intercourse with Jesus, for the fact of the crucifixion, and begged the body of Jesus (John xix. 39). The import of our Lord's words here may be cor rectly represented as ' follows : " You see a mean man, or the fcke Son of Man, who must needs be abased still lower, and cvru lifted up upon the cross, as the antitype of the brazen serpent, for men's salvation " (Num. xxi. 9).
But the question is raised, Did Christ really refer to His cruci- when He thus spoke of being " lifted up ? " 1 All doubt
»* is always so used by John. It is a Johannine peculiarity; for we find
216 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
as to the import of this verb, at least as it is used by John in connection with the work of Christ, is completely set at rest by the apostolic commentary appended to one of the passages where it occurs : " This He said, signifying what death He should die" (John xii. 33). Some, and among these, Calvin, have expounded the " lifting up " as containing an allusion to the preaching of the gospel, as from a high and elevated place, and in the eye of all. But that comment, though supported by several great names, is forced and far-fetched ; it loses the point of the comparison; and we can only wonder that any have adhered to it, when the Apostle John has explicitly settled the question. Others, again, have expounded the words, " so must the Son of Man be lifted up," as referring to Christ's exaltation to heaven.1 But that, too, is inadmissible, as it cannot stand a moment against the authoritative apostolic commentary of John, who, speaking with infallible inspiration, tells us what the lan guage really meant in the mouth of Christ. And even tliough we should doubt whether Nicodemus at the time fully under stood the words, such a testimony, based on a fact of Jewish history, otherwise inexplicable, would be afterwards of use to Nicodemus personally, as he doubtless understood it, when the event arrived.
To this well-known fact, the last of the miracles of Moses, and performed by him at God's command and direction, towards the close of the forty years' wanderings, it is not necessary more specially to refer, except to say that it was meant to be a type, and that our Lord adduces it as such. He does not make it a mere groundwork of a comparison.2 The word as, with
other sacred writers use the same verb of the exaltation. (Comp. i^utCis, A> t^ ii. 23, v. 31.)
1 So Beza, Lampe, and some of the fathers mentioned by Suicer in his The- ftaurus, on this word. That comment is untenable. As little can be said for another explanation supported by Luthardt and Hofmann, that the words only mean that Christ, as crucified and as exalted, should be the object of faith. John's comment is decisive (John xii. 33).
2 This view, that it is only a comparison, supported by Bloomfield, and by Webster and Wilkinson in their notes, is untenable. It wishes to simplify the
THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 2 1 7
its correlated even so, will not permit us to rest satisfied with the comment, that here we have nothing but a mere similitude or comparison ; for the one is deduced from the other in such a way as indicates that, according to divine appointment, the fulfilment must needs be because the future event was shadowed forth, and in a manner predicted, by the preparatory type. It was a proper figure of good tilings to come, having the same relation to the substance that a picture has to the reality. The points of resemblance lay in the things themselves, according to the divine intention. If the reality had not been appointed to appear, indeed, in the fulness of time, we may certainly con clude, according to the relation between the two, that men should never have seen its shadow or rude outline. It was, like the sacrifices, intended as a foretokening of a coming atonement, though differing from these in one obvious respect — that the material was brass, and the whole appointment, in the utmost degree, sovereign, positive, and even arbitrary. The whole arrangement, however, shows the wisdom of God in pro viding for a clear and accurate idea of the atonement in the fulness of time, and in leading the Jews to hail and welcome the hope of its realization.1
The question is not, how many of the Jewish nation rose to such anticipations, nor what ideas were formed of this type by the nation generally; for God dealt with that elect nation, all through its history, on the principle of a remnant or inner election (Rom. ix. 11). The question is, whether the believers among them were not led to harmonize it with the divine design, as they did in the matter of the sacrifices ; and also, whether it was not in a sense ministered, not so much to them, as to us who have the gospel preached to us (1 Teter i. 12).
The Lord chose this singular instrument of cure, because the
sense by dismissing the type, but makes a greater difficulty. The ««*»f and aSrut are opposed to this.
1 See F. Turretinus, Disp. Miscdl. Decad. Disp. x. ; Muixkius, Exerc. text viii. part iv. ; Deyliug, Observ. S., part ii. Obsurv. xv. ; "\Vitsiu.s, E'j>ji<tiacorum, lib. L ix. 6.
218 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
people were to see the sovereign hand of God, and not ascribe the effect to any intrinsic efficacy in outward things, apart from the direct interposition and power of God. They who saw no congruity between the means and the end to be effected, would naturally, if they gave the rein to reason, feel a great difficulty, and be disposed even to ridicule the idea of being healed by looking upon a piece of brass. They must necessarily take offence, if they did not bow to the sovereignty of God. But there were also weighty reasons for the commandment given. The people were to see, not only an image of the punishment of sin, but also an image of a vicarious economy. I cannot say whether we find any further allusion to this fact in the Old Testament besides the allusion to the idolatrous perversion and abuse of this relic which had crept in during Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings xviii. 4). Isaiah's phrase is not unlike it : " By His stripes we are healed." But we cannot doubt that Jesus, in His interpretation of the type, meant to show that He was appointed to become a vicarious sufferer, to be made a curse, on whom was to be manifested the divine vengeance against sin, that others might escape, and be healed.
The various points of comparison between the type and anti type may be enumerated as follows : —
1. The raising of the brazen serpent on the pole or banner- staff, and the lifting up of Christ upon the cross. These two are related as shadow and substance — the one being prophetic of the other. Nor is this by any means to be regarded as a subordinate point, as certain expositors suppose. For, in the first place, the repetition of the verb "lifted up" in the two contrasted clauses, and then the correlation of the hvn particles, as and so, unite to prove that the one is to be viewed as type, and the other as antitype.1
1 The use of x*t*s and evru; shows an intended typo ; and there are many similar interpretations in the mouth of the Lord. su«-h as the manna and Jonah. The whole fact in Jewish history, in all its details, is conclusively and authori tatively pronounced to be an intended counterpart or type to His historic work.
THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 219
2. The two objects here named were, in two different respects, ;ii-( •< Tiling to the appointment and command of God, to be re garded with a trustful and confident look. Men were directed to look to them with unhesitating confidence, according to the divine appointment for salvation.
3. The instant effect of that look was to bring deliverance and health. This is the direct and obvious point of compari son, into which the whole statement is naturally to be resolved. It takes for granted believing confidence in the divinely ap pointed remedy, but implies that there is an instant communi- catioii of life in connection with a look at the crucified One.
4. It is a moot point whether we are to add, as another ele ment of resemblance, the fact that the brazen serpent was only made like the poisonous serpents, yet without their poison, and that Christ was in all points made like unto His brethren, yet without sin.1 It is not only warrantable to add this further point of resemblance with many of the best commentators, but it is necessary. It is true, the great point (or the tertium quid) of the comparison is, that the lifting up of the brazen serpent healed the wounded Israelite, and that Christ crucified delivers perishing men from eternal death. But we must also take in this point. The serpent was only in appearance like the noxious creatures that had caused lamentation and woe in the camp of Israel, but not one of them ; and, in like manner, Christ \\ as made in the likeness of sinful flesh, or made in all points like the brethren, yet without sin. Some make the analogy to lie more in the circumstance of the lifting up, than in any acces sory or accompanying allusion to the serpent itself. There seems no difficulty, however, in the supposition that the brazen srri ^nt represented Christ in the sense that He took the place • >1 sinners, and specially of the sinner, by whom death and all our
1 This was strongly brought out by Luther in his sermons, and in his Ger man ( nmmeiits mi John, and by many Lutheran divines, such as Chemnitz, after him, ami by (li.mar among the Re-formed ; also by more recent writers such as 1',, ngel, l.cchler in tin- xitaHin itnd Kriti/cm, 18f>4, and others. Liicke opposes it.
220 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
woes were disseminated and passed over unto all mankind. It would have been a real difficulty had one of the true serpents, and not the mere resemblance or figure of them, been put upon the pole.
But, in adding this fourth point of analogy, we must, by all means, be careful to disencumber it of a further allusion to Satan, who is so often described in Scripture as a serpent, and who is supposed by many to be necessarily referred to here. A great difficulty would certainly be presented, if it were necessary to accept .this widely received view, that there must be a further reference to Satan, either in the allusion of the original fact, or in our Lord's quotation and reference to it. But how could the crucified Christ be in any sense represented by an emblem of the devil, or be compared in any sense to the serpent with this additional allusion ? It is not denied that ingenuity may dis cover, and has often satisfied itself with thinking that it has discovered resemblances; representing men, for example, as the brood of the serpent, and therefore that Christ was made sin in the form of the seed of the serpent. But these are mere fancies that cannot be tolerated here. And there are no traces that Christ meant to teach that the serpent, with this further reference to Satan, was a type of Himself. That is so in congruous, that, to avoid it, we must rather make the point of comparison be merely in the lifting up. But there is no allu sion to Satan at all ; and the mistake arose from not discerning that the serpent, in one respect, at least in the brazen figure of it, may as well be employed to represent Christ as the various other animals, which were used to represent substitution, or were offered to God in the way of a typically vicarious sacrifice.
This brings me to notice another exposition which was much in vogue a century ago, and which is still advocated in some of its phases — that we have not here a'direct type of Christ, but an allusion to the old serpent triumphed over on the cross.1
1 This comment originated with J. D'Espagne, an ingenious French pastor, who laboured in London, 1659, and is found in his Opera, torn. ii. p. 214. It was
THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LITE. 221
This explanation starts from the same mistaken notion that there must be an allusion to Satan, and was suggested by the obvious impropriety of representing Christ by an emblem of Satan. According to this view, our Lord's words are identical with the apostle's statement, that Christ made a show of him, openly triumphing over him on the cross (Col. ii. 15). That, however, makes a greater difficulty ; and, as a comment, it is wholly inadmissible, as will readily appear from the following considerations : —
1. The types are not meant to be adumbrations of the ad versary in any respect, but of Christ ; and the notion on which this interpretation proceeds, that the symbols must always have the same allusion in every connection, is not confirmed by fact. Thus the serpent is referred to in a light wholly different, when the L6rd tells His disciples to be " wise as serpents." The goats, too, which were used on the day of atonement, were meant to be a representation of the vicarious sacrifice, while they are elsewhere referred to as the emblem of the wicked. And there is nothing, therefore, to prevent the interpretation of the brazen serpent as setting forth a- type of Christ, the substi tute of sinners.
2. The similarity between the type and antitype is preserved, only if we regard the brazen serpent as a type of Christ. The condition of the Israelites at that time gives us a vivid picture of the guilt and spiritual misery in which all sinners are involved ; and the act of lifting up can only refer with any fitness to
adopted by the celebrated F. Burmann, Synopsis, lib. iv. cap. 32 ; by Vitringa, Observ. S., lib. ii. cap. 11 ; and it reappears, with some modifications, in Men ken's treatise, -ill a- f die eherne Schlange, and also in Olshauscn's commentary. This interpretation was refuted energetically by Marckius and by Deyling locis rit. Lingering remains of this interpretation reappear, and may be traced in the remarks of even reeent exe^etes. It arose from the mistaken notion, that, according to the analogy of Scripture, the serpent must have some rel'eivnee to Satan, and that therefore there was an obvious impropriety in making the ser- prnt, so viewed, a type df Christ. And there certainly would be, if that acces sory notion were included at all, which, however, we have seen, is by no means to be taken in.
222 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Christ, who was lifted up upon the cross in the infliction of an accursed public death. This is one point of analogy ; and His body was like the sinner, too, only in fashion, and as having a common nature, but without the life of sin. -The analogy consists, further, in the fact that He was appointed by God, and that He acted as the one Mediator between God and man.
3. This was not a trophy of victory, but a means of cure. It was not one of the actual serpents, living or dead, but only a resemblance, having nothing in common with them but the form, and having wholly different effects. The one wounded, the other healed ; the one killed, the other made alive ; the one destroyed the works of the other ; and hence it was not a figure of Satan, but of Christ.
4. The look of the sufferer also was certainly to be directed to Christ alone as its proper object, or to the type of Christ, and not to the adversary ; and as immediate healing was imparted to the wounded dying Israelite by a simple look at the brazen serpent, so life eternal is communicated to every one who turns a believing look to Christ. There was life for a look then, and there is life for a look now. But Satan, from whom we flee, cannot, with any modification of the idea, be regarded as the terminating object of faith. It was not a look at the actual serpents, nor at Moses, nor at the pole, but solely at the figure of the serpent ; and it is solely at Christ, as the true object, that faith now looks.
To return, then, to the fourth point of similarity, it must be held that the Lord Jesus, the sinless substitute, had an external resemblance to man in all points, or was in all points made like unto the brethren, but was wholly exempt from their life of sin (Heb. ii. 17). It is not without reason that He was typified by the brazen serpent ; for He was a curse-bearer, and yet a Saviour. By this striking type He described to an Israelite, in the most vivid way in which the idea could be put, that He \vas not come as a mere earthly king, but as a sufferer, and that in His suffer ings He was not a mere martyr, but the Redeemer of men,
THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 223
coming in the guise and receiving the treatment of the greatest of sinners. They who are not ready to say, then, that Christ only plays, in the most arbitrary way, with emblems and his toric facts, must admit that the brazen serpent is typical. That hideous image of sin and its effects represented the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as made sin, to condemn sin in the flesh. The entire type had a deep enigmatic meaning, though it was dark to a Jew, and indeed is obscure to every one ignorant of the substitution of Christ. But it is no more obscure to us who know the vicarious atonement.
Thus the historic fact implies, when considered in its true significance, that men are saved by a method similar to that by which they were undone ; that by man came death, and that by man came the redemption from death. Till the mind is enlightened by the wisdom of God, this seems a remedy running counter to all natural congruity and fitness; for who would expect deliverance from a piece of brass fashioned after the shape of the Destroyer ? and, in like manner, who would look for salvation from one carried out to a public execution ? But when we apprehend aright the substitution, it is a most signifi cant and suggestive type.
As we have already noticed the necessity of the atonement or crucifixion, it is the less incumbent to enlarge on the words, " So must the Son of Man be lifted up." The MUST here ex pressed, bringing out what is indispensable, is not to be limited to the mere carrying out of the type, but has a deeper ground in ( loci's purpose of redemption, and in order to finish the curse. That the punishment of sin must be borne and exhausted on the cross, was already indicated centuries before by the brazen ser pent raised upon the polo. Plainly, the necessity here alluded to is a deep inner necessity. It is not due merely to the fact that it was foreshadowed, — rather it was foreshadowed ix-cause it must needs take place on iimral mounds. Though the faith fulness of God must be maintained in ranying out the types and prophecies, it was not they that conditioned the crucifixion,
224 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
but, conversely, the deep necessity in the moral government of God that threw back its shadow upon them.
As the punitive justice of God, or the necessity for the atonement, with the evidence that goes to establish it in our Lord's teaching, has been noticed in a previous section of this volume, we forbear to adduce the evidence which goes to illus trate it. Let it suffice to say, that the must here uttered by our Lord is connected with the communication of divine life and perfect healing, and that "no cross, no healing" is the purport of this testimony. When sin entered into the world, God's moral perfections rendered it indispensably necessary that it should receive its recompense of reward, and that a satisfaction for sin should be required before divine life could be diffused through the race. The Most High owes this to Himself, — it being a miist in the divine government as well as a necessary provision for the relief of mental anxiety and dread. He owes this to Himself, because He loveth righteousness (Ps. xi. 7). It was not brought about to make a mere impression on the moral universe, in order to deter them from sin ; and as little was it done because God was acting before a vast public composed of all spiritual intelligences. The necessity of punishment, and of expiation, is irrespective of any aims or considerations that refer to a public apart from Himself. His perfections are the only public before which He acts ; and He punishes sin only because of the demerit of it, as calling for punishment, and because He is under obligation to Himself, or, in other words, from love to His rectitude, which is just love to Himself (Ps. xi. 7). This puni tive retribution is commonly called vengeance ; and the Most High claims it as His own prerogative : " Vengeance is mine : I will repay" (Eom. xii. 19; Deut. xxxii. 35). Hence, when moral evil has been committed, natural evil, suited to it, must needs ensue ; and we may lay down with confidence the position, that the creatures of God, in the moral government of God's world, suffer only what is due, and never more than their due. . Hence, to bear this infliction in a manner which should expiate the sin
TIIE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 225
and exhaust the curse, was the reason of Christ's crucifixion, and gives the explanation of the must which He here expresses.
It must be specially noticed, however, that the atonement was intended, in the divine economy, to open the way for the dissemination of the life. The words are introduced by a final particle:1 "that whosoever belie veth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life ;" and bring out a twofold end, — life as the ultimate end, and faith as the intermediate end, or the instru ment of reception. This much is indisputable, that the death of Jesus was an indispensably necessary matter, in order to attain this eternal life. It is to His death, according to Christ's own testimony, that men owe deliverance, healing, and life; and it is by faith in His crucified person that men are put into the actual possession and enjoyment of these benefits, — the faith which presupposes the finished work of Christ, and which relies upon His death, or upon Himself as crucified and lifted up.
But it is important to notice also, that the atoning death stands in a causal connection, or in a meritorious connection, with the eternal life considered as a present inheritance. This LIFE is spoken of as the end, effect, or reward of the crucifixion.2 The design of all these passages, which put life and sanctifica- tion in connection with Christ's death, is not, as the modern theology will have it, to show that the life is first, and that the acceptance of a sinner does not flow immediately from the death of Christ, but only mediately from life. That theory is totully without scriptural warrant; and, carried out to its legitimate consequences, it makes another gospel. The life and the progressive sanctification are to be considered only as a
1 ';»* i.s always tolic. (See Winer, Fritzsche on Matthew, and Meyer.) • Vinki-, in his I.i ir run Jesus en de Apostel aany. Zijn Llj<kn, notices ' antitheses in which £wJ] stiinds ; f.g. : —
£*»i and xp'ins or ta.ia.ret (John v. 24).
£»»i and ley* rau *tov (John Hi. 36).
?>* and triMn (Matt. vii. 13, 14).
£«»i and r» -rvp re «;*»«>» (Mutt, xviii. 8).
£«n and rj yim« rev vvpoi (Matt, xviii. 9).
£w»l alvttos and xoXairv; tcluties (Matt. XXV. 46).
p
226 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
reward, or as the further aim, or the consequence of the accept ance of our persons. It is by no means proved by such passages, that we are to regard sanctification, or the communication of the divine life, as the immediate aim and scope of Christ's death. Life is the reward of the atonement, and is always represented by our Lord and by His apostles as premial life, on the ground of a righteousness or atonement (Rom. viii. 10).
It is the more necessary to apprehend precisely the scope and tendency of this school of interpretation, because it has obtained, in our day, such wide diffusion, and so much accept ance ; and it has, perhaps, in some degree, its rights, and also its advantages, as against a frigid orthodoxy. But it is no higher than medieval mysticism ; and its one-sidedness is hurt ful, while its exhibition of the gospel is highly defective.1 It puts life first, and pardon next ; and the former, in a directly unbiblical manner, is made the pathway for the latter. It does not base acceptance directly and immediately on the cross, but on the previous possession of the divine life. The relations of truth are reversed and disorganized. The whole attention is turned to communion with Christ in His life ; and thus the gospel remedy is turned away from its proper object. The subject-matter is disjointed, and the message is turned upside down. All the great doctrines connected with God as an authoritive lawgiver and moral ruler, with guilt and punish-
1 This is the mystic theory of the atonement, which, emanating from Menken and the Schleiermacher school, has found champions or adherents in all the various Protestant Churches. Its one-sidedness appears in this, that it makes the gift of the divine life absolute, and makes no distinction between the person and the nature, or between the relative standing of the man and his inner nature. It lias a very defective view of the original constitution given to man in a representative, and it lias a tendeitey to tliruw mm bark upon mere medieval mysticism, and therefore into a semi-legality, most adverse to the doc trine of a free acceptance and to the liberty in Christ, in which the Christian is to stand fast (Gal. v. 1). We shall more fully refer to this school in the notes appended to this volume. But all who are in the habit of reading German works should be aware that this is the theory of the atonement maintained by Menken, Hasenkamp, by Schleiermachcr and all his school, by Nitzsch, V. Hofmann, Kudolph Stier, Rothe, Lange, Martensen, Bauingartcn, Klaiber, Schuberlein, etc.
CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 227
with atonement and acceptance, fall into the background, while all prominence is given to the truths which iitand con nected with Christ as a fountain of life. It is thus an inter pretation essentially the same as medieval mysticism, limiting its view to Christ in His people, but stopping short at the point of giving the prominence which is due to Christ for His people. In a word, this school of interpretation does not connect the communication of the divine life with Christ's vicarious death, or witli the righteousness of the law, which is the only purchase or cause of the life, — as Paul puts it in the Epistle to the Romans ; nay, a distinction is attempted between the one as a Johannine, and the other as a Pauline, mode of thought. This whole theology is contradicted, however, by the present passage, and by other sections of John's Gospel. It will be seen that all the communications of the divine life are connected accord ing to the teaching of this section, just as they are in the Pauline statements, with the meritorious obedience, and the wounds and the blood of Christ, as the price by which they were purchased. God looks at that purchase, when He imparts the divine life, as the sole exclusive ground of His divine supplies of life. And men, too, must also have regard to that purchase as the foundation of all their confidence, and of all the daily communications of that divine life which tlu-y receive.
SEC. XXIX. — CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD.
" I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his jlcsh to eat? Then Jams saul unto than, Vci-Hy, wrily, I say
228 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
unto you, Except ye cat the flesh of tlie Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesk, and drinketh my Hood, hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my Hood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by [on accoiint of] the Father, so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me [on account of Me]." (John vi. 51-57.)
This saying is more explicit than the former as to the con nection between the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, and the com munication of spiritual LIFE. It plainly announces that the atonement stands in causal connection with life ; the crucified flesh of the Lord being represented as possessing a life-giving influence, and constituting the new and sole fountain from which life can be derived. This passage may thus be regarded as a key to all those numerous texts which delineate the aton ing obedience of Christ as the cause of life to others (Rom. v. 18), or describes the co-crucifixion with Him as the procuring cause of life in and with Him (Eom. vi. 1-11), and of His living in us (Gal. ii. 20).
It may suffice to say, with regard to the occasion of tliis memorable saying, that it forms part of a discourse wrhich natu rally arose out of the- miracle of the loaves. Our Lord retired from the enthusiastic multitude who were bent on proclaiming Him king, but was again brought in contact with the same persons on the following day in the synagogue at Capernaum, and then led to disclose to them the whole truth. He de clares that He should be cut off by a violent death, but that His flesh was to be the world's life. They see His meaning, though, beyond doubt, a certain obscurity was still suffered to rest upon the language, for the obvious purpose of letting his tory take its unimpeded course. Having warned them to seek not the perishable bread, but that bread which endureth to
CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 229
everlasting life, and which He added was to be found by faith alone (ver. 29), He next proceeded, on the ground of a remark which fell from the multitude, to contrast the temporary manna, which the Israelites partook of in the wilderness, with the true bread, or with Himself. He then described the two main elements of the true or essential bread as compared with that which was typical, — that it (1) comes down from heaven, and (2) that it gives life to the world (ver. 33). The second element, that is, the life-giving property belonging to it, is still further ex plained as rendering those who eat of it partakers of eternal life, and no more liable to death. This bread, then, is, first of all, identified with His own person, which is, furthermore, de scribed as satisfying the hunger of His people, and as quench ing their thirst (ver. 35). Then, after meeting several cavils or objections of the multitude, He takes up the same thought, but makes an advance upon it, by connecting the life with His aton ing death (vers. 51-57). He had connected the life, first of all, with Himself, or with His person ; He next connects it with His atuniug work, or with Himself as crucified. And the whole .section which follows is thus in the highest degree important ; setting forth that the bread of life is the Lord Himself as cruci fied, or Christ presented to us and received in the capacity of the atoning substitute for others.
As the exposition of these verses, however, is very various, ;iml discussed in the interest of different tendencies, we must define their import. The controversies carried on in reference to the Supper brought them under discussion in that light from the very earliest times. Hence it will be necessary to show, lu'lure we advance, what they do not mean, as well as what they <lu mean, that we may guard against such comments as either unduly limit, or pervert and misstate, the force of the words.
1. The expressions cannot refer to the Lord's Supper, as it was nut yet instituted. The symbolic language used in both, indei'd, is very similar : the underlying thoughts are also the same ; and therefore the tendency was by no means unnatural,
230 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
especially at a time when men came to over-magnify the Supper, to describe its symbolic actions as finding their truth here, and always coinciding with these deep references, which exhibit the spiritual mind acting itself out upon Christ crucified.1 But it is by no means probable that Jesus, at the time when He stood before this unbelieving multitude in the synagogue of Caper naum, and replied to their manifold cavils, had the Supper in view, which was not instituted till long afterwards.
The eating and drinking are adduced as only figurative actions, and the terms give no warrant for the too common ex aggeration of sacramental language, as if they meant that there was, or could be, any oral eating of the flesh of Christ. The whole previous context is but a bold use of apt and significant figures ; and it would be against all the laws of connection and of analogy, were we to adopt the literal sense at this point, when the discourse flows on continuously. When we compare these verses, indeed, with the language held by our Lord at the insti tution of the Supper, there can be no doubt that they both plainly refer to the vicarious sacrifice, and exhibit that crucified flesh as the food and nourishment of His people. But the allu sion is not at all to be interpreted in a sacramental sense.
2. Some refer these words, " I am the living bread," to the doctrine of Jesus.2 But it needs few words to prove that our Lord, in this passage, is not giving a confirmation of His doc trine, but directly referring to His sacrifice, or to the atonement offered for sin in the room and stead of others. They who view the death of Christ in no other light than merely as an attesta tion to the truth, are of course compelled to make the doctrine of Jesus, and not His death, their sole nourishment ; or they add, perhaps, the example of His perfect human life. But, under lying this comment, there is a low view of Christ's person and
1 This is the patristic comment which has descended to the Greek and Romish churches.
2 So Grotius on ver. 51. And the argument is taken from the style of the Jewish teachers, who call doctrine bread.
nilllST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 231
mission, and a decided tendency not to regard His death as embraced in the grand purpose of redemption, and the objec tive counterpart to our subjective faith, but as the mere casual result of those efforts which He put forth in His capacity as a great teacher. And an equally shallow notion is entertained as to the LIFE here mentioned, which ought to be interpreted as nothing short of a new creation. To meet all such perversions, it may suffice to state, that, in the context, the Saviour roundly sets forth, not His doctrine, not His example, not His system of ethics, but His flesh sacrificed as the life of the world.
3. A third interpretation, equally defective, is that which refers this language to the incarnation as the sole' channel for the communication of life. Life is thus regarded as the sole design of His mission, and as an absolute gift. Those interpreters who maintain that a new principle of life stands connected with the incarnation, will have it, that there is no immediate reference in this passage to the death of Christ, but only an invitation to partake of Him by faith in the entire saving manifestation of Himself in the flesh. According to this view, which is the expression of a widespread modern school, and of a theology which calls itself believing, Christ's death is not vicarious, but merely the condition for the communication of the saving effi cacy of His divine life1 — only the last step in His own prepara tion or personal self-sanctification to be the life-giver. And thus, not the death of Christ, but the fulness of the divine life residing in Him, and communicated absolutely, becomes the nourishment of His people to life eternal. According to this interpretation, the language here used is not meant to be an expression for His death, but for His whole appearance in the flesh for the life of the world. And the Lord's death comes into consideration, according to this view, in no other light than
1 Liicke and De Wette support this interpretation; and it is held by all who support the mystic theory of the atonement, mentioned by us in tin- pr.'vi.m> s.vti.m. But they are not entitled to claim Clemens and Origen as supportns of it.
232 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
as the climax of His holy dedication to God. But this is op posed to the whole phraseology of the passage, which assumes that there is a violent death, separating flesh and blood.
4. Having thus noticed in order these three defective inter pretations, it remains that we fix the true interpretation of the words, and especially their reference to His atoning work. At this point, then, in the course of His remarks, the Lord opens the section by a phrase, which, in the original, means that something is said in an explanatory way, while yet the state ment is marked out as something new.1
As the multitude to whom our Lord addressed this language were the same persons who had witnessed His miracle of the loaves, and who had congregated in such numbers because they were going up to the passover, it is probable that He drew this peculiar style of address from the sacrifice of which they were going to partake. He intimated, in effect, that He was the reality of the sacrifice, while the paschal lamb was but the shadow, and that they must, with much more eagerness than they looked forward to the passover, eat His flesh and drink His blood. The declaration that they must drink His blood must have sounded strange indeed in the ears of a Jewish com pany, accustomed to look with peculiar awe on blood. But the difficulty is much diminished, when we reflect that they were on their way to offer the paschal sacrifice, and that He virtually said to them, " I am the substance or reality of all that type." The whole passage, thus viewed, conveys a series of arguments as to the connection between the atonement and life, which are to be pondered, in their connection as well as in their isola tion, as separate statements. The first announces the necessity of eating His flesh (ver. 53) ; the second shows that it is effec tual in every case (ver. 54) ; the third brings out the truth
1 *tu S« has this meaning. See Tholuck, Llicke, Winer. Again, as to the words fit iy* lutru, which are awaiiting in Cod. BCTLT, they are not to lie MIS- pected, as they have outw;vrd and inward evidence in their favour. The omission of them arose, probably, from the previous «» \yu luru, some transcribers thinking them a repetition.
ilIKI.-T (,IVIM, HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 233
that His crucified body is the true bread, or bread indeed (ver. 55) ; the fourth portrays, that in consequence of eating it, a vital union is maintained between Christ and all His people (ver. 56) ; and the fifth shows that His disciples, eating of His crucified flesh, enter into His reward, and participate with Him in His premial life (ver. 57).
a. The inquiry into the proper import of the term LIFE, as it is used by Christ, is in the highest degree important, in the present state of exegetical research. That it holds a primary place in Christ's teaching, and belongs to the fundamental truths of Christianity, must be evident to all who have devoted any measure of attention to the words of Christ or His apostles. Little aid, it has been well remarked, is supplied in this inves tigation by the lexicographers of the New Testament language, as they too much deposit in the words only the opinions of modern times.1 The doctrine of Jesus on this point, as derived from the present and cognate sayings, may be given in a few words, though the subject is too wide to be fully entered upon in the present discussion. He presupposes man as without life, in the high and proper sense of the term, nay, as alienated from the life of God. The whole language which Jesus holds
1 Thus Olshausen expresses himself, after pointing out the superficial explana tions of gwn given by Schleusner, of whom he says: — "At omuino virum doctissimum ignorasse, quid sit ?>« interpretationes passim ab ipso propositee apt-He decent." See Olshausen, de notione vocis %»* in libris N. T., in his Opuscula Tlieologica, 1834, p. 185 ; also Bruckner, de notione vocis ?>« q ucn in \. T. /(7//V.S liifitiu; Commentatio, Lips. 1858. 1 may also refer to the brief Bxegetiach-Dogmatuche Entwickelung der N. T. Begriffe von %u* iyafrafu und *ptnt, by Dr. A. Maier, Freiburg, 1840 ; and to RauwenhofTs treatise, De Vita in lii'iHtm- <if,rn<t, jMfcudi ujijinwa a Christo restituta, Leidae, 1857. But more important and profound than any or all of these is Vitringa's .sketch of the spiritual life, in his Typu* Theoloyke practica sirt de Vita Spirit uali, Franeq. 171C. It is the more necoxiry to refer to these di.seu.vsioiis and treatises on this subject, as the whole current of modern theology runs in this direction, and all depends. ,u the true idea of Km:, which, after all, is of a superficial character in the S. hlcicrmacherian theology. On,- sentence of Vitringa may be quoted to show :»ngly he iiiMMcd upon the point ignored by the new theology : " Primus n -spectiis in vita spiritual; eat OMIM qu meritoriffi quam Scriptura ostendi ol'tdicntiain Kilii Dri ab ipso secundum leges seterni pacti cum Putrc initi piu-sti- tiim ad mortem, imo ad mortem crucis." (Cap. hi. p. 27.)
234 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
on the subject of spiritual life takes for granted that we are involved in death, which is the term employed by Him to designate that separation from God which sin involves (John v. 24), and which is specially defined by Him as the condition or state where men have not the love of God in them (John v. 42), leaving the heart vacant for any sinful substitute. The very fact that life is procured and imparted by the Lord, may be said to presuppose a condition of spiritual death. For, ac cording to a canon, of easy and universal application, constantly applied by Augustin and Calvin in their interpretation of the divine word, whatever is freely provided and bestowed by God, is a something of which man is destitute, considered in himself. b. As to this spiritual life which the Lord came to restore, it consists in reunion to God, and in that inward renovation or new creation which is consequent on that reunion to God, the fountain of life. The incarnate Son, having life in Himself, as the Father has life in Himself, and able, on this account, to act the part of a mediator (John v. 26), interposed between a dead humanity and its Creator, in order to be a new source of life. The eternal life was manifested (1 John i. 1-3) ; and in this way, that which had been intercepted by sin, was again com municated. But this testimony of the Lord emphatically declares that this supply of life, far from being absolute or an unpurchased gift, was possible only by means of His atone ment, that it was secured by a work of obedience, and is thus forfeited no more. We may affirm, then, not only that the primeval life which was enjoyed in fellowship with God is restored, but also that the premial life which awaited man after a period of probation, and which would have been con ferred had he continued in his first estate, is conferred by means of the atonement or obedience of the incarnate Son in the room of sinners. In securing this result, the Prince of Life must needs encounter death, and render an equivalent for the guilt of mankind; for the dominion of death could give plarr- to a reign of life in no other way. And they who, through the
CHRIST GIVING Ills ] I.F.S1F FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 235
influence of modern speculations, regard Christ only as a great teacher, or as a mere example, have never understood the im pediment to be surmounted, nor the reversal of the curse which was required.
Here the Lord expressly declares, that He GAVE His FLESH by an act of self-oblation for the life of the world ; and the uniform sense of the expression which He used denotes a prieslly act of oblation (Gal. i. 4 ; Eph. v. 2). Hence we may say, if we collect the teaching of the passage, that, as the fall brought death, so the atonement has brought life ; and that the restoration of life, long forfeited by sin, was the express design or end of Christ's atoning work. The atonement had specially in view, among other objects which were contemplated in the divine counsels, to quicken those who were alienated from the life of God, and thus to confer a premial, life, or to pour in a new life upon dead humanity from the crucified flesh of Christ, to be forfeited no more.
c. But the Lord Jesus next proceeds to speak of the " eating of His flesh" and of the " drinking of His blood." That the language is metaphorical, scarcely needs to be proved. The expressions, the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, are used interchangeably with believing on Him in the previous context (vers. 35, 40, 47). These figurative terms imply that men are to believe on Him as giving His flesh for the life of the world, and that they are to receive the atone ment with the same or similar eagerness with which a hungry man partakes of food. The doctrine of Christ's sacrifice is not a mere point, then, but the principal matter in the way of pro curing the donation of spiritual life; and it is never to be ignored in the reception of any of those inward blessings of renovation, and love, growth, zeal, and strength, which are com prehended in the spiritual life, and which go to make up our idea of this life. It is quite unwarrantable, then, to interpret this figurative "eating" of the general reception of the truth, without any special appropriation of the atoning death of Christ :
236 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
on the contrary, it is Christ's atonement, or His crucified flesh, with which faith is first and foremost occupied, for the purpose of attaining this inner life. And the Lord virtually says, " By this sacrifice of mine I procure, and, not only so, I become, the true Bread of Life ; and every one who will live must appro priate my atonement as offered for the life of the world."
This language implies, then, that the atonement not only holds the most important place in the moral government of God, but that, in an individual point of view, sin must be atoned for, and the person accepted, before there is, or can be, free course for the communication of life. It is not only an expedient in the general scheme of God's moral rule, but a per sonal necessity as well ; and this latter point of view, too much omitted or merged in the general one, is the special truth on which the emphasis is here laid in this testimony of our Lord. Thus the words, " eating the flesh and drinking the blood" of Christ for life, announce, beyond all doubt, that we do not bring, but receive ; that we do not work for life, but enter into the already accomplished death of Christ.
But as faith is figuratively represented by eating and drink ing, we may ask, How is the analogy between the two to be defined ? It is as follows : As food has a nourishing property, and effectually acts upon the life, so does the crucified Christ. The one stands in the same relation as the other. The most nutritive food cannot avail, unless we partake of it ; and no one is benefited by Christ's death, unless we believe on Him as crucified for us. Faith has, in this way, the same relation to the spiritual life that the eating of bread has to the temporal life ; for faith is just the means of receiving and enjoying the ' life-giving property of His death; and no figure could more strikingly set forth the necessity of faith.
Enough has been brought out to show that the atonement of Christ is offered for the life of the world, and that, to have life, men must eat that crucified flesh; in other words, must believe that redemption and acceptance are effected by His
CHRIST 01 VINT, HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 237
atoning death. This is all put in a personal rather than in a general light in the passage under consideration. As to the subsequent verses, as our object was only to gather up this testimony into a focus, we shall but briefly notice them: (1.) The saying, " He that eateth my flesh HATH eternal life," intimates that the emphasis is laid specially upon the present tense, and that the firm and secure possession of life is founded on the right obtained by His atonement for His people, as well as for Himself. Again, (2) This crucified flesh of Christ, and His blood poured out, are further designated true bread and drink, or that essential food that comes up to the idea (ver. 55) ; and if we apply the allusion to the food of the sacrifices, it will, moreover, mean that He was their great antitype or reality. Whatever can be affirmed of food may be affirmed in a still higher significance of Him; for if food is the God-appointed means for sustaining natural life, that crucified flesh was so in the higher sense for the spiritual life. (3.) This participation, furthermore, brings union of the closest kind (ver. 56). The passage intimates: He becomes united to His people in the same way as he who eats is united to the food he eats ; and Christ, on His part, most closely unites Himself to them. They are so joined in their life and fortunes as to be for ever one in this world and in the world to come. Plainly, the figure is con tinued ; and the allusion intimates that food, so assimilated, sus tains the receiver's life. And, last of all, (4) The Lord winds up the passage by the remarkable utterance already explained by us in a previous section. The statement is, that His people live because of Him, or on His account, as the possessor of a premial life, which is conferred upon Him as the due reward of His mission. " He that eati-th Me shall live on my account." is 11 ie proper translation of the words; and they will bear no other sense.
238 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
SEC. XXX. — TESTIMONIES SHOWING THE RELATION OF THE ATONEMENT TO OTHER INTERESTS IN THE UNIVERSE.
Having considered the sayings of Christ, which show the effects of the atonement on the individual, both in an objective and subjective point of view, we have next to consider it in its bearing on other interests and relations in the universe. It must be regarded as a narrow and unbiblical theory, which limits the whole effects of the atonement to man. Though the objective acceptance of our persons, and the inward renovation of our natures, together with the provision for a life of worship, which we have already exhibited from particular sayings of Jesus, may be considered as the proximate results, as they may be said to be the first and main concern of sinful creatures, yet these are by no means all the effects that were contemplated by the atonement, or are accomplished by it. It will be found that our Lord constantly spoke, with His eye upon all the relations of the universe, and with the consciousness that His work had a reference to them all. Those utterances from His lips emphatically show that He realized them all, and that He lived amid these various relations, in a way very little appre hended by us.
The atonement — the great central fact in the history of the world — had a perceptible influence on all the relations which may be said to meet on the earth, or to have any connection with mundane things. Thus, (1) the atonement has an intimate connection with the overthrow of Judaism and the temple- worship, to pave the way for Christ's kingdom being set up in its new form on the earth. The cross is the basis or the sole foundation of His throne ; for it was not upon His teaching, or upon His example, that His kingdom was reared, but upon His atoning work. (2.) This atonement was the great foundation of Christ's relation to the sheep ; it giving the Shepherd a flock, and laying the basis of the whole relation between His flock and Him. (3.) The atonement makes a pathway for the com-
THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING. 239
innnication of the Spirit, which a fallen race could not otherwise have possessed. (4.) The atonement of the Lord, or the finished work of redemption, glorifies God on the earth, or gives the supreme God the glory due to His name, as the tribute or revenue from His creatures. (5.) The Lord Jesus, by means of His humiliation unto death, opened heaven, and brought men and angels, heretofore separated and estranged, into a new relation. (6.) The atonement is called the judgment of the world, and the victory by which the Lord overcame the world. (7.) The atoning death of Jesus is declared to have judged and cast out the prince of this world. (8.) It overcomes the power of death and the fear of death.
Thus, the atonement is represented by our Lord as having a most decisive influence upon all these various interests. In a word, it is the central fact of God's present procedure or moral rule in the universe, and that on which all depends. Its effect is felt also to the widest circumference and ramification of mundane relations. The fall and the atonement thus constitute the two facts or pivots of human history, — they are the turning- points of the world's destiny ; and as there are but two repre sentative men, as well as two facts in history, and two families under these two heads, the deeds of these two, in their repre sentative position, may be said to decide upon the fortunes of all connected with them ; that is, may be said conclusively to determine their lot.
We shall briefly notice, but not quite in the above-named order, the effect or influence of the atonement on all these other interests in the universe.
SKI1. XXXI.— THE DEATH OF CHRIST IN CONNECTION WITH THE RAISING OF THE TEMPLE OF GOD.
"Destroy [break down] this temple, and in three days I trill raise it up." (John ii. 19.)
The allusions which were made to His death in the early part
240 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
of our Lord's ministry were, for the most part, darker and less obvious than they afterwards became. It was His aim, during the course of His teaching, not to anticipate unduly the his toric course of events, but rather to furnish matter which might serve to enable His disciples, after the accomplishment of events, to compare His sayings with the fact of His atoning death.
The passage under our consideration has not been sufficiently viewed, as it should have been, in connection with the doctrine of the atonement. It will be found, however, when understood aright, to contain a most important testimony, whether we look at the nature or at the effects of Christ's redemption work. It declares not only that Christ had power to lay down His life and to restore it, but also that His death should found a new theocracy and a new worship. It is much akin, therefore, to the saying spoken in connection with the institution of the Supper, that His blood, shed for many for the remission of sins, should found the new covenant. These two testimonies have much in common; and this passage may be called a key to all these sayings, both diversified and frequently recurring, which either describe Christ as the head of the corner (Acts iv. 11), or display a spiritual temple (Eph. ii. 21), or set forth a new gospel worship (Heb. viii. 13). But it will be necessary, first of all, to ascertain the exact meaning of the words, and to apprehend the proper point of them, before we consider their import or scope as a testimony to the atonement.
The occasion which gave rise to this declaration was as follows : The Lord had purified the temple by a very arresting display of holy zeal for His Father's house, the first time He appeared in it after the commencement of His public ministry. The Jews of all classes, as well as the actual desecrators, had been paralyzed and awe-struck by this display of zeal; but they no sooner recovered themselves, than they demanded from Him some sign or miracle to warrant this assumption of authority ; seeming to indicate that they would not call it in question, if
THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING. 211
He could show His authorization, or furnish evidence that He came with a divine commission. Our Lord gave them a fit sign, though a future one, — a sign not foreign to His Messianic work, but constituting its very essence, and which, when it should occur, would fully vindicate His authority for the step which He had just taken. But He couches the remark in highly typical language, and takes for granted that the hostility of the Jews, then indicated for the first time, would never cease till they had compassed His death.
This was a saying of which the Jews could never afterwards get rid. They well saw, that though they could not penetrate into its full significance, the statement contained a deeply mysterious meaning, and one that foreboded the overthrow of their temple. We find that, three years afterwards, the false witnesses at the trial of Jesus bring up this remark in an incorrect form, — one witness alleging that He said, " I will destroy" (Mark xiv. 58); another representing Him as saying, " I am able to destroy" (Matt. xxvi. 61). A second time we hear it in the taunting words addressed to Him as He hung on the cross : " Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross " (Mark xv. 29). A third echo of it we discover in the precaution to set a watch at His grave, because He had foretold His resurrection on the third day (Matt, xxvii. 63). A fourth time it is recalled, in connection with the trial and martyr dom of Stephen (Acts vi. 13, 14). In a word, they could not shake it off.
To these words of the Lord the evangelist appends his inspired commentary : " He spake of the temple of His body ; " which must, U: held to be conclusive as to the true signi ficance and import of the saying. The perverted meaning or false construction put upon the saying by the Jews would seem to need no refutation as running counter to John's narra tive and comment; and we should have thought that eveiy Christian would at once reject it. But, strange to say, not a Q
242 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
few modern interpreters 1 have ventured to go so far as to call in question the correctness of John's comment, to repudiate his explanation, and to put upon the words of Jesus a meaning which is very much akin to the false interpretation of the Jews, who sometimes blindly, and not unfrequently by design, were wont to pervert His language. But there cannot be two opinions, on the part of any man imbued with adequate ideas of inspiration, as to the authority of John's commentary, and the unwarrantableness of expounding the Saviour's words after this rationalistic fashion, that is, to expound them merely to the effect that He was going to break down the old form of religion, and to erect in its room and stead a better and more spiritual religion within a short space of time. That exposition, to which some devout minds2 have unhappily adhered, is untenable in every light in which it can be regarded, whether we look at the words themselves, which will not bear it, or at the authority of the evangelist, as a few remarks will suffice to show. (1) The Lord Jesus does not speak of a short space of time, but of the three days between His death and His resur rection; (2) He does not speak of one temple broken down, and of another and a different one raised up, but of His own body ; and then, (3) as to the accuracy of the evangelist, we must hold that, writing, as he did, under the plenary guidance of the Spirit, he unquestionably gives us the true scope and import of the words.
But while we must abide most strictly by the comment of the inspired evangelist, as literally accurate, this by no means precludes all other reference to the stone temple as a type; and this ulterior reference must, we think, be included, if we would expound it aright. There was a one-sidedness in the view of almost all the older commentators, at least thus far, that they forbore to connect any further meaning with the
1 Herder was the first to begin this false interpretation.
- Tliis lax view is held l>y Ncuiidrr in his l.(f< if .A .«.•««, by Liicke on John, and by Bleek. On the other hand, Oostersee, in his Leven van Jesus, p. 61, strongly maintains the opposite.
THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING. 243
\\nnls ; and that, while correctly enough expounding them ac cording to the leading thread supplied by John, they stopped short at a point where the sense is not exhausted. They saw no allusion to the material temple. They satisfied themselves with a supposed metaphor, — some accepting it, as did the patristic writers, as a fitting figure or metaphor to portray the incarna tion,1 others bringing together similar phrases descriptive of the human body, either from Jewish or classical antiquity. They thus lost sight of the type, and omitted the link between the shadow and the substance. But we are warranted to hold that the Lord connected a further meaning with His words ; and this interpretation is absolutely necessary, if the sign or miracle given to warrant Christ's assumption of authority on that occasion was to have any connection with the act which it was meant to sanction.2 It will not do to assert that Jesus does not elsewhere call His body the temple ; (see, however, John i. 14.) It cannot be forgotten that the one was the type, and the other the reality — as much a type as was the lamb, — a pledge, too, and a symbol of God's continued habitation in the midst of the Jews, and also of the acceptance of their worship. The fate of that temple, and the fate of the religion that stood connected with it, and wras, in a manner, based upon it, was decided by the fate of Christ's body. There wras a deep connection between the two, though unintelligible to the Jews.
Nor was this an unheard-of consummation, of which no inti mation had been given. Christ had been foretold in prophecy us the builder of the temple of the Lord (Zech. vi. 12) ; and the present passage shows that He laid its foundation in His atoning death. The atonement stood related to it as cause to effect, — no atonement, no temple or dwelling-place of
1 Tim-, in lli.- Notm-ian discus.si.iu>, it was much canvassed whether the person of Christ Wius only to be viewed as tin- inhul.il. -d temple of (lod, or »««».
- The modern commentators an- generally disposed to take in this additional idca,«.;/. ll'-iiL,r>teiil,er^, Luthar.lt, S, lnnid, Itllili.tche. T/icoloyie N. T. }>. -J-j:',, . Slier, Rij^enkich ; and it is necessary to accept some such further refer ence, from the fact we have stated above.
244 SAYINGS OF JESUS OX THE ATONEMENT.
among men. But here God and man meet — here heaven and earth are joined : this is the gate of heaven for man, and this the place of condescending revelation and communication for God ; for in Christ, as the true temple, dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. ii. 9).
All this is made more obvious by the allusions made to the tabernacle or temple ; which had been just a visible pledge of God's covenant relation to Israel, and of His actual residence among them, not indeed in the local sense — for in that sense He is not confined to heaven itself, — but in the sense of free and gracious manifestation. The temple had been the place of revelation, the audience chamber wrhere He received His people's supplications, and heard them, and to which they turned, when far away from it ; the seat of rule from which He governed ; the place of worship where His people communed with Him, and He with them. All this had been due to one fact, that there was instituted and appointed in it a blood-sprinkled mercy-seat, or propitiatory, and there He dwelt between the cherubim. Now, it is on this same ground, and for this same reason, that Christ is to mankind the true temple or the dwell ing-place of God. His body crucified and risen, is the one medium of communion between God and man, as well as be tween man and God ; and the acceptance of all gospel worship depends simply on its relation to Him as the sole atonement for sin, and temple of God.
We have next to notice, however, how far this text may be regarded as supplying a testimony to the atonement, both in its
NATURE and EFFECTS.
1. The words before us, setting forth the voluntary surrender of Christ's life, and the crime of men as accessory to that death, bear witness to the nature of the human instrumentality used in the matter of Christ's atonement. It is not put as a bare future, nor as a merely hypothetical statement, when our Lord says, " destroy," — it is a permission, in the course of providence, or a judicial and permissive imperative. That is the true mean-
THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING. 245
ing, as intimated by the word here used in the imperative,1 " destroy ; " and the whole phraseology implies that the Lord possessed a full and independent dominion over His own life ; that the Jews could not break down that temple of His body without receiving leave or permission from Himself; and that both its dissolution and its re-erection were equally at His own disposal. The argument is cogent, and it is obviously this : If He could raise up that temple by His own divine Sonship, or by the omnipotent fiat of His divine nature, it indisputably follows, that His life, without leave from Himself, could not have been taken from Him. The " I " is necessarily different from the temple, and also distinct from the human soul ; plainly allud ing to Him who was in the beginning with God. So voluntary was the Lord, indeed, in every step connected with the atone ment, that nothing befell Him, or could befall, which He did not perfectly foresee, and cheerfully consent to undergo. Of all the beings in the universe, He alone had perfect and unchallenge able power over Himself, whether respect is had to the giving up to death of the body which He had taken into union with Himself, or to the fact of raising it up again.
But the words contain, too, a further reference to the flagrant crime of the Jews in putting Him to death. This allusion re quires no little delicacy and precision in our exposition. To what peculiar phase of Jewish guilt is allusion here made ? Our Lord does not refer in this place to the fact that He was appointed to be cut off by violence at the hand of men as con trasted with 'lying on His bed, or with being struck down by the bolt of God. Though the atonement specially consisted in what was inflicted upon the substitute by the hand of God, it is always taken for granted — whether we look at the terms of the first promise in the garden,9 or at the language of all type
1 The verb here used, ivntrt, is plainly much more than, if you destroy, I trill raise up ; it is a permissive imperative, like *x»^wr«ri ri pirftr (Matt, xxiii. 3li )v return ra^itt (John xiii. 27).
2 "It shall l.ruise thy head, :in.l thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. iii. 15). The same violent death was adumbrated by the sacrifice, which must be killed.
246 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
and prophecy — that He was to die by a violent death, and die by human hands. But that is not to be regarded as the precise idea of the passage. Nor is the remark designed to show merely the enormity or virulence of sin in general ; though the treat ment of the incarnate Son shows that sin is of such a character, that it rises even to Deicide when a proper occasion occurs, and that instead of hailing perfect virtue in its human ideal, and adoring the fulness of the Godhead bodily, the human heart only discovers all the more its deep enmity. It is true that sin here abounded in its highest conceivable degree, and that grace much more abounded in overcoming it. But neither is that the thought. Rather, it is the peculiar sin of the Jewish national rejection of their Messiah, the God of Israel, to which our Lord refers. He intimates a progressive profanation of all that was holy, culminating in the rejection of their divine Messiah ; and He bids them fill up the measure of their profanation.
We may here trace the various steps of this national rejec tion. He was the despised and rejected of men, from the very day when He came officially to His own. They could not bear their own theocracy embodied and realized in Jesus. They said, in the language of the parable, " This is the heir ; come let us kill Him." This comes out unmistakeably at this first pass- over, as the context proves. And when Pilate, by a higher guidance, gave a true interpretation or voice to their violence, saying, " Shall I crucify your King ? " they only clamoured all the more for His speedy execution, and desired a murderer to be granted to them in preference to their Messiah, the Prince of Life. In this text, then, our Lord, with a full appreciation of their national rejection already indicated and begun, virtually says, " As you have already desecrated the type, go on to break down the reality (Xvcrare) ; that is, desecrate the temple of your Messiah's body, which is the grand antitype to which the tabernacle and temple alike pointed, and which gave to this stone temple all its significance and value." The fate of these two was connected, in the most close and indissoluble manner,
THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING. 247
as type and antitype ; and hence the rejection of the Christ, ending in His death, was of necessity followed by the outward dissolution of the stone temple, which was now no more the house of God, or the centre of unity for all true worshippers. Our Lord, accordingly, when He took final leave of the temple, to tread its courts no more, calls it tlieir house — not His Father's: "your house is left unto you desolate" (Matt, xxiii. 38). But not only so : the fate of that temple was also connected with the national rejection of Israel as the theocratic people who had long been in national covenant with God. Henceforth, the Sinaitic covenant was to be at an end, and Israel as a nation cast off. The kingdom of God was henceforth to be taken from them, and was no more, during the ages of their rejection and dispersion, to have a peculiarly national footing among them. Jerusalem, as well" as the Mosaic worship, was to perish in the fall.
2. This passage, moreover, alludes to the effects of the atonement, as well as to its nature. With regard to these effects or fruits of Christ's atoning death, they are general as well as personal ; and here we have presented to us a new temple, a new people of God, and a new theocracy, not bounded by the narrow limits of a single nation, but co-extensive with the number of believers out of every tribe and people.
Thus the death of Christ, considered as the adequate atone ment for sin, laid the true foundation of the universal Church, exploding llic narrow particularism of Judaism, arid breaking down the middle wall of partition (Eph. ii. 14, 15) ; while the material fabric, though it continued to stand for forty years alongside of the new order of things, had in fact ceased to have any value or validity, and in truth was now become a common place. The person of Christ crucified, as the atonement for sin, ;md then risen from the dead, henceforth became the great centre of unity, and not the stone temple; and the Lord virtually said, "I will, by my atoning death, and in my re surrection life, erect the true temple of God, which shall, in the
248 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
first instance, be my risen body, and shall, in the next place (because also called my body), be that great redeemed company of which I am the head and centre." There was thus formed a new temple, and a new people of God, in the midst of which God was henceforth to dwell as in His true sanctuary, and where He was to have His perpetual abode. If the old theo cracy was dissolved, and the old national covenant ended as it was made at Sinai,1 this was only that it might be replaced by a new and a universal one.
SEC. XXXII. — THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST, DECIDING THE JUDICIAL PROCESS TO WHOM THE WORLD SHALL BELONG.
" Now is the judgment of this world : now shall the prince of this world he cast out" (John xii /I.)
This pointed and sententious saying brings out the idea that the atonement was to decide the grand question, or the judicial process which had long been pending, as to the party to whom the world should be awarded. It is assumed that this had, as it were, been long under litigation in a court of law, and that it was now to receive its final and irreversible decision in con nection with the atonement.
As to the occasion on which these words were spoken, it was when the Lord had just made His entry into Jerusalem, and after that soul-trouble by which He had been moved and well-nigh overborne, — a trouble which interrupted His train of thought, and brought home to Him the sense of divine wrath. The terror of death, armed as it was with all the sting and curse
1 Ebrard says (wmenschaftlicJie Krltik </< r lining H«-hen Gtschkhte, p. 287), that our Lord understands, by the re-erection, the founding of a new con mutt effected by His resurrection. I may further add, that this dissolution of the Sinaitic covenant, which was only a temporary economy, did not disannul the promises made to Abraham (Gal. iii. 17), and leaves untouched all the questions as to the constant remnant (Rom. xi. 5), and of their being a holy root (Rom. xi. 17), and beloved (ver. 28), and their final reingrafting, and the new covenant to be made with them (vers. 24-27).
THE ATOXKMEXT DECIDING CHRIST'S RIGHT TO THE WORLD. 249
of the violated law, and thus to be confronted as a very dif ferent enemy from what he is to any of His people, could not turn Him aside from the path of obedience ; and when repose and composure returned, He announced, with the calm con sciousness of an already anticipated victory, that various results or fruits stood in causal connection with His death. A whole series of sayings are uttered by Him, not only descriptive of His triumph over the world and over Satan, but also setting forth that His own mediatorial dominion, and the attractive power by which He draws sinners to Himself, are all based on His atoning death. Up till now the world had belonged to one who was undoubtedly its lord, and who is called by Christ the prince of this world, in as far as he held it by right of con quest. Not that our Lord, in so speaking, meant to acknow ledge his title as either legitimate or irreversible, but merely that he had succeeded, in virtue of a successful usurpation, in becoming the world's actual potentate, and in making men his lawful captives. But a new and just adjudication was at hand. This text may be taken as a key to all those passages which represent Christ as the appointed heir of all things (Heb. i. 2), and as Lord of all (Acts x. 36), and as having power over all flesh (John xvii. 2).
With regard to the expression " the world," we must under stand it generally, as appears from the fact, that it was uttered by Christ in connection with the arrival of the Greeks or Gentiles, who desired to see Him. It is a general name, as here used, to be taken simply for the world of mankind, irre spective of its condition, or of the accessory idea of its being the evil world, whether Jewish or Gentile. Those expositors who limit the allusion to the idea that it is the world as rejecting Christ and serving sin, have been swayed by the intiMjii.-hition which they put upon the word judgment as infilling condemnation. But for that interpretation there is no good ground, as we shall immediately show. As the sense depends, however, on an accurate apprehension of the term
250 SAYINGS OF JESUS OX THE ATONEMENT.
judgment, we must, first of all, determine its meaning as used in this verse.
1. Some will have it, that the term judgment in this passage must be taken as denoting condemnation or punishment.1 They argue, with a certain amount of plausibility, that as Jesus frequently uses both the noun and the verb in that acceptation, the word must be so understood in the passage before us (compare John iii. 19, John v. 24, John xii. 47, 48). But it must be further observed, that the expositors who so interpret the term, are, in great measure, influenced by the sense put upon the conjoined word, "the world," which they regard as the Christ-rejecting world. Sometimes they argue from the word "judgment," in order to prove that the term " world" must here mean the -Christ-rejecting world. Some times, again, they argue from the latter term, understood as has been mentioned above, in order to prove that the judgment must be condemnation.
2. The judgment here mentioned has been regarded by other expositors as denoting the just sentence executed upon sin, but not upon the sinner himself.2 An attempt has been made by some able advocates of the atonement, in the true sense, to prove that, in the present passage, the allusion is the sentence of condemnation upon sin vicariously endured, inasmuch as the death of Christ was in reality a witness of the divine justice, and He "bore sin in His own body on the tree. However true and precious that doctrine is, and however clearly taught in other passages of Scripture, plainly it is not the truth in this verse. Though the sin of mankind was condemned in Christ's flesh during His humiliation, it would only be a violence to language, and an imported or deposited idea brought from another connection, were we to force that meaning upon the words here.
1 So Vossius, Vinke, etc.
2 So Gcss, in his articles on the atonement. He makes it a display of justice, but on Christ, not on the world.
THE ATONEMENT DECIDING CHRIST'S RIGHT TO THE WORLD. 251
3. Other eminent expositors will have it, that when our Lord speaks of the judgment of the world, He refers to the reformation and deliverance of the world.1 They argue to this effect from the Hebrew usage of the word, as well as from the fact that the world was to be restored to its legitimate order, and that it was the death of Christ that causally or meritori ously inaugurated this new state of things. They hold that the allusion, therefore, is not so much to a single and separate result, as to the continuous effect of the death of Christ in all those results connected with the renovation or deliverance which we daily see around us. But, however much this interpretation may approximate to the true meaning, it puts a quite incorrect meaning on the words which our Lord employs.
4. The true meaning is, that the hour had come, when the grand adjudication of a process was to take place, that should decide at once and for ever the question to whom the world should belong, as its prince.2 In the judicial process which was pending at that moment before the court of last resort, the great decision or sentence was immediately to be given ; and our Lord in substance says, " It is now to be finally deter mined to whom this world shall rightfully belong, — whether it is to remain in the hand of its present prince, or belong to Me as its owner and its heir for ever. The final award on this great process is now to be given." The language is thus un- mistakeably taken from a cause in court, and describes a judi cial process, awaiting its final and irreversible adjudication.
When our Lord says, " Now is the judgment of this world," the immediate context shows, as may easily be gathered from tin- passage, that the direct allusion is to the soul-trouble, the commencement of His agony, and the prelude of His death,
1 So Calvin, and also Crotills, who says, in I'/ln rfnf< in
- This is Ili-ii^rl's lia]i]iy i-nniim-nt, Loth in his Cnomnn and in his notes to his Crnnaii v.Tsi.,n of tli«- N. T. In tin- lorin.T Iir says: 'Vst g.-nitivns ol.jcrti : jnilii-iiiin il< line niiiiiilo, <|uis post haec jure sit obtenturus muinlum." In tin- lalt.T, his brief nr.tr is: " riii iOTirhtli, -h.-r Process uml Urtheil worn die W.-lt guhuiv urir, odur ihmu bishfrigi-n Fiirsten."
252 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
which was to accomplish that result. The now must be taken as referring to His present anguish in connection with the crucifixion. That this is the meaning, and that the decision of this great cause took place at the completion of Christ's vicarious sacrifice, is put beyond doubt by the next clause. In a word, the world passes into other hands ; another prince enters into rightful possession. It is more a question, it is true, of legitimate title, than of actual possession, to which our Lord here refers ; though He received at once power over all flesh when He ascended, that He might exercise unlimited authority in every corner of the globe, for the promotion of His cause. This is plainly taught by our Lord in another passage, when He describes the function of the Comforter, who takes of the things of Christ, and shows them unto us : " He shall convince the world of judgment, because [better, to the effect that] the prince of this world is judged" (John xvi. 11). The meaning is: the Com forter, when sent forth by the ascended Jesus, shall convince mankind that Satan has lost the legitimate power previously belonging to him, and is virtually denuded of all the authority of a prince, which he so long and so universally exercised on the earth. No one is now compelled to remain under his power, unless, with his own resolve and purpose, he chooses darkness rather than the light. In other words, the passage intimates that the Comforter convinces men that Satan has lost the cause, that the decision is against him, and that Jesus is the rightful Prince and Saviour, to whom they may and ought to swear allegiance.
This text, then, putting all this result in indissoluble con nection with Christ's atonement, intimates that the world is no more Satan's, but Christ's ; or, in other words, that the second man has, by His obedience unto death, received a divinely-con ferred right to be heir of all things. He can claim the world as His own, and thus dispossess its former prince, because He lias endured the curse and fulfilled the conditions which put Him in possession of a claim to the reward. And His disciples
THE ATONEMENT DECIDING CHRIST'S RIGHT TO THE WORLD. 253
are freemen in the world, and well aware that they can serve their Prince with a good conscience, in every sphere and in all the positions where they are placed by His providence. This is put beyond doubt by the precise and definite language of the next clause : " Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." In a word, the world passes into other hands : one prince yields his dominions, and another enters into rightful possession. Not that Christ must be understood as speaking of immediate de facto occupation ; it is more a question of de jure sovereignty. But He has power over all flesh, and exercises unlimited authority in every corner of the globe, according to His sovereign will, for the advancement of His cause. In the other passage, where our Lord delineates the work of the Comforter, the revealer of Christ, saying, " He shall convince the world of judgment, because [better, to the effect that] the prince of this world is judged" (John xvi. 11), the meaning is, as we have indicated above, He will convince mankind that Satan has lost all the rightful power or conquest which had previously belonged to him ; and that no one, unless frowardly or obstinately re bellious, need any longer remain under the power of the prince of this world. The Comforter subjectively convinces men of the objective fact alluded to in the saying under consideration — that Jesus is now the rightful Prince and Saviour, on the ground of His atoning sacrifice, and that He is the Lord, to whom we owe obedience.
This text is thus important in many aspects, and is capable of being viewed in many applications. It throws a steady light on the great and momentous doctrine, that the world is, in con- set [iience of the atonement or vicarious work of Christ, no more Satan's, and that Christ's people are now to be far from the impivssiim tluit they are only captives in an enemy's territory, and unable warrautably to occupy a place in the world, either as a citizen or magistrate. On the contrary, this u-siimony shows that every foot of ground in the world belongs to Christ, and that His followers can be loyal to Him in every position,
254 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
in every country and corner where they may he placed and may have to act their part for their Lord. The world is judicially awarded to Christ as its owner and Lord.
SEC. XXXm. — CHRIST, BY MEANS OF HIS ATONEMENT, OVERCOMING THE WORLD.
" In the world ye shall have tribulation ; hut be of good cheer : I have overcome the world." (John xvi. 2£.)
}3
This saying of Jesus, spoken on the night of His betrayal, a little while before He went out to Gethsemane, shows us His victory over the world, from a point of view different from that which was developed in the previous section. It will not be necessary to do more than briefly notice it, as adducing a con sideration or a motive drawn from the atonement, to confirm the disciples of all ages amid the troubles and persecutions that are to be encountered in the world. Our Lord does not bring out here a mere example, however animating, from which we may learn how to follow His footsteps, but calls attention to an obedience or merit, which has power with God, and constitutes a foundation on which the Christian's faith may lean. "We are by no means to view this saying as referring only to the victory subsequently to be achieved in the world by the preaching of the gospel, but rather to consider it as alluding to what was won by Christ for all His people by His atoning death.
To understand this testimony, then, it must be borne in mind that the allusion is here to Christ's representative act, intimating that His victory is also ours; in other words, that that act of Christ, comprehending His whole earthly life and work, con sidered in its vicarious character, avails with God, and emboldens us to fight the good fight of faith. This memorable saying, important as it is to the militant church of all ages, may be regarded as a key to that numerous class of passages which
k of Christians as more than conquerors, through Him
THE WORLD OVERCOME BY THE ATONEMENT. 255
that loved us (Il-mi. viii. 37), and of a world-overcoming faith (1 John v. 45), and of overcoming by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. xii. 11).
When we inquire, in the first place, how the Lord Jesus overcame the world, an accurate investigation of the passage will show that the emphasis must specially be placed on the person who speaks, as if He would have all eyes turned upon Himself when He says, " / have overcome." He virtually says, " Turn your eye away from the world's hatred and persecuting rage to the consideration of my person and of my finished work of atonement, as constituting the grand victory over the world." He may be said to have overcome the world, partly as He vicariously and in our stead withstood from day to day the world's allurements and temptations, and was not to be turned aside by them — partly as He was faithful in His capacity of surety to His undertaking amid the hatred of the world, that would have sought to put down His cause ; but, above all, as lit- bought by His obedience not only a people in the world, but that world itself, that He might be the heir of all things.
This representative act of Christ, then, lies at the foundation of this saying, His act being the act of one for many. Thus all our victory lies in the merit of Christ. It may seem strange, at first sight, that the Lord should direct His followers to take encouragement from the thought that He overcame the world ; which looks much as if a man of large resources should say to the poor and needy, "I am rich and powerful;" for that Beema to bring ^neither aid nor comfort to others. But the an nouncement ch; in^cs its character the moment it is understood thai His means are possessed in common with that other, and made, available lor t hat other more than I'm- Himself. The Lord hen- bids tin- disciples realize His act as theirs, and His victory as achieved fur them, or, in other words, to take the assurance that He identified Himself with them to such a de-ree that He overcame the. world for them more than for Himself. Indeed, He needed not, on His own account, to have come down from
256 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
heaven ; and He acted only for His people, for whom His victory was made available. He virtually says, " I have overcome not for myself, but for you." It ^is Christ's work that constitutes all His people's victory; and hence, when the Apostle John says, " This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 John v. 4), the language must not be understood as referring to two victories, but as intimating simply, that in and with the exercise of faith upon the Son of God, this full victory over the world is obtained through means of Christ's victory, accounted ours.
Thus, the disciples of Christ accustom themselves to triumph in the triumph of Christ, inasmuch as the true victor has done all that was needed to atone for sin, and to open heaven on the behalf of His saints ; and what remains for them but only to enter into His victory ? The battle was won by Him, and they have but to enter into His work, and so tread death and hell under feet ; and as they realize this victory in Him, they are " of good cheer," for they virtually hear Christ say, " I won the fight, and ye reap the victory ; " and thus all the rage, enmity, and persecution of the world are only but the impotent death- struggles of vanquished enemies.
The Lord here speaks in the near prospect of death, as if the victory were already won for His people, because it was won in His purpose. Hence, while all the powers, ecclesiastical and civil, supposed that He Himself was crushed, and that His cause was in ruins, His own language shows that He was only in pro cess of leading captivity captive. And when we inquire in what sense Christ's victory is the Church's victory, and how it is fitted to fill Christians with good cheer, several distinct points may at once be named. Thus, He bought a people to Him self; He obtained power, too, over all flesh; He acquired for them the inextinguishable power of the divine life ; He puts into them the bold courage of a world-overcoming faith ; and He bridles the power of evil in such a way that it cannot pre vail to overwhelm them (1 Cor. x. 13). I shall only notice,
THE WORLD OVERCOME BY THE ATONEMENT. 257
In A\ ever, one or two of those results which directly flow from His representative act.
1. Christ's people get boldness to overcome the world, and the world's lord, through the blood of the Lamb. They feel that, feeble as they are — nay, as sheep killed all the day long — they can still say, " Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? We are more than conquerors, through Him that loved us"1 (Eom. viii. 37). The words there used will be found, if we exactly interpret them, to point to Christ's one redemption work as the great procuring cause of His people's victory. The martyrs, loving not their lives unto the death, are said to overcome by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. xii. 11); which just means, that the death with which they were threatened by their persecutors had no terrors for -them who had washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, and were fully aware that, if their lives must needs be forfeited, they should sup with Christ the night on which they suffered. Under the bold assurance and con fidence derived from the cross, they felt that the world could as little devour or really injure them as it had swallowed up their Lord, and that their more abundant entrance into their rest was only hastened, and their crown made so much the brighter. What though the world took away life, honour, and goods ? — they were going to more than they left.
2. They get, through the atonement of the cross, all the victorious power of a divine life, to rise superior to the world's allurements and to its frowns. The redeemed Church is assured that she owes all the grace which she receives, to the blood of the Lumb ;• that the Lamb overcomes His enemies in virtue of His at. uiin- blo.nl. inasmuch as this not only deprives Satan's accusations of their points, but brings the power of an invincible divine life into the heart. The faith which appropriates < 'lirist's atoneiiie-nt is thus full of divine strength to overcome tin- world's allurements, as well as its enmity; and when they coii-
1 The anrist participle a-yx-rnfatrtf, as Meyer well oliserves, marks tin- emi nent act ot'love which Christ pcrluimeil l>y ottering up His life. R
258 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
quer through faith in Christ, they overcome only by the power of the atonement, or by the blood of the Lamb.
SEC. XXXIV. — THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST DENUDING SATAN OF HIS DOMINION IN THE WORLD.
" Noiv is the judgment of this world : now shall the prince of this world be cast out" (John xii. 31.)
Our Lord, in His last discourses, makes various allusions to Satan, and three times makes mention of him under the title of the Prince of this World. That the allusion is to Satan, and not, as some have fancifully expounded it, to the Jewish high priest, is too obvious to require proof. He comes in the sense which we have already explained to the Christ on the last night, but finds nothing in Him ; that is, nothing which pro perly belongs to him, or which he can call his, or in any way allied to his kingdom (John xiv. 30). He is represented as judged (John xvi. 11) ; and, last of all, it is here said that he is about to be cast out.1
As to the title here given by our Lord to Satan, "the Prince of this World," it aptly applies to him as the head of all who attach themselves to that natural life which lies in estrangement from God, or who set themselves in banded oppo sition to the Christ of God. How fitly the name applies to the world in its moral and intellectual condition under influences of an ungodly nature, and which come from the evil one, as the first cause and father of corruption, scarcely requires to be pointed out. Thus a kingdom is ascribed to him (Murk iii. 26) ; the wicked are regarded as his children (John viii. 44) ; the fcanp in the parable of the sown field, and which is a term by which our Lord means ungodly men, are said to be sown by him among the wheat (Matt. xiii. 38) ; the plucking away of the good seed is his work (Matt. xiii. 19) ; the act of Judas in
THE ATONEMENT DENUDING SATAN OF HIS SWAY. 259
betraying Christ is referred to Satan entering in and taking possession of the man (John xiii. 27) ; and when the ecclesi astical authorities combined to put Him to death, and were allowed to execute their purpose, He said, " This is your hour, and the power of darkness" (Luke xxii. 53). Satan tried sub tlety first, and violence afterwards, and was signally baffled in both attempts, as a brief glance at both will suffice to show.
1. In the first conflict with our Lord, when he assailed Him with all the resources of cunning and artifice, he was signally defeated. Our Lord took up the combat, as the nature of His suretyship required, at the very point where the battle had been lost by the first man, and withstood the adversary at every point, in presenting temptations and allurements, as well as dissuasives, which had almost everything in common with those seductive baits by which he had made an easy prey of our pro genitors. That temptation is by no means to be regarded in the light of a mere example to us, how we ought to conduct ourselves in similar scenes, and how we may be enabled to meet and to overcome him ; for, though it must be regarded as an example, as all Christ's life will ever be to His people, it was also a deed in our room and stead, and a merit of which His people reap the reward. If we limit it to the mere example, it can inspire but little ardour or confidence of victory into us, even in following His footsteps. But the case is wholly altered when we regard Christ as the atoning surety satisfying for Adam's sin, and meritoriously overcoming in our place the same tempter that had so easily triumphed in the former case, and who, ever since, had held the universal race as lawful cap tives. Thus the temptation of Jesus stood in necessary con nection with His whole atoning work; and that, too, not in the sense that it was but a preparation for His atoning work, but rather an integral portion of the work itself. The victory wmi over the adversary was to be in a way of rectitude, and not by the mere exercise of power. The Son of God must needs, as man and substitute for others, enter the lists with the adversary,
260 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
and deliver the race in whose room He stood, and for whom He constantly acted, in a way of right and of justice. He took up the controversy just where it had before so disastrously ended.
To the temptation itself, and to the several points of attack comprehended in it, it is not necessary here more particularly to refer. Let it suffice to remark, that the tempter's aim from the beginning was directed, as it seems, to the one point of sup pressing or of destroying, in the most effective way in which it was possible, the human nature of Jesus, or to render it unavail ing as the instrument in which man's redemption was to be accomplished. He sought, as much as in him lay, to create a discordance between the two natures of our Lord, and thus to frustrate the end or design of their union. He would destroy, if possible, the harmonious connection between them, by tempt ing Him, under the influence of his taunting words, to usurp the prerogative of the divine, and to deviate from the lot appointed for Him by God ; and then he sought to infuse a false confidence. And when baffled, once and again, in this audacious attempt, he offered Him the world, which was the subject in dispute between the two, without a trial or a conflict — a temptation all the more subtle, as our Lord clearly fore saw, with His enlightened mind, the long and painful course of conflict before Him; and the rather to induce Him to comply, and thus accept the kingdoms of the world at once, and only for the slightest nod of recognition, he showed Him how easily the whole world might be put at His disposal at once. There was thus a terrible coincidence in this threefold temptation, which was well fitted, had there been the smallest tinder on which the spark of temptation could fall, to set all within int.. a conflagration. But all signally failed.
2. Satan having vainly tried subtlety first, tried the fury of persecution next. But the Lord was equally proof against both, and learned obedience by the things He suffered (Heb. v. 8). The evil one, by stirring up the hatred of the rulers, and by
THE ATONKMF.NT HKXUDING SATAN OF HIS SWAY. 261
infusing into them the utmost pitch of rancorous malice, thought to make Christ waver and recoil; or, if he could not draw Him into distrust of God and actual rebellion or apostasy, he would at least accomplish an object much desired by him — His removal from the world, — and so remain master of the field. He little thought, in the machinations of that blind rage, that he was used but as a tool in the hand of Omniscience, and that he was thus carrying out, as a passive slave, what the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God had determined beforehand to be done (Acts iv. 28). The death by which the Lord died for man's redemption, was to be a violent death, or a sacrificial death, but, from the nature of the case and the peculiar relation He occupied, a death neither immediately inflicted by the hand of God, nor effected by an immediate resignation of His own life, except as that was done in and through the intervention of man ; and the malice of Satan only served to give effect to this fore- appointed purpose, and, as is said of the wrath of man, was made to praise Him. That violent death, thus inflicted on Him, was just the way through which the Lord, by an act of sublime priestly self-oblation, was to atone for the human family. By this means divine justice was satisfied, a sufficient atonement offered, the divine favour won, and the lawful captive delivered. It is noteworthy that our Lord twice uses, in the two clauses of this verse, the emphatic word now. He obviously refers to the nearness and efficacy of the atonement, within the circle of which He was now come ; and the language implies that, as Satan's dominion rested upon the fact of sin, and as he occupied a secure and impregnable position so long as the vicarious sacrifice was not oilered, so the vantage ground from which he had long ruled the world was lost the moment divine justice -.itislied. lu the first clause of this verse, as was aliva.lv noticed, the Lord refers to a formal process then pending, and which was linally to decide to whom the world should be ad judged, — whether to Christ, or Satan, its former prince; and a process of such a nature at the tribunal of God clearly ini-
262 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
plies that the adversary against whom it was carried on, was a person, and not a mere abstraction. The language intimates, when we put the two members of the verse together, that the judicial process as to the right of property, or the legitimate title to the ownership, was then to be decided against the adversary. And it is scarcely necessary to inquire how this was so; for when sin was expiated, and the curse borne, Satan's right to the sinner was annihilated, and his sovereignty over the world overthrown. The Lord can say, " Now shall the prince of this world be cast out," because the ground or founda tion of this victory was first to be laid in law and justice, or was meritoriously to be secured by that atoning death which was soon to be undergone, and which was to destroy the sin which gave Satan all his dominion in the world. Hence He virtually says : " My death shall be the destruction of Satan's dominion." There are a few separate sayings of Jesus to this effect, demand ing more particular elucidation ; and to these we shall advert.
1. The first word by which our Lord sets forth the ap proaching termination of Satan's authority, is, the prince of this world is judged (John xvi. 11). It is plain that our Lord does not, in this passage, intend to speak of a judgment upon Satan for his own fall from God, nor does He merely refer to a judicial sentence to be passed on the deceiver, for tempting men at first to become allies with him in his revolt from God. He speaks of a judgment which should strike him as the head of a hostile confederacy in banded opposition to God and His anointed. The meaning of the language which Christ here used is, that the right which Satan had acquired to exercise rule over men, and to treat them as his lawful captives, in consequence of sin, was now to be taken from him, and that his power now was to be broken; for he is said to be judged, when his legal, though at the same time usurped, right to dominion is terminated.
And how did Christ's sacrificial death subvert his empire ? In a twofold way. As sin was put away by the sacrifice of
THE ATONEMENT DENUDING SATAN OF HIS SWAY. 263
Himself (Heb. ix. 20), and as the curse was in this manner fully borne, the supreme Judge discharged the guilty. Nor could the accuser, on any plea of justice, either accuse them, or demand their condemnation, and a doom similar to his own (Horn. viii. 1) ; and besides, the legitimate authority which the tempter has previously possessed, to keep men in death and in spiritual estrangement from God, was for ever at an end. The Mediator's death, which is just to be regarded as the winding-up of His active and passive obedience, destroyed him that had the power of death (Heb. ii. 14), and destroyed the works of the devil (1 John iii. 8). The captivity to which men had hitherto been subjected by divine justice, could be turned back and reversed only by the death of one who was more than man. By this means Satan was overthrown in point of law, and the way was effectually paved for the anni hilation of his sway.
2. The next saying which we shall adduce respecting the victory over Satan, is, the binding of the strong man, and tlie spoiling of his goods (Matt. xii. 29). This result follows upon the sentence, or upon the judgment which was pronounced upon him. Men are called " his goods," or the property which belongs to him, and which, moreover, he is sai<? to hold in peace (Luke xi. 21), till they are effectually called by a high and holy calling. They are now designated the ransomed of the Lord, and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. i. 1 3). And this second step, in the execution of which Christ interposes, as the stronger than the strong one, to bring His sheep into the fold, and to rescue souls from the grasp of the destroyer, is simply an act of power by which He quickens men when dead, enlightens them when blind, and gives access to those who previously were far off.
3. It is further said, in the text under our present considera tion, " the prince of this world shall be cast out." This follows as only the legitimate result of that judgment or judicial process which has adjudged the world to Christ. Satan is to be cast
264 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
out of the world ; and in due time he shall cease to bear rule, and be bound in chains, to the judgment of the great day. He is not, even at present, a lord dc jure of one foot of earth ; but his usurpation lingers, and is permitted to continue, on many accounts, into which it is not our present business to inquire. He is to be ere long, in point of fact as well as right, ejected, to exercise no more power or authority either over single men or over communities of men, by means of any of those systems on which he has expended, for centuries, the utmost refinement of his subtlety. These shall, then, melt away like the mists of the morning. But even now the Church has to encourage herself, on the ground of Christ's atonement, to go in and to take pos session of the world from which its prince has been legally cast out, and from which he will ere long, in point of fact, be fully ejected (Luke x. 18).
The synonymous phrases which occur in Scripture are numerous. Thus it is said of Christ, that He has led captivity captive (Ps. Ixviii. 1 8) ; that He takes a prey from the mighty (Isa. xlix. 24) ; and that He was appointed to bruise the ser pent's head (Gen. iii. 15). This last expression, familiar to the Old Testament Church from the beginning, was the peculiar garb under which God was pleased to convey to man, at the first, the earliest notion of a deliverer, and was, in fact, the first proclamation of the gospel. The serpent had already overcome our race, and held all humanity, not only as it as yet existed in the first pair, but also as far as it should be multiplied under his galling yoke, while no one could vanquish or measure him self against that prince of the world and conqueror of the human race, who was in fact anm-d with the sharp sting of the divine law, of which he was but the executioner. The first promise or primeval gospel, which we shall not here expound, plainly intimated the advent of a person of greater power than the conqueror, yet one also, with true humanity, whose lu-cl could be bruised. That was done upon the cross, and the victory was entered into by all believers, and is only carried
CHRIST'S DEATH TAKING THE STING OUT OF DEATH. 265
out in the history of the Church. And thus we see that Satan is now simply dispossessed by power. A word can conquer him, and God shall bruise him under the Church's feet shortly. Our Lord does not mean that the kingdom of Satan was to be all at once overthrown ; and the future tense, " shall be cast out," intimates a gradual ejection.
SEC. xxxv. — CHRIST'S VICARIOUS DEATH TAKING THE STING
OUT OF DEATH, AND ABOLISHING IT.
Among the sayings of Jesus which set forth the effects of the atonement, there are some which represent Him as the con queror of death. One class of sayings declares that His people never die (John viii. 51). A second class of sayings represents the vicarious death of Christ as bringing in a more abundant life, which effectually abolishes death, and will swallow it up in every form, corporeal as well as spiritual (John x. 10, 11). That the element of incorruption or of resurrection glory must be included in the term LIFE, must be admitted by every one who will do justice to the interpretation of the word as it is used by our Lord. This, however, is delineated as a fruit or effect of the atonement.
Our Lord very frequently uses the term DEATH, which He understands as that complete destruction, spiritual and cor poreal, which follows upon man's estrangement from God, and which will remain as the inevitable doom of all who reject the ] ni (visions of divine grace. And no one can fail to see who is in any way a diligent student of Scripture, that death was a much more terrible fact to mankind in general, and even to those who \vere believers, previous to the atoning death of Christ, than it has been since. The reason of this is on the surface. It was more formidable than after the death of Jesus, partly because the ancient saints had not, as we have, the g fact «if a dead substitute and surety before their eye, partly because death was not then, as it is now, swallowed up in victory (Job vii. lil ; Ps. vi. G; Isa. xxxviii. 3-14).
266 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Our Lord, as has been already noticed elsewhere, does not formally contrast Himself with the first man, in reference to the influence which they severally have on the fact of death in the world, as is done by Paul (Rom. v. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47-56). An analysis of our Lord's teaching sufficiently shows that ample room is left by Him for this ; that is, for the introduc tion of the other member of the contrast. &ut He leaves this to His apostles. When we investigate the meaning of the apostle's words, it is evident that the entrance of death to which the apostle refers includes the idea of temporal death. But while we cannot exclude physical death, a limitation of the meaning to that idea must be held to be quite unsatisfactory ; for it comprehends the entire ruin caused by sin, whether spiritual or temporal. The objective existence of death is umnistake- ably traced to sin (Bom. v. 12) ; and the destruction of death is no less clearly referred to Christ, who has abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light, by the gospel (2 Tim. i. 9).
That the redeeming death of Jesus has the effect of destroy ing death, and depriving it of its sting, is not obscurely indicated in the Lord's own wrords : " He came to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt. xx. 28). The one death was thus in room of the death of many, but with the ulterior view of ushering in a reign of life. Nor can we fail to see the same truth in the special connection of the clauses, which bind together another statement in reference to the Shepherd giving His life for the sheep : " I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd givcth His life for the sheep" (John x. 10, 11). The giving of the more abundant life is there, beyond doubt, put in the closest causal connection with the surrender of His own life. The vicarious sacrifice may thus be regarded as the death of death, and as the cause of life ; and thus, by His own deep humiliation, Christ won a triumph over death for all His followers. To obtain this, however, He Himself of neces-
CHRIST'S DEATH TAKING THE STING OUT OF DEATH. 267
sity became the prey of death, and thus bruised the serpent's head, by being bruised in His heel.
There are three remarkable sayings of Christ, which agree in declaring that the Christian's death is not death ; that he never dies ; that he never sees death, because it is not coupled with eternal death : — " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed front death unto life" (John v. 24). Again (John viii. 51), " Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." Again (John xi. 25, 26), "I am the resurrection, and the life : he that believeth in Me, though he were dead [better, though he die], yet shall he live : and whosoever liveth, and lelicveth in Me, shall never die." These three sayings must be applied not only to eternal death, but also to temporal death. It may be urged : " How do they not die whose bodies we see day after day descending to the tomb, and returning to dust?" And yet Jesus declares that they never die, not even a temporal death, if we fully fathom the depths of Christ's words. In what sense ? Because they are not sub jected by temporal death to any such changes as are really their destruction, having the principle and seed of immor tality within them. They, in truth, never see death, however much they may seem to men to die. The very fear of death, by which they were once haunted and held in bondage, is also removed by the Lord's vicarious death. The phrases used in those verses to which we have referred — shall never see death, shall never die, hath passed from death to life — inti mate, that believers, though passing through temporal death, never undergo death with the dire penal results consequent on it ; that they never encounter death, properly so called ; that they are already possessed of life, and will be raised up in in- corruption. * The allusion cannot be to the actual abolition of
1 It docs not full to us to explain here Christ's profound explanation of the words, " I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Matt. xxii. 32), to the
268 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
death, inasmuch as that still continues, and will be the last enemy destroyed. But the fear of death, or death with its sting agonizing the human mind, in reality exists no more to a Christian. But this allusion is not to mankind as such ; for the sting, the fear of death, remains with the unbelieving, who receive not the gospel j and the sting of death is sin, making every unpardoned man afraid to die, \vhile the strength of sin is the law. The words just mean, then, that a true disciple never dies, inasmuch as death has ceased to be penal, and is no more dreaded. Not only so : the atonement of Christ requires that the body shall be again associated with the soul, and that death shall thus be swallowed up of life (2 Cor. v. 4).
There is a memorable passage in which Satan, the Prince of Death, is contrasted with Christ, the Prince of Life (John viii. 44). The Lord there tells the Jews that they were of their father the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. The words are not, with several expositors, to be interpreted of Cain, but of Satan, whose seduction of the first pair brought death into the world, and all our woe, and who is therefore said to have the power of death (Heb. ii. 14) — a power which he wields, and which must be said to belong to him, in a certain sense, so long as the human race dies, and of which he will be fully denuded at the second advent. On the contrary, the honour conferred on the Lord Jesus by the Father, as a reward for His loyal obedience or humiliation unto death, is that He is constituted the Prince of Life, and that His disciples shall never see death. And this is the direct antithesis of all that marks out him that hath the power of death, or the murderer from the beginning. If Satan is a murderer from the beginning, the Lord Jesus, on the contrary, is the Prince of Life ; and they who are His fol lowers receive, as the reward of His abasement, undying life, and shall never see death (ver. 51).
ofToct that He is not the God of tin- drud, luit of tin- living, and that tins re lationship secured the final resurrection of the saints. Of course it presupposes the atonement as its ground.
CHRIST'S DEATH TAKING THE STING OUT OF DEATH. 2G9
But a difficulty presents itself: How do believers undergo temporal deatli at all, if divine justice has been fully satisfied ? To this the ready answer is, that the death of the Christian is not in any sense to be viewed as a proper punishment of sin, and that he is as perfectly accepted through the atonement of Christ, as if he had not committed a single sin. The import ance of this question appears in the fact, that whenever the temporal death of believers is regarded as the penalty of sin, in however small a measure, the 'perfect satisfaction of divine justice by Christ cannot be maintained. It is urged, that as we can judge of the extent of the atonement only by its effects, so, in point of fact, the extent of its effects can only be inferred from its results, and that believers are not delivered from all the consequences of sin.1 But that is a very ambiguous mode of presenting the question. The one point is : Are the conse quences of sin, in the case of true Christians, still to be re- pin led, as in any sort, a punishment by which they pay some thing to divine justice ? And the answer must be emphatically in the negative. But it is, again, asked: Can there really be a consequence of sin, which is not a punishment of sin? To determine this, we must consider what reference it has to God, \\lio dispenses it; and since we find that He sends temporal trials and afflictions as well as temporal death, not in wrath, not as an avenging judge, but as a wise and loving father, they cannot be termed proper punishments, though they are the consequences of sin, — Christians having wholly passed from a state of wrath into a state of grace. The Epistles, accordingly, dwell upon the fact, that Christ, by His death, <!<•<! roved him that hath the power of deatli, and unstinted it for His people (Heb. ii. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 1-58).
But why, it is still further asked, do the consequences of sin remain, if the acquittal is complete, and justice fully satis fied ? We may explain the anomaly by a parallel ease. A
1 So Korllius, in his discussion with Vitringa, put it : maintaining that tin- Christian paid a something of the penalty.
270 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
rebel may have been arrested and imprisoned, and up to a certain point treated as a criminal worthy of death : he may, through the mediation of another, have obtained a full pardon and discharge, but still have to carry with him, for a consider able time, the wounds which were inflicted on him during his rebellion, or the sores and bruises of his chains and imprison ment. But, plainly, the latter are not any longer regarded in the same light as before, — they are not now a part of his punish ment, nor a part of what he 'has to pay to the justice of his country. While they remain, they may remind him, indeed, of what he was ; but they are wholly altered in their character, and no more foretokenings of something worse that must ensue. They have, in a word, ceased to be punishments.1 Such is temporal death to a Christian, and such are all his present trials and afflictions. They are altered in their character; they have no wrath in them; they are salutary, paternal discipline ; they bring him home.
SEC. XXXVI. — CHRIST LAYING DOWN HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP, AND THUS BECOMING THE ACTUAL SHEPHERD OF THE SHEEP.
" lam the good Shepherd : the good ShepTierd giveth His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, nnd not the shep herd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth tlie sheep, and fleeth : and the wolf catcheth them, and scatter eth tlie sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good Shepherd, and knoiv my sheep, and am known of mine. As tlie Fatlier knoivcth Me, even so [better, and] know I the Father : and I lay down my life for the sJieep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : tlicm also I must briny [better, lead], and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall le one fold [better, flock], and one Shepherd. Tin irfore doth my Father love Me, because I lay down my Vitriuga's Dutch reply to Roellius.
CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 271
life, that I might take it again. No man takcth it from Me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have poiver to take it again. TJiis command ment have I received of my Father." (John x. 11-18.)
This saying of Jesus is peculiarly important, because it exhibits, with the utmost vividness, several various aspects of the atonement not usually put together, and elucidates the whole transaction as a divine provision, whether we view it with respect to its nature, or to the special effects which it produces. This testimony may be considered as the key to all those allusions contained in the apostolic Epistles, which bring before us the office of the Shepherd, as well as the care and watchfulness which He exercises in that capacity in behalf of the flock (1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 4). While it embodies most of the essential truths involved in the atonement, so far as its peculiar character or nature is concerned, the special points which it establishes in connection with the effects of Christ's death, are these : (1) that it sets forth the deliverance thus effected ; and (2) portrays the legitimate right and claim which Christ ac quired, in point of purchase, to become the actual Shepherd of the sheep.
The occasion on which the Lord uttered this memorable saying, was as follows: — The Pharisees, who always resisted His teaching, had just evinced the utmost hostility in connec tion with the cure of the blind-born man, and He was led, by their opposition, to contrast their pretensions with such teachers as are called and commissioned from above, whom alone the sh>vp will hear, ami, above all, to contrast them with Himself, who is tin: Shepherd, by way of eminence, or "the good Shep herd" (ver. 11). As these men had not entered by the door, which lie explains as e<|uivalent to a belief in Himself, and a commission from Him, and as they were only perverters of the people, Christ describes HiiiiM-ll' as the good Shepherd, lieeause He is the ideal of all that the office implies, and the long ex-
272 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
pected Shepherd whom all the ancient prophecies announced under that title (Zech. xiii. 7 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 23 ; Ps. xxiii.).
As this memorable section can be apprehended as a testi mony to the atonement in its nature and effects, only when its profound phraseology and bearing are fully surveyed, it will be necessary, for the purpose which we have in view, to give a succinct outline, at least of the salient points, though by no means a full commentary, of the words, in the connection in which they stand.
This entire passage yields the most important results for the elucidation of the atonement. According to the classifica tion which we have adopted, it is adduced specially to show that the death of Christ was considered by Himself as giving Him the right to be the actual and legitimate Shepherd of the sheep. But we also notice that the Lord Jesus here enters more fully than in almost any other passage into the nature of the atonement as a voluntary sacrifice ; employing language which, from its very nature, implies that one party is rescued by another's death. He states that He not only did not stop short at confronting danger, and exposing Himself to death, which is all that some expositors see in the words, but that He, of His own free choice, subjected Himself to death, because the sheep were to be rescued in no other way. To those who will have it that the section says nothing definite on the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, it may suffice to say that the Shepherd found the sheep in peril, and died to rescue them from it, which Mas only to be done by a vicarious death (ver. 12). When it is further argued that one acting in the capacity of a shepherd does not seek death, but rather avoids it, as far as in him lies, and that the same thing must necessarily have been done by Christ, the answer is at hand. Comparisons agreeing in only one point of resemblance must not be too far pressed; but here the Lord says, in the most express terms, that, far from avoiding danger, as is commonly done, it was not so with the good Shepherd, who spontaneously laid down His life.
CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 273
This testimony sets forth the legitimate claim or right which Christ acquired, in point of purchase by the atonement, to be come the Shepherd of the sheep. It is the key to all those allusions which we find in the apostolic Epistles, and in the New Testament generally, to the office of the Shepherd, as well as to all the assiduous care and watchfulness which He exer cises in behalf of the flock (1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 4). In contrast with the Pharisees, He designates Himself "the good Shepherd ;" which three words may be thus resolved : (1) a Shepherd, be cause He evinces the realized ideal of whatever that office signifies; (2) a good Shepherd, because, whatever can be pre dicated of good or excellent is found in Him; (3) the good Slieplwrd, by way of eminence, because He was long expected and predicted in all the ancient prophecies under that title (Zech. xiii. 7 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 23 ; Ps. xxiii.).
The peculiar and distinguishing act, nay, the unique act, which the good Shepherd1 here mentioned performs, is thus announced : " I am the good Shepherd : the good Shepherd giveth, or lays down, His life for the sheep" (ver. 11). We must, first of all, determine the force of this expression, giveth His life for the sliecp, which is again and again repeated in the sequel of this section. That it implies a condition of danger on the part of the flock, is evident from the allusion to the wolf. But we by no means interpret the words aright, or exhaust their meaning, if we expound them, with many, as denoting merely that the good Shepherd exposes His life to hazard. The Saviour means, much more, a self-surrender, a spontaneous oblation. The modern theories, deviating from the full acknow ledgment of substitution, or of a vicarious sacrifice, commonly allege that Jesus, from the very nature of His position, must come within the laws of moral evil in the world, and perish by their operation, like ordinary men. That is the current repro-
1 i «•«//*»)» « ««x»f. *«>.;,• just intimates, in such phrases, that the person or tiling is all that it behoves to be, excellent, pre-eminent in his kind (Gen. i. 4 ; Matt. iii. 10 ; 1 Tim. iv. 6).
S
274 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
sentation given forth with much force at present, both abroad and at home, by all such as are opposed to the vicarious atone ment. As the opposite has already been proved, I shall not in this place enforce a second time, either the general arguments or the historic facts presented to us in the life of Christ, which fully disprove that view of God's moral government of the world. But this utterance of Christ may, for all reverent inter preters, be accepted alone as absolutely conclusive: "I am the good Shepherd : the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep." He in substance says that His death, though a vio lent one, and necessarily inflicted by other hands, would not be against His will, but His own spontaneous act ; that He could ward it off if He pleased ; but that He would voluntarily sub mit to it for the sake of His sheep, and to secure His right to them. When He says that He giveth His life for the sheep, He intimates that, in His capacity as a. substitute, and as the High Priest, who was called of God, He would lay down His life for His people, by a voluntary act of self-oblation.1 And He announces in the sequel, as we shall see, that He had full authority over Himself, and was about to do what was com petent to no created intelligence, to none but a divine person, to die for His fellows, or, as He sacerdotally expresses it, to lay down His life for the sheep.
He intimates that He was not to risk His life merely as a patriot does in the defence of his country, but actually, and of design, to lay it down. That this is the only true import of the phrase, is evident from the subsequent verses, where the Lord, in the most express terms, contrasts the laying down of His life, and the taking of it again (vers. 17, 18); from which we may
1 Compare Matt, xx. 28, which just intimates the same thing. (See Titt- mann on the passage.) It does not satisfy the force of this phrase, T»J» ^i/£»i» ritr,fi, to interpret it as meaning, to hazard or expose His life as a hero does for his country. (So Grotius.) -nV«v«< -^v^rn turtp is a Johannine phrase (John xiii. 37). We need not be surprised that the phrase does not occur beyond the pale of revelation, for the idea is not found elsewhere. Matthew has $«£»«/ (Matt. xx. 28).
CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 275
nrgue, that if the latter is to be interpreted as the spontaneous resumption of life, the former can only signify the voluntary resignation of it. Tims the antithesis between the two clauses determines the meaning of the phrase, and puts it beyond all reasonable doubt, that our Lord intends to express a voluntary death, which was to be undergone, in order to obtain the salva tion appointed for His people. This phraseology, then, from its very nature, intimates that the Lord Jesus offered up His life, or died, in such a sense that another is delivered in consequence of His substitution.
This leads me to advert to the preposition here employed : " The good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep." The phrase indisputably means, for their benefit, for their good. Nor must it be omitted, that when the clause in which this expression occurs, denotes instead of — which it frequently does — this latter idea is to be regarded as rather involved in the nature of the transaction, than derived from the preposition itself. When He says, therefore, that He died or laid down His life for the sheep, the phraseology implies, that from the nature of the case, He suffered in their room and stead.1 The statement that He laid down His life for the sheep, carries with it these two important thoughts: that He acted from spontaneous choice, or from His own proper motion, and not at all necessitated by any outward constraint ; and that this substitution secured the safety of the sheep. Our Lord thus represents Himself as laying down His life to save theirs from danger and destruction, which inevi tably impended, or as dying to separate His sheep from those that vsvn> exposed to the destroyer, and, therefore, ready to be devoured. From the fact that such a surety laid down His life, it follows, by necessary consequence, that His people shall be .saved \vith an everlasting salvation.
Nut only so : the whole connection of tin- words on which wu have been commenting, leads us to the further thought, that
1 v*\pf ra> vftfrivtii. The i/rip implies the a>ri, as we noticed before in section xivi.
276 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
He died to purchase them by His substitution, or to put them under His protection, and to make them His own. They are con sidered as not only rescued from danger, but as rescued to be His. That this is the full thought, of which we are not to stop short, is evident from a right interpretation of the passage as it stands. And hence, though Christ was called the Shepherd in virtue of His designation to this office, and though they also are desig nated the sheep in virtue of being given to Him by election, yet, in point of fact, He becomes the Shepherd, and they the sheep of His fold, only in virtue of the accomplished fact of the atonement. The Lord acquires an actual or purchased right to them as His sheep, only by His death. They are bought to be His, only by a price (Acts xx. 28). (Compare Rom. xiv. 9.)
As a consecutive commentary on this important passage would require us unduly to extend our remarks under this section, we shall limit our attention to two points: (1) the statements which elucidate the nature and character of the atonement; (2) the effects which are described in connection with it, as procuring for the Lord, not only a purchased right to His people considered as His sheep, but also the actual exercise of all those functions which belong to Him as the Shepherd. The second of these two is represented as the effect, fruit, or reward conferred on the Lord Jesus in virtue of His work of expiation. I shall refer to them both in order.
1. With regard to the words here used, which more particu larly elucidate the nature of the atonement as a divine provi sion on the Father's part, and as a work accomplished on the part of the Son, He fixes our attention, in the first place, on the commandment of His Father : " This commandment have I received of my Father." This at first sight seems to run counter to the absolute authority in His own right, to which the previous clauses emphatically lay claim ; and this I notice first, as being first in the divine order of action. We have only to settle the relative position of the two clauses, to discern all the sides of this important truth. It was only be-
CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 277
cause Christ had an inherent divine right to dispose of His humanity at discretion, that He received this commission or command of the Father to lay down His life in the execution of a paction or covenant, which takes for granted all that in herent right, and proceeds upon it. That is the relation of the two propositions. The converse would involve error of the worst description. The supreme deity of Christ indeed shines through all these sayings. The word commandment, here used, is not to be interpreted authority, as it was by the old Socinians and modern Humanitarians. It refers to that covenant or counsel of peace, according to which the Lord Jesus, as a divine person, was appointed to act an important part in the restora tion of the lost family of man, or required to suffer death for the redemption of the human race, A wide difference obtains, however, between a command imposed upon a creature, and a command imposed on Christ. In the former case, the com mand is absolute and binding, whether we will or not. In the case of Christ, the commandment applies only on the supposi tion that a work was to, be done according to a divine paction, for the salvation of the human family, and that He, of His own proper motion, undertook to finish it, for the welfare of the Church. The phraseology implies that God appointed the ar rangement, and is pleased to allow the substitution to redound to the account of others. This commandment He received from the Father, or, in other words, He came into the world charged with this momentous commission from the Father.1
Hence, all that was to be accomplished in our Lord's life after the incarnation, was undertaken and carried on according to the commandment of the Father. "Whether we have regard, therefore, to the surrender of His life, or to the resumption of it, He acted at every step only in obedience to the command ment of the Father, who so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, and required the atonement at His hands. This naturally leads back our thoughts to other statement
1 This is the proper meaning of the i»r»Xii.
278 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the effect that the Father loved Him on His own account, and then loved Him on this account, that He accomplished the work given Him to do (ver. 1 7). The present verse raises our thoughts to the origin of the covenant or pact between the Father and the Son for man's redemption ; and the other declaration shows that Christ, on account of the fulfilment of the great under taking, becomes, in a new sense, the object of the Father's love and complacency ; and herein especially does God manifest His love to us men, that He gave the commandment, and rewarded the surety for performing it.-
2. The Lord here declares, in the most unconditional and un restricted use of the terms, that no one took His life from Him, and that the sacrifice was absolutely self-moved and voluntary. No language could be more unambiguous, as addressed to hostile minds before Him, and to all ages, ever ready to take up some imperfect notion as to the spontaneous sacrifice of Christ. He declares that no power from any quarter could exercise Any constraint upon Him ; that He was exempt from the malice and power of men, except in so far as He chose to surrender Him self into their hands. Immortality belonged to Jesus by a double right. He was immortal, first of all, in virtue of a sin less and perfect humanity, in which no taint was to "be found; and He was immortal, still further, in virtue of the fact that His humanity was the flesh of the Son of God.
To make this point still more clear and indubitable, He subjoins the additional statement, that He had power, in His own right, to lay down His life, and to take it again.1 This saying no merely human personage could arrogate to himself. In the case of a martyr, for instance, who, in a certain sense, lays down his life in attestation to the truth, such an expression would be improper; for he only discharges an incumbent duty which he owes to God, and has no discretion to conserve or to
1 The old Protestant commentators correctly interpreted the /'(•««;«•<'* as refer ring to the power of the Son of God to let tin- humanity expire, and by the same exercise of power, to resume it. This is better than the comment of the moderns.
CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. L'7'.l
retain his life — an idea which our Lord's words comprehend and imply. The death of Christ was so absolutely voluntary, that He had full power to withhold the sacrifice or to offer it.
They who do not frankly accept Christ's true deity, are re duced to the necessity of making reservations as to the proper force of His language. They argue that the words, " to lay down His life," mean " to receive death willingly ;" and that " to take it again," is to receive it from the Father's power. But that is not the import of the phraseology. The element of spontaneity and divine authority or power over His humanity must be discerned in both phrases ; and hence there is a wide line of demarcation to be drawn between Christ's position and that of a created being. The words mean that it was in Christ's power, as a divine -person, to resign His life, and that it lay within the resources of His omnipotence to resume it at His discretion. All this is contained in the language: "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power tp take it again. This com mandment have I received of my Father" (ver. 18). This pas sage is meant to be an exhaustive exposition of the priestly self-oblation of Christ. We may affirm that all one-sided opinions on the proper nature of the atonement, and especially that the modern theories, are shattered, and go to pieces upon this text ; which uses every form of expression to bring out the fact that our Lord, on the one hand, acted of His own proper motion, and, on the other, according to a commandment, pact, or agreement with the Father. It may serve to exhibit the full force of this language, if we consider the third proposition.
3. The Lord next speaks of His reward for His self-oblation: " Therefore, doth my Father love Me, because I lay down my lile, that I might take it again" (ver. 17). The Jewish nation, already seeking to compass His death, were not to conclude, when they had -ained their end, that Jesus was an involuntary sufferer, or that His public execution was fatal to His Messianic claims. They were not to think that He had been abandoned
280 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON TIIE ATONEMENT.
by God. On the contrary, He here declares that, far from incurring the position of one abandoned of God for ever, His voluntary oblation was only the special ground of the Father's love to Him, as is here expressly declared, or the procuring cause of this great reward. The Lord means that He was to be the special object of the divine love, and of the highest possible exaltation, because He was to finish this work of atonement in His capacity as surety; or, in other words, He was to receive this love, and all the reward which that love could confer, and especially the glory and office of being the chief Shepherd, only on this ground.
But before developing this thought, I must notice that our Lord adds, that He laid " down His life, that He might take it again." His death was, according to the express intention of the offerer, to be succeeded by His resumption of life. This is not the mere result or consequence of His death, — the lan guage expresses design or intention. It is best to understand it as intimating " on the condition that I take it again." l It will thus intimate : He who cannot overcome death by tasting death for others — that is, he who is not of such dignity as to atone for the sins of men by dying, and yet able to take life again, cannot be, or be called, the Shepherd of the sheep. Christ intimates that He, from His own inherent dignity and resources, could do this, and that He laid down life, because He was one who could exhaust the curse, and not be destroyed by it. He alone could give His life, because He alone could take it again. A mere creature could do neither. This was an indispensable condition. It was necessary that He should not abide in death, but so lay down His life, that He could take it again ; and He could not have been a Saviour, if He could not have taken His life again.
1 Of all the four different expositions given of this phrase, ri(r./j.i "»«, that of Calvin, hac lege ut, is much to be preferred. It cannot refer to the mere issue or result of His death apart from the intention or design, as "»« is the particle employed.
CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 281
But let us return to Christ's reward. It may at first sight seem strange that the beloved Son, who in His own right dwelt from everlasting in the Father's bosom, should here describe Himself as the object of divine love, because He laid down His life. How could He so speak, when He was the Son of His love from all eternity ? But the reward of Christ, to which this language points, is always based on the work of atonement or humiliation to which He stooped, and is corre spondent to it ; and the love of God, in the sense in which our Lord here uses the term, is peculiarly displayed in advancing Him to the office and dignity of receiving a multitude of redeemed sinners, and of being the chief Shepherd of the sheep. There is the same connection between the 'because and therefore in this saying that we find elsewhere expressed, when a connection is pointed out between Christ's work and His reward. It is the very same as when it is said, for instance, by the Apostle Paul : " He became obedient unto death, the death of the cross ; wherefore God hath highly exalted Him " (Phil. ii. 8, 9). Some, whose opinions lead them to regard the cross as only a display of love, without any other element, regard this utterance as merely intimating that the Father's love to men found its full expression and manifestation on the cross.1 But that notion is inadmissible on the ground of lan guage which will not admit such an interpretation, and on every ground, whether we have regard to philology or doctrine. The only meaning which the words will admit is, that the Father loved the Son with the love of recognition and reward for His voluntary sacrifice, and that He rewarded Him with all that exaltation, authority, and glory which are compre hended in the office of "the great Shepherd of the sheep." The laying down of His life was thus tlje reason why the Father loved Him in this sense, and made Him the object of His complacence and regard.
1 Thus Sticr expounds the words, but incorrectly; for the$«* rtvro en will not bear such u meaning. (See Meyer.)
282 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Thus it appears that Christ has won the sheep to be His by right of purchase. Accordingly, His exaltation to be Lord of all is uniformly put in connection with His death, and viewed as the reward of His atonement (comp. Phil. ii. 9). Not to mention the universal dominion which He exercises over all flesh, He has a peculiar authority over the Church, or over that flock for whose welfare He laid down His life, — being con stituted the Lor,d of His people, the head of His Church, the Shepherd of the sheep, on the ground of His vicarious death. His dominion is based upon His sacrifice ; and all Scripture, as well as this present section, is one consistent testimony to the fact that He was exalted because He was obedient to the Father's will.
Thus His death did not redound to the injury of the sheep, as it wTould have done in the case of the earthly shepherd. On the contrary, the surrender of life, and the resumption of it on Christ's part (ver. 17), were both conducive to the highest wel fare of the sheep, and gave Him the legitimate right to become, in the full sense of the term, their Shepherd in point of fact. There was no cause to fear, lest, by the death of Christ, the sheep should be deprived of His protection, interest, and care. He took His life again, to be their everlasting Shep herd (ver. 18).
I may only further refer, for a moment, to the statement made in reference to the sheep. They are described as known by Christ, and as knowing Him (vers. 14, 15). The correct mode of construing these two verses, is not to separate them by a full break in the sense, but to connect them by a comma ; l the thought being that the mutual knowledge which obtains between Christ and His people, has its counterpart in the mutual know ledge between the .Father and the Son. The relation between Christ and His people is thus like that which is between the
1 See the translation which we have given at the commencement of this section. The uuthori/eil Knglish version, making x,tt6u; begin a new sentence, violently severs the sentence, and loses its point.
CHRIST'S DOMINION THE REWARD OF THE ATONEMENT. 283
Father and Him. The thought is, that the Lord Jesus knows His sheep, and that He is known of them with a knowledge, which has its analogue in the mutual knowledge between the Father and the Son. They are here represented as His, because given to Him from of old, and because bought with a price. Hence He adds, a second time, that He laid down His life as a vicarious sacrifice, in order to gain a right to the sheep (ver. 15). But He adds furthermore: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring [lead], and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold [better, one flock], and one Shepherd " (ver. 16). When the Lord states that He had other sheep, and that they were equally His, He unniistakeably refers to the vast outlying Gentile world. Plainly, our Lord does not refer to the danger to which His first disciples were exposed, on the occasion of His arrest and trial. He means that other sheep were given to Him of another fold, and that, in consequence of His atonement, He should lead or feed other sheep, who should be accounted His, wholly irrespective of nationality, and united under Himself as the chief Shepherd, who should feed them all with equal love. The allusion is not to the Jews of the dispersion, but to the gathering together of all nations to Him ; and His death was to be the grand uniting power (comp. Eph. ii. 16). It was God's design and plan to bring them together, and to unite them in one flock, every partition wall being broken down, and thus to make, not many flocks, but one, under one Shepherd.
SEC. XXXVII. — SAYINGS WHICH REPRESENT CHRIST'S DOMINION, BOTH <;F.M:I;AL AND PARTICULAR, AS THE REWARD OF HIS ATONEMENT.
We shall in this section consider those sayings which describe Christ's unlimited dominion in the universe, as based on His redemption work. So constant are the allusions in the Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles to the universal lordship of
284 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Jesus, and to the fact that the atonement is the basis on which it rests, that we naturally expect to discover some express testi mony of Jesus to the same effect; and we find, accordingly, most explicit statements from His own mouth, that the exalta tion awaiting Him was due to the fact that He was humbled as the surety, and that He became obedient to the Father's will.
To begin with an early testimony, we hear from Him the announcement that God gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He was the Son of Man (John v. 2 7). The meaning of this saying, according to the import of the title Son of Man, as already explained, is, that He should be exalted to the utmost conceivable dignity, and to the authority of pronouncing the irreversible sentence of the judgment day, because He had be come, by voluntary abasement, the second man, and the atoning surety of sinners. That is the import of the title; and the whole passage proves that, in virtue of His atonement, Jesus was, in the first place, to be invested with supreme dominion, and to receive the authoritative exercise of all judicial functions, as the climax of His exaltation.
1. That the atonement is the foundation of Christ's dominion, considered in its particular bearing, will appear still more clearly, if we apprehend correctly the saying of Jesus, where He de lineates the merits of His atonement for the conversion of others, by comparing Himself to a grain of wheat, which dies, and brings forth fruit. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into tJie ground and die, it abideth alone : but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (John xii. 24). Here the influence of the atonement on the cause of Christ in the world is further described. As to the occasion, we find this saying uttered in connection with the request of certain inquiring Greeks, who, under the force of religious impressions, wished to see Jesus, and to be introduced to Him. Their coming was a prelude to the vast multitudes who were soon to attach them selves to Him, and constituted a proof or evidence to the Lord, that the hour of His sacrifice was now come. No one can
CHRIST'S DOMINION THE REWARD OF THE ATONEMENT. 285
reasonably doubt whether our Lord here alludes to His death ; and the formula, " verily, verily," commonly used when uttering some weighty truth, not finding a ready assent in the mind of His hearers, was meant both to convince His first disciples that it was no earthly dominion that He was setting up, and to show all ages that His death was no fortuitous event, but the great end of His coming, and destined to have decisive issues for multitudes.
The figure borrowed from nature is intended to display the indispensable necessity of Christ's atoning death, if a people were to be gathered to Him. He represents His death as the sowing of seed-corn, from which a harvest was certainly to be reaped in due time ; and He says, the grain must die first. On the physical fact that a grain of wheat first dies before it fruc tifies, it is not necessary here to enlarge (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 36). The well-known Haller, who so fully met the exceptions taken by the sceptical writers to this language, points out that the visible parts of the grain, from the moisture of the soil, do suffer decomposition, and die ; and that the germ, which alone lives, receives a new form, as the direct consequence of that decay. But what does our Lord mean by the language here used, when He represents the dying as being the antecedent to the much fruit ? Some expositors will have it that the Lord had His eye on the fruit, which His death woidd yield to Himself in the glorification which was "before Him. Others regard the fruit as the remission of sins, or as the benefits of salvation that accrue to His people. l But though these are all results of the atonement, according to Scripture, they are, neither of them, the truths in tliis passage. Our Lord plainly refers to the multipli cation of believers, or to the bringing of many to faith. This is by far the best commentary on the words; it harmonizes with the figure. It is confirmed by the circumstances and by the occasion.1 The iiicunin- will thus be: that if He had not
1 See Tittmann on the passage.
2 See Nosselt, Opusc. ; Ustcri, EntwlcL Paul. Lc/irbcg. p. 231 ; on the passage.
286 SAVINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
died, He never could have gathered a people to Himself, nor organized a Church; that the vast multiplication of subjects who were soon to come to Him, as these Greeks were already coming by anticipation, was to be the fruit of His atoning death. These words, then, intimate that His death was as indispensable to the erection of His kingdom, as the germination of the grain for the harvest. In a word, without His atoning death, He would have remained alone — a solitary unit, a sinless, perfect individual, — who would have gone to heaven alone. But there would have been no multitude to follow Him — no harvest.
2. Christ's particular dominion as to its specially attractive power, is founded on His atoning death. This comes out in the words : " And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me " (John xii. 31). We may say that this whole section, beginning as it does with the visit of the inquiring Greeks, brings before us a series of sayings descriptive of the effects of the atonement in different points of view. He had just said that, by the adjudication of a pending process, the atonement gave the world to another proprietor or master, the consequence of which should be the ejection of its former prince ; and here He adds, that the atoning sacrifice, now about to be offered, and nigh at hand, was to lay the foundation of His own dominion, and to constitute the ground or warrant of all that attractive power or subduing grace by which He should deliver men from the ser vice of Satan, and draw them to Himself. The words emphati cally prove that the cross is the basis of His sway over all wlmm He brings out of Satan's empire, and draws to Himself, as Lord. The phraseology employed, " and I, if I be lifted up," shows plainly enough, as has elsewhere been already proved, that the Lord has in His eye, not His glorification in heaven, but His abasement on the cross. This is the import of the phrase, " if I be lifted up." But, to obviate all doubt on this head, the evangelist subjoins his own inspired commentary : " This He said, signifying what death He should die " (ver. 33). The meaning, then, intended to be conveyed by our Lord, is simply
CHRIST'S DOMINION THE REWARD OF THE ATONEMENT. 287
tliis : that, in virtue of His atoning death, He should draw all nations equally to Himself. "When we examine this pregnant passage, a certain measure of reserve is, beyond doubt, apparent in the language, arising not so much from a wish to conceal aught, as from the fact that the persons to whom He spoke could not yet receive the full import of the communication. But several points are made plain, partly by direct statement, partly by implication.
With respect to Christ's crucifixion, which is here considered in the light of a special and efficacious atonement, He speaks of it as the antecedent or cause, of the erection of a kingdom, which is plainly contrasted with that dominion which Satan possessed, and which was to be founded on its ruins. He unmistakeably intimates, too, that the foundation of all that drawing power by which He should bring men to Himself, in His capacity of a King, invested with authority and dispensing divine life, is the propitiatory death of the cross. All this is contained in the connection of the clauses. The antecedent and consequent emphatically intimate this.
But He next refers to the personal exercise of this drawing power when He says, " / will draw." He thus, clearly enough, intimates that, though crucified, He was not to abide in death, but was soon to live, and set up a kingdom, drawing subjects into it ; that is, that men were to be drawn to Him as the King. H< was to draw men, and to draw them to Himself; and when He says all men, this must be interpreted in the light of the visit of these inquiring Greeks, who were Gentiles, or as re ferring to tin- totality or definite company of the elect. He rather refers to men of every nationality and culture: "I will draw all unto Me." Not that all this was instantaneously to follow the crucifixion ; but, as all were to be drawn, so the ground or warrant was, in every case, furnished by the cross.
3. As to the more general dominion of Christ, we find that, subsequently to His resurrection, He reminded the disciples that His suHerings were the pathway to His power : " Ought not Clirist
288 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory ?" (Luke xxiv. 26). This was a truth which they might have learned from Isaiah (Isa. Ixii. 14, liii. 12), and from the prophecies and Psalms, which had long before sufficiently exhibited both the suffering and glorified Messiah, and set forth that the abasement only paved the way for the glory (Isa. lii. 14-53; Ps. xxii. ; Ps. ex.). The dominion on which Jesus was to enter, was to be nothing but the reward and fruit of that expiation for sin which was offered upon the cross ; and He was crowned with glory and honour, as the reward to which He was entitled. Thus the kingdom of Christ has its foundation, not so much in the truth He taught, as in the humiliation to which He de scended, and in the redemption work which He finished. This kingdom was promised to Him as the reward of this finished work, for the world's redemption. On this foundation His king dom was to be erected ; and dominion was actually imparted to Him over His own purchased property, and also over all things, without limitation or exception, for the execution of His wise and gracious designs toward all who obey Him. After the consummation of His work, He secured, as a reward for all His previous abasement and indignities, a condition of glory, in which the human nature of Jesus participates in, a way which is far above our comprehension.
Questions are here raised as to the capacity in which Christ exercises His dominion, and whether we are to regard Him in this His regal authority as God, or as man, or as JlfnUcfcr. Some, having regard exclusively to the divine power of the Lord, and to the perfections needed for the due discharge of this dominion, ascribe the kingdom to Him as God. Others, discerning that man's dominion over all nature was his prime val privilege, and that this was a dignity awaiting the second man on the completion of His work, are ready to refer all this rule and authority to Christ as man. But, more correctly, we must view this dominion as His due reward as Mediator : " To this end He both died and rose and revived, that He might be Lord
CHRIST'S DOMINION THE REWARD OF THE ATONEMENT. 289
both of the dead and of the living" (Rom. xiv. 9). We are not, then, to separate His human nature from His divine in any act of His dominion. The design to be attained was the world's salvation, and to prevent the sentence of condemnation from swallowing up mankind.
4. There are numerous sayings of Christ on the subject of His dominion, which delineate a general economy of gracious forbearance, during which men are brought to Him as indi viduals.
To exhibit the general nature of this dominion in a sinful world in some of its aspects, we must listen to our Lord's delineation of it. " The Father judgeth no man, but hath com mitted all judgment unto the Son" (John v. 22). His dominion, based, as we have seen, on the atonement, allows an economy of forbearance which could not otherwise have existed. How are we to expound, in a manner worthy of God, the words, " the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son ?" Plainly, the Father does not recede from His inalienable function as the supreme Lord and Judge of rational beings, for that would be too human a mode of contemplating this transaction. Though we must hold, as a first principle, that there is no will in the Father which is not also in the Son, and conversely, still the kingdom of Christ, or the dominion of grace which is main tained in the earth, removes the distance between God and man in such a measure that, during the course of this dispen sation or economy, grace, remission of sins, and invitations to repentance are constantly announced to mankind on the part of -God. It is a dominion which can have place only wlu-n there are sinners, and which is sustained simply through grace, and aims at the remission of sins ; pointing also to a consurn- mation where the perfections of God shall at least be mani fested in a renewed humanity and in a purified earth, li erected only on the ground of Christ's expiatory death.
This dominion is, from its peculiar natuiv, a. lapu-d only t«> the world in its present state of imperfection, and as corrupted
290 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
by sin.1 It would be no rule appropriate for heaven, where sin never enters, nor for hell, where forgiveness is never proclaimed, and is only adapted to man in his present condition. Not that Christ's merits only usher in a bare possibility of salvation, while the application of His finished work depends, in whole or in part, upon men themselves ; for where true conversion takes place, this result is ascribed to Christ's merits and to the opera tion of the Spirit. But the representation given of that dominion is to the effect, that when the Lord had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of God, and sent forth the proclamation of remission to all nations in His name. The expiatory death of Christ alone procured and established that kingdom; and He was crowned with glory and honour, that He might manifest, in the most signal way, a gracious dominion among men, and overthrow the dominion of Satan. Tims God restores many a forfeited privilege, and even prolongs the existence of the race, which, but for the atonement, would have been forfeited, according to God's just sentence.
The statement has often been made, and still is, by rationalistic writers, that Christ's kingly sway is nothing more than the influence of truth upon the minds of men ; by means of which a new kingdom of truth and virtue is founded in the earth, the members of which are those who embrace the truth, with loyal subjection to its claims. They thus make Him nothing but a king of truth, or a teacher of truth. Nor is that opinion warranted by the passage on which it is professedly based (John xviii. 37), for the Lord does not say that He is called a king only as bearing witness to the truth, and that, besides this, He has no other proper dominion. The Lord, in answer to Pilate's question whether He was a king, roundly affirms, notwithstanding Pilate's obvious wish to hear Him dis claim such pretensions : " I am a king ;" and the subsequent statement just grounds His unambiguous and bold confession, as if He would say, " I will not dissemble ; for this end was
1 See Royaards' De waare aart van Jesus Koninyryk, Utrecht, 1799.
THE ATONEMENT PROCURING THE HOLY GHOST. 291
I born, and came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth."1 The passage says nothing, then, about His having no other dominion but a subjective dominion of truth. Nor is that thought in the passage. That interpretation gives Christ no other dominion than such as apostles and teachers would have in common with Him. But to Christ alone is a kingdom ascribed ; and no one shares it, or can share it, with Him, except as He graciously exalts them to sit with Him on His throne.
Thus the dominion of Christ, whether we view it in one aspect or in another, is founded on the atonement of the cross.
SEC. XXXVm. — THE INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT IN PROCURING THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.
There are several sayings of Jesus which point out the close connection between the gift of the personal Holy Ghost and the atonement of Christ. These I purpose briefly to elucidate in the present section. We find the Lord affirming, in a variety of passages, that it was He who, by His vicarious sacrifice, obtained for His Church this great gift. And, in discussing this point, it will be necessary to carry with us the canon of interpretation, wliich has already been frequently applied, — that whatever is graciously conferred on man through Jesus Christ, was wanting in our natural condition. The Spirit, whose absence is thus taken for granted just as in the other blessings, forfeited by sin, and no more within the compass of our own resources, is repre sented as restored or graciously provided by the Mediator be- hvrt-n God and man. Our Lord's language, correctly interpreted, announces that the presence and operations of the Spirit wnv procured by His atoning sacrifice for a fallen world ; and further more, that He is sent by Christ, and leads men to Christ, Not that the Spirit was wholly unknown in the ages which preceded
lrThe phrase, "to bear witness to the truth," occurs i-l.spwh.-n-, meaning, In declare the truth (com].. John v. 33) ; and this very passage is adduced by Paul in proof of the fact that Christ witnessed a gi»>d confession (1 Tim. vi.). It certainly does not mean that Christ is a king of truth, and in no other sense.
292 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the incarnation and the redemption of the cross; for we see that He not only acted as the Spirit of inspiration in the case of spirit-filled men, such as Moses, the Judges, David, and the prophets generally, but came upon many, as an animating power, for the work of conflict or endurance to which they were called. But that preparatory work of the Spirit, as well as the personal enjoyment of forgiveness, was owing to the atonement, which had a retrospective as well as a prospective efficacy, and thus had an influence on all times. That supply of the Spirit en joyed by the Old Testament saints was dependent on the atonement or meritorious work of righteousness, which was, in due season, to be brought in by the Lord Jesus. And the reason why the Spirit was not more largely given in the pre vious ages, was because this gift stood in causal connection with the atonement, and because the link between the two must unmistakeably be established, and appear in deed as well as in word. The actual effusion of the Spirit, in the fulness which distinguishes the Christian from the Jewish Church, was reserved for the day when Christ sat down on His mediatorial throne, filled with a plenitude of the Spirit, given to Him as the reward of His atoning sacrifice.
To understand aright our Lord's sayings on this point, it is obvious that we must regard Him as the second Adam. His work, as is everywhere assumed by Himself, and declared by His apostles, was the counterpart of Adam's disobedience ; and as the result of the fall appeared, among other things, especially in this, that the Spirit was, in the necessary exercise of divine justice, withdrawn from the human heart, which was thus left not only without its great inhabitant, but a prey to all those influences of a natural and visible kind which, in the absence of the Spirit, inevitably draw the affections away from God, — so the atoning work of Christ, not less influential for good than was Adam's act for evil, brought back the Spirit in His fulness to all for whom Christ was accepted as a representative, with this further or additional security, that He was to be forfeited
THE ATONEMENT PROCURING THE HOLY GHOST. 293
and withdrawn no more. It is in tlie highest degree important to regard the redemption work of Christ as the ground or meritorious cause, in virtue of which the Spirit was restored to man. The sayings of Jesus on this point are explicit enough, and leave no doubt that there is a special connection between His atoning work and the gift of the Holy Ghost — such a link, in fact, as is established between merit and reward. The con nection in which the effusion of the Spirit stands with the atonement of Christ on earth, and with His intercession in heaven, as founded on it, demands a special study ; and when this is lost sight of, everything is presented in a false light. Though the Spirit, as a divine person, comes in the exercise of free and condescending love, He yet comes as the representative of Christ and the Spirit of the risen Surety, according to the tenor of Christ's prevailing intercession, and on the ground of the atonement. This intercession is never ineffectual, because it is founded on the work which was finished on the cross ; and it consists in presenting before the Father that crucified humanity, in which He accomplished man's redemption. The mission of the Spirit is thus the fruit of Christ's atonement, and one of the greatest fruits of His mediation in behalf of a fallen world.
M'c shall now notice more particularly a few of Christ's sayings, which serve to bring out this causal connection between the atonement and the donation of the Holy Spirit.
1. The first saying of Jesus on this subject was the promise ut it-red at the feast of Tabernacles, when He invited every one who had the sense of thirst, to come to Him and drink : " He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive ; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John vii. 38, 39.) The special application of this text to Christ's glorification, which is immediately appended by the inspired evangelist, is the point which hero demands our attention. But it will be necessary to ascertain, first of all,
294 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
what our Lord signified by these words, and the rather because they are so uniformly misapprehended. The rivers of living water, described as flowing from the Christian, are commonly understood to mean the communications of the Spirit which one Christian is made the channel of dispensing to another. To that interpretation, however, there are great objections: (1) It intro duces an idea foreign to that which our Lord had expressed, which was the quenching of thirst ; (2) it represents one Christian as in some sense a fountain of the Spirit to others, which is not a biblical mode of representation. A better comment, and serving to maintain the unity of the figure, is to view the saying as of the same nature with the promise of Christ as to thirsting no more, for there should be the well of water within, l springing up to everlasting life (John iv. 14). It is thus a promise of full satisfaction and abundant refreshment to the thirsty them selves. This is the best comment on the words.
John next adds that the Lord spoke of the Spirit, who was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (ver. 39). The language literally is/" for the Holy Ghost was not yet." 8 This of course does not mean that there was no personal Holy Ghost before Christ's ascension, but that He was not yet dis pensed, as He was afterwards given, to the Church. The com mentary of John, setting forth the two points, that all who believe should receive the Spirit, and that the Spirit was not yet given, demand some elucidation. . The metaphor may refer to the Old Testament prophecies and to the passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah, where the gift of the Spirit is frequently expressed under the figure of pouring water on him
1 The only exegete known to me who gives this interpretation, is Baunigarten- Crusius, who says, p. 308, " Das heisst sein Gemiith wird ans der Tiefe heraus unendlichfort Erquickung, Befriedigung haben." Though Meyer condemns it, it is far the preferable comment, and j^ivcs consistency to the whole.
2 eusru yap rj» Tlnvftx aym. Tholuck says this is the iritvfiia. Xp. as contrasted with the mvp* S»t/xW«(. Liicke says that the dillVrence In -twccii the Old and New Testament lay in the smaller and larger measure of the Spirit. Olshausen appeals to the relation of the different persons of the Trinity. These do not exhaust the meaning.
THE ATONEMENT PROCURING THE HOLY GHOST. 295
that is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground. Commentators largely refer these words to the diversity between the two economies in regard to the measure of the Spirit, and to the amount of spiritual liberty or assurance conferred. But that by no means exhausts our Lord's words, even though that antithesis were maintained by the interpreter as the true point of the saying. The language sets forth that the Spirit's presence and operations could only be consequent 1 on Christ's vicarious satisfaction, and His exaltation to the mediatorial throne. The word glorified is intended to denote the way and the end, the atonement and the exaltation, but not the latter irrespective of the former. He in fact intimates that the dona tion of the Spirit is a fruit of the everlasting righteousness brought in, or of the vicarious sacrifice offered, of which this glorification was but the reward and proof. However men may interpret the word glorified in this passage, they must compre hend way and end, antecedent and consequent, merit and reward, cause and effect. The best Greek 2 interpreters lay the emphasis on the cross, and many modern interpreters expound it of Christ entering on His glory by means of that vicarious suffering on which the effusion of the Spirit was to follow as a fruit.
2. Another important saying of Christ on this point is : " It is expedient for you that I go away : for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you" (John xvi. 7). Various reasons have been assigned by interpreters why it was expedient that Christ should go away, and why the Spirit could not come unless the Lord departed. These reasons have been expressed sometimes in one tendency, sometimes in another, and sometimes on grounds that
1 See the quotation from Gerhard at the end of this section.
2 Thus Chrysostora says, 3»£*» *<tX»» T«» rrotufi*. So Euthymius, following ( lirvsostom. Theophylact's beautiful comment to the sanu- <-ir.vl un quoted in full, but it is too long. He says, aS-ru «J» reu fravptv «*yii<r<>{ till rti( ifietfriett xartfytifiirns liKoruf tux tiit* n S«i^X»if rev Utlvpartf £«f'f. To tin- same purport mv ll<-ni^triiberg's words on this passage : " in dor Thatsachf d«-r geschi-ht-ncii Vorsiihnung wurzelt die Potenzirung des Geistes." The latter quotes, as a proof, Jer. xxxi. 31.
296 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
have little, if anything, to support them. Thus, some have alleged, as the reason why it was expedient that He should go away, that a belief in His divinity could not consist with His visible presence. Others have explained the reason of His departure, from the consideration that the disciples, while they clung so much to Christ's corporeal presence, were not in a state of mind which was fully capable of receiving the Spirit. These grounds are merely of a subjective character, and quite faulty. Another explanation, which is also subjective, alleges that the Comforter could not, in point of fact, act the part of a comforter, if there were no deep necessity for consolation, such as was supplied by Christ's departure. It would be tedious to enume rate and to discuss all the various opinions which have been given ; and I shall content myself with stating what seems to be the obvious meaning of the words.
When Christ speaks, in this passage, " of going away," the language plainly means His return to heaven, but comprehends a further reference to the expiation of sin, or to that pathway of atonement and obedience by which He was to go. In a word, the Spirit could not come without the vicarious sacrifice of the cross ; and Christ's departing to the Father by such a way — that is, in the accomplishment of a course of obedience — was indispensably necessary, if the Spirit was to come. It is just another mode of stating that He had merited the donation or supply of the Spirit by His sufferings.1 He intimates that the gift of the Spirit, who comes as a personal inhabitant to the human heart, and who brings, when He so comes, the com munications of life, light, and divine supplies, can be received
1 The Greek exegetes, Chrysostom and Theophylact, already quoted on the former saying of Christ, are most explicit to the same effect here. Luther adopts their comment ; and Gerhard, Harmon. Evangel, iii. p. 324, after quoting, with approval, the Greek comments, says: "Quaj proebet utilem doctrinam, quod donatio Spiritus Sancti sit salutaris fructus passiouis et mortis Christi ac con- gruit phrasi, qua Christus utitur, quia per aliitum .-uum ad Patrem non tantum intelligit ascensionem in cctlos, qua venit ad Patrem, imo ad dextram Patris consedit, sed etiam viam medium, per quam eo veiiit, nempe iter passionis et mortis. "
THE AToNK.MKXT PROCURING THE HOLY GHOST. 297
and possessed only win n tin- j,ruilt of sin has been cancellt <1, and the entire curse under which men were held has been fully and righteously reversed. Thus Christ's return to the Father includes the way as well as the end ; or, in other words, desig nates His departure by means of the atonement, or expiation of sin, which is thus represented as the only channel by which the supplies of the Spirit could be communicated in every variety and form.
It must be further noticed, that the Lord in this passage gives the necessary prominence to the Spirit's operations, without removing the Church's eye from Himself as the crucified One, and as the Lord our righteousness. What was to accrue to men from this mission of the Spirit, is expressly taught in the words immediately subjoined ; intimating that when He is come, He shall convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and judgment. By the first He understands the sin of unbelief, as He explains it (ver. 9). By rigliteoiisness, He intimates, not the justice of His cause, but, as we already proved, the righteousness which He wrought out, in His atoning death, for His people (ver. 10). By judgment, He understands that the adversary has lost his cause in the great judicial process, and therefore all the lawful claim to the property which he formerly possessed. All this is won through the expiation of sin effected by Christ (ver. 11).
To understand the evangelist's references, we must remark, that whenever John adduces our Lord's words as alluding to His departure, or to His return to the Father (John xvi 28), there is uniformly comprehended in His words such a going or return as is consequent on the accomplishment of the finished work df redemption. Now, as it was only at the glorification of Christ, that is, at the time when God and men were reunited by the completed work of atonement, or by the payment of the ransom, that the Holy Ghost could be legitimately given to man, and come forth on his mission among men, in the sense described in the Xe\v Testament, — so the actual sending of the Spirit, as our Lord further shows, is only to be by means of
298 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
a Mediator who has passed through death, aud made an end of sin, and sat down on the throne of glory.
3. Another saying may be adduced, pointing out the relation in which the gift of the Spirit stands to the death and inter cession of Christ : " I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter " (John xiv. 1 G). When the true High Priest entered heaven, and appeared in the presence of God for us, on the ground of His finished work on earth, one part of that ever-active intercession, as He here declares, was to ask the Spirit for His people, that is, to ask what God had promised to bestow, according to the merit of His death. This, indeed, was to be no small part of His reward, that He should acquire a right to ask the Spirit, and to send Him, in consequence of the ransom which He paid for many.
Such is the connection between the gift of the Spirit and the mediation of Christ. They must be apprehended together ; and the isolation of the Spirit's work from .the cross and crown of the Eedeemer is always of doubtful tendency, and calculated to divest the theology, to which it gives a tone, of its evangelical liberty. It speedily engenders a legal element ; and hence, according to this view of the connection between Christ and the Spirit, it is necessary to fix a steady gaze on Christ's cross, as the Lord our righteousness. The living personal Saviour, the true foundation of life to humanity, gives the Spirit, thus won or procured by His death.
As our object, in this section, is only to point out that the gift of the Spirit has a very close relation to the great fact of the atohement, it is not necessary to refer specially to the Spirit's work as carried on in the heart. Let it suffice to say that He is called the Spirit of Life (Horn. viii. 2), by whom sinners, alienated from the life of God, are quickened and renewed ; the Spirit of Faith (2 Cor. iv. 1 3), because the author and cause of faith ; the Spirit of Adoption, by whose aid the timid come boldly to God (Gal. iv. 6) ; the Leader, by whom the Christian is led (Rom. viii. 14) ; the Helper of their infirmities
TUT. ATuNF.MKNT KF.UNITING MEN AND ANGELS. 299
(Rom. viii. 26) ; the Sealer, who seals them as the inviolable property of Christ, to the day of redemption (Eph. iv. 30) ; the earnest of the inheritance (Eph. i. 14) ; the originator of all spiritual fruit, called fruits of the Spirit (Gal. v. 22) ; and who abides in them for ever (John xiv. 16). *
SEC. xxxix. — CHRIST'S ABASEMENT AS THE SECOND MAN OPENING
HEAVEN, AND RESTORING THE COMMUNION BETWEEN MEN AND ANGELS.
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open [better, opened], and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." (John i. 51.)
This saying of Jesus points out the intercourse between angels and men, and the foundation on which it rests. It may be called the key to all those numerous allusions which are found in the Acts, and in the apostolic Epistles, to the minis tration of angels (Acts xii. 7 ; Heb. i. 14), and to their being gathered together into one, and recapitulated, along with re deemed men, under one head (Eph. i. 10 ; Col. i. 20).
As to the occasion of this saying, it was spoken to Na- tlianael at the time when he was first brought into Christ's presence, and when he gave expression to his sense of Christ's dignity and office, in the words, " Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel." The Lord, having just given a convincing proof of His more than human knowledge, by referring to exercises — probably religious inquiries — under the fig-tree, said that he should see greater things than these, which had just railed forth his adoration and religious homage; and
1 There arc two phrases used in reference to the Spirit : «•*/>' vft.7* pint, and l» llj.li Irrai. The phrase, ;, ^7, jfrT«, (J,,hn xiv. 17), occurs only one.- in < liri-t's sayings, but it significantly represents Him, not as an objectively operating po\\vr, but as a subjectively present power, given by God, indeed, but for i yet- dwelling in the Christian. The other phrase, «•«/>' iftT* pi»u, seems to refer more to the Spirit as in Himself, who was still with them.
300 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
then, according to His manner, when referring to Himself, lie immediately begins to speak from the view-point of His incarna tion and humiliation, as the great display of His grace, calling Himself " the Son of Man." The explanation already given of this title, in a previous section, contains sufficient evidence that it uniformly alludes to Christ's abasement as the second Adam, or to some of the fruits or consequences arising from that obedience unto death, to which it always refers.
The centre of the whole announcement is this title of Christ, " The Son of Man." l And the promise here expressed, in connection with it, shows that there is a causal or meritori ous link between the blessing and the humiliation of the second man, as the surety of sinners. The title placed in immediate connection with the promise, implies all this. Not only so : the fact that this is the precise title, appropriate to the occasion and utterance, is of itself sufficient to convince us that the promise, whatever may be its special import, refers to an angelic ministry, or an angelic fellowship with men, and that, though it may seem to be directed in the first instance to the Lord Himself, it is more to be referred to the disciples, for whom He acted, in this capacity, as the Son of Man.2
That the words refer to Jacob's vision in some sense, is admitted by almost every expositor of any note. On the question whether the ladder indicated Christ, there was little difference of opinion among the older divines, such as Calvin and others, who affirmed it. There is most to be said in favour of the view, that our Lord referred to Jacob's ladder as the figure of Himself, and, therefore, that the Son of Man is the uniting link of heaven and earth. The vision, in its applica tion by Jesus to Himself, implies that, as the true Mediator
1 The mistakes in the interpretation of this difficult text come from not ap prehending the phrase, « oi»t ™u ccvfyuvou. Calovius' and Gumur's erudite discus sion on the passage fail, on this account ; and so, too, Marckius, Exerc. xxv. 1. N. T.
2 Meyer incorrectly makes it, " symbolische Darstellung des pennanenten lebendigen Wechselverkers zwischeu dem Messius und Gott."
THE ATONEMENT REUNITING MEN AND ANGELS. 301
between God and man, He opens away, and keeps it open, between heaven and earth, by His humiliation unto death. That this is the import of the words, is generally maintained by the best interpreters. But the emphasis which the passage gives to the atoning work of Christ as the foundation of all those blessings delineated in the promise, has not been suffi ciently adverted to, from the fact that commentators have so much failed to exhibit the proper import of the title, " The Son of Man."
Another widespread opinion came to be entertained; and the inquiry was propounded, Might not our Lord mean to represent Himself, not as the reality and truth of what was figured forth in the ladder uniting earth and heaven, but rather as the Lord who stood above it ?J They who adopt this latter mode of viewing it, will have it, that Christ describes Himself as the Lord, not only of men, but of angels. They suppose that this is intimated by the ascending and descending to the Son of Man ; for so they translate the preposition upon (!nV The idea, according to this interpretation, is, that as Jehovah, in Jacob's dream, was seen at the top of the ladder directing the angels to do His pleasure and to execute His will, this is Jesus the Son of Man sending forth the angels, whose Lord He is (Heb. i. G). They suppose our Lord to say that He sends the angelic intelligences to execute His commands in all the realms of nature, and in every variety of errand connected with His kingdom, and that this is a greater thing than that which
1 So the celebrated Fivneh preacher, Du Bosc, explained it. See Witsius, M' /. /. nt I.< 'i<l, nx'nt. de Aperte Casio, p. 213 ; and also Muntiughr, Gescheid. der Menschheid, ix. Aan 41.
- The i>!v|MiMtii>n IT", here denotes, not to, but ii/>n>i, and refers equally to the ascrniliiii/ and tin- >/fwr«»////</. As Liieke well nK-cnvs. tin- a-een< ling and de-e, •tiding of the angels is to be comprised in tin- one idea of tHtbtamiptoi fnferoowve, the aseemling standing first both in Genesis and hero ; and we may say with Tholuek, that it means, they return t.> heaven to reeeive new commissions. We eamiot refer tin- words to the angelophanies in Gethsi-manr and at the Lord's resurrection, as Witsius, Grotius, and Chrysostom interpret the words.
302 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Nathanael had yet seen. Hence, the words are referred by many to the future of the Messianic kingdom, or to the Mil lennial period, or to the gathering in the elect at last from the four corners of the globe, or to the carrying of departed spirits home.1 And the more this class of expositors identify the Son of Man with the Lord, who stood above the ladder in Jacob's vision, the more are they persuaded that it is descriptive of Jesus commissioning or sending forth the angels, of whom He is the Lord. But this comment proceeds upon the supposition that " The Son of Man" is a title of dignity, whereas we have fully proved that it is a title of humiliation and service.
The starting-point in this inquiry is, What is the significance of the title, Son of Man, which is not used as a mere expletive, but as intimating the foundation or ground on which the angelic agency here mentioned rests ? As this has been dis cussed and established in a separate section, it is only necessaiy to refer to the conclusion at which we arrived. The work of the sin-bearing second Adam is the point or import of the title ; and one of the effects which that atonement ushers in, as here stated, is the restoration of the long-forfeited intercourse, between men and angels, who are brought together as two branches of one family in' Christ, or gathered together under one Head — the reconciler of all things in earth and heaven (Col. i. 20). If the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles is removed by the cross, and the enmity slain thereby, the same thing holds true in reference to angels and men; and all that the promise here mentioned contains, stands in causal connection with the abasement of the second man. Moreover, the expression, Henceforth, is an incontrovertible proof that,
1 There is no good ground for cancelling ««•' a/n-i, with Lachmann ; but it must be understood as ijtialilinl by the phrase, "Son of Man." Aright under stood, then, it gives no warrant for the argument of Witsius and others, that the reference is to what immediately took place. It refers rather to what follows, or is consequent upon the work of tlie Son of Man.
We cannot refer this language to the miracles of Jesus in whieh 11.- u<ed angels (so Piscator), or make it a vague generality to denote miraculous mani- iV.-tation (so Lightfoot, Michaelis), or make it mean God's help and providence,
Till' AToNF.MF.NT I; HUNZTING MEN AND ANGELS. 303
however far the provisions of this promise extend, and however long, they all took their origin from His surety work and His obedience unto death.
1. The first part of the promise shows that heaven, once shut, is now opened. It sets forth, according to the canon fre quently applied by us, that the opposite obtained before, and that through the humiliation of Christ there is now an open intercourse with heaven, together with the free supplies and rich communications of divine grace. The heavens were opened at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. ix. 1 6) ; and again, on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 3-5), announcing what was soon to be effected by the completion of His atoning work, to which all these scenes pointed ; a third time, when the voice came from God to the suffering Jesus (John xii. 27); and again, at Stephen's martyrdom (Acts vii. 5, 6).
2. The second part of the promise announces a restored communion between angels and men, who had long been widely estranged by sin. They were, previous to the death of Christ, separated from all fellowship with our race ; and though we read of many Old Testament angelophanies, it is not the less true, that any ministry on which they came, before the incarnation, was based on that atonement which was to be accomplished on the cross. But now, says Christ, Henceforth peace shall be restored between angels and men, the partition wall bring broken down. They are now both reduced, or, as it has been rendered, recapitulated under one Head (Eph. i. 10), and are only separate departments of one family and house-
whit-h Christ was to experience (Morus). Much more happily, Cln-mnit/, Harmon. I:'i'mt'ji /., p. 239, says : " Docet igitur Christ us oflirium suuni MM ccelum aprriiv, it <-.i'lcsti;i rursus conjungere cum gencrc humane, quod per pec- ratum et a Deo et a sanctis angelis avulsum fuerat, ut simus rives sanctorum, t-t anp-li jam dfscvuilaiit Miprr liuiiiaiiaia natiiraiu asMuuptam a Filio Dei, et proptrr raput t-tiam jam cinittaiitiir, scilicet ad ministnium clrrtorum (Ilrh. i. 14): omissio mim ad niinistcrium per descensum et oscensuin d.-srri- bitur. Nam angeli miissi drsffudnnt <-t rursus Mstnnt - i<'iulo,
injuiic-ti niinistfrii rationrm reddituri (Job i. 6; Zach. i. 11)." Tin- only thing awaiitini,' hm>, is tin- connection between this ministry and the title "Son of Man," correctly understood.
304 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
hold. Thus, all that angelic ministry, which we find so often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and doctrinally set forth in the Epistles (Heb. i. 14; Col. i. 20), depends on the atone ment of the cross, or on the fact that the Son of God has become the Son of Man, as this testimony fully proves.
As to the ministration of angels, it is spoken of as a fact, and in such a way as intimates that the Lord sends them forth on various errands during all the Christian's pilgrimage. The two special works recorded as belonging to their ministry, are the conveying of the souls of the departed to their place of bliss, and the final gathering or collecting of the elect on the resurrection day. But these presuppose, as going on at pre sent, ministrations of every varied description, such as the Scripture records in multitudes of instances; and Christ's people are warranted to believe that angels encamp around the Church and her individual members; and the foundation of the whole is the cross, which makes both the families one under one Head.
SEC. XL. — SAYINGS OF JESUS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT AS GLORIFYING GOD.
Various intimations are conveyed in our Lord's sayings, to the effect that His redemption work glorified God ; and these demand an accurate examination. To understand them aright, it will be necessary to go back a step, and to read them off from a similar and opposite state of things. "We must start from the fact that sin had dishonoured the divine majesty, and robbed Him of the declarative glory due to Him, according to the rela tions in which a personal God stands to the world.
It is the more necessary to place this point in a proper light, because it is precisely the element which is too readily dropped or displaced from the prominence that properly belongs to it. I shall not adduce all the sayings that might be collected to gether on this point, but content myself with a few of the most
THE ATONEMENT GLORIFYING GOD. 305
emphatic. Nor shall I inquire whether the glorification to which our Lord's language points, refers more to His conscious design and purpose, or to the effect which His atoning death subserved, and to which it tends ; for, in truth, these two, how ever capable of being distinguished in idea, were never dissoci ated in His mind, nor disjoined in His actual walk. In handling those testimonies which represent God as glorified by means of Christ's atonement, it seems to me that there are two different aspects in which this matter is presented, — one rather exhibiting Christ's act as the representative of the creature, and a second rather exhibiting the Father's act. They are not to be con founded, though they must necessarily be united, if we would see the whole matter in a biblical light, and as reflected from Christ's own consciousness.
1. First of all, I shall notice a remarkable saying belonging to the first class just named, found in the Lord's intercessory prayer : " / have glorified Thee on the earth ; I have finislicd tlie work Thougavest Me to do" (John xvii. 4). The meaning of these two clauses, when put together, is, that the one is the means or pathway to the other, — that the glorifying of God on the earth was attained by the work that was given Him to do, and that was finished. That, beyond doubt, is the relation in which the one clause stands to the other, as an examination of the passage will suffice to prove. There is in these first verses an allusion to a twofold activity of Christ, and to a double glorification of the Father. Thus the Lord declares that He had glorified the Father (ver. 4), and also intimates that His ascension was to be made the means by which He, the Son, should glorify the Father (ver. 1) ; which can only refer to the revenue of glory which should redound to God by means of the Gospel, by the existence of a Church, and by the final perfection of the saints : for a tribute of glory redounds to God from all those results which subsequently stand connected with the ascension or the glorifying of the Son (ver. 1). But in this passage which we have quoted, Christ speaks of glorifying the Father by means
306 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
of a work finished on the earth ; and it is the finishing of that work which glorified the Father.
The interpretation of this language is by no means difficult. From these words some have concluded that all that Christ had to do according to the divine plan, consisted in His instructions as a teacher, or, as it is put in the context, in the manifestation of God's name, and that when that was done, His work was finished. But we cannot limit the words to His work as a teacher, especially when we find that the Lord grounds His re quest to be glorified with the Father (ver. 5) on His work done, which can only be His priestly self-oblation ; for only when that work was done, could He expect with confidence His due reward. He must suffer and be obedient unto death (Phil. ii. 8) ; He must voluntarily lay down His life according to the commandment received from His Father (John x. 18); and then be exalted to the place of supreme dominion, and to have power over all flesh, to give eternal life to as many as the Father has given Him. This was His crown of glory and high reward. In this sense we must understand the words, which just affirm that He finished the work, and now enjoys the reward. He first makes mention of a work to do, and then announces that it was finished, or as good as finished, because it was already ac complished in His purpose. It is not difficult to perceive what that work is to which our Lord here refers. The description of it, in the first place, as a work assigned to Him, and then the reward of glorification for which He prays in connection with it (ver. 5), suffice to show that the allusion is to the atonement or vicarious work of the Mediator, so far as it must be finished on the earth. He alludes to the work given Him to do as the surety of others, and which was well-nigh finished. The word here used sometimes means to bring to an end, and at other times denotes the measure and degree of perfection to which a thing is brought. And our Lord could testify of His work, with the greatest emphasis, that it was perfected ; not only that it was brought to an end — for He was already mentally offered,
TlIK ATONEMENT GLORIFYING GOD. 307
— but that He perfectly and completely performed it in all its parts, so that it was every way complete and without defect.1 In other words, there was nothing lacking, nothing left undone in His mediatorial undertaking. And if it is asked, how could He say that His priestly work was done, and perfect in its measure as well as in all its parts, when the most arduous part of His task lay before Him ? the answer is at hand : He was come to the last day of it — the morrow would see it done ; and hence He speaks of it as already accomplished and wound up.
The point for which we have adduced the passage, however, is to show that the finished or perfected obedience of Jesus, both in action and in suffering, redounded to the glory of God, and this in design, as well as in tendency and effect. The matter of His obedience, flowing as it did from a lively sense of God's greatness and perfections, was to the glory of God. There was in the active obedience such a glorifying of God as could not be found in any creature, and which was amply proportioned in point of merit, to procure for men eternal life.
This view proceeds on a just conception of the divine claims, and presupposes deep views of sin on the one hand, and of the divine adaptation of the atonement as a remedy for sin on the other. It is a mode of surveying the atonement, which is not only of the utmost importance in itself, but so compre hensive in its range, that it takes in all the more definite state ments which may be made on the subject of the divine law. It involves the necessity of the magnifying of the divine law to in; ike it honourable. We cannot admit, then, when we trace tiller allusions of our Lord Himself to the restoration of the di vine honour, that the theology which grounds itself on this notion is worthy of being called, as it has been called, an out ward stand-point of abstract reflection. Nor will it do to say, with such a testimony before us, that the referring of the wurk
1 r> tpyvi iriXi<W« ; and the aorist is used, as the Lord views it as already done, or, as Alford well puts it, " looks back on it all as past." (See Gerhard's Harmon. Evangel., and Charuock, ii. p. 184.)
308 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
of Christ to the divine law, according to the representation current in the evangelical Church, is not only much more con formable to the type of Scripture doctrine, but much more prac tical, living, and experimental than this reference to the divine honour ; l for in point of fact they do not exclude each other. The one is from the view-point of Christian experience ; the other is from that of the divine throne. The view of the atone ment, which surveys it in connection with God's declarative glory, is not only biblical in its import, but necessary in an experimental point of view.
First, as to the biblical warrant for the position, that the divine honour has been taken away, and must needs be restored as an indispensable condition of forgiveness, the Apostle Paul plainly exhibits it in the broad outline which he gives of re demption in the section of the Epistle to the Eomans, where he brings together two things : the fact that men come short of the glory of God, and the consequent necessity of an expiation for sin (Rom. iii. 23). The sense of that passage, when taken in connection with the context, involves incontrovertibly the idea of rendering to God His honour, or the tribute of declarative glory due to the Creator from His intelligent universe. What is the glory of God there spoken of, and of which all men come short ? Of the different modes of exposition which have been given, the comment which refers the phrase to the divine image once possessed, but lost by sin, approaches nearest to the apostolic thought.8 It involves the idea of rendering glory to God, or of giving Him His honour, by a pure nature, and a God-
1 Thus Philippi expressed himself against Anselm's principal position in his cur Deus homo, (See Hengsteuberg's A'/'/v/,, „•_• :tumj for 1844.)
2 The four interpretations of Spg« proposal by different commentators, are these: (1) that it refers to the future glory (so the Greek exegetes, Beza, Ben- gel) ; (2) glorying before God ( Luther) ; (•".) honour, as at John xii. 43 (so Stuart) ; (4) the created image of Cud (so the old Lutheran expositors, Chemnitz, Calov, Schmidt ; also among the Reformed, J. Alting ; and so, too, Olshausen). This last comment is every way to be preferred, and shows that the image of God is the glory of God, and that this, carried out in all things, is the true and only way in which God can be glorified by a creature.
TlIK ATO.NKMl-NT GLORIFYING GOD. 309
glorifying obedience. When Christ glorified God, He did it as the Mediator representing man, and in the way of creaturehood in its perfection, but learning obedience by what He suffered (Heb. v. 8). If it is said of Peter that he was to glorify God by a martyr's death (John xxi. 19), and if renewed men are changed from glory to glory (2 Cor. iii. 18), much more did the sinless Mediator glorify the Father by His perfect work. And as to the necessity of this view in an experimental respect, conscience cannot be satisfied with any method of atonement that does not secure the divine honour.
Far from feeling satisfied with a defective scheme, con science asks with wistful eagerness, whether, by the way pro pounded, God's honour suffers no eclipse, and His majesty no stain ; and if conscience, as God's vicegerent, is pacified only when God's honour is restored, it is not difficult to see, that without this view the glorious liberty of the saints would be forestalled, and give place to inextricable bondage. Thus the principle to which we have been referring, far from propound ing a mere abstract reflection, is derived from the centre of biblical and experimental truth, and is but an echo of this saying of Christ. This will aid us in perceiving a correct ex position of Christ's words in reference to the glory that redounds to the Father from His work. He undertook to restore the glory due to the divine majesty withdrawn by man's sin, and for which a reparation must be made that could not be effected by angels or men ; and tin's part of the Lord's mediatorial obedi ence had such value and dignity, that it was fully adequate to this end. There was that in the work of Christ which fully satisfied the insulted majesty of God.
2. A second class of testimonies contains a declaration of that which God does to glorify His name by the atonement. There are two sayings of Jesus which here demand elucidation.
The first is that passage where He appealed to the Father during His soul trouble or anguish : " Father, glorify Thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both
310 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
glorified it, and will glorify it again" (John xii. 28). There is a reference to a past act of glorifying His name on the part of God, and a promise of another yet future. This is very note worthy; but what precisely does it import? Plainly, the words intimate, that up to that moment the human life of Christ, to which the language must refer, had been a continuous glorifying of God, both in purpose and effect ; that as man by his apostasy had trampled under foot the declarative glory of God, not rendering the glory due to His name, so the second man brought what is the due tribute to God. But the words, descriptive as they are of God's own act for the glorifying of His name, intimate, especially in connection with the plan of redemption, that God had already glorified Himself, and that He would do it again, in as far as the events connected with the cross would exhibit and commend the divine wisdom in the contrivance of redemption, His mercy in sending His Son as the Saviour, His veracity in fulfilling the promises, His justice in requiring the due satisfaction for sin according to His law, and His power in carrying His counsels into execution. Much was already accomplished. But the Father would again glorify His name in completing the work and accepting the sacrifice. In what still remained of His redemption work, God's name should again be glorified to the utmost measure. And the Father just says, that as He had glorified His name by Christ's coming into the world, and by the work done in it, so He woul(\ glorify it "again" by the mode of His departure from the world, and by accepting the sacrifice which He offered.
Another testimony to the same effect was the saying which Jesus uttered in the presence of the disciples, at the moment when Judas went out to betray Him : " Now is the Son of Man glorified; and God is glorified 'in Him" (John xiii. 21). The title, Son of Man, which, as we have already seen, is uniformly descriptive of Christ as the curse-bearing second Adam, leads our thoughts to a right understanding of His words. In speak ing of the Son of Man being glorified, He has in His eye that
THE ATONEMENT GLORIFYING GOD. 311
exaltation which was to be the reward of His atonement, or the joy set before Him. Though the opinion of many commenta tors, that the Lord's glorification may here simply mean His sufferings, is scarcely tenable — for His sufferings alone are never presented to us precisely under the notion of His glori fication — yet the idea of the atonement, as the foundation and pathway to His glory, is undoubtedly implied.
First, as to the saying in reference to Himself, "Now is the Son of Jlfan glorified" it is just an instance of the en durance to which He submitted for the joy set before Him (Heb. xii. 2), or with His reward in view. He did not use this language when He received the voice from heaven at His baptism (Matt. iii. 17), nor after the transfiguration scene (Matt. xvii. 5), nor after the commendations of the people (Mark vii. 37), nor after the Hosannahs with which He was saluted on His entry into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 9), but after Judas' departure to betray Him. ' The work is, in His purpose at least, and in His voluntary submission, already a consummated fact, and He grasps the crown as already at hand, and given only for the abasement of the cross. And when He adds, " God is glorified in Him," the allusion is plainly to that exercise of His attributes, or display of His declarative glory, which the Father evinced by means of the atonement. He intimates that His atoning work manifested all the attributes and vindicated all the rights of Godhead, and so glorified Him. But how was this ? If we survey the relation of God to His creatures, or take account of His perfections, the mode in which His name was glorified at this time will readily appear. Thus, if we take account of the divine law, it received a greater glory from the subjection of such a person to it than by the faultless obedience of all the universe. The authority of God was more fully disclosed and exercised in connection with the incarnation and abasement of the Son of God than it was, or could bo, in any other sphere. The holiness of God, which leads Him to 1 See Wolfburgius, observationcs sacra-, on this verb.
312 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
hide His face from sin, and to withdraw from all fellowship with it, was exercised and displayed in a more extraordinary way, and therefore glorified more fully, hy the desertion of His Son, when made sin for us, than in all that exercise of it which will be displayed on the finally impenitent in the blackness of darkness. The love of God was displayed, and therefore glorified,1 to the utmost by an infinite gift to creatures most unworthy. His punitive justice, whereby He shows that He cannot bear evil, and must punish it out of love to Himself, was never exercised at such a cost as on Christ. In a word, the divine perfections, that is, all the revealed attributes of God, were exercised, and therefore displayed or glorified, to the utmost by the atonement. Thus the redemption, consisting in the obedience and death of Christ, is the great work of God, the centre of all His ways, which most brightly displays all the divine perfections, especially His grace and holiness ; and hence the Lord said, with a peculiar emphasis, " Now is the Son of Man glorified ; and God is glori fied in Him."
SEC. XLI. — THE EFFICACIOUS CHARACTER OF THE ATONEMENT, OR THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST TO A PEOPLE GIVEN HIM.
There is a considerable number of the sayings of Jesus which bring out, with unmistakeable precision, the efficacious character of the atonement, or that the death of Christ had a special reference to a people given to Him. The redemptive efficacy of His death is described as taking effect within a given circle, and as bearing upon a given company of persons. What is that circle, or who are the parties described as partici pating in the fruits of Christ's death ? The Lord's sayings on this point are so express, that we are not left in any doubt
1 When God glorifies Himself, the action differs little from acting out or exercising His own perfections, though the further notion of other beings thinking honourably of Him is not excluded.
, THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 313
whether the atonement was offered specially for the persons who receive the benefit of His death. He indicates that they for whom it was offered and accepted, were the persons who had been given to Him, and to whom He had united Himself in the eternal covenant.
All who have a biblical scheme of doctrine, understand, by Christ's dying for His people, A DYING IN THEIR ROOM AND STEAD. They attach no lower sense than this to the expres sion. They hold that Christ underwent the penal suffering which was their due, that He occupied their r place as the sin-bearer and curse-bearer, and that He rendered the full obedience which was required; and they hold that it was a real and valid transaction — as much so as the fall, of which it is the counterpart, and as the curse, of which it is the reversal. This brings us to the real point of the investigation, and away from the disguised, and sometimes fallacious, mode of presenting it.
The proper nature of the atonement must first be ascer tained before we can advance, with any precision, to define its extent ; and when that point is settled, there is but one step to an accurate definition of its extent. "Without entering here into a recapitulation of its constituent elements, as already set forth in the previous sections of this work, let it suffice to state, that the atonement, as a fact in history, is as replete witli saving results and consequences, as the fall of man, with which it must ever be contrasted, is with the opposite. Its extent coincides with its effects. In the Scripture mode of representing it, we find it placed in causal connection with man's salvation, as a fact not less real than the fall, and not less fraught with consequences (Rom. v. 12-20). The words intimate, that if the fall was fruitful of results for man's con demnation and death, the atonement is not less so for man's restoration.
Now this of itself decides on the extent of the atonement. No one doubts that the extent of the full is coincident with
314 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
its obvious and manifest effects. If a causal connection obtains between one man's disobedience and the sin, judgment, and death in which the world is now involved, a causal connection obtains, too, between the second man's obedience and the saving benefits in which all Christians participate. If the fall was pregnant with consequences which cannot be gainsaid, and which ramify so widely, that they are everywhere apparent, the atonement of Christ in like manner produces, and will continue to produce, results which are as real, and shall ramify as widely, through time and through eternity.
They who regard Christ in no higher light than as a teacher come from God, as a distinguished pattern of virtue, or as a faithful witness, who did not shrink from confirming His doc trine by His death, cannot mean that He died, in any sense of the word, for those who lived before His coming. The very idea of an example implies that it is but prospective, and that it is fruitful of any consequences or results worthy of the name, only where the knowledge of His doctrine extends. On that theory of Christ's death, its scope or reference cannot be supposed to go further than the knowledge of His life and character.
As our plan leads us to investigate simply what Jesus said, we shall direct attention to the question, whether the Lord's sayings do or do not assign a special reference to His redemp tion work. The testimonies of this nature, when put together, are by no means few or doubtful; and it is impossible to canvass them with due attention without coming to the con clusion, that He assigned to His atonement a definite reference, and that He acted, all through His history, with a special regard to a certain class of men, whose person He sustained. A few of these expressions, or turns of phrase, we shall now adduce.
1. He calls them many, for whom His blood was shed, and who were the objects of His redemption work (Matt. xxvi. 28, xx. 28). The natural interpretation of this expression in both
THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 315
these passages, as we have already explained them, is, that lie refers to those who are .elsewhere represented by Him as His own, as given to Him. The mere use of the word many would not suffice to prove this of itself, without the additional cir cumstance, that they are described by marks which are by no means universally applicable.1 A theory was propounded, two centuries ago, of a very perilous kind, to serve as a sort of guid ing principle, or canon of interpretation, in reference to such phrases. It was held by the Arminian school, who were opposed to the special reference of Christ's death, that when He was said to die for all, the language meant what was done to win or procure redemption ; and that when He was said to die for many, or for the Church, it described the actual participation of redemption. It is an artificially contrived theory in the interest of a tendency, and cannot, without violence, be ap plied to any of these texts. Plainly, our Lord describes the actual offering of the ransom, and not its application alone. The language had its full truth in the actual atonement, and sets forth what was in His owrn and in His Father's purpose, when He offered Himself.
2. Our Lord calls the objects of His atonement His sheep (John x. 15). The same remarks are equally applicable here. They are already called His sheep, because they were given to Him in the divine decree, and known as His own. So necessary was it that some link of connection should be formed between Christ and the objects of redemption, such as obtains bet ween shepherd and sheep, or head and members, that with out it an atonement could not have been made. 2 According
1 The remark of Jerome is happy : " non dixit pro omnibus, sed pro multis,
. pro iis ijui crnlrrc volucriiit." I may notice that Amusius' Coroni* <"l <'<>U<tt'«iiK'in Ilaii'it nxi-in inrrts :ill the arguments of the Arminiitn school on this point, and on the five points generally, and supplies a most pointed, felicitous, and liiblicul refutation of that style of thought. See, too, Witsius, de Federe, lih. ii. cap. 9 ; ami (l.uuar's biblical discussion, an Chrustiui j>ro omnibus et tiin<lit/i.i mortuu* sit, p. 453.
2 See Amesius' Coronia, p. 112. It is noteworthy that Grotius, when lie was compelled to meet the objection of Sociuus that there was no connection between
316 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
to the divine paction, there must be some union or conjunction. This phrase thus involves two things : (1) that Christ did not die in a merely indeterminate way and in uncertainty whether He should have a flock, but with special objects of redemption before His mind, to whom He was already knit by a tie neces sary for the redemption work ; (2) that they are also His purchased property, the result or fruit of His atonement. This latter truth enables us to obviate the cavil against this inter pretation, as if it assumed that certain persons were already the sheep of Christ before He died. They were so in the divine purpose, and in Christ's undertaking, though not actually His till the ransom was paid for them. He declares that He died for the sheep, which, as appears from the context, were the elect given to Him (John x. 26). The special reference of the atonement, and the further thought that the vicarious sacrifice secures the conversion of those for whom it was offered, are incontrovertibly intimated in the words, " Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must bring " (ver. 16). They are first called His sheep ; then they are described as the objects of redemption, for whom He laid down His life, that is, for whom the atonement was actually offered ; then they must needs be brought, or rather led, as a shepherd leads his flock.
3. The persons for whom the atonement is offered are called His people — a name which indicates that they were already Christ's in the divine purpose : " Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His PEOPLE from their sins" (Matt, i. 21). If He saves His people, they were His by divine gift already; and this obviates the allegation that the atonement would have been equally complete, though no one had been saved. That is plainly incompatible with this text, which
Christ and us, argues with as much point for the affirmative as any Calvinistic divine could use : " dici hie posset, non esse hominem homini alienum, naturalem esse inter homines cognationem et consanguiiiituteni, carnem nostram a Christo susceptam ; sed longe major alia inter Christum et nos conjunctio a Deo destina- Ixitur. Ipse enim designates erat a Deo ut caput esset corporis, cujus nos sumus membra." (De Satisfactione Chrinti, cap. iv.)
THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 317
declares that He was the Saviour of His people. The objections taken to this interpretation, which involves the special reference of the atonement, are, (1) that the phrase, His people," may be referred to the Jews, — and so Calvin interpreted the words j1 (2) that the language does not refer to the purchase of redemp tion, but to its application. Both statements are easy of refu tation. As to the first, the answer is, that God's people are twofold, according to the double covenant, — the Jews as the people whom He foreknew (Rom. xi. 2), and the true people of God, who belong to the class that are given to the Son (John vi. 37). And as to the second allegation, that the allu sion is to the application of redemption, the answer is, that these were both equally in the divine purpose and intention.
4. They are called the children of God scattered abroad (John xi. 52). This phrase occurs in connection with the divine oracle uttered by Caiaphas, and forms part of the inspired commentary of the evangelist. The high priest of the year on which the great atonement was made, was used, in the marvel lous sovereignty of God, to embody the import of the entire Mosaic worship, of the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices, when he said, " It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" (John xi. 60). He thus unwittingly prophesied, and gave a voice to Judaism, much in the same way as the Urim and Thunmiim of old gave forth intimations of the will of God or of His mind. To this oracle the inspired evangelist appends his commentary, to the effect that this was a prophecy, and that it conveyed the important truth that Jesus was to die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also He should together in one the children of God that were scattered (ver. 52). Now, the objects of redemption are here already called " the children of God scattered abroad," because they were so in the divine purpose, though not yet actually
1 Calvin dues Tint limit tin- jilinisc to (!]<• Jews, Imt extends it to all nations, \\lio \\viv U> be inserted iuto the stock of Abraham. — J'iW. in loc.
318 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
ransomed. The evangelist intimates that they were already the foreappointed children of God, and in some sense worthy of being so called before the death of Christ ; then, that they were the objects of the vicarious sacrifice ; and that the atone ment was to carry with it the certain issue or result that they should be gathered into one, that is, united to Christ and to one another in Him. The special reference of the atonement cannot be called in question here.
5. They are called by the Lord His friends, for whom He laid down His life in the exercise of a special love : " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John xv. 13). Unquestionably, the emphasis falls on the special love which He cherishes toward His people, who are here termed His friends. The design and end for which He laid down His life are not here mentioned, because the recent institution of the Supper, and the explanation ap pended to it, that His blood was to be shed for the remission of sins, sufficiently expressed both the purpose and effect of His atoning death ; and as He meant to inculcate on His disciples at this time mutual love, according to His own example, He points to the greatest proof which could be given of His love — His vicarious death.1 But the language used by Him clearly enough indicates that His death was to be for the behoof of others, and in their stead, as He assumes that it is the case of one offering himself to rescue another from danger. But, apart from the use of the term friend, the special love8 to which our Lord here refers in connection with laying down His life, comprises these two things, which are always to be viewed together, and not apart — that He not only procures salvation, but also applies it. This special love wins its object, finds its object, and rescues it.
1 The ritvpu does not mean, to expo*' to <tm)i/fr, as Grotius puts it, but to lay down; and the ««••/> is to be understood as implying the a.*rt (see above).
2 Calvin says on the passage : " Christus vitain suain proalienis exposuit, sed quos jam tune ipse amabat, mortem alias pro ipsis non subiturus. "
THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 319
The answer to the inquiry, who are the special objects of Christ's atonement ? would have been simple, if men had con tented themselves with Scripture statements, and with ideas derived from Scripture. Whatever be the infinite value of the atonement, considered as a divine fact, as well as a human transaction, yet, in point of saving efficacy, it does not extend beyond tlic circle, of those who believe in Christ. Though in intrinsic worth it could save the whole world, and, so far as we can see, a thousand worlds more, if there had been such worlds of human beings to be saved, yet the redemption work does not extend, in point of fact, beyond the circle of those who approve of it as a fit and proper method of salvation ; or, in other words, who, by a faith which is the gift of God, are led to accept it as the ground of reconciliation with God. It is simply co-extensive, as to saving effects, with the number of true believers. Of that there can be no doubt, when we examine the words of Christ, and abide by His teaching. And in this conclusion, as the positive truth on the point, all might have rested, and probably would have rested, with perfect satisfaction, but for the theories and philosophical reasonings of men who, not so much under religious conviction as under speculative tendencies, deemed it necessary to extend the atonement to all alike, whether they were saved by it or not, whether they believed it or not. They would not be content with regarding it as co-extensive with its EFFECTS — the only true measure by which its reference can be known, and that which makes it the counterpart of Adam's fall, — but must needs contend that it was co-extensive with the race, and for all equally. It soon appears, however, that it is in reality a question as to its nature. This will be evident by a brief allusion to these universalist theories.
a. Thus, under the influence of plausible reasonings, not a few in various countries go so far as to assert, that in virtue of Christ's work all men will finally be saved. That theory of a universal salvation lias at least this in its favour : that it is con sistent, and is carried through to its logical consequences. It
320 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
was propounded in early times by Origen, and is, under an evangelical garb, at present more widely diffused than it ever was. l It has been principally based on the position that the divine benevolence embraces all alike, and that the actual re storation will be co-extensive with the ruin. This speculation overlooks divine justice, and looks simply at the point, that the ruin and the remedy may presumably be held to be co extensive in their actual results, as well as analogous in the provision. Though it is unscriptural, and even directly oppoicd to Scripture, it is at least consistent, as it goes through with the idea of the universality of the provided remedy.
b. Much less consistent is another theory of universal grace — that of the Arminian and semi-Pelagian school, though tracing its rise to the same speculative reasoning and plausible com parison between the ruin introduced by Adam and the remedy brought in by Christ. 2 They hold that the atonement made on Christ's side and accepted on God's side was co- extensive with the human family, whether men believe it or not, reject it or not. They look only at one side of the question, and they undermine the atonement as a really valid fact. They maintain that on God's side the remedy is as universal as the disease. But what they thus gain in compass or in breadth is lost at the centre. The apparent advantage is more than countervailed at another point, when it is stripped of its efficacy ; and this just brings me back to the position, that the true question is no longer, how far does it extend, but is it a real counterpart of the fall, which renders a perfect satisfaction to every claim of justice, and fulfils the law in the room of any ?
We soon find, accordingly, when we examine the opinions of these disputants, and ascertain the sense in which they take the phrase, "to give His life FOK many," that the question turns
1 This is the common doctrine of the Continental rationalistic school, and some
of more luMiral sentiments.
- AYhat Colmthr so happily s.iM of another srlinnr of thought, may equally be applied to this : " It is not a religion, but a theory."
THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 321
not so much on the point for whom Christ died, in the sense of a true and valid transaction, as on the point whether He died for any in the true and proper acceptation of the term. It is not so much a question as to its extent. The question rather is, What was the design and object which God had in view in giving His Son to die for us, and of the Son, in giving Himself? It is not whether Christ died for all and every one, but whether He died for any, with valid consequences as certain and effi cacious as in the great counterpart transaction of man's fall. This will appear to every one who will make a full survey or review of these opinions.
The Arminian contends that Christ's death only renders reconciliation possible, and gives God a right to make a new covenant, of which this shall be the tenor : that Clirist shall give eternal life to all who obey Him, and persevere to the end. The semi-legality of this opinion is on the surface. It throws men back upon themselves and upon their own resources. Not only so : from the veiy nature of the theory, he cannot maintain that such a covenant has ever been propounded to all who have lived at any given time. It is not true to itself.
c. There is still a third mode of putting the universality of the atonement, adopted by others in various churches, which is comparatively innocuous — amounting, in reality, to little more than a roundabout way of representing the universal call of the gospel. They are content with the saying, that Christ died for all, without ever tracing the ramifications of the statement, or thinking out the position to its logical consequences; and tlu-y only mean that tin.-, invitation comes to all alike. Thus many good men express themselves in different churches under the somewhat confused and unexaniined impression, that the uni- 1 call must, in some sense, wliich they never investigate, have a universal provision equally broad underlying it. They never reflect, as every one thinking out this matter must do, that to the completeness of the atonement, as an accomplished fact, it is indispensably necessary that all the three parties con-
322 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
cerned in the transaction shall concur — the Father, the Surety, and the man needing the salvation. There must he a consent of all the parties concerned ; and the exercise of faith on the sinner's part must he viewed as his approval of this method of salvation, and his consent to it.
The class of divines last named sometimes allege that, to believe in Christ, is equivalent to believing that Christ died for us. But these two acts of the mind are by no means to be re garded as one and the same. The former describes that mental act which apprehends a sufficient Saviour. The latter is an inference, though a sure and certain one. No one is summoned, in the first instance, to believe that Christ died for him, any more than he is required to believe that his sins are pardoned before he believes. l And as to the responsibility of rejecting the gospel, the condemnation consequent on this step is due to the fact that the unbeliever will not accept of a sufficient Ee- deemer, nor approve of such a way of salvation. He rejects it in its idea and contrivance, whereas faith is just the ap proval of it.
But the sinner must signify his concurrence, before the vicarious death of Christ can be to him an accomplished fact ; and faith, therefore, is just that approval and consent by which he signifies his concurrence, though given after the lapse of centuries. He by faith signifies that he cordially approves of this way of redemption, and wishes to be saved by no other way. Then all parties concur in it. They who plead for an indefinite atonement make the whole a completed transaction, without man's consent ; and we are at a loss to see what con ceivable advantage can be gained by making the atonement wider than the number of those that approve of it, and are willing to be saved by it. Of course it is applied to unnumbered millions of infants, who are saved by it in a different way.
All these various theories go to pieces when we bring out from the words of Christ the true nature of the atonement ; for 1 See Polanus, Syntag. lib. 6, cap. 18.
THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 323
in reality, as we have already remarked, it is more a question as to the character of the atonement, as an actual transaction, than as to its extent. Whether we look at the covenant, which lies at its foundation, or at the fact that the purchase and appli cation of the atonement are co-extensive and necessarily con nected with each other, or at the nature of Christ's intercession, we are left in no doubt as to its extent.
1. One proof of this is contained in the nature and provisions of the covenant.1 I have only to advert to the unity of the Surety, and those whom He represented, to prove the extent of the atonement. It is a unity or oneness so close, that we may affirm of the second man, as well as of the first, " we were all that one man." The thought that lies at the foundation of our participation of the federal blessings, is union, or oneness. We may thus call in the idea of organic unity, as well as the idea of a covenant, for they are not exclusive of each other, but rather supplementary. The idea of unity may be said to run through the whole declarations on the subject of Christ's saving work, whether they were given forth by the Lord Himself or by His servants. On this principle, then, that Christ and His seed are viewed as one, just as Adam and his family were one, the redemption work by which we are saved was incontrovertibly iinished by His obedience, and must be held to have been at once offered and accepted in the room of all for whom He acted the part of a surety (John vi. 39). This, however, decides on the scope and extent of the atonement.
2. The purchase of redemption and its application are co extensive. The salvation is not won for any to whom it is not applied. All our Lord's sayings assume this, and take it for granted (John x. 15). To suppose the opposite, would imply that a costly price had been paid, and that those for whom it was paid derived no advantage from it ; which could only be on the ground that He wanted either love or power. Not only so : a concurrent action and perfect harmony must be supposed 1 See before, at sec. x.
324 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
to obtain among the persons of the Godhead. There can be no disharmony between the election of the Father, the redemption of the Son, and the application of the Spirit.
3. Christ's intercession is based on the atonement, and could have no validity or ground but as it referred to that finished work of expiation, which needs no repetition. Now, we see from the explicit statement of the Lord, that the intercession is not for the world, but for those whom the Father gave Him : " I pray for them : I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine" (John xvii. 9). This decides upon the scope and destination of the atonement for any available purpose ; for it will not be argued by any divine biblically acquainted with the nature of our Lord's priesthood and intercession, that any one ever was or will be effectually called but on the ground of that all-prevailing interposition (John xvii. 20).
To those who allege, in the spirit of the Arminian school, that the love of Jesus consists only in applying the redemption, but not in procuring it, it is enough to say, that love, in the proper meaning of the term, is anterior to both ; and that it would not be love, if it were dissociated from the purpose and design of conferring on its objects every conceivable good which can either be procured or applied. And whenever Scripture speaks of the divine love, either in connection with the Father or with the Son, this is the import of the term. This fact, that love is only love to persons, and that the divine love finds out its objects over all impediments, enables us to obviate the two fold love which the Arminian writers suppose, and for which they argue in the interest of their views, — one preceding faith, and another following it. The former, they allege, is to all alike, and therefore cannot be regarded as in itself efficacious to any ; * the latter they ascribe as an increasing quantity, and
1 Many writers have laid, and .still lay, stress on the term in»-lif, which fre quently occurs in those imssa^rs which describe the death of Christ. It is a term commonly used in contrast with Jewish limitation, and in this usage com-
THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 325
as a sort of coini<l;uvntiul approbation of a state of mind or mental act which is acceptable to God. But the redeeming love of Christ, as the source of all saving benefits, does not, properly speaking, receive additions or increase, though there may be, and doubtless are, ampler manifestations of it, as well as a keener sense of it on the mind. This is emphatically brought out by Paul, when he sets forth the immutable constancy and omnipotent efficacy of the divine love in a remarkable argu ment tl fortiori (Rom. v. 5-11). He argues, that if God could set His love on the saints when we were yet sinners and enemies, without strength and ungodly, much more shall that love be continued to them when they are justified. The argu ment is, that if God's love found an outlet to us when we were aliens and enemies, much more will it be continued, now that we are friends. But the foundation of the whole argument is, that His love is special and redeeming love, and directed to individuals, whom God will never abandon or let go.
The text on which we already commented demonstrates the special love of Christ (John xv. 13). They for whom He died were the objects of supreme and special love, which of necessity secured their ultimate salvation. For them He must be con sidered as acting at every step ; their names being on His heart in the same way as the names of the tribes of Israel were on the high priest's breastplate. And the same special reference confronts us in every form. Thus He is described as loving His own that were in the world (John xiii. 1), which cannot be IK' ailiruied of all and every man, without distinction, and in
monly designates men of all nationalities. That it is not conclusive as an argu ment urged in favour of general redemption, will appear from such pin the.se; "The bread of Cud is II. • [letter, that] which e.uueth down from heaven, and <iir,th life unto the woril" ^.lohn vi. 33) ; "that the world may btlirr,- that Thou h:ist sent Me" .,K,hn xvii. l!l). As it dciiote.s, (1) either a great multitude (.luhn xii. 110, ,,r f2) men of all nations (Horn. xi. \'1\ it is plain that no argu ment can !»• urged in favour of a universal atonement, fn>m the mere occurrence of this w..rd. Hales tells us that he was carried over to the Arminian opinions at the Synod of IWt, by F.pise,.pius' aignnient from John iii. It!. Hut though that is the chief argument of the Arminian school, it is a fallacious argument, and uut borne out by the vaua lv<nu>uli.
326 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
precisely the same form. We have only to recall such phrases as co-suffering (1 Pet. iv. 1), co-crucifixion (GaL ii. 20), co-dying (Rom. vi. 8), co-burying with Christ (Rom. vi. 4), to perceive that He bore the person of a chosen company, who are spoken of as doing what He did at every important turn of His history. It was for His own that He was incarnate (Heb. ii. 14); and He must be regarded, all through His history, as uniting Him self to His own, or as loving His own that were in the world, and loving them to the end (John xiii. 1). This special love, according to which He acted in the name of a.chosen company, and laid down His life for them, is a love that finds them out over every impediment or hindrance. And it were to think unworthily of Christ, to suppose such a conjunction established between Him and the objects of redemption, as is presupposed in the very nature of this transaction, without the certain eifect that salvation is secured to many by His death. It were as absurd as to suppose a king without subjects, a bridegroom without a bride, a vine without branches, a, head without the members.
SEC. XLII. — THE ATONEMENT EXTENDING TO ALL TIMES IN THE WORLD'S HISTORY, AND TO ALL NATIONS.
The position which Christ ascribed to Himself in the world, sufficiently indicates that His death was, in the divine purpose, a provision for all times and nations, and that there was to be no repetition of the sacrifice. "We shall briefly adduce His testimony to both these points.
1. With respect to all times, the sayings of Christ imply that He was the centre-point of the world's history, to whom all previous ages looked forward, and all subsequent ages look back. The saints who lived under the time of the first promise' to whom the advent of the woman's seed was revealed, or who expected Abraham's seed, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, were saved by the retrospective efficacy of
THE ATONEMENT EXTENDING TO ALL TIMES AND NATIONS. 327
His atoning death, and not in virtue of a typical expiation, which was but a shadow of good things to come (Gen. iii. 15, xii. 3). The pardon, or, as some have preferred to call it, the preterition,1 which extended to unnumbered multitudes during the ages preceding the birth of Christ, was due to the blood of atonement about to be shed in the fulness of time.
The fact that the death of Christ is set forth in its retro spective, as well as in its prospective, influence, shows the vast superiority of the blood of the new covenant as compared with that of the old covenant. The one was merely for the Israelites, the other was " for many ;" which may be interpreted for men of all times and generations, even for those who were long dead, but had faith on Him who was to come. This may warrant- ably be held to be there taught by our Lord (see Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28 ; John vi. 57). I shall not here adduce the statements in the Epistles, to the effect that the atonement had an influence of a retrospective nature, but content myself with saying, that this is set forth with peculiar emphasis in several passages (Horn. iii. 25 ; Heb. ix. 15). Our plan leads us to abide by the sayings of Christ. And we have more than stray hints from the mouth of Christ, that His vicarious death was retrospective as well as prospective in its influence. When we consider how He described Himself in contrast with all who ever came be fore Him, and condemned as thieves and robbers such as came with rival claims to His (John x. 1-7); when we hear Him speaking of the necessity of His death, for the world's salvation, as well as declaring that Moses, the prophets, and all the holy oracles testified of Him (John v. 39, 46) ; when we find Him here declaring that Abraham rejoiced to see His day (John viii. 56), — we have intimations which imply that He was the central figure of both economies, and that His incarnation and death
1 The distinction between -ri^nt and a<fi<ns— the former referring to the Old Testament saints, the latter to the New Testament— first made 1-y Me/a, was ( mi' (I o\it to an extravagant length byCocceius and his school. Yet some dis-
t iin ! ion, at least of a subjective natuiv, niu>t In- allowed, whatever opinion may be formed as to that distinction drawn between vrifttit and af ins in ll-nn. iii. "2'>.
328 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
had a relation to them who lived before His coming, and that their salvation was not less due to Christ's atoning blood than ours. The scene on the Mount of the Transfiguration, moreover, when Moses and Elias appeared to converse with Him on His exodus or decease, about to be accomplished at Jerusalem, affords confirmatory evidence that the scope of that death had an application to all times. It was that on the ground of which they had been saved ; for Christ was the atonement or sin- offering for the transgressions under the first covenant (Heb. ix. 15).
2. With respect, again, to the bearing of the atonement on men of all nations, Christ gave no dubious announcement that it was not limited to Israel, but had an influence which extended to those who were not of that fold (John x. 11), and that, in a word, it was irrespective of national distinctions. Thus He de clared, on the occasion of the inquiring Greeks approaching Him with an express desire " to see Jesus," and whose inquiries He regarded as the prelude or first-fruits of the wide in-bringing of the Gentile nations, that if He was lifted up or crucified as an atoning sacrifice, He would draw all nations to Him (John xii. 32). The same wide and universal reference of the scheme of redemption to all tribes and nations, wholly irre spective of the narrow limits of nationality, comes out in the other sayings of Christ where He alludes to the world and to the scheme of redemption in its bearing on mankind as such ; who are addressed by the Gospel message, and summoned to the exercise of faith, just because they are comprehended within the class for whom the atonement has been provided (John iii. 14-16). Hence the Lord directed His disciples to preach, with the most unrestricted universality, the remission of sins to all nations, and to announce it in His name as crucified and risen, — in other words, as the crucified Saviour, who offered an atone ment for a people given to Him, without respect to nationality (Luke xxiv. 47). Christ inay thus be designated the official Saviour of mankind, as men are contrasted with fallen angels,
Till] APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT. 329
f« »r whom no such provision is made ; and on this ground the invitations of the Gospel, with all that is comprehended in them, are equally and without distinction made to all nations. Thus, irrespective of national distinctions or class distinctions, the invitation to accept a crucified Saviour applies equally to all tribes and ranks of men.
SEC. XLIH. — SAYINGS WHICH PARTICULARLY RELATE TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT.
As we endeavoured in the previous sections to distribute the sayings of Jesus according to a classification which seemed the best fitted to give a full outline of the atonement in its nature and effects, it only remains for us to notice such testi monies as refer to the mode in which it is appropriated and applied. A brief and condensed statement of the import of these is all that is now required.
The previous elucidation of the doctrine renders a very succinct sketch of the mode of applying the atonement quite sufficient. We commenced by exhibiting the presuppositions of the whole question, or the grounds on which this great fact may be said to rest. We next considered the constituent ele ments of the atonement, as consisting of sin-bearing and sinless < <1 ledience. We further proceeded to survey the proper effects of this divine fact on the individual Christian, both in an objec tive and in a subjective point of view ; that is, in respect to the acceptance of his person and the renovation of his nature. We were next brought, in order, to set forth the influence of the atonement upon other interests in the universe, which, as we have seen, are at once numerous and various. We were thus naturally led to discuss the actual efficacy and extent of the atonement, or the question for whom it was rendered.
These topics pave the way for the only remaining division of our Lord's sayings on the atonement, viz. those which con tain an allusion to the mode of its application. These are not
330 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMKXT.
so numerous ; and they may be discussed within a limited com pass : (1.) This classification of our Lord's testimonies brings under our notice the objective presentation of the atonement, by means of ecclesiastical institutions and ordinances, which are, first of all, based on this accomplished fact, and next in tended to commend it to the acceptance of others. (2.) But if there are objective appointments which aim at the application of this divine fact to susceptible minds, there are also means of a subjective character, and especially the exercise of faith, which is the divinely constituted instrument, for receiving and appro priating what has been provided. (3.) The responsibility and doom of not accepting the provided remedy comes naturally into consideration in this connection. (4.) In addition to all this, the effect of the atonement on all religion and practice is a point of such moment, that it cannot fail to attract the attention of every mind that has duly learned to regard the atonement as the grand distinctive peculiarity of the Christian religion.
On these points, it might be interesting and important to enlarge. But as our object is brevity and condensation, as far as may be consistent with perspicuity and completeness, we shall content ourselves with a brief outline on this division of the subject ; and the rather, because it touches on a department on which it does not precisely fall within our present plan to enter.
SEC. XLIV. — THE PREACHING OF FORGIVENESS BASED ON THE ATONE MENT, AND EVER CONNECTED WITH THE ATONEMENT.
There are sayings of our Lord which bring out a divinely constituted connection between the atonement considered as an accomplished fact, and the proclamation of it by His servants, — a connection which it is the part of every Christian, as far as possible, to understand, but which, after all our inquiries, is rather to be apprehended as a fact, than fathomed in its nature and mode.
THE PREACHING OF FORGIVENESS BASED ON IT. 331
When we come to the preaching of forgiveness, we find that the Lord commanded the disciples to preach forgiveness in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke xxiv. 47) ; and His ambassadors, faithful to the charge imposed on them, carried the message during their lifetime far and wide through the known world, proclaiming repentance and forgiveness as the two topics which they were to preach in Christ's name, and as the principal elements of the new covenant, — repentance on man's side, and forgiveness on God's side. Christ meant to signify by that memorable saying, that the disciples were to preach forgiveness as a benefit won by His death, and imparted by Him as the Eisen One, to all who repent and believe. He intimates that He obtained by His death the authority and right to give the remission of sins. This comes out in con nection with the circumstance that the disciples were to preach this message IN His NAME ; which may either mean, as many interpret -it, at His command, or, according to others, may denote preaching with the express naming of His name, in the light in which He is mentioned as the crucified and risen Mediator l (ver. 46). The preaching " in His name " could only have place when the expiation was finished. The proclamation of this message could not have been made if He had not died.
There are two points which here summon our attention. The first is, that there is a connection between Christ's death and the immediate remission of sins; #nd the second is, that the entire preaching of forgiveness, as well as the office of the ministry itself, presupposes the atonement, and is ever directly connected witli the atonement. Both points may be fitly con sidered under this section.
1. With regard to the first of these points, we had occasion
1 i*< ru iiepan avrev. "\Vint r, fith fd. p. 350, makes it refer to Christ's com- iiuuiil : "d. h. sich clabci auf ihn als Originallchn r uml Aliordner beziehend." Luther, again, interprets tin- phrase of Christ's merils&s the ground of remission ; Meyer and Vinkc make the phrase refer to the utterance of Christ's name in preaching as that on which it
332 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
to notice, in a previous section, that the Lord puts the forgive ness of sins in causal connection with His death.1 He very emphatically, at the institution of the Supper, placed the pardon of sin in causal connection with His own atoning death, or with His blood shed for many (Matt. xxvi. 28). The guilt which suspended merited punishment over mankind, and which stood in the way of their acceptance, was removed only by the atone ment. This is a point on which His teaching is so unambigu ously clear, that if men would come to it without preconceived opinions, mistakes would at once be obviated.
It may be proper to define, before we proceed, the sense in which we are to take the term forgiveness, so as to get rid of the confused and incorrect opinions entertained in many quar ters as to its meaning. And here I may premise, that a right notion of SIN determines the import of forgiveness. Wherever sin is regarded merely as imperfection or disease, not as guilt or the violation of the divine law, a different notion of forgive ness of necessity prevails. Sin in that case is not considered judicially, or in the light of the divine tribunal ; nor is forgive ness.2 But, according to the biblical idea, sin always stands related to a lawgiver on the one hand, and to a judge on the other ; and as God not only threatens positive punishments beyond the mere consequences of actions, considered in their ordinary issues, or according to the natural course of events, but inflicts positive punishment out of love to His perfections, and because He must do so from what He owes to Himself, a wholly different notion of forgiveness must be adopted. When we compare the biblical notion of it as used either in the Old or New Testament, it will be found to involve in eveiy case the idea of deliverance from punishment ; and the notion of deserved punishment for sin is so universally accepted, that
1 See before, at p. 170.
2 This rationalistic idea of forgiveness, common at tin- lii^innin^ of this century, was well refuted by Lotze, over de vergeving tier Zuiiden, 1802. (See Storr also on Hebrews, in Appendix.)
THE PREACHING OF FORGIVENESS BASED ON IT. 333
it IH -longs, as the apostle shows, to the beliefs of uatural re ligion, ineradicable from our nature (Rom. i. 32).
To bring out this fact, we have but to recall any portion of our Lord's teaching where He uses the word forgiveness. Thus the petition, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matt vi. 12), when we trace how it is more fully explained in the subsequent verses, contrasts our forgiveness of man's offences with forgiveness vouchsafed to us by God. If the one denotes a non-avenging of ourselves upon a fellow-man, or an abstaining to punish an injury inflicted, the other must mean an acquittal on the part of God, or a complete liberation from the punishment we deserved. Nor is the phrase ever used in any other sense by our Lord. Thus, when He said to the palsy-stricken man, "Thy sins be forgiven thee" (Matt. ix. 5), we cannot, with some, understand the language as equivalent to his restoration to health. On the contrary, the passage unmistakeably compares two benefits derived from Christ, and asks which of two things it was easier to say. The forgiveness of sins cannot, therefore, be interpreted as in timating no more than recovery or restoration from a bodily disease. The cure was meant to prove that He had power to forgive sin ; and the words of Christ must be understood of the man's deliverance from the merited punishment of sin.
Again, when we examine the words of Christ used at the institution of the Supper, it is evident that He intimates a meritorious or causal connection between His death and the remission of sins.1 The words, " My blood shed for many unto the remission of sins," can bear no other sense. Nor could the disciples, accustomed to the idea of sacrifice, understand the words in any other sense than as intimating that He was to die, that He might deliver men from deserved punishment by \\\< d i -all i. The forgiveness of sins consists in this, that a
1 I would refer specially to Storr, in the Appendix to his commentary on Ildntws, to Viiikc, and Lotze, for the best demonstration of this immediate causal connection.
334 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
man, notwithstanding his real guilt, is treated as if he had not sinned, or, in other words, goes free from punishment.
Thus, forgiveness is nothing but exemption from punish ment ; and as to its procuring cause, it is directly effected by the death of Christ. The meaning of this statement, rendered into other words, is simply this : that God exacts no more punishment, because Christ has exhausted it, and offered that on the ground of which God is actually gracious. Our Lord unmistakeably deduces pardon and deliverance solely from His death (Matt. xxvi. 28, xx. 28). If we keep in mind this notion of the sufferings of Christ, we readily understand why He sometimes mentions merely the removal of punishment (John iii. 15, 16). The atonement of Christ, in a word, aimed at this — to change men's relation toward God, and their con dition, for eternity.
And this leads me to add that, as our Lord describes it, the effect of the atonement is by no means limited to those sins which were committed before the reception of the Gospel. When we inquire to what sins the atonement of Christ referred, the answer obviously is, that sins after conversion, as well as before it, were, without exception, expiated. If, indeed, pro vision were not made for the remission of all sins, great and small, for daily recurring sins during the course of the Chris tian's life, as well as for sins committed during the time of im penitence, what would the atonement avail ? 1 The Lord meant that His blood was shed for all sin.
But we must further inquire, If forgiveness means exemption from punishment, what is the kind of punishment ? The answer is, that punishment is remitted of every kind, and specially future punishment, with all its consequences, because all sin is forgiven. Many of the natural consequences of sin, such as sickness and death, are not at once reversed by the reception of forgiveness; but a provision is made for their ultimate re-
1 It is not necessary further to refute the opinions of such men as Loffler, Bretschneider, Kiickert, and Reiche.
TIIF. 1'IM- ACIIIN'G OF FORGIVENESS BASED ON IT. 335
moval, and, as \\c have: already pointed out, they are, from the moment of forgiveness, altered in their character. They become part of a paternal discipline, or of a system of training for the inheritance ; but there is no wrath in them.
2. But the special topic brought before us in this section is, whether the PREACHING OF FORGIVENESS was to be immediately and directly based on Christ's atoning death. Was it a simple announcement of a free boon, based on the accomplished fact of the atonement, irrespective of any intermediate condition ? The commission there stated shows that the Lord Jesus, in describing His atoning death, required that the preaching of the forgiveness of sins should be connected with it in the closest way ; and the question arises, In what way ? Is it a direct or indirect connection, an immediate or a more mediate connection ? This momentous inquiry goes to the root of the modern ten dencies, and divides into two parties or schools the believing divines of the present time, who, according as they maintain a direct causal connection between the blood of Christ and par don, or hold a mediate connection, may be designated biblical expositors, or the adherents of a modern tendency. This ques tion goes very deep into the character of preaching, and it is felt in the inmost experience of the Christian. l The whole subject of the forgiveness of sins, indeed, stands in the fore front of the articles of religion as a question closely connected with men's highest interests, and in the fore-front of all preach ing ; and the subject is kept alive by the constant opposition which it encounters in some form.
As to the inquiry, whether forgiveness is to be preached as standing in immediate or mediate connection with the death of Christ, it may be affirmed that all who abide by any form of spiritual religion are agreed on one point: that among the
1 Tin- whole spirit and style of the pulpit may be said to be i-oiulitiunol by the opinions nitnlainr,! on tin- <ju«'.stion, whether forgiveness is to be pivur h. , I as the very first thing in the Gospel message to sinners. The negative opinion makes another gospel.
336 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
grand ends contemplated by the death of Christ, must be pre eminently classed the spiritual and moral improvement of mankind. But the debate is, whether, according to Christ's testimony, the primary and principal design of His death is to be sought in the spiritual improvement of men, that is, whether the forgiveness of sin is to have place only in so far as that first point is realized; or, conversely, whether forgive ness is to be preached as a benefit, in the first instance, directly effected by the death of Christ, and whether the moral improve ment follows as the inseparable effect of the forgiveness. Not a few in all countries have accepted the theory, flowing from a very inadequate notion of law and sin, that they must preach a message, which lays stress on the fact that Christ's design was only to implant a new life among mankind. They speak as if the impediment or difficulty to be overcome did not at all lie on God's side, but only on man's side, who had yielded him self up to selfishness, and whose healing would be completely effected by regaining the inclination or bias to what is holy. They add, that just in the proportion in which their recovery is advanced, does the forgiveness of sin ensue ; for with them sin is a calamity rather than a crime — a disease rather than a fault. Though they allow that there are in Scripture passages which appear to derive the forgiveness of sins directly from the blood of Christ, they yet assert that these are counter balanced by others which connect the design of Christ's death with our moral improvement (Gal. i. 4), and that the former are to be explained by the latter; and some of these writers contend that their theory is even more scriptural than the exposition which asserts the direct connection between the death of Christ and pardon. That makes another gospel (Gal. i. 4-10).
The twofold answer to all this is obvious. (1) The positive declaration of Christ, that His blood was shed for many for the remission of sins, indisputably points to an immediate connec tion (Matt. xxvi. 28). On no other ground can we explain the
PLACE ASSIGNED TO THE ATONEMENT IN THE CHURCH. 337
way in which Christ coimects His blood with the remission of sins. There is here announced a direct causal connection be tween the two. Tliis appears, too, from another mode of ex pression. If one dies in another's room, and, by dying, effects deliverance, what can that mean but an immediate and causal connection between the sacrifice and the deliverance or remis sion ? The Jewish mind was quite familiar with this notion by means of sacrifices, and they easily connected the victim's death and direct liberation from punishment in virtue of it. (2) The commission as to the way that this forgiveness was to be preached proves the same thing. It was to be preached, not sold ; and the simple announcement of His death, and of present forgiveness by means of it, to sinners as they are, was the sum and substance of the commission with which the first teachers of Christianity were invested.
The whole office of the ministry, as it is here delineated with the commission, as it is represented by our Lord, has for its object the proclamation of repentance and forgiveness. And so the apostles describe their office as a ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. v. 18), and as instituted to tell of Christ's ransom for all (1 Tim. ii. 5-7) ; while the word is called the preaching of the cross (1 Cor. i. 18).
Thus our Lord emphatically sets forth the immediate con nection between His blood and forgiveness (Matt. xxvi. 28) ; and the great work of preaching, as well as the great design of the gospel ministry, is to announce or proclaim this fact.
SEC. XLV. — THE PLACE WHICH CHRIST ASSIGNS TO THE ATONEMENT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
The prominent rank which our Lord gives to the doctrine of the atonement in thr founding of the Christian Church, and in all its solemnities, deserves our particular attention, as a proof of its being a divinely provided fact, and as an evidence of its vast importance. Everything connected with the Church,
338 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
and with its solemnities or services, presupposes the historical fact of Christ's atoning death. This circumstance takes Christ out of the category of a mere teacher. The influence of the Lord's sacrifice may be traced on every institution, on every doctrine, and on the whole outline of Christian experience. Had our plan led us to indulge in personal reflections, or to expatiate on the practical fruits and consequences of thea tone- ment, these might have been set forth at large. But as we limit ourselves to an expository outline or statement of our Lord's sayings, we notice only what He has marked out as the due position of this great truth in the institutions and services of the Church, which are all based upon the cross. When we have done this, we shall apprehend correctly in what light the Bible leads us to survey the doctrine.
1. The blood of atonement -is the basis of the entire new covenant. On this point it is the less necessary to enlarge, because we noticed, in a previous section, some of the topics connected with it.1 Our Lord, in referring to the new cove nant, so called as contrasted with that national covenant which was made with Israel at Sinai, declares that it was founded in His blood, or on His atonement. This new covenant, into which all believing disciples are taken, whether Jews or Gentiles, rests on the true sacrifice, just as the Sinaitic covenant, with which it is contrasted, was founded on the typical sacrifices which must needs be offered at its institution.
I shall not here enlarge again on the nature and provisions of the new covenant, as my present object is only to show one point connected with it— that the atonement lies at its founda tion. The term covenant does not denote a mere doctrine, but implies an actual relation formed between God and man — the atonement being the basis on which it rests. No atonement, then no covenant and no Church. The more precise nature of it will appear when we read it off from the provisions of the typical economy, which preceded it. The blessings were
1 See page 166.
PLACE ASSIGNED TO THE ATONEMENT IN THE CHURCH. 339
to be individual blessings, so that, instead of the national theo cracy, the members of the new covenant should be individually in covenant with God, and should have the law written on the heart (Jer. xxxi. 31). The new covenant was to stand on the foundation of a full and everlasting remission of sins, which, again, was derived only from the blood of atonement, according to Christ's words. Thus the entire new covenant recognised the death of Christ as its foundation. It may be added, that in this covenant, differing as it did from the former, by being universal, Jews and Gentiles participate in equal privileges, being equally reconciled to God in one body. On the other hand, the new covenant ceases to have any place where the doctrine of the atonement is not received, or where it is rejected, either under the influence of philosophical reasonings, or of a legal bias; and the terrible judgment of God, called by our Lord dying in their sins (John viiL 24) — a doom much more severe than that of dying for disobeying Moses' law — falls upon all who despise the blood of the covenant (Heb. x. 28). This involves more, by many degrees, than the mere neglect of Christ's words or teaching. He was but the prophet or teacher of His own salvation, so that He is rejected in both respects.
2. The atonement is described as the substance of the sacraments. They have neither significance nor value, except as they presuppose the great fact of a vicarious sacrifice for sin ; and to keep the atonement perpetually before the eye of the Church, as the one fact on which our entire salvation rests, not only at the commencement, but also during the course of the Christian's pilgrimage, the Lord deemed it fitting to insti tute these two sacraments in the Church. Thus the Christian disciple sees the atonement everywhere, and finds it in every Church institution. It is the one great fact from which he starts, ;md t<> which lie ever returns.
a. We shall notice this fact, first in connection with bap tism, which is by no means to be limited !•• the idea that it is a sign of reception into the Christian Church. If nothing
340 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
further than this were implied, there could be no reference to the atonement. But it involves much more. Not to adduce the subsequent statements of the apostles, which affirm that they who are baptized into Christ are baptized into His death (Eom. vi. 3), the Lord's own sayings upon the point are by no means obscure. Thus, when He speaks of His disciples bap tizing in His name, as well as in the name of the Father and of the Spirit, He plainly alludes to a peculiar relation to Himself in His official capacity l (Matt, xxviii. 19); and when He said, "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I strait ened till it is accomplished ! " (Luke xii. 50), He gives His own authoritative exposition of the meaning and import of John's baptism, as it was administered to Himself. It was a symbol of the way in which Christ was to pass under the heaviest sufferings ; and He submitted to the symbol as a token of the readiness with which He submitted to undergo the reality. The baptismal water was just an emblem, in Christ's case, of the punitive justice of God, under which He passed.2 Christ, the surety, was baptized in His official capacity, and His people are considered to have undergone this punishment in Him for the remission of sins. The symbol can mean nothing else but this, that His death was ours ; the only difference between John's baptism and that of the Christian Church being, that the former was a baptism for a suffering yet future, while the latter is a baptism into that which is finished. Baptism inti mates a fellowship with Christ in His death. The grand fundamental idea of baptism, though not to the exclusion of other allusions, is, that His death was a propitiatory death, and that His people died with Him ; and this is specially developed by the apostles (comp. Eom. vi. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 21).
1 fi/tvrr%t>vns avrous t'f ri ovofjt.it (Matt, xxviii. 19) intimates, in the first place, faith and a confession, and, in the next place, a certain relation, as intimated by tit. But what I refer ID is, that tin- iitum is not an allusion to the mere Trini tarian relation, but also to the official redemption work, and so to the name of Jesus in this respect as well.
2 See this idea, developed by the well-known A. Schultens, on the Heidelberg Catechism, as translated from las papers by Darueth.
FAITH THE INSTRUMENT OF RECEPTION. 341
1. The same thing holds true of THE LORD'S SUPPER, in tended to keep alive, through all the ages till the second coming of Christ, the great fact of His expiatory death. Its primary design was not to commemorate His office as a teacher, but to commemorate and symbolize His great sacrifice, when He died to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The words used by Him 111 connection with it are so express and clear to this effect, that no doubt as to their meaning remains on any mind interpreting words according to their precise significance. When Christians receive the bread and wine by faith, they are supposed to be made partakers of His vicarious death, and are regarded as having undergone, in and with Him, all that He endured.
Thus, according to the purpose of Christ, these symbolic actions of the Christian Church refer, both of them, to the atonement; and they are meant to attest it, whenever they are solemnized. As they perpetually return in the services of the Christian Church, they keep before the eye of believers this great fundamental truth till the Lord come. The meaning of the atonement, its nature, and effects of every kind, the utility of the atonement and its necessity, are all proclaimed anew by every repetition of these sacraments, which are appropriate to the different stages of the Christian life, — the one to its com mencement, the other to its progress. All these provisions keep up a constant remembrance of the cross, and are accom panied with the word given to explain them. Hence we may see the rank and place that belong to the atonement.
SEC. XLVT. — CHRIST'S SAYINGS WHICH REPRESENT FAITH AS THE N OR INSTRUMENT OF RECEIVING THE ATOXE.MKNT.
The relative place of faith becomes evident, when it is viewi-d as that mental act on which the whole application of redemption on man's side depends. The term faith means a spirit-given trust un the divine mercy and on a personal
342 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Saviour, as opposed to man's native self-reliance. This is its uniform signification, according to Scripture usage. Though some have thought that, in a considerable number of passages (as Gal. i. 23 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; Jude 3), it must be taken in an objective sense, denoting the doctrine1 of the gospel, yet the best modern expositors explain these passages in the ordinary sense; from which, indeed, we are not required to depart in a single instance.
The important position which faith occupies appears when we consider that it is the means by which redemption is appro priated, presupposing Christ's atoning work, which it receives, and being so closely connected with repentance, that the one is never in exercise without the other. It is saving only, as it is receptive of Christ's finished work ; and this is the point to which primary attention must be directed. Faith in its proper nature is the reception of a gift, and saves, not as it involves obedience, but simply as it is receptive of redemption.
There are passages in Scripture where we find the phrase, " the obedience of the faith," denoting a compliance with the divine authority in accepting the gift (comp. Acts vi. 7 ; Rom. i. 5, x. 3). Though these passages have been explained by some as denoting the obedience which follows faith, they really mean obedience in accepting the divine gift. The personal Saviour, as the surety of sinners, and in the discharge of His official undertaking, which involved an obedience unto death and the acceptance of His work, is the proper object of faith ; which is by no means limited to a bare act of the understanding, but is an exercise of the heart. There are several sayings of our Lord, describing faith as the one means of receiving the atonement. Faith, in the sense attached to it by Christ, involves a trust in His person, and gives a relation to His person. It is always used to denote a God-given reliance on
1 The commentators of the Keformation age, and afterwards, took up this idea of rims, or rather inherited it from medieval times. It is now given up by all good exegetes. (See Winer, Meyer, De Wette, Fritzsche, passim. )
FAITH THK 1XSTKUMENT OF RECEPTION. 343
an all-sufficient Mediator. Nor is it a reliance on His person irrespective of His office; for faith uniformly looks to what He officially did and suffered for our salvation.
To apprehend the connection between faith and the Saviour for the remission of sins, we must investigate what is the function of faith according to the sayings of Christ. We shall limit our attention, however, to the function of faith in obtaining the participation of the ransom, the atonement, or righteousness which Christ brought in ; as it would turn us away into a line of inquiry different from that we are pursuing, were we to enter on the doctrine of faith in all its aspects and bearings. Our one object in this section is to set forth from the words of Christ, that a divinely originated faith is the receptive organ or hand by which the believer is made partaker of the atonement. I shall not refer to those passages where it is interchanged with the phrase, " to receive His testimony" (John iii. 11, 12). I shall omit, too, the frequent use of the term in connection with the miraculous cures wrought on the bodies of men, though, both 'in their conscious need and in the persuasion of Christ's sufficiency, this exercise of faith was analogous, though not precisely the same, in all respects, with that which receives the crucified Christ for salvation.1 In a word, faith is the hand by which the graciously provided ransom is received by the captive, and the complete righteousness is received by the destitute ; or, to use another mode of representation, it is that bond which attaches us to Christ, and thereby to the Father. It makes Christ and His disciples one, in such a sense that they are no more two, but one person, in the eye of law and before God. Tims it may be affirmed, that by means of faith, the person is put on a right footing of acceptance; the standing before God is adjusted ; the relation of the man towards God is rectified. There is nothing else by which men can be connected with the Saviour. Without it, there would be no relation
1 See an interesting l.iblirul, as w.-ll us dogmatic, discussion of this doctrin- by Superintendent <_'!.>>, Bbrdw ,Y. T. i;.:,,-[.i' ,1, .,• <;!.m'., /<.«.
344 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
to Jesus, and the atonement would be offered in vain; but when any avail themselves of His mediation, who is the way, the truth, and the life, they have access to God by Him (John xiv. 6). There is thus an immediate connection, without any intervening steps at all, between faith and the acceptance of the person or the forgiveness of sins.
In our Lord's sayings, moreover, it will be found that faith is put in direct antithesis to work of any kind, or to any account of moral virtue, which might become a ground of con fidence before God. His sayings leave us in no doubt that faith leans on the person of Christ alone, with a full repudiation of all the righteousness of works. Thus, on one occasion He replied to the self-righteous multitude, demanding, " What shall we do, that we might work the works of God ?" in a manner which was fitted to repress such legalism : " This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent" (John vi. 29). It is only by a kind of paronomasia that He calls faith a work, as if He would say, " If this language is to be intro duced at all, this is the work of God, the divinely appointed injunction, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent."
Faith is thus the hand by which we receive all that Christ has done. This will appear, if we recall some of our Lord's say ings on this point. Thus, in that striking delineation given of faith in His conversation with Nicodemus, He defines it as an exercise of the soul, corresponding to the looking of the wounded Israelite to the heaven-appointed means of cure (John iii. 14, 15). In both the verses where He speaks of faith as the means of cure, it is spoken of as trust or reliance on the incarnate Son crucified or "lifted up" (ver. 14), or "given" in the sacrificial acceptation of the term (ver. 1G). The looking of the wounded Israelite, as the means by which he was healed, is parallel to faith on the crucified Christ. Thus the proper import of the term "faith" is limited to this peculiar relation which is always presupposed between a sinner and a Saviour. As in the case of the Israelite it was not the reception of a moral doctrine,
r.VITII THE INSTRUMENT OF RECEPTION. 345
nor fidelity in the observance of the laws of Moses, but a con fiding look to the serpent, that constituted the means of cure, so faith is nothing but reliance on the crucified Jesus. For what did that figure serve ? and why was that figure peculiarly selected ? It was for the purpose of showing that faith pre supposes the finished work of atonement, that is, a divine pro vision, and a human want. As human necessities are many and great, faith clings to the crucified Son of God as the God- appointed and sufficient remedy. As the atonement, or the means of putting sinful men on a right relation to God, is the greatest necessity that can be named, and as the atoning death of Christ is the centre-point of all His benefits, so faith is the centre-point of Christ's doctrine.
Our Lord represents the same thing under another figurative description — that of eating the bread of life which came down from heaven (John vi. 32-53). To apprehend the force of this figure, we must attend to the point of comparison. Between the bread and the crucified Christ there is one analogy; be tween the act of eating and the exercise of faith there is a second. With reference to the first of these, the comparison must be made only with reference to the nourishing property of food, thus : As food has a nutritive quality, so the death of Christ has the same relation to our salvation. His death is the cause of our salvation in the same way as food is the cause of sustaining life. But here the second analogy, or point of com parison, presents itself. The most nutritious food could not avail to any who did not make use of it ; and, in the same way, the death of Christ will not benefit any who do not believe in Him. Thus, according to this simple and perspicuous figure, faith stands to our salvation in the same relation that the par taking of food does to this temporal life.1 Faith is thus the appointed means, and the only means, by which any man can enjoy the saving eilicaey of Christ's atoning death; and \i« words could more forcibly point out the indispensable necessity Lut/r, ffoogtpriestertchap ran J. L'., p. HJ.
346 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
of faith for a participation in the saving efficacy of Christ's atoning sacrifice. This is the one means of reception. He who believes receives the saving blessings which Christ's death procured, and has a right to the fulfilment of the promise. He who receives with the heart the gift of the crucified Christ, has a right to pardon, and can claim it.
We do not here develop the doctrine that faith is an inward work of God, produced by the operation of divine grace ; for we are directed by our theme to faith, as the appointed way, and the only way, by which men can please God, and find the acceptance of their persons before God. Christ tells us that a man is saved, not by working, but by believing on Him whom the Father sent (John vi. 29). It is as if He said, "Have done with working ; begin by believing on a God-appointed Mediator, as containing in His person and redemption work the only sufficient ground of acceptance." Salvation is to him who ceases from working ; or, as it is put by Paul : " To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for right eousness " (Rom. iv. 5) ; and this proves that faith constitutes the primary, principal, and most important duty.
The same tiling is proved by those sayings of Jesus, where He declares that they who believe not, perish in their sins (John viii. 24). All depended on this, that they took Him for what He was. That language referred to His person and office, not to His doctrine, and it shows what stood connected with faith on His person, or the opposite. They who would not receive Him as the sin-bearer, or as the Lamb of God, must therefore perish in their sins.
SEC. XLVIL— ENDLESS HAPPINESS, OR IRREMEDIABLE WOE, DECIDED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH MEN WELCOME OR REJECT THE ATONEMENT.
Though we embrace in this section two opposite classes of sayings, we deem it best to put them together, partly because
HAPPINESS cm IRREMEDIABLE WOE HINGING ON IT. 347
the one suggests the other, by contrast, partly because men's destiny hinges simply on the acceptance or non-acceptance of Christ's atonement. I shall refer a little more fully to the second point just mentioned, that is, to the remediless doom of those who refuse the propitiation of the cross.
1. Christ's vicarious sacrifice alone, apart from any acces sory work or merit of a supplementary description, secured for His people a place in the heavenly inheritance : "I go to pre pare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself ; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither Thou goest ; and how can we know the way ? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life : no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me" (John xiv. 2-6). This saying, understood according to the deep significance which our Lord commonly attached to the words, depart and go away, comprehends not only the departure, but the mode by which He went ; that is, the vicarious sacrifice by which He returned to the Father. This, as we have already proved, is the import of Christ's language in such a connection. The words intimate that heaven, once shut against mankind, is re opened by the satisfaction of the Son of God, and that His entrance secures that of His people. The text is thus a key to all those passages which describe Jesus as the new and living way (Heb. x. 20), as the leader of our salvation (Heb. ii. 10), as the forerunner who has for us entered (Heb. vi. 20), and also to another class of passages which speak of sitting in heavenly places with Him (Kph. i. 3).
It is a superficial comment, which interprets the words as referring only to doctrine, and as intimating merely that He j minted out the way to happiness. No mere teacher ever ex pressed liimself as the Lord has here done. It is true the disciples mi^ht not at the time discern the full meaning of the words, mid nii.uht understand Him as if He represented Himself
348 SAYINGS OF JESUS OX THE ATONEMENT.
in the light of a traveller, who goes to a certain place Him self, and makes certain preparations also for the reception of His friends. Many interpreters see little beyond this in the words. But they imply much more. They intimate that Jesus was to be the procuring cause and the ground of our endless felicity, and not the mere messenger to announce it. He re presents Himself as the one cause of man's happiness, and as accomplishing what meritoriously prepared a place for His dis ciples. He calls His death or vicarious sacrifice a going to the Father, and delineates it as the means or cause of preparing a place for His people among the many mansions. No one is warranted to explain these words in a metaphorical way, when it is evident, from the whole scope and connection of the passage, that He would have them apprehended in their strict and proper import.
According to the principle of interpretation which we have applied several times already, the words of Jesus imply that men had forfeited their position in the house of God, and that Christ has restored it by His atoning death. A place was pre pared for the disciples by Christ, first of all, because He anni hilated the cause of the estrangement, putting away sin by the sacrifice of Himself; and next, because He took possession of the inheritance in His people's name, as their representative and Head. Thus, apart from any supplementary work of man, or any merit of our own appended to the work of atonement, Christ's going to the Father prepared a place for the redeemed; and His disciples enter heaven simply on the footing of His atoning sacrifice. This is more than a teacher's function, and more than to follow a mere example.
2. This leads me to consider, in the next place, the opposite class of testimonies, which set forth the irremediable woe and endless punishment awaiting those who reject the redemption work of Christ. The general question of final retribution and of endless punishment in all its wide bearings, does not come within our present purpose. But one important aspect of it — that connected with the rejection of the atonement, or the non-
IIAPPIXKSR or. II;];F.MKI>I.\BLE WOE HINGING ox IT. 349
stance of the divinely-provided remedy — demands atten tion, as a large number of testimonies uttered by our Lord has express reference to the endless and irremediable misery of those who reject His sacrifice. To these we must somewhat more copiously refer, and the rather, because at present, doubts as to the eternity of future punishment are more widely diffused than at any previous epoch, among those who in other respects accept the truths of Christianity.
When we consider the constant and uniform teaching of our Lord as to the future destiny of men, we find two periods men tioned, — one of preparation, which is of brief duration ; and one of retribution, which is fixed and endless. Thus, faith is required in this life, and urged with the distinct announcement, that otherwise men are condemned already (John iii. 18), and that the wrath of God dbideth on them (John iii. 36). The same allusion to the endless endurance of the divine displeasure comes out emphatically in a passage of which the point is much missed. " For whosoever will save his life shall lose it : and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul ? or what sliall a man give in exchange for [better, as a ransom- price for] his soul?" (Matt. xvi. 25, 2G).1 This implies that the payment of a ransom was indispensably necessary in order to liberate men from captivity, but that it has been neglected ; and the point of our Lord's inquiry is, what other expedient or. ran som, to satisfy God and to effect man's liberation, can be given? It is tantamount to the declaration that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, no second ransom, when the soul has been lost by the rejection of the one sole expedient devised for this end. The figurative terms, too, by which these future punish ments :i re. expressed — such as " the unquenchable fire " (Mark ix. -t.v, and the. "way that leadetli to destruction" (Matt. vii. 13) — convey thoughts that are wholly out of keeping with the idea of restoration or deliverance.
350 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Before noticing single testimonies, we may adduce, as a ruling instance, the case of Judas Iscariot, of whom our Lord said, " Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is be trayed ! it had been good for that man if he had not been born " (Matt. xxvi. 24). This mode of arguing from a ruling case, employed by Paul, for the establishment of such weighty truths as justification by faith alone (Rom. iv. 1-23), election (Rom. ix. 10-23), and the liberty of those who are children of the promise (Gal. iv. 22-31), may be used to prove the truth of eternal punishments. It is noteworthy, that the objection of greatest weight to certain minds is, that it would have been better for such persons that they had not been born ; and that is the very inference drawn by our Lord in respect of Judas. He allows it ; He asserts it. But this language could not have been used if there were a termination to the retribution awarded, or any ulterior felicity and rest ; — a proof, this, whicli cannot be evaded, and before which all must stand silent ! If a pause should follow, or a period of felicity should enter, to be at last a relief or compensation, such words could not have been used by the omniscient Saviour, whose eye minutely sur veyed all future, as well as all present, relations. It would have been good for Judas to be born, if, even after innumerable ages, or after a period of punishment, however long continued, he should at last enter on the inheritance of rest and peace and glory ; for the intermediate torment, how protracted soever, would bear no proportion to the unending rest of eternity. On the contrary, this case demonstrates that there is no outlet, no repentance, no hope ; and a ruling instance of this sort is con clusive.
They who doubt the eternity of future punishment must explain away our Lord's words on some preconceived theory, and by a non-natural interpretation (John viii. 24). Certainly, their usual position, that Christ taught nothing but love, is reluted, not only by the woe pronounced upon Chorazin, Beth- saida, and Capernaum (Matt. xi. 21-23), and upon the Scribes
HAPPINESS OR IRREMEDIABLE WOE HINGING ON IT. 351
ami Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 1-33), but also by the distinct an nouncement with which He sent forth His apostles: " He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 1C). Without going into an exhaustive discussion of this question,1 it will serve the purpose which we have in view, to adduce one or two sayings of Jesus which conclusively establish the fact, that endless woe awaits those who reject His atonement.
In sending out the twelve on their first evangelistic tour, He said, " Ilather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell " (Matt. x. 28). Plainly, it is God to whom our Lord refers as able to destroy both soul and body ; and the words contain the notion of unending destruction as the second death. Finality is wholly out of keeping with our Lord's words, for that notion wrould argue purification and preparation for a better lot, not the destruction of both soul and body in hell, which is • affirmed. Not less express is the statement in the parable of Lazarus, that there is a great gulf fixed, and im passable, between those in bliss and those in misery, by which they are for ever separated (Luke xvi. 26). The language implies, that if the blessed never fall from their felicity, the lost never escape from their misery.
The same awful truth is brought out when our Lord speaks of everlasting punishment, using the same word with which He speaks of life eternal (Matt. xxv. 4G). To those who argue that a different meaning may be assigned to the same adjective in the two contrasted clauses of the same verse, it is enough to say that the admission of such a diversity of meaning would lie to violate all the rules of just interpretation. It is to no purpose to allege that the word here rendered everlasting and <-fi /•//'!/ denotes sometimes nothing beyond a definite time2
'(in tin- subject of eternal punishment, 1 may refer to the anti-Socinian writers siieli as Iloornbeek ami Calovius. As against the rationalists I may mention specially Michaelis, i//,, /• Sinnl, mul 1!, iin<jtlnmn<j, p. -tin ; al.-o .111 alile <li- ii-Mon in Mo.sheim's Sermons, Lamjie's I>i>scrtations, S, Inilteiis on Heidelberg CatrchiMii, Muntinghe, Van Voorst, etc.
2 It is not denied that, in certain connections, «/*»<« denotes what lasts during
352 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
(Gen. xvii. 13; Eph. iii. 9). However men may argue from other passages where the word denotes enduring as long as a certain economy or institution continues, that does not touch the antithesis of this verse. It still remains that the same word is equally applied to the heavenly blessedness and to the future misery; and on no principle of interpretation can an expositor be allowed to give a different sense to the same word in two contrasted clauses.
One of the strongest proofs for the eternity of future punish ment is found in the words descriptive of the condemned : " where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched " (Mark ix. 46). They who contend for the finality of punishment have no refuge from the cogency of this passage, except in the desperate peradventure of annihilation, to which, without any evidence, they sometimes appeal.
The theme on which we have been commenting is awful in the extreme, and one which no one can approach without a bleeding heart. But the question to be determined, apart from all other considerations, is, "What has Jesus said ? does He assert the finality of punishment or its unending duration ? and no faithful expounder of His words can maintain that He has even left this matter doubtful. As to the further question, On whom does this unending doom strike ? His words are not less clear. They are uniformly represented as the men who, like Judas, or the Jewish nation, or Capernaum, refuse His redemp tion work, and reject His great salvation (Matt. xxv. 46 ; John iii. 36; Matt. iii. 12) ; and the frequency with which our Lord refers to this theme is a merciful forewarning, intended to shut men up to the atonement.
a given epoch, or a.\u*. (See J. Alting on Rom. xvi. 25. ) But the connection shows, in all languages, what is meant by such words as for ever, I may refer to a discussion by Moses Stuart on «<»» and «/»««, in Clark's Biblical Cabinet, vol. 37.
INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT ON MORALS AND RELIGION. 353
SEC. XLVIII. — THE INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT, CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD, ON THE WHOLE DOMAIN OF MORALS AND RELIGION.
The doctrine of the atonement, which it was our aim to establish in the foregoing pages, and to put in its true light, from the view-point of Christ's consciousness, is so interwoven with all the other essential doctrines of Christianity, that they may be said to stand or fall together. Nothing important can keep its ground, if, indeed, anything of paramount moment can be said to remain, where the atonement is abandoned, or no longer held in some form. It is this that gives coherence, meaning, and consistency to the entire fabric, which must otherwise collapse.
But it is not so much the place of the atonement in Chris tian doctrine, as its influence on morality and vital religion, to which I here allude. The plan we have pursued does not lead us to the Epistles, where we find perpetually recurring references to the fact of the atonement, and to all the spiritual benefits which stand in intimate connection with it, but simply to the Lord's own words, as the basis and groundwork of all the applications which the apostles make of it. But we find His own sayings explicit enough on the subject of our present inquiry.
We shall consider the influence of the atonement on the
• lun iain of morals and true piety. The participation of the saving benefits flowing from the atonement yields the strongest
• if all motives that can influence the human heart, not to dis honour, but to glorify, the ineffably gracious Giver of such blessings. If we were to enumerate the securities for vital religion supplied by the atonement, we should have to distri bute them into two classes — one having its basis in the moral government of God, a second in the sphere of motives. To the former, indicated in our Lord's allusions to the premial life, consequent on the reception of the atonement (John vi. 51),
354 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
and fully developed in the apostolic Epistles (Rom. vi. 4 ; Gal. ii. 20), it is not necessary again to refer, because the subject was under our consideration when we discussed the renovating and transforming effects of the divine life, as it takes possession of the human heart. It is to the latter, or the motives fur nished by the atonement, that it is only further necessary to allude.
A scheme of thought which runs counter to the atonement, if carried out to its logical consequences, is destructive to religion, and subversive of morality. The peace and security of mankind depend on a true knowledge of God, not in one attribute, but in all the perfections of His nature. The position too widely maintained at present, that God is nothing but a fountain of goodness, who sacrifices everything to the happiness of His creatures, destroys all religion, because it takes no account of the subjection, love, and reverence due to God. The class of thinkers who at present would strike out the atone ment from the creed of Christendom, agree in maintaining that love was the only motive in the divine mind in creating the world, and in legislating for it, and that He had no other object or design but the communication of happiness. Though this scheme of thought is not formally connected with any philosophy, as it was with the Leibnitzian or Wolfian philo sophy, last century, it comes to substantially the same result, that the supreme Being sacrifices everything to human happi ness and to the best world. It is argued that He is too highly exalted to be injured by human transgression, or angry at men's impotent opposition, and that He indulgently con nives at this, if they do not injure or destroy themselves. It is held that the Most High never punishes but for men's good, and generally not at all, if they render this unnecessary by repentance.
This at once banishes all moral aims from the divine govern ment, and, in a word, so completely reverses the relations of things, that, on this principle, the creature can scarcely be said
INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT ON MORALS AND RELIGION. 355
to exist for the Creator, but conversely. This theory disconnects happiness from moral excellence, which cannot any longer be re garded as possessed of intrinsic value, as it gives way at every point where physical happiness is threatened or imperilled. This is a low view of the divine government. On the contrary, God could not rest with complacency in even the happiest world, if men did not seek after their Creator, and acknowledge His rights ; and all religion is at once subverted, as well as all right ethical action — supported as it is on the natural rela tion which we bear, as reasonable beings, to the Creator — the moment men maintain that God aims at the natural happiness of His creatures as the chief end.
The effect of this theory on morals and religion, if no other elements came in to countervail or check it, is obvious. All those duties, which terminate in God, would fall to the ground, for there would be no motives drawn from our relation to Him. And if some duties would at once fall to the ground, others, such as joy and delight in Him, would be so much deteriorated that they could scarcely be said to partake of a moral character, because they would not differ in kind from the joy or delight which we have in insensate things, which please or profit us — God would not be made the end of human action, and self-interest would predominate.1
On the contrary, the atonement, as we have developed it from the words of our Lord, is based on the fact that God vindi cates His rights, and that He cannot recede from the legitimate claim — based not only on His relation as Creator, but also on His own moral excellence — to the 'love and confidence, the reverence and homage, the subjection and adoration, of eveiy creature made in the image of God. He demands this from llis intelligent universe, and cannot connive at rebellion with out the infliction of due punishment. This is the first principle
1 On the influence of right ideas of the atonement, I may refer to two Dutch champions of the truth : HulshofFs Philosophised Gesprekken, 1795 ; and Wynpersse, over de tStra/ende Gerechtigheid, 1799.
356 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
of His moral government; and the atonement is its recogni tion on the part of the substitute, as well as its enforcement on the part of the Creator.
The virtue, which takes its tincture from Christ's atonement, is perceptibly different, too, from that which disregards it. Ex perience shows that the virtues of such persons as plume them selves on their morality, apart from any dependence on the atonement of Christ, are of a hard, arrogant, censorious, and inflexible character. On the contrary, where men feel them selves to be imperfect sinning creatures, daily confessing errors, and standing before God in a Mediator's merits, they possess a virtue which is mild, meek, patient, humble, and attractive in the comparison.1
2. Having already adverted to the influence of the atone ment on the whole domain of morals, it remains that we briefly notice its effect on the field of true piety or vital religion in its various phases. To begin with FAITH, the organ or instrument of reception, we readily perceive that, without the atonement, it would have wanted its adequate and proper object. Under various modes of representation, metaphors or analogies from common life, it is described as the hand or instrument by which men are made partakers of the atonement (John iii. 15, 16, v. 36). As faith does not merely accept Christ as a teacher or approve of His moral code, but depends on Himself, it could have no object without the atonement.
Not only so : as many passages in our Lord's teaching con nect the atonement more or less directly with almost every spiritual benefit and every phase of vital religion, it is obvious that this central truth, the key-stone of the whole structure of a religious life, cannot be removed without irreparable ruin. Thus, to enumerate a few of these blessings, we find that our Lord, on the eve of His arrest by the hand of men, spoke of a peace which He should leave with His disciples as the fruit of
1 Compare the ethics of Epictetus, Antoninus, or Kant with the delineations of Christian ethics by Melancthon, Mosheim, Fenelon, Sailer.
INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT ON MORALS AND RELIGION. 357
the atonement (John xiv. 24) ; for the whole context indicates that He refers to the peace of conscious reconciliation flowing from His vicarious sacrifice. Many other privileges — more numerous, indeed, than can here be mentioned in detail, he- longing to the essential elements of true religion — stand in precisely the same relation : the freedom with which the Son makes His people free (John viii. 36) ; the hearing of prayer (John xvi. 23); rest for the weary and heavy laden (Matt. xi. 28) ; the satisfaction of a felt hunger and thirst (John vi. 35, vii. 37) ; a more abundant life (John x. 10) ; and a coming to the Father with boldness of access (John xiv. 6). It may seem, at first sight, as if these passages stood in no direct connection with any reference to the surety-merits and atonement of Christ ; but every one will be constrained so to connect them, when he compares them with the general statements of the New Testa ment, or puts them in their organic connection with the system of biblical doctrine. The titles which Christ assumes, especially that of the Saviour of the lost (Luke xix. 10), elevate Him far above the rank of a teacher or messenger of salvation.
3. It only remains for us to notice the influence of the atonement in the sphere of religious motives. Its influence as a constraining motive is as powerful and efficacious in the domain of spiritual motive as we saw it was in the sphere of morals, and primarily or first in order here. Thus, to adduce a few of the constituent elements of all true piety, the atonement is peculiarly adapted to imbue men with reverence for God. The rational creature can revere and stand in awe of God only when He is known as venerable ; and what can more fill the human mind with reverence than a due discovery of the majesty of God, and of the inviolability of the divine law in the atone ment of the cross ? Even in other orders of being, who obtain a knowledge of it, and who look into these things, the same feelings are awakened (1 Pet. i. 12). Then, as to the dread of sin, nothing is so calculated to infuse it, as a right view of the atonement, especially when we apprehend the infinite dignity
358 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
of the substitute, who must needs be made an example of the divine wrath. With regard, moreover, to the aversion to sin, essential to all piety, nothing is more calculated to make the memory of it better, and its allurements repulsive, than the agonies of Christ, considered in connection with the sins that caused them.
Nor does the constraining motive stop short there j for we may survey the influence of the atonement over the entire sphere or cycle of man's duty. In reference to grateful love, nothing so much tends to fill the heart with this emotion as the believing realization of Christ's redemption work — nothing so melts the heart ; and no purer love to God can be imbibed. Nor is this a service which either allows room for self-dependence, or warrants men to plume themselves on merit ; for if we should describe it, we could only say that the redeemed are not less jealous of mixing their own holiness with the Eedeemer's meri torious propitiation, than afraid of a fruitless faith or dead pro fession. There is no motive to a holy life so powerful and efficacious as that which is drawn from the propitiatory work of Christ, who, after meeting the demands of the law and bearing its curse, makes that same law a rule to direct our steps ; and Christians learn to take it from the Mediator's hand.
APPENDIX OF NOTES AND ELUCIDATIONS.
SECS. II., in. — Number of the Sayings on the subject of His Death.
IN speaking of the limited number of the Lord's testimonies on the subject of His atoning death, I have alluded to several elements in the public opinion of the age, which, per haps, go far to explain the amount of reserve which undoubtedly may be traced. Among other circumstances, is the fact that few of the Jews at that time retained a right idea of the atoning work or function of the Messiah, as it is represented in Isaiah's prophecy (Isa. liii.).
The Jews in the time of Christ do not seem to have retained in their creed the belief of a suffering Messiah — the priest hood (Fs. ex. 4) and the prophetical office being swallowed up in the one notion of a temporal prince (see John i. 21, com pared with Deut. xviii. 18). BORGER, in his Disputatio contra Elerhardum, quotes those writers who assert, and also those writers who deny, that the Jews in the time of Christ still had the idea. The evidence from the Gospels, that the idea had well-nigh or wholly perished from the Jewish community, is almost conclusive. The Jews seem to have expected nothing but a temporal dominion, and a Messiah who should over throw the power of Home, and give to the Jewish people an ascendency among the nations. Their words at Jerusalem, " \Yc have heard out of the law, that Christ abideth for ever" (John xii. 34), are decisive on this point. The offence, too, which the multitude took at Capernaum, as De Wette and
360 APPENDIX.
Meyer correctly show, must, in a large measure, be ascribed to His declaration, that He was to die, or to be a suffering Messiah (John vi. 60). (See also Vinke, p. 164.)
That the apostles were not exempt from the prejudices of their contemporaries, but rather shared in them in a double measure, from the fact that they expected to receive the places of honour, distinction, and authority in the Messianic kingdom, is evident from their language, and from all the incidents in their history. If they understood the import of Christ's words, they misinterpreted His allusions to His death by their own foregone conclusions, derived as they were from the prophecies which announced that the Messiah should reign for ever, and that His government should have no end (Isa. ix. 7). These prophecies they understood as declaring that He should never die. Christ promised them the Comforter, who was to lead them into all truth, or rather " into all the truth" (<7r5,(juv rqv toJfauui), and especially into the full doctrine as to His atoning death, which they could not bear while He was still among them (John xvi. 13, 17).
Though these causes go far to explain the reason why our Lord said less on the subject of His atoning death than might have been expected, yet the supposition is highly probable, that He uttered many things on the subject of His death which have not been recorded ; for we have only a small portion re corded of what He said and did (John xx. 30, xxi. 25). Thus the Apostle Paul adduces one memorable saying of Christ, not recorded by any of the evangelists (Acts xx. 35). It is a re markable feature of the Gospels, indeed, that we commonly find a narrative only of the discourses and actions of the Lord as He appeared in public, and came in contact with those who could not hear the whole truth as to the nature of His mission, history, and fortunes. We have not the record of His private interviews to any large extent, if we except such incidents as His inter views with Nicodemus and with the family of Bethany (Luke x. 38). It would be too much to affirm with Van Willes, that
NOTE ON SECTIONS II., III. 301
Jesus did not, in the proper sense of the word, publicly preach His Bufferings ;md death; for, though the allusion to His death is in His public discourses commonly introduced after some thing else (comp. John vi. and x.), no one with these two chap ters before him, as a specimen both of His Galilean ministry and of His ministry in Jerusalem, is entitled to say that He did not make His death and its effects one of the principal points of His preaching in appropriate and titting places. But of His words in private we have very little recorded, such as we now desire to possess ; and a number of references to His death may have been made on many occasions, of which we have no record. The explanation of John as to the mode in which the Gospels were composed, serves to explain this reserve (John xxi. 25). We may infer with much probability, that the men of Sychar, who evinced a docility and freedom from prejudice little found among the Jews, received an outline of the necessity, nature, and effects of His atoning death, such as susceptible minds were in a position to hear from His lips. They call Him o ^uTTJp TOV zofffiov ; and the words of Christ about Mary of Bethany, who anointed Him for His burial, — though exegetes such as Grotius, Kuinoel, and Fritzsche, repudiated the notion of a conscious purpose on her part, — do seem to argue a belief in His death, and to imply private instruction from Him self on His vicarious sacrifice. And another instance of a secret disciple who seems to have received instructions from our Lord in private on the subject of His death, was Joseph of Arimathea, one of the members of the Sanhedrim. The fact that he was not offended by the death of Jesus, but confirmed in his attachment to Him, and went in boldly to Pilate to beg tin1 body (roX^ffag, Mark xv. 43), argues that he must have received instruction on the death and resurrection of the M»-s- siah ; which he could get from only one of two sources — the prophecies, or the personal teaching of Jesus. There is much probability in the supposition that he received the information from the Lord Himself, as one of the " many " chief rulers who
362 APPENDIX.
believed on Him (John xii. 42). He appears to have been more prompt than Nicodemus, though they went in together (John xix. 38). Plainly, he was a disciple before this. Many of the explanations and instructions communicated during the forty days of the resurrection are left unrecorded. In the course of those TEN interviews which they were permitted to enjoy, some of which were more private, some more public, their attention was specially directed to the subject of His death, its nature, rationale, and effects, and to the types and prophecies which went before (Acts i. 3-8 ; Luke xxiv. 44-49).
SEC. vi. (pp. 13-21). — Harmony of Love and Justice in the Atonement.
The principal objections to the atonement at present, how ever variously expressed in words, commonly resolve them selves into this, that love alone marks all God's relations and ways to men. The Socinians of a former age denied punitive justice, and the modern mystic theory sees only love. I may refer to the history of opinion on this theory of the atonement.
At the close of last century, as a result of the "Wolfian philosophy, a speculation arose, which laboured to classify or subsume justice under goodness, and denned it as " goodness exercised with wisdom." According to this theory, divine pun ishments were only paternal chastisements, or wise applications of evil for the improvement of man. (Thus Steinbart, Eber- hard, Teller, during last century, expressed themselves.) This of course struck at the foundation of the vicarious satisfaction, and removed the very ground of the atonement. The effect of these opinions was disastrous in the highest degree, wherever they were adopted in the churches. To make good their posi tion, the most common method was — and it has been recently revived — to caricature the old doctrine, to supply quotations of extravagant and incautious phrases used by orthodox writers in practical writings, and to give a violent misrepresentation of
NOTE ON SECTION VI. 3G3
the terms, "wrath" and "punishment," as if that phraseology necessarily represented God as a fierce, vindictive, and impla cable tyrant ; and, contrasted with this, they drew the portrait of an affectionate Father. The great aim of those who assailed the atonement as a vicarious satisfaction in that age, was to overthrow the necessary exercise of divine justice, as if this opinion were merely grounded on a comparison of God witli worldly princes. They maintained that the infinitely good God can do nothing which is to the injury of any ; that He is only love; and that the evil consequences which follow sin by a natural law, and not as punishment, are only directed to men's good. This scheme of thought was lasting and disastrous.
A much more evangelical theory, but agreeing with the former in reference to the divine justice, arose about the begin ning of this century. . It enrolled among its defenders some of the most active men who appeared at the close of last century and the beginning of the present — such as HASENKAMP, MENKEN, LAVATER ; E. STIER, author of the Words of Jesus ; SCHLEIER- MACHER and his school ; NITZSCH, V. HOFMANN, of Erlangen ; the ANDOVER THEOLOGY in its more recent phase ; the followers of M. MAURICE, and much of the BROAD SCHOOL THEOLOGY, in our own country. They agree in one thing, that nothing is to be Been in the atonement but love. With all their complexional diversities, and whether they are in a more or less advanced stage towards evangelical theology, they hold that God is to be represented in His redemption work as simply exercising love. They will allow no element but love in the atonement. Hence Kit/sch, in his system, calls it "the revelation of holy love to human life." Under the influence of this notion, Schleiermacher announced, as the title of a sermon, "That we have to teach nothing of the wrath of God" (2d vol. of his Sermons, p. 72o).
The elaborate work of J. Macleod Campbell, formerly minister of Eow, in the Scottish Established Church, entitled TJie Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to the Remission of Sins and Eternal Life, Cambridge, 185G, strongly supports
364 APPENDLX.
the same position, from a wholly different starting-point. It is noteworthy that this production should be so much an authority among the adherents of the Broad Church School. Mr. Campbell says : " The first demand which the gospel makes upon us in relation to the atonement, is, that we believe that there is forgiveness with God. Forgiveness, that is, love to an enemy surviving his enmity, and which, notwith standing his enmity, can act towards him for his good, — this we must be able to believe to be in God toward us, in order that we may be able to believe in the atonement." He further states : " This is a faith which, in the order of things, must precede the faith of an atonement. If we could ourselves make an atonement for our sins, as by sacrifice the heathen attempt to do, and as, in their self-righteous endeavour to make their peace with God, men are in fact daily attempting, then such an atonement might be tlwught of as preceding forgiveness and the cause of it. But if God provides the atonement, then forgiveness must precede atonement, and the atonement must be the form of the manifestation of the forgiving love of God, not its cause" (pp. 17 and 18). The notion which he has of justice is as disjointed; he explains it thus: " Justice, looking at the sinner not simply as the fit subject of punishment, but as existing in a moral condition of unrighteousness, and so its own opposite, must desire that the sinner should come to be in that condition — should cease to be unrighteous — should become righteous ; righteousness in God craving for righteous ness in man with a craving which the realization of righteous ness in man alone can satisfy " (p. 30). This is tantamount to confounding the divine perfections, instead of exhibiting their harmony in the scheme of human redemption. Nay, Mr. Campbell goes on to say, " How can it be otherwise, seeing that the law is love?" (p. 31). That is to make a new vocabulary, instead of accepting the plain rigorous use of biblical words. I may add, the same scheme of thought comes to light in two works of Mr. Baldwin Brown — the first
NOTE ON SECTION VI. 305
entitled Divine Life in Man, Ward and Co., London; the second, The Doctrine of the Divine Father Jwod in relation to the Atone ment. The praise which he bestows on M. Maurice, and on the Rev. J. Macleod Campbell, of whose work he says that he does not know any book in which the subject is discussed with such deep thought and deep experience, and which he advises his readers to study, sufficiently indicate his view-point and tendency.
It is obvious that, on this theory, we have no more a legal atonement, but only what Mr. Campbell calls " a moral and spiritual atonement." Of course these notions sweep away the judicial and forensic side of theology ; and the whole question of the sinner's objective relation towards God, disordered by nature, and calling for reparation, is a total blank in this theology. We have nothing but mystical representations of the divine love and of the inner life, and pardon is either made absolute, or regarded as a mere sequel and accompaniment to the exercises of the spiritual life.
If man's nature and moral conformation, as originally con stituted by God, did not offer a daily protest against any such theory as tends to represent God only as a source of influences, and not as a moral Governor or Lawgiver in any sense of the word ; if conscience in men did not loudly reclaim, there would be but one step to a terrible deterioration in religion and morals ; for all religion and morality depend upon a right re cognition of authority and law, of divine justice, and a system of punishments and rewards. We do not deny the good connected with the school to which we have referred, that it often depicts the Saviour as the source of spiritual life and light, in most glowing terms, and expatiates on the privilege of union to Him. I'.ut with all this, it has two deleterious influences wrapped up in it: (1) it throws men luck <>n a certain legality or semi-legality, because it never takes them beyond themselves ; and (2) it undermines the whole rectoral in I ministration of God, the nature, perpetuity, and sanctions
366 APPENDIX.
of tlie divine law, and the wrath of a righteous God against sin. It makes God a source of life or influences, but no moral Governor, Lawgiver, or Judge.
The glaring imperfections of this school, which neither gives revelation its rights, nor man's conscience its place of authority, have driven many to go beyond it, and to advance to better views. Thus CHALYB^EUS and DORNEK, among the German thinkers, have advanced far beyond the mystic and subjective theories of the Schleiermacher school ; maintaining that there is in God not only a self-communicating element (das selbst- mittheilende), but also a self-maintaining, self-asserting ele ment (das selbst-behauptende) — the former being love, the latter justice. This was what was expressed in the scholastic period by the phrase, communicativum sui, to define love, and conservativum sui, to define justice. Justice is an attribute worthy of God, and necessary to the welfare of the universe ; and they who assail the exercise of justice, really overthrow the foundations of the gospel. Punitive justice is, in reality, an amiable attribute, worthy of God, and indispensable to the moral welfare of mankind.
I shall not notice the arguments of these schools in detail ; nor is it necessary, when the principle on which they are based is overthrown. But I may obviate two of the most common. Thus it is, (1) maintained, from the parable of the prodigal son (Luke xv.), and of the unmerciful servant (Matt. xviii. 23-35), that God forgives absolutely out of pure com passion. This is a misrepresentation of the grace-aspect of the gospel, which, it must never be forgotten, is grace to man, through a propitiation offered to God (comp. Eom. iii. 24). It is a recognised canon, however, in the interpretation of a parable, that attention is to be fixed on only one point, the tertium quid of comparison, and that we are not warranted to make a running parallel in all points, as in an allegory ; and these parables were never meant to teach the ground of for giveness. The argument from the parable of the prodigal son
NOTE ON SECTION VII. 3G7
is not derived from the words, but from the silence or want of reference to satisfaction ; and we are not warranted so to con strue silence. The Redeemer's object here was not to point out the ground or principle of forgiveness, which He elsewhere does plainly (Matt. xxvi. 28), but to exhibit His love to lost mankind — the great thought in the three parables contained in the chapter (Luke xv.). (2.) Again, it is demanded, Can there be love and anger at once in the divine mind, to the same object ? This objection ignores the fact of sin ; whereas man is considered, in a double capacity, as creature and as sinner, which meets all difficulties. This has its analogue in a father's relation to a wayward and rebellious son, where we trace love and anger at once to the same object.
It is further argued, that as man must imitate God in the free forgiveness of wrongs, it follows, that God forgives without atonement. That were to overthrow plain texts by a mere inference. But neither is it true that man, in his judicial relation, simply forgives. These divines only speak of man in his social relation to his brother-man, or in his paternal relation, forgetting that man, made in the image of God, presents a manifold analogue to the divine relations ; that he has the legislative and judicial relation as well; and that if he acted in the latter capacity according to mere mercy, he would neither be God's vicegerent, nor maintain the justice or order or moral welfare of human society.
SEC. vii. (pp. 21-30).— The Influence of Christ's Deity or of the Incarnation on the Atonement.
Less prominence has been given in recent times than iu former ages to the doctrine of Christ's deity, and to the doctrine of a proper incarnation in connection with the atom-incut; and various causes will readily occur to explain this fact.
In the Church, for the first four or five centuries occupied with discussions on Christ's person, it may seem as if little
368 APPENDIX.
attention could be spared for canvassing the influence of the incarnation on the atonement. But it is not so. The import ance attached to the solution of the questions bearing on the person of Christ — whether the Docetic, Arian, Sabellian, Nesto- rian, or Monophysite controversies — arose, in large measure, from the conviction that they had a direct bearing on the atonement of the God-man. The patristic divines sought indeed the absolute truth ; but their solicitude was largely due to the effect exercised by these questions on the actual faith of the Church. This is well brought out by THOMASIUS in his Beitriige zur Kirchlichen Christologic, Erlangen, 1845. We may take an illustration from the Nestorian and Monophysite dis cussions. Cyrill on the one side, and Theodoret on the other, bring the argument from the atonement into all their debates. Thus, as to Nestorianism, it was objected to, as leading, when legitimately carried out, to Humanitarianism or Ebionism, and by consequence to the subversion of the atonement, because the death of a mere man, however inhabited by God, or made the temple of God (Qzo<p6pog\ could have no world-wide signifi cance. As to Eutychianism, again, it was objected to, because it led, when legitimately carried out, to Docetism — a principle on which we could have but the semblance of an atonement (Boxjfff/?). Hence the Synod of Ephesus assigned, as the reason for condemning Nestorius, that he ascribed the work of salva tion to the humanity of Christ, or to His flesh alone.
When \ve come down to the theology of the Reformation, we find the greatest emphasis laid both in the Lutheran and in the Reformed Churches on Christ's deity, as absolutely necessary to His work of atonement. They held that Christ's deity was indispensable to the atonement, and that His office as Mediator was correctly understood, only when it was maintained that Christ acted everywhere and iii every scene according to both natures. Hence, when Osiander, in order to repel the Romish doctrine, asserted that the Lord Jesus was Mediator only in His divine nature, and Staiicarus, on the other hand, in opposing
NOTE ON SECTION VII.
3G9
him, asserted, in an equally one-sided way, that Christ was Mediator only in the human nature, the spiritual instincts of the Church, enlightened by the divine word, recoiled from both, and felt that they both deviated from the truth. The position firmly taken up and held in both divisions of the Protestant Church, was, that Christ, in every meritorious work, acted ac cording to both natures, and that His whole mediatorial activity was in both.
The infinite value of the atonement, viewed in connection with the incarnation of the Son of God, is exhibited forcibly by QUENSTEDT, Systema Theologicum; WESSEL, Nestorianismus con- futatus ; and GROTIUS, De Satisfadione. The latter is peculiarly fresh and clear on this point. Socinus would allow nothing to the dignity of the person ; and Grotius says, " We believe otherwise, that this punishment was to be estimated from the fact, that He who suffered the punishment was God, though He suil'ered not as God." He quotes 1 Cor. ii. 8, 1 Cor. ii. 27, and I Id), ix. 14; and adds, "Socinus objects, because the divinity did not suffer. It is just as if he would say that it is the same thing whether you strike an unknown person or a father, be cause strokes are directed to the body, not to the dignity of the person ; which gross error Aristotle long since confuted, and the common judgment dissents from Socinus." On this point, see Seed, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 391.
The value attached by the Reformation divines to the in fluence of Christ's deity in the atonement will appear, if we consult the ecclesiastical confessions of the period, the theo logical systems and compends, or the catechisms prepared lor the churches. I may refer to the Heidelberg Catecliism, and its host of expositors on Questions 14, 15, 1C, 17 ; and the mere fact that Socinianism and Rationalism have always assailed ( 'In ist's deity and His atonement together, unmistakeably shows how inseparably they are connected.
Two modern theories on the incarnation are in a high de gree unfavourable to a full estimate of the influence of Christ's 2 A
370 APPENDIX.
deity on the atonement ; and it is necessary to advert to them both.
We refer, (1) to the depotentiation theory — a widespread tendency or school in modern theology — asserting that there took place, during Christ's humiliation, an actual self-denuda tion or depotentiation of His divine attributes on the part of the Logos. To an English mind, untainted by the modern speculative tendencies, this appears an impossibility and an absurdity; but it is held by many eminent evangelical theo logians abroad — viz. by SARTORIUS, GESS, EBRARD, LIEBNER, LANGE, SCHMIEDER, STEINMEYER, HAHN, KAHNIS, DELITZSCH, V. HOFMANN, GAUPP, KONIG. The best refutation of this theory will be found in CORNER'S work, On the Person of CJirist, and more especially in a paper of his in the Jahrbucher fur Deutsche Theologie, vol. i. An echo of the same theory is found among a class of divines, who, since Irving's days, have con fusedly spoken of the divine nature being in abeyance during the humiliation. Whether surveyed in the German form, or in the English form last mentioned, the theory has a tendency to represent the Lord Jesus in a too humanitarian guise, and as only acting in a humanity replenished and aided by the Holy Ghost ; — a truth, but by no means "the whole truth. My object in referring to these theories, is to say that they operate unfavourably on the doctrine of the atonement, inasmuch as Christ is not supposed to act as the God-man in His media torial works, and is represented too much as the man, and too little as the God-man. In GESS' Articles and Contributions on the Doctrine of the Atonement, accordingly, the writer is silent on Christ's deity in connection with the atonement. It could not be otherwise, if he was consistent. He carried out the abeyance theory or the depotentiation theory to its utmost extreme, maintaining that the Lord denuded Himself of His omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, and eternal holi ness (see GESS, die Lehre von der Person Ckristi, Basil, 1856) ; and hence he is only consistent with himself in making no
NOTE ON SECTION VII.
371
allusion to the influence of Christ's deity in His work of expia tion. His articles on the atonement are good, if we deduct this important omission (see GESS, der Geschichtliche Entwicke- iij^jang der JVr. T. Versohnungslehre, in the Jahrbucher fur Deutsche Thcologie, 1857, etc.). No man, on his principle, can assert, as must be asserted, that Christ, as Mediator, acted in In >tli His natures in the work of atonement.
2. Another theory on the incarnation, which has recently risen to a prominence — such as it never before attained in the Church's history — is, that the incarnation is irrespective of the fall, and would have taken place apart from the fall. The German divines not less largely confess to this theory — viz. DOIINER, EBRARD, MARTENSEN, LIEBNER, LANGE, ROTHE, EHREN- FEUCHTER, CHALYB.EUS. Archbishop Trench, in this country, adopted it, and holds it, if he still abides by the strong language used in its defence in Five Sermons preached lief ore the University of Cambridge, London, 1837. Its great advocate is CORNER, in his work, On the Person of Christ. I shall not here enter into the discussion of the question, having done so some time ago in The British and Foreign Evangelical Review, Jan. 1861. My object in referring to it, is to say that it imperils the doctrine of the atonement, putting Christ's mission on new and non- biblical ground. If, according to this theory, we deduce the necessity of the incarnation, either from the nature of God, or from the idea of humanity, arid not from God's free and sove reign love to sinners, we deviate from the Scripture representa tion of it (comp. Matt, xviii. 1 1 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Heb. ii. 1 4 ; 1 Tim. i 15). Scripture exhibits the ATONEMENT for the fallen human race as the chief end, nay, as the one only revealed end, of the im aniation (Matt. xx. 28; John iii. 16). We do not by any means need to affirm that no other ends existed in the TTO\V- iroixikos ffopiu of God. But this is the only revealed end ; and the tendency of this theory, without doubt, is to reduce the atonement to the rank of a subordinate and accidental accom paniment of the incarnation. The atonement is no longer the
372 APPENDIX.
great end of His coming, the counterpart of the fall of man, the readjustment of the disordered universe. The incarnation is thus made an end in itself, not a means to the stupendous end of the world's salvation. The whole effect of the theory is to depreciate the atonement.
SEC. x. (pp. 40-46). — Christ acting as the second Adam, or accord ing to a covenant with the Father, in the whole of His atoning work.
This idea must be carried with us, whether we consider the fundamental presuppositions of the atonement, as stated in some of the first sections, or discuss the special reference and extent of the atonement, as exhibited in section xli. (p. 312). The doctrine of the atonement cannot be understood without the idea of a conjunction between Christ and His people, whether or not it is called a covenant (pactum salutis), and whether or not we use the terms of the federal theology. The whole scheme of thought relating to the covenant occupied at one time an important place in the Eeformed Church, and in some portions of the Lutheran Church, though it never became general in the latter.
Of various elements which may be said to have concurred, if not to originate, at least to turn attention to this scheme of thought, the two following may be particularly named : the cavils of Socinus, and the subsequent rise of the Arminiau controversy. As to the first of these concurring forces, I may mention that one of the objections against the satisfaction on which Socinus laid stress, was, that there ought to be at least some conjunction between the guilty and him that is punished ; and he would not admit that there was any such conjunction or bond between Christ and us. This drove the defenders of the truth to assert the affirmative, and to define it. They main tained that Christ was united to us, not only as a partaker of our humanity by becoming one of us, our brother and friend,
NOTE ON SECTION X. 373
but also as He entered into a still closer conjunction as the Bridegroom, Head, Shepherd, Lord, King, and Surety of His people. Grotius, in his treatise, De Satisfactione, chap, iv., is particularly emphatic in asserting this close conjunction, on which the possibility of an atonement depends. Thus, in op position to Socinus, Grotius says, " It might be said here that man is not without relation to man, that there is a natural kindred and consanguinity between men, and between our flesh assumed by Christ. But another much greater conjunction between Christ and us was decreed by God, for He was ap pointed by God to be the Head of the body of which we are members. And here it must be observed, that Socinus erro neously confined to the flesh alone that conjunction which is sufficient for laying punishment upon one for another's sins, since here the mystical conjunction has no less power. This appears principally in the example of a king and a people. We cited above the history of the Israelites punished for the sin of David." A little afterwards, Grotius adds that this con junction lays the foundation for vicarious punishment : " There fore the sacred writings do not at all favour Socinus, declaring, as they do, that God did the very thing which he undeservedly accuses of injustice ; but neither has he any greater defence from right reason, which it is wonderful that he so often boasts of, but nowhere shows. But that all this error may be re moved, it must be observed that it is essential to punishment that it be inflicted for sin, but that it is not likewise essential to it that it be inflicted on him who sinned ; and that is mani fest from the similitude of reward, favour, and revenge, — for Til is often wont to be conferred upon the children or relations of a well-deserving person, and favour on the kinsman of him who conferred the benefit, and rcvcnyc upon the friends of him that offended. Neither do they, on that account, cease to be what they are — reward, favour, and revenge. Add to this, that if it were against the nature of punishment, then this very thing would not be called unjust, but impossible. But God
374 APPENDIX.
forbids a son to be punished by men for the father's fault ; Imt impossible things are not forbidden.* Moreover, injustice does not properly happen to a relation (such as punishment is), but to the action itself, such as the matter of punishment is. And here the true distinction must be inquired into, why it is not equally free to all to punish one for another's sin, and to bestow a favour or reward for another's merit or benefit ; for an act which contains in it a reward 'or favour is a benevolent act, which, in its own nature, is permitted to all ; but an act which has in it punishment, is a hurtful act, which is neither allowed to all, nor against all. Wherefore, that a punishment may be just, it is requisite that the penal act itself should be in the power of the punish er, which happens in a threefold way : either by the antecedent right of the punisher himself, or by the legitimate and valid consent of him about whose punish ment the question is ; or by the crime of the same person. When the act has become lawful by these modes, nothing pre vents its being appointed for the punishment of another's sin, provided there lie some conjunction between him that sinned and the party to be punislied. And this conjunction is either natural, as between a father and a son; or mystical, as between kini: and people ; or voluntary, as between the guilty person and the surety. Socinus appeals to the judgment of all nations ; but as to God, the philosophers doubted not that the sins of parents were punished by Him in the children." I shall not quote further from this memorable chapter of Grotius, in which he overwhelms his opponent by the testimony of all classical antiquity. I have adduced this discussion, only to show how men came during the course of it to adopt and maintain a certain necessary conjunction between the Redeemer and the redeemed, which involved something more than a mere com munity of the same nature, and, in ti word, the cU'iiu'iits of a covenant.
But another cause concurred with the former. When the Arminian debates arose, and the five points were debated, many
NOTE ON SECTION X. 375
were led, during the course of this discussion, more and more in the conclusion that there was a given party in whose behalf all the provisions of redemption were contrived and carried into effect. Thus, Amesius, Coronis, p. 112, expresses himself: • Add; mi etiam insuper, si nullo modo versabatur ecclesia in m ente divina, quum unctus et sanctificatus fuit Cliristus ad otiicium suum, turn caput constitutus fuit sine corpore, ac rex sine subditis ullis in prsesentia notis, vel omniscio ipsi Deo: quod quam indignum sit thesauris illis divine sapiential qui in hoc mysterio absconditi fuerunt, non opus est ut ego dicam. Hoc unum perpendat cordatus' Lector satisfactionem illam Christ! pro nobis nocentibus susceptam valere non potuisse, nisi aliqua antecedente inter nos et Christum, conjunctione ; tali scilicet qua designatus est a Deo ut caput esset corporis, cujus nos sumus membra; ut Vir cl. Hugo Grotius, relictis remonstrantibus, quos alibi defenclit ingenue concedit. — De- fcnsionis fidci Catholiccc, pagina 66."
Hence the doctrine of the covenant was the concentrated essence of Calvinism, and appeared especially in a formed and jointed system, after the Synod of Dort. Cloppenburg main- tained it just after that Synod. Thus these two elements above named led many of the greatest divines of the Reformed Chun -h to bring out, and to lay stress upon, a pactum salutis, or fcedus, as necessary to a full understanding of the atone ment. This doctrine has fallen out of the prominence it at one time occupied in theology. But whatever view may be held as to that scheme of thought, there is no room for two opinions as to the scriptural character of the doctrine, that there must be a certain conjunction between Christ and the redeemed.
It is due to the federal theology to state, that it was only meant to Around and to establish the undoubtedly scriptural doc trine of the two Adams (Eom. v. 12-20 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47). These are by no means to be regarded as two different lines of thought, or as two mutually exclusive modes of representing truth. They proceed on the same principle, and they come to precisely
376 APPENDIX.
the same result, — the one from the view-point of humanity, the other from the counsels of the Trinity. No one can doubt, who examines the federal theology, that the design of those who brought that scheme of thought into general reception in the Eeformed Church for two centuries, was principally to ground, and to put on a sure basis, the idea of the two Adams ; that is, to show that there were, in reality, only two men in history, and only two great facts on which the fortunes of the race hinged. The leading federalists were CLOPPENBUKG, DICK- SON the Scottish divine (who developed it so early as 1625 — see Life, of Robert Blair, in the Wodrow publications — several years before the work of Cocceius, De Fcedere, appeared in 1648), COCCEIUS, BUKMANN, WITSIUS, STKONG, OWEN, etc. etc. It became a magnificent scheme of theological thought in the hands of these men, and of others who took it up with ardour. That foreign thoughts afterwards came to be introduced into it, and that it became complicated by many additional ele ments, brought in to give it completeness, but which only lent it an air of human ingenuity and artificial construction, cannot be denied. But as to the point already referred to, there is no doubt that they intended to establish, by this mode of representation, that Christ and His people were to be regarded as one person in the eye of law ; and that, properly speaking, there were only two heads of families, and only two great facts in history — the fall and the atonement.
Against this whole scheme of thought, a reaction set in a century ago. Nor can this be wondered at, when we remember that it was overdone at that time, and that a reaction was only the effort of the human mind to regain its equilibrium — as is always the case when anything is carried too far. It was over done, and now it is neglected.
But it is by no means to be repudiated, or put among the mere antiquities of Christian effort. This, or something like it, whether we adopt the federal nomenclature or not, must occur to every one who will' follow out the revealed thoughts
NOTE ON SECTION X. 377
uttered by Christ Himself to their legitimate consequences. The only objection of any plausibility is, that the notion of a covenant presupposes a twofold will in God. To meet this objection, springing from an exclusive regard to the unity of the Godhead, it may be remarked, that the supposition of a council or covenant, having man's redemption for its object, has no more difficulty than the doctrine of a Trinity. Each person wills, knows, loves, and exercises acts to one another and to us ; and as they are personally distinct in the numerical unity of the divine essence, so, according to the order of sub sistence, they each will, though not apart and isolated. Ac cordingly, Dr. OWEN remarks against BIDDLE, in his Vindicice : " Because of the distinct acting of the will of the Father, and of the will of the Son, with regard to each other, it is more than a decree, and hath the proper nature of a covenant or compact."
Whatever view may be taken, however, of that scheme of thought, the one important matter on which no doubt can be entertained by any scriptural divine, is, that as Adam was a public person, the representative of all his family, according to the constitution given to the human race, as contradistinguished from that of other orders of being, so Christ, the Restorer, stands in the same position to His family or seed. The world could be redeemed on no other principle than that on which it was at first constituted. Augustin's formula, ille units Iwmo nos omnes fuimus, as applied to the first man, is per haps the very best that has ever been given ; and the same formula may be applied with equal warrant to the second man, the Lord from heaven. As applied to the atonement, this principle of a covenant, or of a conjunction between Christ and His seed, is simple and easily apprehended. The conditions being fulfilled by the second man, His people enter into the reward.
Thus Christ was commissioned to do a work for a people who were to reap the reward. The Father laid on Him the
378 APPENDIX.
conditions given to Adam, with the additional one derived from guilt, and claimed satisfaction from the Son undertaking to act for a seed given to Him. Man could be redeemed only on the principle or constitution on which God placed him at first, and not on one altogether different ; and the one aim of the federal theology was meant to base and to ground this biblical truth.
SEC. XL (pp. 47-63). — The Satisfaction to Divine Justice necessary.
At present, when the judicial or forensic aspects of theology are so much impugned, deep importance attaches to the inquiry, whether a satisfaction to divine justice was imperatively neces sary. The course of thought on this question is worthy of attention.
It was a comparatively safe speculation, in which several patristic, medieval, and post-Reformation divines sometimes en gaged, when they inquired, on high transcendental grounds, whether God could have given salvation to sinful men without any satisfaction for sin. It was innocuous, so long as they main tained in their teachings, that, in point of fact, salvation was only to be found, according to divine appointment, through the actual incarnation and atonement of the cross. Divines who in former centuries spoke loosely on this point from the view-point of the divine sovereignty, and of the absolute dominion, — such as ATHANASIUS; AUGUSTIN in some passages, though not always; CALVIN (on John xv. 13, where he unhappily says, " poterat nos Deus verbo aut nutu redimere, nisi aliter nostra causa visum fuisset"); ZANCHIUS (Incar. iii. 11), — zealously preached the forensic or judicial side of theology ; and the same may be said of MUSCULUS, Vossius, Twiss, RUTHERFORD, and others, answered by OWEN in his treatise on Divine Justice. The arguments, when it was debated on this ground, were undoubtedly all in favour of the conclusion, that the exercise of punitive justice was necessary when sin had entered into the world; but the practical neces sity of maintaining this position was not so apparent to them.
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 379
Hence, when we consult the great divines of the post-Eeforma- timi period, we find, to our surprise, that in handling the priestly office of Christ, or the article of justification, that is, the meri torious ground of justification, under which section most of them discussed the atonement, they do not raise the question of the necessity of Christ's atonement. They are content with a state ment of its reality, or of the fact, which they call its veritas. This holds true of the Lutherans, GERHARD,QUENSTEDT, BUDDEUS, who scarcely allude to the necessity of the atonement, while they powerfully assert the reality of the atonement.
But in proportion as the Socinian leaven spread through the Protestant churches, with its persistent tendency to set aside the satisfaction to divine justice in every form, and with the avowed declaration, uttered by Socinus himself, that if they could get rid of punitive justice, they would overthrow the doctrine of the atonement, divines felt that they must express themselves in a different way. A new attention came to be de voted to the inquiry, whether a satisfaction to divine justice was necessary. They now used more caution (see the state ments of the Synopsis Purioi'is Theologicc, by Polyander, liivetus, Walaeus, and Thysius, 1642). They were soon fully convinced that the question of the atonement must be ultimately run up to the necessity of satisfying divine justice ; and very generally they came to assert, that on the entrance of sin, justice must in vi Is be exercised, and the atonement was necessary for salva tion.
A modified opinion, or an opinion which deserves to be called a middle way, was propounded by GROTIUS in his aide work, DC Satisfactione. While he strenuously and conclusively maintained the reality of the atonement, or the fact that it wa| offered, he did not put it on the ground that it was of absolute necessity to satisfy divine justice, but on the ground that it \\as a spectacle calculated to deter other rational intelligences. Kaveiisperger immediately replied to this part <>t' (Jrotius' book; and to him, again, Vossius replied, re-asserting the views of his
380 APPENDIX.
friend Grotius. In this view, GROTIUS was followed by very many in all the Protestant churches during the two last cen turies. Thus MICIIAELIS, On Sin and the Atonement, Gottingen, 1779, and SEILER, tiber der Versohnungstod Christi, Erlangen, 1782, strongly take up this ground. The view which this theory introduced on the subject of suffering, however, was new, and somewhat startling. Men began to speculate on the salu tary effects of punishment, which was no longer regarded as an end and as a penal infliction, which must be because sin de served it, and because God owed it to Himself. It came to be spoken of as a means to an end ; nay, some began to speak of suffering as having a tendency to augment the happiness of the universe. This theory is but a half-way house, and makes in soluble difficulties. Punishment is thus regarded as an arbitrary device, and not as a necessary visitation for a crime, a wrong, or insult, which must be avenged by the Divine Majesty. It did not render justice to the word, " Vengeance is mine ; I will repay" (Dent, xxxii. 35). And the effect of this modified opinion was only to foster doubts and objections, and to lead men step by step to modify and to apologise for, and finally to abandon, punitive justice as an attribute unworthy of God, and unnecessary for the vindication of His honour. In a word, wherever punishment is represented as being inflicted merely before some other public or for some end apart from God, we may say that the matter in dispute is really given up, and the fortress surrendered into the hands of the enemy. If we main tain with Michaelis and Seiler, sincerely attached though they were to the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction, that the principal end of punishment is to furnish a spectacle to deter men from sin, this is very far from satisfactory as applied to the atone ment of Christ. Such a principle may be applicable to the government of human states — thougli not universally and ab solutely applied as a rule even there, — but it cannot be applied to the divine government. On this theory, all the inflictions unknown to others — such as the anguish of conscience, and
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 381
all the secret consequences of vice, considered as a retribution for sin — fall to the ground. But, above all, on this theory, what purpose will punishments serve in the future life ? Who are to be deterred by them, if that is their intention ? It will not satisfy any one to say with Michaelis: to deter other rational lii-ings; nor can any maintain that the deterring punishment, in this life, always follows on the offence, or that it is uniformly in proportion to the offence.
Nor will another explanation avail, that God punishes for the glory of His justice. This may have two senses : (1) it may mean that God, as supreme ruler, punishes, with a poli tical and prophetic design to maintain the authority of His government and reverence among His subjects — an end which cannot be attained without severity ; or (2) it may mean that the exercise of punishment takes place, to convince men that God will not be regarded as indulgent and tolerant of evil. But this is wholly insufficient ; for the question still arises : Why does God wish to impress this sentiment, and how does it tend to the glorification of His perfections ? We must go further, and affirm something more ; for no opinion would glorify Him, if it does not harmonize with truth. And the only position that can be maintained in reference to punishment, is, that punitive justice is an essential, eternal, necessary attribute of God, and that its exercise is necessary on the entrance of sin ; that God is such a person, that out of love to Himself, and de light in Himself, He loves all that coincides with His perfec tions, and hates all that is in collision with them ; that His love leads Him to bestow happiness, and His hatred or anger leads Him to send the reverse. The supreme God, insulted by sin, and at least wronged, if not personally injured, by the irrever ence of free creatures, punishes to satisfy the perfection of His nature. This is the reason why He punislu-s; and no other explanation is satisfactory to any mind. And hence, due con sideration must be given to proper punishment, to vengeance, and retribution for ill-desert. (See HulshofFs Philosoph is: i
382 APPENDIX.
spreTcken over de Voldoening, Amst., 1795 — an able Dutch writer, — and Wynpersse's Betoog dat de Strafoeffende Gerechtigheid Gode Waardig is, Amst., 1799, who very much follows the former.
During last century, the evasions by which the philosophiz ing divines eluded the arguments for divine justice from the Old Testament, were such as these : that it was a defect in Judaism to regard God, not in the light of a loving Father, but in that of a severe Lawgiver and Judge, who avenged sin, and who was to be pacified only by the sight of the blood. The most repulsive language was used against Judaism on this account, as if it were only an expression of the lowest and most infantile religious sentiments. But Christ, as we have seen, uses the same style of speaking about God. Men may allege that the severe ideas of divine wrath, and sacrifice, of punish ment, and atonement, current among the Jews, were erroneous. But they have still to encounter the question, that Christ holds the same language. If their theory were true, why did Jesus not correct these representations, when He came from the bosom of the Father to reveal Him, and to correct error ? It was vainly urged, in explanation of this, that it was hard to recall the Jews from these notions, and that it was not attempted.
On the necessity of satisfying the divine justice, the writers against the Socinians may be consulted — that is, the anti-Soci- nian writers generally who do not take up Grotius' view ; e.g. HOORNBEEK, Contra Socinianos, vol. ii.; ESSENIUS, De Satisfactione, 1666 ; CALOVIUS, Socinismus Profligatus, 1668 ; STEIN, De Satis factione, 1755. I may also mention these three writers in Dutch — HULSIIOFF'S Dialogues, 1795; WVXI-KRSSE, On Justice, 1799; VAN VOORST, On Punishments, 1796, — who have ably written on this point against the philosophizing theology at the close of the last century. But of all who have handled this theme, it cannot be said that any one has more powerfully vin dicated divine justice in the matter of the atonement than Anselm, in his celebrated treatise, entitled Cur Deus Homo, written in 1098 during his exile from England, and intended
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 383
to meet speculative objections in his day, not unlike those of our age. In an article for The British and Foreign Evangelical Review, October 1859, on Anselm's great work, I gave several passages, literally rendered to exhibit his views, from which I shall give the following extracts : —
" CHAP. xi. — WHAT is SIN, AND A SATISFACTION FOR SIN ? — Anselm. We have now to examine by what method God remits men's sins ; and that this may be done with greater clearness, let us first see what it is to sin, and what it is to make a satis faction for sin. — Boso. It is yours to expound, and mine to attend. — Ans. If angels and men always rendered to God what they owe, they would never sin. — Bo. This cannot be gainsaid. — Ans. To sin, therefore, is nothing else lid the not rendering to God His due.— Bo. What is the debt we owe to God ?— Ans. All the will of a rational creature should be subject to the will of God. — Bo. Nothing surer. — Ans. This is the debt which iinud and man alike owes to God : he who pays it does not sin ; and every one who does not pay it, commits sin. This is the righteousness or rectitude of the will which renders men right eous or upright in heart, that is, in will ; this is the sole and whole honour due to God, and which He requires of us. For only such a will, when it is able to work, performs actions acceptable to God ; and when this is not within its power, it is of itself and alone well-pleasing, since there is no acceptable work without it. He who does not render to God this due honour, witJidraws from God what is His, and dishonours God ; and this is to commit sin. Now, as long as he does not pay what he took away, he abides in guilt. Nor is it sufficient to restore merely what was taken away, but for the indignity inflicted, he must render more than he took away; for as it is not enough for one who does an injury to another's hraltli merely to restore his health, without some recompense for the jtaiu and injury inflicted, even so it is not sufficient, when one has hurt a person's honour, merely to restore the honour, with-
384 APPENDIX.
out making some satisfactory reparation to him whom he dis honoured, for l the pain inflicted by that indignity. Nor must it be forgotten, that in repaying what was unjustly taken away, he ought not to give in reparation something which could already have been required, though he had never committed that injury. Thus, then, every sinner must repay the honour which he took from God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner must make to God. — Bo. In all this, though you some what alarm me, I find nothing to which I can take exception.
" CHAP. xii. — WHETHER IT BECOMES GOD, WITHOUT ANY PAY MENT OF THE DEBT, TO FORGIVE SIN IN THE MERE EXERCISE OF MERCY. — Ans. Let us return and consider whether it becomes God, without any reparation of His violated honour, to remit sin by mere mercy. — Bo. I do not see why it is unsuitable. — Ans. To remit sin in this manner is nothing else than not to punish it ; and since the due maintainence of order a in refer ence to sin, where no satisfaction is offered, consists solely in its punishment, [it follows that,] if it is not punished, sin is remitted, without any provision being made for the maintenance of order 3 in the universe. — Bo. What you say is reasonable. — Ans. But it does not become God to leave anything disordered in His kingdom. — Bo. If I were to say anything contrary, I fear it would be sin. — Ans. Therefore it is not suitable for God to forgive sin thus unpunished. — Bo. That certainly follows. — Ans. But something further follows, if sin is thus remitted without punishment : the guilty and the innocent will be alike in the sight of God, which is manifestly not- befitting God. — Bo. It cannot be denied. — Ans. Consider this, moreover : every one knows that man's righteousness is under a law by which the
1 X* cundum is here used for pro, a medieval us.npr. (Sic Vossius.)
2 This pregnant sentence cannot be rendered literally. Anselm maintains that every sin must be followed by satisfaction or punishment. This is his alter native. Though the phrase is SOUK times mistaken, it will be clear that "recte ordinare peccatum sine satisfactione non est nisi punire " is just one side of the alternative.
3 Inordinatum dimittitur. Vossius shows that inordinatio was used by the medieval writers for ara^a, perturbatio ordinis.
NOTE ON SECTION XI.
385
measure of the recompense from the hand of God is proportioned
to its magnitude. — Bo. So we believe. — Ans. Now, if sin is
neither atoned for (solvitur) nor punished, it is subject to no
law. — Bo. It is not possible to view the matter otherwise. — Ans.
Then unrighteousness, if remitted by mere mercy, is more free
than righteousness, which appears to be in the highest degree
unbefitting. To such an extent even would this incongruity
extend, that it would make unrighteousness like God ; for as
God is subject to no law, so would unrighteousness. — Bo. I can
urge nothing against your argument ; but when God commands
its absolutely to forgive those that trespass against its, it seems a
contradiction to enjoin its to do what He cannot with propriety
do Himself. — Ans. In this there is no contradiction ; for God
just enjoins us not to arrogate to ourselves what is the prerogative
of God alone. For vengeance belongs to none but to Him who
is Lord of all ; for when civil authorities exercise this function
aright, God Himself, by whom they are ordained for this very
purpose, executes it as His own act. — Bo. You have obviated
the contradiction which I thought involved in it ; but there is
another point to which I desire your answer. It is this : since
God is so free that He is subject to no law, and to no man's
judgment ; and since He is so good that nothing more kind can
l)e conceived ; and since nothing is right and proper but what
lit- wills, it seems strange to say that He from whom we are
wont to ask pardon, even for the injuries we do to others, will
not, or cannot, remit an injury done to Himself. — Ans. All that
you state regarding His liberty, His will, His goodness, is true ;
but it is reasonable that we should so apprehend them as not
to have the, appearance of trenching upon His dignity. For
the liberty is only for what is advantageous or proper; nor is
thai any more worthy of the name of goodness which does what
is unbefitting God. Now, when it is ailirmrd that what He
wills is right, and what II.- does not will is wrong, this is not
to lie understood as implying that, were God to will anything
improper, it would be right because He willed it; for it would
2 B
386 APPENDIX.
not follow, that if God willed to lie, therefore lying would be right, — rather the inference would be, that he who does so is not God ; for a will can by no means be disposed to lie, unless it be a will in which truth has been corrupted, nay, corrupted by abandoning truth. Therefore when it is said, If God willed to lie, it is just tantamount to saying, If God were of such a nature as willed to lie ; and therefore it would not follow that a lie is right, unless l it be so understood as when we speak of two impossibles : If the one is, so is the other — neither the one nor the other being true ; as if one should say, If water is dry, then fire is moist ; for neither is true. Therefore, of those things only, not unsuitable for God to will, can we say with truth, if God wills them, they are right ; for if God will that it shall rain, it is right ; and if God will that a certain person shall be killed, his death is right. Wherefore, if it does not become God to do anything wrong, or in violation of order, it does not fall within the sphere of His liberty or goodness or will to dis charge unpunished a sinner who does not repay to God what he has taken away. — Bo. You remove every objection which I thought could be made to you. — A ns. "Consider yet another reason why it does not become God to act in this way. — Bo. I willingly listen to your discourse.
"CHAP. xiii. — THAT THERE is NOTHING MORE INTOLERABLE
IN THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE THAN THAT THE CREATURE SHOULD TAKE AWAY THE HONOUR DUE TO THE CREATOR, AND NOT RESTORE
IT. — Bo. There is nothing more clear. — Ans. Now, nothing is more unjust than the toleration of what is most intolerable. — Bo. Nor is that doubtful. — Ans. I suppose, then, you will not affirm that God should tolerate what would be the summit of injustice, namely, that the creature should not restore to God what it takes away. — Bo. Nay, such a position, I think, should be absolutely denied. — Ans. Furthermore, if there is nothing greater or better than God, it follows there is nothing more just than the justice which maintains His honour in the arrangement 1 We think Ansclm refers to the whole proposition.
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 387
of all things — the supreme justice, ivhich is nothing but God Himself. — Bo. That is certain. — Ans. There is nothing which it is more just for God to maintain than the Jwnour of His majesty. — Bo. This must be granted. — Ans. Do you think He would preserve it inviolate, if He should permit it so to be withdrawn from Him that there should be no reparation, no punishment inflicted on the offender ? — Bo. I dare not affirm it. — Ans. It is necessary, then, that either the glory 1 withdrawn from Him shall be restored, or punishment ensue, otherwise God will either be unjust to Himself or impotent for both purposes; which it is impious even to suppose. — Bo. I think nothing more reasonable can be said.
" CHAP. xiv. — How FAR THE PUNISHMENT OF THE SINNER is THE HONOUR OF GOD. — Bo. But I desire to hear from you, whether the sinner's punishment is His honour, or how far ? For if the punishment of the sinner is not His glory, then God so loses His glory as never to recover it, when the sinner does not repay what he took away, but becomes the subject of punishment ; which seems to stand in opposition to what has been already advanced. — Ans. It is impossible for God to lose His honour; for either the sinner voluntarily pays what he owes, or God takes it from him against his will, for either man, by voluntary choice, offers to God due subjection by not sinning at all, or by offering an atonement for the sin he has committed ; or God reduces him to subjection by force, and against his will, — thus showing Himself as his Master; the very thing which the man himself refuses voluntarily to confess. In this matter it deserves consideration, that as man by sinning robs God of what is God's, even so God, by inflicting punish ment, robs man of what is man's ; for not only is that said to belong to an individual which he already possesses, but that, too, which it lies within his power to possess. As man, then, wa.s .so civated, that he could attain to blessedness if he did not
Anselra obviously intends by honour, God's declarative "glory;" and we
use them interchangeably.
388 APPENDIX.
sin, and as lie is deprived of blessedness and of every benefit on account of sin, he repays, though reluctantly, of his own for the crime which he had committed. For though God does not turn to His own advantage what He takes away, as man con verts to his own profit the money taken from another, yet He renders it subservient to His glory, by the very fact of its removal ; for He proves, by that very removal, that the sinner, and all that is his, is subject to Him.
" CHAP. xv. — WHETHER GOD WILL SUFFER His GLORY TO BE
TARNISHED, EVEN IN A SMALL DEGREE. — Bo. I assent to what
you say ; but there is still another point to which I have to request your answer. For if God must so preserve His honour, as you prove, why does He suffer it to be tarnished, even to a small degree ? For what is suffered to be hurt to some extent, is not maintained entire or perfect. — Ans. The honour of God, as far as relates to Him, is not capable of addition or diminu tion ; for He is to Himself His own incorruptible and immu table glory. But when every creature, whether by natural instinct or rational conviction, maintains its own, and, as it were, its prescribed order, it is said to obey God, and to honour Him; and this is peculiarly the case with a rational nature to whom it is given to understand what duty is. When this creature wills as it ought, it honours God, not because it confers anything upon Him, but because it spontaneously subjects itself to His will and disposal, and thus maintains, as far as lies in it, its order in the universe, and the beauty of the universe; but when it does not will as it ought, it dishonours God, as far as relates to it, because it does not spontaneously submit to His disposal; and thus disturbs, as far as lies in it, the order and beauty of the universe, though it does not by any means hurt or tarnish the power or dignity of God. For if any of those things, bounded by the circuit of the heaven, wished to be no more under the heaven, or to be removed l to a distance from the heaven, they could not be
1 Elongari, a medieval usage. (Vossius.)
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 389
but under the heaven, nor remove from the heaven but by again approaching it. For whencesoever, whithersoever, and in whatever way they might go, they would still be under the heaven; and the further they might remove from any part of heaven, the more would they approach the opposite part. Even so, though a man or evil angel be unwilling to subject himself to the divine will or disposal, yet he cannot flee from it; for if he would flee from under the preceptive will, he falls under the punitive will of God. And if you inquire in what way he makes the transition, the answer is, only under His permissive will; and that very perverse will and action are made subservient, by supreme wisdom, to the order and beauty of the universe, already mentioned. For, irrespective of the fact that God brings good out of every kind of evil, the very voluntary satisfaction made for perversity, or the exaction of the punishment from him who offers no satis faction, occupy their own place in the same universe, and possess the beauty of order. And if these were not added by divine wisdom, when perversity threatens to disturb the right order, there would arise, from the violation of the beauty of order, in that very universe which God must maintain in order, a certain hideous deformity ; and it would bear the appearance as if God failed in carrying out His arrangements. And as these two are as unbefitting God as they are impos sible, it is indispensably necessary that every sin should be fol lowed either by a satisfaction or by punishment. — Bo. You have satisfied my objection. — Ans. It is plain, therefore, that l God, ;ts Ho is in Himself, can neither be honoured nor dishonoured2 by any one ; but an individual seems to do this, as far as lies in him, when he subjects his will to the will of God, or with draws it from Him. — Bo. I do not know what exception can be taken to this. — Ans. I have sornetliing further to add. — Bo. Say on ; it will not weary me to listen
1 Palam qui ; a later Latin or patristic phraseology. * Exhonorare (see Vossius).
390 APPENDIX.
"CHAP, xix.1 — THAT MEN CANNOT BE SAVED WITHOUT A
SATISFACTION FOR SIN — Ans. Let us suppose the
case, that a certain rich man held in his hand a costly pearl which had never been touched by any defilement, and which no other party, without his permission, could remove from his hand ; and he appoints it to be laid up in his treasury among the dearest and most costly articles in his possession. — Bo. I fancy it as it were before us. — Ans. If he should suffer that pearl to be struck out of his hand into filth by some envious person, when he could have prevented it, and then taking it from the filth should deposit it, all defiled and unwashed, in a clean and prized spot, to be ever afterwards preserved in such a state, would you account him wise ? — Bo. How could I ? For would it not be better to keep and to preserve his pearl clean than covered with defilement ? — Ans. Would not God act in a similar way, who held man in His hand in paradise, destined to be associated with the angels, and permitted Satan, inflamed with envy, to cast him down into the filth of sin, though not without His own consent — for, had He wished to prevent Satan, the latter could not have tempted man, — would He not, I say, act in a similar way, were man brought back, at least to the paradise from which he had been driven out, stained with the defilement of sin, and always to continue so without any purification, that is, without any satisfaction ? — Bo. If God were to act in such a way, I durst not deny the similarity of the two cases ; and therefore I do not concur in the notion that He could act in such a way ; for it would wear the appearance, either that He could not execute what He had purposed, or that He had repented of His good intention, — neither of which can obtain with God. — Ans. Therefore hold fast the position that, without a satisfaction — that is, without the voluntary repayment of the debt — neither could God leave sin unpunished, nor could the sinner come to happiness, even
1 In these omitted chapters, Anselm introduces a fanciful theory, taken from Augustin, about the angels ; but it is an episode.
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 391
of such a kind as he possessed before he sinned ; for in this way man would not be restored even to the condition which he occupied before the entrance of sin. — Bo. I cannot at all refute your arguments. But what is the import of that prayer to God, ' Forgive us our debts ? ' and every nation, according to its creed, prays to God to remit their sins. For if we pay wliat we owe, then why do we pray for forgiveness ? Is God unjust, to exact a second time what has been paid already ? And if we do not pay, why do we vainly request Him to do what He cannot do, because it is unbefitting God ? — Ans. He who does not repay, in vain cries 'Forgive;' while he who does pay, rightly offers prayer, since the very supplication forms part of the payment that is due ; for God is not indebted to any one, but every creature is indebted to Him ; and therefore it is of no avail to deal with God as an equal with his fellow. But on this point it is not necessary at present to give a further answer ; for when you shall understand why Christ died, you will perhaps solve the question for yourself. — Bo. I am content, then, for the present with the answer you have given to this question. You have so plainly proved, however, the position that no man can come to blessedness with sin, or be released from sin without repaying what he took away by sinning, that I could not, though I would, doubt any longer.
" CHAP, xx.— THAT THE SATISFACTION MUST BE COMMENSU RATE WITH THE SIN, AND THAT MAN CANNOT RENDER IT OF HIMSELF. — Ans. Of this, too, I suppose you will not entertain a doubt, that the satisfaction must be proportioned to the measure of sin. — Bo. Otherwise sin would remain, in some respects, unreduced to order,1 which, however, cannot be, if God Iciivi-s nothing disordered in His kingdom. But this is fore ordained, because the smallest thing unbecoming in God is impossible. — Ans. Say, then, what will you render to God for your sin? — Bo. Eepentance, the contrite and humble heart, abstinence and manifold bodily labours, acts of mercy in giving
1 Inordinatum maneret peccatum.
392 APPENDIX.
and forgiving, and obedience. — Ans. In all this, what do you give to God ? — Bo. Do I not honour God when, for the fear and love of God, I cast away the joys of time in the exercise of heart-contrition, when I scorn 1 delights and live laborious days of abstinence and toil, when I bestow what is my own in the way of giving and forgiving, and when I subject myself to Him in a course of obedience ? — Ans. "When you render something which you already owed to God before you sinned, you must not reckon that as the debt which you owe for sin. Now, all that you have mentioned you owe to God already ; for so great must be the love and the desire cherished in this earthly life of attaining the end for which you were created, and to which all prayer tends — so great the sorrow that you are not yet there, and the fear of not reaching it, — that you should feel no joy, except in those things which furnish you either with the help or the hope of reaching that consummation. Tor you are unworthy of possessing what you do not love and desire for its own sake,2 and about which you have no feeling of grief, because it is not yet attained, and because, moreover, there is a great risk of losing it. It belongs to this state of mind also to spurn that rest and those worldly pleasures which recall the mind from the true rest and satisfaction, except in so far as you know them to be helpful to your earnest endeavour to reach that consummation. As to giving, again, you must expressly consider this as your duty, as you are aware that what you give is not derived from you, but from Him whose servant you are, just as he is to whom the gift is bestowed; and nature teaches you to do to your fellow-servant, that is, to do as man to man, what you wish him to do to you ; and that he who will not give what he has, ought not to receive what he has not. With respect to the forgiving of injuries, again, I have briefly to say, that vengeance belongeth not to thee, as we said before ; for neither are you your own, nor is
1 Delectationes et quietem hujus vitae calco.
2 Non enim mereris habere quod lion secuiidurn quod est amas et desideras.
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 393
the offender yours or his own — you are both servants of one Master, and created by Him out of nothing ; and if you take vengeance on your fellow-servant, you proudly arrogate a judgment upon him, competent only to the Lord and Judge of all. In your obedience, again, what do you give to God which you do not owe Him to whom is due all you are, and have, and can perform ? — Bo. I cannot any longer affirm, that in all these things I could give God what I owe. — Ans. What, then, will you pay to God for your sin? — Bo. If I owe Him myself, and all I can perform, when as yet without sin, that I may not be involved in sin, I have nothing to render Him for sin com mitted. — Ans. What, then, will become of you ? How shall you possibly be saved ? — Bo. If I consider your arguments, I do not see how ; but if I have recourse to my faith, I hope it is possible for me to be saved in the Christian faith, ' which worketh by love,' and because we read, ' If the unrighteous man turn from his unrighteousness, and do what is right, all his unrighteousness shall be forgotten.'1 — Ans. That is said of those only who either waited for Christ before He came, or who believe on Him since He came. But we assumed that Christ and the Christian faith had never been, when we pur posed to inquire by reason alone, whether His advent was necessary to man's salvation. — Bo. We did so. — Ans. Let us proceed, then, by reason alone. — Bo. Though you are leading me into some perplexing difficulties, yet I very much desire you to go on as you have begun.
" CHAP. xxi. — THE MAGNITUDE AND WEIGHT OF SIN. — Ans. Let us suppose the case, that you did not already owe all that you recently affirmed could be paid by you for sin, and let us consider whether they could suffice for the satisfaction of one sin, so small as a single look contrary to God's will — Bo. Were it not that I hear you proposing this as a question, I should suppose that such a sin could be deleted by one single act of contrition. — Ans. You HAVE NOT YET CONSIDERED Tin: MACM-
1 Kz«-k. xxxiii. 14-18, xviii. 27.
394 APPENDIX.
TUDE AND WEIGHT OF SIN. — Bo. Point it out to me, then. — Aiis. If you considered yourself in the presence of God, and an indi vidual said to you, ' Look in that direction,' and God said, on the contrary, ' I will not have you look,' ask your heart what there is in the entire universe for which you should cast that look contrary to the will of God. — Bo. I find nothing for which it should be done, except, perhaps, I may be placed in such necessity as compels me either to do that or a greater sin. — Ans. Put aside the case of necessity, and reflect, in reference to this sin alone, whether you could do it even to redeem your self. — Bo. I plainly see that I could not. — Ans. Not to detain you longer : what, if it were necessary that either the whole world, and everything, except God,1 should perish and be anni hilated, or that you should do so small a thing contrary to God's will ? — Bo. When I reflect on the action itself, I consider it extremely trifling ; but when I reflect what is involved in its being contrary to the will of God, I regard it as extremely weighty, and not to be compared to any sort of loss ; but we are accustomed sometimes to act against a person's will without incurring blame, that his property may be preserved ; and after wards the step is agreeable to him against whose will we acted. — Ans. This happens to man, who sometimes does not under stand what is for his advantage, or who cannot restore what lie has lost ; but God stands in no need of any man, and could restore all things if they were to perish, just as He created them. — Bo. I must needs confess, that even for the preservation of the entire creation, I should not do anything contrary to the will of God. — Ans. What if there were more worlds full of creatures such as this one .is ? — Bo. If they were multiplied to infinity, and they were all presented to me in a similar way, my answer would be the same. — Ans. You could give no cor- recter answer ; but consider, too, if it should happen that you cast that look contrary to the will of God, what could you offer as a satisfaction for this sin ? — Bo. I have nothing greater than 1 Et quicquid Deus non est.
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 395
what I have already mentioned. — Ans. Thus grievously do we sin every time we knowingly do anything, how small soever, contrary to the will of God ; for we are always in His sight, and He always commands us not to sin. — Bo. We live, as I hear, all too perilously. — Ans. It is evident that God demands a commensurate satisfaction. — Bo. It cannot be denied. — Ans. Therefore, 3rou give no satisfaction unless you render something greater than all that for which you should not have committed sin. — Bo. I see both that this demand is reasonable, and that it is utterly impossible. — Ans. God cannot admit any one to blessedness who is in any measure chargeable with the debt of sin, because he should not. — Bo. A heavy sentence. — Ans. Hear yet another ground why the reconciliation of man to God is not less difficult. — Bo. If faith did not give me consolation, this alone would drive me to despair. — Ans. Yet listen. — Bo. Say on.
" CHAP, xxii.— WHAT INDIGNITY MAN DID TO GOD IN PER MITTING HIMSELF TO BE OVERCOME BY SATAN, FOR WHICH HE CANNOT RENDER SATISFACTION. — Ans. Man, created in paradise without sin, was, as it were, placed for God, between God and Satan, that he might conquer Satan, .by not consenting to his persuasive allurements to sin. This would have redounded to the justification and glory of God, and to Satan's confusion, when the weaker on earth would not sin after all the persuasion of that very Satan, who, while the stronger, sinned in heaven without any persuasion at all; and though man might easily have accomplished this, he, though constrained by no force, voluntarily permitted himself to be overcome by persuasion alone, at Satan's will, and contrary to the will ami honour of God. — Jio. At what do you aim? — Ans. Ju<lu<' tor yourself, whether it is not contrary to the honour of God, that man should be reconciled to Him with the reproach of this indig nity done to Him, without first restoring todod His honour, by a victory over Satan, just as he dishonoured Cod wlu-n van quished by Satan. Again, the victory should be of such a
396 APPENDIX.
nature, that just as lie readily consented to Satan's allurements to commit sin, when strong, and arrayed in the power of im mortality, and hence justly incurred the doom of mortality, so he should overcome Satan, and resist every temptation to sin in the weakness and mortality which he drew upon himself. This could not be, so long as he was conceived and born in sin, in virtue of the wound of the first sin. — Bo. Again, I must say that reason proves your position, and that it is impossible for man as he is. — Ans. Hear one thing more, without which man can not be justly reconciled, and which is not less impossible. — Bo. You have already placed before us so many requirements to be done, that whatever you superadd, cannot greatly terrify me. — Ans. Yet hear. — Bo. I listen.
" CHAP. xxm. — WHAT MAN TOOK AWAY FROM GOD WHEN HE SINNED, AND WHICH HE CANNOT RESTORE. — Ans. What did man take away from God, when he permitted himself to be over come by Satan ? — Bo. Say on, as you have begun, for I know not what could add to the evils you have already unfolded. — Ans. DID HE NOT TAKE AWAY FROM GOD WHATEVER HE HAD PUR POSED TO MAKE OF HUMAN NATURE ? — Bo. It cannot be denied. — Ans. Now direct your attention to strict justice, and judge, according to it, whether man can satisfy God in proportion to the sin, unless he shall, by conquering Satan, restore that very thing which was taken from God, in permitting himself to be overcome by Satan ; so that, as by the fact of man's defeat, Satan took away what was God's, and God lost, even so by the fact of man's victory, Satan loses, and God regains. — Bo. Nothing can be conceived more strictly just. — Ans. Do you suppose that supreme justice can violate this justice ?—Bo. I dare not think so. — Ans. By no means, then, should man receive, nor can he re ceive, what God purposed to bestow upon him, WITHOUT RESTORING
THE WHOLE OF WHAT WE TOOK AWAY FROM GOD ; SO that God
regains by him, as He previously lost by him. This cannot be accomplished in any other way than that as by the vanquished man the whole of human nature was corrupted, and, as it were,
NOTE ON SECTION XI. 397
leavened by sin, in which God can receive no one to complete His heavenly kingdom; so by the victorious man, as many men are justified from sin as will fill up that number for the com pletion ' of which man was made. But that is by no means possible for man, a sinner, because a sinner cannot justify a sinner. — Bo. Nothing is more just, but at the same time more impossible ; but from all this, the mercy of God, and the hope of man, seem equally to be destroyed, so far as relates to that blessedness for which man was created. — Ans. Have patience yet a little longer. — Bo. What have you further ?
" CHAP. xxiv. — THAT so LONG AS MAN DOES NOT RESTORE TO
GOD WHAT HE OWES, HE CANNOT BE HAPPY, NOR IS HIS INABILITY
EXCUSABLE. — Ans. If a man is termed unjust who does not render to his fellow-man what he owes, much more unjust is he who does not render to God His due. — Bo. If he can, and does not, render it, he is indeed unrighteous ; but if he can not, how is he unrighteous ? — Ans. Perhaps he might in some measure be excused, if there were no cause of this inability in him ; but if the guilt is in the very inability, then, as it does not mitigate the sin, it does not exculpate the man who does not render what is due. For if, for instance, one should enjoin a certain piece of work upon his servant, and require him to be upon his guard against casting himself into a certain pit, which he points out to him, and from which there is no escape, and that servant, contemning the charge and warning of his master, should voluntarily cast himself into the pit previously pointed out, so that he cannot do the work enjoined upon him, do you think the inability would in any measure be valid as an excuse why the work enjoined was not performed ? — Bo. Not at all, but rather it would be to the aggravation of the guilt, since In- caused his own inability. Ho doubly sinned, because he did not do what he was commanded, and he did what he was com manded not to do. — Ans. Thus man is without excuse, who lias voluntarily involved himself in a guilt which he cannot atone
1 This is the theory cf Augustin, elaborated by Ansdm.
398 APPENDIX.
for, and by his own fault plunged himself into such an inability, that he can neither pay what he owed before the sin, namely, not to sin, nor what he owes in consequence of sin ; for that very inability is guilt, because he ought not to have it (non debet earn habere), nay, ought to be without it (debet non habere)," etc.
SEC. XIIL (pp. 65-79). — The Lamb of God bearing sin.
Though most of the words in this pregnant saying of the Baptist were noticed in the text, some of the points which could not be conveniently introduced may be referred to in a supplementary note.
While De Wette and Weiss, on the one hand, maintain that the entire idea contained in this testimony is borrowed from Isa. liii. 7 and 12, and Hengstenberg and Hofmann, on the other hand, hold that this cannot be accepted because the prophet introduces the allusion to the lamb only in the way of a comparison, perhaps a middle way may be adopted, which is better than either. The prophet may have taken his compari son from the sacrificial lamb; and thus both views may be harmonized. But as there is no formal quotation, there is no need for this discussion among exegetes at all.
As to the participial clause, o' a/avos — o Kipuv, it must be noted that the article and participle in such a phrase uniformly points out a well-known relation, or a noteworthy peculiarity for which one is distinguished. It corresponds to is qui, quippe qui (see Winer's Grammar, sec. 20, c; Matthias's Grammar, sec. 2G9, ols).
As to the question which we have found it necessary to discuss, what peculiar lamb is here referred to, I may refer to an excellent note of Huther, in his commentary on 1 Pet. i. 19, which forms a part of H. A. W. Meyer's Kritisch Eaxget. Com- mentar., and also to some comments of Cocceius in his Anecdota, vol. ii. p. 45 7. Both these commentators extend the allusion here
NOTE ON SECTION XIII. 399
made to the lamb beyond the paschal lamb, and make it a more general reference. Thus Huther on 1 Pet. i. 19 uses these words : " Zu der Bezeichnung Christ! als des Lammes ist der alttestamentliche Typus hier nicht bios das Passah Lamm (wie 1 Cor. v. 7), sondern allgemeiner: das Lamm wie es in dem Jiidischen Opfenvesen iiberhaupt." Cocceius, too, says : "Christum agnum dici non tantum indiscriminatim respiciendo ad omnia sacrificia expiatoria ; sed etiam in specie ad sacrificium juge, et ilia quae pro delicto offerebantur (nam delictum estpec- catum opinor) et holocausta, qua3 expiatoria esse docet Ps. li. 18, imprimis vero ad agnum paschalem, qui exeuntibus ex ^Egypto instar omnium sacrificioruni erat."
The two words which require an accurate and precise ex position are, wpstv and apuprtuv. 1. With regard to a'Spuv, it must be noticed that the verb means, primarily, " to lift up ;" but as that is done with various intentions, we find derivative senses arising out of it. (1.) He who lifts any tiling, for ex ample, upon the way, lifts it, perhaps, to take it for himself, and so takes it away ; and if one appropriates it, he takes it away from another : hence the meaning, " to take away." But (2) one may lift it also " to carry it," or to bear it as a burden or load. Hence aiptffdai is used by the Greek writers, and uipsiv by the Hebraizing _ writers, in the sense of "to bear," "portare." The principal thought is not always that of carrying from place to place, but often that of taking upon one's self as a burden or load. And it is in the fullest accordance with this usage of tlio word, wlii-n Christ is regarded as the Lamb (see an article by Storr in /'A///'.s JA///";///< •///'/• Doijuuitik mid Moral, ii. St., 1797, p. 206. STEIN, DC Satisfactione,p. 338, 011 this point, thus writes : -.loan. QeOTgius Doi8Ch«U, Pentadecad. Dissert ut. Disp. xi. p.m. 380, sec. 43, loca ultra quiulr.igintu pml'rvt ubi TO oc'ipw portamli si^nitiratioiirm habet proprie, t[iiod cum priinis e loco, 1 Joan.iii. 5, confirmatur." C. L. W. CKIMM (De Joun. Cftrufe* logics indole, p. 106) maintains, that though the verb aipe/v both in the LXX. and in the N. T. involves the notion of bearing, sus-
400 APPENDIX.
7, talcing on one's self, and occurs particularly in reference to bearing burdens, Gen. xlv. 23, Lam. iii. 27, Matt, xxvii. 32, and in Job xxi. 3 (though the reading here is doubtful) ; yet, when it is joined with the word dfjbctpTtav, or its cognate, c^o/apr^a, it always has the idea of " taking away," " removing," never of bearing, 1 Sam. xv. 25, xxv. 28. To the same effect is the later conclusion of Grimm, in his edition of Wilke's Lexicon of the JV. T. The answer to all this is, that the translation of the Septuagint is no conclusive argument ; and that there is reason to conclude that the same Hebrew phrase was differently given by the Sep tuagint, just because the translators were plainly at a loss to see how a constant rendering could be carried out in all the four applications in which the phrase occurs. They translate in one way when it is applied to the sinner or the victim (viz. <£gpe/j>, dvatp'zpztv, Xupficcvziv), and in another way, when it is used with reference to the priest, or applied to God (a£>a/pe?v, or a£;gj/«;). This whole subject must be discussed afresh ; and here I would take occasion to express my conviction, that the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew phrase, " to bear sin," demands a fresh investigation. These translators draw a line between certain applications of the phrase which they regard as conveying the meaning " to bear," and certain other applications wThich they understand as denoting " to take away." In the first of these two translations they render the phrase by these Greek verbs : (p'zpsiv, avafopziv, Xafjufioivziv, vyz-fctiv (Ezek. iv. 4, xviii. 19 ; Lam. v. 7; Ex. xxviii. 43; Lev. v. 1, 17; Num ix. 13; Lev. vii. 18; Num. v. 31 ; Lev. xvii. 16). In the second of these two trans lations they use the verb, apa/pg^, dtptivcu (Ex. xxviii. 38 ; Ps. Ixxxv. 3 ; Ex. xxxiv. 7; Lev. x. 17; Num. xviii. 1, 23, xiv. 18). Now it is plain, that in deciding upon the translation to be given in any given passage, the Septuagint translators were guided by certain cb priori considerations which, whether right or wrong, were at least derived from some other quarter than the bare signification of the language which they translated. They appropriated the rendering (p'tpsiv, (1) to the individual
NOTE ON SECTION XIII. 401
worshipper, and (2) to the sacrificial victim ; and they appro priated the other rendering, atpaiptiv, (1) to the priest, and (2) to God. This is the undoubted conclusion or result to which every thorough investigator into the peculiarities of the Septuagint version will be forced to come.
But as it is not by any means a faultless version, the further inquiry forces itself on our attention : Were they correct in this interpretation of the language ? were those d priori grounds, which directed them, and which were taken from what they deemed fitting and appropriate, and from no other grounds, cor rect and unchallengeable ? The Church of the patristic age and of the Reformation age accepted the rendering of the Sep tuagint, as if in this matter it gave us the ultimate truth. I say that there is a call for a fresh investigation. And whether (Eder, to whom I have referred, has brought out the truth or not in reference to the import of the phrase " to bear sin " in its appli cation to God, of one thing there is now no doubt. The priest may be regarded as " bearing sin " (see Keil and Hengstenberg on Sacrifices). Deyling (obs. i. 45, 2) says, " incorporabant quasi peccatum populique reatum in se recipiebant ; " and as this takes away one of the renderings of the Septuagint, further in vestigation may not less convincingly remove the other.
I have indicated an inclination to accept a uniform trans lation of the phrase. We are challenged, with some reason, by the Socinians, and by the more erudite and exegetical opponents <>f Hie vicarious sacrifice, to do so, or to give up asserting the reference of tin- phrase aipe/v a///apr/«f to anything like penal sult'ci-in-. I have said that 1 Hiink there is sufficient warrant In maintain the uniform rendering; and I am ready to abide by it. But one caveat is necessary. The phrase, in the passive voice, naturally assumes a shade of meaning slightly different. This I notice, lest any one should feel the apostle's rendering of the phrase, in flic jxixxir,- voice, os, opposed to all that has just been said : ^cweap/o/ uv cKp'tdwav at ctvopiott (Rom. iv. 7) ; (2) as to a^apr/a, it denotes sin, with all the demerit and consequences 2 c
402 APPENDIX.
involved in it, such as guilt and punishment. The rationalistic Gabler explained apupriu by vitiositas, pravitas, and put this interpretation on the phrase : " He patiently bore the wrongs and injuries of every kind inflicted on Him " (see Meletein. in Joan.). But had the Baptist intended to express that idea, he should doubtless have had abixiKi/, or xctxiav, as De Wette, De Morte CJiristi, has well pointed out. I may notice, that Grotius, in a former age, carried exegesis very much away in the direc tion of considering the atonement only in connection with punish ment. But while the Bible phraseology takes in all this, it goes deeper, and puts the death of Christ in connection with SIN itself.
SEC. xnr. (pp. 80-86).— TJie Title, Son of Man.
The two points discussed in this section are both of great importance for a right understanding of the doctrine of the atonement, viz. (1) the title, Son of Man ; and (2) the 'peculiar mode in which the Sin -bearer took the flesh. Little requires to be added in this place, except a reference to the literature con nected with the discussion of the import of the designation or title, " Son of Man." There are, among the many different views and comments which have been propounded, several that demand some further literary notice.
1. The Fathers, for the most part, saw in the title nothing beyond an allusion to the fact that He who is Son of God became man ; and they understood it as denoting the whole person as designated by the humanity. Thus Clnysostom, in his commentary on John iii. 1 3, says : vlov II ct,vGpdj'7rov wravQct, ov rqv ffupxa, sxuXsffZV «XX' airo rijg sXuTTOVog ovcia,<; oKov murov, IV ovra$ tinci), uvofi&Gt vvv. To the same effect are the comments of most of the other Greek Fathers, when they elucidate the phrase. Thus Theodoret, on Dan. vii. 13, having occasion to expound the precise import of the phrase, says: rqv favr'tpctv lirKpaMiav KpoQ&ffffi&v vlov plv avdpairov ace.$u$ airo- §/' jjv wtKafis puffiv. Euthyniius Zigabenus says on
NOTE ON SECTION XIV.
403
Matt. xiii. 37: viov KitQpuvou icturov ovofAufyi &a rqv IvctvQpu'Trriaiv uvrov. To the same purport are the statements of Epiphanius, Eusebius, Theophylact ; though we occasionally find the word avdptu-xov interpreted with a more particular reference to Mary, the mother of our Lord. Thus Euthymius Zigabenus, referring to the fact that avfyuvog may refer to male or female, says on Matt. viii. 20 : &v&$uenw ^\ vvv Xty&t, r^v fjbqTzpu, KUTOV- avdpaffos yap Xiysra/ oy% o awjp povov, aXXa xui y) yvvrj. But we may affirm generally of the patristic interpretation of this phrase, that the Fathers commonly, if not invariably, limited the allusion to the idea of the incarnation, and understood the language as a description of the whole person of Christ by one of His natures. The phrase was held to mean, in a word, according to the Fathers, that Jesus is the eternal Son incarnate ; and, in the same way, the phrase is commonly understood by all who, like Suicer, Pearson, Bull, and Waterland, simply con tent themselves with reproducing the patristic theology in their interpretations of the Scripture phraseology. We may say with confidence, that this interpretation does not exhaust its meaning, nor explain all the peculiarities connected with our Lord's mode of using the phrase. Thus He never uses it when appealing to His Father ; and then, again, this interpre tation cannot be said to offer any explanation of the fact that Jesus constantly used it in alluding to His betrayal, rejection, sufferings, and death.
2. Another interpretation, which obtained currency in the age of the Reformation, was to the effect, that the phrase " Son of Man " intimates only that He was man, or that He was in the likeness of man. I might quote Calvin, Bucer, Musculus Piscator, and many of that age, in proof of this, as the current interpretation. Thus Calvin says on Acts vii. 56 : " vocat tilium hominis, ac si diceret, honimem ilium, quern morte abolitum putatis." Again, Musculus says, on John v. 27: " esse filiuin hominis, more Scriptures uiliil est aliud, quam esse hominem ; " and Bucer says, " notandum autern diligentissime, quod Christus
404 APPENDIX.
filium hominis, id est, hominem (Ebraismus enim est), sese ubique appellat." Thus Camerarius and Piscator express themselves on Matt. ix. 6. This mode of explanation carries an air of much simplicity ; but it is defective, and cannot serve the pur pose of a key, to unlock the import of all the passages where the phrase occurs, or to explain the peculiarities of our Lord's use of it. It does not explain the fact that Christ alone employed it, and that His followers did not ; nor does it throw any light on the passages where men and the Son of Man are expressly contrasted and distinguished ; and I may add, that the limitation of the phrase to the sense that He was a man, was only, in fact, to announce what no one doubted, — what all saw and beheld with their own eyes.
The other senses allied to that just mentioned, and current in the rationalistic period, are unworthy of being mentioned. Thus even Hess, in his Leben Jesu, interprets it, this man, I who am before you. These shallow comments, which limit it to such senses as a certain man, /, one, some one, are not deserving of notice. It was interpreted the archetypal man by Herder, Neander, Olshausen.
3. The interpretation most in vogue at present among exe- getes is that which expounds it as a name or title of Messiah glorified, or in His dignity. They deem it equivalent to the title of the reigning Messiah, as if it were taken from the vision of Daniel, where the Messiah appears as the Son of Man in the exercise of authority and dominion. This comment, pro posed by Beza, was supported by subsequent expositors to a large extent, — by Cameron, Capellus, Abresch, Storr; and in recent times, by Stier, Tholuck, Weiss on John's Lehrbcgriff, by Meyer, and, in a word, by the great majority of the modern interpreters. This is the view advocated by Scholten, in his Specimen Hermeneuticum Thcologicum, de appellations rov viov rov avOpatfov, Utrecht, 1809), by Heringa and others, as the only correct view. But this interpretation, however it may explain some of the passages, and especially those which describe Christ
NOTE ON SECTION XTV. 405
as the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power of God (Luke xxii. 69), fails to explain the references to His abasement ; and the Messianic glory \vas but the reward of the humiliation.
4. A fourth interpretation is that which expounds the phrase of the second Adam. The celebrated philologist Heinsius, who led the way in this interpretation, which has found many sup porters, says, Exer. on Matt. viii. 20 : " cum ubique Dominus servator vios rov av0p/v'7rov, dicatur, primi hominis respectu sine dubio, qui Dltf sive o' avOpwirog vocatur. Ut o uvOpuiros sit homo primus : vlog rov ctvQpuTrov, qui post ilium sic &-o;$y£, dicitur, idem qui sccundus Adam dicitur." This opinion was followed by Leigh, Lightfoot, Bengel in part, who says on Matt. xvi. 1 3 : " ut Adamus I. cum tota progenie dicitur HOMO, sic Adamus II. (1 Cor. xv. 45) dicitur filius hominis, cum articulo o viog rov avQp&Tirov." The same view was adopted by J. D. Michaelis and Zacharine, and also in substance by Morus. That this view, so far as it goes, is well founded, there seems no ground to doubt. The objection which Scholten makes to it — that our Lord never makes the smallest allusion to Adam — assumes the whole matter in dispute. This is the allusion. We know that our Lord was wont to go back to man as he was at first, in some of those discussions which He carried on with the men of His time. Thus, in regard to marriage and divorce, we find Him going back to the beginning (Matt. xix. 6-8) ; and in this phraseology we have just the same thought that lies at the basis of Paul's comparison of the first and second Adam (Rom. v. 12, 20; 1 Cor. xv.)
5. Another interpretation is to the effect that the title " Son of Man " denotes the mean, despised, and miserable condition of our Lord in His capacity as surety. This interpretation, pro pounded chiefly by Grotius, found, in a former age, very con siderable acceptance in the Church. The phrase was held by a large class of divines, who in this matter followed Grotius, to refer, not to Christ's dignity, but to His abasement and huniilia-
406 APPENDIX.
tion. This opinion was adopted by "Walaeus, Van Til on Matthew, by Wolfburgius, by Beausobre et L'Enfant, Eosen- miiller, and others ; by Heumann in 1740, and by Less in 1776, who both, in separate treatises, discussed the title filius hominis in the same line of thought with Grotius, and clearly proved that it is not a title of dignity. Undoubtedly this last thought is contained in the phrase as our Lord employs it ; and the allusions to His abasement, as we have attempted to prove in the text, are so express and emphatic, that we think they cannot be mistaken. Heumann maintains correctly, that in the Gospel of John, this title is always used as the antithesis of Christ's divine majesty. Let me refer the reader to Schol- ten's interesting treatise on this title, though its main position has been proved to be quite untenable.
The three thoughts contained in the phrase, then, as we sought to bring them out, are these: (1) true humanity; (2) abased humanity; (3) the second Adam. Nor can any one object to this as too composite, because it expresses what the surety must needs be, and what His work must needs embrace, — and His one work comprehended as a unity all these three elements ; and with this phrase, so understood, we can interpret all the passages where the title occurs.
The next point noticed by us relates to Christ's voluntary susccption of the curse. The SECOND thing discussed in this section has reference to the mode in which Christ, as the sin- bearer, took the flesh. The problem here is to show that Christ took sin and the curse along with the assumption of humanity, and that He never appeared without it, %&p<? afAap- r/cts (Heb. ix. 28) ; and our aim here was to show that, in some sense, He was the sin -bearer in, with, and under His assumption of humanity, — nay, before the flesh was prepared for Him ; and it in some measure bears the indubitable marks of the curse upon it. Our object was to show that it was not the flesh of sin, and yet \v ofAotcupuri ffapxog dpaprtccg (Rom. viii. 3), — not sinful flesh, for that would have incapacitated Him to deliver
NOTE ON SECTION XXII. 407
us, but the likeness of sinful flesh ; and all that followed in the way of suffering was, not because He took a portion of the common lump or general mass of humanity, but only as a part of the voluntarily assumed curse taken on Him by free sus- ception, or voluntary assumption.
SEC. XXII. (pp. 148-164).— The Son of Man giving His life a ransom for many.
We have so fully canvassed the import of the term Xyrpoy, that little here requires to be added. As the notion of redemp tion, however, by a price paid, or by a ransom offered to God by Christ, involves the whole notion of an atonement in the room and stead of others, and runs counter to an absolute deliverance, every effort has been made, since the days of Socinus, to make good the point, that redemption may mean deliverance withoiut any price. But as biblical language con tains both the idea of deliverance and of a price, and as they are commonly put together (Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19), no one can warrantably doubt that we have in these passages both the mention of deliverance in general terms, and then the mention of the ransom as the special way of deliverance, irrespective of anything done or attempted by men themselves. It is well remarked by Chapman, in his Euselius, or the True Christian's Defence, 1741, vol. ii. p. 290 : "We have this expressed here as clearly and strongly in the phrases above as the Greek language could express it; and if it had been the full design of our Saviour and His apostles to express thus much, they could not in Greek have done it in plainer or less ambiguous terms — there being no instance, I believe, in anti quity where bovvou Xvrpov or avriXvrpov are used in any other sense; and therefore, to resolve these words with Socinus or Crellius, by a figure of their own inventing, into a bare deliver ance, without any causal price of it, interposed antecedently by Christ, but only such in respect of the reformation of mankind —
408 APPENDIX.
which His doctrine or example or exaltation after death might produce in the world — is such trifling and arbitrary expounding of Scripture, without regard to the usage and sense of words, as no reason and criticism will endure. In their way of com menting, besides the total want of authority, there is this further absurdity, that they turn the words wrpov and avrtKvrpov into metaphor, without making any sort of analogy in the case, — there being evidently no proportionable similitude between giving a Xvrpov without any kind of ransom or price, and giving one altogether with it, — whereas every true metaphor always carries a plain analogy or proportion between the proper and im proper usage of words ; as Aristotle (EJiet. 3, 10, 11), Tully (Cic. Orat. 3, 38, 39, 40), and Quintilian (Inst. 8, 6), have resolved long ago, and the nature of the thing requires ; and therefore the metaphor which they talk of in these passages is wholly without foundation, and absolutely unwarrantable."
The exact import of Xvrpov must be ascertained. This is the more imperative, as the notion gained ground in many quarters, especially since the times of Grotius, and was asserted during all last century, and up to a recent day, that Xvrpov may be taken in the sense of a sacrifice — a sense put on the word, neither in keeping with classical usage, nor with the language of the Septuagint.
1. As to the classical use of the term, we find it used in the singular, but more commonly in the plural, Xurpa, to denote the price or compensation for which captives are redeemed from those who have taken them prisoner. Thus Thucydides, Book vi. 5, says that Hippocrates, tyrant of Gela, received the territory of the Camarinaeans as a ransom for some Syracusan prisoners : Xvrpcc, ocr/jJLOiXcttrajv ta/3wt> rr,v yqv rqv Kafjuuptvuiav. Xenophon, Hellcn. vii. 16, says that the Phliasians gave liberty to Proxenus without a ransom: ££j>ra \afiovng ouptjxav civtv Xvrpuv. In Demosthenes, 1248, 45, we find tiotviyxtiv aura ixktevk ^ ds TO. Xvrpa, : " to contribute to the ransom or price of his deliverance from captivity."
NOTE ON SECTION XXII. 409
The undoubted meaning of the term Xvrpov, as it occurs in the classics, is that of a price paid to deliver a prisoner from captivity, or for the recovery of something lost, or perhaps stolen. And though many argue, in the interest of a tendency, that the term may also be taken for any sort of deliverance, irrespective of the price paid for it, yet no example of such usage is found in point of fact. I shall here quote the accurate statement of the meaning of the term given by Bishop Pearson in his Exposition of the Creed, article 10: "What is the true notion of Xurpov will easily appear, because both the origination and use of the word are sufficiently known. The origination is from Xuuv, solvere, to loose; hvrpov quasi Xurfjpioi', Etymol. — tfpgTrrpa roc Optvrripia, uffirzp Xvrpu rot, Xvrqpw. Eustath. Xiyg/ §g Op&TTpoe, (ita %.) rot, rpoQsia, tx, rov Opzvrqpta xard ffvyxoirrjv ug Kurqpia Xyrpa, ff&jTTipiu, (rcuffrpa. Iliad, A, 478. Xvrpov, igitur quicquid datur ut quis solvatur. k-TTt al'^oCkuruv i%pttfftctf oixstov TO XuzffOui- oO&v xai Xvrpoc, rot, SaJpa Xtyovrui ra tig rouro ^So^gva. Eustatliius, upon that of Homer, //. A, 13, Xvffofbwoi; re Ouyarpa. It is probably spoken of such things as are given to redeem a captive, or recover a man into a free condition. Hesych. vat/roc, rcc 6/5o/«/gj'a g/V uvoixrfiaiv afOptvir/vv (so I read it — not avdx^fftv}. So that whatsoever is given for such a purpose, is \vrpov ; and whatsoever is not given for sucli an end, deserveth not the name in Greek. As the city Antandros was so called, because it was given in exchange for a man who was a captive," etc.
Thus the Xurpov or ra Xvrpcc was the price of a captive's deliverance. The scholiast on Homer renders oV aVo/j/a <£gpo/ by the words o xofiitpv rot, Xvrpa. Polybius mentions that Hannibal, after the battle of Caniuc, sent ten of the prisoners to Eome to treat Tgp< Xvrpuv xut fftvrypicu;, making the Xurpov three minee a man.
Here I must obviate the statement of Socinus and Crellius, that Xvrpov is properly used only of the redemption of captives. On the contrary, it means whatever deliverance was effected by
410 APPENDIX.
a gift or service. Thus, if a slave purchased his liberty, the money payment, consisting of his earnings, was called hvrpoi ; whereas a slave obtaining his liberation for good conduct, was said to get it crpo7*a. Not only so: the word was used to denote the price of deliverance from punishment (Josephus' Wars, ii. 14).
This is indisputably the meaning of \vrpov ; and it may be added, that even in the more metaphorical or derivative senses given to Xvrpov by the poets, there is always something corresponding to the idea of price, or at least of compensation. It is never the absolute idea, irrespective of a price paid. In Pindar we find the metaphorical or secondary sense of the word (see Heine), in the acceptation of a certain compensation for some evil or hardship that men may have endured. Thus the poet calls the marks of honour paid to Tlepolemus, hvrpov <rv[A(popa$ otzrpug yXvxv, a sweet compensation for his sad disaster (Olymp. 7, 141). He also uses the phrase, Xvrpov gy5o|ov zafjjKruv, a glorious reward of toils (Isthm. 8, 1). (See Mun- tinghe's Geschiedenis der Mcnschheid, vol. ix. Anmerk 96.)
I may here refer to the passage in JElian, which Kypke quotes on this verse of Matthew in his Observations Sacra, as follows: " -ZElianus, Hist. An. lib. 10, c. 13. Asserit quod conchae, margaritis exemptis, liberae dimittantur, otovei Xurpu fiouffcci rrjg IKUTOJV ffcartjpioig, hoc veluti libcrationis siux pretio dato." It is plain that ^Elian describes the pearls which the oysters contain, as in some sense the Xvrpov which is paid to secure their liberty. According to ^Elian's representation of the matter — whether true or false, is not the question — the oysters are caught, and then, when deprived of their pearls, are liberated, as if the pearl were in some way the ransom or the price of freedom ; and he uses an as it were (oiovzt), to inti mate how he would have his language understood. (Comp. Storr's Essay, appended to his commentary on Hebrews, p. 436.) We must hold, then, if we are to be guided by the usus loquendi, that Xvrpov designates only a ransom or a
NOTE ON SECTION XXII. 411
price paid to set one free who is a prisoner, or in distress and danger.
There is thus no ground for the interpretation given by Grotius, that hvrpov may be held to denote a sacrifice. There is no well-ascertained instance where it is so used. De Wette says, correctly, " at vocabulum Xvrpov neque apud Graecos, neque in Vers. Alex, de piaculis in usu est." (De Morte Christi, p. 140.) No doubt Kypke quotes the passage from Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead, where Ganymede says to Jupiter, " quod si me dimities, polliccor <roi xcti ciKkov Tap' avrov zptov rzOvataQai Xvrpu, vvrlp &(AOU, tibi et alium arietem ab ipso immolatum iri, in pretium redemptionis pro me" This by no means proves that hvrpov denotes a sacrifice, as the meaning is not that the sacrifice of a ram is a piacular offering, but that it is the price of his deliverance. The only argument that Grotius can produce for his position, that hvrpov may mean a sacrifice, is taken from the cognate Latin word lustrum : " Latini veteres quorum lingua tota Grcecai erat de- pravatio, litera una interposita, Xvrpov lustrum dixerunt et hurpovv lustrare. Lustrare ergo urbem est earn a pcena liberare per lustrum, hoc est, per prenam succedaneam, quod et piaculum dicitur." (Grotius, De Satisfactione, cap. 8.) But it is a very uncertain mode of proof, when one permits himself to argue, from the meaning of a word of probably cognate origin in one language, to the meaning of a word in another. This can never overthrow the usus loquendi as to hvrpov. On the contrary, the classical usage was so fixed, that it could not bend or pass into any other sense but that of ransom or price, in order to deliver a prisoner from captivity.
2. The usus loquendi of the Septuagint in reference to the term \vrpov, is equally definite and precise. Though men may speculate as to what might or might not have been, this point is unmistakeably evident, that the word is never used by the Septuagint in any other sense but in that of ransom. The word is uniformly used in the Septuagint, to denote a
412 APPENDIX.
price, compensation, or payment, with a view to deliver a prisoner from captivity. It is the translation for several words, viz. 1D3, r6so, jvna ; and it is the term used to intimate gene rally, that something is given or offered to deliver a person, or to obtain the surrender of a thing (Ex. xxi. 30, xxx. 12 ; Prov. vi. 35; Num. xxxv. 31, 32). (Compare Schleusner on the word; also Borger on Gal., p. 154.) We may confidently conclude, then, that the word Xyrp«v does not mean a sacrifice, but carries with it the notion of a price or compensation for a captive. It is an advance on the idea of a sacrifice ; or, more precisely, the one idea passes over into the other. (See CEhler, under the word Opfercultus, in Herzog's Real Encyclopddie, and Keil on Exodus.)
The notion that Xvrpov may denote deliverance generally, without the idea of a ransom, though often expressed in former days and also in modem times, is wholly without foundation. On this point the celebrated Ernesti expressed himself, Neue Tlieologische Bibliothek, vol. v., 1764, as follows : " Hiebey macht der Hr. V. eine lange Anmerkung darinne er saget, dass diese Worte entsetzlich libel verstanden und ausgeleget worden sind, und sich verwundert, dass Manner die griechich verstunden und vorgaben, denken zu konnen, dieses Wort durch eine Er- losung iibersetzen, und von einer Loskaufung, die durch ein Losegeld geschehen, erklaren konnen, und durch eine Genug- thuung fur die gottliche Gerechtigkeit. Wir sagen dagegen, dass wir uns wundern, wie der Hr. Verf. der init den alten Schriftstellern so bekannt seyn will, und so viele Jahre sich mit Augslegung derselben abgegeben hat, so iibersetzen und erklaren konnen, und das ohne alien Beweis aus der Sprache und Parallelstellen. Denn dass er saget: wussten denn die Leute nicht, was die Gerechtigkeit Gottes sei ? Gerechtigkeit bestehet in einer weislich eingerichteten Giite u. s. w., damit ist gar nichts gesaget. Freilich wussten die Leute vor Hr. Wolfen nicht, dass die Gerechtigkeit eine weislich eingerichtete Giite sei; ob sie gleich wohl wussten, dass Gott nicht wider
NOTE ON SECTION XXII.
413
die Gerechtigkeit seine Gtite beweise. Aberkann man dagegen sagen, weiss denn der Hr. Verf. nicht, dass UTro^vrpuffig nicht Lossprechung heisset, noch heissen kann, und dass es noch kein Socinianer hat beweisen konnen, wie er es auch nie beweisen wird ? Weiss er nicht, dass an andern Orten stehet, diese KiroXvrpuffig sei durch das Bint oder den Tod Christi geschehen, dass sein Tod deswegen ot,vrikvrpov heisset ? nnd was soil denn nun dass avrikvrpov seyn, wenn der Effect davon eine Lossprechung, d. i. eine nachricht von der gottlichen Los sprechung ist ? "
The term Xvprov can be taken in no other sense than in that of a ransom. It must be added that Xvrpov, the transla tion of the Hebrew eopher, is employed in the Septuagint to designate the price paid, in the Mosaic law, to deliver any one from threatened or merited punishment (Num. xvi. 46, xxxv. 31) ; and our Lord here expresses the very price which He was to give for man's salvation, viz. His life. He could mean nothing else by this saying, but that the giving of His life is the only price or ransom by which the redemption of His people was effected, just as the liberation of a prisoner of war was effected by the \vrpov.
Not to lengthen out this note unduly, let me refer the reader to the expositions of this text that have recently been given by Delitzsch on Hebrews, p. 732 ; by Philippi, in his controversial pamphlet against Hofmann, p. 61; by Keil, in his articles on Sacrifices in Zcitschri/t fur Lutherische Thcoloyie, 1857, p. 449; by Thomasius, Christi Person und Wcrk, vol. iii. p. 89.
I may again refer to Chapman's Eusebius, or the True Christian's Defence, 1739, ii. 4, sec. 9, note E, where he shows, from Greek writers, that Xurpov intimates a special mode of redemption, by the payment of a ransom. He remarks, that if Christ and His apostles had specially intended to declare this with the most appropriate and strongest expressions, they could not have found in the Greek language words more plain and unambiguous than those which they employ.
414 APPENDIX.
SEC. XXIII. (pp. 165-183).— Christ's Blood shed for the Remission of Sins.
HISTORICAL SKETCH.
In discussing the import of this saying, we said that it is not left doubtful that the proximate and immediate end contem plated by the death of Christ was the remission of sins. As this is correctly apprehended or misunderstood, it may be said to decide upon the school of theology to which men confess in our day. It is admitted on all sides, that there is some con nection between the death of Christ and the remission of sins. But opinion differs widely as to the nature of that connection ; and it is necessary to advert here to the conflicting views on this point, and to the fact, that even among many who are devout and reverent disciples, opinions are held which are at variance with the plain and natural meaning of the words.
The connection between the death of Christ and forgiveness was, from the very first, accepted in the whole Christian Church as a connection of cause and effect. Though the nature of the connection was not for many ages made a matter of discussion, and was simply accepted as a fact by all Christians, one thing is certain : they considered the death of Christ as a sacrifice for the sins of the world ; and that Christ was to be regarded as effecting the remission of sins, not by His doctrine alone, nor by His example alone, but by the efficacy of His incarnation and death viewed as a sacrifice. It is true, opinion could not be said to be settled, or to be very definite, on points which were never subjected to investigation; and this holds true of the doctrine as to the design and effect of the death of Christ. The Fathers were content to extol the greatness of redemption and its importance, though they did not very minutely canvass the way in which the Saviour effected our redemption, and were content with the statement that He was incarnate, suffered, and died for man's salvation.
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 415
I refer to this fact, because a very unfair use has been made of it by some modern writers opposed to the vicarious satisfac tion, who wish to find the Fathers speaking their views. This holds true of Biihr's treatise, die Lehre dcr Kirclie vom Tode Jesu in den ersten drei Jahrhundcrten, 1832, in which the writer quotes from most of the Fathers of the first three centuries, as if they held opinions similar to the writer himself. Grotius, at the end of his treatise, De Satisfactione, had proved directly the reverse. Priestley, during last century, attempted still more offensively to prove that the doctrine of the atonement was one of the corruptions of Christianity ; and nothing can be imagined more groundless and unjust. When we examine how Priestley proceeded with the task which he had imposed on himself, to prove that the doctrine of the atonement was one of the corruptions of Christianity, we find, that instead of in quiring, as he should have done, whether the early Christians believed the doctrine of the atonement or not, whether they confessed the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, or whether they asserted the forgiveness of sins for the sake of good works, he only quotes passages where the Fathers speak of holiness, of virtue, and of good works in a way of commendation. He adduces various passages from the Fathers down to Augustin, and after him, to prove that they regarded the forgiveness of sins as flowing from the free mercy of God, independently of Christ's sufferings and merits. This is, in the highest degree, unjust and incorrect. If the Fathers considered the sufferings of Christ as merely an example, and if they regarded repentance and contrition as the sufficient ground of salvation, one would have plainly perceived it in their writings; and many expres sions of the Holy Scriptures which refer to the doctrine of the atonement must necessarily have been explained by them in a metaphorical way. Basnage, quoted by Priestley, says that the ancients generally speak sparingly on Christ's atonement, and ascribe much to good works. The explanation is not difficult, as has been already mentioned. But I must further add, that
416 APPENDIX.
Priestley was not the man to enter into this field ; and only betrayed his ignorance, which Horsley and others sufficiently exposed. He only quotes passages which served his purpose, and was silent on others. If we fully consult the writings of the Fathers, it will be found that they regarded Christ as the meritorious cause of salvation, and alluded to His sufferings as expiatory and vicarious. I forbear at present to enter into this field at length, but shall probably do so after the biblical evi dence for the doctrine has been surveyed. Meantime, I may just mention that Anselm, from whose work extracts have already been given, is the sort of transition stage between the patristic theology and the later ecclesiastical system. Let me refer the reader to Dr. F. C. Baur's Lehre von der Versolmung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwiclcelung, 1838.
We shall now trace somewhat more in detail how the link of connection between the death of Christ and forgiveness is represented by various schools and tendencies, both in earlier and later times.
1. The oldest doctrine accepted in the Church, in a more or less developed form, was, that Christ was the substitute for sinners ; that is, for men who are guilty before God, and who would have been subjected to merited punishment, if a satis faction had not been offered in their stead. This is un doubtedly the oldest doctrine, and worthy of being called the accepted orthodox doctrine in the Church, both in the Greek and Eoman section of it. No intelligent and honest investigator can really entertain any doubt on this point, though the doctrine came to be more developed in the eleventh cen tury, when men were led to discuss the nature of the connec tion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins. To give an exact statement of what may be regarded as the most widely accepted view of this connection, let it be remarked that they held as follows : that men were guilty, and under obligation to bear the punishment which sin deserved; that Christ took their place to expiate sin ; and that His death was
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 417
a satisfaction to divine justice, and the endurance of the punish ment of sin in their stead ; and that this vicarious suffering on flu- part of Christ, who united the divine and human nature in His person, won forgiveness for tJie guilty. The connection, then, is a meritorious and causal connection. This is the most ancient and the received view, sometimes less fully, sometimes more fully, developed. There were subordinate diversities of view among this class.
a. Some, as Anselm and the Reformation theology, generally deduced this provision more from an absolute inner necessity ; while others, such as Grotius, and those who followed in his track, deduced it more from God's free will. The latter class regarded the satisfaction, not as an indispensably necessary but sa a free and gracious arrangement, adapted to display the wisdom and love of God. The one, we think, correctly placed it more in God, who could not but insist on the satisfaction of His justice ; the others placed it more in that which is i>-if/tont God. The former insisted on the equivalent ; the latter on an acceptatio gratuita, or a rclaxatio or dispensatio legis. They were, however, at one as to the meritorious or causal connection.
b. Some ascribed all the effects produced by the atonement to the passive obedience of Christ alone, — such as Piscator, and those who followed him in his conclusions; while the great body of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, as is evident from the symbolical books received in both, ascribed the validity and efficacy of the atonement to the active obedience of Christ, as well as to His sufferings, correctly combining both as equally essential to one joint result.
c. There was also a diversity of opinion as to the persons for whom the atonement was offered ; the Reformed Church maintaining, according to its Calvinistic principles, that the atonement was for an elect company — a view asserted by the Synod of Dort ; the Lutheran Clinvrh, and many in the Church of England (which always hesitated about pronouncing
2 D
418 APPENDIX.
decidedly on this point of Calvinism, while asserting all the other points), making the atonement general.
d. Another diversity, of a subordinate nature, that came out in a sporadic way in Holland, was, whether the sufferings of Jesus were to be considered more as a whole, or whether a particular efficacy and effect were to be ascribed to particular portions of His sufferings.
But notwithstanding these subordinate points, to which we have adverted in the body of this work, and on which we have also given our opinion, there is a perfect unanimity on the meritorious and causal connection between the death of Christ and the remission of sins ; and that is the grand truth which has always been held in all the great sections of the Christian Church, both in the east and west, and to which Protestantism unequivocally confesses.
2. Another opinion is, that the death of Christ is only the occasion of forgiveness, not its meritorious cause. Under this division may be classified the various phases of modern specu lation, as well as the distinctive peculiarities of the old Socinian doctrine, — all uniting in one point, that forgiveness is either given absolutely, or on the ground of some inner amendment or renovation, but that the death of Christ has no causal connec tion with it.
They who maintain this second opinion, which cannot be said to express the ecclesiastical consciousness of any epoch of Church history, appeal to a number of texts. It will be found, indeed, to the surprise of the investigator in this field, that all the biblical testimonies which are adduced in defence of the first and oldest doctrine on the subject of the atonement, are also adduced by the defenders of the second view, with a wholly different explanation. The sayings of Jesus, which we have expounded as proper expressions of the true nature, scope, and effect of His vicarious death, they hold to be merely figurative or metaphorical representations, the import of which must be translated into strict and proper speech, before their
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII.
419
meaning can be ascertained. They make the entire language of our Lord a vast magazine of metaphors and figures, which the expositor must distil or filter into proper speech, and exact thought. And when this is done, they maintain that nothing else is taught by all that vast array of testimonies, but simply this, that Jesus died in some indefinite way, which cannot be explained or apprehended, for men's benefit, and to make them partakers of the remission of sins. They explain these texts as merely representing that the death of Christ is a morally opera tive means of the same nature with His doctrine and example.
I must now advert to the various shades and modifications of this opinion. While they have their divergences, they yet coincide in asserting the absolute forgiveness of sins, and in rejecting the idea of a vicarious satisfaction to the justice and law of God. I would willingly make a separate or inter mediate classification for those who maintain Trinitarian senti ments. For every one who has learned to weigh opinions, or to trace their history, will readily admit that a wide line of demarcation separates the Trinitarian from the Unitarian in everything ; that the one is within the pale of biblical Chris tianity, and that the other has very questionable claims to any such recognition; and that the opinions held by the one section differ in their whole character, scope, and tendency from those which are maintained by the other. But I find it impossible to make this intermediate classification, partly because a Trini tarian finds his place among the opponents of the vicarious satisfaction, only by extreme inconsistency ; partly because the supporters of this second opinion almost uniformly allow a veil to rest upon their Triuitarianism ; and partly because they, in this matter, socinianize, and cannot be sundered from the senti ments and opinions of the school with which they are thus led to symbolize.
a. The Sociiiians must first be named in this division, because, in point of fact, they were the first broachers and defenders of the opinion to which we are directing our attention.
420 APPENDIX.
They were the first to oppose the doctrine of vicarious satisfac tion; and from them, with various modifications, it passed over to other sections of the Church. In their representation of the atone ment there are four points which must be noticed, as their mode of explaining the connection between the death of Christ and for giveness. (1.) They hold that remission of sins is put in connec tion with the death of Christ, because He confirmed, by His death, the doctrine or message which He taught, and particularly the promise of the remission of sins contained in it. They were in the habit of appealing to the words which speak of the blood of the new covenant, but affirmed that the message which that blood or martyr-death confirmed, was the message of absolute forgiveness. (2.) Another reason, according to Socinus and his followers, why remission of sins is mentioned or commended to us in connection with the death of Jesus, was, that He gave us, in His death, a bright example of spotless virtue, that we might follow His steps ; and they appeal to such passages as connect the enforcement of His example with His career of suffering (1 Pet. ii. 21). (3.) A further reason, according to the Socinian school, why remission of sins is put in connection with Christ's sufferings, was, that His death, followed as it was by His resur rection, confirms us in the faith and hope of eternal life. (4.) Another reason is drawn from His resurrection, the frank re cognition of which was the only thing that entitled the Socinian or Unitarian body to stand within the pale of Christianity in any sense of the word ; and hence they base a further reason on this, which brings them in one single respect to approximate to living Christianity, viz. that He won power by His death to make us actually partakers of forgiveness, and of the salva tion connected with it. They referred to the announcement that He both died and rose and revived, to be Lord both of the dead and living (Eom. xiv. 9). The whole is a procla mation of absolute forgiveness, independently of any atoning sacrifice. In a word, they hold that the death of Christ confirms our confidence in God's grace, and tends, as a moral
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 421
means, to form men to true virtue. Among the adherents of this school, some lay emphasis on one of the points, and some on others; — thus Priestley limited himself to the point, that the death of Jesus confirmed our hope of eternal life and our faith in the resurrection ; the author of The Apology of Benjamin Ben, Mordecai for embracing Christianity limits himself to the obtaining of power to save sinners; — or they develop them variously and add other points. Thus Wolzogen represents the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, as tending to show what a punishment was due to sin, and may be expected if men continue in sin. But they all repudiate substitution, or Christ's bearing of the penalty of sin in our stead.
We now enter on a brief review of the more recent modifica tions of the same opinion, — all which maintain this in common, that Christ's death was not a substitution in the room of the guilty, * a vicarious satisfaction for sin. Though many may go far in the use of biblical phraseology, and even call His death a sacrifice, and compare it with the Old Testament sacrifices, they will not admit a substitution in either case, but view it as either a casualty in a world of sin, or a sensible representa tion of the evil of sin, or of the love of God.
b. Among the many opinions, complexionally different, but substantially identical, in as far as they set aside the vicarious work of Christ as the immediate cause of remission, perhaps the theory of Taylor, of Norwich, though he had no higher than Arian sentiments, makes the nearest approach to what we have called the general orthodox doctrine. This opinion sets in the foreground, not the value of Christ's sufferings, but His spotless and unexampled obedience to God, which was so much valued and approved, that it was deemed worthy to be rewarded with the salvation of men. The connection between Christ's death and men's salvation, lies, according to Taylor, in tliis, that His sublime virtue was deemed worthy of a reward, and was re warded with the forgiveness of sins, just as an earthly monarch will reward the eminent services of an eminent soldier or
422 APPENDIX.
citizen upon his family. (See Taylor's Key to the Apostolic Writings, chap, viii., before his paraphrase and notes to the Epistle to the Eomans, and his essay on The Scriptural Doctrine of the Atonement.} His position is, that God had such com placency in the lofty virtue of Jesus, exercised in life and death, that He, on that ground, accepts sinners. This is Taylor's and Purgold's theory ; and it was much followed. But this is not biblical doctrine. We nowhere find our reconciliation ascribed to the sublime virtue of Jesus, but always traced to His blood or vicarious sacrifice ; His sufferings being considered not as a mere proof of His stedfast virtue, but as a vicarious bearing of sin. Blood cannot be made to mean mere virtue, and we cannot lose sight of the allusion to the Old Testament sacrifices, and of the direct connection of this sacrifice with our redemption. If there is nothing more than an example of lofty virtue and of martyr-stedfastness, approved and commanded at the divine tribunal, how are we to understand Christ's words, when He speaks of blood shed for the remission of sins (Matt. xxvi. 28)? There was no reason for maintaining silence on this, when our Lord instituted the memorial of His love, and pointedly referred to His death or blood shed for the remission of sins, if the ground on which God forgives sin is His satisfac tion and pleasure in the lofty virtue of Jesus. On the contrary, He makes no allusion to this. "When we abandon our own reasonings, and place before us the whole series of passages used by our Lord, we at once see how meagre and unsatisfactory is the idea here presented to us. Vicariousness in His suffer ings and death is everywhere His grand theme (John x. 11), and vicarious suffering is the meritorious cause of remission.
c. Another theory as to the connection between Christ's death and remission of sins, was to the effect that His death must be considered as an example of God's aversion to sin, and as paving the way for a general proclamation of forgiveness. This theory was advocated by Professor Koopman in the twenty-first volume of the publications of the Teyler's Society in Holland.
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 423
It was argued, that as the ancient sacrifices were meant to imbue the mind with a deep sense of the hatefulness of sin and of its guilt, and to impress the heart of men with reverence, abhor rence of evil, penitence, trust, and an eager pursuit of holiness, so Christ was set forth to be still more fully the means of the same result, and the example of God's displeasure against sin. This theory opposes the vicarious atonement, but insists on an example of the divine displeasure against sin. We may well ask, would it not be an intolerable anomaly in God's moral government, a contradiction to every divine perfection, to be made an example of God's displeasure against sin, and yet have no sin, personal or by imputation ? That would be a difficulty indeed, which would defy solution. But if examples of indig nation had the effect for which this theory pleads, why could not the blood of bulls and goats take away sin ? and amid many examples of the divine displeasure against sin, why do we nowhere read that remission was ascribed to such displays of indignation ? But the faith by which we obtain forgiveness extends to the person of Jesus, as the procurer of forgiveness by His death ; and we are not only summoned to receive the for giveness which is preached, but to have faith in His person as crucified. (See Godgcleerde Bijdragen, ii., Stuk. 1828.)
d. Another theory is, that the death of Christ is a confession of sin. This is the great burden of Mr. MacLeod Campbell's book on the atonement, who holds that Christ's confession of sin was a perfect amen in humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man (p. 134). He goes on to say, in the following terms, that a true repentance, and a confession of sin, are all that are required to expiate sin : " That due repentance for sin, could such repentance, indeed, be found, would expiate guilt, there is a strong testimony in the human heart, and so the first attempt at peace with God is an attempt at repentance ; which attempt, indeed, becomes less and less hopeful, the longer and the more earnestly and perseveringly it is persevered in, but that not because it comes to be felt that a true repentance
424 APPENDIX.
would be rejected even if attained, but because its attainment is despaired of, — all attempts at it being found, when taken to the divine light, and honestly judged in the sight of God, to be mere selfish attempts at something that promises safety ; not evil, indeed, in so far as they are instinctive efforts at self-pre servation, but having nothing in them of the nature of true repentance, or a godly sorrow for sin, or pure condemnation of it, because of its own evil ; nothing, indeed, that is a judging sin, and confessing it in true sympathy with the divine judg ment upon it" (p. 143). He then goes on to say that Christ in humanity has repented of and confessed our sin ; and this, according to Mr. Campbell, is all the expiation for sin rendered or required. To show that this is his precise meaning, let me quote his words : " That we may fully realize what manner of an equivalent to the dishonour done to the law and name of God by sin, an adequate repentance and sorrow for sin must be — and how far more truly than any penal infliction such re pentance and confession of sin must satisfy divine justice, — let us suppose that all the sin of humanity was committed by one human spirit, in whom is accumulated the immeasurable amount of guilt, and let us suppose this spirit, loaded with all this guilt, to pass out of sin into holiness." " Such change would imply an absolute and perfect repentance, a confession of its sin commensurate with the evil." " We feel that such a repentance as we are supposing, would, in such a case, be the true and proper satisfaction to offended justice, and that there would be more atoning worth in one tear of true and perfect sorrow, which the memory of the past would awaken in this now holy spirit, than in endless ages of penal woe" (p. 144).
What reply is to be made to this extravagant and strangely constituted theory of Christ's confessing sin, and repenting of it ? It might be enough to say, without canvassing or discussing it, that it has no warrant or foundation in Scripture, the phrase ology and ideas of which alone can direct us in our theological thinking and theological nomenclature. But it is plain that
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 425
the author cannot intend his language to be understood in the ordinary acceptation in which we use the terms repentance and confession, because he would not impute to our Lord any per sonal consciousness corresponding to what these words imply, as if the sin He repented of was His own. Plainly, the writer, in that confused and misty phraseology, meant only to intimate Christ's deep sympathy or His bitter sorrow that the humanity to which He linked Himself was so corrupted and guilty. But if nothing more than this is meant — and anything like vicarious or representative action is contrary to the writer's entire scheme of thought, — then he has not used the proper terms. Moreover, this theory explains nothing, and only palters in ambiguous phraseology, which is highly fallacious. But mere repentance, however exercised, could avail nothing ; for the supreme Being will never exalt His love at the expense of His holiness and justice. To say, therefore, that repentance is enough, is to assert that the sinner does not require to repair the evil done by him ; that he does not need to blot out his past sins ; and that he has only to return and ask forgiveness. No good ground has been adduced by Mr. Campbell, nor by any one who has advocated the sufficiency of repentance, to prove that it will avail for the expiation of sin. It cannot do away past sin and guilt, which is an inalienable necessity where siuhas been com mitted ; it cannot restore the honour of God and the authority of His broken laws. To say that repentance is enough, is to assert that God takes the sinner into favour without atonement. But Scripture speaks as explicitly of expiation and atonement as of repentance ; and when Scripture in any passage speaks of the one, and is silent on the other, no denial of the atone ment is implied, any more than it can be said to be a denial of repentance, when the Scriptures speak of the remission of sins through the blood of Christ, without the express mention of repentance, which ever accompanies faith.
Some notice must next be taken of the theories on the atonement emanating from the modern Germans of the be-
426 APPENDIX.
lieving school, who deviate from the teaching of the symbolic books. They belong to a much higher type than those already mentioned under this division, in so far as the doctrine of CHRIST'S PERSON is concerned, and in so far as evangelical re ligion in general comes into consideration. Not a few of them are Trinitarian in the fullest sense, though it must be allowed, in reference to others, that they are no higher than Sabellian or Arian. We may describe their views of the atonement by two marked features, — one of which is more prominent in some writers, and the other more prominent in others ; but both come out unmistakeably in their delineation as follows : While they coincide in opposing the vicarious satisfaction, and in setting aside the forensic side of theology in favour of that which is properly mystical, they lay emphasis on the fellowship of CHRIST'S LIFE, or communion with Christ in His life (Lebens- gemeinschaft), and on LOVE. (I may refer to a description which I gave of this school, in an article on Neander in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for 1853.)
e. The theory of Schleiermacher, and of the school which he formed, was to this effect, that Christ, as the completed creation of human nature, redeems men by receiving them into the fellowship of His life or blessedness. To exhibit Schleier- macher's opinions, the best method will be to translate a few paragraphs of his dogmatic work, entitled Der Christliche Glaube, 1842. He says (sees. 101, 102): "As the redeeming work of Christ founds for all believers a common collective activity corresponding to the being of God in Christ, so the atoning ele ment, that is, the blessedness of the indwelling of God in Him, founds a blessed collective feeling for all believers, and for every one in particular. In this their former personality at the same time expires, so far as it was the isolation of feeling in an unbroken life of sense, subordinating to it every sympathetic feeling for others and for the general body. That which still remains of personal identity is the peculiar mode of conception and feeling which works itself as an individualized intelligence
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 427
into this new common life ; so that as regards this point, too, Christ's agency is person-forming, inasmuch as an old man is put off, and a new man put on." He adds a little below (p. 107): "Those conceptions of the atoning work, which make the impartation of Christ's blessedness independent of the re ception into the fellowship of life with Him, appear only as magical ; that is, the forgiveness of sin is derived from the punishment which Christ underwent, and the salvation of men is represented as a reward which God gives to Christ for that penal suffering. Not as if the thought that our salvation is a rewarding of Christ were wholly to be rejected, just as little as all connection between the sufferings of Christ and the forgive ness of sins is to be denied. But both become magical as soon as they are not effected by the fellowship of life with Christ ; for in this fellowship the communication of salvation, as we have already explained the matter, is natural, while, without it, the rewarding of Christ is but a divine arbitrariness. And even this is somewhat magical, when a matter so absolutely internal as salvation is supposed to be produced from without, without being based internally ; for if it is independent of the life of Christ, it can only be in some way infused into each individual, since man has not the source of salvation in himself. TJie forgiveness of sins is also magically effected, if tlie conscious ness of guilt is thought to cease because another has borne the punishment. We can suppose that the expectation of punish ment might be thus removed. But this is only the external element (sinnliche) of forgiveness ; and there would still remain the properly ethical, the consciousness of guilt, which would thus be removed and charmed away without any ground. How far something of this has passed over into the Church doctrine will be discussed below."
" If we compare the connection here assigned with the oppo site views just mentioned, they certainly lead us to the remark, that in our view no account whatever is taken of the sufferings of Christ ; so that we have not had the opportunity to raise the
428 APPENDIX.
question, whether or how far they belong to redemption or atonement. But it can only be inferred from this delay, that there was no reason to adduce them as a primary element, either in the one place or in the other ; and this is the correct state of the case, because otherwise no perfect reception into the fellowship of life with Christ — from which redemption and atonement can be fully understood — would have been possible anterior to the suffering and death of Christ. As an element of the second order, however, they belong to both, but imme diately to atonement, and indirectly to redemption. The agency of Christ in founding the new collective life could only appear in its perfection — though the belief in this perfection might have existed without this — if it gave way to no opposition, not even to that which could cause the destruction of the person. The perfection, then, does not properly and directly consist in the suffering itself, but only in the resignation to it; and of this it is a sort of caricature, when any one, isolating this cul minating point, and disregarding the founding of the collective life, regards the resignation to suffering for suffering's sake, as the actual sum of Christ's atoning work. But as to the atone ment, our representation takes for granted that, in order to effect the reception into the fellowship of His blessedness, the longing desire of such as were conscious of their misery, must be first directed to Christ by the impression which they re ceived of His blessedness. The fact is, that the belief in this blessedness might have existed without this, but that the blessedness only appeared in its perfection, as it was not over come by the fulness of suffering." He adds (p. 110): "But that the preceding explanation may serve in every respect as a standard for judging of the ecclesiastical formulas, we must apply it to our general formula of the creation of human nature being completed in Christ, in order to convince ourselves that this, too, is carried out in the twofold agency of Christ. For what is thus received into the fellowship of Christ's life, is received into the fellowship of an activity determined by the
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 429
vigour of the consciousness of God (Gottesbewustseyn), adapted to all occasions, and exhausting their demands ; and also into the fellowship of a complacency resting in this activity, and that can be shaken by no other movements from what quarter soever. That every such reception is nothing else but a con tinuation of the same creative act, the temporal manifestation of which began with the person of Christ ; that each intensive advancement of this new life is such another continuation in its relation to the diminishing collective life of sin ; and that in this new life the original destiny of man is attained, and that nothing beyond and above this can be conceived or at tempted for a nature .such as ours, — needs no further proof." These quotations will show the theory of the atonement held by this remarkable man. He uses language on the sufferings of Christ, as a vicarious sacrifice, which are audacious and repulsive in the last degree. He makes the whole atoning element to consist in the indwelling of God in Him, which Schleiermacher strongly asserted, though more in a Sabellian than in a Trinitarian way. But the atoning element could not be effected without the human in Christ, as well as the divine. In reference to this notion, Krabbe, die Lchre von dcr Sundc und vom Tode, 1836 (p. 287), says, happily, " Er auf dem Seyn Gottes in Christo seine ganze erlosende Thutigkeit ruhen la'sst, da wir doch namentlich seine Ueberwindung der Siinde, welche wesent- lich zu seiner erlosenden Wirksamkeit gehort, nicht dem Seyn Gottes in ihni beimessen diirfen, soudern dem, was mensch in ilnn war." And the only tiling to which Schleiennacher attaches any weight, is the fellowship of life with Christ, as if this constituted the redemption, and not, as the Bible everywhere puts it, the re sult, reward, and fruit of the ransom offered. It is nothing but mysticism, where all the great doctrines connected with God as a Lawgiver and Judge are ignored, and where the restoration of life, absolutely considered — nay, sucli as it was in the person of Christ Himself — is supposed to be repeated in every Christian, without any appreciation of the specially meritorious ground of
430 APPENDIX.
our acceptance before the Judge of all the earth, or any pro vision made for the expiation of sin.
/ A second phase of German theology, by no means ex cluding the above-mentioned element of spiritual life, but adding something distinctive and peculiar, is the theory that the atonement is only a manifestation of HOLY LOVE. Most of the modern supporters of the mystic theory of the atonement powerfully dilate on love, and will see love alone in the suffer ings of Christ. Thus Klaiber and Nitzsch express themselves. In the following mode, Hasenkamp and Menken express their view of the atonement : " dass Gott die Liebe ist, und was nicht Liebe ist, auch nicht in Gott ist." (See Menken's Schriften, vi. Band, uber die Eherne Schlange.} The same view was strongly urged by E. Stier, who, in his Beitrdge zur Biblisclien Theologie, Leips. 1828, expresses his concurrence with the English mystic, "W. Law. It is well known that Law, while he enforced with great zeal and ardour the spiritual life, held low opinions on the atonement-views, which can only be called disparaging, as they assigned to it a very secondary importance.1
1 As Law has been so much lauded by the supporters of the mystic theory of the atonement in Germany, and especially by Stier, the following reference to him, in the life of the admirable Henry Venn, may be appropriately quoted. "Mr. Law," says the biographer (p. 19), "was, indeed, now his favourite author; and, from attachment to him, he was in great danger of imbibing the tenets of the mystical writers, whose sentiments Mr. Law had adopted in the latter periods of his life. Many writings of this class discover, indeed, such traces of genuine and deep piety, that it is not at all wonderful that a person of exalted devotional feelings should admire them. From a too fond attachment, however, to Mr. Law's tenets, he was recalled by the writings of Mr. Law himself. When Mr. Law's Spirit of Love, or Spirit of Prayer, (I am not sure which), was about to be published, no miser waiting for a rich inheritance devolving on him, was ever more eager than he was to receive a book, from which he expected to derive so much knowledge and improvement. The bookseller had been im portuned to send him the first copy published. At length the long-desired work was received one evening; and he set himself to peruse it with avidity. He read till he came to a passage wherein Mr. Law seemed to represent the blood nf ( 'lirist as of no more avail, in procuring our salvation, than the excellence of His moral character. ' What ! ' he exclaimed, ' does Mr. Law thus degrade the death of Christ, which the apostles represent as a sacrifice for sin, and to which thi-ij ascribe the highest efficacy in procuring our salvation ? Then, fart-well, such a guide ! Henceforth I will call no man master. ' "
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 431
As frequent reference has been made by us to V. Hofmann's Sckriftbeweis — by far the ablest and most effective attempt that has ever been made on exegetical grounds, and by one who is reputed an evangelical theologian, to overthrow the vicarious satisfaction, — it is proper to give here a connected outline of his views. He thus winds up a discussion occupying a large por tion of his first volume (p. 332, first edition) : — " We have come to an end of our examination of all the apostolic sayings in which the fact of the sufferings and death of Jesus is anywhere made use of, and its significance either mediately or imme diately mentioned or delineated in any side, and we have found no passage, to the understanding of which anything else was necessary, or from the exposition of which anything else re sulted, than what we have gathered from the gospel history of the sufferings and death of Jesus. We have found that the substance of the apostolic declarations in all the numerous references in which they speak of the death of Christ, whether v/ith or without the use of Old Testament delineations, is always the same as we have expressed in our system, viz. that accord ing to God's purpose the life and work of Jesus issued in an event in which the relation between God and man ceased to be conditioned by sin, because His communion with God stood the test even to the end, even in the uttermost opposition which sin and Satan were able to direct against the work of salvation. Although it does not belong to my task, yet I think I ought not to neglect to show, that the confession of the Church, even when moving in the formulae of a theory which is not con tained in the above, yet does not stand in opposition to what has been advanced, — nay, more, does not contain or purport ought that is wanting in our exposition.
" The idea of the Church, when she speaks of Christ's vicari ous obedience, active and passive, by which satisfaction was rendered to the righteousness of God offended by sin, will be recognised in the four following propositions : (1) that the state of alienation between God and mankind has been at once and
432 APPENDIX.
for ever converted into a communion of peace ; (2) that this change is not in the conduct of man, but in the relation of God to man and man to God; (3) that this change was produced, not by mankind of themselves, but by God in Christ ; and (4) that God effected this change in such a manner, that He manifested in it actually His will of love, and at the same time His hatred of sin. We need scarcely remind the reader that the first three points are contained in our declaration, and that consequently the fundamental doctrine of our Church concerning justifica tion by faith alone is not endangered. But the fourth point is contained in it, as well as in the traditional mode of representa tion, only with this difference, tliat in tJie latter the injured holi ness of God demands a corresponding satisfaction which had to be offered first, before God could be gracious ; while, according to our view, what was done in Christ combines both elements, the actual manifestation of the love of God to man, and of His hatred of sin, because the creative beginning of a new relation of God to man did not take place without the termination of the previous relation, conditioned by sin. This termination begins, so that the beginner of a new humanity develops His life under the conditions of human nature, which were intro duced by sin ; it continued in the righteous One, exercising His life's task in conflict with sin; and is consummated in His voluntarily enduring whatever the enmity of sin against God determined against Him. The sufferings and death of Jesus form the consummation of this termination; and their essen tially destructive significance is this, that in them only was realized the utmost that the Mediator of salvation could endure and do, that the sin - conditioned relation between God and mankind might issue in an end corresponding to it, and to the divine decree of love, and thus compensating for sin. As, according to our mode of mewing the subject, it is not the sinner, or the Son of God in his stead, that per forms what had been omitted, or suffers wliat had been deserved, we are not tempted to present Christ's work as a collective
NOTE ON SECTION XXIII.
433
act of the human race, which is not the fact ; and as Christ's work does not appear as a satisfaction for the offence com mitted against God, which must first be effected, that God might be gracious, the manifestation of God's grace is not merely ren dered possible by means of it, but it is itself the realization of the divine will of grace, which it also is. We do not divide human sin into omission and transgression, nor the obedience of Christ into active and passive, in a way which does not correspond to reality, but is merely abstract and notional ; but this one termination of sin, as a whole, is the obedience of Christ in work first, and suffering afterwards. Nor are love and righteousness in God separated in such a manner that the demands of the latter are realized separately from the will of the former ; nor do Father and Son ever stand in such opposi tion that the Son becomes the object of punitive justice ; but what is done, is the one deed of the love of God to mankind, which is at the same time hatred of sin, and is the united act <>l Father and Son, for the realization of this will of love, which is a will of hatred to sin. Yet, whether the expression of our system is more appropriate than that of the traditional ecclesi astical, I leave others to judge. I think I have shown that it is more in accordance with Scripture." This extract will give a just idea of Hofmann's opinions. And when he enumerates these points in his controversial pamphlets, he acknowledges 11 live deviations from the ecclesiastical doctrine: (1) that he does not speak of Christ's fulfilling of the law; (2) that he dors not consider Christ as taking on Him our punishment, and so not rendering a vicarious obedience or suffering, but only as verifying His Sonship amid endurance; (3) that he ;i]>i>iv- lu-nds the whole history of Jesus, from His incarnation to 1 1 is death, as the carrying out of the plan to which the three-one God resorted to change or alter the relation of man to Him. He regards the Church doctrine as not having equal claims to recognition, because it leads to an arithmetical reckoning and counter-reckoning between the divine claims and Clirist's per- 2 E
434 APPENDIX.
formance. He thinks, too, that it does not put divine grace in its proper light, to say that sin must be expiated before God can be gracious.
The whole theory of this able man, who in many points follows Menken and Schleiermacher, proceeds on the supposition that the atonement makes no change on God's relation, but simply on man's. He allows no wrath as a principle of action in God, and acknowledges only love in God; and the whole result of Christ's work is, according to him, simply to begin a new humanity, or a new commencing point, which only changes the nature, but does not affect the person. Agreeably to this representation, justification is, with him, no forensic act: it grows, and is never perfect. That is to make another gospel. All that he says of the mystic union is good. But as to recon ciliation, it is described as reconciliation in Christ, not through Christ.
/. Another opinion, slightly different from the former phases, though essentially the same, is, that the death of Christ is only intended to have a subjective effect, and to pacify our fears, by affording a great manifestation of divine love. All the theories already named under this division take for granted that reconciliation is something wholly on man's side, not on God's side. Thus Stier strongly expresses himself. Now, in noticing this theory, there are two considerations that con front us : (1) Is it true that reconciliation is only on man's side ? (2) Is the death of Christ merely intended to calm a groundless fear ?
As to the first point, it is sometimes said, the supreme Being needs no reconciliation to Himself, as if any one ever made or insinuated any such assertion. But this is to ignore the fact of sin, and God's relation to it as a fact in the universe. Though there are no conflicting qualities in God, and justice and mercy are never opposed in God's essential perfection, the terrible evil of sin brings to light, in reference to the sinner, a relation of a wholly new kind from that which he occupied
NOTE OX SECTION XXIII. 435
to the creature ; and by the mediation and atonement of Christ, the supreme God exercises His love to siiiful men, in a way which is harmonized with inflexible holiness and justice. Neither perfection suffers. But there is another way of putting the objection. Reconciliation, it is said, is wholly on man's side, and we must entertain comforting views of God. If that mean that God has no hostility to lay aside, and that we must do so because we have filled our mind with dark suspicious fears of God, it may be accepted as a statement of the very truth which the defenders of the atonement preach and reiter ate in every possible way, on the footing of an accomplished expiation for sin. But if it means that no satisfaction was necessary as the ground on which that message of reconciliation is made, which is the meaning of those who propound it as an objection, nothing can be more at variance with gospel doctrine ; and the section of the Pauline Epistles which most forcibly exhibits reconciliation, puts it wholly on the ground of an atonement (2 Cor. v. 18-21). And when it is further ob jected that the atonement is always represented as the proof or effect or fruit of God's love, but never as its cause, the answer is at hand. The atonement did not, and could not, originate divine love or grace in God, which is an eternal perfection of the divine nature, seeking an adequate object on which to expend its riches; on the contrary, the atonement emanated from this divine love (see sec. vi.). But if we speak of the actual exercise of grace to sinful men, or of its mani festation to its actual objects, then the doctrine of the gospel uniformly is, that grace is capable of being exercised only through the atonement, and that Jesus is the ground, founda tion, channel, or meritorious cause of its exeivi.-e to such objects.
As to the second inquiry, whether the death of Christ was merely intended to calm a certain fear, or to satisfy an im portant moral want in man, this amounts to only this, that it was but an assurance of forgiveness, or an imposing niani-
436 APPENDIX.
festation fitted to give peace and confidence. It is alleged that it would be much simpler, if the death of Christ were regarded as only a striking evidence and manifestation of divine love, without maintaining the necessity of any atoning sacrifice. They allege that Christ has rescued us from the gnawing worm of a guilty conscience, and that His death was only meant as an assurance of forgiveness.
I might quote all the texts bearing upon the atonement, and ask: do they, or can they, on any principles of interpreta tion, convey the idea that the atonement is meant to be but an open declaration of divine love, and the removal of the slavish fear of divine wrath ? If all that the death of Christ produced was the conveying an idea of God's love, without effecting any thing, then our Lord stands on the same footing with any of His apostles, who also taught that God is love, and died martyr- deaths in confirmation of their testimony. But no teacher, however eager to extol forgiving love, could ever pretend to the titles, Saviour, Redeemer, Shepherd, and others, that belong to Him. Then, again, if according to this theory the Lord's sufferings were merely intended to remove from us a slavish but groundless fear of punishment, we naturally ask, where is this ever stated in Scripture ? On the contrary, our sins are uniformly referred to as the cause of the atonement or death of Jesus (Rom. iv. 25 ; Isa. liii.). And when we hear of redemp tion from iniquity, and from an actual curse, and from the wrath to come, how can that be made a mere deliverance from groundless fear ? The Scripture never represents the death of Christ as intended to do nothing more than merely to assure us of divine love. And if according to this theory Jesus has freed us, merely as our teacher, from all our groundless fears of divine punishment, and assured us of divine love, how can we explain those terrible threats still connected with impeni tence and unbelief (John iii. 18, 3G; Eoni. ii. 4 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10 ; Heb x. 29) ?
NOTE ON SECTIONS XXIV. AND XXV. 437
SECS. xxiv. AND xxv. (pp. 183-203).— Christ fulfilling the Law, and I/ringing in a Righteousness.
These two sections were meant to show that the fulfilling of the law, not less than the endurance of the curse, is of the essence of the atonement. Some, under the influence of pre judice or one-sidedness of view, object to the vicarious fulfil ment of the law, alleging that it is an ecclesiastical conception (so Meyer on Gal. iv. 4) ; others, on the ground that Christ, as man, was under obligation to fulfil the law for Himself (so Piscator) ; others, because the atonement is deemed enough for pardon (so the Wesleyans) ; others, because the law was only for the Jews (so the Plymouthists). These are all one-sided theories, which will at once be exploded by every one who will either remount to man's primeval position before sin entered at all, and recall the task of obedience which was imposed on him before his confirmation could be conferred, or correctly appre hend the nature of sin, with which the atonement has to do, as containing the element of omission as well as commission ; for even if the guilt of transgression were removed, there would remain the element of omission, which would equally be sin ; and with both elements the Mediator must deal.
1. Let me first establish the true import of bizatoffuvii. This is all the more necessary, because the precise import of it is now so generally missed. As to the exact meaning of the term, I may notice that the utmost importance attaches to an exact definition of it, because the whole argument in the Epistle to the Humans and Galatians depends on it as well as the import of many other sections of the Pauline Epistles ; and the true business of an interpreter is, without intermingling foreign elements, accurately to ascertain the force and import of terms as used by the sacred writers. To save space, and not unduly to swell this note, let me refer the reader to a discussion of the import of bizaioauvrj Qiov, in an article which 1 wrote on the Pauline doctrine of the righteousness of faith, in the British
438 APPENDIX.
and Foreign Evangelical Review for January 1862, in which it is discussed at length. In that article I endeavoured to prove, (1) that the phrase cannot be regarded with Eeiche as a de scription of the divine attribute of righteousness ; (2) that it cannot mean, as Neander, Olshausen, and Lipsius contend, an inward condition of righteousness; (3) that it cannot denote faith itself as counted to us for a righteousness, as the Ar- minians, Tittmann the younger, and Nitzsch put it; nor be interpreted with others, such as Wieseler, Moses Stuart, and Dr. John Brown, as the divine method of justification. On the contrary, it is proved in that paper, by an analysis of Paul's language, that this SIXKKHTVVTI Ssov is a substantial reality, not less a fact than sin, and not less productive of results in an opposite direction ; that it is a complete, prepared, and perfect righteousness ; that it consists in an obedience to the divine law, which is its standard and measure ; and that it is a righteousness in our stead, or of a vicarious character. I shall not repeat what is there brought out as to the objective and vicarious character of Christ's obedience to the divine law, as that alone by which we are made righteous (Rom. v. 19).
This view of Christ's active and passive obedience, as two concurring elements in one joint work, viewed as a unity, was accepted by all the Protestant Churches as the expression of their Church-consciousness ; and more weight attaches to the public symbols and confessions, in which whole Churches em body their convictions, than to the individual sentiments of any teacher, however eminent. That this view of the righteousness may fitly be called the Church-consciousness of all the Protes tant Churches, will be evident to every one who will consult the Lutheran symbolic books and the various confessions of the Reformed Churches ; and among the latter (where it used to be classed) the articles and homilies of the Anglican Church. (See Art. 11 and Horn, on Faith.) I may also refer to Bishop O'Brien's excellent work on justification, and especially to Note Z, where he appends some well-grounded remarks, philological
NOTE ON SECTIONS XXIV. AND XXV. 439
and doctrinal, in refutation of Mr. Knox's interpretation of
Before passing from the philological meaning of I would refer to the confused and unsatisfactory opinions which have come to be entertained in many quarters on the meaning of the word from the days of Grotius, who interpreted the oizctioffuvriv 0soy, the loving-kindness of God, lenignitas Dei, on Rom. iii. 5, 25, 26. The same notion was taken up by Schoett- gen in his Lexicon, by Schleusner, Koppe on Rom. iii. 25, Michaelis, Carpzovius, Storr, Pott, Tittmann, and others. This is a sense of SixauMrvvr] and of 5/*a/o£, which has no warrant in philology, and which, doctrinally, tends only to bring all into confusion ; and no argument of any weight has ever been, or can be, adduced in its behalf. But another opinion, not much better, is, that ?)ix,ct,ioffvvri denotes the Christian salvation itself. This view was supported by the celebrated Vitringa on Isaiah xlv. 24, lix. 9 ; by J. A. Turretin on Rom. i. 17 ; by Koppe in an excursus on Galatians ; by Roseumiiller, and others. But every one who weighs the force of words will discover that, in the Epistles of Paul, ffurqpioc, is the wider term, and faxotioffvv?] the narrower, and that they do not cover each other. (Compare Rom. i. 16, 17, x. 10; Titus iii. 5-7; Rom. v. 9.) It must be added, that others have supposed that fiixaioffvvr] may mean remission of sins, and the state of happiness or acceptance ; but nothing can be said in defence of this acceptation, save only that it is thought to fit in to some passages. But that is to guess a meaning, — it has no warrant in language ; and the Septuagint lends it no countenance. Carrying out these views, which have a close connection with each other, Morus makes it, " favorem et misericordiam Dei quas est in danda venia ; " and J. V. Voorst, in discussing its import in a separate treatise, Annot. in loc. select., 1811, translates it thus, " Singularem benig- nitatis Dei demonstrationem, sive ex benignitate proficiscentem Dei erga homines favorem." All these views have naturally flowed from Grotius' deviation from the true sense of the term.
440 APPENDIX.
On the other hand, several exegetes, at the close of last century, adopted a modification of the old Protestant view of otzcuoffuvf], and expounded it, innocence or guiltlessness. Thus Noesselt, Opusc. i. p. 74, says, ^ixuioGvvqv Qsov earn esse quam Deus ita nobis tribuit, ut non tanquam rei, sed innocentes ac justi habeamus. So Heinrichs, Phil. iii. 9, and Doederlein, in his Instit. TJieol., sees. 262, 263. This is undoubtedly in the right direction, though somewhat too negative. But it cannot be denied by those who intelligently compare the passages where ^iKKioavvri occurs, that it is the opposite of reatus, or guilt. It is plainly put in such connections as prove it to be a relative term, descriptive of the relation in which man stands to ap proval or reward, and presupposing obedience as its essence (Rom. v. 19): (1) it is not the divine attribute; nor (2) is it descriptive of what is merely inward. But it is a relative term, implying a rule or a law, and a conformity to it of such a kind as entitles the ^tKdiog to a reward. We do not approximate to a due apprehension of its meaning, if we start from either the classical notion of fiixatoffvvr} as a human quality, or from any philosophical school. The apostle, in announcing that the bixuioffvvri was witnessed by both the law and the prophets, carries us back to the Old Testament, and leads us to apprehend that a person who is righteous in the Old Testament sense, is one who not only corresponds to the God-appointed rule, but is recog nised as entitled to a reward, and a partaker of all the blessings of theocracy. Thus the observance of the divine precepts was to be to the Israelite a righteousness (Deut. vi. 25). Very note worthy it is, that Israel never corresponded to the idea, and that God promised to bring nigh His righteousness (Isa. xlvi. 1 3 ; Jer. xxiii. 6) ; and it is brought in and brought nigh by Him who is the end of the law, for righteousness to every one that believes (Rom. x. 4).
2. Christ was vicariously made under the law for His people. The widespread objections to the active fulfilling of the law in our stead can only be obviated by the direct testimony of
NOTE ON SECTIONS XXIV. AND XXV. 441
Scripture ; and for this purpose a single text may suffice : " God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to (J'va) redeem them that were under the law, that we (Yvot) might receive the adoption of sous " (Gal. iv. 4, 5). If it could be made out, according to an interpretation proposed by Teller and others during last century, that the phrase " made under the law " means no more than " born a Jew " — and the same comment is repeated by Meyer, Alford, and Ellicott, — an osten sible reason could be given for denying the proof from this text. But that is only a very partial and incomplete exhibition of the idea, as a few remarks will show. (1.) The phrase, " to be made under the law," occurring several times in Paul's Epistles, is always equivalent to being subject to the law, with the acces sory idea of something burdensome and oppressive connected with it (comp. Eom. iii. 19, vi. 14, 15 ; Gal. iv. 5, 21, v. 18 ; 1 Cor. ix. 20). Thus, in Itom. vi. 14, the " being under the law " is contrasted with being under grace ; and in 1 Cor. ix. 20 we should have a needless tautology, if nothing more were indi cated than "to be born a Jew" — for that is mentioned immedi ately before ; and the manner in which the phrase is intro duced in the Pauline phraseology shows all too plainly that it cannot be a mere circumlocution for a Jew. But (2) the con nection between the two verses in Galatians is opposed to that exposition. For if the telic particle tm (ver. 5) is connected with yevoftzvov VKO vopov, and leans on it, more must be con tained in the phrase than is conveyed by the idea of being born a Jew, as this would make no relation between the cause or the meritorious means and the purposed end. And that there is such a connection, is obvious enough from the repetition of the same w* ml, made under (In' law, to redeem them tJiat were under tlie law ; or if we suppose that the commencing words of ver 5, I'va rovg UTTO vopov i?ayopa<T^, could be . immediately connected with the words, "God sent His Son," then the intervening words would lie idle and superfluous. (3.) To be consistent, they who adopt this mode of exposition should interpret the words iii vi-r. ">,
442 APPENDIX.
roi>$ VTO vopov, " to redeem the Jews ; " for if the one clause has that meaning, the second, closely related to it, must have the same. And on that principle, what would be the import of the whole ? It would yield this strange and incompre hensible thought, as the ultimate end contemplated by the second i'vcc, clause : " made or born a Jew, to redeem the Jews, THAT we (the Gentiles) might receive the adoption" — thus making the redemption merely affect the Jews, and represent ing His birth as a Jew, as the cause of our adoption. This is a sufficient reductio ad dbsurdum. On the contrary, the simple meaning is, " God sent His Son, and put Him under the law ; that He might redeem them that were under the law." The Gentiles having the law written on their heart, and concluded under sin (Gal. iii. 22), are equally with the Jews redeemed by Christ's vicarious subjection to the law. And as we were bound to two things — (1) to the "do this, and thou shalt live " (Gal. iii. 12) ; and (2) to the curse of the law as violated — He must be regarded as made under the law in both respects. This passage therefore, strictly interpreted, implies that Christ, thus vicariously made under the law, fulfilled all the claims which it had upon us, to the full extent of our relation to the law.
The point which these sections led me to establish, is simply that Christ's vicarious fulfilment of the law constitutes an essen tial element in the atonement, in consequence of which His people are treated as if they had rendered that obedience ; and are thus not only exempt from condemnation, but possessed of a right to the reward. The two elements, not very happily termed the active and passive obedience, are jointly concurring causes in the one atoning work — not the one to the exclusion of the other. It would have been well if divines had not been compelled to separate what is represented as one obedience (Phil. ii. 5). But they were challenged to answer the question, " If the Mediator reconciled us to God by His death, of what avail was His active obedience ? " They are not to be sundered,
NOTE ON SECTIONS XXIV. AND XXV. 443
however, as if they were separately meritorious, or represented as if the passive obedience put men anew in the state of inno cence, and the active merited the blessings to be earned by men in innocence, by a career of perfect obedience. For though these two ideas are distinguishable, and must be distinguished, the two elements, in point of fact, were always together and inseparable. (See, on this point, Spener's Evangdischc Glaubens- gercclitigkcit, p. 1135 ; Seiler's Vcrsohungstod, i. p. 274; Philippi's Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. p. 143 ; Mutter's Loc. Com., -p. 450; Thomasius, iii. 307 ; Hollaz, iii. 1, 3, 78 ; Gerhard, sees. 56, 63.) The very fact that sin is not only commission or trespass, but omission, implies the necessity of the active as well as of the passive obedience.
On the text in John xvi. 8-10 in sec. xxv. (p. 202), I may quote the following words of Luther, whose comment on the text is there referred to (see vol. xii. p. 116, in the Erlangen edition of his German works, 1827): "Was ist nun das fiir Gercchtigkeit, oder worin bestehet sie ? Das ist sie, spricht er, dass ich zum Vater gehe, und ihr mich hinfort nicht sehet. Das heisset ja undeutsch, und vor der Welt liicherlich genug geredet. Uiid so das erste fremd und dunkel ist, das diess der Welt Stinde sey, dass sie nicht glaubet an ihn : so lautet diess viel seltsamer und unverstiindlicher, dass diess allein die Gerech- tigkeit sey, dass er zum Vater gehet, und nicht gesehen wird. . . .
" Denn diess Wort : dass ich zum Vater gehe, begreift das ganze Werk unsrer erlosung und Seligung, dazu Gottes Sohn vom Himmel gesandt, und das er fur uns hat gethan, und noch thut bis ans Eude ; namlich sein Leiden, Tod, und Aufeistehung, und ganzes Eeich in der Kirche. Denn dieser Gang zum Vain- lirisst nichts anders, denn das er sich dahin giebt zu einem Opfer, durch sein Blutvergiessen und Sterben, damit fiir die Siinde zu zahlen. . . .
" Siehe das heisst und is nun der Christen Gerechtigkeit vor Gott, dass Christus zum Vater gehet, dass ist, fiir uns leidet, auferstehet, und also uns dem Vater versohnet dass wir um
444 APPENDIX.
seinetwillen Vergebung der Siinde und Gnade haben ; dass es gar niclit 1st unsers Werks noch Verdienstes, sondern allein seines Ganges, den er thut urn unsertwillen. Das heisset due, frcm.de Gerechtigkeit, darum wir nichts gethan, noch verdienet hdben, noch verdienen Jconnen, uns geschenket und zu eigen gegeben, dass sie soil unsere Gerechtigkeit sein, dadurch wir Gott gefallen, und seine liebe Kinder uud erben sind."
SECS. xxvui. AND xxix. (pp. 215-237). — Christ as the Brazen Serpent, the Lifegiver ; and Clirist giving His flesh for the Life of the World.
These two sections allude to the question which parts the two great schools of theology in our day, viz. whether the life of Christ is given as an immediate and absolute gift, or whether it is purchased by His atoning death. The whole opposition to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ turns at present on this point, just as, a generation ago, it turned on the question whether pardon was absolutely given. The present is, beyond question, the most evangelical phase which the opposition to the vicari ous satisfaction ever assumed ; and there is little doubt that it will be overcome, as other phases have been, by the word of Christ's testimony. It must be admitted, that with much that is said by the adherents of this tendency as to the nature and manifestations of the divine life, as well as in reference to that fellowship with Christ which is represented as its sphere and essence, every spiritual mind will sympathize. There are ex ceptions, indeed, far from unimportant, to an unreserved ap proval of the representation of the divine life, which is given by this school, — such as the incorrect idea of a fall ; the universalist features which it has contracted ; the want of definite allusion to the mental exercises of repentance and conversion connected with the impartation of this life ; and its readiness to ally itself to hierarchical and sacramental views. But no evangelical divine will simply condemn it, but rather accept much that
NOTE ON SECTIONS XXVIII. AND XXIX. 445
it has of good, and seek to supplement its defects. Its founder was mainly Schleiermacher, whose impress it still bears ; and as it arose in a time of prevailing spiritual death, its adherents were more solicitous about the introduction of spiritual life than of orthodox doctrine. Its watchword is the Lebensgemein- scliaft mit dem Er loser, or fellowship with Christ in His life ; and the essence of Christianity is not regarded so much as any objective thing, whether it be the Trinity or the atonement, as the communication of a new life with which man's nature must be imbued from its centre, and by which all his powers are to be sanctified and ennobled ; and Jesus of Nazareth communi cates that life to sinful humanity. The principal and perilous defect is, that the atonement is not exhibited as the purchase of this life, or as having any causal connection with it ; and my object in this note is to add some further remarks, which shall bring out the biblical representation of the meritorious connection between the atonement and the life. I shall notice some of those passages where the eternal life stands connected with the performance of a work done, or with a righteousness as its price ; for life is its promised reward.
But it may be proper in the first place to point out, in the words of some of the prominent supporters of the new theo logy, how they describe the immediate communication of the divine life apart from the atonement. They ignore the whole forensic side of theology, or deny it. They take no account of the right relation of the person, of his standing or title, and set forth merely the renovation of the nature. Thus V. Hofmann in his Abweisung, in reply to his opponent, p. 188: "das Verhaltniss des Vaters zum Sohne nunmehr ein Verhaltniss Gottes zu der im Sohne neu beginnenden Menschheit ist, welches seine Bestimmtheit nicht mehr von der Siinde drs adamitischen Geschlects sondern von der Gerechtigkeit des Sohnes hat." The writer thus makes the incarnation of tin- Son to be the immediate reunion of fallen man to God, and the commencement of a new humanity, without any expiation.
446 APPENDIX.
He asserts the mere exercise of holy love, as producing this result without any atonement, and simply postulates a new starting-point, from which the race runs on anew. How like this is to Schleiermacher, who makes Christ the completed creation of the human race, will be apparent to every one. As this entire school owes its rise to Schleiermacher, and only re peats his positions, scarcely altering his phraseology, I shall here quote a few sentences from him on his view of the atone ment. He says, der Christliche Glaube,vol. ii. p. 94: "His [Christ's] act in us can only be the act of this sinlessness and perfection, as conditioned by the in-being of God in Him: hence, both the one and the other must become ours, as other wise it would not be His act that becomes ours. Now, as the individual life of every man is spent in the consciousness of sin and imperfection, we can find ourselves in communion with the Redeemer only in so far as we are not conscious of our individual life, but as He gives us the impulse to regard the source of His activity as the source of our activity, and as a sort of common possession. This is uniformly the sense in which Scripture speaks of the in-being and life of Christ in us (Gal. ii. 20; Eom. viii. 10; John xvii. 23; 2 Cor. xiii. 6), of the death to sin (Eom. vi. 2, 6, 11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24), of the putting off the old man, and putting on the new (Col. iii. 10; Eph. iv. 22-24). Now, as Christ can direct His consciousness of God (Gottesbewusstseiii) against sin, only in so far as He, by enter ing into the collective human life, had a consciousness of it as a fellow-feeling, and as a something to be overcome by Him, this, too, becomes the principle of our activity by His working in us. ...
" If all activity in Christ proceeds from the indwelling of God in Him, and if we know no other activity than the crea tive, in which the sustaining is included, or, conversely, the sustaining in which the creative is included, we must so re gard the agency of Christ. But as we do not exclude the human soul from creation, though it cannot be expected of us
NOTE OX SECTIONS XXVIII. AND XXIX. 447
to understand the creation of a creature with free agency and liberty in connection with a greater whole, and though we can rather apprehend than comprehend this in our mind, so is it with Christ's creative agency, which has wholly to do with the province of freedom ; for His receptive agency is creative, while that which it produces is entirely free. As, then, the indwelling of God in Him is eternal, while all its manifesta tions are conditioned by the form of human life, He is able to act on that which is free, only according to the order in which it enters into His sphere of life, and only according to the nature of that which is free. His receptive agency, in taking us into fellowship with Him, is thus a creative production of the wish to receive Him ; or rather — for it is only a receptivity of His agency as in communication — a consent to the operation of this agency; and that agency of the Eedeemer is condi tioned by the fact, that individuals enter into His historical sphere of action, where they perceive Him in His self-revela tion. Now, though this consent cannot be imagined otherwise than as conditioned by the consciousness of sin, yet it is not necessary that this should precede the entrance into the Ee- deemer's sphere ; rather, it may just as well arise in it as an effect of the Eedeemer's self-revelation, as it, at all events, comes to full clearness only through the view of His sinless perfection. The original agency of the Eedeemer will thus be best conceived of under the form of a causal agency, and which is apprehended by its object as an attractive agency from the freedom with which it turns, just as we ascribe an attractive power to every one to whose formative intellectual influence \\<> willingly yield ourselves. Now, since all the Eedeemer's activity proceeds from the indwelling of God in Him, and since, at the origin of the Eedeemer's person, the divine crea tive a-.'iicy which established itself as the indwelling of God in Hi in was the only active power, so all the Eedeemer's agency must be considered as a continuation of that divine influence on human nature forming His person. For this causal activity
448 APPENDIX.
of Christ cannot occupy an individual without also becoming person-forming (person-bildend) ; all his actions, nay, all his impressions, being different in consequence of the operation of Christ in him. Hence also his personal self-consciousness is different. And as the creation had not a reference to what was individual — so that each creation of what was individual was a separate act, — but when the world was created everything individual was created in and with the whole, and as much for the rest as for itself, — so the Eedeemer's agency is formative for the world (welt bildend), and its object is human nature, in which the strong sense of God (Gottesbewusstsein) was to be implanted as a new principle of life. He takes possession of individuals with a reference to the collective body, when He meets with those in whom His agency will not only remain, but also operate on others through the revelation of His life. And thus the entire operation of Christ is only the continuation of the divine creative act from which the person of Christ took its rise." (Sec. 100, 1, 2.)
Now, this modern theology to which so many confess in our day, is in this respect so unbiblical, that it disconnects the life from the cause of life, expatiating on life apart from the atoning death. Christ Himself puts the matter differently, as we have proved in the above-named sections. To show how widely different this mode of exhibiting the divine life is from that representation with which Scripture in every portion of it makes us familiar, I shall briefly review the allusions to life, both in the law and in the gospel.
1. The idea of life was explicitly announced in the law as the promised reward held out to those who should comply witli its terms. Thus it is said (Lev. xviii. 5), " Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments ; which if a man do, he shall live in them : I am the Lord." Compliance with the re quirements of the law was the condition or ground on which the promise of life was made, as will appear from the very frequency with which these words were quoted in connections
NOTE ON SECTIONS XXVIII. AND XXIX. 449
of which the import is not doubtful (Ezek. xx. 11, 13, 21 ; Nch. ix. 2'.)). As the legalists, with whom the Apostle Paul ha<l to carry on a controversy as to the way of acceptance, drew their confidence from their compliance with the law, and plumed themselves on this legal promise, in the expectation of a reward, we find him appealing, on two several occasions (Rom. x. 5; Gal. iii. 11), to this promise of the law. The apostle's design in quoting the legal promise of life in both these passages, was to contrast the legal promise connecting work done with life in prospect, and the economy of grace, and thus to bring out and give prominence to the essential difference between law and grace, works and faith. Life is set forth as the goal in both economies, — in the one as an unattain able prospect; in the other, as a free gift. That the law was g/V r^v, is asserted by the apostle (Rom. vii. 10), and pro claimed by Christ Himself (Luke x. 28). But that which was unattainable by the law is provided for by an economy of grace for the helpless. Accordingly, retaining the idea of righteousness as the essential prerequisite or condition, the apostle says (Gal. iii. 21), " If there had been a law given which could have given LIFE, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Without minutely analyzing this language, the broad sense of the passage, obvious to every mind, is a denial that the law can give life, as the promised reward for work done. The very opposite result is ascribed to the law — viz. it was found to be unto death (Rom. vii. 11). That Paul conceives of life as the proposed reward, cannot be doubtful.
But the actual Z^rj comes by a wholly different economy. By retaining the word righteousness, however, several times when hr speaks of Hie believer's participation of life, the apostle makes it plain that he still preserves the idea of the lcijnJl;i promised life. Thus, in limn. v. 18, we find the righteousness of one redounding ilc, Itxou'ufftv £,&%?• Again, in Rom. v. L'l, it is expressly called a rin/it<-i>i<.x/icM />nf<> lift1 ffcrnal. Again, in Rom.
viii. 10, we have the phrase, ^SMJ 5/cc hxcuoffuvw. The apostle
'•_' r
450 APPENDIX.
thinks of life, then, as the proposed reward, whether he sets forth the terms of the law, or the provisions of an economy of graec. This comes out in the antithesis which he sometimes employs between death as the penalty of sin, and life by right eousness (Bom. v. 17). Nay, so far as the legal Jews connected this glorious life, as the promised reward, with the exact ful filment of all the terms of the law, the apostle does not say that this was a mistake on their part as to the connection between the two, if they were able to comply with the condition, but only denies, that in the actual condition of men such a result was attainable (Eom. viii. 3). But God has made this life accessible to men, as men, without distinction of nationality, by faith (Rom. i. 17 ; Gal. iii. 11 ; Heb. x. 39, where he quotes Hab. ii. 4).
Thus one great defect of the modern mystic speculation on the atonement is connected with an imperfect recognition of the representative system, by means of the two Adams. Thus they who regard Christ as the Prince of Life, irrespective of any proper atonement or meritorious obedience, have crude and incorrect ideas of this whole representative constitution given to the race. The life they plead for so earnestly, or the new humanity which they suppose to begin with the incarna tion, and to run on from that starting-point, ignores any deed of meritorious obedience which secures and obtains that new life. That is a theory not thought out; and it makes no inquiry how the counterpart of the life (jEptj) entered into the world, viz. DEATH, by the previous entrance of SIN (a/^apr/a) as its cause (Rom. v. 12). If death entered by sin, then, in like manner, LIFE entered by RIGHTEOUSNESS (Rom. v. 12-20). \Vlicre this is not apprehended, there cannot be a biblical view of the atonement. This decides upon the mystic theory so much in vogue at present, which resolves the entire work of Christ into the communication of life. It is forgotten that this is life given to the second Adam, and only for a work done, only for a lizuivpct, which is the counterpart of the first man's
NOTE ON SECTIONS XXVIII. AND XXIX. 451
It is thus an inconsequent speculation to speak of the mere dispensation of life to run on from the incarnation, irrespective of a VKUXOTJ (Mom. v. 19).
The Schleiermacher theology, as represented by Usteri, would indeed have a certain consistency here. (See Usteri, Entwicke- lung dcs Paulinischen Legrbcgriffes) He will have a/ooapr/a refer, not to a primeval deed of sin, but to sinfulness originally deposited in the constitution of the first man, or to original imperfection, and he argues that the TrapajSaov? or Tapa«o^ was only original imperfection expressed in conscious act, which Usteri supposed to have come into the world, as man was by nature " earthy " (1 Cor. xv. 47). But such a notion of humanity as involves the admission of imperfection in his very nature, is untenable, not only on dogmatic grounds, but on exegetical grounds. The connection of the section (Rom. v. 12-20) shows, indisputably, that we must suppose an active, and not a passive, relation in this matter. The whole language there shows, that it is by one man as sinning that sin came into the world, and not by one man as created with sin- fulness. The words ru rov tvo$ crapaTr^/Aar/ (ver. 17), and 5/ot Tfjg TGtpuxofe TOV ivog avOpaKov (ver. 19), will admit no other sense. There was no mere passive origin of sin in the race of man, and just as little is there any mere passive derivation or origin of 'tpri apart from a yraxo;). There is thus a full and express counterpart between the way of the fall by Adam and the way of the recovery by Jesus Christ. Tli is will suffice to show that the mystic theory of the atone ment, as emanating from love alone, and consisting in the com munication of life alone, is utterly baseless.
The words of Jesus on the connection between His death and this premial life, are unambiguous; and they have been so fully discussed in the text, that it wrere superfluous to renew the discussion here. The locus classicus is John vi. 51, etc., t» which ,!uhu iii. 14 and John x. 10 may be added. And when \\c enter into the Epistles, we find that the connection
452 APPENDIX.
between the vicarious DEATH and the divine LIFE is so explicit, that no one can question it on exegetical grounds. The con nection is one of work and reward, of righteousness and life This is the key to all the sections in the Pauline Epistles, often much misunderstood, where the Christian is represented as dead, crucified and buried with Christ, in that one representa tive act of His, which, as fulfilling the law and exhausting its curse, laid the foundation for all that life, regarded as the fruit and reward of His sacrifice, into the possession of which His people enter as their rightful heritage. For if we died with Christ, we must live with Him. It is premial life. (Comp. Eom. vi. 1-11, 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, Gal. ii. 20.)
INDICES.
I. INDEX TO TEXTS.
|
CHAP. PAGE GENESIS. |
CHAF. xviii. 1-23, |
PAGE 400 |
CHAP. PACK xlix. 2, . . .83 |
|
i. 4, . . .273 |
yviii. 15, |
154 |
1. 21, . . . 57 |
|
iii. 15, . 245, 2G4, 327 |
xviii. 22, 23, . |
76 |
li. 11, . . . 180 |
|
xii. 3, . . . 327 |
xxi. 9, . |
215 |
Ixviii. 18, . . 264 |
|
xvii. 13, . . 352 |
xxxv. 31, |
154 |
Ixxxv. 3, 75, 77, 406 |
|
xviii. 25, . . 57 |
xci., . . .130 |
||
|
xlv. 23, . . .400 |
DEUTERONOMY. |
xcvii. 2, . 57 |
|
|
xv. 19-21, . |
206 |
ex, 4, . 4, 288, 359 |
|
|
EXODUS. |
xviii. 18, |
359 |
|
|
xx. 57, ... 57 |
xxxii. 35, . 57, |
380 |
PROVERBS. |
|
xxi. 30, . . . 153 |
xxxii. 43, |
57 |
vi. 35, . . .154 |
|
xxiv. 6, . 170, 178 |
xiii. 8, . . .154 |
||
|
xxvii. 38, . . 400 |
1 SAMUEL. |
||
|
xxviii. 43, . .400 |
xv. 25, . |
400 |
ISAIAH. |
|
xxx. 32, . 75, 77 |
xxv. 28, |
400 |
ix. 7, . . .360 |
|
xxxiii. 43, . . 70 |
xxxiii. 24, . 75, 77 |
||
|
xxxiii. 38, . .74 |
2 KINGS. |
xxxviii. 3-14, . 266 |
|
|
xxxiv. 7, 75, 76, 77, 400 |
xii. 4, . . |
155 |
xliv. 13, . . 446 |
|
xxxix. 7, . .57 |
xviii. 4, . |
218 |
xliv. 22, . .264 |
|
xlv. 13, . . . 153 |
|||
|
LEVITICUS. |
2 CHRONICLES. |
xlix. 24, . . 264 |
|
|
i. 4, . . .62 |
xxiv. 9, . |
155 |
liii. 1-12, 73, 128, 133, |
|
v. 17, . . . 70 |
xxx. 17, |
206 |
288,359 |
|
v. 1-17, . . 400 |
liii. 3, . . .83 |
||
|
vii. 18, . . .400 |
NEHEMIAH. |
liii. 1-4, . . 46 |
|
|
x. 17, . . .400 |
x. 32, . . . |
155 |
liii. 5, ... 130 |
|
xiv. 11, . . .67 |
liii. 7-12, . . 65 |
||
|
xvii. 11, . . 151 |
JOB. |
liii. 10, . . .46 |
|
|
xvii. 16, . .400 |
i. 6, |
303 |
Ix. 2, ... 183 |
|
xix. 'JO, . . .153 |
vii. 21, . |
200 |
Ixi. 1, . . .46 |
|
xx. 17, . . . 70 |
xxi. 3, . |
400 |
Ixvi. 14, . . 288 |
|
xxiv. 15, . .70 |
xxv. 6, . |
83 |
|
|
xxv. 14, . . 153 |
JEREMIAH. |
||
|
xxv. 51, . . 153 |
PSALMS. |
xxiii. C), . . 440 |
|
|
vi., |
77 |
xx xi. 31, 174,295,339 |
|
|
-\I MI5ERS. |
vi. G, . |
266 |
|
|
iii. 49, . . . 154 |
viii. 4, ... |
83 |
LAMENTATIONS. |
|
v. 31, . . . 4i)() |
xi. 7, . 15, 57, 59, |
224 |
iii. 27, . . .400 |
|
vi. 12, . . . 67 |
xxii., . |
288 |
v. 7, . . .400 |
|
vi. 31, . . . 70 |
xxii. 6, . |
83 |
v. 1-17, ... 400 |
|
ix. 13, . . 70, 400 |
xxiii., . |
272 |
|
|
xiv. 18, . . .400 |
xxxii. 2, |
180 |
EZEKIEL. |
|
xiv. 34, . . . 70 |
xl. 6-8, . 45, 2UO, |
207 iv. 4, . . .400 |
454
INDEX TO TEXTS.
|
CHAP. PAGE vi. 9, . . .87 |
CHAP. PAGE xvii. 17-22, . .113 |
CBAP. PACK vii. 25, . . . Ul |
|
xviii. 19, . 70, 400 |
xvii. 24, . . 155 |
vii. 47, . . . 176 |
|
xviii. 27, . . 393 |
xviii. 8, 225, notes |
x. 18, . . . 264 |
|
xxxiii. 14-18, . 393 |
xviii. 9, 225, notes |
x. 38, . . 360, 449 |
|
xxxiv. 23, . 272, 273 |
xviii. 23-35, . . 366 |
xi. 11, . . . 157 |
|
xix. 6-8, . . 405 |
xi. 21, . . . 263 |
|
|
DANIEL. |
xix. 17, . . 192 |
xii. 50, . 100, 113, 340 |
|
vii. 13, . 81, 402 |
xx. 22, . . . 113 |
xv., . . 366, 367 |
|
xii. 2, . . . 136 |
xx. 28, 31, 32, 43, 49, |
xvi. 16, . 188, note |
|
85, 113, 148, 266, |
xvi. 26, . .351 |
|
|
MlCAH. vii. 18, . . 75, 77 |
274, 371, 314. xxi. 9, . . 311 xxii. 32, 268, notes |
xvii. 22, . . 82 xix. 10, . 87, 357 xxii. 19, . . 168 |
|
ZECHAKIAH. |
xxiii. 1-33, . . 351 xxiii. 28, . . 247 |
xxii. 19, 20, . . 165 xxii. 20, . .170 |
|
i. 11, . . . 303 |
xxiii. 32, . . 245 |
xxii. 37, . . 132 |
|
vi. 12, . . . 243 xiii. 7, . . 272, 273 |
xxv. 46, 225, 351, 352 xxvi. 12, . . 7 |
xxiii. 34, . .194 xxiv. 26, . . 288 |
|
xxvi. 18, . . 336 |
xxiv. 27, . . 8 |
|
|
MATTHEW. |
xxvi. 25, . . 350 |
xxiv. 44, . . 9 |
|
i. 21, . . . 316 |
xxvi. 26-28, . . 165 |
xxiv. 44-49, . . 362 |
|
ii. 22, . . .158 |
xxvi. 28, 31, 43, 50, 314, |
xxiv. 45, . . 8 |
|
iii. 7, . . .57 |
327, 332, 367 |
xxiv. 46, . 328, 331 |
|
iii. 10, . . 273, note |
xxvi. 36-44, . .117 |
xxiv. 47, . . 331 |
|
iii. 12, . . .352 |
xxvi. 38, . . 113 |
|
|
iii. 15, . . . 96 |
xxvi. 42, . . 62 |
JOHN. |
|
iii. 16, . . . 100 |
xxvi. 61, . . 241 |
i. 13, . . . 234 |
|
iii. 17, . . . 37 |
xxvii. 14, . . 136 |
i. 14, . . . 243 |
|
v. 6, . . .50 |
xxvii. 32, . . 400 |
i. 17, . . 187, 279 |
|
v. 17, . . 49, 311 |
xxvii. 46, . 114, 123 |
i. 21, . . . 359 |
|
v. 17-20, . . 183 |
xxvii. 63, . . 241 |
L 29, . . 49, 65-77 |
|
v. 23, . .201, note |
xxviii. 19, . .340 |
i. 36, . . . 74 |
|
v. 28-44 . . 192 |
i. 51, . . . 291 |
|
|
v. 38, . . . 157 |
MARK. |
ii. 12, .- . 212 |
|
vii. 12, . . . 188 |
ii. 27, 28, . . 89 |
ii. 19, . . . 239 |
|
vii. 13, ... 349 |
iii. 26, . . . 258 |
iii. 5, ... 399 |
|
vii. 13, 14, . . 225 |
v. 30, . . . 108 |
iii. 11, . . .102 |
|
viii. 16, . . 110 |
vi. 3, . . .106 |
iii. 13, ... 80 |
|
viii. 20, . . 85 |
vii. 34, . . . 108 |
iii. 13, 14, . 21, 80 |
|
ix. 4-6, . . .352 |
vii. 37, . . .311 |
iii. 14, . 215, 227, 344 |
|
ix. 6, . . .88 |
viii. 17, . . 109 |
iii. 16, . . 13, 20 |
|
ix. 12, ... 31 |
viii. 37, . . 62 |
iii. 17, . . . 36 |
|
ix. 15, . . . 31 |
ix. 12, . . .84 |
iii. 18, . . . (i-J |
|
ix. 16, . . . 303 |
ix. 45, . . .349 |
iii. 36, . 225, 349, 352 |
|
x. 28, . . . 351 |
x. 32, . . . 113 |
iv. 8, . . .16 |
|
x. 40, . . .40 |
xi. 31, . . . 113 |
iv. 14, . . . 294 |
|
xi. 19, . . . 86 |
xiT. 22-24, . . It;.') |
iv. IS, . . .33 |
|
xi. 28, . . 50, :;:>: |
xiv. 48, . . . i:;i |
iv. :;'.», . . . 2!»4 |
|
xi. 29, . . . 194 |
MV. f>8, . . .241 |
iv. 4i>, . . . :;•_• |
|
xi. iM-23, . . :;:.<) |
xv. 28, . . . m |
v. 22, . . .289 |
|
xii. 18, . . . :;7 |
xv. 43, . . . 361 |
v. 24, L'l, 40, 22.-,. 2.-J4, |
|
xii. l><>, . . . 2(13 |
xvi. 16, . . 351 |
L'.-.d, 267 |
|
xii. :!•_', ... 81 |
v. 2li, . |
|
|
xiii. 19, . . . 'J.-.S |
LUKE. |
v. L'7, . .86, |
|
xiii. 38, . . .258 |
i. 77, . . . 73 |
v. .'id, ... 144 |
|
xvi. 16, . . 5 |
ii. 49, . . . 143 |
v. :;;{, ... 291 |
|
xvii. 3-5, . . 303 |
ii. f>l, . . . lie, |
v. -12, . . . 2.-J4 |
|
xvii. 5, . . 37, 311 |
iv. 21 », . . .129 |
v. .-J9-46. . . 327 |
|
xvii. 11, . . 371 |
iv. 13, . . .117 |
vi., ... 361 |
INDKX TO TEXTS.
455
|
< !l UV \1. 111. vi. 26, . vi. 29, . vi. 32, . vi. 33, . vi. 35, . vi. 37, . vi. 38, . |
PAGE 6 . 33 229, 334, 34(5 . 53,345 . 325 . 229, 357 41, 317 35 |
CHAP. xiii. 21, xiii. 27, xiii. 37, xiv. 6, . xiv. 16, . xiv. 17, . xiv. 24, . xiv. 29, . |
. 310 245, 259 . 274 30, 357 298, 299 . 299 . 357 44 |
xxiv. 19, xxv. 19, ROMANS i. 5, i. 32, . i 16, 17, ii. 4, |
1'AOB . 201 . 201 . 342 . 333 439, 450 436 |
|
vi. :;!>. ;:2. 44. in;. :;•_':; |
xiv. 30, |
118, 194, |
iii. 19, . |
. 441 |
|
|
vi. 51, . |
24, 43, 113 |
200, 258 |
iii. 23, . |
. 308 |
|
|
vi. 51-57, |
228, 229, 253 |
xiv. 30, 31, . |
. 200 |
iii. 24, . |
. 366 |
|
vi. 53, . |
. 232 |
xiv. 31, . |
. 194 |
iii. 25, . |
. 327 |
|
vi. 54. . |
. 232 |
xv. 10, . |
. 194 |
iii. 25, 26, . |
. 439 |
|
vi 55, . |
. 233 |
xv. 12, . |
9 |
iii. 28, . |
. 184 |
|
vi. 56, . |
38,237 |
xv. 13, 194, 318, 3'J."., :;7s |
iv. 5, |
. 346 |
|
|
vi. 57, . |
. 233 |
xvi. 8-10, |
. 202 |
iv. 13, . |
. 350 |
|
vi. 60, . |
. 360 |
xvi. 9, . |
. 297 |
iv. 25, . |
436 |
|
vii. 1-7, |
. 106 |
xvi 11, . 252, |
253, 258 |
v. 2, . |
207, 212 |
|
vii. 16-18, |
. 44 |
262, 297 |
v. 5-11 . |
. 325 |
|
|
vii. 28, . |
. 33 |
xvi. 13-17, . |
. 360 |
v. 7, . |
. 207 |
|
vii. 31, . |
. 357 |
xvi. 23, . |
. 357 |
v. 9, |
. 436 |
|
vii. 32, . vii. 33, . |
. 129 . 38 |
xvi. 25, 26, . xvi. 88, 35 . |
. 349 254, 298 |
v. 12, 53, 70, v. 17, . |
266, 375 20, 41 |
|
vii. 38, 39, |
. 291 |
xvii., |
. 44 |
v. 18, . |
. 228 |
|
vii. 39, . |
14, 50 |
xvii. 1, . |
. 305 |
v. 19, . 151, |
184, 202, |
|
viii. 12, . |
. 32, 272 |
xvii. 2, . |
. 249 |
438, 440 |
|
|
viii. 24, . |
33, 346, 350 |
xvii. 4, . 146, |
194, 304 |
v. 20, |
. 405 |
|
viii. 29, . |
37, 145 |
xvii. 5, . |
. 305 vi. 1-27, |
. 446 |
|
|
viii. 36, . |
. 357 |
xvii 9, . . . |
194, 324 vi. 3, . |
. 340 |
|
|
viii. 44, . |
. 258, 268 |
xvii. 19, 32, 147 |
203,212 vi. 4, . |
326, 354 |
|
|
viii. 51, . |
265, 267, 268 |
xvii. 20, |
. 324 |
vi 8, . |
130, 326 |
|
viii. 56, . |
. 145 xvii. 21, |
40 |
vi. 14, . |
. 441 |
|
|
viii. 59, . |
. 129 xvii. 23, |
. 446 |
vii. 11, . |
. 449 |
|
|
x., |
. 361 i xvii. 25, |
. 63 |
viii. 1, . |
. 263 |
|
|
x. 1-7, . |
. 327 , xviii. 6, |
. 134 |
viii. 2, . |
. 298 |
|
|
.2-6, . |
. 347 | xviii. 8, |
. 134 |
viii. 10, . |
226, 446 |
|
|
. 10, 11, |
265, 26(5, 315, |
xviii. 37, |
. 290 |
viii. 14, . |
. 298 |
|
316, |
323, 328, 357 |
xix. 11, . |
. 131 |
viii. 26, . |
. 299 |
|
. 11-18, |
. 273 |
xix. 26, . |
. 195 |
viii. 32, . |
. 14 |
|
. 14, 15, |
. 282 |
xix. 30, . |
. 139 |
viii. 37, . |
255, 257 |
|
. 17, . |
274, 279, 282 |
xix. 38, . |
. 362 |
ix. 10-23, |
. 356 |
|
. 18, . |
. 306 |
xix. 39, . |
. 215 |
ix. 11, . |
. 217 |
|
32, 267 xx. 23, . |
. 176 |
x. 3, . . |
. 342 |
||
|
i. 33, . |
. 108 xx. 30, . |
. 360 |
x. 4, . |
184,440 |
|
|
xi. 50, . |
.317 xx. 31, . |
. 360 |
x. 5, |
212, 449 |
|
|
x;. S3, . |
. 317 |
xxi. 19, . |
. 309 |
x. 10, . . |
. 439 |
|
xii. 11, . |
. IMS |
xxi. 25, . |
. 360 |
xi. 2, . |
. 317 |
|
xii. 24. . |
. 2s ( |
xi. 5, |
. 2 IS |
||
|
xii. 27, . |
113, 114, 303 |
ACTS. |
xi. 17, . |
, 2 IS |
|
|
x,,. 2S, . |
. |
. 362 xi. 24, . |
. 24S |
||
|
di 81, . |
ii. 23-81, |
. 216 xi. 2.s. . |
. 248 |
||
|
x;,. ::2, . |
. |
iv. 28, . |
. 261 xii. 11, . |
. 257 |
|
|
xii. .•::;. . |
. 216, 2S6 |
vi. 7. . |
18 xii. I'.i, . |
||
|
xii. :;i, . |
. 3.V.I |
vii. .">. 6, |
. 303 xii. 20, . |
. 3 1 3 |
|
|
. 310 |
vii. 56, . |
83 xiii. 8, . |
. Is,; |
||
|
x.i. 42, . |
. :ii!2 x. ::.;, . |
i -_M'.i rir. 9, . |
2-s:i. 420 |
||
|
xii. 47, 4s. |
. 250 x. 3S, . |
. 194 xiv. 19, . |
. 276 |
||
|
xii. 49, . |
::::. 200 xii. 7, . |
. 299 xv. 3. . |
. 194 |
||
|
xiii. 1, . |
325, 226. :;26 xx. 35, . |
. 360 xvi. 25, . |
. 3.VJ |
456
INDEX TO TEXTS.
|
CHAP. 1 CORINTHIANS. |
PAGE |
CHAP. i. 7, |
FACE 467 |
CHAP. ii. 14, . |
PAGE 95, 263, 269, |
|
i. 18, . . . |
337 |
i. 10, . |
299 |
326, 371 |
|
|
ii. 8, ... |
369 |
i. 14, . |
299 |
v. 8, . |
. 2150, 309 |
|
iv. 13, . |
298 |
ii. 14, 15, |
247 |
v. 17, . |
. 105, 222 |
|
v. 4, . |
268 |
ii. 16, . |
283 |
vi. 20, . |
. 347 |
|
v. 15, . . . |
208 |
iii. 1, ... |
207 |
viii. 8, . |
. 174 |
|
v. 18, . |
337 |
iii. 9, ... |
352 |
viii. 13, . |
. 240 |
|
vi. 1, ... |
201 |
iv. 22-24, |
446 |
ix. 13, . |
. .209 |
|
vi. 9, 10, |
436 |
iv. 30, . |
299 |
ix. 14, . |
164, 211, 369 |
|
vi. 20, . |
149 |
v. 2, 139, 164, 201, |
235 |
ix. 15, . |
. 329 |
|
ix. 20, . |
441 |
v. 25-26, |
210 |
ix. 26, . |
. 263 |
|
x. 13, . |
256 |
ix. 28, . |
. 71 |
||
|
xi. 23, . |
165 |
PHILIPPIANS. |
x. 2, . |
. 211 |
|
|
xi. 24, . |
168 |
i. 18, . |
208 |
x. 14, . |
. 211 |
|
XV., |
269 |
ii. 5, . |
442 |
x. 19, . |
. 212 |
|
xv. 36, . |
285 |
ii. 8, 202, 281, 282 |
306 |
x. 20, . |
. 347 |
|
xv. 47, . |
375 |
x. 28, . |
. 339 |
||
|
xv. 47-56, . |
266 |
COLOSSIANS. |
x. 29, . |
. 436 |
|
|
i. 13, . |
263 |
xii. 16, . |
. 157 |
||
|
2 CORINTHIANS. |
i. 14, . . . |
407 |
xiii. 12, |
. 209 |
|
|
iv. 13, . |
298 |
i. 20, . |
304 |
||
|
v. 4, . |
268 |
ii. 9, ... |
244 |
1 |
PETER. |
|
v. 14, 15, |
452 |
ii. 15, . |
221 |
i. 12, . |
. 217, 357 |
|
v. 15, . |
208 |
iii. 10, . |
446 |
i. 18, 19, |
149, 399, 407 |
|
v. 18, . |
337 |
ii. 5, . |
. 212 |
||
|
v. 18-21, |
435 |
2 THESSALONIANS |
ii. 21, . |
. 420 |
|
|
xiii. 6, . |
446 |
ii. 13, . |
209 |
ii. 24, . |
. 446 |
|
iv. 1, . |
. 130, 326 |
||||
|
GALATIANS. |
1 TIMOTHY. |
v. 4, |
. 273 |
||
|
i. 4, . . 14, |
235 |
i. 15, . |
371 |
||
|
i. 4-10, . |
336 |
ii. 5, . . 25, |
337 |
1 |
JOHN. |
|
i. 23, . |
342 |
iv. 6, ... |
273 |
i. 1-3, . |
. 234 |
|
ii. 20, 130, 228, 354, 326 |
ii. 1, 2, . |
. 212 |
|||
|
iii. 12, . |
442 |
2 TIMOTHY. |
ii. 3-8, . |
. ->M |
|
|
iii. 13, . . 138, |
149 |
i. 9, . |
266 |
ii. 18, . |
. 208 |
|
iii. 17, . |
248 |
iv. 8, . |
. 16 |
||
|
iii. 21, . |
449 |
TITUS. |
iv. 4, 5, |
. 255 |
|
|
iv. 4, . . 371, |
437 |
ii. 14, . |
210 |
||
|
iv. 4, 5, . |
441 |
iii. 5, 7, |
439 |
JUDE. |
|
|
iv. 6, ... |
298 |
Ver. 3, . |
. 342 |
||
|
iv. 20-24, |
350 |
HEBREWS. |
|||
|
v. 1, |
226 |
i. 2, |
249 |
REVELATIONS. |
|
|
v. 22, . |
299 |
i. 14, . . 299, |
304 |
iv. 14-20, |
. 201 |
|
ii. 9, 10, |
s:; |
v. 9, |
. 149 |
||
|
EPHESIANS. |
ii. 10, . |
347 |
xii. 11, . |
. •_>:>.-> |
|
|
i. 3, |
347 |
ii. 11, .. |
210 |
xix. 6, . |
. 57 |
INDEX TO SUBJECTS.
457
II. IXDEX TO SUBJECTS.
Adam, second, 40.
Agony of Christ, 112; Getlisemane, 116; on the cross, 128.
Angels and men restored to fellow ship, 303.
All nations and times, atonement for, 326.
Application of atonement, 329.
Baptism of Jesus, 96; showing sin- bearing, 99; fulfilling all righteous ness, how, 102; our baptism based on the atonement, 340.
Bearing sin, 70 ; the fourfold applica tion of the phrase, 74 ; how applied to God, 76.
Blood shed for many, 169.
Character of Jesus, 141 ; all His moral excellence vicarious, 146.
Covenant, 40, 372 ; nature of, 43 ; con ditions of, 45.
Covenant, new, 173, 182, 338.
Curse, 104; in all scenes, 103; of labour, 106 ; of sickness-bearing, 108.
Death, deprived of its sting, 265 ; not
death, 267 ; how temporal death of
believers is regarded, 269. Deity of Christ in atonement, 21, 367 ;
necessity of, 28, 29. Dominion of Christ, 284; particular,
285 ; general, 287.
Facts of Christ's sufferings from man,
111. Faith, the organ of receiving, 341.
Glorifying God by the atonement, 305;
God glorifying Himself, 310. God giving, in a sacrificial sense, 14. God wronged by sin, 58; punishing,
57.
Historical sketch of the doctrine, 415. Holy Ghost procured by Christ's death, 293 ; or going away, 296.
Ideas, biblical importance of, 10. Incarnation, effects of, 26-28 ; wrong
views of Menken and Irving, 92. Influence of atonement on morals and
religion, '.'•'>'.'.. Intercession of Christ, 63.
Judgment of the world, meaning of, 250.
Justice, 10-20; punitive, 18-58; pre ceptive, 60, 362, note.
Lamb of God, what, 66, 398. Law fulfilled, 186, 189, 437. Life, eternal, 225 ; nature of it, 233 ;
involves reunion to God, 234 ;
through the cross, 235. Love, 13, 20, 362.
Mediator, 39.
Moral perfection of Jesus, 145.
Necessity of atonement, d posteriori, 47 ; ideas of sacrifice show it, 48 ; conscience shows it, 50; divine rights show it, 52 ; a right anthropology, 53 ; the fact of sin shows it, 54, 378, note.
Nestorianism, 24.
Numbered with transgressors, 132.
Obedience tested, 132 ; one and un divided, 195 ; objections met, 197. Opinions on the atonement, 418.
Place assigned by Christ to the atone ment, 337.
Power given to Pilate, 131.
Preaching forgiveness by the atone ment, 331.
Punishment, positive, 57.
Ransom, 152-163; objections met, 159,
407.
Remission of sins, 172, 179, 414. Righteousness, 102 ; nature of, 192,
202, 437-443.
Sacrifice, ideas of, 48.
Sanctify, in the Old Testament sense, 204 ; sanctitication of the Spirit, 900,
Satan, tempting Christ, 107; not al luded to in the brazen serpent, 220; opposition to Christ. 250; judged, 262; bound, 263 ; i-a.st out, 263.
Sending, 33 ; successive steps of, 34 ; sending prior to the life, 39.'
Serpent, brazen, points of comparison with Christ, 21S ; not Satan as overcome, 222.
458
INDEX TO THE AUTHORS ADDUCED.
Sheep of Christ, 272 ; secured by His
death, 275. Socinian view, 419. Sickness-bearing, 55. Sin-bearing, when, and how long, 92. Sinlessness of Jesus, 142. Son of Man, 80 ; different explanations,
81 ; true sense, 83 ; exhibited from
passages, 84, 402, note. Special reference of the atonement,
312 ; arguments for, 314 ; opposite
theories, 319. Sufferings of Jesus from man, 127 ;
arrest, 134 ; trial, 135 ; condemna tion, 136; crucifixion, 138.
Temple of God, 243, 247. Testimonies of Jesus to His death,
2-9. Trinitarianism in connection with the
atonement, 419.
Unique position of Jesus, 29 ; titles, 30, 31.
Woe, endless, if the atonement is re jected, 346.
World, judgment of, 250 : overcoming of, 255.
III. INDEX TO THE AUTHORS ADDUCED,
Alford, 185, 307, 440. Alting, 182, 206, 308, 351. Amesius, 315, 375. Anselm, 383. Arnold, 164. Augustin, 377-
Biihr, 415. Baumgarten, 226. Baur, 140, 416. Bengel, 219, 251. Beza, 70, 216. Bleek, 170, 185, 187. Bloomfield, 216. Brown, Baldwin, 364. Brown, Dr. John, 438. Briickner, 232. Burmann, 221. Buddeus, 379.
Calovius, 164, 193, 351, 382.
Calvin, 68, 137, 251, 280, 300, 317,
318, 378. Campbell, J. M., 363, 423.
Chapman, 407.
Charnock, 807,
Chemnitz, 132, 143, 219, 303.
Chrysostom, 20"), 295, 296, 301, 404.
Cless, 343.
Cloppenburg, 375.
Cocceius, 76.
Coleridge, 320.
Cremer, I.1!!).
Crusius, Baumgarten, 294.
Du Bosc, 301. Delitzsch, 164, 370. D'Espagne, 220. Deyling, 217, 221. Dickson, 371. Dods, 149. Dcedes, 66. Dorner, 366, 371. D'Outrein, 182.
Ebrard, 248, 370. Edwards, John, 119. Ellicott, 440. Episcopius, 325. Ernesti, 200, 412. Essenius, 164, 382. Euthymius, 170, 295.
Formula Concordiae, 105.
Fritzsche, •_':.':>.
Gerhard, 132, 202, 296, 307. GfeM, 17~>, ."70. Gomar, 219, :{00. :;i.->. Goodwin, Dr., 109. Grimm, 0. L. W., 399. Grotius, !.").•{, 2:JO, 274, 316, 318, 369, :!7!», 411.
Harnack, 192. Hasenkamp, 226. Heidelberg Catechism, 48, 137. Ik-inrichs, 440. HengstenKTL'. 71, 243, 295. Her \\unlcn, 212
INDF.X TO THE AUTHORS ADDUCED.
459
Hess, 404.
Hofmann, 7G, 128, 159, 132, 430, 445.
Hof stale de Groot, 01.
II nhock, 104,351,355, 382.
Hulshofi; 140, 381. Hutter, 450. Huyser, ride Preface.
Irving, E., 72.
Kahnis, 370. Kar-,', 190, 197.
164
Klaiber, 226. Koopman, 422. Krabbe, 429. Kuinoel, 205.
Lampe, 216, 351.
Lang, 201.
Lange, 142, 243, 370.
Law, W., 430.
Lechler, 186, 219.
Less, 406.
Liebner, 23, 370, 371.
Lightfoot, 302.
Lotze, 212, 332, 333, 345.
Liicke, 294, 301. jxuutim.
Luthardt, 216, 243.
Luther, 143, 202, 296, 308, 331, 443.
Lyser, 132.
Maier, 232.
Marckius, 01, 217, 221, 300. Maresius, 104. Marbeinecke, 51. Martensen, 220, 371. Maurice, 365. Menken, 92, 221, 303, 434. Meyer, 71, 157, 170, passim. Micbaelis, 302, 351, 380, 439. M urns, 303, 439. Moshi'im, 351. Muutinghe, 351.
Nennder, 142, 185, 242.
Nit/s.-b, 22U. Nusselt, 20.'!, 2S.-I.
OT.rirn, Bisbop, 438.
(l-M.-r. 70. I OH. • Kbl.-r. 07. OK-vianus, 1(17.
OlsllHllsril, IS.">, 2(11. ,
Oostersec. 2-12. . .-570, 377.
Perkins, 1 '.'.'>.
Philippi, M, 12«, 104, 187, 308.
Piseatur, 1%, 11>7, 417.
Polanus, 322. Priestley, 415, 421.
Quensted, 193, 369.
llauwenhoff, 232. Riggenbacb, 143, 243. Ritsehl, Preface, 153, 162. liocllius, 269. Kothe, 220. Royaards, 290. Rutherford, 378.
Sartorius, 16, 370.
Saurin, 120.
Scbleiermacber, 170, 426, 446.
Sohmid, C. F., 243.
Schmidt, Seb., 182, 308.
Schleusner, 209.
Schoberlein, 206.
Scbolten, 404.
Schultens, 138, 340.
Seiler, 120, 380.
Spener, 443.
Steinmeyer, 370.
Stein, 104, 382.
StillingHeet, 161.
Stockius, 76.
Stier, K., 226, 243, 281, 363, 430, 434.
Storr, 65, 209, 333, 399, 439.
Strong, 376.
Stuart, M., 352.
Suicer, 216.
Taylor, of Norwich, 421. Theodoret, 402. Tbeopbylact, 295, 296. Tboluck, 294. Tbomasius, 64, 126, 368. Tittmann, 165, 205, 285, 438. Tollner, 200. Triglandius, 62. Turretin, 164, 217. Twiss, 378.
Ullmann, 142. Ursinus, 107. Usteri, 177, 214, 285.
Valckenaer, 61. Van Til, 193.
Van Voorst. ::.-.!. :is2. 4:::>. vinko, /'/•-/;/••., 212. 221. :m.
Vitringa, I's-'i. 221, 2.-J2, 270, Voetius, I2(». Vossius, 250, 378.
Weber, 12S. 1 :?2. I.T., 146. Webster and Wilkinson, 2 1C.. Weiss, 398.
4GO
INDEX TO GREEK WORDS ELUCIDATED.
Wette, De, 162, 172, 177, passim.
Wieseler, 438.
Willes, Van, Preface, 360.
WiUigen, V., 118.
Winer, 170, 331, passim.
Witsius, 48, 301, 315.
Wolfburgius, 311.
Wolfius, 140. Wolzogen, 421. Wynpersse, 355, 382.
Zacharice, 212. Zanchius, 378.
IV. INDEX TO GEEEK WOEDS ELUCIDATED.
ya.Vftira.vros, 25
£», 204, 210. <»/«, 120.
«*, 351.
;, 34. xraXXa^ta, 349. $wt;, 172. ?/>«», 68, 399. , 151, 157, 208.
fa*T%a tls, 340.
V*f, 187, 190.
to, 61.
toi, 39.
lorffah 170.
IMMMM-IM), 103, 193, 202, 437.
Wax*, 277. f|«tof, 202, 203. !&»«'«, 278. ^.«, 201. #, 188.
^j/ir/a; esay, 65.
7»«, 19. *«v««, 117.
xaXiy, 273.
**e*f%M, 210. *««», 218, 282. A-y*., Xu<raT£, 245.
x»'r/.«», 153, 407.
avo^a, 331.
y«, 182.
«r/ indicat., 202. •ST«f, 216, 218. *«/>' w^, 299. »^i«r, 327.
«y, 157.
a-/<TT«, 340.
T>.»pau, 185.
vrpaQnrui, 187.
transfix, 439.
TtXia,, T£rsX£a-ra/, 132, 139.
TI'V,, 318.
j//oj raw arffuvrou, 402. ^V, 208.
^y-i*. 215.
pfput apapriar, 400.
^»A;». 150. ?*«, 223, 449.
MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBUIIOII, 1'UINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.
pufcltjetfjeti fig ^C. ann t!. Clarfe,
In One volume 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
ANALYTICAL COMMENTARY ON TIE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,
TRACING THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT BY THE AID OF PARALLELISM; WITH NOTES AND DISSERTATIONS ON THE PRINCIPAL DIFFICULTIES CONNECTED WITH THE EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE.
BY REV. JOHN FORBES, LL.D.
In addition to the Text, with Analytical Commentary and Notes on each Chapter, the work contains Dissertations on the ' Son of God,' chap. i. 4. On the ' Righteous- ness of God ; ' on the ' Glory of God.' chap. v. 5. On the ' Comparison between Adam and Christ.' On the expressions ' Died to Sin,' ' The Body of Sin,' of ' Death.' On the question 'Who is the husband?' chap. vii. 1-4. On the question 'Is the person described in chap. vii. 13-25, regenerate or unregenerate ? ' On the ' Meaning of Law,' in chap. vii. 21, 23, 25, viii. 2. On the ' Meaning of the Law of Sin and Death,' in chap. viii. 1-4. On 'Creation Groaning;' on the 'Love of God;' on ' Predestination and Free Will,' etc. etc.
Now ready, in crown 8vo, price 6s., Second Edition, revised and enlarged,
THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN:
SPIRIT, SOUL, AND BODY.
Applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body.
BY THE REV. J. B. HEARD, M.A.
CHAP. I. The Case Stated. II. The Psychology of Natural and Revealed Religion con trasted. III. The Account of the Creation of Man. IV. The Relation of Body to Soul in Scripture. V. Of the Relation of Soul and Spirit in Scripture. VI. Psyche and Pneuma in the light of Christian Experience. VII. The Unity under Diversity of the Three Parts of Man's Nature. VIII. Analogies from the Doctrine of the Trinity to the Trichotomy in Man considered. IX. Of the Pneuma as the Faculty which distinguishes Man from the Brute. X. The state of the Pneuma in Man since the Fall. XI. The Question of Traducianism and Creationism solved by the distinction between Soul and Spirit. XII. Conversion to God explained as the quickening of the Pneuma. XIII. The Question of the Natural Immortality of Psyche considered. XIV. Application of the Doctrine of the Trichotomy to discover the Principle of Final Rewards and Punishments. XV. Intermediate State. XVI. The Resurrection and Spiritual Body. XVII. Summary.
' It will be seen that Mr. Heard's theme is a noble and important one, and he has treated it in a way to afford a high intellectual treat to the Christian philosopher and divine.' — Clerical Journal.
' We must congratulate our author on having, from a theological point of view, established satisfactorily, and with much thought, the theory he advocates, and with hnvinir treated a subject generally considered dry and unreadable, in an attractive style.' — Readtr.
In Two Volumes, crown 8vo, price 12s.,
BIBLICAL STUDIES ON ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL.
BY DR. BESSER.
' This book is full of warm and devout exposition. Luther's own rugged words start out, liuulder-like, in almost every page.' — Xewg of the Churches.
'We now call attention to the irre:u in. Tits 'of this volume. The character of this commentary is practical and devotional. There are often very exquisite devotional pas sages, and a vein of earnest piety runs through the whole work. We recommend the book most warmly to all.'—/.//, niry < hurclimnn.
' There is a quiet, simple, penetrating good sense in what Dr. Besser says, and withal a spirit of truly Christian devoutuess, which the reader must feel to be in beautiful accordance with the inspired teachings which awaken it.' — British Quarterly A'- ci< ic.
n C. & tt. Clark,
In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s.,
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SDST.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF DR. JULIUS MULLER,
Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin, BY REV. WILLIAM URWICK, M.A.
This is an entirely new translation of Muller's inestimable work, from the latest edition. No pains have been spared to make it a thoroughly good and reliable translation.
In 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS.
A COMPENDIUM OF THE DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY.
BY H. MARTEN SEN, D.D., Bishop of Seeland, Denmark.
TRANSLATED BY REV. WILLIAM URWICK, M.A.
I. Introduction. II. The Christian Idea of God. III. The Doctrine of the Father. IV. The Doctrine of the Son. V. The Doctrine of the Spirit.
' Every reader must rise from its perusal stronger, calmer, and more hopeful, not only for the fortunes of Christianity, but of dogmatical theology.' — British Quarterly Review.
1 He enters into the various subjects with consummate ability; and we doubt whether there is in any language a clearer or more learned work than this on systematic theology.' — Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette.
' We have seldom seen any theological work, by a foreign author, which combines so profound a reverence for the Bible with such vigour and originality of independent thought.' — London Review.
In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
THE DIYINE REVELATION,
BY THE LATE CARL AUGUST AUBERLEN, PH.D., D.D.,
Professor at Basle.
The Pauline Epistles; The Gospels; The Old Testament; The great intellectual Conflict in the Christian World ; The elder Protestantism and Rationalism ; The Defeat of Rationalism.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,
The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St, John in their Mutual Relation,
1 One of the latest contributions to the study of Apocalyptic prophecy. It is one of a very high order, and which must command attention. The author appears to us to pos sess, in no ordinary degree, those faculties of head and heart so absolutely necessary for the prosecution of this most difficult branch of sacred exegesis.' — Ecclesiastic.
JpuiltjefficU fig 'ST. anto C. Clarfc,
WORKS BY REV, DR, KRUMMACHER,
In post 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,
DAYID, THE KIM OP ISRAEL;
A PORTRAIT DRAWN FROM BIBLE HISTORY AND THE BOOK OP PSALMS.
TRANSLATED UNDER THE EXPRESS SANCTION OK THE AUTHOR BY THE
REV. M. G. EAST ON, M.A.
'From the author of "Elijah the Tishbite" we were entitled to expect no ordinary treat, when he proposed to lead us over a life fraught with such variegated interest as that of " David the King of Israel." In such a field Dr. Krummacher's well-known powers of description, his chaste fancy, his well-balanced judgment, and enlightened piety, were sure to find full scope ; nor have our anticipations been disappointed. Time has not blunted the keen perception of the theologian ; and though it may have sobered the exuberance, it has not withered the power, of the writer. In these pages, David passes before us, in the various phases of his character as shepherd, psalmist warrior, and monarch. There is no attempt at originality of view, no prosy solution of difficulties, no controversial sparring ; the narrative flows on like a well-told story ; and the art of the writer lies in the apt selection of salient points, and in the naturalness of his reflec tions. A tone of spirituality is imparted to the narrative by linking it to the Book of Psalms.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
' We have a lifelike picture of the prophet-king and of his times. The truths brought out are applied with marvellous skill and deep spiritual insight to the Christian state, so that every page is luminous with gospel lessons. The character of David is nobly drawn ; and he stands before us as one of the greatest men and greatest saints of the Old Testa ment. We trust its venerable author will be rewarded by the abundant popularity of his picturesque and charming volume.' — Evangelical Christendom.
'Amongst the religious writers of modern Germany, few hold a higher place than Dr. Krunnnacher in the general estimation. The reputation his previous works — " The Suffering Saviour" aud "Elijah the Tishbite" — have acquired for him in England, will at once attract attention to " David, the King of Israel." As the translator remarks, "Krummacher needs no introduction to English readers. His name is a household word in religious circles." The subject of the present volume is one that is especially adapted for skilful analysis and subtle comments. The character is excellently displayed in its many-sidedness and variety. It is almost unnecessary to remark that the treatment is marked by the acuteness of insight and the tenderness of sympathy that are charac teristic of the author.' — Imperial Review.
' We would recommend this volume to the clergy as a storehouse of hints for pulpit use, and also as a valuable addition to our devotional literature.' — Clerical Journal.
'The volume is, on the whole, a very happy specimen of the style for which Dr. Knumnacheris best known — at once vivid, imaginative, and experimental ; and it exhibits more of the intellectual and robust than his earlier work. Should it direct the attention of ministers and students to the devout and practical study of the Old Testament narra tives, as themes for pulpit exposition, it will confer a great boon on both preachers and hearers.' — Freeman.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d., Sixth Edition,
THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR;
OR, MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.
'We give it preference to everything hitherto produced by the gifted and <l.-vot, -1 author. It is divinity of the most thoroughly evangelical description. Truth and tender ness have seldom been so successfully combined. A book of the In-art, to t//nt it appeals in every page, with a force which it will be difficult to resist.' — Christian Witness.
'The subject is a sublime and pathetic one, and is treated with much solemnity of feeling, together with great tenderness of sympathy.' — Littrary Churchman.
62(191
In crown 8vo, price 6s.,
APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE SAYING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY,
BY C. E. LUTHARDT, D.D., Leipsic.
The Nature of Christianity ; Sin ; Grace ; The God-Man ; The Work of Jesus Christ ; The Trinity ; The Church ; Holy Scripture ; The Means of Grace ; The Last Things.
'We can assure our friends that the work is worthy of being studied.' — CltricalJoumal.
'Dr. Luthardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and expresses himself on the gravest matters with the utmost simplicity, clearness, and force.' — Literary World.
By the same Author, in crown 8vo,
THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY.
The Antagonistic Views of the World in their Historical Development ; The Anomalies of Existence ; The Personal God ; The Creation of the World ; Man ; Eeligion ; Revelation ; History of Revelation — Heathenism and Judaism ; Christianity in History ; The Person of Jesus Christ.
' Luthardt is the very man to help those entangled in the thickets of modern rationalism ; we do not know just such another book as this ; it is devout, scholarly, clear, forcible, penetrating, comprehensive, satisfactory, admirable.'— Evangelical Magazine. 'We have never met with a volume better adapted to set forth the evidences of Christianity in a form suited to the wants of our day. The whole of the vast argument is illustrated by various and profound learning ; there is no obscurity in the thoughts or in the style ; the language is simple, the ideas clear, and the argument logical, and generally, to our miiid conclusive.' — Guardian.
In crown 8vo, price 5s.,
THE CHURCH:
ITS ORIGIN, ITS HISTORY, ITS PRESENT POSITION. BY DRS. LUTHARDT, KAHNIS, and BRUCKNER,
PROFESSORS OF THEOLOGY, LEIPSIC.
History of the Old Testament Revelation ; The History of Jesus Christ ; The History of the Apostolic Church; The Ancient Church ; The Mediaeval Church ; The Modern Church ; The Present Condition of the Church ; The Present Tasks of the Church ; The Present Prospects of the Church.
In crown 8vo, price 4s.,
THE SYMBOLICAL NUMBERS OF SCRIPTURE.
BY REV. MALCOLM WHITE, M.A.
CHAP. I. The Time of the End. II. The Time and Times and Half a Time. III. The Numbers Three and a Half. IV. The Number of Beast 666. V. The Number Ten, and the Millennium. The Related Numbers Seven, Three, Four. Twelve. VII. The Number Forty. VIII. The Numbers in the Book of Job. IX. The Number One hundred and fifty-three. 'We heartily thank Mr. White for his able, sober, and suggestive contribution to the
right interpretation of the symbolical numbers of Scripture ; for, without binding our.-. •! vcs
to every detail, we say with confidence, that he has rendered a good and needful service
to the book "one jot or one tittle of which shall in no wise pass away till all be
fulfilled." '—London Weekly Review.
' We have read this volume with more than ordinary interest, treating as it d
of the greatest diltieulties which the interpreters of Scripture have to encounter. . . .
We bear willing testimony to the general excellence <>f his work, which is well iK-serving
of a place in the library of every biblical student.'— W<xlti/<in Mttlt»<Hst Magazine.
'The recommendation of Mr White's researches is, that while he has no sympathy
with this presumptuous prying into the future, he yet endeavours to give the right
meaning to the symbolical numbers.' — Clerical Journal.
DATE DUE