CHAPTER IV:
WHETHER THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST
CONSTITUTES ANY PART OF THE
ATONEMENT.
IN order to show in what the
atonement of Christ consists, it has been judged that two
inquiries, and only two, would be necessary. Two inquiries,
one concerning Christ's sufferings, and another concerning
his obedience, must be necessary, because his sufferings and
his obedience are distinct things; and they are sufficient,
because these two things comprise all which Christ ever did
in this world. That it might be ascertained clearly whether
the atonement made by Christ consisted entirely in his
sufferings, or entirely in his obedience, or partly in
one-and partly in the other, it has been judged needful to
compare severally his sufferings and his obedience with what
rendered an atonement necessary. The first inquiry has been
made, the comparison instituted, and the result seen. It has
been found, that the sufferings of Christ fully answer all
the ends for which atonement was necessary; they remove till
the obstacles which stood in the way of God's pardoning
sinners; they answer the same valuable purposes which the
literal execution of the penalty of the law would have
answered. It clearly results, therefore, that the atonement
of Christ might consist entirely in his sufferings. If,
however, under the second inquiry, in comparing the
obedience of Christ with what rendered an atonement
necessary, it should appear that this, also, removes the
obstacles which stood in the way of the pardon of sinners,
and answers the valuable purposes which the complete literal
execution of the penalty of the law would have answered, it
would seem to be reasonable to conclude, that the atonement
consisted partly in obedience and partly in sufferings. But
if, instead of this, it should appear clearly that the
obedience of Christ does not answer those ends for which
atonement was necessary, either in whole or in part, then no
such conclusion can be reasonably drawn; but it must follow
unavoidably, that the atonement of Christ not only might,
but actually did, consist wholly in his
sufferings.
In making the proposed inquiry, the
obstacles which stood in the way of God's pardoning sinners
without an atonement, or, what rendered an atonement
necessary, should be kept steadily in view.
1. The law of God threatened
transgressors with eternal punishment; and this law being
just, and deserving of respect, must be fully
supported.
2. The well-being of God's kingdom
requires that disobedience should be totally
discountenanced, in order to which it, is necessary that the
laws of the kingdom be thoroughly executed.
3. God loves holiness, and is
infinitely opposed to sin; and it is necessary, in order to
display his true character, that this should be manifested.
But if God had pardoned sinners without an atonement, he
could neither have supported his law, discountenanced
wickedness, nor manifested his abhorrence of sin, and love
of holiness. Hence if sinners were pardoned, an atonement
was indispensably necessary.
If God had literally executed the
penalty of his law on transgressors, he would have been just
to his law, his kingdom, and his own character. And if he
pardoned sinners he must do it in a way which is consistent
with his being equally just in each of these respects. The
atonement, therefore, must consist in something which
answers all these purposes as fully as they would have been
answered by the complete execution of the penalty of the
law. It must manifest, on the part of God, as high respect
for the law, and do as much to support its authority; it
must be calculated as effectually to discountenance
disobedience; and it must manifest God's regard for
holiness, and his hatred of sin, as fully as the complete
execution of the law would have done; otherwise it would be
really no atonement; it would not open a way in which God
might be just to his law, his kingdom, or his own character,
in pardoning sinners. But could the obedience of Christ
answer all or even any of these ends?
1. Could God have been just to his
law in pardoning sinners out of respect to Christ's
obedience? Does the obedience of Christ manifest God's
respect for his law as fully as the execution of its penalty
on the transgressor would have done?
If it has been clearly shown how God
would have manifested respect for his law, if he had
executed its penalty, and in what such a manifestation of
respect must have consisted, the inquiries now proposed may
be easily answered. It may easily be shown with equal
clearness whether the obedience of Christ is sufficient to
manifest the same respect. It must be carefully remembered
here, that, if the execution of the penalty of the law on
transgressors had not involved a real evil in the view of
God, his causing it to be executed could not have manifested
any respect for his law. In case of the execution of the
penalty, the manifestation of respect would not have
consisted in merely satisfying its literal demands, but
rather, in submitting to an evil, for the sake of satisfying
those demands. Though it has been shown already, it may not
be useless to repeat, that if, when mankind sinned, God had
not felt compassionate towards them; if he had been actuated
by no benevolence, so that their punishment and misery would
not have been an evil in his view, he could not, in this
case, have manifested any respect for his law, by executing
its penalty upon them. But if he felt benevolent towards
them, so that their misery appeared to him a great evil; if,
in this view of their misery, he had proceeded to execute
the penalty of his law upon them, it is plain he would have
shown great respect for his law.
Since, then, it appears plain, that
God could no otherwise manifest respect for his law, in
executing its penalty, and making the transgressor
miserable, than by submitting to what he evidently viewed as
an evil, how is it possible that his respect for his law
could be manifested by the obedience of Christ? Was that an
evil? Was it, could it possibly be, a great evil in the view
of God? How could Christ, who was "holy, harmless,
undefiled," do any otherwise than obey? Would he not have
obeyed perfectly if he had come into the world for any other
purpose? If he had not obeyed, would not this have
constituted him a sinner, and brought him into a state in
which, instead of procuring pardon for others, he would have
needed it for himself? Was his obedience more than perfect?
Could it have been less? Christ obeyed the divine law, and
thus showed it his respect. But how does this manifest God's
respect for the law? Angels, too, obey the law perfectly,
and thus show it their respect. But this no more proves that
God respects the law, than the disobedience of angels and
men proves that God is disposed to treat his law with
disrespect. If the obedience of Christ be not an evil, in
the view of God, it is not seen how it can manifest his
respect for his law, so as to constitute an atonement, out
of respect to which he can be just to his law in pardoning
sinners.
2. Can God be just to his kingdom in
pardoning sinners out of respect to the obedience of Christ?
Can the obedience of Christ possibly be as effectual in
discountenancing wickedness, as the execution of the penalty
of the law would have been? It can scarcely be
pretended.
If when mankind fell God had executed
the penalty upon them, this would have given other moral
beings evidence that he was determined to support his law.
The evil, involved in the execution of the penalty, would
have appeared to them great; and they would have concluded
that it must be their unavoidable portion in case they
should transgress. Convinced of the divine determination to
punish transgressors, they would have been under a powerful
restraint. But can it be supposed that the obedience of
Christ is calculated to produce the same effect? How can it?
What can the obedience of Christ do towards convincing moral
beings that God is determined to support his law? Moral
beings, who have never sinned, do not consider obedience to
God an evil. So far from it obedience is, in their view, a
great good. It is delightful to obey themselves, and to see
others obey. The obedience of Christ, therefore, is not
calculated effectually to deter moral beings from sin. It
may, indeed, by way of example allure the righteous to press
forward in obedience. But, certainly, it cannot impose any
restraint upon the ill disposed. It cannot produce any such
effect upon them as would have been produced by the
execution of the penalty of the law. It cannot, therefore,
answer the same valuable purposes in relation to the support
of government. Of consequence, it could not make any
atonement, out of regard to which God can be just to his
kingdom in pardoning sinners. That it might be a
satisfactory atonement, it must be calculated to deter
others from disobedience as effectually as the full
execution of, the penalty of the law would have done. So far
as it falls short of this, it must be utterly inadequate to
the purposes of atonement. But since the obedience of Christ
cannot be viewed, by holy beings, as an evil, or any token
of the divine displeasure, it must be obvious, that it
cannot have this tendency in any degree. Hence it is
evident, that it must be utterly insufficient to constitute
any part of the atonement.
Suppose, for further illustration,
that one law of a certain family is, that one child of the
family shall attend school, unavoidable hindrances excepted,
every day; and that if he needlessly absent himself, he
shall feel the rod, as a punishment for his disobedience.
After a time, however, the child becomes weary of his
school, and, instead of attending according to the command
of the parent, spends several days in play or idleness. The
parent, informed of the transgression, calls the child to
account. He is convicted, and the parent prepares to inflict
the punishment. At this instant another child of the family
intercedes for the offender, and offers to make
satisfaction. Being asked how, he replies, that he will
attend the school himself, as many days as the delinquent
has been absent. Now if the parent should accept the offered
satisfaction, and dismiss the offender, would this support
the law of the family? Would it be calculated, effectually,
to deter the child from future disobedience? Would it
convince the rest of the family that punishment must be the
certain portion of the disobedient? Would it effectually
restrain them from trifling with the laws of the family? It
cannot be pretended. With as much propriety might a
criminal, convicted of murder, be pardoned out of regard to
the intercession of some kind and benevolent friend, whose
intercessory plea might be, that he, himself, had never
murdered.
3. Neither can God be just to
himself, in pardoning sinners, out of respect to the
obedience of Christ. The reason is obvious. The obedience of
Christ cannot make a manifestation of God's hatred of sin,
and regard to holiness, to that extent, which would have
resulted from an execution of the penalty of the law. Nor is
it very conceivable how the obedience of Christ should
manifest God's abhorrence of sin, and love for holiness, to
any extent, beyond what appears from his giving the law at
first. If the obedience of Christ is considered, as perhaps
it ought, merely in relation to his human nature, it does
not appear that it is capable, any more than the obedience
of angels or men, of showing what God's feelings are towards
holiness and sin. In this sense it is true, when Christ
obeyed he manifested his regard for holiness. And it is
equally true, that the obedience of angels manifests their
regard for holiness. But neither the one nor the other
furnishes evidence that God regards it. If, however, one
could, the other must, for the same reason, and, of course,
the mission of Christ must have been altogether unnecessary;
because the obedience of angels would have answered the same
purpose. Nothing can be plainer than this, that the
obedience of one being cannot manifest the opposition of
another being to disobedience, If it could, then a judge
might pardon every criminal, because some honest man had not
transgressed the same law; and, at the same time make a full
display of his hatred to disobedience, than which nothing
can be more absurd.
In favor of considering Christ's
obedience to the law, in relation to his human nature
merely, it may be observed, that, in his divine nature, he
was the lawgiver. And obedience to a law always supposes a
previous obligation to the lawgiver. Hence it would seem
that Christ, in his divine nature, could not have been under
the law, at least in the same sense that men are. In his
divine nature, therefore, he could not have rendered
precisely that obedience which man failed to render. Neither
can it be supposed, that, in his divine nature, when he was
incarnate, he obeyed the divine law in any sense different
from that in which God has obeyed it from eternity. It is
not seen, therefore, how Christ's obedience to the law could
manifest God's regard for holiness, on account of his
personal union of the divine and human natures, any more
than if no such union had existed. It is not necessary,
however, that this point should be urged. Let it be admitted
that Christ, even in his divine nature, was made under the
law; that Deity in his person, in a strict and proper sense,
assumed all the obligations which the divine law imposes on
men, and discharged them, and still it could not be shown
that this proves God's regard for holiness. If giving the
law did not manifest a regard for holiness, certainly
obeying it cannot. For if God might be supposed to give the
law, from any other motives than a regard to holiness, he
certainly might be supposed to obey it, from the same
motives. No obedience of Christ, therefore, on account of
his being divine, can be a ground for pardoning sinners, any
more than his giving the law at first can be a reason for
pardoning; that is, a reason why the law ought not to be
literally executed; because one no more manifests God's
regard for holiness than the other.
How would a king appear who should
attempt to justify himself in pardoning every criminal, on
the ground that he had never himself transgressed; alleging,
that his not transgressing his own law was a sufficient
proof that he was utterly opposed to transgression; and
that, therefore, he would not punish others? How would this
support the authority of his laws? How would it deter his
subjects from disobedience? How would he manifest his
unshaken attachment to good order among them? Zaleucus
enacted a severe law against adultery. His son transgressed
Now what if he had pardoned his son on the ground that
himself and others had obeyed the law? Would this have
manifested on his part a proper respect for the law? Would
it have supported its authority? Would it have had the least
tendency to restrain others from the same offence? Would it
have manifested any abhorrence of his son's crime? Would his
subjects have concluded that Zaleucus was determined, at all
events, to support his law; that every transgressor must
suffer? It is obvious no such conclusions could be drawn.
His obedience could not have been viewed as any atonement
whatever. The pretended satisfaction must have appeared to
them a mere imposition. They would have viewed it with
contempt.
Thus it appears plain, that the
obedience of another can be no ground of pardon for an
offender. The obedience of Christ is not sufficient to
answer any of those purposes for which atonement was
necessary, that sinners might be pardoned. It cannot furnish
any ground, on which can be just to his law, to his kingdom,
or to his own character, in pardoning the guilty. It appears
safe, therefore, to conclude, that it constitutes no part of
the atonement. Indeed, it is not possible that any
demonstration can be more certain, unless the view which has
been given of the reasons why atonement was necessary is
altogether incorrect. It is confidently believed, however,
that no reasons can be given why an atonement was
indispensably necessary, which will not also evince a
necessity, equally indispensable, that it should consist in
sufferings. Those who have placed the atonement in Christ's
obedience, have always found a difficulty in showing why any
atonement was necessary. Indeed, that there was any
necessity for it, many have actually denied. But unless
atonement were necessary, it is inconceivable that a holy
and wise God should ever have given up his beloved Son to be
a propitiation for sin. And if atonement were necessary, for
the reasons which have been assigned, then it is certain
that it consisted in sufferings; because the sufferings of
Christ fully meet that necessity, whilst nothing else can
answer the purpose.
This doctrine is also abundantly
evident from the event of Christ's death. For unless the
sufferings of Christ were necessary for an atonement, it
must be impossible to show any purpose for which they were
necessary. But, certainly, they were necessary for
something. Christ, surely, did not die in vain. He never
could have willingly consented to the death of the cross, if
it had not been to answer some valuable purpose. No man, of
even common wisdom and goodness, would willingly consent to
great sufferings, unless his sufferings might evidently be
productive of great good. Much less can we suppose that
Christ, who was infinitely wise and good, would have
consented to such sufferings as he sustained, unless it had
been for the attainment of some good of proportionable
value. But what wise and valuable purpose was answered by
his death, if it were not the purpose of atonement? What was
the great good attained by his sufferings and death, unless
it were a consistent ground for pardoning sinners? It is
easy to see that his obedience was necessary, even though it
constituted no part of the atonement. But his sufferings
could not be necessary on the same ground. His obedience was
necessary for himself. Being made under the law, if he had
not obeyed, he must have become a sinner. If he had not
obeyed, he could not have been the brightness of the
Father's glory, and the express image of his person; he
could not have been the chief among ten thousand, and
altogether lovely; and instead of being the well-beloved of
the Father, he must have incurred his
displeasure.
But though his obedience was
necessary for himself, his sufferings were altogether
voluntary. They could not have been for himself. They must,
therefore, have been for the purpose of atonement, or for no
purpose of which we are able to conceive. It is
inconceivable, moreover, that the Father should have
consented to his sufferings on this ground. The Father loved
him with peculiar affection. Yet he was "delivered by the
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," and "by
wicked hands" was "crucified and slain." "It pleased the
Father to bruise him, and put him to grief; to lay the
chastisement of our peace upon him."
Now, how can we possibly account for
this, if his sufferings were not necessary for atonement?
Are human parents, who tenderly love their children, willing
to bruise them and put them to grief, when it is not
necessary? Are they willing to give them up to the smiter,
and to consent to their death, when it can answer no
valuable purpose? How, then, could God, who is infinitely
benevolent and compassionate, be willing that his beloved
Son should be put to grief, be despised, and even crucified,
when it was not necessary? If the sufferings and death of
Christ we're not necessary to the pardon of sinners, why did
not the Father send his angels and deliver him, when he saw
the anguish of his soul in the garden, and heard his fervent
prayer that, if it were possible, the cup of his afflictions
might pass from him?
Besides, the Scriptures are
unintelligible if the atonement of Christ consisted in his
obedience; for they plainly ascribe it to his sufferings and
death. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on
the tree, that we, being dead to sin, should live unto
righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Pet.
2:24. "He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. He
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and
with his stripes we are healed." Isa. 53:4,5. "The Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6. "Yet it
pleased the Lord to bruise him; be hath put him to grief."
"When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall
see his seed--he shall bear their iniquities and he bare the
sins of many." Isa. 53:10-12. "Who was delivered for our
offences." Rom. 4:25. Nothing can be more plain than these
declarations of Scripture.
If language is capable of conveying
ideas, these passages certainly prove that the atonement of
Christ consisted in his sufferings. In Scripture Christ is
frequently called a sacrifice. "For even Christ, our
Passover, is sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. 5:7. He is said to
have "given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to
God, for a sweet-smelling savor." And "now once in the end
of the world," to have appeared, "to put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself." When he is called a sacrifice,
reference is evidently had to his shedding his blood. He is
the great propitiatory sacrifice to which the Jewish
sacrifices pointed. From these sacrifices, too, an
undeniable argument may be adduced, in confirmation of the
result of the inquiry already made. The Jews were commanded
to offer beasts in sacrifice for their sins. These
sacrifices were considered as making atonement for the
people. "And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him
out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Speak
unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man
of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your
offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
And if his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let
him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his
own voluntary will, at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation, before the Lord. And he shall put his hand
upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be
accepted for him, to make atonement for him. And he shall
kill the bullock before the Lord; and the priests, Aaron's
sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round
about upon the altar. And he shall slay the burnt offering,
and cut it into his pieces,-and the priest shall burn all on
the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering? made by,
fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord." Lev. 1:1-7,
9.
Thus were the children of Israel
commanded concerning their sacrifice for sin; they were to
kill the beast, and bum it on the altar; and this sacrifice
was to make an atonement for their iniquities. That these
sacrifices were designed to prefigure the great propitiatory
sacrifice which the Son of God should make of himself, is
evident from the account which is given of them in the New
Testament; particularly in the epistle to the Hebrews. The
apostle calls these sacrifices a shadow of things to come;
an example, pattern, and figure; and be refers them to
Christ. "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body
is Christ." Col. 2:17. "Who serve unto the example and
shadow of heavenly things." Heb. 8:5. "It was therefore
necessary that the pattern of things in the heavens should
be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves
with better sacrifices than these." Heb. 9:23. "But this
man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever
sat down on the right hand of God." Heb. 10:12. "For such an
high-priest became us, who needeth not daily, as those
high-priests, to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins,
and then for the people's; for this he did once, when he
offered up himself." Heb. 7:26, 27. From these passages it
is evident that the Jewish sacrifices had reference to the
sacrifice which Christ would make of himself for the sins of
the world. Indeed, they were of little, if any consequence,
any, further than as they pointed to this great atoning
sacrifice. If, then, we can ascertain what it was in the
Jewish sacrifices which was considered as making atonement,
we may know what constituted the atonement of
Christ.
Now, it is evident, the conduct of
the priests did not make atonement. They were no more than
the instruments by which the atoning sacrifices were
offered. This is all that is intended, when they are spoken
of as making the atonement. God required that the beasts
which were to be offered should be free from blemishes. But
the atonement did not consist in this ceremonial purity.
This was only a prerequisite. But the atonement consisted in
the sacrifice itself; or in the life or blood of the beast
which was offered. This God has expressly declared. "And the
bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin
offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement."
Lev. 16:27. The children of Israel were forbidden to eat
blood; and God assigned this reason for the prohibition,
that he had given the blood to make atonement for them. "And
whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the
strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of
blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood and will cut him off from among his people. For 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.
17:10, 11. Thus God assures us that it was the life, or
blood of the beast offered upon the altar, which made the
atonement in the Jewish sacrifices.
This naturally and even necessarily
leads us to the conclusion that the atonement of Christ
consisted in his offering up his life or shedding his blood;
otherwise the Jewish sacrifices were not proper
representations of this great propitiatory sacrifice for the
sins of the world. For how could these sacrifices be types,
and Christ's sacrifice of himself the antitype, if the
atonement by these consisted in shedding blood, but the
atonement by Christ in something else? How could these
bloody sacrifices be typical of Christ's obedience? On the
ground that they were, where would be the
resemblance?
It may be further observed, that
almost every thing in and about the tabernacle was to be
sprinkled with blood, that it might be rendered ceremonially
clean. When Moses had spoken every precept to all the
people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves
find of goats with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and
sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is
the blood of the testament. which God hath enjoined unto
you. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood both the
tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost
all things, by the law, are purged with blood." Heb.
9:19-22. Particularly, the high-priest could not enter into
the holy place, which prefigured heaven, without the
purification of blood. Now what could be the design of this
ceremonial cleansing by blood? Why could not the
high-priest, without being cleansed by blood, enter into the
holy of holies? Does not all this teach us that we are
cleansed from sin and saved from wrath only by the precious
blood of Jesus Christ? Does it not show us that it is only
by virtue of his blood that we can ever enter into heaven?
Does it not necessarily lead our minds to the blood of
Christ as that which alone makes atonement for sin? If it do
not, in vain do we attempt to derive any instruction from
these things.
This representation also agrees with
the general tenor of Scripture on this subject. We have
already examined a considerable number of passages, which
expressly point us to the death of Christ as that which
makes atonement. It may be shown, moreover, from many other
Scriptures, that every thing belonging to our salvation
which may be considered a fruit of atonement, is also
grounded on the love of Christ. If we are redeemed, or
bought, the blood of Christ is the price; if we are
cleansed, or sanctified, it is by the blood of sprinkling;
if we are reconciled, the blood of Christ hath broken down
the partition wall. Indeed every blessing of the gospel is a
blood-bought blessing.
Christ is abundantly represented as
redeeming and purchasing his saints, as captives are
redeemed from captivity by the payment of a price. "Who gave
himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this
present evil world." Gal. 1:4. "Christ hath loved us, and
hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to
God for a sweet smelling savor." Eph. 5:2. "Who gave himself
for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." Tit.
2:14. "Ye are bought with a price." 1 Cor. 7:23. These
passages have evident reference to the death of Christ as
the ransom or price which he gave for us. "The church of
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts
20:28. "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with
corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the
precious blood of Christ." 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.
The atonement of Christ is that which
lays a foundation for our sanctification and deliverance
from sin. "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself
for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water, by the word." Eph. 5:25, 26. "But after
that the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man
appeared, not by works of righteousness, which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed
on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Tit.
3:4, 5. "For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also
might be sanctified through the truth." John 17:19. But,
according to the voice of inspiration, it is the blood or
death of Christ, which is available here. "Neither by the
blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered
in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption for us." Heb. 9:12. "For if the blood of bulls
and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the
unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much
more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal
Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb.
9:13, 14. "The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is
brought into the sanctuary for sin, are burnt without the
camp. Wherefore, Jesus also, that he might sanctify the
people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." Heb.
13:11, 12. And agreeably with this, the apostle John says
expressly, "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all
sin." 1 John 1:7.
It is through the atonement surely,
that sinners are brought into a state of reconciliation with
God. But this, the Scriptures assure us, is effected by the
death or blood of Christ. "For if when we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." Rom. 5:10.
"But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off, are
made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who
hath made both [Jews and Gentiles] one; and that he
might reconcile both in one body by the cross, having slain
the enmity thereby." Eph. 2:13, 14, 16. "And having made
peace through the blood of his cross." Col. 1:20. "And you,
that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in your minds by
wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his
flesh, through death." Col. 1:21.
The atonement of Christ is certainly
that on account of which saints are pardoned and justified.
But in the Bible, saints are said to be pardoned and
justified by the blood; and death of Christ. "Being
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood." Rom. 3:24, 25.
"Being now justified by his blood." Rom. 5:9. "In whom we
have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins." Eph. 1:7. Said our Lord at the institution of the
ordinance of the supper, "This is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins." Matt. 26:28. And the apostle in his epistle to the
Hebrews, declared. "Without shedding of blood there is no
remission." Heb. 9:22. According to these Scriptures,
believers are forgiven and justified solely on account of
the death of Christ, or the effusion of his blood as a
sacrifice for sin.
Once more. It is evident from the
sacred oracles, that all, who obtain salvation, are saved by
virtue of Christ's atonement. The whole gospel is proof of
this. But there are several passages which very plainly show
that salvation is on account of Christ's sufferings and
death. "And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new
testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the
transgressions, they which are called might receive the
promise of eternal inheritance." Heb. 9:15.
Now once, in the end of the world,
hath he appeared to put away sins by the sacrifice of
himself. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;
and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second
time, without sin, unto salvation;" that is, unto the
complete salvation of an that look for him. Heb. 9:26, 28.
"For when we were without strength, in due time Christ died
for the ungodly. Much more, then, being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him:" Rom. 5:6,
9. "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain
salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us." 1
Thess. 5:9, 10. Here the apostle plainly tells us, that we
receive eternal salvation through Christ, on account of his
death. "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
angels for the suffering of death, crowned with, glory and
honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for
every man. For it became him for whom are all things, in
bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their
salvation perfect through sufferings:" Heb. 2:9, 10. "Though
he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which
he suffered; and being made perfect [through
sufferings], he became the author of eternal salvation
unto all them that obey him." Heb. 5:8, 9. "Having,
therefore, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood
of Jesus:" Heb. 10:19.
In this last passage, we perceive an
evident allusion to the high-priest's entering into the most
holy place of the tabernacle, through the cleansing of
blood. By this, the spirit of inspiration would evidently
teach us that the way in which we must enter into heaven, is
by being cleansed in the blood of Christ. Indeed, all these
Scriptures direct us to the blood of Christ, as being
emphatically that on account of which believers are saved.
The redeemed in heaven, undoubtedly, must know precisely
what that is, on account of which they are admitted to that
blissful world. Yet from a passage in the book of
Revelation, which describes their heavenly worship, it
appears that they consider the blood of Christ as the
foundation of all their glory, "And they sang a new song,
saying, thou art worthy to take the book and to open the
seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to
God by thy blood." Rev. 5:9.
Thus the sufferings and death of
Christ are singled out in Scripture, and spoken of by way of
eminence in a multitude of places, as being the price of our
purchased and as laying a foundation for our sanctification,
for our reconciliation to God, for our forgiveness, and,
finally, for our eternal salvation in heaven. The sufferings
and death of Christ, too, completely secure all the ends for
which atonement was necessary; remove all the obstacles
which stood in the way of God's showing favor to mankind,
and making them eternally happy after they had sinned; and
answer all the valuable purposes which could have been
answered by the execution of the penalty of the
law.
How, then, can there be any room to
doubt whether the atonement of Christ consisted in his
sufferings and death? Is not this idea plainly supported by
all the representations of Scripture on the subject? Indeed,
is it possible that the subject should be more plain?
Especially, when we reflect that the obedience of Christ
does not secure any of the ends which rendered an atonement
necessary, as it could not in the nature of things answer
the purposes which might have been answered by the execution
of the penalty of the law, the very thing which was
necessary in order that the penalty might be consistently
remitted; and when we consider, moreover, what still more
ought to satisfy every believer in revealed religion, that
the notion that the atonement of Christ consisted in his
obedience, by no means agrees with the uniform voice of
inspiration on the subject.
Indeed, it may justly be questioned,
whether there is a single passage in the Bible, which fairly
implies that the active obedience of Christ constituted any
part of the atonement. Perhaps there is no passage more
liable to be so understood than Jer. 23:6. "This is his name
whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness." But
what is there, even in this, which fairly implies that the
obedience of Christ constituted the atonement either in
whole, or in part? What is there in it which any common
reader, unbiased by preconceived opinions, would be liable
to understand in that way? This passage was a mere
prediction that a name, by which Christ should be called,
would be, "The Lord our righteousness." Undoubtedly, the
reason why he should be so called was, because he would make
an atonement for his people, and open a consistent way for
their pardon and admission into heaven; to that happiness to
which they would have been entitled by their own
righteousness, if they had never sinned. The passage may be
considered as implying this. But it certainly does not give
any intimation concerning the particular thing which Christ
would do to make that atonement, or the manner in which he
would open that consistent way of pardon. If his atonement
had consisted in his active obedience, this text would have
given no intimation of it; nor could he, with any more
propriety, be called "The Lord our righteousness," than he
now can, in view of his sufferings and death. He is, also,
said to be made unto his people "wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification, and redemption:" But, surely, no one would
think of arguing from hence, that wisdom constituted any
part of the atonement.'
Another passage which has been
supposed, by some to favor the notion that the atonement of
Christ consisted in his obedience is, Isaiah 42:21, "The
Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will
magnify the law and make it honorable." If it were
unquestionable that this should be considered as referring
to Christ, and should it be granted that he did magnify, the
law and make it honorable in any sense, which may be
supposed; still it would by no means follow, that this
constituted any part of the atonement. Doubtless our Lord
did many things on earth which were never designed as any
part of his propitiatory work. So that if all were granted
concerning this passage which can reasonably be asked, still
it would avail nothing. The needed proof must still be
sought somewhere else. Many good critics, however, suppose
the passage has no reference to Christ. They think it might
be more correctly translated, "Jehovah delighteth in his
righteous one; he will prosper and honor his
administration." (See also, Poole, in loc.) Those who have
considered this passage as evidence that the atonement of
Christ consisted in his active obedience, have generally
supposed that the atonement was necessary to show the
justice of the law. They have apprehended that, if God had
forgiven sinners without an atonement, the justice of the
law could not have appeared; that, therefore, Christ obeyed
the law, made it appear just and reasonable, and so made
atonement.
Now if it were admitted that an
atonement was necessary on this ground, still it would not
be easy to see how the obedience of Christ could make the
law appear reasonable. If the law were, not reasonable in
itself, aside from the obedience of Christ, his obedience
surely could not make it reasonable. Indeed, unless the law
were good, antecedently to his obeying it, there could be no
reason why he should obey it, nor any merit in his
obedience. The reasonableness of the law, therefore, instead
of resting on the obedience of Christ, is itself the very
foundation on which the reasonableness of his obedience
rests. And if the obedience of Christ did not make the law
reasonable, it certainly could not make it appear to be
reasonable in the view of creatures. For, if the law
appeared to creatures to be unreasonable, they would, of
course, perceive no reason why it should be obeyed by
Christ, or by any other being. The truth is, the law is in
itself most reasonable; and nothing more is necessary that
creatures may perceive it to be reasonable, than that they
should understand those things on which its reasonableness
depends. But its reasonableness does not depend on the
conduct of any being in the universe, either of God, or of
Christ, or of creatures. It depends on what the law itself
requires, on the capacities of the beings to whom it is
addressed, and the relations they sustain to God and to each
other. Only let creatures clearly understand these things,
and they could not fail to perceive the perfect
reasonableness of the divine law. A little candid and
impartial attention to the word of God would teach them
this, which, from the mere obedience of Christ, they could
never learn.
Another consideration which clearly
shows the incorrectness of this scheme is, that it
manifestly inverts the order of divine truth. For, if the
obedience of Christ makes the law appear reasonable, and so
makes atonement, it must certainly follow that instead of
discovering the grace of the gospel, in the reasonableness
and holiness of the law by which men are condemned, we must
go to the gospel itself to learn that the law is reasonable.
Besides, if we do not perceive the reasonableness of the
law, aside from any consideration of what is contained in
the gospel, how, can we ever obtain any just views of the
gospel? For, unless the law first appear holy, just, and
good, how can we view the gospel as any other than a
dispensation designed to deliver us from the unjust
punishment of an unreasonable law? It is evident, therefore,
that neither Christ's obedience, nor his atonement, was
designed to manifest the reasonableness of the law. So far
from this, that the reasonableness of the law is the very
foundation of the gospel, and must be perceived before the
propriety of that dispensation can be discovered.
Besides, as has been observed, Jesus
Christ, both as God and was as much bound to obey the law as
any other being in the universe. It is true, as God he was
not under law in every sense as a creature is; for there was
no being above him to command him, to threaten him with a
penalty, or to promise him a reward. Yet he was as really
bound by the moral law, that eternal rule of rectitude, as
any creature is. It is the glory of the divine Being, that
all his feelings and all his conduct are in perfect
conformity with this unerring rule. And, as a creature,
Jesus Christ was, in every sense, as much bound to obey the
law as is any other creature. Neither as God, nor as man,
therefore, was he any more holy than he ought to be. How
then, could his obedience, any more than the obedience of
any other being, make the law appear reasonable, or make
atonement?
The notion that atonement was
necessary to make the law appear reasonable, is evidently
incorrect. No obscurity attending the law premuted any
obstacle in the way of God's pardoning sinners. The real
difficulties which stood in the way of this have been
brought into view. But these the obedience of Christ could
not remove. If God had pardoned sinners without an
atonement, he could not have appeared just; he would not
have shown that he approved of the law, loved holiness,
hated sin, and was determined to maintain good government.
How, then, could he omit punishing the transgressors of his
law? Here was the necessity of atonement, which Paul stated,
"to declare God's righteousness, that he might be just, and
the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus:" What, then,
if the obedience of Christ did make the law appear
reasonable (which, however, it neither did nor could), how
would this remove any difficulty which stood in the way of
the salvation of sinners? Surely, God would not show the
righteousness of his character by refusing to punish the
transgressor of a law which was made to appear so reasonable
and good ! Hence, it appears) that the scheme which places
the atonement in the obedience of Christ, is totally without
foundation, either in reason or the word of God.
There is another scheme, which. while
it allows that the sufferings of Christ atone for sin,
supposes that his active obedience procures heaven for
believers, which, with the most important passages adduced
to support it, will be considered in another
place.
|