The Orthodox Doctrine Proved from the Fact That the Scriptures Declare That Our Sins Were Laid upon Christ

Our doctrine is explicitly and emphatically taught in a large class of passages which assert that our sins were laid upon Christ — that they were charged to his account, and made his in such a sense that they were the legal cause of his suffering the penalty due to them. “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.’’ Is. liii. 6. “He bare the sin of many/7 Is. liii. 12. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Cor. v. 21. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” Gal. iii. 13. “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Heb. ix. 28. “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” 1 Pet. ii. 24.

It is claimed that these expressions cannot possibly be

interpreted literally; that it cannot be true that Christ

in any literal sense was transformed into sin; that the

all-perfect Son of God could not have been in any

natural sense of the word a sinner. Those who reject

tfie orthodox doctrine of satisfaction hence illogical ly

. conclude that since these terms are not to be interpreted

literally, they have no definite and certainly ascertainible meaning at all, but may be accommodated to any

15 J69 view of the atonement which we have reason on other grounds to prefer. In opposition to this, we mj. in tain that the usage of Scripture with respect to the phrases “sin,” “to bear sin,” or “iniquity,” “to impute” or “to lay upon” one “sin” or “iniquity,” is uniform, and that their sense is both definite and certainly ascertainable; and that the meaning of the passages above quoted, when interpreted in the light of this usage, is unmistakably clear and consistent only with the doctrine that our sins were, in strict rigour of justice, laid upon and punished in the person of Christ.

1. The word sin is habitually used in Scripture to set forth moral evil in three aspects or relations. (1.) Sin considered as to its formal nature, that is, as transgression of God’s law. 1 John iii. 4. (2.) Sin considered as a moral quality inherent in the soul of the agent — as pollution — macula. Rom. vi. 11 — 13. (3.) Sin considered with respect to its legal obligation to punishment — as guilt — reatus. In this last sense it is used in all those passages which speak of “bearing sin,” of “laying on iniquities,” of “imputing sin,” &c. In this sense the Hebrew words for sin (rN%DH) and guilt (DBra) were used to designate the sacrifices, which were made to suffer vicariously the penalty due the ritual transgressions of the offerer. In like manner Christ is said to be made sin — that is, according to constant usage, a sin-offering — because he is the sacrifice who volunteers to suffer vicariously the penalty consequent upon our transgressions of the moral law.

2. The phrase to “impute sin,” or “righteousness,” in its scriptural usage signifies simply to set to one’s account, to lay. to one’s charge or credit as a ground of legal process. The thing imputed may belong to the person to whom it is imputed originally. In that case it is imputed in the sense of being simply charged to him, made the ground of a legal indictment preparatory to judicial process. Or the thing imputed may not be originally his, but may be made his by the imputation, because of the legal connection subsisting between the person to whom the thing originally belonged and him to whom it is imputed. Thus, not to impute sin to the doer of it is of course not to charge the guilt of his own sin upon him as a ground of punishment. To impute righteousness without works can only mean to credit a believer with the rewardableness of a righteousness which did not originate with himself. Rom. iv. 4-8. God in Christ not imputing their trespasses unto his people, is, of course, God for Christ’s sake not charging their trespasses to them as a ground of punishment. 2 Cor. v. 19. Christ must be made sin for us in precisely the same sense that we are made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. v. 21. But, as will be shown below, we are justified or pronounced righteous in Christ forensically, as a matter of legal relation, not made inherently righteous by the infusion of grace. The macula or pollution of sin might possibly be transmitted by generation. Otherwise it must ever remain the inalienable personal quality of the individual sinner. It is an absurdity, for which no class of Reformed theologians have ever been responsible, to represent personal character, either good or bad, as transferable from one person to another by imputation. All that can be imputed from person to perso. is the guilt or legal obligation to punishment of any sin, and that only in those cases in which the person to whom it is imputed has become in some way or other justly responsible for the action of the person the guilt of whose sin is imputed.

This usage of the word “impute” is not a creation of “artificial theology,” as is asserted by Dr. Young and by all those who maintain either the “Moral” or the “Governmental” theory of the Atonement. This is evident, because (1) this sense is embraced in the classical usage of the word ^oofjtae. Its primary sense is to count, reckon. Then, when construed with a person in the dative and a thing in the accusative, it signifies to set down that thing to the account of that person, and is thus equivalent to the Latin term impuJtare.* Ainsworth defines imputare — “to ascribe, to charge; to lay the blame or fault on any one.” Suidas’ Lexicon — “Aola), reputo; et XofiaofjicU) computabo; et Xofioi)fj.ai, numerabo, computabo; et Ao-fco, existimo, ut illud: et imputatum est ipsi in justitiam.”

(2.) The same is true of the usage of the Hebrew 3BT1 in the Old Testament. The daughters of Laban complained (Gen. xxxi. 15) that their father “counted” them strangers — that is, regarded and treated them as strangers. “If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it; it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.” Lev. vii. 18. The sacrifice was offered as a matter of fact, but was not set to the credit of the offerer as acceptable or effective. The heave -offering of the Levites was to be “reekontd as * Liddell and Scott.

though it were the corn of the threshing-floor, and as the fulness of the wine-press.” Numb, xviii. 27, 30. That Phineas slew the offending Israelite at Shittim awas counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.” Ps. cvi. 31.

(3.) The same is true with regard to the New Testament usage of the word Xofio/jicu. Christ, referring to Tsa. liii. 12, said: “For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors.” Luke xxii. 37. “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” Rom. ii. 26. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Gal. iii. 6. “To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” David speaks of the blessedness of the man “to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works — to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.” Rom. iv. 3-9. “God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” 2 Cor. v. 19. “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me; I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge” 2 Tim. iv. 16. “He was numbered with the transgressors.” Mark xv. 28. “But also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be counted for naught”* Acts xix. 27.

The Scriptures plainly teach, therefore, that all the guilt or obligation to punishment incurred by the sins of his people was imputed or charged to the account of Christ, as the legal ground of the execution upon him of the penalty involved in the case. Yet, notwithstanding that the guilt of all our sins is thus charged to Christ, and expiated in him. all their blame, shame, pollution and power, as inherent personal habits or principles, remain all the while inalienably ours. These sins i re none the less ours, after their imputation to him, than they were before, (a.) The very force of the imputation is to make him “alienee culpce reus” that is, penally responsible for another’s sin. They must remain ours in order that they may be to him the sins of another. (6.) Because personal moral qualities, and the pollution inherent in sinful ones, are inalienable and cannot be transferred by imputation, (c.) Because, as Owen pointed out long ago, to be “alienee culpce reus” makes no man a sinner, subjectively considered, unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake the responsibility, (d.) Because our blessed Lord was a divine Person, and therefore absolutely incapable of personal sin in any sense or degree. While, therefore, he bore our sins, and consequently suffered the penalty involved, and hence was both regarded and treated by the Father, during the time and for the purpose of expiation, as vicariously guilty and worthy of wrath, he was all the while not one iota the less personally immaculate and glorious in holiness, and all the more the well-beloved Son of the Father, in whom he was well pleased.

All this the orthodox have always held and carefully expressed. We regard it, then, as an evident sign of weakness, and as an offence against honourable argument, when the advocates of the Governmental Theory (as for instance, Jenkyns, Fiske, and others), by studiously confounding the imputation of guilt with the transference of personal inherent sinful character, and by habitually setting forth the coarse and indiscriminating language of Luther on this subject as a fair representation of the Satisfaction Theory, disingenuouslyinsinuate that at least the more self-consistent of the orthodox have held the blasphemy that Christ was made personally a sinner when he bore our sins upon the tree. On this subject, I remark, (1.) No Christian ever did, or by possibility could, hold the doctrine of imputation which they thus covertly impute to us. It is nonsense on the one hand, and infamous blasphemy upon the other. (2.) Luther’s language on this point was, characteristically of the man and of his age, coarse and wild, and neither to be defended nor imitated. (3.) But Luther was a good man, and no competent theologian believes, and no honest one will pretend, that he held a doctrine in any respect different from that which I have stated above as that of the Scriptures and of the Reformed Churches. (4.) But his language renders him peculiarly liable to misconception upon the part of the uninstructed. It is, therefore, an instrument peculiarly fitted for the use of controversialists, who, lacking argument, need to excite the prejudices of the uninstructed against their opponents. (5.) These very same gentlemen, who thus exhibit Luther to the public as a vile blasphemer, in order that all who hold the same doctrine of the Atonement may be silently implicated in the same charge, nevertheless honour him as a true Christian and a great reformer. But unless they misrepresent his doctrine of imputation lie cannot be a Christian. Which alternative will they accept? Will they accept as a true Christian a traducer of their Lord? Or will they assert that Luther was no Christian? Or will they acknowledge that for purposes of controversy they have mis represented his doctrine?*

3. This doctrine of the imputation of the guilt of our sins is clearly proved by the passages above stated, when interpreted in careful comparison with the usage of the words translated “to bear sin/7 both in the Old and New Testament. Thus (1) the Hebrew word Sao has the precise sense of bearing — not of bearing away or removing, but in the sense of carrying. Thus (Lam. v. 7), “Our fathers have sinned and are not, and we have borne (Sao) their iniquities.” This can only mean to bear the penalty of the sins of their fathers. So of Christ, “My righteous servant shall justify many; for he shall bear (Sao) their iniquities.” Isa. liii. 11. (2.) The word NBU has a more diversified usage than Sao, yet when construed with sin it always plainly means “to bear sin” in the sense of “being penally responsible” for it. “Not to bear sin” is not to have sin charged or imputed as a ground of punishment. If a husband cause his wife to break a vow made with his knowledge, “he must bear her iniquity,” Numb. xxx. 15; that is, he must be responsible for the punishment attached. If a soul sin, “he shall bear his iniquity;” that is, he shall be held guilty and liable to punishment, and therefore shall he bring a ram, and the priest shall make atonement. Lev. v. 17, 18. The consequence of bearing sin is death or penalty. Numb, xviii. 22. “And

* See Cunningham’s Reformers ad Theology 01 the Reformation, Essay 2d — Luther.

the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.” Lev. xvi. 22.

(3.) The authors of the Septuagint translation render these words sometimes with defjco, to bear — to bear away; but often also with tpepto and dva<fpsfpa), which can only mean to bear in the sense of haring on one’s self in order to bear away. Robinson, who cannot be suspected of theological bias, gives the meaning both of <pepa) and dvcufepo) as ato take up and bear in the place of another; to take from another on one’s self; to bear the punishment of sin; to expiate.”

Bushnell* says that Matthew’s reference (Matt. viii. 17) to Isa. liii. 4 “is the one Scripture citation that gives beyond question the exact urns loquendi of all the vicarious and sacrificial language of the New Testament.” The passage in Isaiah is as follows: “Surely he hath borne (Hebrew, xzyj; Septuagint, (pepw) our griefs, and carried (Hebrew, SM) our sorrows.” The reference in Matthew is: “And he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took (l«/9s) our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” From this datum Bushnell draws two amazing conclusions: (1.) That the exact usus loquendi of all the vicarious and sacrificial language of the New Testament is to be derived from this single passage. (2.) That the only sense in which Christ bore either our sins, our sorrows, or our diseases was that he took them on his feelings — had his heart burdened with a sense of them.

To the first assumption we answer that the usus * “Vicarious Sacrifice,” pages 43, 44.

loquendi of the words can be* determined only by a careful analysis and comparison of all the passages in which they severally occur in the original Hebrew, in the Septuagint, and in the New Testament itself.

To the second assumption, we answer that it is a notorious fact, admitted by all scholars, that the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament freely, accommodating the sense to a present purpose. Isaiah affirms that Christ bore our sorrows — that is, bore them on himself in order to remove them. Isaiah uses the technical words wsu and Sao; the Septuagint translates by <fioto, but Matthew substitutes Itafls. There is no contradiction; only Isaiah emphasized the carried, and Matthew emphasized the removed. The first pointed out the means, the other the result effected. The fact is that he endured visible sorrows, which made men believe that he was under divine chastisement; hence it is said, “We thought him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted... But he was wounded for our transgression, the punishment of our peace was upon him.”* * See Alexander’s Isa’ah.