Conflicting Theories
lla it has occurred to you on reading this testimony that
it is impossible to doubt its meaning, or to give more than one application to its terms, you will be undeceived before you have gone far into this chapter. It is not my purpose to examine all the theories which have been suggested and elaborately defended with worthy genius and erudition, but to put before you two of them which may perhaps be regarded as the principal. The first is known as the theory of Expiation, the second is known as
- the moral theory of the Atonement.
Calvin says in the second book of his famous Institutes, “Had Christ been murdered by robbers, or tumultuously sacrificed in a sedition of the mob, His death would have been no kind of satisfaction. But when He was sisted as a criminal, was accused and crushed by witnesses, and condemned to death by a judge, we understand by these tokens that He sustained the character of a wicked criminal.”. And again: “Nothing had been effected, if Christ had only died a corporeal death, but it was incumbent on Him also to feel the severity of Divine revenge, in order that He might both ward off wrath and satisfy a righteous sentence.... Wherefore we wonder not if He be said to have descended into hell, since He endured
124 Lhe Prvesthood of Christ.
that death which is inflicted by an angry God on the wicked.”
Dr. John Young, to whom I am indebted for this quotation, says, “Surely this is horrible and blasphemous enough.” This one sentence will show you how mistaken is the impression that two opinions as to the priestly work of Christ are impossible.
Roughly, the theory of Expiation amounts to this: On “the cross Jesus Christ “submitted Himself to the actual penalty of sin.” To satisfy the claims of God’s justice, Jesus Christ became the representative of the human race, and received upon Himself the Divine wrath due to sinful men. Having thus taken the place of sinners, and encountered and satisfied the holy wrath of God, the sinner finds in this vicarious sacrifice of Christ a ground of appeal to God; he (the sinner) can now say that he comes to God for the pardon of his guilt because Jesus Christ has, by the shedding of His own blood, satisfied the law of eternal righteousness and enabled the guilty soul to find access to God.
Roughly, the moral theory amounts to this: Christ came into the world as a manifestation of the love of God; His sufferings, poignant and terrible beyond all precedent if His mental anguish be added to His physical torture, were not intended (as indeed they were not needed) to remove any obstacle which the sins of men had set up as between God and themselves; they were meant rather to show that no such obstacle existed on the Divine side, for God’s relationship had been in nowise transformed, but was, as ever, that of a loving, wounded, but forgiving and gracious Father. Christ did not come to make satisfaction to God’s justice, but to reveal God’s love: not to create an objective basis of reconciliation, but to reveal and declare: mightily and universally God’s unchanging readiness to welcome and restore penitent sinners.
You will naturally ask, What idea other than that of expiation can possibly attach to such passages as have been quoted, especially such as — “He loved us and gave Himself for us;” “He died for the ungodly;” “Christ died for us;” “He hath died for our sins according to the scriptures;” “He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself;” and the lke? Surely such passages must settle the question once for all.
No, is the answer of the eloquent and most persuasive writer just quoted. He urges us to remember that the first Christian preachers and writers were Jews, that in the first instance they addressed Jews, and that there was no way in which they could approach their kinsmen according to the flesh with such marked advantage as on the side of Judaism. “It is easy,” he continues, “to see that a certain amount of disadvantage, and of danger, was inseparable from this fact. In the application, however skilfully, of old language to new thoughts, there was a risk that to some, perhaps to many minds, the old and not the new ideas might be suggested. And then in the use, however wise, of imagery, and metaphor, and type, there was the further risk, that what was meant for figure might be taken for fact, and that what was announced as the anti-type of an ancient symbol, might be conceived to be a mere repetition of that symbol, instead of a totally different, and higher, and purer reality.” 1
Another reply, identical in substance, is given by Dr. Horace Bushnell in his elaborate and truly able book on the Vicarious sacrifice of Christ. Replying (pp. 332, 333) to the objection that such passages are not fully met by the moral theory, he says: “Exactly contrary to this, I am
1The Life and Light of Men, p. 319. clear in the conviction, that it has the particular merit of giving to all such forms of Scripture expression their most easy and genuinely natural meaning, and that, without doing offence to the standards of our moral nature. There is a kind of legerdemain, or word-shuffle practice, in such phrases; by which Christ is shown to be set in the very condition, or it will even be said in the very guilt of sinness, having their sins really put upon Him, to be answered for by Him in suffering before God’s justice, and to satisfy that justice. If it were necessary to reason with attempts that are themselves even shocking violations of reason, it should be enough to say, that Christ is either really in the lot of ill desert, or else He is not. If He is there, then He ought to suffer; and if He is not, then it is the greatest wrong and irreverence to pretend that He suffers justly. I have dared to say that He is not there, and suffers nothing as justly due to Himself. He only comes into the corporate evil of sin, as being incarnated into humanity, and working there to recover men away both from sin and punishment, He, for so long a time, encounters and suffers the curse they are justly under. This He does not to satisfy God’s justice, but in a way of coming at their consciences and hearts; whereupon it results that they, being released or recovered by so creat expense of suffering and sacrifice, give. Him their testimony of thanks, in the most natural way possible, by telling how He ‘ was made a curse for them,’ ‘ bore their sins in His own body,’ ‘gave Himself for them,’ ‘ was made sin for them,’ ‘ gave Himself to be their ransom, ‘died for them’, ‘suffered the just for the unjust.’” 1
Dr. Young, in discussing this question in the light of early Christian history, points out that “the first Christian sermon ever preached in this world contains from beginning to end nothing of this kind,” that is, of “the expiation
1 The Life and Light of Men, p. 349. of human sin, and satisfaction to Divine justice, by the sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus on the cross.” Dr. Young thinks that upon so “noble an occasion for disburdening their full hearts” the apostles would surely have referred to such an aspect of the atonement had it been true and vital Having summarised Peter’s address, he says, “That is the sermon, the whole sermon — surely not given to the world with so serious a fault, as the omission of that which was most essential and most vital for all coming ages to know.”
Whereupon it is replied! that “to have explained that the death of Christ was a propitiation for the sins of the world would have perplexed the minds of those to whom he was speaking, and broken the force of those terrible denunciations by which he endeavoured to awaken their consciences and alarm their fears.” And further,2 “How was it that the apostle was as silent about the revelation of the love of God in the death of Christ as about its expiatory purpose?”. And again,® “On our theory, Peter’s silence did not prevent those who listened to him from obtaining the remission of sins, which the death of Christ brought within their reach; if they trusted in Him as their Saviour, they were forgiven, though they knew nothing of the relation between His death and their forgiveness.” Looking at this reply merely as a piece of reasoning (without expressing any opinion upon its theology), it is perhaps hardly permissible to force Dr. Young to find his own theory in a passage which he says contains no statement of the doctrine of expiation. He might (from his point of view) fairly retort: There is nothing in the sermon which is inconsistent with the Moral theory, but the sermon is vitally defective if, as a discourse intended to have practical effects, as, for example, the conversion of
1 Congregational Lecture, p. 111-117.
a Ubids 3 Thid.
sinners and the enlargement of the Christian Church, it wholly and absolutely omitted all reference to the satisfaction of Divine justice and the sacrificial expiation of human guilt.
A living author? has, in a book of extraordinary ability called “Life in Christ,” treated this controversy with characteristic candour but hardly with characteristic patience. He says: “There are influential schools of thought professedly Christian, and even Protestant” (a needless and not courteous indication), “which zealously denounce the notion of an expiation of past sin by Christ’s sacrifice; affirming that there is no direct connection between His death and the forgiveness of smners. They teach that Christ’s death was simply a measure in God’s providence employed to bring out the sinfulness of man; and so, by affording the noblest example of Divine self-sacrifice, to influence men by example to abandon an evil life. As for pardon, — God being a Father, it is said, forgives sin freely, and without further consideration, as soon as the sinner, who is His son, repents. He requires no price, ransom, or satisfaction, whereby impunity may be purchased. Christ is our Saviour in this sense alone, that He leads us to repentance and a new life, and therefore delivers us by such change of character from the punishment due for past offences. The blood-sacrifice of Christ was His life-sacrifice; and He gave Himself for our sins both by life and death, in this sense, that He might deliver us from this present evil world, by teaching us to do the will of God our Father.” The eloquent author treats those who uphold this view with a practical contempt that is little if at all mitigated by the terms “able” and “influential” (terms which admit of curious and undesirable parallels of application), for he says that “the answer to these statements rests altogether on interpretation,’ and thereby implies
1 Rey. Edward White.
Conflicting Theorres. 129
that those who differ from him are incapable of accurately interpreting the Scriptures. He says (p. 268): “We hold, then, that such an idea of atonement as has just been described, not only fails to fill up the meaning of the apostles’ language, but offers to it the utmost violence. The apostles teach, as plainly as words can téach anything, that the death of Christ was an atonement by expiation, or sin-offering, for ‘SINS THAT ARE PAST’ (Rom. iii.) not simply a provision for preventing futwre transgression.” I think it is not unjust to an author who is simply incapable of malice, to say that this answer is practically contemptuous; for it is evident that where a doctrine is taught “as plainly as words can teach anything,” and yet is denied as being taught in or by those very words, the inference is, that those who take the responsibility of the denial are incompetent to assign the proper meaning to the plainest words. I cannot but think that Frederick Robertson, Frederick Maurice, Dean Stanley, Horace Bushnell, and John Young, could understand a doctrine which is taught “as plainly as words can teach anything,” and that their simple and godly desire has ever been to find out the truth and declare it with “simplicity and godly sincerity.” If such men question the popular interpretation of a passage I will not pledge myself to accept their new rendering, but I am bound to give good reasons for declining the explanation which they may propose. I do not find that our author gives sufficient credit to the mere intellectual capacity of those who differ from him, for having (presumably at least) heard all that they have to say upon this subject, he affirms his own view of the doctrine to be taught “as plainly as words can teach anything,” and adds (p. 269): “It is necessary, therefore, to explode resolutely the sentimental and wholly romantic notion of the Divine Character, derived from
bad human models, on which those proceed who now offer ee violence to the scripture teaching on the Atonement of Christ.” Where it is really “necessary” to “explode resolutely” any dogma, doctrine, or notion, the best thing is to do it. I leave this as a practical suggestion. As to “bad human models” we must set some measure to our contempt, for it is taught in scripture “as plainly as words can teach anything” that the very models on which the moral theorist founds his reasoning are accepted by the inspired writers, otherwise we could never have known that “as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him,” or that “if men, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto their children, much more will your Father which is in heaven give good gifts unto them that ask Him.” Considerable stress is laid upon the words (Rom. in.) “sins that are past;” they are printed in italics and in small capitals to mark their emphasis. But what is the precise bearing of that expression in this argument? Is it not true that all sins are past? Is it not true that forgiveness is necessarily and purely retrospective? How could it possibly be otherwise? We are told that Christ’s Atonement “was not simply a provision for preventing future transgression,” a suggestion which must surely have been intended to meet a future objection, for I am not aware that such a doctrine has yet been propounded. And yet this wondrous ministry of Christ would seem, whilst stretching its redeeming service over all sins past, to have actually some reference to sins yet uncommitted! “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”1 The Father! that is a “bad human model”! But we are told that the reference is not to “the demoralised fatherhood of the modern world,” but to “the primitive idea of fatherhood set forth in the law of Moses,
1] John ii, 1, 2
Conflicting Theorves. hae
and throughout antiquity, which included the judicial character” (p. 268). Iam afraid the force of this argument must be abated somewhat, because the passages quoted above do not refer to the judicial character of the father, but wholly to his pity and his readiness (though himself evil) to give good things unto his children. His being evil is a fact distinctly recognised, and should therefore be taken in abatement of that appalling fatherhood which holds all its sensibilities under stern judicial restraint. There is, indeed, one passage which may be quoted in a hapless moment on the other side, namely: “We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?”1 Why is the quotation of this passage unhappy? Because the apostle explains that the fathers of our flesh chastened us after their own pleasure; thus showing that “the primitive idea of fatherhood” had either been wholly lost or deeply corrupted; yet the pity, the mercy, the clemency, the placableness of fatherhood, was thousands of years ago referred to without reproach as being dimly illustrative of the infinite compassion of God.
To show how possible it is to differ as to the true meaning of a doctrine which “the apostles teach as plainly as words can teach anything,” take a few sentences from a book entitled “Studies of Christianity.”2 Mr. Martineau says (p. 187): “Now the whole scheme of Redemption, as it is represented in the popular theology, appears to us to fall under this condemnation — [the condemnation of contradicting, or not sufficiently acknowledging, the moral perfection of God]. Under the names of Justice, Sanctity, Mercy, it ascribes to the All-perfect a course of sentiment and of practice which — it is undeniable — no other moral
1 Heb, xii, 9. 2 Rev, James Martineau.
a ce agent, placed in analogous relations, could adopt without the deepest guilt. The holiness of God, so often adduced to justify the severities of this scheme, we would yield to no one in earnestly maintaining, believing as we do, that His abhorrence of moral evil is absolute and everlasting, His resistance to it real and true, and His love of excellence simply infinite as His nature. But purity of mind does not express itself by implacable vengeance against the impure, or oblige its possessor to engage himself in physically smiting them, much less limit him through all eternity to this mode of administration.... It is a coarse and wretched error to suppose that anguish is a specific for sin, to the incessant infliction of which the Sinless is bound.... His purpose, as one whose perfection is not merely spotless, but active and productive, cannot be, as some Christians seem to say, the penal publication of His personal offence against the insulters of His law, but the spread and cultivation throughout His spiritual universe of pure and high affections.... The assertion that God cannot pardon and recall to goodness till He has expended His tortures upon the evil, seems to us a plain denial of His moral excellence. ... The Eternal Father is called merciful, for remitting the sinner’s doom and transferring the burden of his guilt to a victim divine and pure.” These words, so distinctly opposed to what is said to be taught “as plainly as words can teach anything,” are from the pen of a writer not only universally esteemed for the purity and nobleness of his character, but justly admired for the elevation and lustre of his genius. You will see, then, that the case is not so simple and so easy of decision as was at first supposed. The expiation theorist says that Christ bore what was due to sinners. Mr. Robertson says in his sermon, entitled “Caiaphas’ View of Vicarious Sacrifice:” “Let no man say that Christ bore the wrath of God. Let no man say that God was angry with His Son. We are sometimes told of a mysterious anguish which Christ endured, the consequence of Divine wrath, the sufferings of a heart laden with the conscience of the world’s transgressions, which He was bearing as if they were His own sins. Do not add to the Bible what is not in the Bible.... The Redeemer’s conscience was not bewildered to feel that as His own which was not His own. He suffered no wrath of God. ... Christ came into collision with the world’s evil, and He bore the penalty of that daring. He approached the whirling wheel and was torn in pieces. He laid His hand upon the cockatrice’s den and its fangs pierced him.... The Redeemer bore imputed sin. He bore the penalty of others’ sin. He was punished. Did He bear the anger of the Most High? Was His the hell of an accusing conscience? — In the name of Him who is God, not Caiaphas, never.”
«head
AP, ty.
ete. |) Mier:
-
dl