Your ShelfYour Projects

The Atonement—No. 6

6%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 10, 1874

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 43, No. 13.

Read the full edition

The Atonement.—No. 6.

By John H. Waggoner

Andrew Fuller, the justly celebrated Baptist author, remarked that the “atonement has respect to justice, and justice to the law, or the revealed will of the sovereign, which has been violated, and its very design is to repair its honor.” This is both reasonable and scriptural, and is proof of the correctness of what has been observed, that the acts of abolishing the law and pardoning the transgressor cannot go together. The doctrine of the perpetuity of the law of God, now so often assailed, is not only an important one, but is essential to the very existence of an atonement. For if the law of God were abolished by the gospel, justice would be trampled under foot. But the Bible is not thus inconsistent with reason. God is infinitely just, and he has set forth his Son as our substitute, that he might be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3: 26.
The importance of the law in its relation to the atonement will justify further remarks in its vindication, and as objections are stronger with some persons than even positive proof, it will not be taken amiss to notice a few objections urged against its perpetuity.
Luke 16: 16. “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time, the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”
It is unjustly inferred that the question of the existence of the law is here introduced. The translators saw that the passage was elliptical, but violated the laws of language by inserting the word “were,” which does not make the sentence complete; the verb “is” being the antithesis of “were,” the word “preached” is redundant. The following must be the correct view. The word or words understood or to be supplied must be antithetical to the words “is preached;” and therefore “were preached” would complete the sentence.The omission of these words prevents tautology, while nothing would require the omission of the word “were” if it alone belonged there. “The law and the prophets were preached until John; since that time, the kingdom of God is preached.” Now no one will claim that the law and the prophets ceased with John; even the ceremonial law remained in force later than the time of his death. Thus it is evident that the subject of the existence or continuance of the law and the prophets is not introduced in this scripture; therefore there is no objection in it.
Rom. 6: 14. “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”
It has been inferred from this that because we are under grace, we are under no obligation to keep the law; and that by the introduction of a system of grace the law was abolished. But such an inference is very erroneous; for if the law which condemns (see Rom. 3: 19, 20; 5: 13) were abolished by grace, then none can be under the law, and all must be under grace. But sin has the dominion over a majority of mankind, showing that they are not under grace; therefore they are under the law, and therefore the law is not abolished. The Christian was not under grace till he was converted, or till he became a Christian; or was changed from sin to obedience; and was therefore under the law till his conversion. But it says, “Sin shall not have dominion over you.” Now sin is the transgression of the law; and it is further said that “to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.” Therefore, we are only under grace when the transgression of the law has no dominion over us; and only in the way of righteousness, when obedient to the law. This text, so far from helping the objector, plainly harmonizes with those scriptures which teach that Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to put away sin, the transgression of the law, from his people. Matt. 1: 21; 5: 17; 1 John 3: 4–8; Heb. 9: 26.
Rom. 10: 4. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
There are three points in this text which claim our attention.
1. Christ is not the end of the law in the sense of abolishing it; for he says himself that he came not to destroy it, and Paul says it is not made void. The word “end” is here used as it is in James 5: 11: “Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord,” that is, the design or intention of the Lord. See also Rom. 14: 9. Paul says the commandment was ordained unto life; which agrees with the scriptures I have quoted in reference to the law. But we have merited death by transgression, for “the wages of sin is death.” Christ now fulfills the object or design of the law, by granting the forgiveness of sin, and bestowing eternal life.
2. He is the end or object of the law for righteousness. Unrighteousness is sin, and sin is the transgression of the law; this shows righteousness to be the equivalent of obedience. And Christ brings the sinner to obedience, as it is said in Rom. 5: 19, “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” or obedient. He kept his Father’s commandments, and calls upon us to follow him. He said, “Thy law is within my heart,” and promises in the new covenant to write it also in the hearts of his people. Ps. 40: 8; Heb. 8: 10.
3. This, to every one that believeth. He is not the end of the law in any sense to the unbeliever. This proves that it does not mean the abolition of the law; but it shows that the object of the law is not accomplished in the unbeliever.
Gal. 3: 13, 14. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.”
If Christ abolished the law it would not then be true that he redeemed us from its curse, for, as we have seen, abolition of law and pardon cannot go together. And we have also seen that to abolish the law which curses the transgressor, or condemns sin, is subversive of government, and does not reform the evil-doer, or save him from sin. Again, this redemption from the curse of the law is necessary, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. Two important ideas are presented in this declaration, 1. The curse of the law rests on the Gentiles, which proves that the Gentiles were and are amenable to it, as is also proved by Rom. 3: 9–19. 2. The curse of the law stands between the transgressor and the blessing of Abraham. Of course the law is the basis of the Abrahamic promises or blessings. Some deny that the blessing of Abraham has any relation to obedience to the law; but if they were right, the declaration of this text could not be true. If they were not related, the curse of the law could no more deprive of the blessing of Abraham than the curse of British law could deprive me of American citizenship. But the blessing of Abraham is the blessing of the gospel; therefore the Scripture teaches that the transgressor of this law is not entitled to the blessings of the gospel. True, Christ will redeem them if they come to him by faith; but faith will not make void the law, nor will Christ be the minister of sin. Rom. 3: 31; Gal. 2: 17.
Some will not admit that the law of God has any agency in conversion; but David, in Ps. 19: 7, says, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” True conversion is not merely emotional: it is a turning from wrong to right. And how shall this be effected if not by being convinced of wrong by the rule of right, and thereby led to embrace the Saviour, who only can set us right? But “by the law is the knowledge of sin;” Rom. 3: 20; and we must all be instructed by the law in this knowledge before we come to Christ to any purpose. J. H. WAGGONER.