The Atonement-No. 12 by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Aug 17, 1876

The Atonement.—No. 12.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

Besides the dignity of our sacrifice, there are other reasons why it was necessary that the exalted Son of God should die for our sin.

As a man could not make an atonement for himself, being himself under condemnation, so no one of the race could make atonement for another, all being alike involved in sin. And we may go further than this: Were a part of the human race unfallen, or free from sin, they could make no atonement for the other part, inasmuch as they would still be the creatures of God, and the service of their lives would be due to him. Therefore, should they offer their lives to God for their fellow-creatures they would offer that to which they had no absolute right. To illustrate: He who owed all that he possessed, could not justly use his possessions to pay the debts of another.

And the same reasoning would hold good in the case of the angels. They are but the “fellow-servants” of all on earth who serve God. Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9. The life of an angel would be utterly inadequate for the redemption of man, as the angels are dependent creatures as man is, and as really owe to God the service of their lives as man does.

And again, as man has been in rebellion, were it possible for him to extricate himself from his present difficulty, he could give no security—no satisfactory assurance—that he would never again turn from his duty. And of the angels, we must say that sin has entered their ranks; the “Son of the Morning” lifted up himself against God. Any redemption wrought by them, or by beings of that order, would still leave distrust in regard to the security of the government from any future attempts against its authority.

But there was one Being to whom this reasoning and these remarks would not apply. It was the Son of God. He was the delight of the Father; glorified with him before the world was; adored and worshiped by angels. Prov. 8:30; John 17:5; Heb. 1:1. All creatures were made by and for him, and he upheld all things by the word of his Father’s power. John 1:1–3; Col. 1:15–17. Heb. 1:3. Enjoying the glory of the Father, he sat with him upon the throne from which all law proceeded. Now it is evident that he to whom such remarks will apply could make an offering that would meet the necessities of the case in every respect. He possessed the requisite dignity to magnify and vindicate the honor of the law of his Father in suffering its penalty. He was so far removed by nature and position from the rebellion that he could not be suspected of any complicity with it. He was so well acquainted with his Father’s holiness and justice that he could realize, as no other could, the awful condition of the sinner, and the terrible desert of his sin. He was so pure and exalted that his sufferings and death would have the desired effect upon the minds of those who were the recipients of his grace, to produce in them an abasement of themselves and an abhorrence of the sins which caused him to suffer, and thus to guard against a future rebellion amongst them whom he redeemed. And he left that throne of glory and of power and took upon him the nature of fallen man. In him were blended “the brightness of the Father’s glory,” and the weakness of “the seed of Abraham.” In himself he united the Lawgiver to the lawbreaker—the Creator to the creature. He was a connecting link between Heaven and earth; with one hand on the throne of God, and the other reaching down to grasp the poor, ruined creatures under the condemnation of a holy law. He “humbled himself” as it is not possible for any other to do. “He was rich” in a sense, and to an extent, that no other was. He had something to offer, of value far beyond our comprehension, and he freely gave it all for us. For our sakes he became poor. He left that glory to take upon himself grief, and toil, and pain, and shame, and to suffer even unto death.

“O Lamb of God, was ever pain, Was ever love, like thine?”

Well might an inspired one exclaim, “Oh! the depths of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Well might he pray that we “may be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge.”

With this clear testimony before us, we are better prepared to appreciate the Law of God, to the honor of which such an amazing sacrifice has been offered. If we estimate it according to the price paid for its vindication, we are lost in wonder, and can only pray with David, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Ps. 119:18. The law is holy and just, and without a sacrificial offering, man must have perished. And what an offering! the brightest ornament of Heaven, by whom the Eternal Father made all things, who was worthy to receive the worship of angels, became obedient to death to redeem guilty man from the curse of his Father’s law, thus showing to a wondering universe that the law cannot be set aside, nor its judgments reversed. Truly has the Lord fulfilled his promise to “magnify the law and make it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. All the statements of the Bible writers are shown by this to be fully warranted, in regard to its perfection, its completeness, as containing the whole duty of man, and therefore the elements of justification, being a rule of holiness, etc.; also the remark previously made, that the holiness of this law, and of course of those who would keep it perfectly, is that which grows out of the attributes of God, as pure and changeless as Heaven itself.

And we leave it to the candid judgment of those who lightly esteem and wantonly break the law, if God in justice spared not his Son, his well-beloved Son, in whom he greatly delighted, but let him suffer its penalty when he took its transgressions upon him, how can you hope to escape his justice and his wrath in the great coming day, if you continue to transgress it? Can you hope that God will be more favorable to you if sin be found upon you in that day than he was to his Son? Do not abuse his mercy, because he grants the “remission of sins that are past,” by claiming indulgence for sins in the future. Be warned in time, for Christ is not the minister of sin, but of righteousness. He will not save you in sin, but from sin. While the carnal mind is enmity against God, and not subject to his law, the Christian can say, “I delight in the law of God.” Rom. 7:22; 8:7.

As an excuse for rejecting the law of God it is often said that we cannot be justified by the law. That is at least as much as an insinuation that they who keep the law seek to be justified by it. But this is a great mistake. They who know enough of the principles of this law to love it, well know that it is too holy, just, and good, to justify a sinner. And because all have sinned against it, all are condemned by it, and none can be justified by it. See Rom. 3:19, 20. It is not the fault of the law that man is not justified by it; had he obeyed it, as was his duty to do, he would have been justified by it, for the apostle says, “The doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13.

Charity leads us to presume that they who offer this objection do not realize that the Scriptures make a distinction between justification and salvation. If we only had regard to original justice, there could be no difference; i. e., if a man had never sinned he would have been justified, and of course saved, by his obedience. But this original or personal justice no one now possesses. Hence, while the principles cannot change, and the rule of justification is ever the same, the means are entirely different from what they would be if man had never sinned. Here is where many err. They suppose, or seem to suppose, that if the law ceases to be the means of justification, it ceases also to be the rule. They do not judge of the law by its nature or original object, but from a partial view of the position of its transgressor. The law, as a rule of right, will form a perfect character, but cannot reform an imperfect one. The rule of the mechanic will determine or point out a right angle on the end of a board he is framing; and if the board is square—if the angle is right, it is justified or proved right by the rule. But if the angle is not right, the rule will point out the inaccuracy, but will not make it right. That must be effected by another tool. But if the saw is the means of making the proper angle on the board, does the saw therefore become the rule of determining angles or measurements? By no means. And there is precisely this difference between the law and the gospel. “By the law is the knowledge of sin;” but the gospel is the remedy. The law points out the errors of character, the gospel reforms them. The law being the only rule of right, “the doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13. This is but plain justice, for no one can suppose that the man who did the law—who obeyed God in all his life—would be condemned. But Paul also says that all have sinned; and from this he draws the very evident conclusion, “Therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.” Rom. 3:20. So we are justified now “freely by his grace;” entirely by faith; works do not enter into our justification. And why not? Because, as the apostle shows, this justification by faith has respect to “the remission of sins that are past.” Rom. 3:25. Over these our future acts of obedience can have no influence or control.

It seems as if every one ought to see how absurd it is to infer that the sinner justified by grace or pardon is under no further obligation to keep that law by which, as a sinner, he cannot be justified. They who thus teach cannot realize how destructive is that view of every principle of right and justice; how it dishonors the gospel of Christ; how it tends to pervert a holy gospel of love to a mere system of license. Of all the abuses the gospel has ever received at the hands of its professed friends, this is the deepest. It is contrary to Scripture and to all just reasoning. Ask the advocate of that theory if the law of his State will justify the thief in stealing, or the murderer in killing. He will answer, No; the law condemns such actions. Ask him how the criminal can escape the true desert of his crimes, and he will reply, Only by the governor’s pardon. Ask again, If the law condemns the transgressor, and he can be justified by pardon, does that pardon release him from obedience to the law, so that he may thereafter disregard its claims? Will he affirm this? Will he tell you that that pardon thereafter becomes the rule of life to such a man? And if the pardoned one should again be committed for crime, will the jury try him and the judge condemn him by the governor’s pardon, or by the statute of the State? Could we get any to take the same unreasonable position in regard to the law of the State that many take in regard to the law of God? Not one. If angels ever weep at the blind folly of mortals, it seems that such teachings furnish an occasion. To see men of talent, of learning, of apparent piety, strip the plan of salvation of every principle of justice, pervert it to a system of license, draw conclusions directly contrary to reason and common sense, and argue on the divine government as they would be ashamed to argue in respect to the government of the State; surely this is enough to fill the Heavens with astonishment.

Let it be distinctly noted that a moral duty, whether it be called law or gospel, cannot justify a sinner. That law which points out sin, which is therefore the rule of right, will not justify. This is the teaching of Rom. 3:20, 21. It is singular indeed that they who teach the abrogation of the original law, and its insufficiency to justify, and who hold that all that is binding in the law is incorporated in the gospel, really teach justification by law—by the same system that points out sin, which Paul calls “the law.” This is contrary to reason, and to the apostle’s words in Rom. 3:20. The truth is evidently this: The gospel upholds the law and enforces it upon the conscience, and incorporates it into the life of the believer. But it does not abrogate law, nor release the believer from obedience to it; nor does it incorporate law into itself so as to have a blending of the two in one. The difference between the law and the gospel is as distinct now as it was in the days when the gospel was preached to the sinners in the wilderness. Heb. 4:1. The law is moral; sin is immorality; the gospel is the remedy. Medicine may restore health, but health is not medicine.

This matter may be tested by the following plain statement: The blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant, is that whereby we have remission of sin. See Heb. 9:22; Rom. 3:25. And this is freely and exclusively by faith or grace. Hence, baptism may be a gospel condition of justification because it is not any part of the original obligation or moral duty. If it were moral duty it could not be performed for remission of sin, simply because as such it would be required on its own account. So the commandment which says, “Thou shalt not steal,” cannot be incorporated into the same system and take part in the work of remission, being itself a moral duty. How reasonable is the conditional plan which says, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin.” And how absurd it would be to read, Thou shalt not kill for the remission of sin; or, Honor thy father and mother for the remission of sin. It appears absurd, as I have stated, whether these be called law or gospel, to claim justification or remission through them. But they who teach the abrogation of the law, and the incorporation of these commandments into the gospel are responsible for this absurdity. It belongs to their system.