The Atonement: No. 11 by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 14, 1874

The Atonement.—No. 11.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

SOME affect to think it derogatory to the character of God that his Son should suffer for us—the innocent for the guilty. But their opinions must have been formed without any careful examination of the principles upon which pardon may be granted without dishonor to the law or disparagement to the government. Or they must have views of the divine government unworthy of the subject; unworthy of the eternal truth and infinite justice of a holy God. The Lord has said that death was the penalty of transgression, and that his law should not be set aside, nor its penalty relaxed; for he would by no means clear the guilty. Ex. 34:7. Was it necessary for God to keep his word? If so, in order to man’s salvation, it was necessary to clear man from guilt—to save him from sin; for, as guilty, in sin, he could by no means be cleared. Reason attests that the salvation of a sinner can only be effected by providing a willing and honorable substitute. The Bible attests that God gave his own Son, and the Son gave himself to die for us. What reason, in the name of justice and mercy, demands, the Bible reveals as the gift of that holy One in whom infinite justice and mercy unite. Were the opposers of an atonement as correct in reasoning as they are loud in professing reason, they would cease to abuse the Bible, and admire with wonder and with awe “the mystery of godliness.”

Inasmuch as the law of God is honored by the death of his Son, it shows the high estimate God places on his law; and we shall have correct views of each only so far as we have correct views of the other. Now, as the glory of God was the first great object of the gospel; Luke 1:14; and, as we have seen, the honor of the law must be the chief object of an atonement, we shall best be able to estimate the value of the law of God by having just views of the price paid for man’s redemption from its curse. And it is also true that they only can properly appreciate the gift of Christ who rightly estimate the holiness and justice of that law for which he died.

What, then, was the sacrifice offered for us? the price paid to rescue us from death? Did Christ, the Son of God, die? Or did a human body die, and God’s exalted Son leave it in the hour of its suffering? If the latter be correct, it will greatly detract from our views of the atonement; for the death of a mere human being, however sinless, would seem to be a very limited sacrifice for a sinful race. But, however that might be, we should not question God’s plan, if that was the plan. But what say the Scriptures? This must be our inquiry.

It has been often asserted that the Son of God, the pre-existent being who “came down from Heaven,” could not suffer and die; but that he left the body at the moment of its death. If so, the only humiliation the Son manifested, was to leave Heaven and dwell in such a body: and so far from the death of the body being a sacrifice on the part of the higher nature, it was only a release and exemption from the state of humiliation. This would hardly justify the Scripture declarations of the amazing love of God in giving his Son to die for the sins of the world.

That view supposes that there were two distinct natures in the person of Christ, but the Scriptures do not so teach. But if there were two natures in him which were only temporarily united, and separated in his death, we can doubtless learn it in the revelation concerning him. The question will then arise, In what terms is this distinction revealed? What terms express his higher or divine nature, and what his mere human nature? Whoever attempts to answer these questions will find the position utterly untenable. “Christ” expresses both combined. “Christ, the Son of the living God”—“the man Christ Jesus,” both refer to the same person or individual; there are no forms of speech to express his personality higher than the Son of God, or Christ, and the Scriptures declare that Christ, the Son of God, died.

On this point, we cannot be too careful in our examinations; it is of too much importance to be passed over lightly.

The divinity and pre-existence of our Saviour are most clearly proved by those scriptures which refer to him as “the Word.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:1–3. This expresses plainly a pre-existent divinity. The same writer again says: “That which was from the beginning, . . . the Word of life,” 1 John 1:1. What John calls the Word, in these passages, Paul calls the “Son,” in Heb. 1:1–3. “God . . . hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power.” In other places in this letter this same exalted one is called Jesus Christ. In these passages we find the divinity or “higher nature” of our Lord expressed. Indeed, language could not more plainly express it; therefore it is unnecessary to call other testimony to prove it, it being already sufficiently proved.

The first of the above quotations says the Word was God, and also the Word was with God. Now it needs no proof—indeed it is self-evident—that the Word as God, was not the God whom he was with. And as there is but “one God,” the term must be used in reference to the Word in a subordinate sense, which is explained by Paul’s calling the same pre-existent person the Son of God. This is also confirmed by John’s saying that the Word “was with the Father.” 1 John 1:2; also calling the Word, “his Son Jesus Christ.” Verse 3. Now it is reasonable that the Son should bear the name and title of his Father, especially when the Father makes him his exclusive representative to man, and clothes him with such power—“by whom he made the worlds.” That the term God is used in such a sense is also proved by Paul, quoting Ps. 45:6, 7, and applying it to Jesus. “But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, . . . therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Heb. 1:8, 9. Here the title of God is applied to the Son, and his God anointed him. This is the highest title he can bear, and it is evidently used here in a sense subordinate to its application to his Father.

The Scriptures teach that this exalted One, who was with the Father in the beginning, by whom all things were made, died on the cross; and in this consists the immense sacrifice made for man—the wondrous love of God, and the condescension of his only Son. John speaks of him as, “The Word of life,” “that which was from the beginning,” “which was with the Father,” that exalted, pre-existent One “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.” 1 John 1:1, 2. This testimony of inspiration makes the Word that was with the Father from the beginning, a tangible being, appreciable to the senses of those with whom he associated. How can this be so? For an answer we turn to John 1:14: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” This is plain language and no parable.

But these are not the only witnesses speaking to the same intent. Says Paul, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself;” more literally, divested himself, i. e., of the glory he had with the Father before the world was. Phil. 2:5–8.

Again Paul speaks of him thus: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same.” Heb. 2:14. The angel also announced to Mary that her son Jesus should be called the Son of the Highest; and, “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:32, 35. Not that the “Son of the Highest” should dwell in and inhabit that which should be born of her, but her son was the holy, pre-existent One, thus by the energy of the Holy Spirit “made flesh.” Now, if the human nature of Christ existed distinct from the divine, the foregoing declarations will not apply to either; for, if that were so, the pre-existent Word was not made flesh; it was not the man, nor in the fashion of a man, nor did the man, the servant, ever humble himself, or divest himself of divine glory, never having possessed it. But allowing that the Word—the divine Son of the Most High—was made flesh, took on him the seed of Abraham, and thus changed the form and manner of his existence by the consent and mighty power of God, all becomes clear and harmonious.

It has been remarked that the titles of the Father are given to the Son, whereby he is called God. In Isa. 9:6, 7, he is called the son given; the child born; Wonderful; Counselor; the mighty God; the everlasting Father; the Prince of Peace; and he is to sit upon the throne of David. These expressions clearly identify the anointed of God, even Jesus. And he is evidently called Prince of Peace here in the same capacity that he is called the “King of Peace,” in Heb. 7, because “he is our peace,” Eph. 2:14, or makes peace for us on the throne of his Father; for it is only in his priestly office that he is King of Peace, that is, a priest after the order of Melchisedec. But Paul again says that he is our peace, reconciling us unto God by the cross, we being “made nigh by the blood of Christ.” Eph. 2:13–16. We have seen the necessity of blood in order to make an atonement, and that the high priest never entered the holies without it; and Christ, the King of Peace, our High Priest, obtains redemption for us “by his own blood.” See Heb. 6:20; 7:1–3; 8:1; 9:11, 12. Therefore, that exalted One referred to in Isa. 9:6, 7, shed his blood, or laid down his life for us. Again, he is prophesied of under the name Immanuel, which Matthew said means “God with us.” The angel said he should “save his people from their sins.” Matt. 1:21, 23. And Paul said he accomplished this or put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, purging us “by his own blood.” Heb. 9:11–14, 26.

The gospel according to John takes up the Word, in the beginning, as God, with God, by whom all things were made; says the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; represents him as saying he came from the Father and returned to him; as praying that the Father would restore to him the glory which he had with him before the world was; relates how he taught and wrought miracles; was falsely accused of the Jews; was put to death on the cross; his blood was shed; he was buried, and rose again from the dead. Now, I would ask the candid reader to look at this testimony, and answer: Is the history of any other person given in this book than of Him who is called the Word, who was in the beginning? And if any other individual or person was referred to, who was that person?

Phil. 2:5–8, speaks of Christ as being in the form of God; he thought it not robbery to be equal with God; was made in the likeness of man; humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Again I appeal to the candid: Is not all this spoken of one person? Or did one person humble himself, and another become obedient to death?

Paul, in Col. 1:14–20, uses the same form of expression that he does in Heb. 1. He says of the Son: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, . . . all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself.”

Here is a description of power, of authority, of fulness, of divinity, truly wonderful. Yet this exalted One, by whom all things were created, has made peace by the blood of his cross, and was raised from the dead; he is the head of the church, and we have redemption through his blood. Such testimony on the nature of the offering for our sins is too plain to need comment.

Jesus, in his letter to the church, takes up the same idea expressed by his apostle in Col. 1, of his being the Creator of all, and first-born of every creature, and says: “I am the first and the last; I am he that liveth and was dead.” Rev. 1:17, 18. Here it is expressly affirmed that he who is the first and the last was dead. And thus it is abundantly shown that Christ, the Son of the Most High, the Word by whom the worlds were made, in whom all things consist, the first and the last, the image of the invisible God in whom all fulness dwells, was made flesh and laid down his life to purge us from sin, and to redeem us to God by his own blood.

We have remarked that we should not question God’s plan, whatever that might be. But we find that there is a fitness, a conformity to the necessity of things, in God’s arrangements. The value of the atonement is not merely in the appointment of God; for, were it so, “the blood of bulls and of goats” might have answered every purpose had God so appointed. But Paul says it is not possible that such blood should take away sin or purge the conscience. Again, it is not in mere suffering; for, were that the case, man might atone for himself were he to suffer long enough. But it is evident from every principle of just government, that a man under condemnation to death, of a holy, just, and immutable law, could never make atonement for himself. But, the value of the atonement really consists in the dignity of the offering.

If this be true, and the considerate reader will not deny it, then it is not a vain effort to endeavor to prove that the exalted, pre-existent Son of God died. And that view which makes the divine Son of God merely inhabit a human body, and leave it in the hour of its death, while the divine being neither suffered nor died—that view strikes at the efficacy and dignity of the atonement, by denying the dignity of the offering.

J. H. WAGGONER.