THERE is perhaps no subject in the entire range of Christian Theology upon which more has been written, and which has been more fully and ably discussed, than that of the atonement; and yet I may safely say, there is none in reference to which the professed Christian world are more at variance, than this. But on this point all parties agree: that it is a subject second to no other in importance and utility. It is the foundation of the whole superstructure of the Christian Religion.
No one can fail to see the importance of having the foundation of a building of great magnitude and utility, composed of the choicest material, and executed with the most profound skill. Nor is any one prepared to appreciate or understand God's plan of saving men, without having correct views of the atonement. Our views of this subject will give shape to our views of every Bible doctrine. It is, therefore, a matter of vital importance that our views of this subject be correct. As an eminent writer justly ob-
serves, "Errors on this subject sap the whole structure of religion. All the great outlines of theology become vague and incoherent notions when deprived of their connection with this central truth."
In the investigation of this subject I propose considering:—
I. The true import of the Hebrew word rendered atonement. Not being a Hebrew scholar, I will give the criticism of another.
"The term in the Hebrew language, which we translate atonement, is copher. As a verb, it literally signifies to cover; and as a noun, a covering; generally, whenever the word occurs, something that has given serious offense, and produced a permanent state of variance between the parties is supposed; and then in relation to the party offended, it signifies to pacify, to appease, or to render him propitious; as Gen. xxxii, 20. 'And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me.' Eze. xvi, 63. 'That thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.'"
"When applied to sin, it signifies to cover, or expiate it; to atone, or make satisfaction for it. Ps. xxxii, 1. 'Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.' Lev. xvi, 30. 'For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.'"
"When the term represents the sinner himself, it implies his being covered, or protected from punishment, and is rendered a ransom, or atonement for him. Ex. xxi, 30. 'If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.' Chap. xxx, 12, 15. 'When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them when thou numberest them. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for your souls.'"
"This seems to be the plain and unforced meaning of the Hebrew word copher; and when we look into the Greek version of the Old Testament, by the Seventy, we find it translated ilasmos, propitious; and 'to make an atonement,' they express by the word exilaskomai, which signifies 'to render propitious.'—Hence, the apostles who wrote in Greek, when referring to the death of Christ, make use of the very same terms which are applied to the legal sacrifices in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament; representing the former, not only as a real and proper sacrifice, but as the truth and substance of all the sacrifices of the Levitical law, and the only true and efficacious atonement for sin. Heb. ix: passim, and Chap. x, 1-19. As, therefore, the Greek word ilasmos is expressly applied to Christ, 1 John ii, 2, 'And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.' Chap. iv, 10. 'Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.' And as it gives the true signification of the original word when applied to an atoning sacrifice, we must either admit that the sacrifice of Christ was a real atonement or propitiation for sin, or be reduced to the alternative of denying all that the scripture says respecting the design and effect of sacrifices."—Religious Encyclopedia.—Page 144.
The cases where the offending party cannot possibly make satisfaction in their own person, and where the infliction of the threatened penalty would place the transgressor beyond the hope of recovery; (as is the case in all capital offences;) if in such case the suffering of another be accepted in his stead, the atonement thus made by a substitute is denominated a vicarious atonement.
This is the case with man. He has violated a law which requires perfect obedience; hence he cannot, in any way, make satisfaction for such violation, from the fact that it was all he could possibly do in the first instance to render perfect obedience; and to suffer the penalty (death) due for his transgression would ruin him; hence the atonement made by Christ is justly termed a vicarious atonement. "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isa. liii, 5. "For I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." 1 Cor. xv, 3.
Some writers confound atonement with reconciliation, and thus lay the foundation for the most fatal errors, such as Universalism, Restorationism, Swedenborgianism, &c.
As our writer of the Encyclopedia, has well observed, "the appeal to etymology in defence of this confusion of ideas is but egregious trifling, unworthy of a subject so vast and solemn. And as to Rom. v, 11, it is well known that the original word there used is not ilasmos, but katallageen, and should have been rendered reconciliation. It is God, not man, who receives the atonement; but believers, as the whole context shows, receive reconciliation through Christ." Parkhurst, in his Greek Lexicon, says that the Greek word, katallagee, in every instance which it occurs in the New Testament, except Rom. v, 11, is rendered reconciliation; and it is thus rendered in the margin of this text, and evidently should have been in the text itself.
ATONEMENT AND RECONCILIATION DIFFER.
1. In their origin. The former had its origin in the volition of Jesus Christ, who voluntarily took our nature, and suffered and died in our stead: the latter has its origin in the consent of man's will to accept the sacrifice. They differ, as the necessary means to the attainment of an end, and the end attained by the use of the means.
2. They differ in the essential ingredients of their nature.
The former has exclusive reference to the mind of an offended God; the latter to the mind of offending and irreconciled man. The one is satisfaction rendered to God, for the claims of his broken law: the other is satisfaction on the part of the sinner with what God has done for him, and a full and hearty acceptation of his revealed plan. The one, therefore has reference to a condition of the Divine Mind: the other to a disposition of the human mind.
3. They differ in their object. The former has reference to God: the latter to man. God receives the atonement, and man receives reconciliation. The atonement may exist without reconciliation on the part of man; but reconciliation cannot exist without the atonement. The atonement is the cause, and reconciliation the effect, to those who avail themselves of its provisions. They differ, therefore, as cause and effect differ; and can never be confounded, without great violence to both. The Bible, everywhere represents the atonement as the ground and basis of reconciliation to God. Rom. iii, 24-26. "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Chap. v, 1. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." Verses 8, 9, 10. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled we shall be saved by his life." 2 Cor. v, 18-21. "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their10trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we as ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 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."
Having briefly investigated the nature of the atonement, I will now consider:—
II. The difficulties in the way of man's salvation, which renders an atonement necessary. They are:—
1. The penalty of God's law for Adamic, or original transgression.
2. The penalty for individual, or personal transgression.
To have clear views of the relation these penalties sustain to the atonement, it is of great importance that we understand, first, the relation they sustain to each other. They are denominated by some writers, a first and second death. But the terms first and second, are relative terms, pointing out the order in which the events specified occur. They are in all cases dependent on the supposed or actual existence of each other. A second supposes a first, and a first supposes a second. Death, being the negative of life, must be preceded by life, hence a first and second death must be preceded by a first and second life. It would, therefore, be just as proper to call the rewards of the gospel a first and second life, as to call the penalties of the law a first and second death. The same that would make these a first and second would those also. There must be two lives and two deaths, to make either a first or a second. But had not the scheme of redemption been devised, man would never have lived a second life, consequently, could never have died a second death. What, in such case, would the penalty have been for the sin of our first Parents? Would it have been a first death? Nay, verily; because no second would ever succeed it; hence it could not be a first. But, from the fact that man is actually exposed to two deaths, we call the one that occurs first, a first death, and the one that occurs second, a second death, just as we speak of a first and second life, a first and second birth, and a first and second Adam, simply to denote their order, and not their nature.
The penalty of God's law for original sin is death, (not a first death.) Mark the import of the language in which the first penalty is clothed: "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." "As in Adam all die," &c. The penalty for personal sin is equally explicit. "The wages of sin is death." (Not a second death, but simply death.) "Sin when finished bringeth forth death." To illustrate: The penalty in the State of Illinois for murder is death. Now, suppose a man to be executed according to their law, then to be raised from the dead, and executed a second time, for another offense, would the fact of the same man being put to death a second time, make the penalty in that State, for murder, a first death? Certainly not. But, in case the same man should die a second time, it would be, in reference to its order, a first death.
Christ not having died a previous death, and not being exposed to a subsequent death, could die neither a first nor a second death, but, as the Scriptures plainly teach, "He died the death of the cross." "For if when we were sinners, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," &c. Not a first, or a second death, but "the death." This brings us to consider the difficulties in the way of man's salvation:—
1. The penalty of the law of God for the sin of our first parents, or the death threatened Adam in the Garden of Eden. The investigation of the nature of this penalty properly belongs to another part of this subject. The actual existence of such a penalty, or the fact of man's being exposed to death for Adam's transgression, is all I propose investigating under this head.
God having created man, appointed to govern him by a just, wise, and holy law, the reward of which was eternal life, the penalty of which was death. This reward and penalty was represented by two trees, i. e., the "tree of life," and the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Man's will was left free to choose the one and to refuse the other. Eating the fruit of these trees involved the great principles of obedience or disobedience; hence by eating of the fruit of the tree of life, Adam would have received the promised reward for obedience, which was eternal life; but, by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he must suffer the penalty which was death. Gen. ii, 16, 17. "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'" By this passage, we learn that the penalty of the law of God threatened Adam for disobedience was death. But did Adam disobey? He did. Chap. iii, 1-14. Did he suffer the penalty? He did. Chap. v, 5. "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died." Some may object to this view, because Adam did not die a literal death in the day he ate of the forbidden tree; he must, therefore, have died a spiritual death. This objection will be noticed in connection with the nature of the penalty threatened Adam.
But what relation do Adam's posterity sustain to this penalty? Are they exposed to the same death? Ans. They are. To this, the whole Scriptures bear testimony. The decree has never been repealed, that "dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Mark the doom of Adam's immediate posterity. They shared their father's fate. The record reads thus: "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died." "And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years; and he died." "And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died." "And all the days of Mahalahel were eight hundred ninety and five years; and he died." "And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years; and he died." "And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years; and he died." "And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years; and he died." Gen. v, 8-31. Noah died; [Chap. ix, 29:] Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died; [Chaps. xxv, 8; xxxv, 29; xlix, 33; Heb. xi, 13:] David, a man after God's own heart, must also die; [1 Kings ii, 10; Acts ii, 29]. Time would fail to speak of Joshua, Samuel, and all the Prophets, who died in the hope of a "better resurrection." Heb. xi, 35. Job declares the grave to be the final destination of all living. "For I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living." Job xxx, 23.
The apostle Paul places the question beyond the possibility of a doubt: he plainly teaches that Adam's sin involved his whole posterity in death. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Rom. v, 12. Not that all have sinned "after the similitude of Adam's transgression;" [verse 14:] but by, or through Adam, as our representative, all have sinned. Adam sinned personally, whereas, his posterity sinned by proxy, or by their representative. Adam, being the representative of the entire human race, as a natural consequence, entails his own nature and destiny upon all his posterity. Having, therefore, incurred a mortal, corruptible, dying nature, he entails the same nature upon the generations proceeding from him. Of course he could give his children no better nature than that which he himself possessed. Again, the same Apostle says, "For as in Adam all die;" [1 Cor. xv, 22:] thereby teaching that all mankind suffer the penalty threatened Adam in the garden of Eden.
a. Enoch and Elijah are excepted; and the righteous living at the Advent of our blessed Redeemer, will be exceptions to this statement, unless those did, and these will, undergo a change equivalent to death. Who dare say they did not, and these will not?
b. The first penalty, or the death it inflicts, is unconditional. There were no conditions, or provisos attached to the penalty. The language in which it is expressed, excludes the possibility of pardon, without setting the law and its penalty aside. "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." "For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." It is inflexible; it must have the life of its victim.
c. It being unconditional, the righteous suffer it as well as the wicked; hence all die, (infants not excepted,) irrespective of moral character. "In Adam all die."
d. This death being entailed upon the human family by their first parents, or by an act over which they had no control, they are not personally responsible. This brings me to notice:—
2. The penalty of the law of God for personal sins. It is death. Both Testaments represent man as being exposed to death for personal sins. But, inasmuch as all die for original sin, none can die for personal sin, without a resurrection to a second life; hence the Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection of the dead, "both of the just and the unjust." To be preceded by a second life, it must, in the nature of things, be a second death; hence while the penalty for personal sin is only one death, yet in reference to its relation to the penalty for original sin, it will be a second death. When I speak of this death as a second death, I wish to be distinctly understood as having no reference whatever to the nature of the penalty for personal sin, but only its relation to a previous death. This must be the only sense in which the Bible speaks of it as a second death.
That man is exposed to die a second time is evident from many very explicit texts of Scripture. Moses makes the most solemn and touching appeal to the children of Israel, saying, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." This was a life which might be obtained by obedience; and a death that would be incurred by disobedience; hence it cannot refer to the first life or first death; for these are not conditional. Prov. xix, 16. "He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul; but he that despiseth his ways shall die." All die the first death whether they "despise his ways" or not. Eze. xviii, 4. "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Verse 20. All die the first death, whether they sin or not; it must therefore refer to a second, or another death. Chap. xxxiii, 11. "Say unto them, As I live saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel."
The death threatened Adam cannot be averted by turning to God, consequently, this text must refer to another death. Jer. xxi, 8. "And unto this people thou shalt say, Thus saith the Lord, behold I set before you the way of life, and the way of death." Jesus Christ says, "For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John viii, 24. This was a death that might be averted by faith; hence it must refer to another death, besides the one all men die, whether they believe or not.
Paul addresses personal agents who are responsible for their own actions, and tells them that the wages of sin is death. Rom. vi, 23. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Man cannot have eternal life in the present life, it must therefore refer to a future life; the death here threatened refers to the same state; hence both must be in the world to come, when man receives his reward for obedience or disobedience. See John v, 28, 29; Mark x, 28-31; Rom. ii, 7; Tit. i, 2. Life and death are also contrasted in Chap. viii, 13. Sin when finished bringeth forth death. James i, 15. "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." Personal sins will not finish their work until man is raised to a second life, to die again. But they that shall be accounted worthy to attain to that resurrection ("the resurrection of the just," Luke xiv, 14,) and the world to come (Mark x, 30,) will not die again, but be as the angels. Luke xx, 35, 36. "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more."
1. This is the peculiar privilege of none but the righteous: "They which shall be accounted worthy." &c. The unworthy will have part in the second resurrection [Rev. xx, 4, 5, 6.] and the second death.112. "Neither can they die any more." This cannot mean more and most death; but, that they cannot die again. We are plainly told that all who do not overcome (are not worthy) shall die again, i. e., a second time. Rev. ii, 11. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; He that overcometh, shall not be hurt of the second death." The converse is, he that does not overcome shall be hurt of the second death. See also Chap. xx, 6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power," &c; the opposite of which is, cursed and unholy is he that hath part in the second resurrection: on such the second death shall have power.
The lake of fire produces the second death. Rev. xxi, 8. "But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death." The Bible nowhere teaches a resurrection from this death.
a. This is a second death, not to denote the penalty for personal sins, (that is death,) but to denote the relation to a previous death, which the same characters will have died.
b. The penalty for personal sins is inexorable. There are no conditions, or provisos, attached to it, whereby it may be enforced, or set aside as the judge may choose. It must be inflicted, if justice be maintained. The penalty is inflicted, if a substitute be accepted, the same as though the guilty suffer it. It must be suffered, either by the guilty, or by a substitute. And the only difference between the penalty threatened Adam, and that threatened his posterity, is, the Judge would accept no substitute in that case; (Adam and his posterity must die,) whereas, in this, he freely offers to accept the death of his Son in our stead.
c. Those who die in infancy, not being personal sinners, the law will have no claims on them for personal transgressions; hence not being subject to die again, when made alive by the second Adam, they will live forever.
Now, until these difficulties be removed, there can be no permanent salvation for fallen man. Any salvation wrought out for him in the present life, can avail but little while death remains back to captivate its victim. Any salvation in the future life, will be of little value, while another death remains still back, to drag its hapless victim down to irretrievable ruin.