The Atonement by Albert Barnes

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 24, 1861

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 18, No. 17.

Read the full edition

The Atonement.

By Albert Barnes

BY ALBERT BARNES.

CONFIRMATION FROM THE BIBLE

I. THE first point is that it is through Christ that reconciliation is effected between God and man.

A few passages of the New Testament will put this point beyond dispute.

Romans v, 10, 11: "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. And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Marg. reconciliation). The same Greek word occurs in various forms in each of these passages. The verb (verse 10)—καταλλάσσω—means, properly, "to change against any thing; to exchange for, e.g. money." Then to change a person toward another, from enmity to friendship; to reconcile to any one. (Rob. Lex.) The noun (verse 11)—καταλλαγή—corresponds, of course, with this signification, and denotes a change from enmity to friendship. The verb occurs only in the following places in the New Testament:—Rom. v, 10, 'we were reconciled to God;' 'being reconciled; 1 Cor. vii, 11, 'Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband;' 2 Cor. v, 18, 'Of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ;' 2 Cor. v, 19, 'reconciling the world unto himself;' 2 Cor. v, 20, 'Be ye reconciled to God.' The noun occurs only in the following places:—Rom. v, 11, 'by whom we have received the atonement;' Rom. xi, 15, 'the reconciling of the world;' 2 Cor. v, 18, 'the ministry of reconciliation;' 2 Cor. v, 18, 'the word of reconciliation.'

In 1 Cor. vii, 11, 'let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband,'—which is the only instance where the word occurs in the New Testament except as connected with the atonement, and which may therefore be used to illustrate the meaning of the word when applied to the atonement,—there can be no doubt as to its meaning. It refers to a case where a woman had 'departed' from her husband; that is, where there had been a separation. That separation had been wholly her act. The change, therefore, was to be on her part; and the effect was to be re-union, or reconciliation, with her husband. The existing state was one of separation; the thing to be effected was re-union: the means in the case was to be a change in herself. The point reached was a re-union where there had been an alienation or estrangement. The proper use of the word in reference to man is to express the same idea in his relation to God. The point supposed is that of alienation or estrangement. The point to be effected is a re-union with God. The change, so far as indicated by the word, is to be in one of the parties,—in this case in man,—thus differing from another Greek word,—διαλλάσσω,—which properly implies mutual change. (Titm. de Syn. N. T., p. 101, seq., as quoted by Robinson, Lex.) The means, or medium, of the reconciliation or the re-union of God and man is expressly declared to be the Lord Jesus Christ, 'by whom we have now received the reconciliation.' (Rom. v, 11), which is the very point to be made out.

The same idea occurs in the passages in 2 Cor. v. Thus, in verse 18 of that chapter, it is said, "All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ." The statement here is explicit as to the point now under consideration,—that a reconciliation is effected between God and man, and that this is accomplished by Jesus Christ. The same idea is repeated in verse 19 of the same chapter: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." That is, God, by the agency of Christ, was reconciling the world unto himself. And the same idea is implied in verse 20 of the same chapter: "As though God did beseech you by us, we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. That is, as ambassadors of Christ, they (the apostles) plead with men that they would be reconciled to God. They came in his name. They occupied, by appointment, his place. They did what he would do if he were personally addressing them. In other words, God was the great agent by whom this reconciliation was to be effected, and the apostles were merely his ambassadors in carrying out the great work intrusted to them.

The meaning of these passages cannot be mistaken. In all of them it is implied (1.) that there was an alienation between man and God; (2.) that there were obstacles to be overcome before a reconciliation could be secured; and (3.) that these obstacles were in fact overcome, and the reconciliation secured, by the intervention and work of the Redeemer. As it is impossible to convey the idea that it is by means of Christ that reconciliation is effected between God and man, in any plainer language than that which occurs in these passages, the point may be regarded as demonstrated.

II. The second point is, that, in securing this reconciliation, Christ was properly a substitute in the place of sinners. A 'substitute' is "one person put in the place of another to answer the same purpose."—Webster. The idea is, that the person substituted is to do or suffer the same thing which the person for whom he is substituted would have done. An agent, an attorney, or a representative, is to act for the person for whom he is substituted as the person himself would have done in the case. A nation is threatened with invasion. The inhabitants of a certain district are assembled, and a 'draft' is made of a certain proportion to constitute a military force to repel the invader. When one is drawn to serve in the army, instead of going himself, he is permitted to employ, at his own expense, another, who shall be equally able-bodied and equally skilled in the 'art of war.' He who is thus voluntarily substituted in the place of him that was drafted to perform the service goes forth in his stead, to do what he was to do, to suffer what he would have suffered, to encounter the danger which he would have encountered. If he experiences cold and hunger in the service, it is in the place of what he on whom the lot fell would have suffered; if he dies on the field of battle, it is in his stead; if he renders any service in repelling the foe or in establishing the liberties of his country, it is in his place; if he is crowned with the rewards due to a victor, he wears the garland which the man in whose place he was substituted would have worn.

So, in the plan of atonement, it is supposed that the Lord Jesus Christ took the place of sinners. He died that they might not die. He placed himself between them and the sword of justice; he received in his own person, as far as could be done, what was due to them; and he thus saved them from experiencing in the world of despair what was due to their sins. He effected so much by his voluntary sufferings that it was not necessary, by any demands of justice, to inflict the penalty of the law on those for whom he died.

Two passages of Scripture will illustrate what is meant by substitution, though they are not here adduced as proof that Christ died in the place of sinners. One occurs in John xi, 49, 50: "And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high-priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not." The idea of Caiaphas is not that Jesus would die as a sacrifice for sin, but that his death would avert the ruin of the nation; that, unless he was thus put to death, the Romans would come and take away their place

and nation. In what way he supposed that this would avert such a calamity, it is not necessary now to inquire. The idea is simply that his death would in some way be instead of the ruin of the nation. Perhaps he meant that by thus giving him up to death they would show their zeal for the suppression of everything that seemed to endanger the Roman power, and that, if this was not shown in a case like this, the Romans would suppose that they were disposed to encourage a spirit of insubordination and revolt, and would come and inflict summary vengeance on them.

The other passage occurs in Isaiah xliii, 3, 4: “I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee; therefore I will give men for thee, and people for thy life.” The idea here is, that the Egyptians were regarded as having been given up to destruction instead of the Hebrews. Either the Jewish or Egyptian people must perish; and God chose that Egypt, though so much more mighty, should be reduced to desolation in order to deliver the Hebrew people. They were destroyed instead of the Hebrews, and in order that they might be delivered from bondage. On the same principle it is said, in verse 4, that God would continue to do this. His people were so precious in his sight that he says, ‘I will,’ if necessary, ‘give men,’ that is, the men of other nations, ‘for thee, and people,’ that is, the people of other lands, ‘for thy life.’ He would not see his own people ruined; and if the case should occur that one or the other must perish, he would deliver up the people of other lands to ruin rather than his own people. This is referred to now, not as having any reference to the atonement, but as an illustration of it. The regular course of things would have been that the Hebrews would have been crushed and destroyed. But God chose that it should be otherwise, and preferred that the calamity should come upon the Egyptians. In the case of redemption, ruin was coming upon the race of man. It was certain that unless there was some substitution the race would perish. Sufferings indescribable and awful—sufferings that would express the Divine sense of the value of law and of the evil of a violation of that law—must come either upon the offenders themselves, or upon some one who should take their place; and God adopted an arrangement by which these sufferings should come upon the Redeemer rather than upon the guilty. Thus they might be saved, and at the same time there might be an expression of the Divine sense of the value of law and of the evil of a violation of that law, as clear and as impressive as though the guilty had themselves borne the full penalty of the law.

The avails of the Redeemer’s sufferings and death may become ours.

The principle of ‘supererogation,’ or of doing more than is required by the exact demands of law, and, therefore, of doing that which may be made available to others, is one that undoubtedly enters into all just notions of the atonement; and it is proper to inquire whether this is a principle that is found anywhere in human society or in the arrangements of providence. It cannot be doubted that it is an elementary idea in the work of Christ that his whole work was voluntary; that what he did was done wholly on the account of others; that he was not himself bound, by any claims of law or justice, to undertake the work which he performed, or to endure the sorrows connected with it; and that, therefore, the avails of his work may become the ground of acceptance of those who have no merit of their own, and who are unable to repair the evils of a violated law. It is implied in the work of the atonement that the Redeemer could do, and did do, more than was demanded of him by any claim of law or justice; and that the avails of what he did may and do become ours. *

An atonement made by man, therefore, would be impossible; for no man could do more in the cause of religion than he is required to do by the law of God. No man has any time that is not covered by the law; any talent, skill, or wisdom, that is not demanded in the service of God; any influence that God does not require should be devoted to his service. If man performs anything that is uncommanded and unrequired, it must be by the neglect of some duty that is demanded, or by the consumption of time that God does require to be devoted to himself, and therefore, whatever appearance of merit there may be in the case, it is in fact of the nature of sin. Man cannot substitute anything in the place of that which his Creator has commanded; he cannot originate anything of his own which will have higher merit than that which God requires.

These remarks, however, do not apply to the work of the Redeemer. His is the only case which has ever occurred, or which could occur, where a service could be rendered which was not required by a fair application of the law of God, and where, therefore, there could be such an accumulation of merit, or such a work performed, that it could be made available to others as if it were their own. This whole work lay beyond the proper range and the proper demands of the law; and the avails of the work, therefore, could become the foundation of pardon and hope to others. *

It follows, therefore, that the avails of that work may become ours. We have seen that it was in our stead, or on our account; and it may, therefore, be ours. Incapable, indeed, of transfer, as all moral character must be; true as it is and will always be that the work of the atonement was made by him and not by us; and certain as it is that his merit can never be reckoned as really our own,—for God will always ‘reckon’ or estimate things as they are,—yet it is also true that we may be treated as if that merit were our own, and that we may avail ourselves of all that Christ has done in honoring the law, and meeting its claims, and enduring such sorrows as would be a proper expression of the Divine estimate of the value of the law and the evils of disobedience, as though all this had been done and suffered by ourselves. This is, if I understand it, the true doctrine of ‘imputation;’ not that there is any transfer of moral character from us to the Redeemer, or from him to us, and not that God literally ‘reckons’ or imputes our sins to him as his, or his righteousness to us as ours, but that his work may be estimated as performed in the place and on the account of sinful men, and that in virtue of that we may be regarded and treated as if it had been performed by ourselves. On that account we may be justified and saved; for he has done more to honor the law than we should have done by our own obedience; he has done more to show the evil of a violation of law by his voluntary sufferings than we should have done if the penalty had been inflicted on us; and he has become the ‘surety’ for us,—the public pledge that no evil shall result to the universe if we are treated forever as if we had not sinned. This is the meaning of the Scriptures where it is said, “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.” Isaiah liii, 5. *

[With a few paragraphs in regard to the extent of the atonement, showing that all mankind are embraced in its provisions, and may avail themselves of it if they will, we close these extracts from Barnes on this subject.]

A presumption in favor of the doctrine of general atonement may be derived from the rank and dignity of him who made it. His rank and dignity were such as we should infer that they would be on the supposition that the atonement was intended to be general, but are not easily reconcilable with the supposition that it was limited. In other words, the doctrine that the atonement was general better fits in with that rank and dignity than the doctrine of a limited atonement; for it seems necessarily to follow from the fact that one so exalted was selected to make it, unless there is an express statement that it was designed to be limited.

If the sufferer had been a mere man, then it would seem necessarily to follow that the atonement must have been limited. It would be impossible to conceive how a mere man, however pure in character, elevated in rank, or lofty in virtue, could have such merit that his sufferings could avail to the redemption of the entire human race, or could constitute a basis on which an offer of pardon could be made indefinitely to the dwellers in an apostate world.

If the sufferer were an angel, the same inference would follow. Limited as an angel must be in his capacity for suffering, occupying a rank far indeed above that of any man, but farther below that of a Divine being, it would be difficult to see how, on the supposition that an atonement could be made by him, his sufferings could have such merit that they could constitute a basis for an unlimited offer of pardon to all the dwellers in a fallen world. That is, it would be impossible to see how his sufferings could so express the Divine sense of justice; how they could so supply the place of the punishment of all these fallen beings themselves; how they could so become a security for the good order of the universe; how they could be made so effectual in bringing fallen millions to repentance and to holy living; how, in one word, they could meet and remove the difficulties which, as we have seen, everywhere attend the subject of pardon, that it would be proper for God, on the ground of these sufferings, to offer unlimited pardon to all the dwellers in a fallen world. It may be mere feeling, but the feeling is a very strong and a very natural one, that an angel could not be the redeemer of a world.

But we have no such feeling on the supposition that the Redeemer was divine. There is no incongruity in the idea that he was divine, and that the atonement was for all mankind. The one doctrine is adapted to the other; and if the one is true, the other seems naturally to follow from it. We cannot but be impressed with the idea that one design in the selection of such a being must have been to guard against the supposition of any limitation in the case.

We may look at the manifested character of the Redeemer. So far as this would be a guide in regard to the extent of the atonement, it would seem to be clear that it must be unlimited, or that he would be willing that its blessings should be imparted to all who needed pardon. In other words, if we take our views of the atonement from his character, and allow those views to interpret the atonement, we could not fail to come to the conclusion that it was designed to be unlimited. For in the benevolence of his character there was no limit or stint. There was no class of men for whom he showed any exclusive or especial favoritism. There was no class of sufferers who were excluded from his bounty, and no portion of any class. There was no act of his life which would imply that there was any limitation of design in imparting relief to the suffering and the sad; no indication of exhaustion in his capability of relieving those who were in distress and want. In respect to the blind, the only condition for receiving his aid was the fact that they were blind. There were no blind persons who might not freely come to him; there were no cases in which it could be supposed that there was any limitation of his willingness to heal them, or in which there was any indication that his power of restoring sight had been exhausted. In respect to the deaf, there were no cases so obstinate that he could not cause the deaf to hear; in respect to the lame, there were none so lame that they could not be made to ‘leap like an hart;’ in respect to disease in any form, there were no cases so obstinate that he could not remove the disease in a moment; in respect to the suffering and the sad, there were none whose hearts were so deeply stricken, so crushed, so broken, that he could not give them ‘the oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;’ and the numbers of the sad that thronged his path were never so great that he could not grant them relief. So of those whose hearts were crushed by the remembrance

of sin. None ever came to him whose sins were so great that he could not forgive them; none so unworthy, so debased, so degraded, that he was not willing to receive them. If we go to the records of his life, and look at his acts of benevolence when on earth, and ask what would be likely to be the character of an atonement made by him, we should be at no loss for an answer. We should anticipate most confidently that it would be a general atonement. If assured that it was general, we should feel at once that this fact was in perfect harmony with his whole character. If told that it was not general, we should be conscious of a shock on our anticipations, and should ask at once how such a fact could be reconciled with the other actions of his life.

The same result would be reached if we took our point of observation from his sufferings. The idea here is, that the atonement, in respect to suffering, was such as we must believe it would be on the supposition that it was intended that it should have reference to the whole of the human race. In other words, if it is assumed that the atonement was general, the sorrows which the Redeemer endured in making it were just such as they would be on that supposition. The whole transaction would be harmonious in respect to the design and to the manner of accomplishing it; for in contemplating the Redeemer on the cross we cannot but feel, in the language of Dr. Chalmers, that he “bore the burden of the world’s atonement;” in the language of Isaiah, that “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” (Isa. liii, 6); in the language of Paul, that he “tasted death for every man,” (Heb. ii, 9); in his own language, that “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John iii, 16.

The merit of the Redeemer is unexhausted by time. The stream of salvation never runs dry. As healing fountains flow from age to age, no matter what numbers apply for healing; and as they retain their power, no matter what the forms of disease which are healed; and as they flow in large abundance above all that is needed and is applied, pouring their streams on the sands of the desert, or mingling with other waters, so it is with the waters of salvation. The fountain ever flows, by day and by night, in seed-time and harvest, in summer and winter. It is ample for all that apply. It is unexhausted by the numbers that come, and by the nature of the maladies that are healed. It flows in large abundance above and beyond all that is needed, and though it seems to be useless or wasted, it is neither; for, whether men avail themselves of it or not, it is a standing proof of the inexhaustible and illimitable benevolence of God. It will flow on to the end of time. When all the fountains that now pour forth healing waters for the care of the sick shall—if they ever do—exhaust the source of supply, the streams of salvation will still pour forth their unexhausted floods over a lost world. Never till time shall end will the sentiment of the beautiful stanzas with which this treatise on the atonement may appropriately close, cease to be true:—

“There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immanuel’s veins, And sinners plunged beneath that flood Lose all their guilty stains.

“Dear dying Lamb, thy precious blood Shall never lose its power, Till all the ransom’d church of God Be saved, to sin no more.”