p. 165 | The Atonement-Part II by J. H. Waggoner

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 20, 1863

The Atonement—Part II.

By J. H. Waggoner

WAS IT VICARIOUS?

(Continued.)

But as the objection is urged by many speakers, and even by respectable authors, that if a substitute is accepted justice is satisfied, and the release of the accused is of justice, not of mercy, it may need a more extended notice. This is indeed the only objection that seems to have force, but this is founded on a very partial and superficial view of the gospel plan. It is mercy to the criminal for the government to accept a substitute; and mercy to him also for the substitute to offer or consent to stand in his stead. It is nothing but mercy, pardon, free gift, to the sinner, in every part of the transaction. And it would be so if he had procured a substitute; much more when the Governor provides the substitute, and this even the Son of his delight, and invites the sinner to return to allegiance and obedience, that he may receive pardon and life through his blood. I have shown that justice and mercy must unite in order to honor the government and spare the sinner too. Paul shows that they do unite in the gospel, for therein God can be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. His justice is shown by maintaining the dignity and honor of his law, even at the expense of the life of his son; his mercy is shown by justifying us through his blood. But inasmuch as Christ was not a sinner, it would be very difficult to show wherein God was just in the death of his Son, unless he died to meet the just desert of our sin in our stead.

Burge on the Atonement, says: "If a man engage to perform a certain piece of work, for a reward which is proposed, it makes no difference whether he do the work himself, or procure another to do it for him. Let the work be done according to agreement, and he is entitled to his reward. So, if Christ has done for believers, the work which the law required them to do, God is now bound, on the principle of strict justice, to bestow the promised reward, eternal life. There is no grace, but, stern, unbending justice here." pp. 202-3.

Barnes takes substantially the same view, and both aver that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but something substituted for the penalty. Did this illustration merely go to show the insufficiency of Christ's obedience to moral law to make an atonement, without the suffering of death, there could be no objection raised against it. But it goes far beyond this. In order for an illustration to be worth anything, there must be some analogy between its main points and the thing illustrated. In this case there is none whatever.

Man is a rebel, condemned to death; the law can only be satisfied with the taking of life. Now in regard to rendering satisfaction to a broken law there cannot positively be anything existing between sinful man and his Creator, answering to the nature of a contract, as this illustration supposes. But its defect is most plainly seen in this, that man does not and cannot procure a substitute. If man by his own efforts had procured the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, atonement would rest on an entirely different footing from what it now does. Any illustration based on such an utter impossibility, which is so contrary to evident truths and to the whole revealed plan of the atonement, cannot aid in a correct understanding of it. God has set forth his Son to be a propitiation,—to suffer death, the penalty of the law, for us; so that his substitutionary sacrifice is the gift of God, even as Christ himself was the gift of God. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." If we take for granted that the death of Christ meets every demand of the law, yet so long as he is the gift of God, there is mercy in the transaction. But Dr. Barnes thinks there was no mercy if it met the requirement of the law; he remarks:

"If it should be said that there was mercy in the gift of a Saviour, and that so far as that is concerned the transaction is one of mercy, though so far as the law is concerned the transaction is one of justice, it may be replied that this is not the representation of the Bible. The idea of mercy pervades it throughout. It is not only mercy in providing an atonement. It is mercy to the sinner. There is mercy in the case. There is love. There is more than a mere exaction of the penalty. There is more than a transfer. There is a lessening of suffering." &c. pp. 232-3.

No one doubts that, in the atonement, there is mercy to the sinner; but I am not prepared to admit that the transaction (death of Christ) is not one of justice so far as the law is concerned. I think this is the representation of the Bible. The death of Christ either met the demand of law and justice, or it did not. If it did, then it was, so far, a legal transaction; then "stern unbending justice" was honored in his death. But if it did not, then I fail to see how divine justice is vindicated in granting pardon through him; how God can be just in justifying the believer any more than he could have been in justifying an unbeliever, seeing that justice had no part in the transaction. I have been accustomed to regard this declaration of the apostle (Rom. iii, 24-26) as positive proof that justice was satisfied in his death in order that pardon might be granted to the believer without slighting the claims of the law; and I am unable to vindicate the system on any other principle than this. And if we only admit that Christ suffered the penalty of the law, which was death, as the scriptures abundantly show, then there is no difficulty whatever in this view.

The point (and fallacy) of Dr. Barnes' position will be more clearly seen if we examine the question: Is remission of sin relative, or absolute? I affirm that it is only relative; but according to his view it is absolute, as he says "the idea of mercy pervades it throughout," and that it (the gift and death of Christ) is not a transaction of justice. Let us look at the gospel facts, and see if they will justify his statement.

Man is a sinner, condemned to death. Justice demands his life. But God loves the world and gives his Son to die for man. The Son volunteers to die; the plan is fixed and determined. After years of toil, privation, suffering, and scorn, he sees the hour of his death approaching. Alone with his Father he pleads—"Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me." Not once only does he cry. His soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death. Great drops of sweat, as it were blood, burst through the pores of his skin, so intense is his agony, as he prays again and again, "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me." Soon is he betrayed, mocked, buffeted, spit upon, scourged, a crown of thorns placed on his head, falsely accused and unjustly condemned, made to bear his own cross till he faints under the burden, and finally, nailed to the cross, a most cruel means of death, in agony he expires. Now in all candor I ask, was there nothing but mercy in this transaction? Was there any mercy to the Saviour? I acknowledge that "mercy pervades it throughout" so far as the sinner is concerned; but was it so toward the Saviour? The sinner was not the only one concerned in that transaction. No one can make or endorse this statement of Dr. Barnes' unless he looks to the benefit accruing to the sinner, without considering the sufferings and death of the Saviour. And that is surely a very limited consideration of the nature and object of the death of Christ which leaves his death altogether out of view!

It may be objected here, that Dr. Barnes claims an absolute excess of mercy, because the sufferings of Christ were but a small part of the sufferings that were justly due to the guilty world. But that makes not the least difference; for the question of the justice or injustice of that part endorsed by him must be settled by the same principles that would govern the case had he endured the whole. The objection, however, is wholly inadmissible, involving a material error in itself; for death is the penalty of the law, and the just due of the sinner. This Christ suffered and to deny this were to deny the whole gospel.

J. H. W.

(To be continued.)