The Atonement-Part II by James White

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 13, 1863

The Atonement—Part II.

By James White

(Continued.) WAS IT VICARIOUS?

THIS is a question of great, of very great, importance, as it involves the efficacy, or I might say the very existence, of the atonement. This question has troubled the theological world much for years past; but it seems to me singular that the question ever was raised, or that the possibility of the negative being true, ever was admitted. An atonement by its very nature must be effected by vicarious death—vicariousness is an essential element in such a transaction. That which is done for another is vicarious; and as Christ died for us his death was vicarious. He who suffers for his own sins makes no atonement. True, he satisfies the demand of the law, but he is lost. Had all the world been left to perish, the penalty would have been inflicted and justice honored, but there would have been no atonement. An atonement can only be made by one who suffers for another, or others; and this shows the remark to be just, that there can be no atonement where there is no vicariousness. Those who deny a vicarious death generally reason thus: Justice would not admit of the penalty being inflicted twice for the same offense; therefore if Christ suffered vicariously, or in our stead, we must be released as a matter of justice, and not of pardon or favor; for where the law takes its course there is no pardon. But this reasoning is defective in every respect. It might apply if mercy were the sole object; but where justice and mercy unite, there must be conditions, whereby we avail ourselves of the benefits of his death. But his death was voluntary and unconditional: a free-will offering to justice in our behalf. He honors the law whether we will honor it or not; and if we will not accept him we must bear the consequences. Thus, there was no pardon to him when he was made sin for us: but there is pardon to us through

him. But if he did not suffer in our stead, then we must suffer for ourselves, or how is justice administered? A penalty is inflicted for crime; and Christ died for sin. But whose sin? Not his own, but ours. Then he bore the penalty of our sin in our stead. No one can imagine that Christ bore our sins on the tree, except in the sense of suffering in his death the desert of our sins, for death is that desert. "He hath made him to be sin for us"—not that he was a sinner, for he "knew no sin," but he was counted a sinner—sin was imputed to him, if you please, for our sake, "that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. v, 21. That we might be possessed through faith in him of justification, a remission of sin.

The sacrifices of the Levitical law typified the offering of Christ; and what their death was, in type, his must surely be, in fact. The forms prescribed in that law show plainly their intent. The requirement to lay their hands upon the heads of their offerings, was peculiarly significant. "If any man of you bring an offering to the Lord. . . . he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering." Lev. i, 2–4; iii, 2, 8, 13. If the priest sinned he was required to bring a bullock for a sin offering; "and he shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head." Chap. iv, 4. If the whole congregation sinned, then "the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock." Verse 15. Also verse 24; chap. viii, 14, 22.

The object of this action is made clear in chap. xvi, 22, where the same thing is done over the scape-goat. The high priest was there acting in behalf of all the people. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat." This could be the only object in all like transactions. Thus the sin was transferred from the sinner to the object or offering upon which his hands were laid; and this opens to us the full sense of Lev. i, 4, and parallel passages. "He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering"—thereby transferring his sin to the offering, so that it bore the sin of the man—"and it shall be accepted for him." Of course it was accepted as an offering to the broken law, in his stead, for it had his sin.

The same is fully shown by the following: Although the sinner was required to lay his hand on the head of the offering, the priest made the atonement for him, Lev. iv, 20, 26, 31, 35, and others. The atonement was made with the blood of the offering. It was early revealed to man that the blood was the life. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Gen. ix, 4. "Be sure that thou eat not the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." Deut. xii, 23. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." "For it is the life of all flesh." "For the life of all flesh is the blood thereof." Lev. xvii, 11, 14. Therefore when the Lord said, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," it was equivalent to saying, Whoso taketh man's life, by man shall his life be taken; for he said again, "Your blood of your lives will I require." Gen. ix, 5. Now "the wages of sin is death," and "without shedding of blood there is no remission." Rom. vi, 23; Heb. ix, 22. That is to say, the sinner has forfeited his life, and the law dishonored cannot be satisfied or vindicated without the shedding of blood, or taking life, for life is its due. This plainly shows that the penalty of the law is executed by shedding blood, or taking life; and also that the remission of sin, or its penalty, to the sinner, does not relax the claims of the law; for when his sin was transferred to the offering, that was accepted for him, and its blood or life taken for his. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Lev. xvii, 11. So the sin was remitted or forgiven the sinner, and laid upon another, who suffered its penalty. With these facts before us we notice that all those scriptures which speak of Christ's blood being shed, are a confirmation of the fact that he died, or suffered the penalty of the law. The wages of sin is death—the life is in the blood—he shed his blood—he died for sin. How plain the truth; how reasonable the plan appears when freed from perversions, and "doctrines of men."

That which is done for another is vicarious. Death suffered for another is vicarious death; but in the preceding cases brought from the Scriptures, the sin-offerings never were slain or offered for themselves, or for their own wrongs, but always for the sins of others. Their blood was shed in the stead of others; their deaths were truly vicarious. And if we take away from them all ideas of substitution or vicariousness, we take away all possibility of an atonement consistent with justice.

It needs no more than a mere reference to the Scriptures to show the relation those transactions bore in the gospel of Christ, and that the death of Christ was in truth substitutionary and vicarious. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. liii, 6. "Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Pet. ii, 24. "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." Heb. ix, 28. Thus he bore our sins—they were laid on him—he was made sin for us; standing in that relation to the law in our stead. And the wages of sin being death, because our sin was laid on him "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities." "For the transgression of my people was he stricken." "His soul" was made "an offering for sin." Isa. liii, 5, 8, 10. He that doth not all the words of the law is cursed: but Christ was made a curse for us to redeem us from the curse of the law. Deut. xxvii, 26; Gal. iii, 10–13. "Christ died for the ungodly." Rom. v, 6. "Was delivered for our offenses." Chap. iv, 25. "Christ died for our sins." 1 Cor. xv, 3. He died for all, for all were dead, or condemned to death, for all had sinned. 2 Cor. v, 14. He "suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." 1 Pet. iii, 18. "Christ hath suffered for us." Chap. iv, 1. In all these expressions the idea of substitution is prominent, as it was in the type.

Again, the same truth is taught in all those scriptures which speak of Christ's having purchased us. He gave "his life a ransom for many." Matt. xx, 28. "Who gave himself a ransom for all." 1 Tim. ii, 6. "Ye are not your own; for ye are bought with a price." 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20; vii, 23. "Denying the Lord that bought them." 2 Pet. ii, 1. "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ." 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. "Hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." Rev. v, 9. "Which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts xx, 28. Now the sole idea of redeeming, purchasing, or buying with a price, is that of substitution by equivalent, or receiving one instead of another.

Geo. Storrs, of New York, in a small work on the atonement, rejects the idea of Christ's dying in the stead of the sinner; and I notice his view, especially as he represents a class. He says the atonement must correspond to man's nature and to the demand of the law, for "it is such a satisfaction as justice rightfully demands." All, of course, understand that an atonement is more than mere satisfaction; for the best satisfaction to law is obedience; but an atonement is by satisfaction rendered for disobedience. But I am not able to see why the atonement must correspond to man's nature, and to the claim that justice has on man, if the death of the sinner be not substitutionary. How otherwise could it meet the claim? Again he says that "by dying, though death had no claim on him, justice was vindicated." Now if "death had no claim on him," how could justice be vindicated in his death? And is justice ever "vindicated" in the death of one on whom it has no claim? No; it is rather a perversion of justice. But all admit that death had no claim on Christ so far as his own actions were concerned; therefore if justice was upheld or vindicated in his death, it was because he died "in the room and stead" of those on whom death had a claim. Now there was a transfer of sin: our sins were laid on him. But we have seen that death has a claim on the sinner, for the wages of sin is death. And if the sin was transferred of course the claim of death was also. So death had a claim on him; but only as he stood in our stead. He was made sin for us; therefore he was made a curse for us. 2 Cor. v, 21; Gal. iii, 14. It seems to me that the idea of vicariousness or complete substitution is as plainly taught as language can teach it.

J. H. W.

(To be continued.)