The Atonement-Part II by J. H. W.

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 3, 1863

The Atonement—Part II.

By J. H. W.

(Continued.)

THE DOCTRINE OF A TRINITY DEGRADES THE ATONEMENT.

I AM aware that many attach so much sanctity to the term "trinity," that it will appear like irreverence, in their eyes, to speak thus of that doctrine: but I write with feelings of reverence for every scripture doctrine and scripture fact, while I do not profess reverence for human opinions and inventions. I reverence the Scriptures, but not men's opinions of the Scriptures.

Many writers appear to think that the atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But I fail to see any such connection. On the contrary the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty they seem anxious to avoid. And here it is curious to observe how the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ,—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians

hold that "Christ" comprehends two natures; one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die: that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt. Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more. No matter how exalted the pre-existent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died the sacrifice was only human. And so far as the vicarious death of Chirst is concerned, this is Socinianism. Thus I think the remark just that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis. A few quotations will show the correctness of this assertion.

"As God he obeyed all the requirements of the law, and made it honorable in the justification of sinners; as man, he bore its curse on the tree, and endured its penalty." Manual of Atonement, p. 25.

"The sufferings of Christ were endured in his human nature. Though possessing a divine nature, yet in that he could not suffer and die. His sufferings were endured in his human nature." Id. p. 88.

"It is no part of the doctrine of the atonement that the divine nature, in the person of the Saviour, suffered." Barnes on Atonement, p. 224.

"It was meet that the mediator should be man, that he might be capable of suffering death; for, as God, he could not die." Buck's Theol. Dict. Art. Mediator.

"Trinitarians do not hold to the sufferings or death of divinity." Mattison on the Trinity, p. 39.

"His mediation between God and man is chiefly in his human nature, in which alone he was capable of suffering and dying." Scott on 1 Tim. ii, 5.

"I know not any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the Divine nature of our Lord to be begotten of God, or to be the Son of God." Clarke on Heb. i, 8.

"Is it to be wondered that the human body in which this fullness of the Godhead dwelt, and in which the punishment due to our sins was borne upon the tree, should be exalted above all human and all created things?" Id. on Phil. ii, 9.

Dr. Clarke says the apostle John doubtless directed his first letter against the heretics then abounding. Of them in his note on 1 John i, 8, he says; "The Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered: the Æon, or Divine Being that dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the Jews," &c.

So far as that particular heresy of the Gnostics is concerned, it has become wide-spread and almost all-prevailing in the denominations of the present day.

I have already shown that the Son of God, who was in the beginning, by whom the worlds were made, suffered death for us; the oft-repeated declarations of theological writers that a mere human body died, are by the Scriptures, proved untrue. They take the doctrine of a trinity for their basis and assume that Christ is the second person in the trinity, and could not die. Again, they assume that death is not a cessation of life; and between the two unscriptural assumptions they involve themselves in numerous difficulties, and load the doctrine of the atonement with unreasonable contradictions. As the doctrine of a trinity is fundamental with so many, and is the cause of such radical errors being introduced into their views of the atonement, it may be permitted to notice it further.

In the "Manual of the Atonement," 1 Jno. v, 20, is quoted as containing most conclusive evidence of a trinity and of the Supreme Deity of Christ. It is there claimed that he is called "the true God and eternal life." The whole verse reads thus: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." A person must be strongly wedded to a theory who can read this verse and not see the distinction therein contained between the true God and the Son of God. "We are in him that is true." How? "In his Son Jesus Christ." The distinction between Christ and the true God is most clearly shown by the Saviour's own words in John xvii, 3: "That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Much stress is laid on Isa. ix, 6, as proving a trinity, which I have quoted and referred to our High Priest who shed his blood for us. The advocates of that theory will say that it refers to a trinity because Christ is called the everlasting Father. But for this reason, with others, I affirm that it can have no reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he the Son? or if he is both father and son, how can there be a trinity? for a trinity is three persons. To recognize a trinity the distinction between the father and son must be preserved. Christ is called "the second person in the trinity;" but if this text proves a trinity or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the second but the first. And if he is the first who is the second? It is very plain that this text has no reference to such a doctrine.

In seeking an explanation of this text we must bear in mind the work of Christ as brought to view in this and parallel passages. These words refer to the "child born," the "son given," who, as we have seen, bears the title of God subordinate to his Father. And if an apostle could call himself the father of those whom he had begotten in the gospel, (1 Cor. iv, 15; 1 Tim. i, 2; Tit. i, 4), how appropriately is this title applied to the Prince of Peace who is, in a peculiar sense, the everlasting father of all to whom he gives everlasting life. The New Jerusalem is called the Bride, the Lamb's wife; Rev. xxi; Christ of course is the Bridegroom, the husband. But Paul says Jerusalem above is our mother. Gal. iv. If so, why not her husband, the bridegroom, be our father? Surely there is nothing inappropriate in this. But, as the New Jerusalem is not the mother of the unregenerate, these being reckoned the children of the bondwoman, so Christ is not called their father. They are not his children, and he does not give them everlasting life. Therefore the title is applied to him in a subordinate and restricted sense. In its unrestricted and universal sense it applies only to the Supreme One, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

John xii, 40, 41, has been supposed to prove the Supreme Deity of Christ, and therefore a trinity. "These things said Esaias, when he saw his [Christ's] glory, and spake of him." This refers to Isa. vi, which chapter speaks of "the King, the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts;" and it is thence inferred that Christ is that LORD of hosts. But those who quote this in such a manner should know (and some of them do know) that there are two words in Isa. vi, rendered Lord, just as there are in Psa. cx, 1, which says: "The LORD said unto my Lord." The first is Jehovah; the second Adonai;—the Father and Son. In Isa. vi, 3, 5, 12, Jehovah is used; in verses 1, 8, 11, Adonai is used. Now John xii, 40, is a quotation from Isa. vi, 10, which refers to Adonai, the Son, and not to Jehovah. Many have been misled by a wrong application of this text. Those who know the fact above stated cannot honestly use it as it has been used in theological controversies.

Jer. xxiii, 5, 6, is supposed to afford decisive proof of a trinity, in that "the Branch" which is raised up unto David shall be called Jehovah. Clarke, in his commentary gives the following rendering of this text, from Dr. Blayney: "And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, our righteousness." He adds:

"Dr. Blayney thus accounts for his translation:— Literally, according to the Hebrew idiom,—and this is his name by which Jehovah shall call our righteousness; a phrase exactly the same as, 'And Jehovah shall call him so,' which implies that God would make him such as he called him, that is, our righteousness, or the Author and Means of our salvation and acceptance. So that by the same metonomy Christ is said to 'have been made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.' 1 Cor. i, 30.

"I doubt not that some persons will be offended with me, for depriving them by this translation of a favorite argument for proving the Divinity of our Saviour from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it. I have done it with no ill design; but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have so translated it before me in an age when there could not possibly be any idea or prejudice either for or against the forementioned doctrine,

—a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only."

On this Dr. Clarke remarks: "I prefer the translation of Blayney to all others. . . . As to those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, they must be content, to stand out of the list of Hebrew critics. I believe Jesus to be Jehovah, but I doubt much whether this text calls him so."

And if this text does not call him so, he will find little ground for such belief. This shows the necessity of distinguishing between a criticism, and an opinion.

(To be Continued.)