Earlier text: General ArticlesSin and Its Penalty.
By Editor
Our present relation to the law is easily ascertained. Though we rest under a perpetual and everlasting obligation to obey the law of the Most High, we have not fulfilled our obligation. On this point the Scriptures are very explicit. Rom. 3:9-23 contains sufficient evidence. Jews and Gentiles are on a level—all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. The law stops every mouth, and proves all guilty, and subject to the judgment of God. What is the penalty for sin? We have before said that Government is a system of laws maintained. This is a simple definition that all can understand; and that it is truthful is evident from this, that a Government cannot exist without law, and if the law is not maintained the result is anarchy and the subversion of Government. It is for this reason that a law without a penalty is a nullity. All the force and sanction of law is its penalty, and, whenever the law is violated, justice requires the infliction of the penalty. Therefore, if we understand the penalty of the law—the nature of the infliction to be visited upon the sinner or violator of God's law—we shall of course understand what justice demands for our redemption. It has been fully considered that justice can only be satisfied by the infliction of the penalty, either upon the offender or upon a voluntary substitute. The idea so often advanced, that Christ did not suffer the same penalty to which the sinner was subject, cannot be reconciled either with justice or with the Scriptures. If the law itself be strictly just, the penalty of the law, neither more nor less, will answer the demands of justice. Many systems of theology have had this error incorporated into them to avoid other apparent difficulties; sometimes because the distinction between the penalty and mere consequence is overlooked, and sometimes because errors in the systems have made it necessary to resort to this, or some other expedient, as a means of relief. That a conclusion is demanded and insisted upon which is so greatly at variance with reason, with justice, and with the Scriptures, is strong evidence of defects in the systems which require it. Dr. Barnes was an able writer, whose memory we respect. Were it not that his theology made the conclusion necessary, we should be much surprised to read the following paragraph from him:— "It will be impossible for a substitute to endure the same sufferings which the sinner himself will endure in the future world for his sin. There are sufferings caused by sin which belong only to the consciousness of guilt, and these sufferings cannot be transferred to another. The sin itself cannot be transferred; and, as it is impossible to detach the suffering from the consciousness of guilt, it follows that a substitute cannot endure the same kind of sufferings which the sinner would himself endure. Remorse of conscience, for example—one of the keenest sources of suffering to the guilty, and which will be a most fearful part of the penalty of the law in the future world—can not be transferred."—Atonement, p. 238. "Remorse of conscience is manifestly a part of the penalty of the law; that is, it is a portion of what the law inflicts as expressing the sense which the lawgiver entertains of the value of the law and of the evil of its violation."—Id., p. 235. We are fully convinced of the correctness of the positions taken in remarks on the reasonableness of the Atonement, though the above paragraphs from Dr. Barnes squarely conflicts with them. We unhesitatingly aver that remorse of conscience is no part of the penalty of the law. That view, which is indeed the corner-stone of Universalism, is as contrary to reason as to Scripture, and grows out of the error before noticed, of making no distinction between the penalty of the law and mere consequences. The penalty is a judicial infliction, prescribed by the statute, administered by authority, and its infliction must be subsequent to the Judgment. Consequences are various according to circumstances, and not according to desert, and may flow immediately out of the action without any relation to the penalty or to the Judgment. The wicked all suffer more or less remorse in this present state, but the Bible informs us that they are reserved "unto the day of Judgment to be punished." 2 Pet. 2:9. There are two kinds of sorrow for sin: a "godly sorrow," and a "sorrow of the world." 2 Cor. 7:10. The first is that of the penitent, sorrowing that he has violated a holy law and grieved a holy God. The other is that of the worldling, sorry that he is detected in crime, or in danger of punishment. No one doubts that the sorrow of the God-fearing penitent is deepest; that his remorse is the keenest. Yet the nearer he is to God, the finer his sensibilities, and the deeper his hatred of sin, the stronger will be his remorse for his sin. Therefore, if this be part of the penalty of the law, it is evident that this part is inflicted more severely on the penitent than on the impenitent and incorrigible. Again, Paul speaks of those whose conscience is seared with a hot iron. 1 Tim. 4:2. That is, they run to such lengths in sin that their sensibilities are blunted, and they feel little or no remorse of conscience. Now, both reason and revelation teach us that the punishment must be proportioned to the guilt; but if remorse of conscience be a penalty, it is executed by inverse proportion; that is, the punishment decreases according to the increase of crime. But we are led to inquire, Where did Dr. Barnes (or any other person) learn that remorse of conscience is a part of the penalty of the law? Does the Bible say so? It does not; there is nothing in the Bible which gives the least sanction to such an idea. Why, then, do men say so? Where did they get authority for such a declaration? As it is the duty and sole prerogative of the governor to reveal his law, so he alone can define the penalty. This He has done in his word: "The wages of sin is death." Any effort to evade this plain truth, or to make it anything but a plain truth, involves difficulties and contradictions. For it will not obviate the difficulty to spiritualize the term death, so as to make it embrace remorse of conscience; for if that be included in death, whatever will remove the remorse will remove so much of the penalty, or of death, and bring a proportionate degree of life. But sin does this, as the apostle shows; therefore, according to that theory, sin removes a portion of its own penalty, which is absurd. Dr. Barnes asserts that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but something substituted for the penalty. There is no cause for such a declaration, except it be found, as before said, in the necessities of a theory. In the teachings of the Bible there is no uncertainty in this matter. They plainly inform us that "the wages of sin is death;" and that "Christ died for our sins." Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3. As sin is the transgression of the law, death, the wages of sin, is its penalty; and as Christ died for our sin, the penalty was laid upon him for our sake. Now that "Christ died" is not only plainly declared in the Scriptures, but it is a fundamental truth in the gospel system; for it is easy to show that, if Christ did not die, there can be no atonement and no redemption. It appears evident, then, that those who assert that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, do not so assert because the fact is not revealed in the Bible, but, as before intimated, because of certain difficulties supposed to lie in the way of that fact. These difficulties are concerning the nature of the penalty, death. It is assumed that death, the penalty of transgression, is three-fold in its nature, consisting of temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. If this assumption were true, we should at once give up the Atonement as a thing impossible. Yet it has been advanced by men of eminence, and incorporated into works recognized as standard. Let us examine it:— 1. The death of man is temporal only by reason of a resurrection. But the resurrection belongs to the work of Christ, and as his work was not necessary or a subject of promise till after the transgression, it cannot have any place in the announcement of the penalty. When death was threatened to Adam, it was not said that he should die temporally, spiritually, and eternally; nor that he should die a first or second death; nor that death that never dies; but that he should surely die. It was death—simply death. Had not a promise been given afterward, of "the seed" to bruise the serpent's head, it would necessarily have been eternal death. But Christ, introducing a resurrection for Adam and his race, causes it to be temporal. But since this time, this death, temporal, has not been the penalty for personal transgression. This is evident for two reasons: (1) Infants die who never have transgressed; and (2) In the Judgment we stand to answer for our deeds, and the second death is inflicted for personal sin. But on those who are holy, "the second death hath no power," the penalty does not reach them. So it appears the death we now die is occasioned by Adam's transgression, and is rendered temporal by the second Adam, and comes indiscriminately upon all classes and ages, thus precluding the idea that it is now a penalty, except as connected with that first transgression, in which we are involved only by representation. 2. Spiritual death cannot be a penalty at all. A penalty is an infliction to meet the ends of justice. But spiritual death is a state of sin, or absence of holiness; and to say that God inflicts unholiness upon man is not only absurd, but monstrous. That is confounding the crime with its punishment. God does not make man wicked or sinful as an infliction; but man makes himself wicked by his own actions, and God punishes him with death for his wickedness. Again, there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Now if the penalty upon Adam included spiritual death, the resurrection through the second Adam would be to spiritual life, or holiness; and if all were restored to spiritual life through Christ, there would be none to fall under the second death, for it falls not on the "blessed and holy." The text above quoted, 1 Cor. 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," has been "spiritualized" so much that it has been fairly conceded to the Universalists by many who call themselves orthodox. But it does not at all favor Universalism unless it is perverted, and made to conflict with other scriptures. Jesus says, all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. The text in question (1 Cor. 15:22) says no more than this, that all that have died shall have a resurrection; but if some are unjust, and have a resurrection to damnation, that affords no help to Universalism. But if death here means spiritual death (or we say it does not), then the Universalists must have the truth; for to be made alive from spiritual death is to be made spiritually alive, which is none other than a state of holiness. This conflicts with the words of Christ just quoted, of a resurrection to damnation. Death is simply the absence of life; all die and go into the grave, without respect to character or condition, and all are raised from the grave, without respect to character or condition. There will be a resurrection of the unjust; one class to eternal life, the other to the second death. 3. The wages of sin is death; and as the death of Adam became temporal by reason of a resurrection, so we may say that the infliction for personal sins, the second death, is eternal, because no resurrection will succeed it. Thus, it appears plain that from the beginning death was the penalty of the law of God, circumstances determining the duration of it. This view, which is in strict harmony with the Bible, really removes all difficulty in regard to Christ having suffered the penalty due to sin. The Steady Stream Keeps the Mill Going.
As ONE of the remarkable facts in the current history of benevolence, the Independent notes that "the receipts of the Presbyterian Boards have increased, notwithstanding the recent death of those princely New York givers, the Browns, Stuarts, Marquands, Lenoxes, Morgans and Dodges." It thinks it a serious fact, however, that at present almost no younger men are rising to take their places. The Presbyterian, in reply, says: "This is a fact of some seriousness, but it would be a fact of much more seriousness to find the church dependent upon its great givers. The supplies for the church's work should be gathered from the entire surface of the church, and to secure this, systematic beneficence must become the universal habit of its members." We imagine that the proportion of great benefactions to the regular but smaller contributions is far less than is generally supposed. A sorry feature of any church it would be that should show a dependence upon a millionaire here and there, as against the great body of contributors, for its support.—Christian at Work. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Lesson for Pacific Coast.—November 3.
"SEEING it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled [to recompense] rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." 2 Thess. 1: 6-9. From these verses we learn (1) that the time for the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous is when the Lord comes. No one can say that this coming is at the death of the individual, for the Lord will be "revealed from Heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire." The rewards are not given until that time comes. So Christ himself says, "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rev. 22: 12. 2. We learn that God's righteousness is just as clearly manifested in recompensing tribulation to the wicked, as it is in granting rewards to the righteous. The punishment of the wicked is not an arbitrary thing which God could remit if he chose to do so. He does not punish in order to gratify malice or revenge. "I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." Eze. 18: 32. God is under obligation to punish the wicked. The principles of his Government demand it. Should he not do so, but suffer his laws to be broken with impunity, no saint would have any assurance of protection. God's Government would soon cease to exist, and he would be unable either to protect or reward his loyal subjects. It is true that God is love; and this love is manifested in the judgment of the wicked as clearly as in the reward of the righteous. Those who say that, because "God is love," he will not punish the guilty, do not realize that they are defaming his character and Government. Most men think that it is just and right for earthly governments to punish law-breakers; why should they imagine God less just than man. 3. To the saints Paul says, "Them that trouble you" shall receive tribulation at the last day. Then the persecuted ones can have no occasion to either do or say anything in the way of retaliation. God has pledged the honor of his Government that his loyal, persecuted subjects shall be avenged, and he will do it speedily, though he seem to bear long with them. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." 4. The nature of the punishment of the wicked is clearly brought to view. "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." No stronger term could be used to signify this final utter extinction. This verse is an inspired explanation of Matt. 25: 46. Here we are told that at the coming of the Lord the wicked "shall go away into everlasting punishment." It is claimed by many that this proves the unending existence of the wicked, because "everlasting" is the same as "eternal," which describes the life of the righteous. But the text under consideration informs us that their punishment is to be "destruction." As Paul says in Rom. 6: 23, "The wages of sin is death," which is the same as destruction. Having once been destroyed, the wicked will to all eternity remain destroyed. The action in their case will be final. Before that destruction is fully accomplished there will be much suffering; "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish" will be rendered unto "every soul of man that doeth evil." These are but accessories to the great punishment, which is death. We firmly believe that the Bible teaches that the wicked will be punished eternally; but our readers will note that this does not necessarily mean eternal conscious suffering; if it did, then the wicked would have eternal life, which is promised to the righteous alone. FROM the first part of the second chapter, it seems evident either that some of the Thessalonians had gained the idea from Paul's first letter that Christ's coming was near at hand, or that some one had written to them to that effect, claiming Paul as their authority, or even personating him. However this may be, it is certain that Paul had no such idea, for he plainly says so. Some writers will persist in saying that the first epistle shows that Paul expected the Lord to come in his day; but we prefer to believe him when he says that he did not. "LET no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2: 4, 5. Dr. Barnes has given full and good comments on this text, and we give the following extracts. The facts which he states are worth preserving for reference:— Most Protestant commentators have referred it to the great apostasy under the Papacy, and, by the "man of sin," they suppose there is allusion to the Roman Pontiff, the Pope. It is evident that we are in better circumstances to understand the passage than those were who immediately succeeded the apostles. Eighteen hundred years have passed away since the epistle was written, and the "day of the Lord" has not yet come, and we have an opportunity of inquiring whether in all that long tract of time any one man can be found, or any series of men have arisen, to whom the description here given is applicable. If so, it is in accordance with all the proper rules of interpreting prophecy to make such an application. If it is fairly applicable to the Papacy, and cannot be applied in its great features to anything else, it is proper to regard it as having such an original reference. Happily, the expressions which are used by the apostle are, in themselves, not difficult of interpretation, and all that the expositor has to do is to ascertain whether in any one great apostasy all the things here mentioned have occurred. If so, it is fair to apply the prophecy to such an event; if not so, we must wait still for its fulfillment. The word rendered "falling away" (apostasia, apostasy), is of so general a character that it may be applied to any departure from the faith as it was received in the time of the apostles. And that man of sin. This is a Hebraism, meaning a man of eminent wickedness; one distinguished for depravity. Comp. John 17: 12; Prov. 6: 12; in Heb. The use of the article here—ho anthropos,—"the man of sin," is also emphatic, as in the reference to "the falling away," and shows that there is allusion to one of whom they had before heard, and whose character was well known; who would be the wicked one by way of eminence. See also verse 8, "that wicked"—ho anomos. There are two general questions in regard to the proper interpretation of this appellative; the one is, whether it refers to an individual, or to a series of individuals of the same general character, aiming at the accomplishment of the same things; and the other is, whether there has been any individual, or any series of individuals, since the time of the apostles, who, by eminence, deserved to be called "the man of sin." That the phrase, "the man of sin," may refer to a succession of men of the same general character, and that it does so refer here, is evident from the following considerations: (1.) The word "king" is used in Dan. 7: 25; 11: 36, to which places Paul seems to allude, to denote a succession of kings. (2.) The same is true of the beast mentioned in Dan. 7, 8, Rev. 13, representing a kingdom or empire through its successive changes and revolutions. (3.) The same is true of the "woman arrayed in purple and scarlet" (Rev. 17: 4), which cannot refer to a single woman, but is the emblem of a continued corrupt administration. (4.) It is clear that a succession is intended here, because the work assigned to "the man of sin" cannot be supposed to be that which could be accomplished by a single individual. The statement of the apostle is, that there were then tendencies to such an apostasy, and that "the man of sin" would be revealed at no distant period, and yet that he would continue his work of "lying wonders" until the coming of the Saviour to destroy him. In regard to this "man of sin," it may be further observed, (1.) That his appearing was to be preceded by the "great apostasy;" and (2.) that he was to continue and perpetuate that apostasy. His rise was to be owing to a great departure from the faith, and then he was to be the principal agent in continuing such a departure by "signs and lying wonders." He was not himself to originate the defection, but was to be the creation or the result of it. He was to rise upon it, or grow out of it, and, by artful arrangements adapted to that purpose, was then to perpetuate it. The question now is on the applicability of the phrase "the man of sin" to the Pope. That his rise was preceded by a great apostasy, or departure from the purity of the simple gospel, as revealed in the New Testament, cannot reasonably be doubted by any one acquainted with the history of the church. That he is the creation or result of that apostasy, is equally clear. That he is the grand agent in continuing it, is equally manifest. Is the phrase itself one that is properly applicable to him? Is it proper to speak of the Pope of Rome, as he has actually appeared, as "the man of sin?" In reply to this, it might be sufficient to refer to the general character of the Papacy, and to its influence in upholding and perpetuating various forms of iniquity in the world. It would be easy to show that there has been no dynasty or system that has contributed so much to uphold and perpetuate sins of various kinds on the earth as the Papacy. No other one has been so extensively and so long the patron of superstition; and there are vices of the grossest character which all along have been fostered by its system of celibacy, indulgences, monasteries, and absolutions. But it would be a better illustration of the meaning of the phrase "man of sin," as applicable to the Pope of Rome, to look at the general character of the Popes themselves. Though there may have been some exceptions, yet there never has been a succession of men of so decidedly wicked character as have occupied the Papal throne since the great apostasy commenced. A very few references to the characters of the Popes will furnish an illustration of this point. Pope Vagilius waded to the Pontifical throne through the blood of his predecessor. Pope Joan—the Roman Catholic writers tell us—a female in disguise, was elected and confirmed Pope, as John VIII. Platana says that "she became with child by some of those that were round about her; that she miscarried, and died on her way from the Lateran to the temple." Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to idols. Concerning Pope Honorius, the Council of Constantinople decreed: "We have caused Honorius, the late Pope of Old Rome, to be accursed; for that in all things he followed the mind of Sergius the heretic, and confirmed his wicked doctrines." Of the popes, Platina, a Roman Catholic, says: "The chair of Saint Peter was usurped, rather than possessed, by monsters of wickedness, ambition, and bribery. They left no wickedness unpracticed." See the New Englander, April, 1844, p. 285, 286. Sitteth in the temple of God. That is in the Christian Church. It is by no means necessary to understand this of the temple at Jerusalem, which was standing at the time this epistle was written, for (1.) the phrase "the temple of God" is several times used with reference to the Christian Church: 2 Cor. 6: 16; Eph. 2: 21; 1 Cor. 3: 16, 17; Rev. 3: 12; and (2.) the temple was the proper symbol of the church, and an apostle trained amid the Hebrew institutions would naturally speak of the Church as the temple of God. The temple at Jerusalem was regarded as the peculiar dwelling-place of God on earth. When the Christian Church was founded, it was spoken of as the peculiar dwelling-place of God. See the passages referred to above. He dwelt among his people. He was with them, and walked with them, and manifested himself among them—as he had done in the ancient temple. The usage in the New Testament would not lead us to restrict this language to an edifice or a "church," as the word is now commonly used, but rather to suppose that it denotes the Church as a society; and the idea is, that the Antichrist here referred to would present himself in the midst of that Church as claiming the honors due to God alone. In the temple at Jerusalem God himself presided. There he gave laws to his people; there he manifested himself as God; and there he was worshiped. The reign of the "man of sin" would be as if he should sit there. In the Christian Church he would usurp the place which God had occupied in the temple. He would claim divine attributes and homage. He would give laws and responses as God did there. He would be regarded as the head of all ecclesiastical power; the source from which all authority emanated; the same in the Christian Church which God himself was in the temple. This does not then refer primarily to the Pope as sitting in any particular church on any particular occasion, but to his claiming in the Church of Christ the authority and homage which God had in the temple at Jerusalem. In whatever place, whether in a cathedral or elsewhere, this authority should be exercised, all that the language here conveys would be fulfilled. No one can fail to see that the authority claimed by the Pope of Rome meets the full force of the language used here by the apostle. Showing himself that he is God. This does not necessarily mean that he actually, in so many words, claimed to be God; but that he usurped the place of God, and claimed the prerogatives of God. If the names of God are given to him, or are claimed by him; if he receives the honors due to God; if he asserts a dominion like that of God, then all that the language fairly implies will be fulfilled. The following expressions, applied to the Pope of Rome by Catholic writers without any rebuke from the Papacy, will show how entirely applicable this is to the pretended head of the Church. He has been styled "Our Lord God the Pope; another God upon earth; King of kings, and Lord of lords. The same is the dominion of God and the Pope. To believe that our Lord God the Pope might not decree as he decreed, is heresy. The power of the Pope is greater than all created power, and extends itself to things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. The Pope doeth whatsoever he listeth, even things unlawful, and is more than God." See the authority for these extraordinary declarations in Bishop Newton, On the Prophecies, diss. xxii. How can it be doubted that the reference here is to the Papacy? Language could not be plainer, and it is not possible to conceive that anything can ever occur which would furnish a more manifest fulfillment of this prophecy. Indeed, interpreted by the claims of the Papacy, it stands among the very clearest of all the predictions in the sacred Scriptures. The grandest natures are the calmest. Restlessness is a symbol of weakness not yet outgrown.