Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Nov 7, 1854
THE ATONEMENT.
By J. M. Stephenson
BY J. M. STEPHENSON.
(Continued.)
I now pass to consider, second, that portion of Sacred Writ which represents Jesus Christ as dying for us; dying in our stead; giving his life a ransom for many: such as, "I lay down my life for the sheep," "He gave himself for us," He died "the just for the unjust," "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many," "Christ died for us," &c.
To prove that Christ died for man in the sense of dying in his stead, I will first quote those texts of Scripture which have unquestionably that meaning, and which cannot be so construed as to mean anything else without great violence both to the texts, and their contexts. Nor are such texts wanting: they are almost innumerable. The speech of Caiaphas the high priest is right to the point. "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." John xi, 49, 50. Here the high priest plainly declares that Christ or the nation must perish; and that by putting Christ to death the nation might escape. All must admit that the preposition for, in this instance, signifies instead of. It was expedient that Christ should die for (instead of) the nation. Also, Rom. v, 6-8. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The same Greek particle is translated for in each of these four instances; and they evidently have the same signification.
Verse 5 indubitably fixes the sense in which Christ died for us: "For scarcely for (instead of) a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for (instead of) a good man some would even dare to die." On this passage Doddridge has remarked, "One can hardly imagine any one would die for a good man, unless it were to redeem his life by giving up his own." According to Watson, the Hebrew term, answering to the Greek particle here translated for, is used in the same sense in David's lamentation for his son Absalom. "And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom! my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!" Sam. xviii, 33. What else could David mean except to wish that he had died in Absalom's stead?
The same original term is rendered "in the room of" in Matt ii, 22. "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod," &c. It is also rendered for in the following instances. Luke xi, 11. "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for (instead of) a fish give him a serpent?" When the same preposition is applied to the death of Christ, (Mark x, 45,) shall we not give it the same meaning? Hear the language of our Saviour: "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for (instead of) many." Paul says speaking of Christ: "Who gave himself a ransom for (instead of) all." 1 Tim. ii, 6. In both these instances reference is evidently made to the blood of the victim which was offered upon the altar to make an atonement for the soul, or life. See Lev. xvii, 10, 11, "For the life of the flesh is the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soul: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul; for the life of the flesh is in the blood." Here it is the blood (i. e., the life) of the victim which is to make an atonement for the soul; and to make an atonement for the soul is the same as to be a ransom for the soul, as will appear by reference to Ex. xxx, 12-16. "They shall give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, that there be no plague among them." Here the plague was death; the ransom from death was the blood (i. e., the life) and the soul, thus ransomed, evidently signifies the life; for, as has been shown, the life of the victim, in all the sacrifices, was substituted for the life of man.
With this view, we are prepared to understand what our Lord means when he says, he "gave his life a ransom (i. e., an equivalent, or price) for (instead of) many." Compare also Isa. liii, 10. "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin," &c. What was to be made an offering for sin? Ans. His (Christ's) SOUL. That his soul here signifies his life, will appear evident by comparing it with John x, 11, where Christ speaking of himself says, "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." The only reasonable conclusion from this text is, that Christ or his sheep must one or the other die; and that Christ by giving his life saved the life of his sheep: if so he must have died in their stead. The preposition for, has, without doubt, the sense of instead of, in the following passages of scripture. 2 Cor. v, 15. "And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." Also in Heb. ii, 9. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Here allusion is made to the ancient custom among the Greeks of mingling poison in a cup, with which they inflicted capital punishment. Socrates tasted of this poisonous draught, and died. A cup of deadly poison is represented as being held to the lips of every man, who must drink and die: Jesus Christ takes the cup, and drinks it to the very dregs: "he tasted death for every man; he must, therefore, have died in the stead of every man.
Again in 1 Pet. ii, 21, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us," &c. Also Chap. iii, 18. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." He then tells us how Christ "suffered, the just for the unjust," "being put to death in the flesh." The case stands thus: the unjust were condemned to death: Christ, the just, suffered for them, by "being put to death in the flesh" in their stead. That the preposition, for, is often used in the sense of because, or in consequence of, is freely admitted; but that it is used in the sense of instead of in the foregoing texts cannot be reasonably denied. In every example given, you may substitute instead of, for the preposition for, and it will convey the same idea; and certainly if terms are the representatives of ideas, the meaning of this term is fixed beyond the possibility of a doubt.
In the third place I will investigate those portions of scripture which represent sin as the impulsive cause of the death of Christ; or in which the preposition, for, is used to denote causality; which is always the case when it can be substituted by because, without changing the sense. For example: "For (because) God so loved the world." It is an acknowledged rule of Grammar, that when for can be supplied by because without impairing the sense, it is a preposition denoting causality. It is so used, in connection with the death of Christ in Rom. iv, 24. "Who was delivered for our offences;" because of our offences. When the expression because of sins is coupled with suffering it will admit of no other interpretation; as, "I will chastise you seven times because of your sins." Lev. xxvi, 28. And also in the following examples. 1 Cor. xv, 3. "For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." 1 Pet. iii, 18. "Christ hath once suffered for our sins." Gal. "Christ gave himself for our sins." "Christ offered one sacrifice for sins." Also Rom. vi, 10. "For in that he died, he died unto sin once." What can this mean only that he died on account of, or because of sin? It cannot mean that he was a sinner, and died unto sin by ceasing to be a sinner. It has unquestionably that meaning in Isa. liii, 5. "But he was wounded for (because of) our transgressions, he was bruised for (on account of) our iniquities." In what way could Christ die for our sins only by suffering the penalty due our sins which is death. For a man to die for his own sins, is to suffer the penalty due his sins; to die for another man's sins is to suffer the very penalty that man would have suffered for his own sins, had not a substitute been provided. Just so with Christ: he died for our sins, by suffering the identical penalty we should suffer had not his death been accepted as our substitute; hence the death of Christ, when considered with reference to our sins, must be understood as the punishment our sins demerit; but when in reference to God as being a sacrifice to expiate or atone for them.
In the fourth place, I will investigate those passages which represent Christ as bearing our sins; which cannot fairly be understood in any other sense than that of bearing the punishment of our sins. Peter says when speaking of the death of Christ, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Pet. ii, 24. Peter in this passage evidently quotes from Isa. liii, 11, 12. "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities; and he bare the sin of many." The same expression is used by St. Paul Heb. ix, 23. "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." To bear sin in the language of scripture is to bear the punishment of sin. Hebrew critics say98that the original word rendered bear in Isaiah liii, is never used for taking away, but for bearing a burden, and is employed to express the punishment of sins, as in Lam. v, 7: "Our fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have borne their iniquities."
The same idea of bearing sins is expressed by Isa. liii, 5. "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities." He then tells us in what sense "he was bruised for our iniquities," "the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed." Chastisement is the punishment of sin, or at least of a fault; for where there is no fault, there can be no just cause of chastisement. But the apostle Peter applies this very prophecy to Jesus Christ, (1 Pet. ii, 24, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,") to whose immaculate purity, and perfect innocency, all the prophets and apostles bear united testimony. If, therefore, chastisement was laid upon Christ, it could not be in consequence of any fault in him; but in consequence of fault in us; "for our transgressions" "his stripes" were the price of our "healing."
These quotations positively prove a substitution, a suffering in our stead. An innocent person, who had never sinned, "bare in his own body our sins on the tree," and suffered in his own person, as our substitute, the very "stripes" due "our transgressions," and the only means of our "peace," or "reconciliation." "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death," &c. Rom. v, 10. The same sentiment is presented to us in a still more striking, and forcible light in the 6th and 7th verses of the same chapter. "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."
Bishop Lowth translates this passage, "and the Lord hath made to light upon him the iniquity of us all; it was exacted and he was made answerable." Other critics render this passage, "he put or fixed together upon him the iniquity of us all; it was exacted and he was afflicted." This passage is inexplicable except upon the principle of the sufferings and death of Christ being vicarious. Watson observes, "Our iniquities, that is, according to the Hebrew mode of speaking, their punishment, are made to meet upon him; they are fixed together and laid upon him; the penalty is exacted from him, though he himself had incurred no penalty personally, and, therefore, it was in consequence of that vicarious reaction that he was 'afflicted,' was 'made answerable,' and voluntarily submitted, 'he opened not his mouth.'"
The apostle Paul uses similar language in 1 Cor. v, 21. "For he hath made him to be sin (a sin offering) for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Now, in what sense was Christ made to be sin? Certainly not by being made a sinner; for he was "without sin," "in his mouth was no guile;" nor could it have been by being esteemed a sinner; for, first, "sin" is here placed in contrast to "the righteousness of God," which no one claims to be only in appearance; second, the apostle makes another contrast, in this verse, equally striking. God made him who knew no sin, and consequently deserved no punishment, to be sin; that is, as one justly observes, "it pleased him that he should be punished; but Christ was innocent, not only according to human laws, but according to the law of God; the antithesis, therefore, requires us to understand, that he bore the penalty of the law, and that he bore it in our stead."
I will add one more text to the mass of testimony already adduced upon this point. It is one whose force cannot be evaded. It reads thus: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. iii, 13. Paul here quotes from the writings of Moses. Deut. xxi, 22, 23. "If a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and they hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged, is accursed of God;) that the land may not be defiled." This infamy was only inflicted, in cases of the most heinous offenses, and was designed to show the light in which God viewed the persons thus exposed: they were a curse, or execration. On this verse, I will give the remarks of Grotius, which are most conclusive:
"Socinus says, that to be an execration means to be under the punishment of execration, which is true. To katara every where denotes punishment proceeding from the sanction of law. 1 Pet. ii, 24; Mark xv, 21. Socinus also admits, that the cross of Christ was this curse; his cross, therefore, had the nature of punishment, which is what we maintain. Perhaps he allows that the cross of Christ was a punishment, because Pilate, as a judge, inflicted it; but this does not come up to the intention of the Apostle; for, in order to prove that Christ was made obnoxious to punishment, he cites Moses, who expressly asserts, that whoever hangs on a tree, according to the divine law, 'is accursed of God;' consequently, in the words of the Apostle, who cites this place of Moses, and refers it to Christ, we must supply the same circumstances, 'accursed of God,' or obnoxious to the highest and most ignominious punishment 'for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, &c. For when the apostles speak of the sufferings of Christ in reference to our good, they have special reference to the act of God, and not of men. Hence it is clearly proved that the death of Christ was penal, which it could not be in any other sense than by his taking our place, and suffering in our stead.'"
The foregoing testimony establishes the position (as I humbly believe) that the death of Christ is vicarious; that the penalty of God's law for personal transgression, is removed out of the way of man's salvation, by being strictly inflicted upon a substitute, whom the judge may accept, in the room of all who will voluntarily comply with the conditions he has prescribed, without impairing, in the least degree, the authority of his just, and holy law, or impeaching the honor of his throne, or the rectitude of his moral government; so that God may be "just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."
Hence, the second difficulty is removed out of the way in harmony with all the attributes of God, and all the great principles and interests of his moral government.
In conclusion, I will consider the atonement in its relation.
1st. To the Father as the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. For the atonement to be of any avail to man, as a guilty and condemned criminal, it must be accepted by the judge. Even though a substitute should be provided, which, in every respect, might be adequate to the claims of the divine law, yet unless the judge should see fit to accept such a substitute, in the sinner's stead, it would avail nothing.
The Bible every where represents the Father as being eternally, and unchangeably opposed to sin in every form, and under whatever circumstances it may be presented. As a being of infinite rectitude, he cannot, from the essential principles of his nature, look upon sin with the least degree of favor. As the Supreme Ruler, he cannot countenance a spirit of rebellion in any part of his empire. As a being of immaculate purity, his feelings, and sympathies, must be all averse to all moral, or physical impurity. Hence to be a plan which God can accept, it must in the first place be one which will render him propitious, or disposed to pardon the transgressor. To be such, it must appease, or turn away his anger.
The Scriptures represent God as being angry with the wicked every day. His fierce anger as being kindled against the whole world. Some writers, in order to evade the conclusion of the atonement's being propitiatory, deny the existence of such a principle as wrath, or anger, in the Divine nature.
If it be admitted that God from his nature cannot be angry with the wicked, that his wrath cannot be kindled against them, then no atonement would be necessary to turn away his wrath, or to appease his anger. But if the justice of God be punitive, (and if it is not punitive, his law is a dead letter,) then is there wrath in God; then is God angry with the wicked; then is the sinner obnoxious to his anger, and a propitiation becomes necessary to turn away his wrath.
The question under consideration is not whether God is love, or whether he is of a peaceable nature; on this all parties are agreed; but whether God is holy and just; whether his creatures are under his law or not; whether that law has a penalty; and whether he as the author of that law, and the judge, is bound to execute and uphold it: if so, then indeed, is there wrath in God, which must be appeased before he can accept any plan for man's redemption. These are points upon which the Bible speaks in language too plain and explicit to be misunderstood. I will only quote a few of the numerous texts that might be selected: "And they shall be ashamed of your revenues because of the fierce anger of the Lord." Jer. xii, 13. "The anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart." Chap. xxiii, 20. "The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart." Chap. xxx, 24. "Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you, before the day of the Lord's anger come upon you. Seek ye the Lord all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord's anger." Zeph. ii, 2, 3. "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John iii, 36. "Indignation and wrath upon every soul of man that doeth evil." Rom. ii, 8. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness." Chap. i, 18. "Because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Eph. v, 6. "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation." Rev. xiv, 10. "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" Chap. vi, 17. "And great Babylon come in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." Chap. xv, 19.
Now, until the anger of the Lord can be appeased, and the fierceness of his wrath turned away, there can be no hopes of any place for the sinner's relief being accepted; hence the atonement to be of any avail must first render God propitious. To do this, it must be an adequate atonement; because God, as a being of infinite justice and holiness, could not look with complacency upon a plan of salvation which would impair, in any degree, the claims of his law, or compromise the honor of his moral government. "To propitiate," according to Watson, "is to appease to atone, to turn away the wrath of an offended person." In the case before us the wrath turned away is the wrath of God; the person making the propitiation is Christ, the propitiating sacrifice, or offering is his blood. All this is expressed in most explicit terms in the passages. Rom. iii, 35. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John ii, 2. "Herein is love not that we love God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." According to Greek critics, the Greek verb here used, is the one so often employed by their writers to express the action of a person, who in some appointed way turned away the wrath of an offended Deity. The sin-offering of the Old Testament expresses the same idea. "And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering," i. e., the propitiation. Eze. xlv, 19. Also in Num. v, 8. "But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest: besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him."
I am told that the Hebrew term translated atonement in the last two instances quoted, and sin-offering in the first, answer to the Greek term rendered propitiation. But it is in connection with the blood of the victim in the former cases, and the blood of Christ in the latter; and in both cases the efficacy of the atonement is in the blood; because the life is in the99blood: and the law demands the life of the sinner; hence without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
In the second place, to be a plan which God shall accept, it must be in every respect an equivalent, otherwise his government would suffer loss in the exchange, and the authority, and rectitude of his law be correspondingly weakened. But that the sacrifice of his only begotten Son is in every respect an equivalent; that it vindicates the rectitude of his "holy, just and good" law, is evident from the fact that he has actually accepted the sacrifice, as absolutely perfect, as far as plenitude and efficiency is concerned. Nay, further, it is a plan, which he has not only accepted, but which he himself appointed. It must, therefore, be one which his infinite wisdom shall approve, and his infinite justice vindicate.
In the third place, if it be a plan which God shall appoint, and accept, it must not only require entire submission and future obedience, but must place the sinner in a condition in which he will be as innocent, legally and morally, as though he had never transgressed the Divine law. To pardon the sinner while in a state of hostility to his moral government, would be a license to sin and rebellion. To grant pardon without security for future obedience, would endanger the future welfare of his subjects, and the harmony, and rectitude of his government. Hence the revealed plan of salvation, as we shall see in the sequel, requires the sinner to ground forever all his weapons of rebellion, and fight against God no more. It requires a life of perfect submission and obedience. To grant pardon while the sinner is legally guilty, would be a contempt of all law and order; it would be an utter subversion of his own justice, and an abrogation of his own law. To grant pardon while the sinner is morally guilty, would be a compromise of his own moral nature, and a free indulgence to moral guilt and impurity.
God as a being of infinite rectitude and purity, must require the entire removal of both these impediments. The removal of the first, i. e., legal guilt, is an act of the Judge. The remission of the penalty of God's law is necessary to the legal innocency of the sinner. God on his part, as the Supreme Judge, has promised (and he cannot lie) to pardon the sins of all those who will comply with the conditions on their part. The removal of the second, is an act of the criminal. A change in the legal relation the sinner sustains to God, as the transgressor of his law, does not necessarily involve a change in his moral character. Without repentance, and reformation, he is just as guilty, morally, as if he had not been pardoned. To illustrate: A man, who is guilty of willful murder, may be sentenced by the judge to be hung: the executive may pardon him. Now, without unfeigned repentance would not that man be just as guilty, in a moral point of view, after he had received pardon, as he was before? Would he not be a murderer still, although pardoned? He certainly would. Just so, in reference to the sinner: he would be just as guilty, in the sight of God, and in the estimation of an intelligent universe, with, as without pardon, unless he should forsake all his sins, and "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." Hence, it would be morally and legally improper, for the Judge of all the earth, to grant pardon to the transgressors of his law without a moral change, or fitness in their natures and characters. And this is a work which God cannot do for man in harmony with his plan, which requires a voluntary acceptation on the part of the pardoned sinner; nor in harmony with the right of choice with which God endowed man in his creation. It must, therefore, be a work, which, if ever done, the creature must do for himself. Hence the propriety, yea, the necessity of God's conditionating the plan of salvation.
If then this be a plan which God can accept, it must be in harmony with all these principles; it must require all these conditions on the part of the sinner. But God has accepted this plan, as the whole Bible will testify; therefore the sinner must comply with the prescribed conditions on his part or be for ever excluded from the pardon of his sins, and from the rich rewards of the gospel, and the glorious privileges, and immunities of the kingdom of God. These conditions I shall consider more particularly
in another chapter. I will now consider the atonement in its relation,
2d. To the only begotten Son of God. If, as has been abundantly proved, the penalty of God's law for personal transgression, is removed out of the way of our salvation, by the sacrifice of the Son of God in our stead, then indeed is it a matter of vital importance, that we have correct views of the nature and character of our substitute. To have clear views of the relation the atonement sustains to the Son of God, we must understand the relation the Son of God sustains to the atonement.
In presenting this part of the subject, I propose considering the Son of God as he was before his incarnation, as he was during his incarnation, and as he has been, and will be since his incarnation. I will also subdivide these three divisions, and consider them first, in their relation to the real nature of the Son of God, and secondly, in their relation to his official character. To resume the order proposed.
1st. The pre-existence of the Son of God claims our attention. The testimony on this point is so clear and explicit, that comment will be almost unnecessary. John the Baptist testifies that the Son of God was before him. John i, 15. "John bare witness of him, and cried saying, This was he of whom I spoke, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." Again in verse 30: "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me." The reason given by the Baptist why our Lord was preferred before him is, that he was before him. This must signify that he was in existence, or existed before him. Also Chap. iii, 13. Says Christ in his discourse with Nicodemus: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." Here it is emphatically declared that the Son of man came down from heaven. Our Saviour styles himself "the bread of God which cometh down from heaven." Chap. vi, 34. The bread of life. Verse 48. "I am that bread of life." "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven." Verse 5. "This is that bread which came down from heaven." Verse 58. "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Verse 62. His ascending up where he was before, proves his pre-existence there just as much as it does his subsequent existence.
In the passages quoted there are two phrases used: "came down from heaven," "ascended into heaven." The former denotes his real existence, and personality before his descent from heaven, just as much as the latter denotes his existence and personality, before his ascension into heaven.
Chap. v, 38. "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." Paul speaking of Christ says; "And he is before all things." Col. i, 17. To be before all things he must have priority of existence to all other things. Mark the explicit language of him who was best qualified to testify in this matter. John viii, 58. "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was I am." The obvious meaning of this passage is, Before Abraham was born, I was in existence. Abraham the patriarch is the person here spoken of, because the Jews had just said unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Verse 57. I will conclude the evidence upon this point by quoting one more text, which, from its majesty and explicitness, may well close an argument upon a subject of such magnitude and importance. John xvii, 5. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, before the world was." Note, first, to be susceptible of glory, he must have real conscious existence and personality; second, to have glory with the Father, he must be a real, intelligent being, just as much as the Father; third, to have glory with the Father before the world was, he must have priority of existence to the world.
In reference to his dignity, he is denominated the Son of God, before his incarnation. Hear his own language: "He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true." John vii, 18. "Say
ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God." Chap. x, 36. "In this was manifest the love of God toward us, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John iv, 9, 10. The idea of being sent implies that he was the Son of God antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that a father can send his son on an errand before that son has an existence, which would be manifestly absurd. "To say that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," is equivalent to saying that the Son of God assumed our nature; he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation.
It would be considered an honor in the world's estimation to be a son of Nicholas, and heir to all the Russias; but what is this in comparison to the honor of being the only begotten Son of God, and heir to the throne of this world; not to reign for a few brief years, and then descend from his throne into the silence of the tomb, but to reign forever and ever. Would it not be an honor for our adorable Redeemer to share the unclouded glory of all the angels in heaven; nay, to have all the celestial choirs join in unison to hymn his praise, and fall adoring before his throne? But what are all these demonstrations when compared with the eternal weight of glory he had with the Father "before the world was?" Would not he be considered rich indeed who should possess all the wealth of the world? But what is this in comparison to the riches of him who possessed the treasured riches of eternity; who, although "rich, for our sake became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich."
The creation of the world, with all its vast oceans and mighty continents, and its numerous and varied population, is ascribed to this August Personage in his pre-existent nature. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." John i, 1, 3. So unspeakably glorious is this work, that its mere contemplation causes "the four and twenty elders to fall down before him, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. iv, 10, 11. In the same exalted nature, he is represented as upholding all the works of creation. "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. i, 17.
Speaking of the dignity and glory of his pre-existent nature, Paul says: "Who being the brightness of his (the Father's) glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power." Heb. i, 3. In his original nature, in reference to his position, he was exalted far above angels, and all principalities and powers.
But in conclusion on this interesting part of the subject, let us investigate more critically the import of the term, only begotten Son of God: and, first, the bearing it has upon his original nature. To appreciate the atonement, we must not only understand the exaltation, glory and honor, our blessed Redeemer sacrificed in taking upon him the infamy and degradation of our nature, but also the nature he possessed previous to his incarnation; for if it was a human nature, then it was a human sacrifice; if it was an angelic nature, it was an angelic sacrifice; but if, as I shall attempt to show, it was a Divine nature, then the offering of our Lord and Saviour, was a Divine Sacrifice. It has already been demonstrated that the term, "only begotten Son of God," is applied to Christ previous to his incarnation. I will adduce one more passage on this point. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." John i, 14. Here the Word, and the only begotten Son, are used synonymously; thus, the Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory, i. e., the Word's glory, &c. By reference to the first verse of this chapter, we learn that the Word, i. e., the only begotten Son of God, was in the beginning, and100was the instrumentality by which all things were made, which were made.