Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Nov 14, 1854
THE ATONEMENT.
By J. M. Stephenson
(Continued.)
To be the only begotten Son of God must be understood in a different sense than to be a Son by creation; for in that sense all the creatures he has made are sons. Nor can it refer to his miraculous conception, with the virgin Mary, by the Holy Ghost; because he is represented by this endearing title more than four thousand years before his advent in the village of Bethlehem. Moreover, he is represented as being exalted far above the highest orders of men and angels in his primeval nature. He must therefore be understood as being the Son of God in a much higher sense than any other being. His being the only begotten of the Father supposes that none except him were thus begotten; hence he is, in truth and verity the only begotten Son of God; and as such he must be Divine; that is, be a partaker of the Divine nature. This term expresses his highest, and most exalted nature. Neither the Father, the prophets, nor the apostles apply a higher term to him.
The Son of God himself never claimed a higher title. The Jews accused him of blasphemy upon this high claim. John v, 36. This claim also excited their rage to the highest degree. John v, 18. In this glorious and dignified character he is presented as the true Messiah and Saviour of the world; and as the great object of faith, and the author of eternal life. John i, 18, 36; vi, 69. In this character he is presented as the glorious object of worship by all the Host of heaven. Heb. i, 6. In the last clause of the previous verse the Father says, "And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son:" and as has been shown, these passages refer to his primeval nature. And in this character he is represented as the Creator of the worlds. Heb. i, 3; John i, 1-3.
But in the last place, on this point, What was the origin of this nature; or in other words, the origin of the Son of God. It is admitted by Trinitarians that the pre-existence, simply considered, does not prove his eternal God-head, nor his eternal Son-ship. Says Watson, a standard writer of the Trinitarian School, "His pre-existence, indeed, simply considered, does not evince his God-head, and is not therefore, a proof against the Arian hypothesis; but it destroys the Socinian notion, that he was a man only. For since no one contends for the pre-existence of human souls, and if they did, the doctrine would be confuted by their own consciousness, it is clear, that if Christ existed before his incarnation, he is not a mere man, whatever his nature, by other arguments may be proved to be." This is an honest acknowledgement plainly expressed. And in reference to his nature, it has been shown to be Divine; and being such, it must have been immortal. Indeed this proposition is self-evident; for he who is Divine, must be immortal.
We cannot suppose that Christ was mortal, and, as such, would have been subject to death, had not the plan of redemption been devised: he must, therefore, in his original nature, have been deathless.
The question now to be considered, then, is not whether the only begotten Son of God was Divine, immortal, or the most dignified and exalted being, the Father only excepted, in the entire Universe; all this has been proved, and but few will call it in question; but whether this august Personage is self-existent and eternal, in its absolute, or unlimited sense; or whether in his highest nature, and character, he had an origin, and consequently beginning of days. The idea of Father and Son supposes priority of the existence of the one, and the subsequent existence of the other. To say that the Son is as old as his Father, is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a natural impossibility for the Father to be as young as the Son, or the Son to be as old as the Father. If it be said that this term is only used in an accommodated sense, it still remains to be accounted for, why the Father should use as the uniform title of the highest, and most endearing relation between himself and our Lord, a term which, in its uniform signification, would contradict the very idea he wished to convey. If the inspired writers had wished to convey the idea of the co-etaneous existence, and eternity of the Father and Son, they could not possibly have used more incompatible terms. And of this, Trinitarians have been sensible. Mr. Fuller, although a Trinitarian, had the honesty to acknowledge, in the conclusion of his work on the Son-ship of Christ, that, "in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son." But with this admission, he attempts to reconcile the idea of the Son's being "properly eternal," as well as the Father; two ideas utterly irreconcilable. The idea of an eternal Son is a self-contradiction. He must, therefore have an origin. But what saith the Scriptures? They speak right to the point. The apostle Paul says, speaking of Christ, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." Col. i, 15. Notice, 1st. This cannot refer to his birth of the Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea, because millions of creatures, in connection with this world, had been born previous to that time. Cain and Abel had been born more than four thousand years previously. 2d. The following verse makes his birth antecedent to the creation of all things in heaven and on earth, including all worlds, all ranks and orders of intelligences, visible and invisible. "For by him." By whom? Ans. By the first born of every creature. The pronoun him refers to this being for its antecedent. "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." Verse 16. All things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, evidently include all the orders of created intelligences. Now, he must have been born, i. e., had a real intelligent existence, before he could exercise creative power. But all the works of creation are ascribed to him as the "first born of every creature;" hence the birth here spoken of, must have been previous to the existence of the first creature in heaven or in earth. To be such, it must refer to his Divine nature, unless he had two distinctive natures before his incarnation; for which no one contends. But the 17th verse does fix the priority of the birth here spoken of. "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Here the pronoun he refers to the same person for its antecedent, that the pronoun him does; and both refer to "the first born of every creature." And the "all things, he is" before, in this verse, are evidently the "all things" named in the previous verse. Hence the point is fully established, that it is the Divine nature of our blessed Redeemer which is here spoken of; and that this nature was born; and in reference to his order, he was "the first born."
Again, in John i, 1-3, 14, we have the same class of evidence. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." "In the beginning," evidently refers to the commencement of the series of events brought to view in these verses, which was the creation of all things. This gives "the only begotten of the Father" (see verse 14) intelligent existence before the first act of creative power was put forth, and proves that it is his Divine nature here spoken of; and that too, in connection with the creation of all things. In verse 14, this Word, who was "in the beginning" "with God," who "was God," and by whom "all things were made, that were made," is declared to be the "only begotten of the Father," thereby teaching that in his highest nature he was begotten; and consequently as such, he must have had a beginning. Associate the many occurrences of the term, "only begotten Son of God," with the person, nature, and time, brought to view in the foregoing verses; and if any doubts still remain, in reference to the Divine nature of the only begotten Son of God having had an origin, you may compare them with those texts which exclude the possibility of his being eternal, in the sense of his never having had a beginning of days; such as "The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality." I106Tim. vi, 16. This cannot be understood in the sense of none having deathless natures, or being exempt from death, except the Father; for Christ at that time was immortal in this sense: so were all the angels who had kept their "first estate;" it must, therefore be understood in the same sense, that we all understand, his being the only Potentate; not that there are no other potentates; but that he is the only Supreme Ruler. There cannot be two Supreme Rulers at the same time.
Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere: but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that he alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself: "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John v, 26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself. If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (i. e., is self-existent) just the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; or even if it did, I would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life. Would it not be much more reasonable, in such case, for the human nature of Christ to derive its life, and vitality, from its union with the Divine nature, instead of from its union with the Father? I understand this passage according to the natural import of the language: "For as the Father hath life (i. e., existence) in himself, (i. e., self-existent,) so hath he given to the Son to have life (i. e., existence) in himself."
I know I will be referred to the declaration of our Saviour, I have power to lay down my life, and to take it up again. John x, 18. Read the last clause of this verse: "This commandment (commission—Campbell) have I received of my Father."
I will conclude the evidence upon this point by quoting one more passage. Paul says, "And again, when he bringeth the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Heb. i, 6. He must have been his Son before he could send him into the world. In verse 2, the Father declares that he made the worlds by the same Son he is here represented as sending into the world. His Son must have existed before he created the worlds; and he must have been begotten before he existed; hence the begetting here spoken of, must refer to his Divine nature, and in reference to his order, he is the first-begotten; hence as a matter of necessity he must have been "the first born of every creature." Col. i, 15. "The first born of every creature." Creature signifies creation; hence to be the first born of every creature, (creation) he must be a created being; and as such, his life and immortality must depend upon the Father's will, just as much as angels, or redeemed men: and as the Father has given his Son to have life in himself, so his Son will give this life to all his children. His invitation is to all, "Come unto me and I will give you life." The glorious promise for all the pious dead is, that their lives are hid with Christ in God, and when he who is their life shall appear, then shall they appear with him in glory.
Having investigated the original nature, glory and dignity of our Lord and Master; having gazed a few moments upon the face of him who is the fairest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely; having had a glance at the celestial glory he had with the Father, before the world was, and beheld that matchless form which is the image of the invisible God; and having looked with wonder and admiration upon this august personage, exalted far above angels and thrones and dominions, principalities and powers; we are prepared, as far as our feeble perceptions can comprehend, to appreciate that amazing love and condescension which induced our adorable Redeemer to forego all the glories and honors of heaven, and all the endearments of his Father's presence. Although all his Father's treasures were his, yet he became so poor, that, he had not where to lay his head; oft-times the cold, damp earth being his only bed, and the blue heavens his only covering; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief—scoffed at by the Jews, and mocked by the Gentiles; a houseless stranger, he wore out his life under the ignoble garb of a servant, and last of all "died, the just for the unjust," and took his exit from the world under the infamous character of a malefactor. O! was ever love like this! Did ever mercy stoop so low? Well might the poet exclaim,
"O for this love let rocks and hills
Their lasting silence break;
And all harmonious human tongues
Their Saviour's praises speak."
In presenting this part of the subject I propose considering,
1st. Those texts of Scripture which represent the Son of God in his highest nature as becoming man, as actually becoming flesh and blood. The first chapter of John places this matter in a clear light. He says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John i, 1, 14. Notice, first. In the first verse, the Word and God are used interchangeably: "the Word was with God—the word was God." Second, the Word, and the only begotten of the Father, are also used synonymously: "And the Word was made flesh, &c., and we beheld his glory, (i. e., the Word's glory,) the glory as of the only begotten of the Father."
By this we learn that our Lord did not lose his personal identity in his transition from God to man, from the Word to flesh: "and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." It is the same person all the way through; and Peter, James and John beheld the glory as of the only begotten Son of God, when they were with him in the holy mount. 2 Pet. i, 17, 18. Third. "The Word," "God," "the only begotten of the Father," was made flesh; not flesh made, and the Word put into it; or united with it, but "the Word was made flesh." The natural import of this language is, that the only begotten of the Father, was actually converted into flesh, and as flesh denotes the real nature of the beings for whom he became a substitute, we may reasonably suppose that he became flesh; that the Divine nature was made human; nay, that the very substance of which he was originally composed was converted into flesh; otherwise he would not be a real man, a real substitute for man. To be such, he must represent man's nature, as well as his condition.
The same objections may be urged against the duplex entity of Christ, as that of man; nor does the Bible anywhere represent him as such a being, but invariably as a being having but one personality. If so, he could not have been Divine and human, mortal and immortal, at the same time. Hence he must have been Divine and immortal as a whole being, and human (flesh) and mortal as a whole being. But how can that be? Ans. By the power of God. Or according to the apostle Paul, our Lord was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power," &c. Rom. i, 3, 4. Third. As a real unit, being composed of flesh, he dwelt among them. Paul expresses the same sentiment in his quotation from Ps. xl. He says speaking of the advent of Christ: Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, "Sacrifices and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." Heb. x, 5. The pronoun me refers to his previous nature. Hear his language: "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God." Verse 7. Do not all these pronouns refer to his previous na-107ture? And is not the declaration, "a body hast thou prepared me," synonymous with that of the Word's being "made flesh?" Then it would read, Thou hast converted me into a body, i. e. "a body hast thou made me;" "the Word was made flesh." The body and flesh, in this case, would be convertible terms. This view is greatly strengthened by verse 7, where all the efficacy of the atonement is associated with the sacrifice of this body: "By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." And in verse 12, this very body is denominated this man. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God;" thereby teaching that body and man are convertible terms in these texts; hence it would express the Apostle's meaning in full to render the last clause of verse 5: a man hast thou prepared, or made me. "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. ii, 8.
Again in Rom. i, 3, 4. "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power," &c. Here it is emphatically declared that "Jesus Christ our Lord" in his highest nature, i. e., as the Son of God, "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David, as a whole being was flesh; hence he could entail no other nature upon his offspring; consequently when the Son of God was made of the seed of David, he must have been made flesh. In his Divine nature he was the Root (i. e., the Father by creation) of David. Rev. v, 5. In this sense he is both the Lord and Son of David. Acts ii, 34. But all that was David's Lord, before his incarnation, became his Son afterward. No intimation that any part of his original nature was excepted when he "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" or when he "was made flesh."
Also in Phil. ii, 6-9. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God?" That this verse refers to his highest nature will be admitted by all; and it is declared in the verse following, that in this nature he became man. Mark the explicit language: "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." That taking "the form of a servant," and being "made in the likeness of men," is synonymous with his becoming a real man, from the fact that in the very nature he described, he died "the death of the cross." What nature died? Ans. The human. Then the exalted being brought to view in verse 6, actually became a mortal man, and died.
I will quote one more text on this point. Heb. ii, 14. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil." Here he is represented as taking part of flesh and blood, as, or in the same manner, children do. The obvious meaning is, For as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also took part with them in the same; that is, he was a being composed of flesh and blood the same as the children. This view is confirmed by the last clause of this verse, taken in connection with the verse following, in which nature, he is represented as dying; and as the result of which delivering "them, who through the fear of death, were all their life time subject to bondage."
What nature "was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities?" Was it not his flesh, as the "seed of the woman?" What blood was shed "for the remission of sins?" Was it not the identical blood which had flowed through the veins of Mary his mother, and back through her ancestry to Eve, the mother of all living? Otherwise he was not the "seed of the woman," of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David; but that he was the literal seed of Abraham is evident from verse 16: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." The reason why he chose the nature of Abraham in preference to that of angels, is plainly stated in the following verses: "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted."
Observe first. He is represented as taking part of (in) flesh and blood. Second. The same being is represented as dying to deliver them who were all their lives under fear of death. Third. The same person took not on him the nature of angels, but the nature, or seed of Abraham. Fourth. It was necessary he should take the nature of Abraham, 1st. To qualify him for being a merciful High Priest, one who from his near relationship to man, can sympathize for him as angels could not do. 2d. It is necessary "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." This implies that no other nature could make reconciliation. The nature of angels, nay his own original nature, would not be a substitute for man; would not make an atonement "for the sins of the people." Man must die to redeem man. 3d. It was necessary he should suffer, and be tempted as man, to be "able to succor them that are tempted."
"Touched with a sympathy within,
He knows our feeble frame;
He knows what sore temptations mean,
For he hath felt the same."
Herein is our only hope, our only plea, Jesus Christ not only took our nature and died in our stead, but is now representing our nature, with all its infirmities, and with all its heart-rending woes in the upper Sanctuary. Yes, blessed be his holy name for ever and ever! he is now pleading our cause, before his Father's throne, with all the melting love which caused his agonies of death. "Seeing then that we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities: but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Heb. iv, 14-16.
Having shown by plain Bible testimony that the Son of God in his highest nature became man, "was made flesh," I next propose to consider that portion of Bible evidence which represents him as a real man. In fact, everything connected with his history, from his birth to his resurrection, proves that he was a real human being. Read the prediction, "For unto us a child is born," [Isa. ix, 6;] also its fulfillment. Matt. i, 20-25; ii, 11; Luke i, ii. From this account, of his birth, we learn that he was begotten by the "power of the Highest," and was born of Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea, in the reign of Augustus Cæsar.
He came into the world as helpless, and as much dependent upon his parents for support, and instruction, as any child that had ever been born. He derived his sustenance from his mother's breast, and his vitality from breathing the vital air. He "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Luke ii, 52. He had all the sensations flesh is heir to. He was susceptible of heat or cold, hunger or thirst, the same as any other man. If he fasted he was afterward an hungered; if he journeyed long he was fatigued. He was "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." He "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." He had all the innocent human passions; such as desire: "And he said unto them with desire, I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." Luke xxii, 15. Joy: "Who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame," &c. Heb. xii, 2. Fear: He "was heard in that he feared." Heb. v, 7, last clause; a peculiar human love: "The disciple whom Jesus loved." John xiii, 23. Sorrow: "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death." Matt. xxvi, 38. And as a mortal, human being, he suffered, died, and was buried; and as a lifeless man he was raised from the dead, on the third day, by the power of the Father: "Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus." Heb. xiii, 20.
That Jesus Christ did not lose, or change his real personality, in becoming man, or in the transition from his Divine to his human nature, is evident, first, from the fact that the same term is applied to his human nature, which had previously denoted his Divine nature; and that too, in its most exalted position, and most endearing relation to the Father.
The Father publicly acknowledged him as his beloved Son on the bank of Jordan. "And lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. iii, 17. At his transfiguration: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son; hear him." Luke ix, 35. "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matt. xvi, 16. Paul "preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God." Acts ix, 20. Not only did the Father, the Son and the apostles, acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God, but the devils acknowledged him to be such. "Thou art Christ the Son of God." Second. That he had the same personality, during his incarnation, that he had before, is equally manifest, from the use of the same singular pronouns to denote both natures; or in other words, pronouns denoting the same identical personality, in both natures. "A body hast thou prepared me." Here the pronoun, me, represents both natures, before and after his incarnation: there being two distinct natures, but only one personality. Again in his prayer to the Father: "Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." I, before the world was, and I, who was then praying, refer to the same personality; but to the nature he had before the world was, and to the nature he then had.
Again, "Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor." Here the same he who was rich became poor. In this case, we have only one personality, yet two natures and conditions. But how could he change his nature, and yet retain his personality? Ans. Just as easily as our nature can be changed from mortality to immortality; from flesh to spirit, without losing our personal identity. Just reverse the process of making a mortal being immortal, and it would make an immortal being mortal. God can just as easily do the one as the other. In changing man's nature from mortality to immortality, from flesh to spirit, God will simply change the mode of his existence, without changing his personal identity. Just as in reference to the Son of God, the Father changed his nature, and, as a natural consequence, the manner of his existence, without changing his personal identity. Hence, it is the same person, who had glory with the Father before the world was, who was born of Mary, in the days of Augustus Cæsar, who was condemned by Pontius Pilate, crucified by the Jews, buried in Joseph's new tomb, rose again the third day, and who is now exalted on the right hand of the throne in the heavens, a Prince and Saviour to give repentance and remission of sins.
(To be Continued.)
THE RICH MAN'S CHOICE.
"And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved; for he had great possessions."Mark x, 22.
O, had he known that harps were hushed
Amid the angel throng,
Or heard the strain that would have gushed
Those shining chords along;
Or seen where waved his crown of life,
The fadeless and the fair,
Would he, within that hour of strife,
Have stood and pondered there?
That fearful hour—that silent kept
The seraphs of the sky!
With wily care the tempter swept
His panorama by;
Before him passed broad lands and fair,
And coffers piled with gold;
But for the gorgeous visions there,
Perchance a soul was sold.
How could he stand? how could he pause?
How for one moment weigh
The things that should have been as straws,
With life's long blissful day?
He knew beyond the shining gate
The proffered "treasure" lay,
O, how could mortal hesitate?—
He sadly "went away."
On Judah's hills, the green and fair,
Is hushed the voice of yore,
But still the tempter spreads his snare,
Just as it spread before;
And ye who earthly riches hold,
And heritages fair,
Oh, barter not for lands and gold,
Your priceless treasures there.