The Atonement: Its Nature and Extent
Unknown Author
Table of Contents
The Atonement: Its Nature and Extent
THE doctrine of the atonement is of great importance. On the one hand, some professing Christians are explaining it away, and others positively denying it; while, on the other hand, some contend that it is so full, complete, and effectual that all mankind must eventually be saved.
Such being the case, the Christian ought to be able to say from Scripture what the atonement is, and also what it is not, in order to meet both classes of error.
The atonement is a fundamental doctrine. We say of a Unitarian that he cannot be saved because he denies the atonement — unless indeed he be far above his creed, but then he is not really a Unitarian: thus we ought to know clearly what the atonement is, not only for the safety of our own souls, but also to help others.
We ought also to know clearly what it is not, because it is fully revealed in Scripture that all mankind will not be saved; and if atonement has been made equally and completely for all, and yet all are not saved, how can we be sure that any will be saved, and especially our own souls?
Let us then come to the Scripture, willing yea, anxious, to be taught, and in dependence upon the Holy Spirit for instruction and blessing.
It may appear surprising to some that the word “atonement” occurs only once in the authorized version of the New Testament: Romans 5:1, “We have now received the atonement;” and even here it is said, upon good authority, that the Greek word should be translated “reconciliation,” as the noun or the verb is in other places (Rom. 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19), and even in the same context (Rom. 5:10 ). So that the word atonement may be said not to occur in the New Testament.
But, as in the doctrine of the Trinity, though the word does not occur in the Scriptures, the doctrine we understand by the word “atonement” may be most fully taught therein.
But the word occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and it may be well first to trace its application there.
The word in the original is בּפר (kahphar), and the first time it occurs is in Genesis 6:14, where of the ark we read, Thou “shalt pitch it within and without with pitch;” or shalt cover it with pitch. Here we find the literal meaning is “to cover;” we shall see its application in the sacrifices, etc.
But there is one passage that more fully brings out the doctrine; namely, Leviticus 17:1, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” From this we gather:
1. It is the blood that maketh atonement.
2. But life is in the blood, and so life has to be given for life.
3. This is substitution: another dies, and his blood maketh atonement for the sins of the offerer, and he goes free.
And thus we find all through Leviticus that the offering was to “make an atonement” for the guilty offerer.
Of course in the Old Testament the sacrifices were only typical of the one great sacrifice — the Lamb of God — as we see clearly in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
But in the above declaration where does the thought of “covering” come in? What is “covered?”
We shall perhaps see this in further considering the subject, and in referring to some other passages where the same word kahphar occurs. For instance, in the first Passover, the blood was to be sprinkled
“on the two side posts, and on the upper door post of the houses.... And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt” (Ex. 12:7, 13). Here clearly the Israelites were “covered” by the blood, and thus preserved from the destroying angel.
The same Hebrew word (but a noun instead of a verb) is used in the sense of “ransom” or “satisfaction” by covering the price demanded, or paying the penalty. Thus, if an ox gored a man to death, the ox was to be put to death unless the owner paid the “sum of money” laid upon him (Ex. 21:30). For a murderer “no satisfaction” was to be taken: he must be put to death (Num. 35:31). The same word is used in that beautiful passage: “Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom” (Job 33:24).
The same word (the verb) is used for mercy and pardon: “Be merciful, O Lord, unto Thy people Israel.” He “will be merciful unto His land” (Deut. 21:8, 32:43). “The good Lord pardon every one” (2 Chron. 30:18).
The same word (the verb) is used when wrath had gone out from the Lord. Aaron put fire from the altar into a censer, and incense thereon, and ran into the camp and stood between the dead and the living, and made atonement for them (Num. 16:46-48). Again, “When I am pacified toward thee” (Ezek. 16:63). Jacob said of Esau, “I will appease him with the present” (Gen. 32:20).
The same word (the verb) is used for cleansing or purging. “Deliver us, and purge away our sins.” (Psa. 79:9). “As for our transgressions, Thou shalt purge them away” (Psa. 65:3).
The same word (the feminine noun) is used for the covering of the ark, and is translated in all places “mercy-seat.” This is very beautiful: the throne of God (the ark), and the law (the testimony in the ark) are covered; and the covering thus becomes the mercy-seat.
These then are the principal uses of the word kahphar in the Old Testament, and they surely throw great light upon the doctrine of atonement. It may at first sight seem strange that God, to bring out and exemplify the atonement, should have chosen a word, the root of which signifies “to cover;” but the surprise will perhaps give way when we remember that a sin can never be undone. If I commit a crime, it will always be true that on such a day of such a month of such a year I committed that crime. It may also be true that the punishment due to that crime has been borne by Christ; the crime be eternally covered; the record of it be blotted out; God cease to remember it; its moral effect on me be washed away; my conscience perfectly purged as to it: but — solemn thought — that crime can never be undone. “Blessed is he whose sin is covered” (Psa. 32:1; Rom. 4:7).
In a few words, then, may we not say that atonement signifies that “life” is given and is accepted as satisfaction for “life” forfeited? and further, that the full doctrine of the atonement embraces more than this — as we have seen by the various uses of the Hebrew word — and it would be the plan of God in saving man by the sacrifice of Christ? We speak of it abstractedly at present: as to whom it is applicable, we shall consider as we proceed.
We must next quote a few passages from the New Testament to show that the same doctrine is taught there as we have seen in the Old Testament — not now in types and shadows, but in the one great Antitype, the Lord Jesus.
“Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). “This is My blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). “Having made peace through the blood of His cross” (Col. 1:20). “The Son of man came... to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). “Thou hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood” (Rev. 5:9). “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
“Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). And many more passages will occur to the reader.
Before we pass on to another branch of our subject, it may be well to glance at some of the terms employed in Scripture in connection therewith.
Acceptance. — An offering “shall be perfect to be accepted” (Lev. 22:21). The offerer “shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him” (Lev. 1:4). “Whoso findeth me [wisdom] findeth life, and shall obtain favor [or acceptance] of the Lord” (Prov. 8:35). Christ was as “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19). “He hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph. 1:6). Christ, as the perfect sacrifice, has been received; and man, who was driven out from the presence of God in Adam (Gen. 3:24), can now be brought to God, and be accepted in Christ.
Remission. — This is a letting go, or setting free; and then the forgiveness which in man’s case occasions deliverance. It is applied to persons, as in Luke 4:18: “To preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.” “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness” (Mark 3:29). And also to sins, which are the cause of captivity and sentence of death. Christ said, “This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). “Whoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). “In whom we have... the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14). Remission, then, is the deliverance of those who believe from the sentence of death; and thence the forgiveness of the sins that caused their condemnation.
Redemption. — God redeemed Israel out of Egypt (Ex. 6:6, 15:13); and He will again redeem them from among the nations; and thus, in Isaiah, Jehovah is frequently called their Redeemer. In Christ we who believe “have redemption through His blood” (Eph. 1:7). “Having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12). We ourselves wait for “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). This is an actual bringing out of the state of bondage into a state of liberty and blessing. The believer has redemption now, but not as to his body, which, though certain, is still future.
But it must be observed that in redemption there are two distinct parts. We may, perhaps, illustrate it thus: Suppose a slave is held by a cruel tyrant, and one buys the slave in order to release him, or one stronger than the tyrant wrests the slave out of his hands. This would be one feature of redemption. But immediately the slave has been delivered, an officer arrests him on the charge of some grave offense against the law, for which he must die. Something quite distinct from the former is now required to redeem him: some one must die in his stead. The one may be called redemption by power, and the other redemption by blood.
At the redemption of Israel from Egypt we see them both. The lamb had to be slain, and the blood sprinkled on the door posts, to save them from the destroying angel; and the Egyptians had to be overcome, that the Israelites might be delivered. In the latter, might and power is ascribed to the Redeemer: “The LORD is a man of war.... Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: Thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy” (Ex. 15:3, 6). “As for our Redeemer, the LORD of hosts is His name” (Isa. 47:4). In the other, “God shall provide Himself with a lamb.” “It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” This is redemption by blood from the wrath of God against sin.
Now, the death of Christ has this double aspect. Man is a slave to Satan, and Christ reems those who are saved from his hands, not by paying Satan a price, but by overcoming him. As God said to Satan, “It [the seed of the woman, Christ] shall bruise thy head.” But in doing this Christ was slain; as God further said to Satan, “Thou shalt bruise His heel” (Gen. 3:15). As we sing,
“Bless, bless the Conqueror slain,
Slain in His victory.”
And, as is declared plainly by the apostle, “that through death He might destroy [or annul] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14, 15). While, on the other hand, “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things;... but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb, without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18, 19).
The one is accomplished by Christ as a victor, the other as a lamb. Both meet in His death. In both the effect is deliverance, and this is redemption.
We say, “Christ wrought redemption on the cross,” in the sense that in His death He accomplished that which procures deliverance.
Full redemption, in the case of Israel, not only delivered from the destroying angel, and from the oppression of the Egyptians; but it brought them completely out of Egypt, and set them in Canaan: so redemption for the believer, not only brings him from under wrath, and from the dominion of Satan; but it brings him out of his old standing in Adam, and gives him a standing in Christ: he is “a man in Christ.”
Expiation. — This word does not occur in the authorized version of the Old or New Testament, except once in the margin. In Numbers 35:33, we read, There can be no expiation for the land “of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” But here it is the same word which we have been considering (kahpkar), and is often translated “atonement made,” or “purged.”
It is sometimes difficult to attach a definite thought to a word when that word does not occur in Scripture; but we commonly use the word “expiation” instead of “atonement.” Thus we say that the death of Christ was an expiatory sacrifice; that is, He died for others.
Reconciliation. — This is the opposite of enmity and hatred. “Let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11). “You that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled” (Col. 1:21)
“Being enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son” (Rom. 5:10). We who believe are not saved from perdition, and left with hard thoughts towards God: the enmity is entirely removed from our hearts, and we are perfectly reconciled to God, and we love Him.
And note that all the enmity is on man’s part, and not on God’s. We do not read of God being reconciled to man; but man is reconciled to God. God loved the world, so loved the world as to send His only begotten Son to die for it; and this is the very reverse of being at enmity with man. “God is angry with the wicked every day;” we read also of His “hot displeasure,” His “indignation,” His “wrath.” But this is not enmity. Enmity is ill-will and hatred towards another. We see it in Saul towards David. Saul sought his life, and said, “If a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away?” (1 Sam. 24:19.) But David had let Saul go well away. The enmity was all on Saul’s part, and not on David’s. So there is none on God’s part towards man. “God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him” (1 John 4:8,9). God gave His Son to be the Saviour of the world (John 4:42). His long-suffering is salvation, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the Lord can say, “They have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love” (Psa. 109:5). “The carnal mind is enmity against God.” Reconciliation, then, is man being reconciled to God.
Propitiation. — This word occurs but three times in the New Testament, and not at all in the authorized version of the Old. Christ, “whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood” (Rom. 3:25). “He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). God hath “sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). The Greek word in Rom. 3:25, is the same that is used by the LXX for “mercy-seat,” and it is also so translated in Heb. 9:5, “shadowing the mercy-seat.” The word in the other two passages, though from the same root, is not exactly the same. There is also a kindred Greek word (ἰλάσκομαι) in Heb. 2:17, “to make propitiation for the sins of the people,” as it should be translated.
To be a propitiation, is to be the means by which God is enabled to be favorable to man. We say make propitiation in the sense of meeting the claims of God that enables Him to be favorable. In the two passages quoted from the First Epistle of John, Christ is the propitiation “for our sins:” that is, Christ is the means by which God can be favorable and merciful to us respecting (περὶ) our sins.
Ransom. — “Who gave Himself a ransom (ἀντίυτρον) for all” (1 Tim. 2:6). “To give His life a ransom (λύτρον) for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). This is a kindred word to “redemption,” and refers to the price paid to redeem a captive; as redemption means an actual bringing out of captivity.
Satan was the great slaveholder of fallen man. Christ has annulled his power; but in doing this Christ lays down His life, as we have seen. Thus the price paid is His life; “to give His life a ransom;” and it is for all.
All are not redeemed (which is something beyond having the ransom paid), because man prefers the slavery of Satan to God’s freedom.
Satan is therefore still the great slaveholder of man; and, morally, to the mass there is no difference now than before Satan was annulled; because it remains true that “his servants ye are to whom ye obey.” Men obey Satan, and therefore they are his servants. But if any, by the grace of God, turn to Christ, Satan cannot prevent them: his power is annulled.
Sentence is not yet executed on him; but “the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Rom. 16:20). But the victory over him has been won: “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31).
Thus Christ gave His life — Himself — a ransom for all.
To sum up: As we saw by the various applications of the Hebrew word kahphar in the Old Testament a comprehensiveness in the doctrine of the atonement; so we see by the various terms we have been considering a similar comprehensiveness in the New Testament. The a atonement as a doctrine may be said to include ransom and redemption; propitiation, acceptance, remission, and reconciliation; indeed, it is God’s plan of saving man by the sacrifice of Christ, and the reconciliation of all things.
It is important, in all questions touching the atonement, to understand the meaning intended; because the word atonement is used very indefinitely. Thus, if I say the atonement is not for all mankind, a person might reply, That is wrong; for atonement is propitiation, and Scripture expressly declares that propitiation is for the whole world (1 John 2:2). While, on the other hand, if I say atonement is for all mankind, a person might reply, That is wrong; for atonement means bearing sin, and this is never said to be for all. We call the atonement “God’s plan of saving man by the sacrifice of Christ.” What part of this extends to all mankind, and how far it is restricted to those who believe, we shall proceed to consider.
As to what is called the extent of the atonement, the Church of God has been mainly divided into two sections.
The Calvinist, who holds with “particular redemption;” and the Arminian, who contends for “universal redemption,” upon which each builds up his system of doctrine. But neither is found to be right when brought to Scripture. For instance, the Calvinist interprets “the world” to mean “the elect world:” and the Arminian contends that a remedy being provided for all, it is left to man to receive or reject it; and that there is sufficient good left in man to turn of himself to God and to receive the gospel.
Doubtless a great deal of the confusion that exists in the minds of Christians arises from their viewing the death of Christ in only one aspect, and then attempting to answer the question, “Did Christ die for all mankind, or only for a part?” Whereas we have already seen that the death of Christ bears various aspects; and may it not be true that in some aspects of His death Christ died for all mankind but that in other aspects of His death He did not die for all mankind?
But let us proceed to consider the plan of salvation, if such a term may be allowed.
On account of sin, man was driven out from the presence of God (Gen. 3:24); and God is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity (Hab. 1:13); how then can God and the sinner meet?
In the first place, the character of God must be vindicated as to the rebellion of man.
As when a city has revolted from its alliance to its rightful sovereign, the lives of the citizens become forfeited. The king comes with an army to destroy that city; but he is merciful, and he demands that a dozen of the leaders of the rebellion shall be delivered up to him as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty, rather than that the whole inhabitants be destroyed. The men are given up, and are put to death. The king’s character has thus been vindicated, and peace is now declared; and he enters into the city, dispensing mercy to whom he will; but he will also judge and punish whom he will that are still rebellious, and for their individual infraction of the general laws of the city.
So Christ vindicated the character of God, touching the rebellion of mankind generally: God “having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself” (Col. 1:20); and thus far the way is cleared and the foundation laid for God and man to meet. But where can they meet?
We see the first recorded instance in Abel. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground which had been cursed, and God could have no respect to it. God could not meet man there. But Abel brought a sacrifice, which supposes sin; an animal is put to death — his blood shed; life is given for life. To this God had respect: He can meet Abel in the sacrifice, and give him an assurance about his sins (Heb. 11:4). Doubtless God had given instructions to Adam in some way as to the nature of a sacrifice. And we read that it was by faith that Abel offered the “more excellent” sacrifice. And God, in speaking to Cain, said (as Genesis 4:7 is often translated), “If thou doest not well, a sin offering lieth at the door.” Noah, again, on emerging from the ark, built an altar unto Jehovah, “and offered burnt offerings on the altar, and Jehovah smelled a sweet savour: ... and God blessed Noah and his sons” (Gen. 8:20, 21, 9:1).
Soon after this came the dispersion at Babel. And doubtless each company took with it the knowledge that God was to be approached by a sacrifice; and a knowledge of sacrifice has been a universal thing among all the peoples of the earth: corrupted, indeed, in many ways, being soon offered to “other gods,” on the one hand, and extended to human sacrifices on the other; for Satan would surely seek to lead men from any approach to God, and did not fail to cause some to worship his own image in the form of the serpent.
But when God chose a people for Himself, He brought out the whole subject more fully. The meeting place was provided at the door of the tabernacle. “A continual burnt offering throughout your generations, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, before the Lord: where I will meet thee, to speak there unto thee. And there I will meet with the children of Israel” (Ex. 29:42, 43).
In the New Testament it is Christ as a mediator. A mediator is a person who can stand between two who could not otherwise approach each other, but who can both meet in the mediator. There is “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
This is man universally; and here is a place where the sinner can come and speak to God about his sins.
But in order to be this mediator, Christ had to become a man, to humble Himself, to die. At the door of the tabernacle, where God met the children of Israel, there must be a “continual burnt offering.” It is in the sweet savor of Christ, as a sacrifice, that God can meet the sinner about his sins.
The next point is, In what character does God meet the sinner in Christ?
This we get answered in the mercy-seat: “Thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat” (Ex. 25:21, 22).
At the birth of Christ the heavenly host sang, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14).
“The grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared” (Titus 2:11, margin).
This, then, tells us That God meets the sinner in grace, mercy, and good will — in Christ.
But this also requires the death of Christ: the mercy-seat itself had to be sprinkled with blood (Lev. 16:14, 15).
And further, God not only provided a meeting place — where He could meet the sinner in grace— but His desire was that all should come.
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” (1 John 2:2, 4:10).
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.... We pray in Christ’s stead, Be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:19, 20).
God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,... who gave Himself a ransom for all”. (1 Tim. 2:4, 6).
This latter passage shows the desire of God, and not His will in the sense of decree. As to His decrees, He says, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isa. 46:10); whereas the desire of God has constantly been despised and refused by man. One passage will suffice to prove this. Of Jerusalem Christ said, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings! and ye would not” (Matt. 23:37).
Now, thus far the death of Christ was for all mankind: He vindicated the character of God as to sin: He is a mediator for all, a mercy-seat for all, a propitiation for all (that by which God can be favorable to all); the means of reconciliation for all; a ransom for all: so that in any of these aspects we can say, “Christ died for all;” “Christ shed His blood for all;” “Christ tasted death forever man,” etc. And it will explain a number of passages that speak of the death of Christ in its universal aspect.
Notice, too, that the question of “sins” does not come in here. It is the sinner himself that is contemplated, and he is invited to come to the mediator, and to be reconciled.
But what was the result of all this done by Christ for mankind? According to the passage quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:19, 20, God’s desire was to reconcile the world to Himself through Christ, and He sent His message, beseeching men to be reconciled.
But man, from the beginning, has refused to listen to God, or to be reconciled, and prefers the slavery of sin and Satan. “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11). Even of Israel God said, “When I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear” (Isa. 66:4). In the parable of the great supper (Luke 14:18), they all, without exception, made excuses. Of the wicked He says, “They are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely” (Psa. 58:4, 5). Christ “came unto His own, and His own received Him not” (John 1:11). “Ye will not come to me that ye might have life” (John 5:40).
Now God foresaw all this, and provided against it in Election: in choosing some to eternal life, and causing them to believe in Christ. “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). “Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate:... whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified” (Rom. 8:29,30). “Chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). “They shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:45).
Instead therefore of election being a cause of stumbling to the Christian, it ought to call forth his warmest thankfulness. But for that, none would respond to the Gospel even now. Does my reader believe for a moment that he was better than the verdict God has pronounced on man universally in the passages just quoted? Surely not, if he knows his own heart. Our Lord plainly declared that the people could not come (John 6:44). Oh the grace, then, of God in choosing some to eternal life! may I say, of choosing you and me?
But election would be made a bad use of by a Christian if it hindered his proclaiming the Gospel. That is to be preached in all the world to every creature (Mark 16:13). They are to be told that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16); that Christ died, and rose again, and is now in the glory. And, as we have seen, men are to be besought to be reconciled to God. Thus should the Gospel be preached both objectively and subjectively, with all the variety of illustration presented in the Scripture, fully and freely to all, independent of the question of election altogether.
Neither should election discourage the evangelist but the very reverse. When he stands to address an audience, would he trust to his powers of eloquence, persuasion, entreaty, or warning, to move some to believe — and to something in them to respond to his appeal — rather than to the fact that some are ordained to eternal life, and that they will be drawn by God, and will certainly be saved? Let him remember that but for election, as we have seen, not one would respond to the Gospel; and he knows not how many of his hearers may be of that happy company. Let him then have confidence in God that He will bring in all His chosen ones, as He surely will.
To proceed: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” This points out the link between the Mediator and those that are saved; whereas there is no link in those that are lost.
The link between the offerer and the victim was very marked in the Old Testament. “If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him” (Lev. 1:3, 4). Of the sin offering, the offerer “shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head” (Lev. 4:4). On the day of atonement, “Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat” (16:21).
So there must be identification between the one who comes to Christ and Him as a sacrifice. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:33); that is, I must have faith in Christ as a sacrifice, or I do not begin to live.
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36). “If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24)
This brings in substitution as to sins. As the sacrifice was accepted instead of the death of the offerer, so the sacrifice of Christ is accepted instead of the believer bearing the wrath due to his sins, and he is forgiven.
Now it will be seen that this goes far beyond the class of passages that we had previously been considering, which spoke of Christ as a mediator, or even propitiation, or ransom, (though all these are the believer’s as well); for you could not say that Christ bore the punishment due to the sins of an unconverted man who has died in his sins — the man will have to bear the punishment himself: neither can you say that Christ satisfied justice as to the sins of the world; for how could man be afterward judged for those very sins?
But Scripture does not say this of the world: it is only true of those who believe. And this introduces another class of passages, and which refer to the saved only; and which we shall find to be guarded by such words as “us,” “our,” etc., when it was a Christian writing to Christians.
“For He hath made Him to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21). “His own self bare our sins” (1 Peter 2:24).
“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28). “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). “Being now justified by His blood” (Rom. 5:9). “Redeemed us to God by Thy blood” (Rev. 5:9). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).
From these passages, and others that will occur to the reader, he will surely see that Scripture views the death of Christ in various aspects, in some of which it is restricted to those who believe; and, though in other aspects it is of universal application, yet even in these it is only towards all, whereas it is upon only those that believe: as is explained in reference to righteousness, “the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all [or towards all], and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:22, 23). Thus reconciliation was towards all: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” But the world was not reconciled, for it refused to accept Christ: and so it was upon only those that believe, who can say, God “hath reconciled us unto Himself by Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18). Again, in Romans 5:18, the free gift unto justification is towards all men; but the enjoyment of it is on the many only who are saved. So the gift of Christ as a mediator as a propitiation, as a mere-seat is towards all. All are freely invited and the promise given that none coming shall in anywise be cast out. But the blessing is upon them only that believe.
He who is elected to eternal life receives the full benefit of the work of Christ. The wrath of God due to his sins has been borne by Christ, and he is forgiven; he is justified from all things; his enmity is destroyed, and he is fully reconciled to God; he is born again — a new creation; he is delivered from sin, the world, and Satan; he is brought out of his standing in the first Adam, and is brought into a new standing in Christ; he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit; he is seated in Christ in heavenly places: he has passed from death unto life.
And now as to “sin” and “sins.” We must distinguish between sin as a root in man, and the sins actually committed. Take two unrenewed men: one may be outwardly blameless in his behavior (as Paul before his conversion), and the other may be a notoriously wicked man: all will be able to see the greatest possible difference between the sins of these two men; and yet the root of sin would be the same in both, because they are both descended from the first Adam, and are equally born in sin, and shapen in iniquity.
Now the believer has deliverance from both the root and the fruit. “He bare our sins in His own body:” this is the fruit. “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin [or, for a sin offering], condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3): this is the root. So the believer should make no excuse for himself; for this deliverance, is wrought for him by God, in order “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (vs. 4), though, alas we all fail.
But does the question of “sin” as the root, and “sins” as the fruit, go beyond this? It has often been supposed that Christ bore and took away the sin of the whole world, though not the sins; or, as is often said, He took away the original sin; and that this is the aspect of the atonement towards the world; and that this too ensures the salvation of infants. This is doubtless taken from the passage in John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Not “sins,” it is true; so that we may conclude that the passage does not refer to all the sins of the whole world. And the careful reader of Scripture will not fail to notice that in 1 John 2:2, Christ is not said to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; the words “the sins of” being added by the translators.
In what sense then does Christ take away the “sin” of the world? Not as the root of sin, surely; for we find the root of sin in all from early infancy, though that infancy may be surrounded by the most godly influences. No sooner does the child begin to act than he bins to sin. Bad circumstances doubtless stimulate and increase the early fruit; but no circumstances have been able to prevent the evil fruit. We are not merely creatures of circumstances: we have a bias for evil―an evil nature — which we inherit from our first parents. Christ has not therefore taken away the root of sin from man universally. Neither is it said that He ever will do it. In Colossians 1, where reconciliation of all things is spoken of, things under the earth (the wicked) are not included.
And if it be said that Christ bore the punishment due to the root of sin in man universally, but not the punishment due to all men’s sins; we must ask, Is such a distinction referred to in Scripture? We think not; while, on the other hand, it is not easy to get a definite thought as to what, can be meant by bearing the punishment due to the root of sin, that is, to a principle or tendency. Where the root of sin in a believer is spoken of in the passage quoted from Romans 8:3, it does not speak so much of atoning for the root, as condemning it: He “condemned sin in the flesh.” The believer is delivered from it.
As we have seen under the term “ransom,” Christ vindicated the character of God as to sin generally, so that God can graciously meet the sinner; but being “made sin,” and “bearing sin,” go beyond this, and refer only to the saved.
Then as to infants; if it be true that Christ bore the punishment due to the root of sin which we inherit from Adam — whatever that may mean — would that ensure the salvation of infants? It supposes of course that the infants have not committed any actual sin. But who can tell at what age infants begin to sin? Long before they can speak they often passionately quarrel with the very breast that gives them succor; and very early do they learn to know what they may do and what they may not do, and as early to exhibit a willfulness to do what they ought not. Am I then to have no hope except for the children who have not sinned? and a hope for these based only upon a supposition that this passage in John means that Christ bore the punishment due to the root of sin inherited from Adam?
Surely this will not suffice. There may not be any passage that affirms directly or indirectly that all infants are saved; and yet it has been, I suppose, the universal belief of all Christians that it is so. David said confidently of his infant, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). The following passages may be quoted as giving the mind of Christ as to the little ones: “Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). “And Jesus called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them, and said,” ... “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost.... It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish” (Matt. 18:2, 3, 11, 14) This was doubtless a child who had sinned and not one just born. It needed redemption, for it is spoken of among the lost, and Christ came to save that which was lost. It is not the will of God that one of them should perish., May we not then believe that God will do His will, respecting them, and that all will be saved?
We must now return to John 1:29, and inquire the meaning of the words, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The word here translated world (κόσμος) is sometimes used in Scripture (and by heathen writers too) to denote the “whole frame of the material heaven and earth, so called from its admirable regularity and beauty.” (See Matthew 13:35, 25:34; Luke 11:50; and in the same chapter as our passage, “The world was made by Him.”
In Colossians 1:20, we read that God will by Christ reconcile all things in heaven and earth to Himself.
In Hebrews 9:23, the heavenly things themselves need to be purified by the blood of a better sacrifice than that of bulls and goats.
The earth itself is deeply stained by the sins of well-nigh six thousand years; and “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom. 8:22).
But the whole universe of heaven and earth is to be cleared of sin. Satan will be cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:9), whither he now goes to accuse the brethren (Job 1, 2; Rev. 12:10); and sin, oppression, bloodshed, and every evil, shall be purged from the earth. And thus we look for “new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13). This scene will be cleared by Christ, who will thus restore it to the relationship with God it once had before man fell and the ground was cursed.
The foundation for this is in the death of Christ.
God had communed with Adam in Eden; but He had to drive him out. He then left man much to himself until the flood. After the flood God blessed Noah and his sons; who then, with their wives, were the nucleus of the present earth, and who then constituted “the world.” But, since then God had not spoken to the world at large until the incarnation of Christ.
Of course God was to be read in His works of creation, in His providence, and in His judgments. He had spoken, as we know, to Israel, and through them indirectly to the nations adjacent. He had also spoken by His prophets to one here and there; as to Nineveh, to Nebuchadnezzar, etc. But we have no record of His speaking to the world at large until the angels announced the birth of the Saviour. And then it was to all: “On earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14).
But this also places the world under a new responsibility. As we read, “The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained” (Acts 17:30, 31).
Thus God, in the sending of His Son, speaks to the world at large; it is mercy now, or judgment by-and-by. And so the gospel is not a neutral thing to any who hear it; for God has spoken to man, and man is responsible to hear and obey; and therefore it is either a savor of life unto life, or a savor of death unto death.
By Christ also He will accomplish the restoration of all things; things under the earth — the wicked — of course excepted, as in Colossians 1:20, and Ephesians 1:10 the whole scene being cleared of sin.
And this we believe to be the meaning of that beautiful passage, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” It of course includes our sin, if we believe; for we shall be a part of that eternal sinless state. To His boundless mercy be all the praise!
A few other points still demand our attention.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul rehearses the gospel he had preached to them. “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (vss. 3,4). “So we preach, and so ye believed” (verse 11).
It has been inferred from this that in preaching the gospel an evangelist is justified in saying to any body of hearers, “Christ died for our sins,” because the apostle adds “so we preach.”
But were these the exact words the apostle used in preaching the gospel? or were they not rather the substance of what he had preached, but now put in words that were true of himself and the Christians he addressed? It was a Christian writing to Christians, and he says “Christ died for our sins.” Besides, it was “according to the Scriptures;” and where is there any Scripture that says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world? And if not, how can you address it to all indiscriminately?
As we have seen, Christ died for all — tasted death for every man — was a ransom for all — a propitiation for all — a mediator to whom all are welcome to come; for each of which we have endeavored to obtain a definite scriptural thought, and which, with any others that refer to all, we believe to be ample to exhibit the love of God to a perishing world, without using any expression that is true only of those that believe.
Further, as to “sins:” on the day of atonement, we find not only the sin offering and the burnt offering, but the scape goat; and on his head the priest was to lay both his hands, and “confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat” (Lev. 16:21).
From this it might be inferred that Christ in His death bore the sins of all the world. But this would be a mistake; for it must be remembered that the Israelites were already a redeemed people, and which is repeated of them again and again. And it was their sins and iniquities which were confessed over the scape goat. In Leviticus the Israelites are mostly viewed as worshippers; but, as is explained in the Hebrews, those sacrifices did not make the offerers perfect; and so there was a remembrance again made of sins every year. But Christ, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down.
That this confession of sins over the scape goat referred typically to the saved is further proved by what is added in Leviticus: “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land of separation” (margin). Now, surely, no one will contend that Christ bore away into a land of separation or forgetfulness all the sins of all the world. The sins of the wicked dead will be brought against them at the great white throne, and they will have to bear the punishment due to them.
Again, some, in preaching the gospel, speak of bearing sin, as for all and every one alike, and that the rejection of the gospel is now the one condemning sin: this they do in commenting, perhaps, on such a passage as “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.... The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:5, 6).
Now Christ died for the nation of Israel, and thus restored God’s relationship with them as a nation; but, as already pointed out in other passages, we have here the qualifying words “us” and “our,” and the speakers are clearly converted, for they say, “We are healed.” verse 8 says, “For the transgression of My people was He stricken;” and verse 4, “We did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted:” so that the passage clearly refers to the language of the godly remnant of the Jews by-and-by.
But grave difficulties are presented in viewing the bearing of sin as equally for all. How is it all are not saved?
“They reject the gospel,” is the reply.” It is not now a question of their sins — they have been atoned for. All now hangs upon the reception or rejection of the gospel. Does not Scripture say that this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light?”
Granted that the rejection of Christ and His gospel is the greatest sin a man can commit; but if Christ bore the penalty of all men’s sins, would it not include this sin of unbelief? But it is clear from Revelation 20, that the wicked dead will be judged “according to their works;” that is, their sins generally. And “because of these things [the sins enumerated], cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6). Now if Christ bore the punishment due to those sins, how can the punishment be awarded to the sinner?
This, indeed, is the very argument often used to a doubting believer: “Christ bore the punishment of your sins on the cross, and they cannot now be brought up against you.” And is not this a necessary consequence? But who would dare to use such language to the unconverted?
Besides, there is another reason why it cannot be true that Christ bore the sins alike of all; and that now it is not a question of sins, but those only are condemned who reject the gospel: namely, the heathen. If Christ bore the sins of all, it must include the sins of the heathen. Now thousands of the heathen have not rejected Christ, for they have never heard of Him. Are they then all saved? Surely not. Romans 2 clearly states the ground on which they will be condemned for their sins. Again, then, we are driven to the conclusion that Christ did not equally bare the sins of all.
2 Peter 2:1 “Denying the Lord, that bought them.” This passage from the context refers to the unconverted professor. If, then, Christ bought or redeemed these unconverted men, did He not also redeem all the unconverted; and if so, how does this agree with the foregoing?
It is believed that Scripture distinguishes between buying and redeeming. There are two words used in the original: one (λύτρον) is from a root signifying “to loose,” from which we get “to redeem” and “redemption;” but which is not used in the sense of simply buying. The nearest approach to “buying” is in 1 Timothy 2:6, “a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον) for all;” which passage we have already looked at.
The other word (ἀγοράξω) is from a root signifying “market,” and hence “marketing” or “buying;” and which is translated “to buy,” etc., in all places, except in three passages in the Revelation (5:9, 14:3, 4), where the saved are clearly referred to. If a slave was bought in the market, and set free, he could be said to be “bought” or “redeemed.” Of course the normal thought is, that everything that is bought is taken home, or appropriated to the use for which it is intended. But if a slave was bought, and for any reason he was not set free, he could not be said to be redeemed, though he was bought.
If we saw a wicked man cut off in his sins, it would be a dreadful thing to say, “There dies one of God’s redeemed;” but we might say, “There dies one for whom Jesus tasted death.”
In the passage in Peter, the figure is of a master (δεσπότης) who buys some slaves, but they dispute that master’s authority — they deny “the Lord that bought them;” Without any thought in the passage of their being redeemed by the, blood, of Christ, which is spoken of believers only. Man prefers the slavery of sin rather than the freedom Christ would give him.
That all mankind owe allegiance to Christ in this sense is clear from the passage, He “gave Himself a ransom for all.” And also from the parable of the treasure (Matt13:44), Christ sells all that He had, and buys the field wherein the treasure is hid.
Therefore we must conclude that Christ “bought” all mankind, but He “redeems” only those that are saved.
But an objection has been raised to this interpretation of the subject thus: “How can that be called the gospel, or good news to poor sinners, which tells them that God has provided a Mediator and mercy for all, but that none can come of themselves? Had certain conditions been proposed within the reach of man, then surely man would have been guilty in rejecting them; but you say that the greatest sin a man can commit is to reject Christ; and yet that man is incapable, of himself, to come and receive Him. Can this be the true gospel of God?”
As to the inability of man, it was so also with the law. The same objection might have been made to that: “Why have made a law which no one could keep? Surely the law ought to have been such which man could have kept, and then he who broke it would have been justly punishable.”
Passing by the irreverence of a fallen man saying what God ought to have done, let us ask, if the law (or, in our case, the gospel) is to be that which fallen man can accept, what sort of man must be the standard? If it had been the moral and intellectual man, it would have left out all below him, and they would have complained. If it had been the middle class of mankind, it would have shot over the heads of the grossly low and debased, and they would also have complained. So, to reach all, it must have come down to the very lowest; and what sort of conditions could be proposed which they could keep? Drunkenness must be allowed (for one is a slave to drink); immorality also (for another cannot give that up); and so we might go through the catalog of evil, and man’s gospel would result in “Let us go on in sin all our lives, and then save us at last!” It must be this; for no other condition could be proposed which all could keep.
Granted that the objector would be shocked to find his “conditions” pared down to this; for he started with the thought that there was something good which man could do. But that is only a denial of God’s estimate of man. The objector would doubtless take himself as the standard, and propose conditions which he could keep (or which he thinks he could); but that would leave thousands shut out: they could not attain to his standard, and so he would have to lower it and lower it till it reached the lowest, and then, what a gospel!
While, on the other hand, God starts with the declaration suited to the lowest, the lost, and invites all to come, and be saved by accepting salvation, and not by keeping conditions.
But such objections as the above are based upon the supposition that there is something good in man which can respond to God’s call; whereas Scripture speaks of man as “dead in trespasses and sins,” and who needs to be “quickened” (Eph. 2:5). “The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). “Ye must be born again” (John 3). Man is alive to sin, but dead towards God.
Man being thus spiritually dead, needs to be quickened. As to his natural life, he is born in sin, and shapen in iniquity. “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). “They did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:28). “Ye will not come unto Me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40). This is God’s estimate of man. He has been tried under various conditions: in innocence, and as a fallen creature; under law, and without law; as God’s chosen nation, and left to themselves; but there has been only one result — self-will and evil always. Lastly, our Lord Himself came in love to man, dispensing blessings on every hand. But Him they crucified, declaring that they would not that He should reign over them.
What conditions, then, can be proposed to those that “will not”? The very asking for conditions is, as we have said, a tacit acknowledgment that man is not utterly lost; whereas Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. So that the gospel of God is not for those who are righteous. But if any want conditions whereby they can live, there is the law; and our Lord said, “This do, and thou shalt live” (Luke 10:28). But it must not be what you would call keeping the law. Take the case in Matthew 19. The young man said he had kept the law from his youth up. He had even loved his neighbor as himself: But our Lord soon put his pretensions to the test. “Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.”
Prove that you love them as yourself. Alas, alas! he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. Self wanted to keep the possessions, while others were poor. This was not loving his neighbor as himself. He could not keep the law. Nay, many have tried to keep it, and not one has succeeded; and God’s plain declaration is, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight” (Rom. 3:20).
But if man is unable to come to Christ, it is important to remember that the hindrance is in the man himself, and he is not hindered by God. Man was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). Adam fell, and man inherits a fallen nature; but he has a will, and he immediately chooses sin; so that you cannot excuse him on account of his fallen nature. Even as to death we read in Romans 5:12, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men; for [not simply that all are children of that one man; but] that all have sinned.”
It is so also in everyday life. There are two sons of one father: one son is an honest man; and the other is a thief. Whence the difference? Not in their fallen nature, certainly; for that must be the same in both. It must then be in themselves: one chooses to be a thief — thrown it may be into the society of dishonest people, and tempted no doubt by Satan; but he chooses it: the other son may be in the same circumstances, and he does not choose it. Of course he may choose some other evil thing; but he does not choose to be a thief: he is an honest man. So that no man can lay the blame on his evil nature nor on Satan: lie himself chooses it.
Thus man chooses the evil, and loves it; and in self-will he will not come unto Christ that he may be saved. Satan of course does all he can to hinder; but it is man himself who “will not” — he loves darkness rather than light.
It is clear from Scripture that man is responsible to receive the Gospel. God has spoken by it to man. And it is well to see that his inability does not destroy his responsibility. This is the case, too, in everyday life. One man sues another for a debt of five pounds. The other answers, “Oh, I am a beggar: I have not a penny in the world.” This may be quite true, and it may be a physical impossibility for the man to pay. But no one would rule that this inability destroys the responsibility. He owes the money just as much as if he had plenty to pay it with.
Or take another case. Suppose a law is made that anyone found intoxicated on a Sunday shall be punished. Now a certain man takes more to drink whenever he can get it, and he can get it on a Sunday, and he gets intoxicated. By habit he has become, as we say, a slave to drink; and now he cannot refuse the temptation. He tells the magistrate this. But the magistrate, who is not a slave to drink, says, “Nonsense, man; you can abstain...if you like.”
“But, sir,” says the man, “I cannot like to abstain — I love drink, and take it whenever I can get it.”
It may be so, and thus it may be morally impossible for the man to abstain. But if it is, it does not destroy his responsibility. He should not love the drink.
Thus man, born with an evil nature, — but for which God is not responsible, but his progenitors (for man was made upright, as we have seen) — begins immediately to show his willfulness, and to choose what is wrong — not always gross outward evil, but yet always what is wrong in some shape; and he gradually becomes more and more the slave of sin and Satan. So inability does not destroy responsibility. It does not do so with man to man, much less so with God and man.
It is difficult, however, for some to see that man’s being totally ruined can possibly be true of all. They point, for instance, to an outwardly moral man, who performs regularly his religious duties, as they are called, who is liberal to the poor, and ever ready to help in works of philanthropy and religion. Can you say that such a man’s thoughts and ways are displeasing to God? And shall not such a man be accepted of Him?
But notice that nothing of this touches the root of evil. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; and the “flesh” is a judged, condemned thing. This, then, is a polishing of nature. Granted, that you may make flesh outwardly lovable and attractive, but it is flesh still. And he that is “in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). “Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). Further, it must be hateful to God to find a man setting aside His estimate of man, and declining to receive His gospel, but still hoping to be saved by his morality, his devotion, and his charity. What could be a greater insult to God, who has given His only begotten Son to die for us, than for any one to attempt it?
That man cannot come to Christ is not part of the gospel, though part of the truth. The gospel is good news to lost sinners. It tells of the love of God, and the gift of His Son to die for sinners. It tells of the provision made by His death: of the willingness of God to receive all, yea, His desire that all shall be saved. It invites and beseeches all to believe and assures all that whosoever will come may come and none shall in anywise be cast out. Surely this is good news to lost sinners. But if any one insists that he is not lost, the law is open to him.
But, by another, a different objection will be raised: “How is it consistent with the love of God that He has provided a remedy — the only remedy, you say — and yet effectual means have not been taken that every human being should hear of it?”
Of course only those who hear of it are personally responsible for believing or rejecting it. But God proclaimed it to the world: “On earth peace, good will toward man” (Luke 2:14).
And our Lord said to His disciples, “Go ye into all the, world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15): “unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Now Christians may have failed in carrying out this as they should have done; but God caused the gospel to spread very early in Europe, Asia, and Africa. But alas! in some places where it was then known it has long since been lost — “stamped out,” may we say? — and false religions now reign in its stead. But who stamped it out? Man — man, who should have been saved by it. As he refused the Saviour, so he refuses the gospel; spurred on no doubt by Satan, but man is the willing actor in the scene.
God tried one people with the law; and they broke it entirely: would it have been wisdom on God’s part to have given it to another? Surely not: the greater the light the greater the responsibility, and in failure the greater condemnation: the one nation had thoroughly proved what man was under law. The gospel too has been offered; but in whole countries has it been “stamped out:” it may be that God will not send the gospel there again to the mass (though individual souls may be saved in those very places), knowing that it would only be again refused, and again bring greater condemnation. As we read of His own country, Christ could not do His mighty works there because of their unbelief; and as it is with Israel now — a judicial blindness is over them; and as it will be with professing Christendom by-and-by (alas! who can tell how soon?) when they will be given over to strong delusion.
And thus wisdom is justified of her children. God is love: He is good, and He doeth good. And shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? But He is a sovereign, and will do as He pleases. Who can tell why the Gospel is preached freely in England, and not as freely in China? God in His providence has so allowed it to be so in China, and so ordered it in England. Not that we are any better than they; but God in His mercy prevented England from refusing the Gospel message; and He in His wisdom allowed them to do it.
In other places the Gospel has not avowedly been refused, but it is hidden in a napkin — wrapped up in the graveclothes of superstition and priestcraft, and the mass of poor souls never see it or hear it. Who is responsible for this? Man: it is man who will not let the Bible be read in one place, and who will not let the Gospel be preached in another, unless it be by an authorized priest who never preaches the true Gospel.
Then, again, look at the use man has made of the Gospel of God and of His truth. They are used by many merely as stepping-stones to reach to power and influence in the world; while by others they are used as a fabric into which they can weave all the whims and fancies of their own imaginations and folly; to others they are theories by which they can try their own acuteness and wisdom in picking them to pieces, and proving, as they think, their imperfections.
Thus has God’s gospel and His truth been treated by man — man who should have been saved by them — and it has always and everywhere been so, except where God, in sovereign power, has prevented it. His mercy to us in England is marvelous; but the responsibility of those who dilute God’s gospel; those who use it for their own selfish purposes; those who hide it while professing to preach it; those who hearing it play with it; those who neglect it; those who reject it — is great indeed. But God is God, and all He does is right and good.
Another question often asked is, “Why need Christ to have died? If a man owes you five shillings, cannot you forgive that man the debt if you so please? or if a man gives you a blow, cannot you forgive that offense without the offender or some one in his stead being struck a similar blow, or going to prison, or paying a fine as a punishment? and if so, why could not God forgive the sinner without the necessity of the death of Christ?”
All such questions as these arise from forgetting that God is a Creator and Governor; and as no government even in this world can be carried on unless offenders are punished, so God, as a holy, righteous, and wise Governor, must punish sin. It is not right that any man should break the law and go unpunished. Now we read, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” “The wages of sin is death.” “All have sinned.”
A difficult question arises from this, How can man be just with God? and how can God save man without being unjust? Having said that the soul that sinneth shall die, and all having sinned, how can any be saved without God breaking His word? How can He be merciful except at the expense of justice?
We get a faint illustration of the difficulty in the case of Daniel and Darius (Dan. 6). A law was made, through the crafty design of Daniel’s enemies, “according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not,” which made Daniel’s worship a crime. And when Daniel was accused, and the king saw the trap that had been laid for Daniel, he “set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him” (vs. 14). But he could devise no way to save Daniel. The enemies come and remind him that the law changeth not. Alas, it is too true: Daniel must go into the lions’ den. Here we see a sovereign ruler, who had power to commit the presidents and rulers, their wives and their children, to the den of lions, entirely baffled when he wanted to save Daniel, because of the law that changeth not. The law must be broken, or Daniel must go into the den of lions.
But, blessed be God, what man could not do, God has done. He has devised a plan in which He can, on the one hand, vindicate His own honor, so that He can meet the sinner in the mediator, beseech men to be reconciled, invite them to come, and assure them that none will be refused; and on the other hand, He can fully satisfy the demands of justice — be just — and yet justify the ungodly who believe in Jesus. And further, as man was spiritually dead, Christ had to come down — not merely into the world, but into death — to lift him up out of it. As we read, “If one died for all, then were all dead.”
But to accomplish this Jesus must die. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane “that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou wilt” (Mark 14:35, 36). But there was no escape. Jesus must be lifted up (John 3:14), or man cannot be saved. But, boundless mercy! Jesus dies, and the believing sinner is saved.
Such, then, we believe to be the teaching of Scripture as to the atonement. One rises from its consideration with the most profound sense of the wisdom, love, and grace of God. To provide a mediator; find means by which He could be merciful; invite and beseech: but, alas all was of no avail. Man had fallen so low that not one would respond to the love of God in the death of His beloved Son. But there was further grace — sovereign grace — some were chosen, and are being drawn, made willing, SAVED. To His boundless mercy and love be all the praise. Amen.