Atonement; a brief study

Preface

To WRITE a small book on a great theme, w^hich has been the subject of learned and able debate for centuries, is not an easy task. I have undertaken it because of strong persuasion that some one ought to do it.

Methodist writers have ably handled the subject of Atonement in large volumes, and in standard works on Systematic Divinity, so that the existing need is not for scientific and critical treatment, but for a plain statement of the doctrine, which will serve to guide and help those Vho do not read the more elaborate discussions.

4 Preface.

there is scarcely anytliing in the shape of a book of proper size to be put in their hands, which so presents the doctrines of the Ohurch as to be a safe guide through the perplexities created by Vhe erroneous statements and implications with which they are brought in contact. The need is for a concise statement of the doctrine^, with enough recognition of theories and controversies to awaken thought, and to put the reader on guard against the hasty acceptaiKje of plausible statements which are as misleading by their implications as by ijheir assertions.

The aim of this little volume is to meet this demand. Of course, it is not exhaustive in any direction. It scarcely attempts a formal and consecutive argument on the main question. It avoids as much as possible dealing with original terms and translations, omits the critical examination of prepositions, and only touches the literature of the subject. Much self-denial was required to keep out of these fields. It is hoped, however, that

Preface. 5

its statements are sufficiently clear and strong to be helpful to those needing help, and to assist in fortifying those who need to be fortified in this essential doctrine of our iaith.

Those who read the ^^fathers^' and the writers of mediaeval times, and the discussions of the period of the Reformation, are not expected to find much interest in this monograph. The readers of Watson, and Pope, and Raymond, and WOiedon, and Foster, and Miley, and other standard writers of our Church, will regard it as meager and unsatisfactory because of the omissions above noted; but it was not projected for the benefit of this class. There are scores of busy laymen, Sunday-sc'hool teachers, officers of the Epworth League, and even young ministers, whose duty it is to help others of less experience than themselves, who may receive benefit from its perusal. It is designed to aid those who have not the time, or are not in circumstances to avail themselves of the advantages which large and costly books afford.

6 Preface.

Trusting that it will find a field of usefulness, and prove that its mission is not an imaginary one, and that its adaptation is better than it seems to the writer, I send it forth with earnest prayer for the Divine blessing on book and reader. S. M. M.

ATONEMENT.

I

The subject of the Atonement is so related to the priestly office of Jesus Christ, that it can not he intelligently considered except in connection with that office. It is, therefore, important at the outset of our study, that we recognize the fact that he who is the Eedeemer and Savior, is also the High Priest of our profession. The essential function of the priest is to offer sacrifice, and unless in the plan ordained for the salvation of men, there was a sacrifice to be offered to God, it is not easy to conceive why any priestly office was necessary, or why the Son of God s:hould be appointed 'to such an office. If he was 7 indeed a priest, then of necessity he must make an offering, and such an offering as became him, and as became the condition and needs of those for whom he ministered. He was not a priest under the law in force at the time of his coming, and could not be, as he was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah,and therefore he could not officiate as a priest in the temple, nor in any place or capacity in any worldly sanctuary. If a priest at all, it was in a sense peculiar to himself, in which no one had ever been a priest before him, and no one could be after him. As he was unique in person, he was also unique in office and work, having a mission all his own, which could not be shared or imitated by men on earth or by angels in heaven. He was the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the Id^st, the only God and Savior.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is devoted largely to this office, and was no doubt intended to supply an important link in the chain of revelation, by unfolding the signiflcance of the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is its distinguishing characteristic. It matters little to us whether this Epistle was written by Paul, or Apollos, or Barnabas, as its apostolic character is manifest on its face, and tihere is scarcely room for a doubt that it was approved by Paul, who inserted the personal salutations with which it closes. Although the name of the author is not given, it is very clear that it was the production of an ^^eloquent man,^^ and one who was ^^mighty in the Scriptures.^^ Its relation to the Old Testament is as striking as its style and its general scope and design. It has been appropriately called an inspired commentary on the Levitical law, showing the typical character of the Mosaic institutions, and setting forth their spiritual import as adumbrations of the person and work of the Messiah. When read in the light of its relation to the typical economy and of its obvious purpose, many expressions in it which were otherwise obscure become luminous, wliile its argument becomes pertinent and convincing, revealing a depth and breadth and significance which place it in the forefront of the writings of the New Testament, and give an indescribable charm to its expositions of the Divine method of rescuing men from sin and death through sacrifice. It was evidently written with an immediate view to meeting the wants of converted Hebrews, by leading them to the right method of interpreting their Scriptures and their ceremonial services, and thereby confirming them in the faith of the gospel, and guarding them against the influences tending to draw them away from Christ and back to the law.

The Jews from earliest childhood liad been impressed that it was impossible to worship God acceptably, or to come to him in prayer, except through the medium of the priestly office and the offering of sacrifice. This conviction was wroug'ht into the very fibers of their being, and might not be removed. It was, therefore, necessary that they should know that the gospel was not a system without a priest^ and without an altar, and without a sacrifice, as the Judaizing teachers contended; but that it had the true Priest, the true altar, and the true and all-sufficient sacrifice. Thus this Epistle was admirably adapted to meet the wants of those to w^hom it was addressed, and also to meet the necessities of all who would understand the Holy Scriptures. It lifted thought from type to antitype, from form to substance, from the temporal to the eternal; and it showed that the redemptive work required the exercise of sacerdotal functions in the truest sense, and of the most literal and positive character, such as were impossible to any but the High Priest ordained of God.

The first thing insisted upon was the high personal qualification of Jesus, the Christ, to be the High Priest in contemplation. In the very beginning of the Epistle his Divinity is asserted. He was the Son of God, the brightness of the Father's glory, the express image of his person. He was superior to the angels, in that all the angels of God were required to worship him. "Unto the Son he saith. Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom/^ In the next chapter 'his humanity is asserted with equal distinctness and force, declaring that, "Forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;'^ and also "that 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/^ Thus the High Priest of our profession is Divine and human, one with God and one with men, fully qualified as Mediator, Advocate, Priest, and Intercessor.

Then, being thus introduced as a man, he is held before us in his human relations, and his dignity and greatness as a man are briefly indicated. First of all, he is greater than

Moses. This was to 'the Jew a most startling assertion, as Moses, the man of God, the lawgiver and founder of the most sacred rites of worship, was the ideal man to Hebrew people; and yet the thought is presented so as not to be offensive. ^^Wheref ore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; wtio was faithful to 'him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than 'the house. For every house is builded by some one; but 'he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Ohrist as a Son over his own house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.^^ Without disparaging Moses, but crediting him with all that the people of his nation claimed for 'him^ Jesus is exalted above him in personal dignity and office, as the Son of God, while Moses was a servant.

The next point in the argument was to show 'that the Scriptures contemplated a change of the law of the priesthood, and the raising up of a priest of a different order from that of Aaron, and superior to him. This was essential, for if the law of the Aaronic priesthood were to abide forever, the attempt to prove to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth, of the tribe Judah, was a lawful priest, would have been vain; for the answer to such an allegation was always at hand, in that Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, and could not be a priest under the law. But there stood the prediction in their own Scriptures, and plainly in Messianic prophecy, that another priest should arise, not after lihe order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec, who should be a priest forever, and by direct appointment from God. What could this prophecy mean, and what possible application could it have, if the law restricting the priestly office to the tribe of Levi should never cease, or could never admit of an exception? When this Scripture was brought to the mind of thoughtful Hebrews, with its evident intention to characterize the Messiah as a priest of God, it must have had a powerful influence in preparing them to receive other statements concerning the typical and temporary character of the Aaronic priesthood — statements which in the absence of this prophecy would not have impressed them in the least. It was, therefore, not only important, but extremely judicious and wise, that the assertion of the necessary change of the law of the priesthood be made in connection with this very peculiar Messianic prophecy. It obviated prejudice, and shed light on what was to them a most perplexing obscurity.

The end to be accomplished in this discussion of the priesthood, was to satisfy the Hebrew converts that in adhering to Jesus as the Messiah, and recognizing him as the

Priest and Savior^ they need not abandon Moses, but rather ttiat it was the only way to honor Oiim, and rightly to interpret his laW;, and carry out his institutions to their ultimate significance and spiritual import. They were familiar with the law, and possessed the usual biases in favor of their ancient ceremonies; but they were somewhat enlightened with reference to the gospel, and their perceptions were quickened as to spiritual things, so that appeals to their understanding touching the higher meaning of their Scriptures were not likely to be lost upon them. This fact is recognized by the apos^tle in every step of his argument. He was not writing to heathens, nor to novices in the use of the holy writings, but to "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,^^ who were acquainted with the things he was seeking to elevate in their thoughts to their highest and best significance. They were also predisposed to accept his interpretations, as they had become disciples, and were ready to hold fast to the gospel if they could do it without abandoning Moses and Dhe prophets. This condition of things accounts for the brevity of the apostle's statements at some points where we might wish for greater elaboration.

The next thing claiming attention is the fact, whic^h is given with emphasis, that this man, great as he was, did not assume the office of Priest without special authorization or direct appointment from God. ^^No man taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.'' This recognition of the Divine appointment of the Aaronic priesthood and the call of Aaron was important, and the apostle gives it due prominence, making it the model and illustration of the call of Christ to the spiritual functions of that sacred office. ^^Ohrist glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that said unto him. Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.'' As Aaron was called of God, and as Melchisedec did not inherit the office from ancestors, but received 2 it by immediate appointment from God, so Christ was called as was Aaron, and appointed as was Melchisedec, and made a priest forever after the power of an endless life. His commission was distinct, clear, unique. Although constituted a priest ^'^after the similitude of Melchisedec,^^ in that office he stood alone, having neither predecessor nor successor. His was an unchanging priesthood.

His greatness in that ofl&ce is shown by the greatness of his person, by the greatness of his sacrifice, and the greatness of his achievement. He was the Son and image of God, he offered himself, and he put an end to typical offerings, and obtained eternal redemption for men. Being superior to Moses, to Aaron, and to Abraham, he measures up to the pattern set in Melchisedec, to whom Abraham paid tithes, and from whom he received blessing. Melchisedec, king of righteousness and king of peace, was the typical priest of God, with none like him or equal to him, till the coming of the great Hig^h Priest. The contrasts between Christ as priest and tlie priests under the law are numerous; such as that those of the Aaronic order are made priests by inheritance as sons of Levi, while he is directly appointed; they are admitted to the office without an oath, but he with an oath; and they can not continue in office by reason of death, but he continueth ever, having an abiding priesthood. In every respect he ranks all other priests, and so. fills the office as to supersede the necessity of any other priest on earth or in heaven. As all priests and all orders of priesthood were types of him and his office, and were fulfilled when he came and exercised his functions; so also in him, and with him, the priestly office was transferred from earth to heaven, so that since the day of his ascension there has been no priest in the Church on earth, as there is neither need nor room for any.

The priests under the law offered gifts and sacrifices for sins, but they were offerings which could never take away sin. They were bulls^ and goats^ and lambs^ offerings which could avail to the ceremonial purifying of the fleshy but could not purge the conscience from dead works. They were powerless as to the inner nature. "But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who throug'h the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?^^ His was the priesthood of a better tabernacle, a better covenant, with a better offering, the only offering that could take away sin and purify the soul. The perfection of this offering and service is seen in the fact that it could not be repeated. "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands^ which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself^ now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others, for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.^' One more passage may be cited, showing the completeness of the sacrifice, and the impossibility of repeating it. ^^By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Ohrist once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sin. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the rig'ht hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.^^ We sum up, then — that Jesus Christ was the one and only great High Priest of the gospel dispensation; that in him all the typical priesthoods of former dispensations were fulfilled and abolished; that he was called to this office by the appointment and oath of God; that he was in reality what Melchisedec was figuratively, the Priest of God, and the King of righteousness, and the King or Prince of peace; that as Priest he offered himself in sacrifice unto God for the sins of mankind; that this offering was made once for all through the Eternal Spirit; that it was a sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; that the offering once made need not and can not be repeated; that w^hen he passed into the heavens through his own blood, the priestly office passed with him; that since his ascension there is no priest or priestly office on the earth; and, finally, that all pretended priesthoods and all pretended offerings of Christ in any sacrament or ceremony in the Church on earth, are vain deceits and delusive superstitions.

The mystery in the sacrificial death of the Son of God, is in the fact that he himself was active as the priest in making this offering — ^that he laid down his life voluntarily, and was not merely passive as a victim of martyrdom. This is undoubtedly true, and to the careful student it presents no serious difficulty. He had sought to prepare his disciples for t!he event, and for the interpretation of it, by predicting it, and by assuring them that his enemies could have no power over his life except by special permission. "No man taketh my life from me. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to ^take it again. This commandment have I received from my Father.^^ This early assertion of having full power over his own life, and the clear intimation that he might find occasion to give it up, and then to resume it, has its highest and only explanation in his priestly office, and proves that while his enemies were active in his condemnation and crucifixion, he was passive as to their designs, and yet active in the priestly function of offering himself through the Eternal Spirit unto God. As the Father spared not his only begotten Son, but delivered him up freely for us all, so the Son spared not himself, but gave 'himself unresistingly into the hands of the smiters, and was led as a lamb to the slaughter. In this act of self-sacrifice, the consummation of all the prophecies, types, and promises of the Scriptures, and of the predictions of Jesus himself, he made reconciliation — or atonement — ^for the sins of the people. His blood was shed for the remission of sins, according to his own words at the institution of the supper, which was the ordained memorial of his death. He died hy the cruelty of his enemies; yet was his blood the blood of sacrifice, the price paid for human redemption.

It is important that, in all this study, we keep the two facts in mind, that the death of Jesus Christ was his own priestly act, the offering of Tiimself, and that it was the price paid by which we were bought off or redeemed from the penalty of sin. This is not theory nor conjecture, but Diyinely-at tested fact — the most wonderful fact in the history of God's dealings with men. . ^^We are not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.'' His blood was his life, and his life was given for men. Then if, indeed, his blood was the ransom, the price paid for our purchase, the procuring cause of our salvation, there is found in his death every element of an atonement — the sacrifice, the oblation, the satisfaction for sin, with the result of a possible reciprocal reconciliation between God, whose law was broken, and man, the offender and alien. In the absence of the necessity for this reconciliation through this Divinely-appointed sacrifice there is no explanation of the fact that Jesus Ohrist was the Priest of God, as there is no real meaning in any other priestly office apart from its relation to this one.

n.

Since the atonement^ as we conceive of it, was the price paid for human redemption, or what, in Old Testament language, would be the covering of sin, or its expiation, it is difficult to single it out, or to separate it in our thoughts for contemplation as a distinct and complete something, having a nature and mode and manifestation of its own. In fact, it does not stand alone. It is rather a link in a chain^ the part of a whole, having constant relations with antecedents and results. The occasion and necessity for it, as well as its purpose and effects, direct and indirect, must come into the account before we can exercise an intelligent belief with regard to it. The word ^^redemption" is more comprehensive and easier of apprehension than the 27 word ^^atonement/^ and, therefore, of more frequent occurrence in the New Testament; and the proper interpretation of redemption brings out about all that is meant or expressed by the word ^"^atonement/^

The word ^^atonemenf^ can scarcely be called a New Testament word at all. It occurs but once in the entire Book, and that where it is not a happy translation of the original, which would be better rendered ^^reconciliation.^^ It occurs in Eomans v, 11, "By whom we have now received the atonement.^^ There is no good sense in which the believer receives that which is properly the atonement; but he does receive the result of it — ^the reconciliation — the word which more fitly represents the term employed by the apostle, as well as the experience which he describes. Through faith in Christ we do receive the reconciliation. No loss would be sustained and no error committed if this passage should be rendered, as in the margin and in the Revised Version, "By whom we have now received the reconciliation/^ thus eliminating the word ^^atonement" from the New Testament entirely. It is an Old Testament word^ used in connection with the presentation of sin offerings in the ceremonial services, which were undoubtedly typical representations of the work which Christ did when he offered himself in sacrifice for sin. If its meaning, as used in the Old Testament, be carried over to Christ, and applied to his work, as has been done, there is no impropriety in its use, and no erroneous doctrine is inculcated thereby. In fact, this practice has become so common that it is next to impossible to discontinue it, if its discontinuance were desirable; but it is also true that the whole of the New Testament doctrine of redemption and salvation could be expressed without the word atonement, so that its discontinuance in theology would not be as serious a loss as the first suggestion of it would seem to indicate. The essential fact would remain, and its Interpretation would be possible, if we should employ only the words of the New Testament. It is not the word that we contend for, but the work of the Lord in redeeming the race by the shedding of his blood. But we can not dispense with the word ^^redemption.^^ "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.^^ "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.^^ "Ye are not your own; ye are bought with a price.^^

Theories of the atonement are numerous, but we hear little of theories of redemption. This is a plain transaction. A slave is in bondage. A price is paid to procure his freedom. That is redemption. A soldier is captured and made a prisoner. A price is paid for his freedom. That price is his ransom; and the whole transaction is redemption. The price is the satisfaction to him who holds the slave or the prisoner; and the discharge is the result of the satisfaction. If we speak of the price as the atonement, or of the act of paying the price as making atonement, we do not go astray; and when we call the atonement the satisfaction rendered to Divine justice, or to the law of God, which is the same thing, and the discharge of the sinner from legal bondage as the result, we speak correctly and within the limits which the facts warrant.

The history of theories of atonement is a wonderful record, not without interest; but since theories are not to figure largely in this study, the history of them will have little place. We are more concerned about the facts which we can grasp and understand. It is a fact that Jesus Christ suffered death on the cross for the sins of men. This fullyattested fact is not affected, as a fact, by any explanation we attempt of its contents, or of its necessity and purpose. He was himself without sin, yet he suffered for sin and for sinners. There was, therefore, somewhat in his relation to God and to man and to the law of God that made it possible and right for him^ as an innocent and 'holy Person, to suffer all that he actually did suffer in his humiliation and death; and so far as we can see, the principle is the same, whether he suffered as a martyr or as an example of self-sacrifice, or as a substitute to redeem those for whom he suffered. N"o conjecture of ours as to the purpose of his death, or as to the expediency or inexpediency or the justice or injustice of requiring or permitting him, as an innocent mian, to suffer for the guilty, can alter the established fact tfeat he suffered, ^^the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.^^ Whether we believe in or reject the doctrine of vicarious suffering, we are alike under obligation to accept the fact, and to harmonize it as best we can with iftie essential principles of justice and right. In this regard nothing is gained by forsaking the evangelical faith. He either died for sinners, or he did not. If he did, there was no wrong in it; but if he did not, our preaching is vain, and our faith is vain — both ours and theirs who hold any other theory of atonement than the vicarious. We must either accept or reject the fact; and if we accept it, as recorded in the Gospels, we are hound to hold it as compatible with justice, holiness, and love under the government of God, whether we can see the harmony or not. Even if clouds and darkness be round about him, "righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.'^