IN a series of articles which appeared in the Magazine for 1934-35, the subject of the Atonement was briefly dealt with* but in view of the great importance of the subject we purpose to deal with it at greater length in a series of articles. Dr. William Cunningham has well said: “The incarnation of the second person of the Godhead, the assumption of human nature by One who from eternity possessed the divine nature, so that He was God and man in one person, is, as a subject of contemplation, well fitted to call forth the profoundest reverence, and to excite the strongest emotions; and if it was indeed a reality, it must have been intended to accomplish most important results. If Christ really was God and man in one person, we may expect to find, in the object thus presented to our contemplation, much that is mysterious—much that we cannot fully comprehend; while we should also be stirred up to examine with the utmost care everything that has been revealed to us regarding it, assured that it must possess no ordinary interest and importance” (Historical Theology, II. 237). This is certainly the right frame of mind in which to approach the great subject of the Doctrine of the Atonement. It should never be forgotten that there is a very intimate connection between the person and the work of Christ. It follows that a low view of His Person will naturally lead us to have a low and inadequate view of His atoning work. Hence Socinianism, Arianism and Modernism have no glorious doctrine of the Atonement to present to sinners. It is a feature of the theology of the present day as recognised too widely in the high places of the professing Church that Christ is not given that high and honourable place as “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Hence the atoning sacrifice of Christ is eliminated from the theological system of Modernism—it has no need of a divine sacrifice and ruthlessly rejects the very idea of it. The language of Modernism, as has been well said, expresses in modern terms the ancient taunt of the chief priests, scribes and elders: “If He be the King of Israel, let Him come down from the cross and we will believe Him” (Matt. xxvii. 42). Eliminate the cross and all it implies, and what gospel is there to preach to perishing men, lost and ruined? Let it be preached in all its glory of redeeming love, and then it is good news indeed to those who are ready to perish. No, wonder the Apostle said: “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. vi. 14).
At the outset some reference must be made to the word atonement. Literally, it means at-one-ment, reconciliation, the state of being reconciled. It occurs once in our Authorised Version (Rom. v. 11). There it is rendered reconciliation by the translators in the margin. This, it will be seen, expresses the effect and not the nature of Christ’s work. The word is not, therefore, as comprehensive or descriptive as strict accuracy would demand, yet it has entered so largely into the working vocabulary of the theologian that it would be very difficult to displace it as it would cause a considerable disturbance, and perhaps do more harm than good. As long as care is taken to use the term in a comprehensive sense, embracing all that Christ did to satisfy the demands of law and justice, in the place and on behalf of sinners no injury to the truth will follow. The term satisfaction is the word used by the Reformers and is in many ways preferable to the more common term, but owing to the recognised place given to the term atonement, it will be used throughout in these papers.
I. THE NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.
At the outset it may be confidently stated that Scripture teaches that satisfaction was made and forgiveness and salvation held out to sinners and bestowed upon them on the ground of this atonement. “Neither Scripture nor reason,” says Dr. Cunningham, “warrant the position that repentance is, in its own nature, an adequate reason or ground, ordinarily and in general, and still less in all cases, for pardoning those who have transgressed a law to which they were subject” (Hist. Theology, II. 252). The very Incarnation of the Son of God, His life of humiliation, His death on Calvary’s Cross, all proclaim the necessity of an atonement or satisfaction—”Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.” All this life of humiliation and suffering has elements in it so extraordinary that we are forced to say that it would never have taken place were it not absolutely necessary. “We feel,” says Dr. Cunningham, “and we cannot but feel, that there is no unwarranted presumption in saying, that if it had been possible that the salvation of guilty men could have been otherwise accomplished, the only-begotten Son of God would not have left the glory which He had with His Father from eternity, assumed human nature, and suffered and died on earth. This ground, were there nothing more revealed regarding it, would warrant us to make the general assertion, that the incarnation, suffering, and death of Christ were necessary to the salvation of sinners—that this result could not have been effected without them” (Hist. Theology, II. 254). Dr. Cunningham, however, is careful to point out that this general consideration does not warrant us in asserting directly and immediately the necessity of the atonement, but only the necessity of the suffering and death of Christ, whatever may have been the character attaching to them, or the effect resulting from them in connection with the salvation of sinners. Furthermore, as there are some things God cannot do—things He cannot do because of His infinite perfection. If sin could not be pardoned without the atonement, then it is because the infinite perfections of His nature stood in the way.
(1) God’s law proclaims that the soul which sins shall die. Since God has said this, and as He is not a man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent (Numb. xxiii. 19) His truth is pledged that this will not be meaningless. We cannot conceive of a way whereby this veracity will be maintained in all its integrity and unsullied purity except by an adequate satisfaction being rendered in their room. While this is so, we are not warranted in asserting these things apart from revelation, but they give us strong grounds for asserting that since God did threaten death as the punishment of sin that nothing could prevent the carrying out of this threatening except an adequate satisfaction.
(2) The necessity of atonement is not only based upon God’s veracity, but upon His justice. By this justice divines mean that perfection of His nature of which He cannot denude Himself, and which of necessity must regulate the free acts of His will. This justice cannot be set aside by an arbitrary decree. If sin is to be pardoned, then some provision is necessary, not only to conserve this veracity, but to vindicate His justice.
(3) In connection with this subject it is important that the fundamental idea of sin as a transgression of God’s law should be kept before us. It is not merely debt, but it is breach of God’s law. When God deals with it it is not as a creditor, who may remit the debt, but as a righteous law-giver who has given a holy law, prohibiting sin upon the pain of death, and who in the interests of holiness must vindicate the honour of His law when broken. The point touched on here is clearly brought out by an illustration of Dr. Charles Hodge. A man is in debt to the extent say of £100; a kind friend comes forward, advances the £100, and the claims of the creditor ends. But in the case of a man who steals £100 the fact that a kind friend may offer the money by way of reparation does not end the matter. In this case law has been broken, and satisfaction must be rendered by the payment of a penalty. Stress—great stress has been laid upon the doctrine of the necessity of an atonement, and the more this doctrine is considered, the more terrible does sin appear. Is there no way of removing it but by the atonement of the Lord Jesus, and that an atonement of such stupendous wonder? If so, how hopeless is the case of those who look to another way of salvation.
(To be continued).