By the REV. PROF. GEORGE SMEATON, D.D.
[The following extract is taken from Prof. Smeaton’s “Our Lord’s Doctrine of the Atonement.” He had discussed the question of the Lord’s teaching on the necessity of the atonement and in the section here quoted he discusses what he happily terms the Equipoise of divine love and divine justice in the atonement.]
“FOR God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John iii. 16). To a previous saying on the necessity of the atonement already noticed, this further testimony is subjoined, in order to make known more fully to Nicodemus the fact of the atonement and its source in divine love. That it forms part of our Lord’s address, and that it is not the commentary of the evangelist, is obvious to every one who has remarked the peculiar way in which John appends his commentary
on the Master’s words. This is never left doubtful (see John vii. 39). The present testimony is introduced by the preceding particle for, which shows a continuation of the discourse, and gives a reason for the final clause in the previous verse (verse 15).
The allusion to the Atonement, with which we have specially to do, is obvious in the phrase, “He gave His Son.” Though some have explained this as if it were equivalent to being sent, it rather has the sacrificial sense of being delivered or given up to death. Here it corresponds to the “lifting up” in the previous context. This giving of the Son does not go back to the divine purpose, nor go down to the individual’s experience when Christ is given to the believer, but denotes a giving up to death. It is properly the giving up in sacrifice, because the presentation of the victim formed part of the act of sacrifice. The expression, He delivered, or gave, is not infrequent as a description of God’s act of giving His Son to a sacrificial death; and wherever it occurs, whether as denoting the Father’s act in giving the Son (Rom. viii. 32), or the act of the Son in giving himself (Matt. xx. 28; Gal. i. 4), it is always descriptive of the sacrifice which He offered to God the Father. The mistake as to the import of this phrase is enough to show how much of misunderstanding and debate is often due to an inadequate knowledge of language. It is not unworthy of notice, that some time ago it was made a question whether this phrase was to be understood in the sense of giving into actual possession, or in the sense of giving in the gospel offer. The dispute arose from regarding the phrase as simply intimating a gift, with a bestower and a receiver, apart from the received usage of language in a certain connection. In truth, it has neither the one sense nor the other, when used in connection with the death of Christ. For when God is said “to give His Son,” or when the Son is said “to give Himself,” the language must be understood in the sacrificial sense. Here, therefore, our Lord has in His eye, not so much His sending or His incarnation, though these are involved as the sacrifice of Himself, when He was lifted up, and was made a curse for us.
There are a few points here mentioned in connection with the atonement to which it will be necessary to advert. (1) The atonement is here described as emanating from the love of God. These words of Christ plainly show that the biblical doctrine on this point is not duly exhibited, unless love receives a special prominence; and that it would be a misrepresentation against which the biblical divine must protest, if, under the influence of any theory or dogmatic prejudice, love is not allowed to come to its rights. If ever justice were made paramount, the balance of truth would be destroyed. As the text under our notice alludes to both, or describes love as giving the only-begotten Son up to a sacrificial death—which is just equivalent to the satisfaction of divine justice—it is here proper to define the two.
Love, then, may be fitly regarded as the communicative principle of the divine nature, or as the diffusive source of blessing; and it receives different names, according to the modification of the relation in which His creatures stand to Him, or the varied course of action He pursues toward them. Justice, again, may be defined as the conserving principle of the divine nature or the self-asserting activity of God, according to which He maintains the inalienable rights of the Godhead. It is just run up to this, that He loves Himself, and cannot but delight in His own perfections; and hence, in describing it, the Psalmist says, “For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness” (Ps. xi. 7). In a just conception of the divine attributes, none of them can be said to predominate; their equipoise being so perfect that it could not be disturbed without ruin to the universe. It cannot be wondered at, that the opponents of the vicarious satisfaction repudiate this equipoise of justice and love in the work of redemption. They call it “the dualism of the divine attributes”—and they would resolve justice into love. But the one can by no means be subsumed under the other. They are distinct as love to Himself and love to mankind, or as giving and retaining. He gives Himself, in the exercise of love, to His creatures; but He does not give up, and He cannot recede from, those rights which belong
inalienably to Himself as God. And the same principle is daily practised by the man of active benevolence made in the image of God and acting like God in the communication of diffusive goodness. He gives or communicates; but when he communicates, he retains his own proper rights and prerogatives.
With regard to the love of God, several modern writers in describing the divine attributes, avoid calling love an attribute at all; choosing rather to call it a definition of God in His whole procedure toward men, or the united concurrent action of all the attributes. There seems no ground for this. But, on the other hand, the selection of this one perfection by an inspired Apostle as the most descriptive name for God, furnishes sufficient ground for giving a central place to it, and for investing it, as it were, with all the other perfections, if we would arrive at the most full and accurate idea that can be formed of God in His relation to His Church. Were we to invest love with all the natural and moral attributes, and speak of omnipotent and holy love, wise and omnipresent love, we should not mistake the import of the phrase, God is love (I. John iv. 8). Here the love is viewed as self-originated, self-moving, free and infinite; the text before us, as Luther well describes it, being a little Bible in itself. The extent of the divine love, delineated in these words of Jesus, may be surveyed from the three points here indicated—the great Giver, the infinite sacrifice of God’s Son, and the unworthy objects.
But it must be further noticed, that when Jesus here sets forth the divine love in connection with the atonement, it is not stated simply to assure us of the divine love; for He shows that it mainly consisted in the sacrificial giving of the Son; and this it is important to apprehend. There is a necessity on God’s part, as well as on man’s. While the death of Christ, as a costly declaration of divine love, removes the slavish fear and distrust which prompt men to flee from God, it does this only as it meets a necessity on God’s part, and provides a vicarious sacrifice for sin. The text exhibits the harmony of justice and love—the demand of justice, the provision of love.
This it is the more necessary to notice, because it is objected, against any prominence to divine justice, that this is at the expense of divine love. The one, however, by no means excludes the other. If a divine provision is made at all it could proceed from no other source but love; and the greater the difficulty to be surmounted, and the more inflexible the necessity which insists on a satisfaction to justice, beyond the compass of our own resources, the greater is the display of love. If love is in proportion to the difficulties to be overcome, and if redemption could be effected only at the cost of the humiliation and crucifixion of the Son of God, the love which did not allow itself to be deterred by such a sacrifice was infinite. Then only does love fully come to light; and they who do not acknowledge the necessity of the satisfaction can have no adequate conception of love. Thus the cross displayed the love of God in providing the substitute, and was the highest manifestation of its reality and greatness. If the demand or the necessity for such a fact in the moral government of God resulted from the claims of justice, the source from which it flowed was self-originated love.—Our Lord’s Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 44-48 (2nd Edit.).