"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that
whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal
life."--John 3:16.
"That he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath
faith in Jesus."--Rom. 3:26.
"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. All we like sheep have gone astray; we
have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all."--Is. 53:5, 6.
"Christ died for our sins."--1 Cor. 15:3.
"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins."--Gal. 1:3,
4.
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree."--1
Peter 2:24.
"Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the
unrighteous."--1 Peter 3:18.
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister and to give His life a ransom for many."--Matt. 20:28.
"There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
who gave himself a ransom for all."--1 Tim. 2:5, 6.
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a
curse for us."--Gal. 3:13.
"Our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might
redeem us from all iniquity."--Titus 2:13, 14.
"By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all."--Heb. 10:10.
"For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are
sanctified."--Heb. 10:14.
"Nor yet by the blood of goats and bulls, but through his own blood
entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption."--Heb. 9:12.
"This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many
unto the remission of sins."--Matt. 26:28.
"And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book
and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and didst
purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe and tongue and
people and nation."--Rev. 5:9.
"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."--1 John 4:10.
"The Son of God who loved me, and gave himself up for me."--Gal.
2:20.
Reader, God's justice and love are both shown in the Saviour dying for
our sins. Substitution is the _only way_ of salvation when justice and
love are both considered. It was God's justice that made it necessary
for Christ to die for our sins. "Even so _must_ the Son of man be
lifted up,"--John 3:14;--"that he might himself be _just_ and the
_justifier_ of him that hath faith in Jesus."--Rom. 3:26. And it was
God's love that let Him die for our sins, "for God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten Son."--John 3:16. What you, reader,
ought to desire to know, is simply God's way. The Scriptures at the
beginning of the chapter, if language can make anything plain, show
clearly that the sinner's only escape from the just punishment of his
sins lies in Jesus dying in his place to set him free from the just
penalty due his sins; and they make it plain that this settles the
_full_ penalty for _all sins_.
But the objection is raised and pressed with all the force of human
ingenuity and scholarship, backed by the prestige of some occupying
the highest positions in literary and theological institutions, that
it is morally wrong for the innocent to suffer the penalty of the
guilty. With a zeal deserving a better cause, many who stand high as
professed Christians and teachers join hands with the rankest, most
blatant infidels, and press this, to them, unanswerable objection to
Christ dying for our sins as our substitute. This friendship between
infidelity and professed Christian teachers reminds one of another
occasion when our Saviour was set at naught and two became friends
with each other that very day (Luke 23:11, 12). Let us face this
objection honestly and earnestly, for our eternal destiny turns on
this one point. _Is it morally wrong for the innocent to bear the sins
of the guilty?_ In the first place it is _not_ morally wrong, because
God would not do morally wrong, and God _did_ let the innocent suffer
the penalty of the guilty. The language of Scripture teaching that
Jesus suffered the penalty of our sins for us is plain and simple, and
all efforts to take from the Scripture language its simple, plain,
natural meaning are pitiable, and if contempt were ever justifiable,
would deserve the contempt of all honest men. Let the reader turn back
and read the Scriptures at the head of this chapter and decide for
himself as to their obvious, intended meaning.
Now, because God's word tells us plainly that God gave His only
begotten Son, that He might be just, and thus the justifier of him who
believes in Jesus, that Christ died for our sins, that He gave Himself
for our sins, the just for the unjust,--it is right for the innocent
to suffer the penalty of the guilty. To any honest, candid man, which
is the correct way to reason? This thing is wrong; God did this thing;
therefore, God did wrong? or, God does right; God did let Christ, the
innocent, suffer and die for our sins, to _redeem_ from _all
iniquity_; therefore it is right for the innocent to suffer the
penalty of the guilty?
Nor is Christ suffering as our substitute the Great Exception, as some
timid ones have granted. It is in line with _God's Plan with Men_; it
is in line with the best and noblest there is in man; and the opposite
teaching, that it is wrong to let the innocent bear the penalty of the
guilty, is not only wrong, but horrible and the extreme of
heartlessness. Two men passing along the street at night hear groaning
in the gutter; striking a match, they see two men lying in the gutter
with their faces all gashed and bleeding. In a drunken street fight
they have almost killed each other. Who did the sinning? Those two men
lying in the gutter; they deserve to suffer the penalty of their
sinning. But these other two men join hands, pay for a physician, a
nurse and the hospital bill. In principle that is the innocent paying
the penalty of the guilty. To say that this is wrong would mean to
condemn the community to pass by day after day and see those ghastly,
festering wounds, those parched lips and bloodshot eyes, and to listen
to those dying groans. And yet in principle that is exactly what those
demand for this sinful, sin-injured human race, when they say that it
is morally wrong for Jesus the Saviour to suffer the penalty of our
sins. A son becomes a drunkard; his drunkenness and debauchery utterly
wreck his health. Some night the father finds his drunken son down in
the street, a helpless invalid. The son did the sinning; he deserves
to suffer the penalty of his sins; but the father takes him to his
home and cares for him and supports him. In principle that is the
innocent bearing the penalty of the guilty. To say that this is
morally wrong would be to condemn that father to pass by day after day
and see his son suffering the just consequences of his sin, to see him
slowly starving to death, to see him gasping in death, and not be
allowed to come to the rescue. Yet when men object to Christ bearing
the penalty of the sinner's sins they are, in principle, taking that
stand; for in principle Jesus, dying for our sins, did what the father
did with the son. A prominent woman in America was dying from lack of
blood; back of it somewhere was violation of some law of God, some
law of health. Her noble husband had the surgeon join their arteries,
and every beat of his noble heart drove his well blood into the body
of his dying wife, and he saved her life. These objectors praise that
act; they see nothing morally wrong in it. Yet when Jesus, in
principle, did the same thing for sinners in order to save them, these
same men, with a haughty, scornful tone, say that it is morally wrong
for the innocent to suffer in place of the guilty. "Nay but, O man,
who art thou that repliest against God?"--Rom. 9:20. Had the objectors
said that it was wrong to _force_ the innocent to suffer the penalty
of the guilty, that would have been true, but Jesus was not forced.
Listen to Him, John 10:17, 18, "Therefore doth the Father love me,
because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one taketh it
away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down
and I have power to take it again."
Nor is Christ dying for our sins, as taught by the Scriptures, a
makeshift, but, rather, a real, full _redemption, ransom_. Just as a
captain can honorably, honestly be given as a ransom for a number of
private soldiers in an exchange of prisoners; just as a diamond can
redeem a debt of many dollars; just as one man is allowed to pay
another's debt; just as one man is allowed to pay another's fine in a
courtroom; so our Lord and Saviour "gave himself for us, that he might
_redeem_ us from _all iniquity_." All illustrations of Deity fall
short, but just as a man could ransom all the ants that crawl upon the
earth, were they under moral law and had violated it; just as a man
could, on account of the vast difference in the scale of being, suffer
in his own body all that all the ants upon earth could suffer; so
Jesus, Immanuel, God with us, redeemed us from "all iniquity." It was
not merely the nails driven through His quivering flesh, nor the
physical pangs, but "the Lord hath laid on him _the iniquity_ of us
all." Hence, that awful cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?" He was in the sinner's place, suffering the sinner's penalty for
sin. "He hath made him to be sin for us."--2 Cor. 6:21.
Instead of proudly cavilling and warping and trying to avoid the
simple, plain meaning of God's word, should you not rather, reader,
bow in reverence before such love, realize that it was for you, yes,
_you_, and that through His suffering and in no other way, you may
escape the just punishment of your sins and spend eternity in Heaven?
The world weeps over the story of the noble fireman who gave his life
to rescue a little girl from a burning building, but it coldly scorns
and proudly rejects salvation through the redemption of Jesus the
Christ. Oh, the pride and wickedness of the human heart! Be not you,
reader, of those who sit in the seat of the scornful, but the rather
of those who at the last day will sing, Rev. 5:9, "Worthy art thou to
take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and
didst purchase unto God with thy blood, men of every tribe and tongue
and people and nation."
Let us consider carefully what it really means when we are told that
"Christ died _for our sins_,"--1 Cor. 15:3, that He "gave himself _for
our sins_,"--Gal. 1:4; that "his own self bare our sins in his own
body upon the tree,"--1 Peter 2:24; that "Christ also suffered for
sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous."--1 Peter 3:18. God's
word explains it clearly: "That he might himself be _just_ and the
_justifier_ of him that hath faith in Jesus."--Rom. 3:26. "_That he
might be just._" Notice it carefully, "_That he might be just._" Take
it in its full meaning, "That he might be just." A question: How
_could_ God be _just_ and _justify_ any sinner apart from the fact
that "Christ died for our sins," that "the Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all"? Reader, no man, however learned, will ever answer
that question. He may sneer; he may cavil; he may warp; he may try to
confuse; but he will never come out in the open and answer that
question. He may say that it is morally wrong for the innocent to bear
the penalty of the guilty, but that objection is met and answered
above in this chapter.
Let us face a trilemma; three, and only three plans, were possible for
God with man:--
First, To have been just with man, without any love or mercy; hence,
for every sinner to have suffered the just penalty for his sins,
without any redemption. That would have meant Hell for every
responsible human being, without any Heaven at all.
Second, To have been all mercy and all love and no justice. That would
have meant no moral laws; for why have moral laws, if there would be
no penalty, no justice? That would have meant a premium on crime. That
would have meant the debased, the debauched, the immoral, the drunken,
the fiend, on a level with the chaste, the pure, the upright, the
true. That would have meant unbridled rein to passion and lust and
every other evil inclination, and no penalty following. That would
have meant Hell in trying to get rid of Hell.
Third, There was left but one other possible plan, to be just and at
the same time extend love to the sinners. In the nature of the case,
real redemption, without any makeshift, was the only way this _could_
be done. "Even so _must_ the Son of man be lifted up,"--John 3:14;
"that he himself might be _just_ and the _justifier_ of him that hath
faith in Jesus,"--Rom. 3:26; "God so _loved_ the world that he gave
his only begotten Son,"--John 3:16; "Herein is love, not that we loved
God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be _the propitiation
for our sins_."--1 John 4:10.
This leads to another question: How can God be _just_ and _not_
justify "him that hath faith in Jesus"? Again men may quibble and
warp, and ridicule, but no one will ever answer the question. And the
reason why this question will never be answered leads to another
question:
From how many of his sins is the one "that hath faith in Jesus"
_justified_? We have now gotten to the very centre of the whole
problem of salvation. Let us give it most careful consideration.
In not one of the Scriptures cited at the head of this chapter is
there one word that limits the number of sins for which Christ died,
or from which the believer is justified. That of itself is sufficient
warrant for us to conclude that Christ died for _all_ of the sins of
the believer, that when He "gave himself for our sins" (Gal. 1:4), it
included _all_ of our sins, and that the believer is justified from
_all_ of his sins. One man promises another that he will pay his
debts. That of itself means all of his debts, unless the one making
the promise was simply juggling with words. While this of itself would
be sufficient, God in His word has made it positive and absolute as to
how many of the believer's sins were laid on Christ ("the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all."--Is. 53:6); for how many of our
sins Christ gave Himself ("Who gave himself for our sins."--Gal. 1:4);
for how many of our sins Christ died (1 Cor. 15:3); from how many of
his sins the believer is _justified_, ("that he might himself be
_just_ and the _justifier_ of him that hath faith in Jesus."--Rom.
3:26). In Lev. 16:21, 22, God gives us a picture, foreshadowing the
Saviour, of laying the sins on the substitute: "And Aaron shall lay
both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him
_all_ the iniquity of the children of Israel, and _all_ their
transgressions, even _all_ their sins; and he shall put them upon the
head of the goat and shall send him away by the hand of a man that is
in readiness into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him
_all_ their iniquities." "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh [or
beareth] away the sins of the world."--John 1:29. _But how many_ of
our sins? Let God's word answer: Titus 2:13, 14, "Our Saviour Jesus
Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might _redeem_ us from _all
iniquity_." Look at it again, reader; grasp its full meaning; let it
be impressed indelibly upon your soul: "Our Saviour Jesus Christ; who
gave himself for us, that he might _redeem_ us from _all_ iniquity."
Then as certainly as the believer is redeemed by Him, he is redeemed
from _all_ iniquity; and as certainly as he is redeemed from all
iniquity, that certainly the believer is going to Heaven, for there is
nothing left that can cause him to be lost. Hence God, through Paul,
has told us "By him every one that believeth is _justified_ from _all_
things."--Acts 13:39.
If our Saviour Jesus Christ gave Himself for us that he might _redeem_
us from _all_ iniquity (Titus 2:13, 14), how can God be _just_ and
_not_ justify every one that believes from _all_ things (Acts 13:39)?
And if the believer is _justified_ from _all_ things (Acts 13:39), he
is certain to go to Heaven. This is _God's plan_; this is God's will;
"by the which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ _once for all_."--Heb. 10:10. "_For by one_
offering he hath _perfected forever_ them that are sanctified."--Heb.
10:14. "Nor yet by the blood of goats and calves, but through his own
blood entered in _once for all_ into the holy place, having obtained
_eternal redemption_."--Heb. 9:12. Hence Jesus said, "Verily, verily I
say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent
me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is
passed from death to life."--John 5:24.
While thus is manifested God's justice, and the _only_ way that God
_could_ be "just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus"
(Rom. 3:26), for Jesus Himself said it ("Even so _must_ the Son of man
be lifted up."--John 3:14); let the reader not forget that it equally
manifests God's love, and the Saviour's love. "Herein is love, not
that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins."--1 John 4:10. "The Son of God who loved me
and gave himself for me."--Gal. 2:20. If God's love is amazing in
sending His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10), if
the Saviour's love is amazing in loving us and giving Himself for us
(Gal. 2:20), how infinitely more amazing is this love when we see that
it has obtained _eternal redemption_ for us (Heb. 9:12); that it has
redeemed us from _all_ iniquity (Titus 2:14), and that every one that
believes is _justified_ from _all_ things (Acts 13:39)?
Reader, the greatest crime that is ever committed on this earth is to
reject this "so great salvation" (Heb. 2:3); this redemption from all
iniquity (Titus 2:14), and to trifle with the amazing love that
provided a way by which He Himself might be just and the justifier of
him that hath faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). We shudder at the horrible
crimes reported in the daily papers, at those recorded in history; but
far greater, far blacker, more terrible, is the crime of a human being
rejecting this great provision of God's love. Only intellectual pride,
religious prejudice, family or race ties, love of the world, or secret
sin, can be the cause of the reader taking such a fatal step; and
fearful will be the consequences of letting any one of these cause the
rejection of the only salvation that God's love and justice could
provide. The reader cannot plead that God has not given sufficient
proof that He has given us a revelation in His word (let the reader go
back and read again the Introduction and the reference for further
study); nor can he plead that God's word does not make the message
plain (let the reader go back and study the Scriptures at the
beginning of this chapter). It is a solemn and awful step, reader, one
never to be retraced, to decide to reject this salvation, and to go
out into the dark, unending future beyond the grave, unredeemed from
iniquity, with no certain hope, when God has warned you, "Apart from
shedding of blood there is no remission,"--Heb. 9:22. It is an awful,
eternal crisis, when you see God's only provision for you, so
complete, so perfect, so sure, and then face His warning, "I call
heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set
before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore
choose _life_."
_FOR FURTHER STUDY._--There are those who deny God's justice in Christ
dying for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), in Christ giving Himself for our
sins (Gal. 1:4), in Christ redeeming us from all iniquity (Titus
2:14). Expressions from the two most prominent rejecters will show the
principal reasons given by all other rejecters of redemption through
Christ:--
"Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the
innocent would offer itself."--_The "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine._
"The outrage offered to the moral justice of God, by supposing Him to
make the innocent suffer for the guilty."--_The "Age of Reason," by
Thomas Paine._
"An execution is an object for gratitude; the preachers daub
themselves with the blood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend to
admire the brilliancy it gives them."--_The "Age of Reason," by Thomas
Paine._
The other is Mrs. Mary Baker G. Eddy in her "Science and Health, with
Key to the Scriptures": "One sacrifice, however great, is insufficient
to pay the debt of sin. The atonement requires constant
self-immolation on the sinner's part." Again, "Another's suffering
cannot lessen our own liability." Again, "The time is not distant when
the ordinary theological views of atonement will undergo a great
change,--a change as radical as that which has come over popular
opinions in regard to predestination and future punishment. Does
erudite theology regard the crucifixion of Jesus chiefly as providing
a ready pardon for all sinners who ask for it and are willing to be
forgiven? Does spiritualism find Jesus's death necessary only for the
presentation, after death, of the material Jesus, as a proof that
spirits can return to earth? Then we must differ from them both." It
is not to be wondered at that she takes her stand with Thomas Paine in
rejecting the teaching that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3),
and that He redeemed us from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), when she says,
"Does divine love commit a fraud on humanity by making man inclined to
sin and then punishing him for it?" Again, "In common justice we must
admit that God will not punish man for doing what He created man
capable of doing, and knew from the outset that man would do." Again,
"The destruction of sin is the divine method of pardon. Being
destroyed, sin needs no other pardon." There is one vast difference
between these two who reject Jesus as our sin-bearer, our
Redeemer,--Thomas Paine does not masquerade under the name
"Christian." Why should others who stand with him in rejecting
complete redemption through Christ?
Catholics by the sacrifice of the mass, the unbloody sacrifice, the
elevation of the host, teach that the wafer is changed into the real
"body, blood, soul and divinity" of Jesus Christ, and that it is then
offered as a sacrifice. They thereby reject the complete redemption
through Christ dying for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), redeeming us from all
iniquity (Titus 2:14). They thereby deny that He "offered one
sacrifice for sin forever,"--Heb. 10:12, and that "by one offering he
hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."--Heb. 10:14. Having
rejected Him as complete Redeemer, they have no real Saviour at all.
But those who make salvation dependent on moral character, or baptism,
or church membership, just as surely as the Catholics reject the
completeness of the redemption.
There are some who sneer at this teaching as the "commercial view" of
redemption, in the face of God's word that declares, "ye were _bought
with a price,"_--1 Cor. 6:20; "worthy art thou to take the book and to
open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and didst _purchase_ unto
God with thy blood men of every tribe and tongue and people and
nation."--Rev. 5:9. (R. V.)
Consider the testimony of three over against the two quoted against
this teaching of God's word:--
"I saw that if Jesus suffered in my stead, I could not suffer, too;
and that if He bore all my sin, I had no more sin to bear. My iniquity
must be blotted out if Jesus bore it in my stead and suffered all its
penalty."--_C. H. Spurgeon._
"If you believe on him, I tell you you cannot go to Hell; for that
were to make the sacrifice of Christ of none effect. It cannot be
that a sacrifice should be accepted and yet the soul should die for
whom that sacrifice had been received. If the believing soul could be
condemned, then why a sacrifice? Every believer can claim that the
sacrifice was actually made for him: by faith he has laid his hands on
it, and made it his own, and therefore he may rest assured that he can
never perish. The Lord would not receive this offering on our behalf
and then condemn us to die."--_C. H. Spurgeon._
"The law of God was more vindicated by the death of Christ than it
would have been had all the transgressors been sent to Hell. For the
Son of God to suffer for sin was a more glorious establishment of the
government of God than for the whole race to suffer."--_C. H.
Spurgeon._
"It is the obvious implication of these words (the Righteous One for
the unrighteous ones) that the death on which such stress is laid was
something to which the unrighteous were liable because of their sins,
and that in their interest the Righteous One took it on
Himself."--_Denny, in "The Death of Christ."_
"This is his gospel, that a Righteous One has once for all faced and
taken up and in death exhausted the responsibilities of the
unrighteous, so that they no more stand between them and
God."--_Denny, in "The Death of Christ."_
"If Christ died the death in which sin had involved us, if in His
death He took the responsibility of our sins upon Himself, no word is
equal to this which falls short of what is meant by calling Him our
substitute."_--Denny, in "The Death of Christ."_
"I do not know any word that conveys the truth of this if 'vicarious'
or 'substitutionary' does not; nor do I know any interpretation of
Christ's death which enables us to regard it as a demonstration of
love to sinners, if this vicarious or substitutionary character is
denied. There is much preaching _about_ Christ's death which fails to
be a preaching _of_ Christ's death, and therefore to be in the full
sense of the term Gospel Preaching, because it ignores this. The
simplest hearer feels that there is something irrational in saying
that the death of Christ is a great proof of love to the sinful unless
there is shown at the same time a rational connection between that
death and the responsibilities which sin involves, and from which that
death delivers. Perhaps one should beg pardon for using so simple an
illustration, but the point is a vital one, and it is necessary to be
clear. If I were sitting on the end of a pier on a summer day,
enjoying the sunshine and the air, and some one came along and jumped
into the water and got drowned to prove his love to me, I should find
it quite unintelligible. I might be much in need of love, but an act
in no relation to any of my necessities could not prove it. But if I
had fallen over the pier and were drowning and some one sprang into
the water and at the cost of making my peril, or what but for him
would be my fate, his own, saved me from death, then I should say,
'Greater love hath no man than this.' I should say it intelligently,
because there would be an intelligible relation between the sacrifice
which love made and the necessity from which it redeemed."--_Denny, in
"The Death of Christ."_
"Christ died for sins once for all, and the man who believes in
Christ and in His death has his relation to God _once for all
determined not by sin but by the atonement_."--_Denny, in "The Death
of Christ."_
"One who knew no sin had, in obedience to the Father, to take on Him
the responsibility, the doom, the curse, the death of the sinful.
And if any one says that this was morally impossible, may we not
ask again, What is the alternative? Is it not that the sinful
should be left alone with their responsibility, doom, curse, and
death?"--_Denny, in "The Death of Christ."_
"Redemption, it may be said, springs from love, yet love is only a
word of which we do not know the meaning till it is interpreted for us
by redemption."--_Denny, in "The Death of Christ."_
"Unless we can preach a finished work of Christ in relation to sin, a
reconciliation or peace which has been achieved independently of us at
infinite cost, and to which we are called in a word of ministry of
reconciliation, we have no real gospel for sinful men at
all."--_Denny, in "The Death of Christ."_
"If the evangelist has not something to preach of which he can say,
'If any man makes it his business to subvert this, let him be
anathema,' he has no gospel at all."--_Denny, in "The Death of
Christ."_
"_As there is only one God, so there can be only one Gospel. If God
has really done something in Christ on which the salvation of the
world depends, and if He has made it known, then it is a Christian
duty to be intolerant of everything which ignores, denies, or explains
it away. The man who perverts it is the worst enemy of God and
men._"--_Denny, in "The Death of Christ."_
"We should remember, also, that it is not always intellectual
sensitiveness, nor care for the moral interests involved, which sets
the mind to criticise statements of the Atonement. There _is_ such a
thing as pride, the last form of which is unwillingness to become
debtors even to Christ for forgiveness of sins."--_Denny, in "The
Death of Christ."_
But the Saviour could not have been a _Redeemer_, if He had not been
God manifest in the flesh, for two reasons:--
First, if He had not been Deity, God manifest in the flesh, His dying
for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3) would not have been _Redemption_, but a
mere makeshift. "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats
should take away sins."--Heb. 10:4. Why not? Because in that case
there would have been no real _redemption_, but only a makeshift.
Second, had the Saviour been anything other than God manifest in the
flesh, He would have _won_ men _from_ God and alienated them from God.
On this point let the reader consider well the following from Walker,
in "The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation":--"As God was the author
of the law, and as He is the only Proper Object both of supreme love
and obedience; and as man could not be happy in obeying the law
without loving its Author, it follows that the thing now necessary, in
order that man's affections might be fixed upon the proper object of
love and obedience, was, that the Supreme God should, by self-denying
kindness, manifest spiritual mercy to those who felt their spiritual
wants, and thus draw to Himself the love and worship of mankind. _If
any other being should supply the need, that being would receive the
love_; it was therefore necessary that _God Himself_ should do it, in
order that the affections of believers might centre upon the proper
object." "Now, suppose Jesus Christ was not God, nor a true
manifestation of the Godhead in human nature, but a man, or angel,
authorized by God to accomplish the redemption of the human race from
sin and misery. In doing this, it appears, from the nature of the
thing, and from the Scriptures, that He did what was adapted to, and
what does, draw the heart of every true believer, as in the case of
the apostles and the early Christians, to Himself as the supreme or
governing object of affection. Their will is governed by the will of
Christ; and love to Him moves their heart and hands. _Now, if it be
true that Jesus Christ is not God, then He has devised and executed a
plan by which the supreme affections of the human heart are drawn to
Himself, and alienated from God_, the proper object of love and
worship: and God, having authorized this plan, _He has devised means
to make man love Christ, the creature, more than the creator_, who is
God over all, blessed for evermore.
"But it is said that Christ having taught and suffered by the will and
authority of God, we are under obligation to love God for what Christ
has done for us. It is answered, that this is impossible. We cannot
love one being for what another does or suffers on our behalf. We can
love no being for labors and self-denials on our behalf, but that
being who valiantly labors and denies himself. It is the kindness and
mercy exhibited in the self-denial that move the affections; and the
affections can move to no being but the one that makes the
self-denial, because it is the self-denial that draws out the love of
the heart.
"It is said, that Christ was sent by God to do His will and not His
own; and therefore we ought to love God, as the being to whom
gratitude and love are due for what Christ said and suffered.
"Then it is answered: If God willed that Christ, as a creature of His,
should come, and by His suffering and death redeem sinners, we ought
not to love Christ for it, because He did it as a creature in
obedience to the commands of God, and was not self-moved nor
meritorious in the work; and we cannot love God for it, for the labor
and self-denial were not borne by Him. And further: If one being, by
an act of his authority, should cause another innocent being to
suffer, in order that he might be loved who had imposed the suffering,
but not borne it, it would render him unworthy of love. If God had
caused Jesus Christ, being His creature, to suffer, that He might be
loved Himself for Christ's sufferings, while He had no connection with
them, instead of such an exhibition, on the part of God, producing
love to Him, it would procure pity for Christ and aversion towards
God. So that, neither God, nor Christ, nor any other being, can be
loved for mercy extended by self-denials to the needy, unless those
self-denials were produced by a voluntary act of mercy upon the part
of the being who suffers them; and no being, but the one who made the
sacrifice, could be meritorious in the case. It follows, therefore,
incontrovertibly, that if Christ was a creature--no matter of how
exalted worth--and not God; and if God approved of His work in saving
sinners, _He approved of treason against His own government_; because,
in that case, the work of Christ was adapted to draw, and did
necessarily draw, the affections of the human soul to Himself, as its
Spiritual Saviour and thus alienated them from God, their rightful
object. And Jesus Christ Himself had the design of drawing men's
affections to Himself in view, by His crucifixion; says He, 'And I, if
I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.' This He
said signifying what death He should die: thus distinctly stating that
it was the self-denials and mercy exhibited in the crucifixion that
would draw out the affections of the human soul, and that those
affections would be drawn to Himself as the suffering Saviour. But
that God would sanction a scheme which would involve treason against
Himself, and that Christ should participate in it, is absurd and
impossible, and therefore cannot be true. But if the Divine Nature was
united with the human in the teaching and work of Christ, if God was
in Christ (drawing the affections of men, or) 'reconciling the world
unto himself'--if, when Christ was lifted up, as Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, He drew, as He said He would, the
affections of all believers unto Himself; and then, if He ascended, as
the Second Person of the Trinity, into the bosom of the Eternal
Godhead--He thereby, after He had engaged, by His work on earth, the
affections of the human soul, bore them up to the bosom of the Father,
from whence they had fallen. Thus the ruins of the Fall were rebuilt,
and the affections of the human soul again restored to God, the
Creator, and proper Object of Supreme love."
Finally, let the reader give most earnest thought to the inevitable
conclusion drawn by the same author:
"How, then, could God manifest that mercy to sinners by which love to
Himself and to His law would be produced, while His infinite holiness
and justice would be maintained? We answer, in no way possible, but by
some expedient by which His justice and mercy would both be exalted.
If, in the wisdom of the Godhead, such a way could be devised by which
God Himself could save the soul from the consequences of its
guilt,--by which He Himself could, in some way, suffer and make
self-denials for its good; and by His own interposition open a way for
the soul to recover from its lost and condemned condition, then the
result would follow inevitably, that every one of the human family who
had been led to see and feel his guilty condition before God, and who
believed in God thus manifesting Himself to rescue his soul from
spiritual death, every one thus believing would, from the necessities
of his nature, be led to love God his Saviour; and mark, the greater
the self-denial and the suffering on the part of the Saviour in
ransoming the soul, the stronger would be the affection felt for
Him."--_Walker, in "The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation."_