THE ATONEMENT
+I. Association of the Doctrine with Jesus+
+Importance of the subject.+--This brings us to a subject, which, more
than any other, with the exception of that of the person of Jesus, has
come under discussion at the present time. In the course of Christian
history it has created a more extensive literature than probably any
other doctrine. I mean the subject variously known as Salvation,
Redemption, Atonement, and with which the terms Forgiveness, Expiation,
Reconciliation, Ransom, Justification, Propitiation, Satisfaction,
Sanctification, and such like have been commonly associated. The
Christian doctrine of Atonement, as we may call it for convenience,
bulks so large in Christian thought that all others may be held to be
dependent upon it, even that of the person of Jesus; for, according to
the received theology, Jesus became incarnate for our redemption, and
that redemption can only be accomplished by one who is very God.
+The need for an adequate explanation.+--But there is no subject upon
which modern Christian thought is less coherent than this. We are
constantly hearing the statement that a rational theory of the
Atonement is badly wanted, or that it is our duty to preach the fact
without a theory, or that the Atonement is such a mystery that no
theory is possible and we must just accept it on faith. This
confession of helplessness shows that there is something seriously
wrong with the conventional presentation of the doctrine. But I do not
think the Atonement is such a very great mystery after all, and it
ought to be possible to get at the heart of it without stultifying the
intellect. Anyhow, let us try.
+The usual theological method of expounding it.+--As a rule treatises
on the Atonement begin with an examination of the Scripture passages
which are supposed to have a bearing upon it. Then follows a careful
examination and criticism of the various theories of it which have
successively held the field during its history; the author concludes by
giving us his own. I do not propose to follow that method, for it does
not possess a living interest for the mind of to-day; the psychological
should take precedence of the historical. I do not feel called upon to
take the doctrine of Atonement for granted and then proceed to try to
find a place for it in Christian experience. On the contrary, I prefer
to take human nature for granted and inquire whether it needs anything
like a doctrine of Atonement. If it does not, let the doctrine go; if
it does, let us see that the doctrine is presented in a reasonable
fashion. If it cannot be presented reasonably, it is not wanted. But
I think it is wanted, and more than wanted; it is already taken for
granted by everyone who thinks seriously about life, whether it is
called by its theological name or not.
+Outline of present-day accepted belief in regard to it.+--Before I
proceed to attempt to justify these statements let me ask my readers to
call to mind the outline of what they have been taught in reference to
this great fundamental of the Christian faith. Part of it has already
been indicated, for it was hardly possible to avoid it when considering
such a subject as that of the nature of evil or the divinity of Jesus.
Roughly stated it is as follows: Our fallen humanity is separated from
and under the displeasure of God. God longs to save us from our sin,
but justice demands that He must punish us. The world is already an
unhappy place because of sin, but what we endure here is nothing to
what we shall have to endure presently when we cross the river of
death; we shall all go to hell, a place of never-ending torment, unless
some means can be found of justifying us before God ere we pass over.
This means has been found in the self-devotion of the second person in
the Trinity. The sinless Son of God took upon Himself the likeness of
sinful humanity, was born into this world, lived here for a few years,
suffered a violent death, and then reascended to His Father to make
unceasing intercession for mankind. It was the dying of the death that
was the all-important thing. It was in consideration of this death
that God agreed to pardon sin. Jesus was put to death because God had
arranged that He should be put to death, and because Jesus was willing
to be put to death, in order that a satisfactory offering might be made
to divine justice for the sins of the world. God had to punish someone
before he could be free to forgive His erring children, and therefore
with the consent of Jesus He punished Him. The whole scheme was
prearranged in heaven, cross and all, and therefore Jesus was not taken
by surprise when the end came; He was, in fact, a party to it, and His
murderers were in a sense only the instruments of a beneficent,
foreordained plan. God accepts this sacrifice as a full and complete
equivalent for all that humanity deserves, but we must individually
appropriate it by faith or it will not avail for us; we shall go to
hell all the same. If on the other hand we do claim the benefit of
this finished work, the merits of the Redeemer are imputed to us; we
are held to be justified before God, and are gradually sanctified by
the Holy Spirit operating within our souls and fashioning us into the
moral likeness of our Lord.
+Conventional view both true and false.+--To say that these statements
are wholly untrue is impossible, for they everyone contain a truth of
considerable value, but as popularly stated they are misleading. This
view of the Atonement is unethical, and, in my judgment and that of
many others, has wrought a good deal of mischief in the past and
bewilderment in the present. Some readers of these pages will no doubt
find fault with me for stating it so baldly, and will maintain that no
front-rank theologian or preacher would enunciate it in these terms
to-day. Once again I can only repeat that they use language which
implies it, and it seems impossible to resist the conclusion that they
are driven to use the vaguer language because of their own feeling that
the balder statement, which their predecessors made without hesitation,
is intellectually and morally impossible, and yet they do not know what
to put in its place. They are reluctant to give up the belief that in
some way or other the death of Jesus on Calvary actually effected
something in the unseen by making God propitious toward us and removing
the barrier which prevented Him from freely forgiving human sin. Of
course they add other and valuable elements in their discussion of the
theme, but this is their central idea and they seldom get away from it.
The typical theologian never seems to think of looking at the death of
Jesus from the purely human point of view, and yet surely this is the
only legitimate thing to do when trying to get at the heart of the
subject. It is what we should do in any other case of a like kind; we
should never dream of doing anything else. We have no business to
begin speculating upon transcendental questions until we have examined
the purely human causes of such an event as the crucifixion of Jesus.
When an adherent of the so-called orthodox view of the doctrine of the
Atonement is pressed to say just what he supposes the death of Jesus to
have effected in the mind of God so as to free humanity from its curse,
he usually takes refuge in phrases about the "mystery of the cross,"
and so on. He does not say in plain language exactly what he means,
for the truth is he does not know; he only believes what he has been
told, and has persuaded himself that it is of the utmost value to
Christian experience, which it is not and never was. The doctrine as
popularly held is not only not true but it ought not to be true; it is
a serious hindrance to spiritual religion. Why in the world should God
require such a sacrifice before feeling Himself free to forgive His
erring children? And why should it be regarded as in any real sense a
substitute for what is due from us or any equivalent for what we should
otherwise have to bear? Once more, perhaps, the dogmatic theologian
will pull me up sharply and say that I am misrepresenting him, but I
think I am on fairly safe ground in declaring that this is what the
ordinary man in the pew as well as the man in the street understands by
the saving work of Jesus, and he does so because of the language of the
pulpit backed by the theological college preceptor. If this is the
Atonement, there is little wonder that thoughtful minds will have
nothing to say to it and that so many good people are puzzled to know
what to think about it.
+The human causes of the crucifixion of Jesus.+--If the death of Jesus
took place under similar circumstances to-day, we should be in no doubt
as to what to call it. It was a barbarous and wicked murder instigated
by base and unscrupulous men who wanted to get rid of a dangerous
teacher. We do not need to search far in order to find reasons for the
tragedy. There were reasons enough in the antagonism which had long
existed between Jesus and the ecclesiastical rulers of Judea. Jesus
held and taught a certain ideal concerning human life and its relation
to God. At the beginning of His brief public ministry He seems to have
thought that His invitation to men to realise their divine sonship
would meet with a ready response, and that therefore the kingdom of God
would without great difficulty be established upon earth through the
working of the spirit of love in human hearts. At first He gained an
extensive hearing because the Jewish people were willing and ready to
listen to any teacher who would hold out to them some hope of a better
and happier day. Consequently He was for a time extremely popular, and
even the Pharisees deliberated as to whether He might prove to be the
long-expected leader who should restore the kingdom to Israel. But
this attitude soon changed. People and rulers alike became
disappointed with Jesus. They were looking for a kingdom which should
come by force, and Jesus for one which should come by love. They
wanted material benefits forthwith, while to Jesus these were
altogether a secondary matter. Then, too, He became an inconvenience.
His standard of rectitude was exacting. He saw through the hypocrisies
and villanies of many of those who posed as the guides and directors of
the nation, and He was not silent about them. He spoke out without
fear or hesitation. What other people had been thinking and dared not
say He said without pausing to consider what the consequences might be.
No wonder the ecclesiastics came to feel that He must be silenced at
any cost. It can hardly be supposed that people in general were
offended by His plain language concerning those in high places, but
then they wanted Him to do something besides talk. They wanted to see
Him drive out the Roman without delay and inaugurate the era of power
and plenty. Jesus saw well enough what the end of all this must be.
He must either temporise a little, or go away and hide, or go straight
on doing His work until the night came and He could work no more. He
decided for the last-named course, leaving the results to God. It was
in the line of His duty to go up to Jerusalem for the feast of the
Passover, so to Jerusalem He went. He could hardly have been under any
delusion as to what awaited Him there. The crowds in the capital were
very excited about Him; His name was on every lip, and there were many
who would have declared for Him at once if He had only offered Himself
as the national champion against the foreigner. But by this time
priests, Pharisees, and scribes understood that, in their sense of the
word, a national champion He would never be. The crisis was reached at
the cleansing of the Temple. The moral greatness, the tremendous
impressiveness, of the personality of Jesus were never more clearly
demonstrated than on this occasion. There was no earthly reason why
dove-sellers, money-changers, priests, and Temple officials should be
driven pell-mell out of precincts they had come to look upon as their
own, except that they were overawed by the stern majesty of this
wonderful Galilean. For a brief hour Jesus was master of the
situation; the next day He was arrested. The thing had to be done
secretly and quickly, but those who planned it calculated rightly. No
sooner was Jesus made a prisoner than the populace turned against Him
and clamoured for His destruction. Those who know something of mob
psychology will readily understand this. Human passion easily swings
from adoration to hate, as history has shown over and over again. If a
strong man fails in a conflict of forces in a time of great public
excitement, he is rarely allowed to sink quietly into oblivion; the mob
turns upon him with the savagery of a wild beast. Napoleon was one day
driving through the streets of Paris amid cheering crowds. One of his
suite remarked to him that it must be gratifying to see how his
subjects loved him. "Bah!" said the Emperor, "The same rabble would
cheer just as madly if I were going to the guillotine." He was right.
It was just the same with this Jerusalem crowd. The populace thought
that the Jesus who had seemed so strong was not so strong after all,
and therefore their base fury vented itself upon Him just as priests
and Pharisees had foreseen.
These were the immediate causes of the death of Jesus. His execution
was a judicial murder done to gratify sacerdotal spite and popular
passion, and the men who took part in it were guilty of what has proved
to be the blackest deed in history. The same type of man exists
to-day, as he has existed in every age, and if Jesus came again without
saying who He was, history would repeat itself. I do not suppose His
enemies would nail Him on a wooden cross,--public opinion would forbid
that now, thanks to nineteen centuries of His gospel,--but they would
find some means of making Him suffer, and they would invoke His own
name to justify them in doing it.
+The reason why there was no supernatural interference.+--But is this
all that can be said about the matter? Where does God come in? Why
was a crime of this sort ever permitted? Why has the memory of it
actually become a religious dogma? Other people have been put to death
quite as unjustly, and the results, though great, are not to be
compared with those which have followed from the death of Jesus. Why
is this? As we have already seen, the popular view of the doctrine of
Atonement presumes that this foul deed was in some way, as the
scripture has it, by "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of
God." Was it really so? Was the whole dreadful drama merely a
programme to be gone through in all its appointed stages, ending with
the cry of the victim, "It is finished"?
There is one sense, and only one, in which such a deed can be said to
have been by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, and that
is that God did not interfere to save Jesus from the last dread ordeal.
He allowed wickedness to do its worst, and thereby made the
disinterested nobleness of the character of Jesus all the clearer. In
such a time as that in which Jesus lived such a life as His was sure to
end on a Calvary of some kind, unless He ran away from it, or God
supernaturally intervened to save Him. Neither event happened. If
Jesus had shrunk from the full consequences of His actions; if He had
temporised, concealed Himself, tried to gain time, or adopted any other
subterfuge or expedient in order to save His life--that life would not
have the moral power it possesses or shine with such glorious lustre in
the world to-day. Supernatural interference would have dimmed the
moral beauty of the faith, courage, and perfect self-devotion of Jesus.
The moral worth of any act of self-sacrifice, no matter on what scale
it is performed, is dependent upon the fact that it is done without
regard to consequences. If we could see with absolute clearness the
sure and certain result of any action, if we could know, as
unquestionably as that two and two make four, that it would always pay
to do the right thing, the very soul of goodness would have gone out of
it. It is just because we do not know, save with the deeper knowledge
that contradicts appearances,--the knowledge that is rightly termed
faith,--that an unselfish action is in accord with the general
rightness of the universe, and therefore must prevail in the end, that
there is anything praiseworthy in it. The determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God were that this should be fully demonstrated in the
experience of Jesus, as it has been in the experience of many a one of
His followers since. Once more therefore we come to the last word of
the cosmos, manifestation by sacrifice; and the experience of Jesus is
the sum and centre of it all. The reason why the name of Jesus has
such power in the world to-day is because a perfectly noble and
unselfish life was crowned by a perfectly sacrificial death. Both were
needed; either without the other would have been incomplete. Many a
British soldier has died as brave a death as Jesus, but none have ever
lived the life of Jesus. The life and death together were a perfect
self-offering, the offering of the unit to the whole, the individual to
the race, the Son to the Father, and therefore the greatest
manifestation of the innermost of God that has ever been made to the
world. It makes the sacrifice unreal to speak of it as though Jesus
knew the end from the beginning and foresaw every stage in the
programme before He came to it. He did not; He shrank from the
shameful end just as we should have done, and prayed to God to save Him
from it. An immense amount of pious nonsense has been spoken and
written about our Lord's agony in Gethsemane. We have been told that
in this dreadful hour the sorrow of Jesus bore no relation to his
physical death, but was caused by His mysterious self-identification
with all the sins of mankind, past, present, and to come. To add to
the horror God the Father turned His face away from Him, treating Him
as though He were indeed the embodiment of all the guilt of mankind,
the scapegoat driven into the wilderness. I have never been able to
read this kind of thing without an inner protest against the unreality
of it; it precludes the possibility of understanding Jesus or entering
sympathetically into an experience in which to a greater or less degree
every noble soul has sooner or later to share with Him. The only way
to explain Gethsemane is to approach it from the purely human point of
view, as we have already done with the causes which led up to the
crucifixion. Let us try to put ourselves in the sufferer's place, a
perfectly legitimate and right thing to do. How would any of us have
felt in the circumstances of Jesus? Suppose that you had laboured
consistently and whole-heartedly, in season and out of season, to get
men to realise their divine sonship and live the life that is life
indeed. Suppose you had seen your hopes perish one by one, and that
materialism, selfishness, and hypocrisy seemed to have become all the
stronger for your protest. Suppose you saw evil gathering head against
you, that you found yourself left utterly alone, and that even God
seemed to be silent in this hour of tragic failure. Here are your
enemies triumphant at the gate, thirsting for your blood. Beyond that
gate, betrayal, torture, and public shame are waiting for you. In the
background of all stands the cruel gibbet to which your own countrymen,
the people you have loved with an all-absorbing love, shall presently
commit you. Tell me what you would pray in like circumstances. Your
agony would be just as great as that of Jesus, though perhaps your
prayer would lack His magnificent faith and ungrudging self-surrender.
Jesus went to His death having nothing to rely upon except His inner
conviction that God and the cause of truth were one, and that somehow
or other in the end that would be made plain to Himself and all the
world. It would have been the same no matter what had been the
particular death that Jesus died. His murderers might have taken His
life in any one of a thousand ways and the ultimate result would have
been just as we see it now. They might have hanged, drowned, or burnt
Him, in which case the stake or the hangman's rope would have become
the symbol of the world's redemption, but, after the fashion of their
time, they crucified Him; it was the worst they could do, and they
wanted to do the worst. At Calvary perfect love joined issue with
perfect hate, perfect goodness with perfect wickedness, and became
victorious by enduring the worst and remaining pure and unchanged to
the last.
+The moral outcome.+--But it was not the last after all; the world had
still to reckon with God. That life and death have become a moral
force, a spiritual dynamic greater than any before or since, just
because of the completeness of the self-offering that culminated on
Calvary's cross. I must not anticipate what I have to say about the
resurrection further than to remark that more came out of the tomb of
Jesus than ever went into it. When all seemed lost this buried life
arose in power in other lives that up till then had never fully known
its divine greatness and spiritual beauty.
This is the truth about the death of Jesus, and nothing needs to be
added to show how great an event in the dealings of God with men it
must have been. It was both simple and sublime. Theological
word-spinning only serves to obscure its true significance. Show to
the world the real Jesus; tell men how it came about that He had to
die, and they cannot help but love Him.