The Objective Nature of the Atonement
required. Then said I, Lo, I come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God, yea thy law is within my heart," Ps. 40:6–8. In these words the Messiah Himself substitutes
His great sacrifice for the purely shadowy sacrifices of the Old Testament, cf. Heb. 10:5–9. In the New Testament there are numerous indications of the fact that the Mosaic sacrifices were typical of the more excellent sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is said to have offered Himself to God, and to have borne the sins of many and even of the world. He is called the Lamb of God, a lamb without blemish and without spot, the passover that was slain for us. And because the Mosaic sacrifices were typical, they naturally shed some light on the nature of the great atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
The Objective Nature of the Atonement The atonement objective.
ONE of the most important points of dispute between the advocates of the Penal Substitutionary Doctrine of the atonement and the adherents of nearly all other theories, is that of the objective nature of the atonement. The question in dispute is whether the atonement in itself, as distinguished from reconciliation, has a Godward or a manward reference, whether it is made to God or to man, and whether it affects primarily the relation of God to the sinner, or exclusively the relation of the sinner to God. The Penal
Substitutionary Theory holds that the atonement in itself is brought to bear on God and on God only, though the resulting reconciliation has a double aspect. Dr. Shedd expresses it in the following words:
"An atonement makes its primary impression upon the party to whom it is made, not upon the party by whom it is made. When a man does wrong to a fellow man, and renders satisfaction for this
wrong, this satisfaction is intended to influence the object, not the subject; to produce an effect upon the man who has suffered the wrong, not the man who did the wrong. Subjective atonement is a contradiction. Atoning one's self is like lifting one's self." Dogm.
Theol. II, p. 393. If a man does wrong and renders satisfaction for it, he renders satisfaction, not to himself, but to the party whom he has wronged. This would seem to be a self-evident truth. In the case under consideration it means that the atonement in Christ is rendered to God, and that consequently God is propitiated or reconciled to the sinner. This is undoubtedly the primary idea of the atonement through Christ. It may even be said that the atonement as such has only an objective reference, the sinner giving satisfaction to God in the Mediator, Jesus Christ; though its results are both objective and subjective: God is reconciled to the sinner, and the sinner is also reconciled to God. The reconciliation of God to the sinner is primary, and that of the sinner to God is secondary.
Denial of the objective nature of the atonement.
This objective nature of the atonement has met with widespread denial. Socinus regarded it as absurd to think that satisfaction was rendered to God. since this would mean that God in Christ satisfies
Himself. Grotius, in his attempt to refute the Socinian theory, spoke indeed of satisfaction but without doing justice to the idea, since he conceived of the death of Christ merely as a penal example, which God required in order to honor the law, while yet forgiving the sinner. Naturally, the Unitarians, which may be called the present day Socinians, share the negative position of the latter. Says
Emerton: "To him (the Unitarian) there is no such thing as a God angry with the race of beings which He has created and needing therefore to be reconciled with them by some act of propitiation or of expiation." Unitarian Thought, p. 184. The English divines, J. Taylor,
H. Taylor, and A. A. Sykes, took the same position. Archbishop Magee quotes passages from H. Taylor and Sykes which clearly prove this. Taylor avers that "God is never said to be reconciled to the world, because He was never at enmity with it. It was the world that
was at enmity with God, and was to be reconciled by coming to the knowledge of His goodness to them." And Sykes says, "There could be no need of reconciling God to man, when He has already shown
His love to man so far, as to send His Son to reconcile man to God."
Cf. Magee, Discourses and Dissertations on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, Dissertation No. XX. Dr. Stevens repudiates "the idea of a propitiation or placation of God's wrath in the sufferings of Christ, the removal of hindrances to forgiveness by His sufferings, the substitution of His death for the penalty of sin, and the accomplishment of an "objective" satisfaction of any kind wrought upon Him ab extra." The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p.
432. And Dr. David Smith chimes in with this when he says: "The theory (of penal substitution) represents Christ as 'reconciling God to sinners'; and this is precisely the reverse of the New Testament representation. 'Reconciliation' is a Pauline term, and, with a persistence and precision which evince conscious and deliberate intention, the apostle constantly affirms that Christ 'reconciled the world to God,' never that He 'reconciled God to the world.' This is the usus loquendi, and it is invariably observed." The Atonement in the Light of History and of the Modern Spirit, p. 111.
The opponents' view of the atonement.
But if these men and many others like them deny the objective nature of the atonement, just what is their conception of the atoning work of Christ? How do they conceive of the atonement? While they all agree that the atonement affects man's attitude to God rather than
God's attitude to man, and that it has no other effect than that of changing man from an enemy to a friend of God, they do not all conceive of it in exactly the same way. Some maintain that Christ rendered to God a sacrifice consisting in perfect obedience to the will of God, and that this sacrifice was so well pleasing to God that He thought fit to grant man, on account of it, the forgiveness of sins and other spiritual benefits. The benefits procured by Christ for us really constitute the atonement. Bushnell's view is that Christ in His sacrificial life represents and manifests the age-long suffering of God
on account of the sin of man, and thus exercises a profound moral and regenerating influence on man, resulting in a spiritual change.
David Smith, a Scottish Presbyterian divine of whose work Dr.
Faulkner says that "It is 'modern' with a vengeance," and Washington Gladden practically take the same view. Unitarians generally find the atoning work of Christ in the revelation of the fact that God is always our merciful and forgiving Father, who is ready to forgive and heal the truly penitent. One and all deny that there is anything in God that calls for propitiation. Brunner sums up the subjective view of the atonement in the following words: "Man, quite wrongly, regards God as an enemy, as a Judge who wishes to punish him. At the cross man becomes aware of his error; here the idea that God is love conquers the idea of His anger. Thus here the only gulf which separates man from God is illusory, namely, it is that which human error has placed between itself and God. Reconciliation simply means the removal of a religious error." The Mediator, p. 439.
Is god angry with the sinner?
In view of this fact it is well to face the question first of all, whether Scripture justifies the view that God is angry with the sinner, or that the sinner is the object of His righteous wrath. It would seem that even a cursory reading of the Bible is quite sufficient to warrant an affirmative answer. There are so many clear indications of this in the Bible that it would be wearisome to quote all the relevant passages, but it may be well to refer to a few. "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity," Ps. 5:5. "God is a righteous Judge, yea, a God that hath indignation every day," Ps. 7:11. "Jehovah is a jealous God and avengeth: Jehovah avengeth and is full of wrath; Jehovah taketh vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies," Nah. 1:2. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men," Rom. 1:18.
"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasureth up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works," Rom. 2:5, 6. "If so be that it is a righteous thing with God to
recompense affliction to them that afflict you," 2 Thess. 1:6. "For if we wilfully sin after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries," Heb. 10:26, 27. These passages, to which many others could easily be added, would seem to be quite sufficient to establish the truth that God regards the sinner with holy indignation and will not simply overlook evil. Our God is a consuming fire for the sinner, Heb. 12:29. Since God is clearly represented in Scripture as the offended party, it is but natural that atonement should be offered, that amends should be made, to Him. This is the only proper sense in which we can speak of atonement. They who deny the Godward reference and still continue to speak of atonement through Christ usually insist on it that atonement really means nothing more than at-one-ment. This is a mere play upon words to make it appear that the doctrine of the atonement is retained when it is in fact discarded.
The work of the priests objective Several considerations may serve to substantiate the objective nature of the atonement. The fundamental character of the priesthood and its work Clearly point in that direction. Both prophets and priests stood between God and man, but with a characteristic difference.
The prophets represented God in bringing a message to man, and therefore looked from God in a manward direction; while the priests represented man in the presence of God, and as such moved in a Godward direction. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it thus: "For every high priest, taken from among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God." 5:1. Since this passage was already discussed in the preceding, it is not necessary to enlarge on the various elements which it contains. Suffice it to say that it gives a clear indication of the fact that the work of the priest looks primarily to God. Of course, this does not exclude the idea that the priestly work may also have a reflex influence on man.
The sacrifices objective in reference.
This argument is augmented by a consideration of the Old Testament sacrifices. Sacrifices have an objective reference. It is a generally recognized fact that among the Gentiles they were brought, not to man, but to the gods. They were supposed to produce an effect on the gods and to render them propitious. The Scriptural idea of sacrifice agrees with that among the Gentiles in this objective reference.
Lyman Abbott contradicts this when he says: "In the Christian conception sacrifice is wholly an expression of divine love; it is wholly self-sacrifice, and its object is to impart life by God the Lifegiver to man the perishing." And again: "That sacrifice proceeds from God to man, not from man to God, is implied even in the Levitical code." The Atonement in Modern Religious Thought, p. 94, 95. This is a fanciful idea which he fails to prove. He merely intimates that in the institution of the sacrifice God Himself approaches man and points out the way in which the broken covenant could be restored; that the value of the sacrifice was not in any imagined effect on God, but in its efficacy as an expression of the mind and heart of the worshiper; and that the idea of self-sacrifice on the part of God for man is quite explicit in the teachings of Isaiah concerning the suffering Servant of Jehovah. Now it is perfectly true that, according to the law of Moses, God Himself approaches the sinner in mercy and provides in the sacrifices the ways and means of reconciliation.
Man did not invent this way himself. He even received the animals for the sacrifices from the hand of God. It is also true that the sacrifices did not, strictly speaking, effect a change in God, as supposed in the heathen religions; and that they served, at least in part, to express the religious attitude of the offerer. And it is equally true that God provided the supreme sacrifice in the suffering Servant of Jehovah. But all this does not disprove the objective reference of the Old Testament sacrifices. Though they could only be brought because God provided them, and though this provision already testifies to the fact that God was disposed to forgive the sinner, they were never theless sacrifices which man brought to God, and not vice versa. The writer of Hebrews says that the things pertaining to God
consisted in "offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins." And according to the Old Testament they were not mere expressions of devotion and gratitude, but served to atone for sin, Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26,
31, 35. The friends of Job are enjoined to bring sacrifices, "lest," says the Lord, "I deal with you after your folly," Job. 42:8. These sacrifices, it is true, did not bring about a change in Him who is the Unchangeable One, but did interpose something between Him and the sinner or sin, so that the wrath of God was warded off from the transgressor.
Meaning of Hebrew and Greek terms.
The Hebrew word for "to atone" (KIPPER) points in the same direction. It expresses the idea of atonement for sin by covering sin or the sinner. The blood of the sacrifice is interposed between God and the sinner, so that the wrath of God terminates on it and not on the guilty party. It has the effect therefore of warding off the wrath of God from the sinner. In the Septuagint and in the New Testament two Greek terms are used in a related sense (HILASKOMAI and HILASMOS). In classical Greek the verb means "to render propitious," "to propitiate," and the noun "a propitiation" or "appeasing," or "the means of propitiation." As a rendering of the Hebrew word (KIPPER) the verb may mean "to propitiate," "to expiate," or "to atone," and the noun may be rendered "propitiation,"
"expiation," or "atonement." They are terms of an objective character. In classical Greek they are often construed with God as the object. There is no example of this in the New Testament, but this does not prove the idea unbiblical. There are but four passages in the New Testament where the one or the other of these words is found.
The most important of these are the following three: Heb. 2:17, "Wherefore it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for (Moffat, 'to expiate') the sins of the people." This passage is best explained in the light of the Hebrew word as meaning to expiate or to make atonement for the sins of the people. 1 John 2:2, "And he is the
propitiation for our sins"; and 4:10, "And sent His Son to be propitiation for our sins. These can be explained in the same way as the preceding passage, or with God as the object understood.
Interpretation of Matt. 5:23, 24; Interpretation of Rom. 5:10.
Other Greek words are the terms rendered "to reconcile" or "reconciliation" in the New Testament
(KATALASSO
and KATALAGE). The words denote a change from enmity to friendship, and certainly have first of all an objective reference. In the discussion of these words we must take special notice of the assertion, often made with the greatest confidence, that the Bible never says that God is reconciled to us by the death of His Son, but always that we are reconciled to God. This assertion is based in a rather superficial way on single expressions of the Bible, and does not give evidence of close attention to the context. Each one of the following passages contain either the noun or the verb with respect to God: Rom. 5:10, 11; 11:15;
2 Cor. 5:18–20; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20, 22. Of these the first and the third may be regarded as the most important. Now the opponents of an objective atonement maintain that, according to these passages, the enmity is all on one side, namely, on the side of man, and that man must therefore be reconciled to God. He must lay aside his enmity against God, his hostile disposition. It is undoubtedly true that God requires this of sinners, but it is not correct to say that this constitutes the essence of their reconciliation. We have the key to the interpretation of the expression "to reconcile one's self to someone" in Matt. 5:23, 24, where the word now under consideration is used:
"If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." Here the offender is told to be reconciled to the offended party, something which he can only do, not by laying aside his own hostility (which probably does not exist and certainly is not mentioned here), but by honoring the just demands of the brother whom he has offended. Being reconciled to the brother is equivalent to seeking restoration into his favor by
pacifying him. It implies that the offended person looks with disfavor on the offender. This thought should guide us in the interpretation of Rom. 5:10, "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." The immediate connection speaks of being saved from the wrath of God. Then the passage itself contains the statement that Paul and the readers were reconciled to God, while they were yet enemies, that is, while they were still the objects of God's wrath, not through their change of disposition, but through the death of Christ. And by being reconciled they ceased to be the objects of divine wrath. Hence the reconciliation is spoken of in the following verse as something objective which they have received.
Interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:18–20.
A similar interpretation should also be given of 2 Cor. 5:18–20, "But all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Jesus
Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God." In this passage we are told that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not by prompting the men of the world to lay aside their wickedness, but by not reckoning unto them their trespasses, by forgiving their sins, by turning aside
His anger and restoring them to favor. Through the sacrifice of Christ His relationship to the subjects of redemption was changed. And now the preachers of the gospel are commissioned to offer this reconciliation, this restoration to divine favor to men, and to exhort them to accept the favor which is so graciously offered them. And when they do this, they also by the grace of God lay aside their own hostility to God. The reception of the objective reconciliation given in Christ is naturally accompanied by a subjective change on the part of the recipients. This may be called the subjective side of the