Chapter XL: Section IV: The Offices Of Christ (1)

The Scriptures represent Christ’s offices as three in number,—prophetic, priestly, and kingly. Although these terms are derived from concrete human relations, they express perfectly distinct ideas. The prophet, the priest, and the king, of the Old Testament, were detached but designed prefigurations of him who should combine all these various activities in himself, and should furnish the ideal reality, of which they were the imperfect symbols.

_1 Cor. 1:30_—“_of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto
us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and
redemption._” Here “_wisdom_” seems to indicate the prophetic,
“_righteousness_” (or “_justification_”) the priestly, and
“_sanctification and redemption_” the kingly work of Christ.
Denovan: “Three offices are necessary. Christ must be a prophet,
to save us from the ignorance of sin; a priest, to save us from
its guilt; a king, to save us from its dominion in our flesh. Our
faith cannot have firm basis in any one of these alone, any more
than a stool can stand on less than three legs.” See Van
Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 583-586; Archer Butler, Sermons, 1:314.

A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 235—“For ‘office,’ there are two
words in Latin: _munus_ = position (of Mediator), and _officia_ =
functions (of Prophet, Priest, and King). They are not separate
offices, as are those of President, Chief-Justice, and Senator.
They are not separate functions, capable of successive and
isolated performance. They are rather like the several functions
of the one living human body—lungs, heart, brain—functionally
distinct, yet interdependent, and together constituting one life.
So the functions of Prophet, Priest, and King mutually imply one
another: Christ is always a prophetical Priest, and a priestly
Prophet; and he is always a royal Priest, and a priestly King; and
together they accomplish one redemption, to which all are equally
essential. Christ is both μεσίτης and παράκλητος.”

I. The Prophetic Office of Christ.

1. The nature of Christ’s prophetic work.

(_a_) Here we must avoid the narrow interpretation which would make the prophet a mere foreteller of future events. He was rather an inspired interpreter or revealer of the divine will, a medium of communication between God and men (προφήτης = not foreteller, but forteller, or forth-teller. _Cf._ Gen. 20:7,—of Abraham; Ps. 105:15,—of the patriarchs; Mat. 11:9,—of John the Baptist; 1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 2:20, and 3:5,—of N. T. expounders of Scripture).

_Gen. 20:7_—“_restore the man’s wife; for he is a prophet_”—spoken
of Abraham; _Ps. 105:15_—“_Touch not mine anointed ones, And do my
prophets no harm_”—spoken of the patriarchs; _Mat. 11:9_—“_But
wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say into you, and
much more than a prophet_”—spoken of John the Baptist, from whom
we have no recorded predictions, and whose pointing to Jesus as
the “_Lamb of God_” (_John 1:29_) was apparently but an echo of
_Isaiah 53_. _1 Cor. 12:28_—“_first apostles, secondly prophets_”;
_Eph. 2:20_—“_built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets_”; _3:5_—“_revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets
in the Spirit_”—all these latter texts speaking of New Testament
expounders of Scripture.

Any organ of divine revelation, or medium of divine communication,
is a prophet. “Hence,” says Philippi, “the books of Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings are called ‘_prophetæ priores_,’ or ‘the
earlier prophets.’ Bernard’s _Respice, Aspice, Prospice_ describes
the work of the prophet: for the prophet might see and might
disclose things in the past, things in the present, or things in
the future. Daniel was a prophet, in telling Nebuchadnezzar what
his dream had been, as well as in telling its interpretation
(_Dan. 2:28, 36_). The woman of Samaria rightly called Christ a
prophet, when he told her all things that ever she did (_John
4:29_).” On the work of the prophet, see Stanley, Jewish Church,
1:491.

(_b_) The prophet commonly united three methods of fulfilling his office,—those of teaching, predicting, and miracle-working. In all these respects, Jesus Christ did the work of a prophet (Deut 18:15; _cf._ Acts 3:22; Mat. 13:57; Luke 13:33; John 6:14). He taught (Mat. 5-7), he uttered predictions (Mat. 24 and 25), he wrought miracles (Mat. 8 and 9), while in his person, his life, his work, and his death, he revealed the Father (John 8:26; 14:9; 17:8).

_Deut. 18:15_—“_Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet,
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him
shall ye hearken_”; _cf._ _Acts 3:22_—where this prophecy is said
to be fulfilled in Christ. Jesus calls himself a prophet in _Mat.
13:57_—“_A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country,
and in his own house_”; _Luke 13:33_—“_Nevertheless I must go on
my way to-day and to-morrow and the day following: for it cannot
be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem._” He was called a
prophet: _John 6:14_—“_When therefore the people saw the sign
which he did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that
cometh into the world._” _John 8:26_—“_the things which I heard
from him_ [the Father], _these speak I unto the world_”;
_14:9_—“_he that hath seen me hath seen the Father_”; _17:8_—“_the
words which thou gavest me I have given unto them._”

Denovan: “Christ teaches us by his word, his Spirit, his example.”
Christ’s miracles were mainly miracles of healing. “Only sickness
is contagious with us. But Christ was an example of perfect
health, and his health was contagious. By its overflow, he healed
others. Only a ‘_touch_’ (_Mat. 9:21_) was necessary.”

Edwin P. Parker, on Horace Bushnell: “The two fundamental elements
of prophecy are insight and expression. Christian prophecy implies
insight or discernment of spiritual things by divine illumination,
and expression of them, by inspiration, in terms of Christian
truth or in the tones and cadences of Christian testimony. We may
define it, then, as the publication, under the impulse of
inspiration, and for edification, of truths perceived by divine
illumination, apprehended by faith, and assimilated by
experience.... It requires a natural basis and rational
preparation in the human mind, a suitable stock of natural gifts
on which to graft the spiritual gift for support and nourishment.
These gifts have had devout culture. They have been crowned by
illuminations and inspirations. Because insight gives foresight,
the prophet will be a seer of things as they are unfolding and
becoming; will discern far-signalings and intimations of
Providence; will forerun men to prepare the way for them, and them
for the way of God’s coming kingdom.”

2. The stages of Christ’s prophetic work.

These are four, namely:

(_a_) The preparatory work of the Logos, in enlightening mankind before the time of Christ’s advent in the flesh.—All preliminary religious knowledge, whether within or without the bounds of the chosen people, is from Christ, the revealer of God.

Christ’s prophetic work began before he came in the flesh. _John
1:9_—“_There was the true light, even the light which lighteth
every man, coming into the world_”—all the natural light of
conscience, science, philosophy, art, civilization, is the light
of Christ. Tennyson: “Our little systems have their day, They have
their day and cease to be; They are but broken lights of thee, And
thou, O Lord, art more than they.” _Heb. 12:25, 26_—“_See that ye
refuse not him that speaketh.... whose voice then_ [at Sinai]
_shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more
will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven_”;
_Luke 11:49_—“_Therefore said the wisdom of God, I will send unto
them prophets and apostles_”; _cf._ _Mat 23:34_—“_behold, I send
unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall
ye kill and crucify_”—which shows that Jesus was referring to his
own teachings, as well as to those of the earlier prophets.

(_b_) The earthly ministry of Christ incarnate.—In his earthly ministry, Christ showed himself the prophet _par excellence_. While he submitted, like the Old Testament prophets, to the direction of the Holy Spirit, unlike them, he found the sources of all knowledge and power within himself. The word of God did not _come_ to him,—he was _himself_ the Word.

_Luke 6:19_—“_And all the multitude sought to touch him; for power
came forth from him, and healed them all_”; _John 2:11_—“_This
beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and
manifested his glory_”; _8:38, 58_—“_I speak the things which I
have seen with my Father.... Before Abraham was born, I am_”;
_cf._ _Jer. 2:1_—“_the word of Jehovah came to me_”; _John
1:1_—“_In the beginning was the Word._” _Mat. 26:53_—“_twelve
legions of angels_”; _John 10:18_—of his life: “_I have power to
lay it down, and I have power to take it again_”; _34_—“_Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods,
unto whom the word of God came ... say ye of him, whom the Father
sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I
said, I am the Son of God?_” Martensen, Dogmatics, 295-301, says
of Jesus’ teaching that “its source was not inspiration, but
incarnation.” Jesus was not inspired,—he was the Inspirer.
Therefore he is the true “Master of those who know.” His disciples
act in his name; he acts in his own name.

(_c_) The guidance and teaching of his church on earth, since his ascension.—Christ’s prophetic activity is continued through the preaching of his apostles and ministers, and by the enlightening influences of his Holy Spirit (John 16:12-14; Acts 1:1). The apostles unfolded the germs of doctrine put into their hands by Christ. The church is, in a derivative sense, a prophetic institution, established to teach the world by its preaching and its ordinances. But Christians are prophets, only as being proclaimers of Christ’s teaching (Num. 11:29; Joel 2:28).

_John 16:12-14_—“_I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye
cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he shall guide you into all the truth.... He shall glorify
me: for he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you_”;
_Acts 1:1_—“_The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning
all that Jesus began both to do and to teach_”—Christ’s prophetic
work was only _begun_, during his earthly ministry; it is
continued since his ascension. The inspiration of the apostles,
the illumination of all preachers and Christians to understand and
to unfold the meaning of the word they wrote, the conviction of
sinners, and the sanctification of believers,—all these are parts
of Christ’s prophetic work, performed through the Holy Spirit.

By virtue of their union with Christ and participation in Christ’s
Spirit, all Christians are made in a secondary sense prophets, as
well as priests and kings. _Num. 11:29_—“_Would that all Jehovah’s
people were prophets, that Jehovah would put his Spirit upon
them_”; _Joel 2:28_—“_I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy._” All modern
prophecy that is true, however, is but the republication of
Christ’s message—the proclamation and expounding of truth already
revealed in Scripture. “All so-called new prophecy, from Montanus
to Swedenborg, proves its own falsity by its lack of attesting
miracles.”

A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures, 242—“Every human prophet
presupposes an infinite eternal divine Prophet from whom his
knowledge is received, just as every stream presupposes a fountain
from which it flows.... As the telescope of highest power takes
into its field the narrowest segment of the sky, so Christ the
prophet sometimes gives the intensest insight into the glowing
centre of the heavenly world to those whom this world regards as
unlearned and foolish, and the church recognizes as only babes in
Christ.”

(_d_) Christ’s final revelation of the Father to his saints in glory (John 16:25; 17:24, 26; _cf._ Is. 64:4; 1 Cor. 13:12).—Thus Christ’s prophetic work will be an endless one, as the Father whom he reveals is infinite.

_John 16:25_—“_the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto
you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of the Father_”;
_17:24_—“_I desire that where I am, they also may be with me; that
they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me_”; _26_—“_I
made known unto them thy name, and will make it known._” The
revelation of his own glory will be the revelation of the Father,
in the Son. _Is. 64:4_—“_For from of old men have not heard, nor
perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen a God besides
thee, who worketh for him that waiteth for him_”; _1 Cor.
13:12_—“_now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face:
now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was
fully known._” _Rev. 21:23_—“_And the city hath no need of the
sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God
did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb_”—not light, but
lamp. Light is something generally diffused; one sees _by_ it, but
one cannot see _it_. Lamp is the narrowing down, the
concentrating, the focusing of light, so that the light becomes
definite and visible. So in heaven Christ will be the visible God.
We shall never see the Father separate from Christ. No man or
angel has at any time seen God, “_whom no man hath seen, nor can
see._” “_The only begotten Son ... he hath declared him,_” and he
will forever declare him (_John 1:18_; _1 Tim. 6:16_).

The ministers of the gospel in modern times, so far as they are
joined to Christ and possessed by his spirit, have a right to call
themselves prophets. The prophet is one—1. sent by God and
conscious of his mission; 2. with a message from God which he is
under compulsion to deliver; 3. a message grounded in the truth of
the past, setting it in new lights for the present, and making new
applications of it for the future. The word of the Lord must come
to him; it must be his gospel; there must be things new as well as
old. All mathematics are in the simplest axiom; but it needs
divine illumination to discover them. All truth was in Jesus’
words, nay, in the first prophecy uttered after the Fall, but only
the apostles brought it out. The prophet’s message must be 4. a
message for the place and time—primarily for contemporaries and
present needs; 5. a message of eternal significance and worldwide
influence. As the prophet’s word was for the whole world, so our
word may be for other worlds, that _“__unto the principalities and
the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the
church the manifold wisdom of God__”__ (Eph. 3:10)_. It must be
also 6. a message of the kingdom and triumph of Christ, which puts
over against the distractions and calamities of the present time
the glowing ideal and the perfect consummation to which God is
leading his people: “_Blessed be the glory of Jehovah from his
place_”; “_Jehovah is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep
silence before him_” (_Ez. 3:12; Hab. 2:20_). On the whole subject
of Christ’s prophetic office, see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, IV,
2:24-27; Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 320-330; Shedd, Dogm.
Theol., 2:366-370.

II. The Priestly Office of Christ.

The priest was a person divinely appointed to transact with God on man’s behalf. He fulfilled his office, first by offering sacrifice, and secondly by making intercession. In both these respects Christ is priest.

_Hebrews 7:24-28_—“_he, because he abideth forever, hath his
priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he is able to save to the
uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever
liveth to make intercession for them. For such a high priest
became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and
made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like these
high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and
then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all,
when he offered up himself. For the law appointeth men high
priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was
after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore._” The
whole race was shut out from God by its sin. But God chose the
Israelites as a priestly nation, Levi as a priestly tribe, Aaron
as a priestly family, the high priest out of this family as type
of the great high priest, Jesus Christ. J. S. Candlish, in Bib.
World, Feb. 1897:87-97, cites the following facts with regard to
our Lord’s sufferings as proofs of the doctrine of atonement: 1.
Christ gave up his life by a perfectly free act; 2. out of regard
to God his Father and obedience to his will; 3. the bitterest
element of his suffering was that he endured it at the hand of
God; 4. this divine appointment and infliction of suffering is
inexplicable, except as Christ endured the divine judgment against
the sin of the race.

1. Christ’s Sacrificial Work, or the Doctrine of the Atonement.

The Scriptures teach that Christ obeyed and suffered in our stead, to satisfy an immanent demand of the divine holiness, and thus remove an obstacle in the divine mind to the pardon and restoration of the guilty. This statement may be expanded and explained in a preliminary way as follows:—

(_a_) The fundamental attribute of God is holiness, and holiness is not self-communicating love, but self-affirming righteousness. Holiness limits and conditions love, for love can will happiness only as happiness results from or consists with righteousness, that is, with conformity to God.

We have shown in our discussion of the divine attributes (vol. 1,
pages 268-275) that holiness is neither self-love nor love, but
self-affirming purity and right. Those who maintain that love is
self-affirming as well as self-communicating, and therefore that
holiness is God’s love for himself, must still admit that this
self-affirming love which is holiness conditions and furnishes the
standard for the self-communicating love which is benevolence. But
we hold that holiness is not identical with, nor a manifestation
of, love. Since self-maintenance must precede self-impartation;
and since benevolence finds its object, motive, standard, and
limit in righteousness, holiness, the self-affirming attribute,
can in no way be resolved into love, the self-communicating. God
must first maintain his own being before he can give to another;
and this self-maintenance must have its reason and motive in the
worth of that which is maintained. Holiness cannot be love,
because love is irrational and capricious except as it has a
standard by which it is regulated, and this standard cannot be
itself love, but must be holiness. To make holiness a form of love
is really to deny its existence, and with this to deny that any
atonement is necessary for man’s salvation.

(_b_) The universe is a reflection of God, and Christ the Logos is its life. God has constituted the universe, and humanity as a part of it, so as to express his holiness, positively by connecting happiness with righteousness, negatively by attaching unhappiness or suffering to sin.

We have seen, in vol. I, pages 109, 309-311, 335-338, that since
Christ is the Logos, the immanent God, God revealed in nature, in
humanity, and in redemption, the universe must be recognized as
created, upheld and governed by the same Being who in the course
of history was manifest in human form and who made atonement for
human sin by his death on Calvary. As all God’s creative activity
has been exercised through Christ (vol. I, page 310), so it is
Christ in whom all things consist or are held together (vol. I,
page 311). Providence, as well as preservation, is his work. He
makes the universe to reflect God, and especially God’s ethical
nature. That pain or loss universally and inevitably follow sin is
the proof that God is unalterably opposed to moral evil; and the
demands and reproaches of conscience witness that holiness is the
fundamental attribute of God’s being.

(_c_) Christ the Logos, as the Revealer of God in the universe and in humanity, must condemn sin by visiting upon it the suffering which is its penalty; while at the same time, as the Life of humanity, he must endure the reaction of God’s holiness against sin which constitutes that penalty.

Here is a double work of Christ which Paul distinctly declares in
_Rom. 8:3_—“_For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh._” The
meaning is that God did through Christ what the law could not do,
namely, accomplish deliverance for humanity; and did this by
sending his son in a nature which in us is identified with sin. In
connection with sin (περὶ ἁμαρτίας), and as an offering for sin,
God condemned sin, by condemning Christ. Expositor’s Greek
Testament, _in loco_: “When the question is asked, In what sense
did God send his Son ‘in connection with sin’, there is only one
answer possible. He sent him to expiate sin by his sacrificial
death. This is the centre and foundation of Paul’s gospel; see
_Rom. 3:25_ _sq._” But whatever God did in condemning sin he did
through Christ; “_God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself_” (_2 Cor. 5:19_); Christ was the condemner, as well as
the condemned; conscience in us, which unites the accuser and the
accused, shows us how Christ could be both the Judge and the
Sin-bearer.

(_d_) Our personality is not self-contained. We live, move, and have our being naturally in Christ the Logos. Our reason, affection, conscience, and will are complete only in him. He is generic humanity, of which we are the offshoots. When his righteousness condemns sin, and his love voluntarily endures the suffering which is sin’s penalty, humanity ratifies the judgment of God, makes full propitiation for sin, and satisfies the demands of holiness.

My personal existence is grounded in God. I cannot perceive the
world outside of me nor recognize the existence of my fellow men,
except as he bridges the gulf between me and the universe.
Complete self-consciousness would be impossible if we did not
partake of the universal Reason. The smallest child makes
assumptions and uses processes of logic which are all instinctive,
but which indicate the working in him of an absolute and infinite
Intelligence. True love is possible only as God’s love flows into
us and takes possession of us; so that the poet can truly say:
“Our loves in higher love endure.” No human will is truly free,
unless God emancipates it; only he whom the Son of God makes free
is free indeed; “_work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to
work_” (_Phil. 2:12, 13_). Our moral nature, even more than our
intellectual nature, witnesses that we are not sufficient to
ourselves, but are complete only in him in whom we live and move
and have our being (_Col. 2:10_; _Acts 17:28_). No man can make a
conscience for himself. There is a common conscience, over and
above the finite and individual conscience. That common conscience
is one in all moral beings. John Watson: “There is no
consciousness of self apart from the consciousness of other selves
and things, and no consciousness of the world apart from the
consciousness of the single Reality presupposed in both.” This
single Reality is Jesus Christ, the manifested God, the Light that
lighteth every man, and the Life of all that lives (_John 1:4,
9_). He can represent humanity before God, because his immanent
Deity constitutes the very essence of humanity.

(_e_) While Christ’s love explains his willingness to endure suffering for us, only his holiness furnishes the reason for that constitution of the universe and of human nature which makes this suffering necessary. As respects us, his sufferings are substitutionary, since his divinity and his sinlessness enable him to do for us what we could never do for ourselves. Yet this substitution is also a sharing—not the work of one external to us, but of one who is the life of humanity, the soul of our soul and the life of our life, and so responsible with us for the sins of the race.

Most of the recent treatises on the Atonement have been
descriptions of the effects of the Atonement upon life and
character, but have thrown no light upon the Atonement itself, if
indeed they have not denied its existence. We must not emphasize
the effects by ignoring the cause. Scripture declares the ultimate
aim of the Atonement to be that God “_might himself be just_”
(_Rom. 3:26_); and no theory of the atonement will meet the
demands of reason or conscience that does not ground its necessity
in God’s righteousness, rather than in his love. We acknowledge
that our conceptions of atonement have suffered some change. To
our fathers the atonement was a mere historical fact, a sacrifice
offered in a few brief hours upon the Cross. It was a literal
substitution of Christ’s suffering for ours, the payment of our
debt by another, and upon the ground of that payment we are
permitted to go free. Those sufferings were soon over, and the
hymn, “Love’s Redeeming Work is Done,” expressed the believer’s
joy in a finished redemption. And all this is true. But it is only
a part of the truth. The atonement, like every other doctrine of
Christianity, is a fact of life; and such facts of life cannot be
crowded into our definitions, because they are greater than any
definitions that we can frame. We must add to the idea of
_substitution_ the idea of _sharing_. Christ’s doing and suffering
is not that of one external and foreign to us. He is bone of our
bone, and flesh of our flesh; the bearer of our humanity; yes, the
very life of the race.

(_f_) The historical work of the incarnate Christ is not itself the atonement,—it is rather the revelation of the atonement. The suffering of the incarnate Christ is the manifestation in space and time of the eternal suffering of God on account of human sin. Yet without the historical work which was finished on Calvary, the age-long suffering of God could never have been made comprehensible to men.

The life that Christ lived in Palestine and the death that he
endured on Calvary were the revelation of a union with mankind
which antedated the Fall. Being thus joined to us from the
beginning, he has suffered in all human sin; “_in all our
affliction he has been afflicted_” (_Is. 63:9_); so that the
Psalmist can say: “_Blessed be the Lord, who daily beareth our
burden, even the God who is our salvation_” (_Ps. 68:19_). The
historical sacrifice was a burning-glass which focused the
diffused rays of the Sun of righteousness and made them effective
in the melting of human hearts. The sufferings of Christ take
deepest hold upon us only when we see in them the two contrasted
but complementary truths: that holiness must make penalty to
follow sin, and that love must share that penalty with the
transgressor. The Cross was the concrete exhibition of the
holiness that required, and of the love that provided, man’s
redemption. Those six hours of pain could never have procured our
salvation if they had not been a revelation of eternal facts in
the being of God. The heart of God and the meaning of all previous
history were then unveiled. The whole evolution of humanity was
there depicted in its essential elements, on the one hand the sin
and condemnation of the race, on the other hand the grace and
suffering of him who was its life and salvation. As he who hung
upon the cross was God, manifest in the flesh, so the suffering of
the cross was God’s suffering for sin, manifest in the flesh. The
imputation of our sins to him is the result of his natural union
with us. He has been our substitute from the beginning. We cannot
quarrel with the doctrine of substitution when we see that this
substitution is but the sharing of our griefs and sorrows by him
whose very life pulsates in our veins. See A. H. Strong, Christ in
Creation, 78-80, 177-180.

(_g_) The historical sacrifice of our Lord is not only the final revelation of the heart of God, but also the manifestation of the law of universal life—the law that sin brings suffering to all connected with it, and that we can overcome sin in ourselves and in the world only by entering into the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings and Christ’s victory, or, in other words, only by union with him through faith.

We too are subject to the same law of life. We who enter into
fellowship with our Lord “_fill up ... that which is lacking of
the afflictions of Christ ... for his body’s sake, which is the
church_” (_Col. 1:24_). The Christian Church can reign with Christ
only as it partakes in his suffering. The atonement becomes a
model and stimulus to self-sacrifice, and a test of Christian
character. But it is easy to see how the subjective effect of
Christ’s sacrifice may absorb the attention, to the exclusion of
its ground and cause. The moral influence of the atonement has
taken deep hold upon our minds, and we are in danger of forgetting
that it is the holiness of God, and not the salvation of men, that
primarily requires it. When sharing excludes substitution; when
reconciliation of man to God excludes reconciliation of God to
man; when the only peace secured is peace in the sinner’s heart
and no thought is given to that peace with God which it is the
first object of the atonement to secure; then the whole
evangelical system is weakened, God’s righteousness is ignored,
and man is practically put in place of God. We must not go back to
the old mechanical and arbitrary conceptions of the atonement,—we
must go forward to a more vital apprehension of the relation of
the race to Christ. A larger knowledge of Christ, the life of
humanity, will enable us to hold fast the objective nature of the
atonement, and its necessity as grounded in the holiness of God;
while at the same time we appropriate all that is good in the
modern view of the atonement, as the final demonstration of God’s
constraining love which moves men to repentance and submission.
See A. H. Strong, Cleveland Address, 1904:16-18; Dinsmore, The
Atonement in Literature and in Life, 213-250.

A. Scripture Methods of Representing the Atonement.

We may classify the Scripture representations according as they conform to moral, commercial, legal or sacrificial analogies.

(_a_) MORAL.—The atonement is described as

A _provision originating in God’s love_, and manifesting this love to the universe; but also as an _example of disinterested love_, to secure our deliverance from selfishness.—In these latter passages, Christ’s death is referred to as a source of moral stimulus to men.

_A provision_: _John 3:16_—“_For God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son_”; _Rom. 5:8_—“_God commendeth his own
love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us_”; _1 John 4:9_—“_Herein was the love of God manifested in
us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that
we might live through him_”; _Heb. 2:9_—“_Jesus, because of the
suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace
of God he should taste of death for every man_”—redemption
originated in the love of the Father, as well as in that of the
Son.—_An example_: _Luke 9:22-24_—“_The Son of man must suffer ...
and be killed.... If any man would come after me, let him ... take
up his cross daily, and follow me ... whosoever shall lose his
life for my sake, the same shall save it_”; _2 Cor. 5:15_—“_he
died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto
themselves_”; _Gal. 1:4_—“_gave himself for our sins, that he
might deliver us out of this present __ evil world_”; _Eph.
5:25-27_—“_Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for
it; that he might sanctify it_”; _Col. 1:22_—“_reconciled in the
body of his flesh through death, to present you holy_”; _Titus
2:14_—“_gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all
iniquity, and purify_”; _1 Pet. 2:21-24_—“_Christ also suffered
for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps:
who did no sin ... who his own self bare our sins in his body upon
the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto
righteousness._” Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 181—“A pious
cottager, on hearing the text, ‘_God so loved the world_,’
exclaimed: ‘Ah, that _was_ love! I could have given myself, but I
could never have given my son.’ ” There was a wounding of the
Father through the heart of the Son: “_they shall look unto me
whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one
mourneth for his only son_” (_Zech. 12:10_).

(b) COMMERCIAL.—The atonement is described as

A _ransom_, paid to free us from the bondage of sin (note in these passages the use of ἀντί, the preposition of price, bargain, exchange).—In these passages, Christ’s death is represented as the price of our deliverance from sin and death.

_Mat. 20:28, and Mark 10:45_—“_to give his life a ransom for
many_”—λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. _1 Tim. 2:6_—“_who gave himself a
ransom for all_”—ἀντίλυτρον. Ἀντί (“_for_,” in the sense of
“instead of”) is never confounded with ὑπέρ (“_for_,” in the sense
of “in behalf of,” “for the benefit of”). Ἀντί is the preposition
of price, bargain, exchange; and this signification is traceable
in every passage where it occurs in the N. T. See _Mat.
2:22_—“_Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the room of_ [ἀντί]
_his father Herod_”; _Luke 11:11_—“_shall his son ask ... a fish,
and he for_ [ἀντί] _a fish give him a serpent?_” _Heb.
12:2_—“_Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for_
[ἀντί = as the price of] _the joy that was set before him endured
the cross_”; _16_—“_Esau, who for_ [ἀντί = in exchange for] _one
mess of meat sold his own birthright._” See also _Mat.
16:26_—“_what shall a man give in exchange for_ (ἀντάλλαγμα) _his
life_” = how shall he buy it back, when once he has lost it?
Ἀντίλυτρον = substitutionary ransom. The connection in _1 Tim.
2:6_ requires that ὑπέρ should mean “instead of.” We should
interpret this ὑπέρ by the ἀντί in _Mat. 20:28_. “Something befell
Christ, and by reason of that, the same thing need not befall
sinners” (E. Y. Mullins).

Meyer, on _Mat. 20:28_—“_to give his life a ransom for many_”—“The
ψυχή is conceived of as λύτρον, a ransom, for, through the
shedding of the blood, it becomes the τιμή (price) of redemption.”
See also _1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23_—“_ye were bought with a price_”; and
_2 Pet. 2:1_—“_denying even the Master that bought them._” The
word “redemption,” indeed, means simply “repurchase,” or “the
state of being repurchased”—_i. e._, delivered by the payment of a
price. _Rev. 5:9_—“_thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God
with thy blood men of every tribe._” Winer, N. T. Grammar, 258—“In
Greek, ἀντί is the preposition of price.” Buttmann, N. T. Grammar,
321—“In the signification of the preposition ἀντί (instead of,
for), no deviation occurs from ordinary usage.” See Grimm’s Wilke,
Lexicon Græco-Lat.: “ἀντί, _in vicem_, _anstatt_”; Thayer, Lexicon
N. T.—“ἀντί, of that for which anything is given, received,
endured; ... of the price of sale (or purchase) _Mat. 20:28_”;
also Cremer, N. T. Lex., on ἀντάλλαγμα.

Pfleiderer, in New World, Sept. 1899, doubts whether Jesus ever
really uttered the words “_give his life a ransom for many_”
(_Mat. 20:28_). He regards them as essentially Pauline, and the
result of later dogmatic reflection on the death of Jesus as a
means of redemption. So Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism,
377-381. But these words occur not in Luke, the Pauline gospel,
but in Matthew, which is much earlier. They represent at any rate
the apostolic conception of Jesus’ teaching, a conception which
Jesus himself promised should be formed under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, who should bring all things to the remembrance of his
apostles and should guide them into all the truth (_John 14:26_;
_16:13_). As will be seen below, Pfleiderer declares the Pauline
doctrine to be that of substitutionary suffering.

(_c_) LEGAL.—The atonement is described as

An act of _obedience_ to the law which sinners had violated; a _penalty_, borne in order to rescue the guilty; and an _exhibition_ of God’s righteousness, necessary to the vindication of his procedure in the pardon and restoration of sinners.—In these passages the death of Christ is represented as demanded by God’s law and government.

_Obedience_: _Gal. 4:4, 5_—“_born of a woman, born under the law,
that he might redeem them that were under the law_”; _Mat.
3:15_—“_thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness_”—Christ’s
baptism prefigured his death, and was a consecration to death;
_cf._ _Mark 10:38_—“_Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or
to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?_” _Luke
12:50_—“_I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I
straitened till it be accomplished!_” _Mat. 26:39_—“_My Father, if
it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not
as I will, but as thou wilt_”; _5:17_—“_Think not that I came to
destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to
fulfil_”; _Phil. 2:8_—“_becoming obedient even unto death_”; _Rom.
5:19_—“_through the obedience of the one shall the many be made
righteous_”; _10:4_—“_Christ is the end of the law unto
righteousness to every one that believeth._”—_Penalty_: _Rom.
4:25_—“_who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised
for our justification_”; _8:3_—“_God, sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the
flesh_”; _2 Cor. 5:21_—“_Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on
our behalf_”—here “_sin_”—a sinner, an accursed one (Meyer); _Gal.
1:4_—“_gave himself for our sins_”; _3:13_—“_Christ redeemed us
from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree_”; _cf._ _Deut
21:23_—“_he that is hanged is accursed of God._” _Heb.
9:28_—“_Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of
many_”; _cf._ _Lev. 5:17_—“_if any one sin ... yet is he guilty,
and shall bear his iniquity_”; _Num. 14:34_—“_for every day a
year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years_”; _Lam.
5:7_—“_Our fathers sinned and are not; And we have borne their
iniquities._”—_Exhibition_: _Rom. 3:25, 26_—“_whom God set forth
to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his
righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done
aforetime, in the forbearance of God_”; _cf._ _Heb. 9:15_—“_a
death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions
that were under the first covenant._”

On these passages, see an excellent section in Pfleiderer, Die
Ritschl’sche Theologie, 38-53. Pfleiderer severely criticizes
Ritschl’s evasion of their natural force and declares Paul’s
teaching to be that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the
law by suffering as a substitute the death threatened by the law
against sinners. So Orelli Cone, Paul, 261. On the other hand, L.
L. Paine, Evolution of Trinitarianism, 288-307, chapter on the New
Christian Atonement, holds that Christ taught only reconciliation
on condition of repentance. Paul added the idea of mediation drawn
from the Platonic dualism of Philo. The Epistle to the Hebrews
made Christ a sacrificial victim to propitiate God, so that the
reconciliation became Godward instead of manward. But Professor
Paine’s view that Paul taught an Arian Mediatorship is incorrect.
“_God was in Christ_” (_2 Cor. 5:19_) and God “_manifested in the
flesh_” (_1 Tim. 3:16_) are the keynote of Paul’s teaching, and
this is identical with John’s doctrine of the Logos: “_the Word
was God_,” and “_the Word became flesh_” (_John 1:1, 14_)

The Outlook, December 15, 1900, in criticizing Prof. Paine, states
three postulates of the New Trinitarianism as: 1. The essential
kinship of God and man,—in man there is an essential divineness,
in God there is an essential humanness. 2. The divine
immanence,—this universal presence gives nature its physical
unity, and humanity its moral unity. This is not pantheism, any
more than the presence of man’s spirit in all he thinks and does
proves that man’s spirit is only the sum of his experiences. 3.
God transcends all phenomena,—though in all, he is greater than
all. He entered perfectly into one man, and through this
indwelling in one man he is gradually entering into all men and
filling all men with his fulness, so that Christ will be the
first-born among many brethren. The defects of this view, which
contains many elements of truth, are: 1. That it regards Christ as
the product instead of the Producer, the divinely formed man
instead of the humanly acting God, the head man among men instead
of the Creator and Life of humanity; 2. That it therefore renders
impossible any divine bearing of the sins of all men by Jesus
Christ, and substitutes for it such a histrionic exhibition of
God’s feeling and such a beauty of example as are possible within
the limits of human nature,—in other words, there is no real Deity
of Christ and no objective atonement.

(d) SACRIFICIAL.—The atonement is described as

A work of _priestly mediation_, which reconciles God to men,—notice here that the term “reconciliation” has its usual sense of removing enmity, not from the offending, but from the offended party;—a _sin-offering_, presented on behalf of transgressors;—a _propitiation_, which satisfies the demands of violated holiness;—and a _substitution_, of Christ’s obedience and sufferings for ours.—These passages, taken together, show that Christ’s death is demanded by God’s attribute of justice, or holiness, if sinners are to be saved.

_Priestly mediation_: _Heb. 9:11, 12_—“_Christ having come a high
priest, ... nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but
through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy
place, having obtained eternal redemption_”; _Rom. 5:10_—“_while
we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of
his Son_”; _2 Cor. 5:18, 19_—“_all things are of God, who
reconciled us to himself through Christ.... God was in Christ
reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their
trespasses_”; _Eph. 2:16_—“_might reconcile them both in one body
unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby_”;
_cf._ _12, 13, 19_—“_strangers from the covenants of the
promise.... far off.... no more strangers and sojourners, but ye
are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of
God_”; _Col. 1:20_—“_through him to reconcile all things unto
himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross._”

On all these passages, see Meyer, who shows the meaning of the
apostle to be, that “we were ‘_enemies_,’ not actively, as hostile
to God, but passively, as those with whom God was angry.” The
epistle to the Romans begins with the revelation of wrath against
Gentile and Jew alike (_Rom. 1:18_). “_While we were enemies_”
(_Rom. 5:10_)—“when God was hostile to us.” “Reconciliation” is
therefore the removal of God’s wrath toward man. Meyer, on this
last passage, says that Christ’s death does not remove man’s wrath
toward God [this is not the work of Christ, but of the Holy
Spirit]. The offender reconciles the person offended, not himself.
See Denney, Com. on _Rom. 5:9-11_, in Expositor’s Gk. Test.

_Cf._ _Num. 25:13_, where Phinehas, by slaying Zimri, is said to
have “_made atonement for the children of Israel_.” Surely, the
“_atonement_” here cannot be a reconciliation of _Israel_. The
action terminates, not on the subject, but on the object—God. So,
_1 Sam. 29:4_—“_wherewith should this fellow reconcile himself
unto his lord? should it not be with the heads of these men?_”
_Mat. 5:23, 24_—“_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_ [_i. e._, remove his enmity, not
thine own], _and then come and offer thy gift._” See Shedd, Dogm.
Theol., 2:387-398.

Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl’sche Theologie, 42—“Ἐχθροὶ ὄντες (_Rom.
5:10_) = not the active disposition of enmity to God on our part,
but our passive condition under the enmity or wrath of God.” Paul
was not the author of this doctrine,—he claims that he received it
from Christ himself (_Gal. 1:12_). Simon, Reconciliation, 167—“The
idea that only man needs to be reconciled arises from a false
conception of the unchangeableness of God. But God would be
unjust, if his relation to man were the same after his sin as it
was before.” The old hymn expressed the truth: “My God is
reconciled; His pardoning voice I hear; He owns me for his child;
I can no longer fear; With filial trust I now draw nigh, And
‘Father, Abba, Father’ cry.”

_A sin-offering_: _John 1:29_—“_Behold, the Lamb of God, that
taketh away the sin of the world_”—here αἴρων means to take away
by taking or bearing; to take, and so take away. It is an allusion
to the sin-offering of _Isaiah 53:6-12_—“_when thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin ... as a lamb that is led to the
slaughter ... Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all._”
_Mat. 26:28_—“_this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured
out for many unto remission of sins_”; _cf._ _Ps. 50:5_—“_made a
covenant with me by sacrifice._” _1 John 1:7_—“_the blood of Jesus
his Son cleanseth us from all sin_”—not sanctification, but
justification; _1 Cor. 5:7_—“_our passover also hath been
sacrificed, even Christ_”; _cf._ _Deut. 16:2-6_—“_thou shalt
sacrifice the passover unto Jehovah thy God._” _Eph. 5:2_—“_gave
himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor
of a sweet smell_” (see Com. of Salmond, in Expositor’s Greek
Testament); _Heb. 9:14_—“_the blood of Christ, who through the
eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God_”; _22,
26_—“_apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.... now
once in the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away
sin by the sacrifice of himself_”; _1 Pet. 1:18, 19_—“_redeemed
... with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot, even the blood of Christ._” See Expos. Gk. Test., on _Eph.
1:7_.

Lowrie, Doctrine of St. John, 35, points out that _John
6:52-59_—“_eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood_”—is Christ’s
reference to his death in terms of _sacrifice_. So, as we shall
see below, it is a _propitiation_ (_1 John 2:2_). We therefore
strongly object to the statement of Wilson, Gospel of Atonement,
64—“Christ’s death is a sacrifice, if sacrifice means the crowning
instance of that suffering of the innocent for the guilty which
springs from the solidarity of mankind; but there is no thought of
substitution or expiation.” Wilson forgets that this necessity of
suffering arises from God’s righteousness; that without this
suffering man cannot be saved; that Christ endures what we, on
account of the insensibility of sin, cannot feel or endure; that
this suffering takes the place of ours, so that we are saved
thereby. Wilson holds that the Incarnation _constituted_ the
Atonement, and that all thought of expiation may be eliminated.
Henry B. Smith far better summed up the gospel in the words:
“Incarnation in order to Atonement.” We regard as still better the
words: “Incarnation in order to reveal the Atonement.”

_A propitiation_: _Rom. 3:25, 26_—“_whom God set forth to be a
propitiation, ... in his blood ... that he might himself be just,
and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus._” A full and
critical exposition of this passage will be found under the
Ethical Theory of the Atonement, pages 750-760. Here it is
sufficient to say that it shows: (1) that Christ’s death is a
propitiatory sacrifice; (2) that its first and main effect is upon
God; (3) that the particular attribute in God which demands the
atonement is his justice, or holiness; (4) that the satisfaction
of this holiness is the necessary condition of God’s justifying
the believer.

Compare _Luke 18:13_, marg.—“_God, be thou merciful unto me the
sinner_”; lit.: “_God be propitiated toward me the sinner_”—by the
sacrifice, whose smoke was ascending before the publican, even
while he prayed. _Heb. 2:17_—“_a merciful and faithful high priest
in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of
the people_”; _1 John 2:2_—“_and he is the propitiation for our
sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world_”;
_4:10_—“_Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved
us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins_”; _cf._
_Gen. 32:20_, LXX.—“_I will appease_ [ἐξιλάσομαι, “propitiate”]
_him with the present that goeth before me_”; _Prov. 16:14_,
LXX.—“_The wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise
man will pacify it_” [ἐξιλάσεται, “propitiate it”].

On propitiation, see Foster, Christian Life and Theology,
216—“Something was thereby done which rendered God inclined to
pardon the sinner. God is made inclined to forgive sinners by the
sacrifice, because his righteousness was exhibited by the
infliction of the penalty of sin; but not because he needed to be
inclined in heart to love the sinner or to exercise his mercy. In
fact, it was he himself who ‘_set forth_’ Jesus as ‘_a
propitiation_’ (_Rom. 3:25, 26_).” Paul never merges the objective
atonement in its subjective effects, although no writer of the New
Testament has more fully recognized these subjective effects. With
him Christ for us upon the Cross is the necessary preparation for
Christ _in_ us by his Spirit. Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 74, 75,
89, 172, unwarrantably contrasts Paul’s representation of Christ
as priest with what he calls the representation of Christ as
prophet in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “The priest says: Man’s
return to God is not enough,—there must be an expiation of man’s
sin. This is Paul’s doctrine. The prophet says: There never was a
divine provision for sacrifice. Man’s return to God is the thing
wanted. But this return must be completed. Jesus is the perfect
prophet who gives us an example of restored obedience, and who
comes in to perfect man’s imperfect work. This is the doctrine of
the Epistle to the Hebrews.” This recognition of expiation in
Paul’s teaching, together with denial of its validity and
interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews as prophetic rather
than priestly, is a curiosity of modern exegesis.

Lyman Abbott, Theology of an Evolutionist, 107-127, goes still
further and affirms: “In the N. T. God is never said to be
propitiated, nor is it ever said that Jesus Christ propitiates God
or satisfies God’s wrath.” Yet Dr. Abbott adds that in the N. T.
God is represented as self-propitiated: “Christianity is
distinguished from paganism by representing God as appeasing his
own wrath and satisfying his own justice by the forth-putting of
his own love.” This self-propitiation however must not be thought
of as a bearing of penalty: “Nowhere in the O. T. is the idea of a
sacrifice coupled with the idea of penalty,—it is always coupled
with purification—‘_with his stripes we are healed_’ (_Is. 53:5_).
And in the N. T., ‘_the Lamb of God ... taketh away the sin of the
world_’ (_John 1:29_); ‘_the blood of Jesus ... cleanseth_’ (_1
John 1:7_).... What humanity needs is not the removal of the
penalty, but removal of the sin.” This seems to us a distinct
contradiction of both Paul and John, with whom propitiation is an
essential of Christian doctrine (see _Rom. 3:25_; _1 John 2:2_),
while we grant that the propitiation is made, not by sinful man,
but by God himself in the person of his Son. See George B. Gow, on
The Place of Expiation in Human Redemption, Am. Jour. Theol.,
1900:734-756.

_A substitution_: _Luke 22:37_—“_he was reckoned with
transgressors_”; _cf._ _Lev. 16:21, 22_—“_and Aaron shall lay both
his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all
the iniquities of the children of Israel ... he shall put them
upon the head of the goat ... and the goat shall bear upon him all
their iniquities unto a solitary land_”; _Is. 53:5, 6_—“_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 Jehovah hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all._” _John 10:11_—“_the good shepherd layeth down
his life for the sheep_”; _Rom. 5:6-8_—“_while we were yet weak,
in due season Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a
righteous man will one die: for peradventure for the good man some
one would even dare to die. But God commendeth his own love toward
us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us_”; _1
Pet. 3:18_—“_Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for
the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God._”