His statement that “Where there is sin, God's wrath is unchangeably manifest as surely as God is God,” is deplorable in every way; for what then is love to a sinful world, which he rightly holds, and declares incompatible with wrath? (And see Eph. 2:3, 4, and following verses as to activity in grace.) It denies the atonement—Christ “suffering, the Just for the unjust,” —and it leaves us always under wrath; for “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” This is the effect of theoretical reasoning instead of simply receiving the scripture. What is said withal in scripture is that Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree—bore the sins of many. “Gave us his righteousness” is not found in scripture. If it be, let Dr. W. show it. This is tradition also, not scripture. He is “made righteousness to us of God” (1 Cor. 1:30), is said; but “gave us his righteousness” is never said in scripture. The difference is total; and, I insist, with Dr. W., “I must have scripture, not theological theories.” And let Dr. W. remember, too, that it is Christ suffering (from whom? of whom was He forsaken?), “the Just for the unjust,” that was to bring us to God.
But Dr. W. boldly asks, “Where is it written that man is free from wrath because God in His Son punished sins against the law, so that He can no longer be justly angry with us because of these?” Did Dr. W. ever read Isa. 53? Was not “the curse of the law” the punishment of sins? did He not suffer, “the Just for the unjust”? was He not forsaken of God? what was the cup He had to drink? was not the chastisement of our peace upon Him? is it not with His stripes we are healed? was it not for our transgressions He was wounded? was it not for sins Christ suffered, “the Just for the unjust?” It is, then, “so written.” Did it not please Jehovah to bruise Him? put Him to grief when He was making His soul an offering for sin? To whom? Was He not bearing others' iniquities there? was He not bruised for their iniquities? was it not for the transgression of Jehovah's people He was stricken? Was He not bearing the sins of many there? It is written, and written in both Testaments, that “by his stripes we are healed.” Stripes from whom? “It pleased Jehovah to bruise him.” Oh, it is sorrowful to think that any one, for a theory, can pass over the deep mystery, but revealed truth, that God was dealing with sins, our sins, in the atoning sufferings of the Son of God, “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death”! What is hard to conceive is, how Dr. W. could ask where it is written.
But we are “justified by faith,” and it is wholly unscriptural to apply this to the whole world. Scripture applies it solely to believers. I have already said I entirely agree with Dr. W. that scripture speaks of our being reconciled to God, not God to us. I would insist on it; still I do not agree with what is said of saints and forgiveness; but I make no remark on it. Only Dr. W. seems to have forgotten that the publican's supplication was ἱλάσθητι.. I admit the expression came to be used in a very general sense; but it would not support Dr. W. in his statements, but the contrary. It is based on the idea of the propitiation; of the offended person being propitiated, and so propitious. Nor does his reasoning on 2 Sam. 21:14 meet the citation. I have no objection to his translating עתר to be entreated for the land, as the English translation has it. But why was He אחךי־כן, thereupon, entreated for it? was it not on a reparation done to His judicial authority on the violated engagement made by Joshua and the princes (Josh. 9:18, 19)? The same remark applies to 2 Sam. 24:25. I do not say reconciled; but I ask why, on what ground, was God entreated—that is, heard the entreaty—as to the plague, so that it ceased Was it not because offerings were offered to Him?
His argument as to the ransom money has no force, because the question is, what is the meaning of ransom or atonement through which their lives were spared. That Christ is the only one for eternal salvation no Christian denies.
Dr. W. rests on objectionable words in his adversaries' statements. Thus he alludes to sacrifices inducing a disposition in God. Now I object to these expressions, as does Dr. W. They are drawn from the false idea of reconciling God, producing (so to speak) love in Him; and this is quite wrong, and Dr. W. on this point quite right. But they were not presented to God simply to reconcile or induce a disposition in the sinner. But, if Jehovah was entreated for the land, it is not that men entreated Him but were not heard; but that they were now heard when they entreated. What was the cause of this? The offerings presented to God, or satisfaction made to His outraged justice. When. Jehovah smelled a savor of rest and said, “I will no more curse the ground,” on whom was the effect produced by the sacrifice of Noah? The result was, the ground was no more cursed, Dr. W. will say. No doubt. So the passage says. But why? Who says that it should not be cursed any more? Who smelled the odor of rest so as not to curse any more? It is too plain and intentionally positive to admit of any question. Dr. W. is not correct when he says “the enmity” in Ephesians is the enmity between Jews and Gentiles, to the exclusion of all else. The passage speaks of reconciling both to God; still God's enmity is not spoken of. In his statements about the goats, Dr. W. seems to me wholly to have missed the mark, but I have spoken of it. I only remark here that one goat secured admission to the presence of God according to His holy nature— “boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” as is expressly and elaborately taught in Heb. 9, 10.—and the other, the removing of all the sins of God's people according to their responsibility towards Him; and Dr. W. loses an immense deal if he does not see both; and alas! it is the case with many Christians.
It is utterly untrue that nothing else is said of sacrifices than perfecting us. This is not the case, even in the Hebrews, “for then must he often have suffered.” What and from whom? Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. Offered to whom What was bearing sins? what did it mean as to Christ? Did He sweat as it were great drops of blood at the thought of justifying us? The whole work was done, “finished” on the cross, before my conscience was perfected, or even felt the need of it. He is sitting down because the work is perfect; and God has accepted it in righteousness, has glorified the man Christ at His right hand, because the man Christ had glorified Him when made sin upon the cross. It was, I repeat, wholly done, and Christ, sitting at God's right hand in consequence, before anything was done with my conscience at all—done with God alone—and, if it had not been, my conscience could not have been perfected at all. Christ's own glory as a Redeemer depended on it. And even as to us, that is not all its import; He “obtained eternal redemption” and an “eternal inheritance.” If His blood does purge our conscience, it is because “through the eternal Spirit he offered himself without spot to God.” Yea, He fills all things through it (Eph. 4:9, 10, and indeed chap. 1:23).
Besides, it is not said only, “God so loved the world,” but “the Son of man must be lifted up.” There was an incumbent necessity which He had to hear. So, as we have seen, “Jehovah smelled a sweet savor: and Jehovah said, I will no more curse.” It is totally untrue that nothing else is said about it in scripture than that “God so loved the world.”
Again, I say, in reply to the assertion “that the world was reconciled to God” in the cross, not God to the world, that it is not the manner in which God's word expresses the matter. Not a text can be cited that says anything of the sort. It is wholly unscriptural, and one of the grand mistakes of Dr. W. which misleads him as to everything. Nor, above all when Christ said, “It is finished,” was it said that the world was reconciled. It was the closing of the scene as regards the world which proves they had both seen and hated both Him and His Father, and, in that character of reconciling the world which He bore on earth, it would see Him no more (John 14:19).
I do not accept Dr. W.'s criticism as to “reconcile.” In the first place, ἱλασμός and καταλλαγή are quite different, that is, “propitiation” and “reconciliation.” And this makes his whole argument utterly worthless. But besides, though I may etymologically mean “to cover,” it does not follow that the Piel (כפּד) does, which he would, in many cases, find wholly out of place. The word for covering sins, in the ordinary sense, is כםה as כּםױ in Psa. 32; and, as far as כפּד is connected with covering, out of whose sight were they put? and how? Were they not before God, in His sight, when Christ bore them? and what was the consequence as to Him? Was not this the propitiation In Dan. 9:24 it is not said, “then shall the transgression be taken away," but to take away. To cover sin is quite another word, כםה:. To atone for iniquity is לכפּד
Further, in Heb. 9, as to “once hath he appeared to put away sin,” it is εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας, “to the removing of sin” (not sins), a wholly different matter, bearing our sins being added as a distinct thing just below. Sin will not be removed, as a result, entirely, till the new heavens and the new earth, though the effectual work which is the ground of it be accomplished.
Nor are the weeks of Daniel accomplished yet. Messiah was cut off after the sixty-ninth, לוּ ואין, and took nothing of the kingdom and Messiah-glory. But to enter into this would lead me too far, though the not giving heed to it has led to much misinterpretation of scripture in Dr. W.'s statements.
We never find the reconciling of the world to God as an effect of the cross. But if sin were “a wall of separation between God and man,” as it was, was not Christ made sin for us, and forsaken of God, according to Psa. 22? and was not propitiation wrought there when He made His soul an offering for sin, and bore the sins of many? What relation was Christ placed in to God then? Never obedience so fully accomplished, never so fully showing love to His Father, but “made sin for us, Who knew no sin.” It is not, I agree, reconciling God to us; but both Dr. W. and his adversaries take “We are reconciled,” for the world, which is wholly unscriptural; the apostle speaks of believers. In 2 Cor. 5 he is speaking of those in Christ and the new creation. He was reconciling the world; He hath reconciled us. The passage is quite clear, and the ministry of reconciliation was then committed to them, and that toward the world, Christ having been made sin for us. In Colossians it is distinctly “you,” that is, the believers at Colosse.
The effect of this error runs through every page. “God was in Christ reconciling” is spoken of as if it was the world which was reconciled, a totally different matter. The statement is wholly unscriptural. “Be ye reconciled” was the apostle's ministry to the world; that is, they were not so yet. The scriptures are “uniform” in not saying God was reconciled, uniform (it is spoken of twice) in saying believers are, and equally uniform in presenting the world as not so by Christ's death, but that His death gave the basis of the apostle's “ministry of reconciliation.” Being reconciled does not mean God being appeased. But what was the basis of that ministry? Was it Christ's taking “the curse of wrath” or not? Was that necessary in order to it, or otherwise the wrath have abode on us? God's love to us was not free “because we were righteous,” but wrought its perfect work while we were sinners. “Hereby know we love that he laid down his life for us.” That righteous state was the effect of something else, and faith in that was needed to become righteous. This theory destroys the sovereign freeness and fullness of love, as well as the propitiation by a work wrought when we were far from God and unrighteous. “God justifies the ungodly” —so scripture says at least—and that “by faith.” Faith in whom and what? Reconciling the “things,” which is yet to come, is of “things,” not of God; but Dr. W. in his explanation, does not give any meaning to “having made peace by the blood of his cross,” which precedes reconciliation.
There are many things I should not accept in Dr. W's statement here, but I pass them over ad not the main point; but he has not explained the ἱλάσθητι of the publican in the temple. I am not insisting on reconciling God, for I do not think it scriptural; but the “making peace by the blood of his cross” suffers in the hand of Dr. W. To say that God is not angry with the sinner, because He loves him, is confusion of mind. I can be angry morally and judicially, I cannot perhaps be righteously anything else, with those I dearly love. Did Christ not love those whom He looked at “with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts”? Wrath may be come upon a. people to the uttermost, and God not cease to be love, and he even who says it—Paul—not have ceased to love them devotedly. The union or meeting of infinite love and “the curse of wrath” is, by Dr. We own admission, the essential character of the cross. Dr. W. must allow me to say that his argument as to the atonement-money or the numbering of the children of Israel is wholly without force. The commandment was not concerning the numbering but concerning giving a ransom for their souls; lest they should die when they were numbered, being brought, poor sinners that they were, personally and individually under God's eye when thus numbered.
I must repeat, because the fallacy is incessantly repeated by Dr. W., that the effect produced is not that by which it is produced. He insists that the work of Christ was in order to reconcile men, to cleanse them, to justify them. Agreed. And he cites passage after passage to show this. I accept them all fully. But this does not touch the question, What was the work done, or what the sufferings endured, that this effect might be produced? What was presented to God? Christ was made a curse for us, made sin for us, suffered the Just for the unjust, was forsaken of God, drinking that dreadful cup, which could not pass away if we were to be saved. The effect was the cleansing of believers; but what was the meaning of that which cleanses them through faith, in which Christ was alone with God that they might be so cleansed? Were not men redeemed from the curse by His being made a curse for them? Was that curse God's love to Him?
And so with the goat of atonement. It was cleansing the holy place and altar, &c. No doubt; but what was done that they might be cleansed? Did not death, in figure “suffering the Just for the unjust,” come in that they might be cleansed, by reason of Israel's sins? As to the two goats, I have spoken of them; but God does not give one explanation of them, as Dr. W. says. It is not said of the first goat, “He shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited;” Aaron having confessed their sins on the head of that goat, not on the other. That both represent one Christ and one cross is true; but in confounding these two aspects of the cross, Dr. W. loses a great deal. At any rate, scripture does not give the same explanation. Is it nothing to have all one's sins taken away, never to be found again? It is Dr. W. who neglects the meaning scripture attaches to these figures.
(Continued from p. 280)
(To be continued)