The Doctrine Of The Atonement (J Gresham Machen)

I owe a great debt to John Gresham Machen for my understanding of Paul’s theology. At a time when I was uncertain about some aspects of Paul’s theology, his The Origin of Paul’s Religion came to my rescue. I consider it a classic alongside Herman Ridderbos’ Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Over the years, I have purchased and read some more of Machen’s books and I have found everyone of them helpful, stimulating and, not least of all, strengthening. Let me name a few here which should grace our bookshelves: The Virgin Birth of Christ, Christianity and Liberalism, The New Testament: An Introduction To Its Literature and History, What is Faith?, and The Christian Faith in the Modern World. What is evident in all his books is the obvious spiritual struggle he himself faced at a time when “liberalism” was overtaking the evangelical faith in the 1920s-1930s. He felt then that he had to stand for the evangelical faith, and stand he did. He quitted his post at Princeton Seminary (which was becoming more liberal) and founded Westminster Theological Seminary. He also was a founding member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in USA. Machen was a sturdy “defender of the faith” because his own faith as a young seminarian had been attacked and tested by “liberalism” while pursuing theological studies in Germany. By God’s grace, he not only clung to his evangelical faith; his own experience informed him that he must defend the evangelical faith even though he knew it would make him unpopular. By the way, Machen had a great admiration for B B Warfield who taught him while he was a student at Princeton Seminary. He described Warfield as the greatest man he has ever met. I am not surprised that having read and found Warfield so helpful, I should find the same with Machen. They both were, in their own ways, great defenders of the evangelical faith.

This post is the first of three addresses which Machen broadcasted on the radio on three consecutive Sundays just before his death on January 1, 1937. They sum up in a very poignant way what he believed was the essence of the evangelical faith. The next two addresses will follow in future postings.

____________________________________

The priestly work of Christ, or at least that part of it in which He offered Himself up as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God, is commonly called the atonement, and the doctrine which sets it forth is commonly called the doctrine of the atonement. That doctrine is at the very heart of what is taught in the Word of God. Before we present that doctrine, we ought to observe that the term by which it is ordinarily designated is not altogether free from objection.

When I say that the term ‘atonement’ is open to objection, I am not referring to the fact that it occurs only once in the King James Version of the New Testament, and is therefore, so far as New Testament usage is concerned, not a common Biblical term. A good many other terms which are rare in the Bible are nevertheless admirable terms when one comes to summarise Biblical teaching. As a matter of fact this term is rather common in the Old Testament (though it occurs only that once in the New Testament), but that fact would not be necessary to commend it if it were satisfactory in other ways. Even if it were not common in either Testament it still might be exactly the term for us to use to designate by one word what the Bible teaches in a number of words.

The real objection to it is of an entirely different kind. It is a twofold objection. The word atonement in the first place, is ambiguous, and in the second place, it is not broad enough.

The one place where the word occurs in the King James Version of the New Testament is Romans 5:11, where Paul says:

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Here the word is used to translate a Greek word meaning ‘reconciliation.’ This usage seems to be very close to the etymological meaning of the word, for it does seem to be true that the English word ‘atonement’ means ‘atonement.’ It is, therefore, according to its derivation, a natural word to designate the state of reconciliation between two parties formerly at variance.

In the Old Testament, on the other hand, where the word occurs in the King James Version not once, but forty or fifty times, it has a different meaning; it has the meaning of ‘propitiation.’ Thus we read in Leviticus 1:4, regarding a man who brings a bullock to be killed as a burnt offering:

And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

So also the word occurs some eight times in the King James Version in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, where the provisions of the law are set forth regarding the great day of atonement. Take, for example, the following verses in that chapter:

And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house (Lev. 16:6).

Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat: And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness (Lev. 16:15f.).

In these passages the meaning of the word is clear. God has been offended because of the sins of the people or of individuals among His people. The priest kills the animal which is brought as a sacrifice. God is thereby propitiated, and those who have offended God are forgiven.

I am not now asking whether those Old Testament sacrifices brought forgiveness in themselves, or merely as prophecies of a greater sacrifice to come; I am not now considering the significant limitations which the Old Testament law attributes to their efficacy. We shall try to deal with those matters in some subsequent talk. All that I am here interested in is the use of the word ‘atonement’ in the English Bible. All that I am saying is that that word in the Old Testament clearly conveys the notion of something that is done to satisfy God in order that the sins of men may be forgiven and their communion with God restored.

Somewhat akin to this Old Testament use of the word ‘atonement’ is the use of it in our everyday parlance where religion is not at all in view. Thus we often say that someone in his youth was guilty of a grievous fault but has fully ‘atoned’ for it or made full ‘atonement’ for it by a long and useful life. We mean by that that the person in question has — if we may use a colloquial phrase — ‘made up for’ his youthful indiscretion by his subsequent life of usefulness and rectitude. Mind you, I am not at all saying that a man can really ‘make up for’ or ‘atone for’ a youthful sin by a subsequent life of usefulness and rectitude; but I am just saying that that indicates the way in which the English word is used. In our ordinary usage the word certainly conveys the idea of something like compensation for some wrong that has been done.

It certainly conveys that notion also in those Old Testament passages. Of course that is not the only notion that it conveys in those passages. There the use of the word is very much more specific. The compensation which is indicated by the word is a compensation rendered to God, and it is a compensation that has become necessary because of an offence committed against God. Still, the notion of compensation or satisfaction is clearly in the word. God is offended because of sin; satisfaction is made to Him in some way by the sacrifice; and so His favour is restored.

Thus in the English Bible the word ‘atonement’ is used in two rather distinct senses. In its one occurrence in the New Testament it designates the particular means by which such reconciliation is effected — namely, the sacrifice which God is pleased to accept in order that man may again be received into favour.

Now of these two uses of the word it is unquestionably the Old Testament use which is followed when we speak of the ‘doctrine of the atonement.’ We mean by the word, when we thus use it in theology, not the reconciliation between God and man, not the ‘at-onement’ between God and man, but specifically the means by which that reconciliation is effected — namely, the death of Christ as something that was necessary in order that sinful man might be received into communion with God.

I do not see any great objection to the use of the word in that way — provided only that we are perfectly clear that we are using it in that way. Certainly it has acquired too firm a place in Christian theology and has gathered around it too many precious associations for us to think, now, of trying to dislodge it.

However, there is another word which would in itself have been much better, and it is really a great pity that it has not come into more general use in this connection. That is the word ‘satisfaction.’ If we only had acquired the habit of saying that Christ made full satisfaction to God for man that would have conveyed a more adequate account of Christ’s priestly work as our Redeemer than the word ‘atonement’ can convey. It designates what the word ‘atonement’ — rightly understood — designates, and it also designates something more. We shall see what that something more is in a subsequent talk.

But it is time now for us to enter definitely into our great subject. Men were estranged from God by sin; Christ as their great high priest has brought them back into communion with God. How has He done so? That is the question with which we shall be dealing in a number of the talks that now follow.

This afternoon all that I can do is to try to state the Scripture doctrine in bare summary (or begin to state it), leaving it to subsequent talks to show how that Scripture doctrine is actually taught in the Scriptures, to defend it against objections, and to distinguish it clearly from various unscriptural theories.

What then in bare outline does the Bible teach about the ‘atonement’? What does it teach — to use a better term — about the satisfaction which Christ presented to God in order that sinful man might be received into God’s favour?

I cannot possibly answer this question even in bare summary unless I call your attention to the Biblical doctrine of sin with which we dealt last winter. You cannot possibly understand what the Bible says about salvation unless you understand what the Bible says about the thing from which we are saved.

If then we ask what is the Biblical doctrine of sin, we observe, in the first place, that according to the Bible all men are sinners.

Well, then, that being so, it becomes important to ask what this sin is which has affected all mankind. Is it just an excusable imperfection; is it something that can be transcended as a man can transcend the immaturity of his youthful years? Or, supposing it to be more than imperfection, supposing it to be something like a definite stain, is it a stain that can easily be removed as writing is erased from a slate?

The Bible leaves us in no doubt as to the answer to these questions. Sin, it tells us, is disobedience to the law of God, and the law of God is entirely irrevocable.

Why is the law of God irrevocable? The Bible makes that plain. Because it is rooted in the nature of God! God is righteous and that is the reason why His law is righteous. Can He then revoke His law or allow it to be disregarded? Well, there is of course no external compulsion upon Him to prevent Him from doing these things. There is none who can say to Him, ‘What doest thou?’ In that sense He can do all things. But the point is, He cannot revoke His law and still remain God. He cannot, without Himself becoming unrighteous, make His law either forbid righteousness or condone unrighteousness. When the law of God says, ‘The soul that sinneth it shall die,’ that awful penalty of death is, indeed, imposed by God’s will; but God’s will is determined by God’s nature, and God’s nature being unchangeably holy the penalty must run its course. God would be untrue to Himself, in other words, if sin were not punished; and that God should be untrue to Himself is the most impossible thing that can possibly be conceived.

Under that majestic law of God man was placed in the estate wherein he was created. Man was placed in a probation, which theologians call the covenant of works. If he obeyed the law during a certain limited period, his probation was to be over; he would be given eternal life without any further possibility of loss. If, on the other hand, he disobeyed the law, he would have death — physical death and eternal death in hell.

Man entered into that probation with every advantage. He was created in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. He was created not merely neutral with respect to goodness; he was created positively good. Yet he fell. He failed to make his goodness an assured and eternal goodness; he failed to progress from the goodness of innocency to the confirmed goodness which would have been the reward for standing the test. He transgressed the commandment of God, and so came under the awful curse of the law.

Under that curse came all mankind. That covenant of works had been made with the first man, Adam, not only for himself but for his posterity. He had stood, in that probation, in a representative capacity; he had stood — to use a better terminology — as the federal head of the race, having been made the federal head of the race by divine appointment. If he had successfully met the test, all mankind descended from him would have been born in a state of confirmed righteousness and blessedness, without any possibility of falling into sin or of losing eternal life. But as a matter of fact Adam did not successfully meet the test. He transgressed the commandment of God, and since he was the federal head, the divinely appointed representative of the race, all mankind sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression.

Thus all mankind, descended from Adam by ordinary generation, are themselves under the dreadful penalty of the law of God. They are under that penalty at birth, before they have done anything either good or bad. Part of that penalty is the want of the righteousness with which man was created, and a dreadful corruption which is called original sin. Proceeding from that corruption when men grow to years of discretion come individual acts of transgression.

Can the penalty of sin resting upon all mankind be remitted? Plainly not, if God is to remain God. That penalty of sin was ordained in the law of God, and the law of God was no mere arbitrary and changeable arrangement but an expression of the nature of God Himself. If the penalty of sin were remitted, God would become unrighteous, and that God will not become unrighteous is the most certain thing that can possibly be conceived.

How then can sinful men be saved? In one way only. Only if a substitute is provided who shall pay for them the just penalty of God’s law.

The Bible teaches that such a substitute has as a matter of fact been provided. The substitute is Jesus Christ. The law’s demands of penalty must be satisfied. There is no escaping that. But Jesus Christ satisfied those demands for us when He died instead of us on the cross.

I have used the word ‘satisfied’ advisedly. It is very important for us to observe that when Jesus died upon the cross He made a full satisfaction for our sins; He paid the penalty which the law pronounces upon our sin, not in part but in full.

In saying that, there are several misunderstandings which need to be guarded against in the most careful possible way. Only by distinguishing the Scripture doctrine carefully from several distortions of it can we understand clearly what the Scripture doctrine is. I want to point out, therefore, several things that we do not mean when we say that Christ paid the penalty of our sin by dying instead of us on the cross.

In the first place, we do not mean that when Christ took our place He became Himself a sinner. Of course He did not become a sinner. Never was His glorious righteousness and goodness more wonderfully seen than when He bore the curse of God’s law upon the cross. He was not deserving of that curse. Far from it! He was deserving of all praise.

What we mean, therefore, when we say that Christ bore our guilt is not that He became guilty, but that He paid the penalty that we so richly deserved.

In the second place, we do not mean that Christ’s sufferings were the same as the sufferings that we should have endured if we had paid the penalty of our own sins. Obviously they were not the same. Part of the sufferings that we should have endured would have been the dreadful suffering of remorse. Christ did not endure that suffering, for He had done no wrong. Moreover, our sufferings would have endured to all eternity, whereas Christ’s sufferings on the cross endured but a few hours. Plainly then His sufferings were not the same as ours would have been.

In the third place, however, an opposite error must also be warded off. If Christ’s sufferings were not the same as ours, it is also quite untrue to say that He paid only a part of the penalty that was due to us because of our sin. Some theologians have fallen into that error. When man incurred the penalty of the law, they have said, God was pleased to take some other and lesser thing — namely, the sufferings of Christ on the cross — instead of exacting the full penalty. Thus, according to these theologians, the demands of the law were not really satisfied by the death of Christ, but God was simply pleased, in arbitrary fashion, to accept something less than full satisfaction.

That is a very serious error indeed. Instead of falling into it we shall, if we are true to the Scriptures, insist that Christ on the cross paid the full and just penalty for our sin. The error arose because of a confusion between the payment of a debt and the payment of a penalty. In the case of a debt it does not make any difference who pays; all that is essential is that the creditor shall receive what is owed him. What is essential is that just the same thing shall be paid as that which stood in the bond.

But in the case of the payment of a penalty it does make a difference who pays. The law demanded that we should suffer eternal death because of our sin. Christ paid the penalty of the law in our stead. But for Him to suffer was not the same as for us to suffer. He is God, and not merely man. Therefore if He had suffered to all eternity as we should have suffered, that would not have been to pay the just penalty of the sin, but it would have been an unjust exaction of vastly more. In other words, we must get rid of merely quantitative notions in thinking of the sufferings of Christ. What He suffered on the cross was what the law of God truly demanded not of any person but of such a person as Himself when He became our substitute in paying the penalty of sin. He did therefore make full and not merely partial satisfaction for the claims of the law against us.

Finally, it is very important to observe that the Bible’s teaching about the cross of Christ does not mean that God waited for someone else to pay the penalty of sin before He would forgive the sinner. So unbelievers constantly represent it, but that representation is radically wrong. No, God Himself paid the penalty of sin — God Himself in the Person of God the Son, who loved us and gave Himself for us, God Himself in the person of God the Father who so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, God the Holy Spirit who applies to us the benefits of Christ’s death. God’s the cost and ours the marvellous gain! Who shall measure the depths of the love of God which was extended to us sinners when the Lord Jesus took our place and died in our stead upon the accursed tree?

What We Mean By 'Evangelical' (Leon Morris)

Leon Morris is no stranger to those of us who are students of the New Testament. He embodies for me a scholar who is not only able and judicious, but also warm and devotional. I have always found him helpful, and I seldom ever refuse to buy a book written by him. The first ever book of his I purchased was his commentary on the gospel of Luke (Tyndale NT Commentaries). I am particularly indebted to his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, which I consider a Christian classic. His Apocalyptic came in very handy when I was having to deal with Ezekiel and Revelation. In all these and his other books, he demonstrates no aversion to engaging those who might differ from him while still maintaining a strong and clearly defined "evangelicalism". This short paper which I have reproduced below, to my mind, represents in a very succinct manner Morris' evangelical emphasis in all his writings, emphases such as the reality of human sin, the wonder of God's grace, the absolute necessity of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross, and the consequent fruit of all those who trust in Christ as their Saviour. "What We Mean By 'Evangelical'" was first published under the same title in Working Together (1998 Issue 4), the magazine of the Australian Evangelical Alliance.

___________________

An evangelical is a gospel man, a gospel woman. “Evangelical” derives from ‘evangel’: “gospel”. By definition an evangelical is someone concerned for the gospel. This means more than that he preaches the gospel now and then. It means that for him the gospel of Christ is central. It is, of course, his message and he preaches it, constantly. But it is more than a subject of preaching. The gospel is at the centre of his thinking and living.

The Apostle Paul reminded the Corinthians of the gospel he had brought them by saying that it is of the first importance that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor.15:3). It seems to me that everything that matters to the evangelical arises from this basic proposition.
“Christ died.” The cross is the great, basic act of God. “For our sins.” That is the stubborn fact that made the cross necessary. It points to the truth that there is that in every member of the human race which makes for evil rather than for good. This has been caricatured as though evangelicals were saying that every member of the race is as bad as he can be. They are not. They are saying that none of us is perfect. None of us always does what deep in his heart of hearts he knows he ought to do. None of us measures up to God’s standard.

This stops the evangelical from being swept off his feet by the promise of any earthly utopia. He will join as readily as the next in any scheme for the betterment of others. It is part of the outworking of the love he sees on the cross that he does so. These days we are realizing more of the importance of this part of our duty to our neighbour than we used to. That is all to the good. But the evangelical does not put his trust in human endeavours. He is a pessimist. He sees that dictatorships of the left and dictatorships of the right alike end up in oppression. He sees that democracies all too often end up in muddle and soulless bureaucracy. He will do his best to make any system work, but his trust is not in systems. Every system has to work on the raw material of sinners. The evangelical is clear-sighted about this. That man is a sinner puts a firm limit on his ability to do good.

And it puts an end to the possibility of his attaining the ultimate good. The fact that he is a sinner means that he cannot work out his eternal salvation. Sin leaves its mark on life here and has consequences for the hereafter.

But the great, wonderful truth is that “Christ died for our sins.” What was impossible for men God in Christ has perfectly accomplished. He has defeated sin now and for eternity. The evangel is a message about a salvation with both temporal and eternal consequences.

Evangelicals insist with Scripture that the atonement is objective as well as subjective. It does have its effect on us, but its effect is not limited to our subjective experience. Whole books have been written on the atonement and they will doubtless continue to be written until Christ comes back. They help us understand a little of that great atoning act but none of them fully explains it. How can they? They are written by sinful people, people who are themselves immersed in the world’s evil and are making their own contribution to it. They cannot stand outside it and see what needs to be done about it. But for the evangelical the significant thing is not our inability to explain it. The significant thing is that Christ died for our sins. Whatever needed to be done He has done. Nothing can be added to that perfect divine work.

For that reason the evangelical will find himself called upon to protest from time to time against systems which claim to be Christian but which do try to add to Christ’s work, whether by calling on men to accomplish their salvation by their good deeds or by their liturgical observances or by anything else. Christ, no less than he Died, no less that. All our shabby shibboleths vanish before His sacrificial love.

Confronted with the cross I may respond and turn to Christ in faith and love. Or I may harden my heart. To respond to Christ’s love is to become a different person. The whole set of the life is changed. Evangelicals have always insisted on the necessity for conversion. This may happen in one sudden, blinding experience (as with Saul of Tarsus). Or it may happen gradually (as with Timothy). The time is immaterial. The turning is everything. And it happens to all who come to Christ. The evangelical despairs of no one. The evangelical is an optimist.

It is easy to see the cross as a magnificent incentive to laziness. Christ has done everything. I can do nothing. Therefore I will do nothing. But that is not the way the New Testament sees it. John can write, “Herein is love, not that we love God (we will never understand love if we start from the human end), but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Then he goes on, “Beloved, if God so loved us we ought to love one another, too” (1 Jn. 4:10-11). Notice John’s verb. We ought, we ‘owe it’ to love one another. Love is not an occupation for somewhat soppy and sentimental citizens with a distaste for determined action. It is a demand made on all God’s people as their response to His great love and it is love that overflows in activities for others as 1 Corinthians 13 makes clear for all time. Love is demanding. Christ did not die, as someone has put it, “for the flim-flam of respectable Christianity”. Away with that kind of nonsense! Christ died for our sins, died to put them away so that we become loving people.

We of the human race know a love for attractive people, for beautiful people, for those who love us. Christ’s love is for sinners (Rom. 5:8), a love which puts away sin and rebukes all our self centredness so that love becomes our mainspring. This means in the first instance that we love other believers. The evangelical sees the church, the beloved community, as an integral part of the purpose of God. And in the second instance it means loving those outside. It means being loving people, for we are the followers of Him who died for sinners. It means evangelism as we bring to sinners the best gift we have.

Evangelicals have sometimes been regarded as hard-liners, people without sympathy for those who deviate by a hairsbreadth from our respectable orthodoxy. Who can say that we are guiltless? “Envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness” are endemic in the human race and we have our share. Repentance for our past sins and a discovery of ways in which we can show that loving response which the New Testament sees as flowing from the cross is therefore an authentic part of evangelicalism.

But the cross speaks not only about love but about lowliness. Nowadays we are told that “small is beautiful”. Put in these terms the thought is new. But its essence has always been part of evangelical religion. The cross condemns all self-seeking. How can anyone who has entered into the meaning of the cross seek great things for himself? The evangelical is a servant of God’s people, a servant of the church, and a servant of the community of which is a part. He is one who has heard a call to take up his cross (Luke. 9:23). His life style is different because of what the cross means to him.

There is a further implication. The standard set before him is one he cannot reach. He knows that. But he knows too that on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came down on the infant church in the likeness of cleansing fire and powerful wind. “It was not yet ‘spirit’”, John wrote concerning Jesus’ life, “because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn 7:39). But when Jesus had accomplished His great work the Spirit came. The indwelling and empowering of the Spirit is an integral part of the Christian life as the evangelical understands it. He uses words like ‘sanctification’ and ‘holiness’ which speak of the need for a standard he can never reach for himself but which speak also of what the Spirit does in the believer.

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” The reference to Scripture means that the death of Christ was in line with the will of the Father. A great divine purpose was worked out in the atonement, a purpose revealed in the Bible.

Evangelicals have always put a great emphasis on the place of the Bible. This has not been out of perverse dogmatism, but from a profound conviction that it is important to the Christian faith. Many religions in the world are religions of ideas. One could say that in those cases it is the ideas and not the people who originated them that matter. It could be said that it does not greatly matter whether Gautama Buddha or Muhammed ever lived. What matters is that there are certain great ideas associated with their names and that by those ideas millions of our fellow men live.

But this kind of reasoning does not apply to Christianity. It is true that Christianity has some great ideas and it does not matter greatly who originated them. But what Paul is telling us is something different. He is saying that something happened. Christ died. This is not simply an idea. It is a historical fact. The gospel message is that once God came into history in the person of Jesus Christ. He came to live a life of lowly service and to die on Calvary’s cross “for our sins”.

Christianity is a historical religion in a way that no other religion is. Unless we have access to the facts we are cut off from our roots. And our access is by way of “the Scriptures”. They are the means God has given us to bring us the gospel. So evangelicals have always thankfully received this good gift of God and have regarded it as of the utmost importance that we have a Bible on which we can rely. They point to the express teaching of our Lord himself and to that of the apostles. And they point to the necessity for the facts of the gospel to be reliably attested.

There are other things that evangelicals hold. I am not giving an exhaustive list of evangelical convictions. I am saying that they all stem from the evangel . The whole system of the evangelical is the outworking of the gospel. With whatever blunderings and mistakes the evangelical tries to unfold the implications of salvation through the cross and to live by them. The evangelical man or woman is, above all else, a product, and a bearer of the gospel.