Basic HTML Version
357
IV. The Nature of the Atonement
The doctrine of the atonement here presented is the penal substitutionary or satisfaction
doctrine, which is the doctrine clearly taught by the Word of God.
A. STATEMENT OF THE PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.
In the discussion of this view several particulars should be stressed.
1. THE ATONEMENT IS OBJECTIVE.
This means that the atonement makes its primary
impression on the person to whom it is made. If a man does wrong and renders satisfaction,
this satisfaction is intended to influence the person wronged and not the offending party. In the
case under consideration it means that the atonement was intended to propitiate God and to
reconcile Him to the sinner. This is undoubtedly the primary idea, but does not imply that we
can not also speak of the sinner’s being reconciled to God. Scripture does this in more than one
place, Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:19,20. But it should be borne in mind that this is not equivalent to
saying that the sinner is atoned, which would mean that God made amends or reparation, that
He rendered satisfaction to the sinner. And even when we speak of the sinner as being
reconciled, this must be understood as something that is secondary. The reconciled God
justifies the sinner who accepts the reconciliation, and so operates in his heart by the Holy
Spirit, that the sinner also lays aside his wicked alienation from God, and thus enters into the
fruits of the perfect atonement of Christ. In other words, the fact that Christ reconciles God to
the sinner results in a reflex action on the sinner, in virtue of which the sinner may be said to be
reconciled to God. Since the objective atonement by Christ is an accomplished fact, and it is
now the duty of the ambassadors of Christ to induce sinners to accept the atonement and to
terminate their hostility to God, it is no wonder that the secondary and subjective side of the
reconciliation is somewhat prominent in Scripture. This statement of the objective character of
the atonement is placed in the foreground, because it represents the main difference between
those who accept the satisfaction doctrine of the atonement and all those who prefer some
other theory.
Now the question arises, whether this conception of the atonement is supported by Scripture.
It would seem to find ample support there. The following particulars should be noted:
a. The fundamental character of the priesthood clearly points in that direction.
While the
prophets represented God among men, the priests in their sacrificial and intercessory work
represented men in the presence of God, and therefore looked in a Godward direction. The
writer of Hebrews expresses it thus: “For every high priest, taken from among men, is ordained
for men in things pertaining to God,” 5:1. This statement contains the following elements: (1)
The priest is taken from among men, is one of the human race, so as to be able to represent