Basic HTML Version
359
is clearly brought out in Matt. 5:23,24: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift before the altar, and
there remember that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave thy gift there before the altar,
and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother (which in this connection can only mean,
reconcile thy brother to thyself, which is objective), and then come and offer thy gift.” The
brother who had done the supposed injury is called upon to remove the grievance. He must
propitiate or reconcile his brother to himself by whatsoever compensation may be required. In
connection with the work of Christ the words under consideration in some instances certainly
denote the effecting of a change in the judicial relation between God and the sinner by
removing the judicial claim. According to II Cor. 5:19 the fact that God reconciled the world to
Himself is evident from this that He does not reckon unto them their sins. This does not point to
any moral change in man, but to the fact that the demands of the law are met, and that God is
satisfied. In Rom. 5:10,11 the term “reconciliation” can only be understood in an objective
sense, for (1) it is said to have been effected by the death of Christ, while subjective
reconciliation is the result of the work of the Spirit; (2) it was effected while we were yet
enemies, that is, were still objects of God’s wrath; and (3) it is represented in verse 11 as
something objective which we receive.
e. The terms lutron and antilutron are also objective terms.
Christ is the Goel, the liberator,
Acts 20:28; I Cor. 6:20; 7:23. He redeems sinners from the demands of God’s retributive justice.
The price is paid to God by Christ as the representative of the sinner. Clearly, the Bible
abundantly justifies us in ascribing an objective character to the atonement. Moreover, strictly
speaking, atonement in the proper sense of the word is always objective. There is no such thing
as subjective atonement. In atonement it is always the party that has done wrong that makes
amends to the one who was wronged.
2. IT IS A VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.
a. The meaning of the term “vicarious atonement.”
There is a difference between personal
and vicarious atonement. We are interested particularly in the difference between the two in
connection with the atonement of Christ. When man fell away from God, he as such owed God
reparation. But he could atone for his sin only by suffering eternally the penalty affixed to
transgression. This is what God might have required in strict justice, and would have required, if
He had not been actuated by love and compassion for the sinner. As a matter of fact, however,
God appointed a vicar in Jesus Christ to take man’s place, and this vicar atoned for sin and
obtained an eternal redemption for man. Dr. Shedd calls attention to the following points of
difference in this case: (1) Personal atonement is provided by the offending party; vicarious
atonement by the offended party. (2) Personal atonement would have excluded the element of
mercy; vicarious atonement represents the highest form of mercy. (3) Personal atonement