Basic HTML Version
367
3. SUCH AN ATONEMENT ASSUMES AN IMPOSSIBLE TRANSFER OF WRATH.
It is pointed out
that this doctrine of the atonement holds that God transferred His wrath against the sinner to
the Mediator, which is unthinkable; and that He also transferred the punishment of the sinner
to Christ, which is manifestly illegal. In answer to this it may be said, however, that the wrath of
God does not partake of the nature of personal vindictiveness, such as we witness among men,
and which they would find it hard to transfer from the object of their hatred to a perfectly
innocent person. It is God’s holy displeasure against sin, a displeasure to which the sinner is
also exposed as long as the guilt of sin is not removed. It is also quite natural that, when the
guilt of sin as liability to punishment was transferred to Jesus Christ, the wrath of God against
sin was similarly transferred. Moreover, it cannot be said that the transfer of the punishment to
Christ was manifestly illegal, because, as a matter of fact, He identified Himself with His people.
He made satisfaction as the responsible Head of a community for those who in union with Him
constituted one legal corporate body. This responsible union was constituted, says Hodge, (a)
by His own voluntary assumption of the legal responsibilities of His people, (b) by the
recognition of His sponsorship by God, and (c) by His assumption of our nature.
4. SUCH AN ATONEMENT IS NOT TAUGHT IN THE GOSPELS.
Some are of the opinion that the
Bible teaches no vicarious atonement or, if the Bible does, the Gospels certainly do not. And
after all, it is what Jesus taught, and not what Paul said, that counts. We need not enter upon a
lengthy discussion of this matter, since we have already shown that there is abundant proof for
a vicarious atonement in Scripture. It is true that it does not stand out so clearly in the
teachings of the Gospels as in those of the Epistles, but this is due to the fact (to express it in
the words of Crawford) “that the purpose of our Lord’s personal ministry in His life and death
were not so much the full preaching of the atonement, as the full accomplishment of the
atonement in order to the preaching of it.”[The Atonement, p. 385.] Yet even the Gospels
contain sufficient evidence for it, Matt. 20:28; John 1:29; 3:16; 10:11; 15:13; Matt. 26:27; John
6:51.
5. SUCH A DOCTRINE IS IMMORAL AND INJURIOUS.
It is also claimed that this view of the
atonement is immoral and injurious in its practical tendency. It is said to undermine the
authority of the moral law, and to weaken, if not destroy, the force of our obligations and
inducements to personal holiness. This objection was already made to the doctrine of free
grace in the days of Paul. The charge is not true, however, for this theory more than any other
upholds the majesty of the law, and in no way minimizes the obligation of the redeemed sinner
to render full obedience to the law. On the contrary, it offers several incentives to personal
holiness, by emphasizing the exceeding sinfulness of sin, by displaying the unspeakable love of
God and of Jesus Christ, and by the assurance of divine aid in the struggle of life, and of the
acceptance of our imperfect services in Christ.