WHAT DID THEY BELIEVE?
[A Condenced form of the original articles]
The Atonement-Part II (Continued.) THE NATURE OF THE SACRIFICE-THE SON OF GOD DIED
SOME affect to think it derogatory to the character of God that his Son should suffer for us-the innocent for the guilty. But all such must have views of the divine government unworthy of the subject; unworthy of the eternal truth and infinite justice of a holy God. The Lord had said that death was the penalty of transgression, and that his law should not be set aside, nor its penalty relaxed; for he would by no means clear the guilty. Exodus 34:7. Was it necessary for God to keep his word? If so, in order to man’s salvation, it was necessary to clear man from guilt-to save him from sin; for as guilty, in sin, he could by no means be cleared. Reason attests that the salvation of a sinner can only be effected by providing a willing and honorable substitute. The Bible attests that God gave his own Son, and the Son gave himself to die for us. What reason, in the name of justice and mercy demands, the Bible reveals as the gift of that holy One in whom infinite justice and mercy unite. Were the opposers of an atonement as correct in reasoning as they are loud in professing reason, they would cease to abuse the Bible, and admire with wonder and with awe “the mystery of godliness.”
Inasmuch as the Law of God is honored by the death of his Son, it shows the high estimate God places on his Law; and we shall have correct views of each only so far as we have correct views of the other. Now as the glory of God was the first great object of the gospel. Luke 1:14, and, as we have seen, the honor of the law must be the chief object of an atonement, we shall best be able to estimate the value of the Law of God by having just views of the price paid for man’s redemption from its curse. And it is also true that they only can properly appreciate the gift of Christ who rightly estimate the holiness and justice of that law for which he died.
What, then, was the sacrifice offered for us? the price paid to rescue us from death? Did Christ the Son of God die? Or did a human body die, and God’s exalted Son leave it in the hour of its suffering? If the latter be correct, it will greatly detract from our views of the atonement; for the death of a mere human being, however sinless, would seem to be a very limited sacrifice for a sinful race. But, however that might be, we should not question God’s plan, if that was the plan. But what say the Scriptures! This must be our inquiry. To these we appeal.
It is mostly supposed that the pre-existent being, the Son of God, could not suffer and die: but that he left the body at the moment of its death. If so, the only humiliation the Son manifested, was to leave heaven and dwell in such a body: and so far from the death of the body being any sacrifice on the part of the higher nature, it was only a release and exemption from the state of humiliation. This would hardly justify the scripture declarations of the amazing love of God in giving his Son to die for the sins of the world.
This view supposes that there were two distinct natures in the person of Christ; but I do not so read it in the sacred oracles. But if it be so-if there were two distinct natures united for a reason, and separated in death, we must learn it in the revelation concerning him. I ask, then, What are the terms in which this distinction is revealed? What terms express his higher, or divine nature, and what terms express his mere human nature? Whoever attempts to answer these questions will find the position utterly untenable. Christ expresses both combined. “Christ, the Son of the living God”-“the man Christ Jesus,” both refer to the same person or individual; there are no forms of speech to express his personality higher than the Son of god, or Christ, and the scriptures declare that Christ, the Son of God, died.
The divinity and pre-existence of our Saviour are most clearly proved by those scriptures which refer to him as “the Word.” “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:1-3. This expresses plainly a pre-existent divinity. The same writer again says: “That which was from the beginning, .... the word of life.” 1 John 1:1. What John calls the Word in these passages, Paul calls the “Son” in Hebrews 1:1-3. “God .... hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power.” In other places in this letter this same exalted one is called Jesus and Christ. In these passages we find the divinity or “higher nature” of our Lord expressed. Indeed, language could not more plainly express it: therefore it is unnecessary to call other testimony to prove it, it being already sufficiently proved.
The first of the above quotations says the Word was God, and also the word was with God. Now it needs no proof-indeed it is self-evident-that the Word as God, was not the God he was with. And as there is but “one God” the term must be used in reference to the Word in a subordinate sense, which is explained by Paul’s calling the same pre-existent person, the Son of God. This is also confirmed by John’s saying that the Word “was with the Father.” 1 John 1:2; also calling the Word, “his son Jesus Christ.” Verse 3. Now it is reasonable that the Son should bear the name and title of his Father, especially when the Father makes him his exclusive representative to man, and clothes him with such power-“by whom he made the worlds.” That the term God is used in such sense is also proved by Paul, quoting Psalm 45:6, 7, and applying it to Jesus. “But unto the Son he saith, thy throne O God is forever and ever, ..... therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Hebrews 1:8, 9. Here the title of God is applied to the Son, and his God anointed him. This is the highest title he can bear, and it is evidently used here in a sense subordinate to its application to this Father.
It is often asserted that this exalted one came to earth and inhabited a human body, which he left in the hour of its death. But the Scriptures teach that this exalted one was the identical person that died on the cross; and in this consists the immense sacrifice made for man-the wondrous love of God and condescension of his only Son. John says, “The Word of life,” “that which was from the beginning,” “which was with the Father,” that exalted pre-existent one, “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.” 1 John 1:1, 2. this testimony of inspiration makes the Word that was with the Father from the beginning, a tangible being, appreciable to the senses of those with whom he associated. How can this be so? For an answer we turn to John 1:14. “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” This is plain language and no parable. But John is not the only witness speaking to the same intent. Said another, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ jesus: who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself:” more literately divested himself, i.e., of the glory he had with the Father before the world was. Philippians 2:5-8. Again Paul speaks of him thus: “For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same.” Hebrews 2:14. The angel also announced to Mary, that her son Jesus should be called the Son of the Highest: and, “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,” Luke 1:32, 35. Not that the “Son of the Highest” should dwell in and inhabit that which should be born of her, but her Son was the holy, pre-existent one, thus by the energy of the Holy Spirit “made flesh.” Now if the human nature of Christ existed distinct from the divine, the foregoing declarations will not apply to either: for, if that were so, the pre-existent Word was not made flesh: it was not the man, nor in the fashion of a man nor did the man, the servant, ever humble himself, or divest himself of divine glory, never having possessed it. But allowing that the Word,-the divine Son of the Most High, was made flesh, took on him the seed of Abraham, and thus changed the form and manner of his existence by the consent and might power of God, all becomes clear and harmonious.
Having noticed the humiliation of the exalted Son of God, we come to the question at issue: Who or what died for man? I answer, Christ, the Son of the Most High: the pre-existent one that was with God in the beginning: the Word, that was made flesh. Now that the scriptures I have quoted all refer to the “higher nature of Christ, the pre-existent Son of God, no one can doubt. Indeed, if the incarnation of the Holy One is not therein revealed, it cannot be revealed at all, and Socinianism is the only resort. But it is therein revealed plainly: and it is equally plain that the same Word, or Son, or Christ, died for our sins. I have remarked that the titles of the Father are given to the Son whereby he is called God. In Isaiah 9:6, 7, he is called the son given: the child born; Wonderful Counsellor: the mighty God: the everlasting Father; the Prince of Peace: and he is to sit upon the throne of David. These expressions clearly identify the anointed of God, even Jesus. And he is evidently called Prince of Peace here in the same capacity that he is called the “King of peace,” in Hebrews 7, because “he is our peace.” Ephesians 2:14, or makes peace for us on the throne of his Father: for it is only in his priestly office that he is King of Peace, that is, a priest after the order of Melchisedec. But Paul again says that he is our peace.” Ephesians 2:14, or makes peace for us on the throne of his Father: for it is only in his priestly office that he is King of Peace, that is, a priest after the order of Melchisedec. But Paul again says that he is our peace, reconciling us unto God by the cross, we being “made nigh by the blood of Christ.” Ephesians 2:13-16. We have seen the necessity of blood to make an atonement and that the high priest never entered the holiest without it; and Christ, the King of Peace, our High Priest, obtains redemption for us “by his own blood.” See Hebrews 6:20, 7, 1-3, 8, 1, 9, 11, 12. Therefore that exalted one referred to in Isaiah 9:6, 7, shed his blood or laid down his life for us. Again he is prophesied of under the name Immanuel, which Matthew said means “God with us.” The angel said he should “save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21, 23. And Paul said he accomplished this or put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” purging us “by his own blood.” Hebrews 9:11-14, 26.
The gospel according to John, as quoted, takes up the Word, in the beginning, as God, with God, by whom all things were made; says the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; represents him as saying he came from the Father and returned to him: as praying that the Father would restore to him the glory which he had with him before the world was: relates how he taught and wrought miracles: was falsely accused of the Jews: was put to death on the cross: his blood was shed: he was buried, and rose again from the dead. Now I would ask the candid reader to look at this testimony, and answer: Is the history of any other person given in this book than of him who is called the Word, who was in the beginning? And if any other individual or person was referred to, who was that person?
Philippians 2:5-8, as quoted speaks of Christ as being in the form of God: he thought it not robbery to be equal with God; was made in the likeness of man; humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Again I appeal to the candid: Is not all this spoken of one person? Or did one person humble himself, and another become obedient to death?
Paul in Colossians 1:14-20, uses the same form of expression that he does in Hebrews 1. He says of the Son: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature; for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, .... all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the first born from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell: and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself.” Here is a description of power, of authority, of fullness, of divinity, truly wonderful; yet this exalted one by whom all things were created, has made peace by the blood of his cross, and was raised from the dead; he is the head of the church, and we have redemption through his blood. Such testimony cannot be avoided; it needs no comment.
Jesus, in his testimony to the churches, takes up the same idea expressed by his apostle in Colossians 1, as being creator of all, and first born of every creature, and says: “I am the first and the last, I am he that liveth and was dead.” Revelation 1:17, 18. Here it is expressly affirmed that he who is the first and the last, was dead. Thus it is abundantly shown that Christ, the Son of the Most High, the Word, by whom the worlds were made, in whom all things consist, the first and the last, the image of the invisible God, in whom all fullness dwells, was made flesh and laid down his life, to purge us from sin, and redeem us to God by his own blood. Well might an inspired one exclaim, “Oh! the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Well might he pray that we “may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and hight, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge.”
With this clear testimony before us, we are better prepared to appreciate the Law of God, to the honor of which such an amazing sacrifice has been offered. If we estimate it according to the price paid for its vindication, we are lost in wonder, and can only pray with David, “Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Psalm 119:18. The law is holy and just, and without a sacrificial offering man must have perished. And what an offering! the brightest ornament of heaven, by whom the Eternal Father made all things, who was worthy to receive the worship of angels, became obedient to death to redeem guilty man from the curse of his Father’s law, thus showing to a wondering universe, that the law cannot be set aside, nor its judgments reversed. Truly has the Lord fulfilled his promise, to “magnify the law and make it honorable.” Isaiah 42:21. All the statements of Bible writers are shown by this to be fully warranted, in regard to its perfection, completeness, as containing the whole duty of man, the elements of justification, a rule of holiness, etc., also the remark previously made that the holiness of this law, and of course of those who would keep it perfectly, is that which grows out of the attribute of God, as pure and changeless as heaven itself. And I leave it to the candid judgment of those who lightly esteem and wantonly break the law, if God in justice spared not his Son, his well beloved Son in whom he greatly delighted, but let him suffer its penalty when he took its transgression upon him, how can you hope to escape his justice and his wrath in the great coming day, if you continue to transgress it? Can you hope that God will be more favorable to you if sin be found upon you in that day, than he was to his Son? Do not abuse his mercy, because he grants the “remission of sins that are past,” by claiming indulgence for sins in the future. Be warned in time, for Christ is not the minister of sin, but of righteousness. He will not save you in sin, but from sin. While the carnal mind is enmity against God, and not subject to his law, the Christian can say, “I delight in the law of God.” Romans 7:22; 8:7. Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald - October 27, 1863, p. 174.6
James H. White
(To be Continued.)
(To be Continued.)
The Atonement-Part II (Continued.) THE DOCTRINE OF A TRINITY DEGRADES THE ATONEMENT
I AM aware that many attach so much sanctity to the term “trinity,” that it will appear like irreverence, in their eyes, to speak thus of that doctrine: but I write with feelings of reverence for every scripture doctrine and scripture fact, while I do not profess reverence for human opinions and inventions. I reverence the Scriptures, but not men’s opinions of the Scriptures.
Many writers appear to think that the atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But I fail to see any such connection. On the contrary the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty they seem anxious to avoid. And here it is curious to observe how the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ,-the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that “Christ” comprehends two natures; one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die: that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt. Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more. No matter how exalted the pre-existent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died the sacrifice was only human. And so far as the vicarious death of Christ is concerned, this is Socinianism. Thus I think the remark just that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis. A few quotations will show the correctness of this assertion.
“As God he obeyed all the requirements of the law, and made it honorable in the justification of sinners; as man, he bore its curse on the tree, and endured its penalty.” Manual of Atonement, p.25.
“The sufferings of Christ were endured in his human nature. Though possessing a divine nature, yet in that he could not suffer and die. His sufferings were endured in his human nature.” Id. p.88.
“It is no part of the doctrine of the atonement that the divine nature, in the person of the Saviour, suffered.” Barnes on Atonement, p.224.
“It was meet that the mediator should be man, that he might be capable of suffering death; for, as God, he could not die.” Buck’s Theol. Diet. Art. Mediator.
“Trinitarians do not hold to the sufferings or death of divinity.” Mattison on the Trinity, p.39.
“His mediation between God and man is chiefly in his human nature, in which alone he was capable of suffering and dying.” Scott on 1 Timothy 2:5.
“I know not any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the Divine nature of Lord to be begotten of God, or to be the Son of God.” Clarke on Hebrews 1:8.
“Is it to be wondered that the human body in which this fullness of the Godhead dwelt, and in which the punishment due to our sins was borne upon the tree, should be exalted above all human and all created things?” Id. on Philippians 2:9.
Dr. Clarke says the apostle John doubtless directed his first letter against the heretics then abounding. Of them in his note on 1 John 1:8, he says: “The Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered: the AEon, or Divine Being that dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the jews,” etc.
So far as that particular heresy of the Gnostics is concerned, it has become wide-spread and almost all-prevailing in the denominations of the present day.
I have already shown that the Son of God, who was in the beginning, by whom the worlds were made, suffered death for us; the oft-repeated declarations of theological writers that a mere human body died, are by the Scriptures, proved untrue. They take the doctrine of a trinity for their basis and assume that Christ is the second person in the trinity, and could not die. Again, they assume that death is not a cessation of life: and between the two unscriptural assumptions they involve themselves in numerous difficulties, and load the doctrine of the atonement with unreasonable contradictions. As the doctrine of a trinity is fundamental with so many, and is the cause of such radical errors’ being introduced into their views of the atonement, it may be permitted to notice it further.
In the “Manual of the Atonement,” 1 John 5:20, is quoted as containing most conclusive evidence of a trinity and of the Supreme Deity of Christ. It is there claimed that he is called “the true God and eternal life.” The whole verse reads thus: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” A person must be strongly wedded to a theory who can read this verse and not see the distinction therein contained between the true God and the Son of God. “We are in him that is true.” How? “In his Son Jesus Christ.” The distinction between Christ and the true God is most clearly shown by the Saviour’s own words in John 17:3: “That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Much stress is laid on Isaiah 9:6, as proving a trinity, which I have quoted and referred to our High Priest who shed his blood for us. the advocates of that theory will say that it refers to a trinity because Christ is called the everlasting Father. But for this reason, with others, I affirm that it can have no reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he the Son? or if he is both father and son, how can there be a trinity? for a trinity is three persons. To recognize a trinity the distinction between the father and son must be preserved. Christ is called “the second person in the trinity;” but if this text proves a trinity or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the second but the first. And if he is the first who is the second? It is very plain that this text has no reference to such a doctrine.
In seeking an explanation of this text we must bear in mind the work of Christ as brought to view in this and parallel passages. These words refer to the “child born,” the “son given,” who, as we have seen, bears the title of God subordinate to his Father. And if an apostle could call himself the father of those whom he had begotten in the gospel, (1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4), how appropriately is this title applied to the Prince of Peace who is, in a peculiar sense, the everlasting father of all to whom he gives everlasting life. The New Jerusalem is called the Bride, the Lamb’s wife; Revelation 21; Christ of course is the Bridegroom, the husband. But Paul says Jerusalem above is our mother. Galatians 4. If so, why not her husband, the bridegroom, be our father? Surely there is nothing inappropriate in this. But, as the new jerusalem is not the mother of the unregenerate, these being reckoned the children of the bondwoman, so Christ is not called their father. They are not his children, and he does not give them everlasting life. Therefore the title is applied to him in a subordinate and restricted sense. In its unrestricted and universal sense it applies only to the Supreme One, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
John 12:40, 41, has been supposed to prove the Supreme Deity of Christ, and therefore a trinity. “These things said Esaias, when he saw his [Christ’s] glory, and spake of him.” This refers to Isaiah 6, which chapter speaks of “the King, the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts;” and it is thence inferred that Christ is that Lord of hosts. But those who quote this in such a manner should know (and some of them do know) that there are in Psalm 110:1, which says: “The Lord said unto my Lord.” The first is Jehovah; the second Adonai:-the Father and Son. In Isaiah 6:3, 5, 12, Jehovah is used: in verses 1, 8, 11, Adonai is used. NowJohn 12:40, is a quotation from Isaiah 6:10, which refers to Adonai, the Son, and not to Jehovah. Many have been misled by a wrong application of this text. Those who know the fact above stated cannot honestly use it as it has been used in theological controversies.
Jeremiah 23:5, 6, is supposed to afford decisive proof of a trinity, in that “the Branch” which is raised up unto David shall be called Jehovah. Clarke, in his commentary gives the following rendering of this text, from Dr. Blayney: “And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, our righteousness.” He adds:
“Dr. Blayney thus accounts for his translation:- Literally, according to the Hebrew idiom,-and this is his name by which Jehovah shall call our righteousness; a phrase exactly the same as, ‘And Jehovah shall call him so,’ which implies that God would make him such as he called him, that is, our righteousness; or the Author and means of our salvation and acceptance. So that by the same metonomy Christ is said to ‘have been made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.’ 1 Corinthians 1:30.
“I doubt not that some persons will be offended with me, for depriving them by this translation of a favorite argument for proving the Divinity of our Saviour from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it. I have done it with no ill design: but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have so translated it before me in an age when there could not possibly be any bias or prejudice either for or against the forementioned doctrine,-a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only.”
On this Dr. Clarke remarks: “I prefer the translation of Blayney to all others. ..... As to those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, they must be content, to stand out of the list of Hebrew critics. I believe Jesus to be Jehovah, but I doubt much whether this text calls him so.”
And if this text does not call him so, he will find little ground for such belief. This shows the necessity of distinguishing between a criticism, and an opinion. Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald - November 3, 1863, p. 182.20
James H. White
(To be Continued.)
(To be Continued.)
The Atonement-Part II THE DOCTRINE OF A TRINITY DEGRADES THE ATONEMENT. (Continued.)
THE great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, seems to be this: They make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And I would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the twonatures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, to that one which died or shed his blood for us; for “we have redemption through his blood.” Then it is evident, that if only the human nature died, our redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely I said right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism.
But we are not the only ones who see this difficulty in the trinitarian views of the atoning sacrifice. Their own expressions betray a sense of the weakness of their position, and of the necessity of something more than a human offering for the redemption of man. Dr. Barnes, as quoted, says that “the divine nature in the person of Christ” could not suffer, nor die; yet, in speaking of the nature of the atonement, he says:
“If it be a part of the doctrine of the atonement, and essential to that doctrine, that the Redeemer was divine, that he was “God manifest in the flesh,” that there was in a proper sense an incarnation of Deity, then it is clear that such an incarnation, and the sufferings of such an one on a cross, were events adapted to make an impression on the universe at large, deeper by far than would be done by the sufferings of the guilty themselves.” “All must feel that it was appropriate that the Eternal Father should command the sun to withdraw his beams, and the earth to tremble, and the rocks to rend-to spread a universal pall over the world-when his Son expired on the cross.” “He had descended from Heaven, and had taken upon himself the form of a servant. He had subjected himself voluntarily to poverty, shame and contempt; he had been bound, and scourged, and publicly rejected; he had submitted to a mock trial and to an unjust condemnation; he had borne his own cross to the place of crucifixion, and had voluntarily given himself up to be put to death in a form that involved the keenest torture that man could inflict.” Pp.255-6-7.
If it were true that the divine nature-that which “descended from heaven”-could not suffer and die, such remarks as the above are only calculated to mislead; and to my mind they betray a consciousness, on the part of the writer, that if the sacrifice was only human, as he had elsewhere said, the offering lacked in dignity, and the atonement in efficacy.
The Manual of Atonement, as quoted, says he could only die as man; that in his divine nature he could neither suffer nor die; and yet uses the following words:
“It was sin that drew Christ from the skies, and influenced him to lead a life of suffering in this world. It was sin that wounded his sacred head-that agonized his soul in the garden-that led him to Calvary-that nailed him to the cross, and drew out his heart’s blood as a sin-atoning sacrifice.” P.138.
Who would not suppose from the above that the very Christ that came “from the skies,” died on the cross? Why is this language used? Evidently to make an impression of the enormity of the sin, and the value of the sacrifice, which could not be made by the death of a human being. That object might be accomplished without any contradiction, by allowing what the Scriptures plainly teach of the death of the Son of God.
Dr. Scott, who says his death was only in his human nature, further says:
“‘I am he that liveth;’ the ever-living, self-existent God, to whom as mediator it was given to have life in himself, and to be the life of men: and who had also been obedient to death for sinners; but behold he was alive as the first fruits of the resurrection, to die no more.”-Note on Revelation 1:18.
“This same person, who created and upholds all worlds, as the high priest of his people, purged away the guilt of their sins, by himself, and the sacrifice of his death upon the cross.”-Note on Hebrews 1:3.
If it was given to the “self-existent God” to have life in himself, by whom was it given? Here is a plain declaration that “the ever-living, self-existent God” died for sinners; which I cannot believe, and Dr. Scott did not believe: for he contradicts it elsewhere. The self-existent God could not purge away our sin “by himself,” but the Son of God could “by himself,” (as Paul says, Hebrews 1) and the self-existent God couldby his Son; for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Dr. Clarke, in his Commentary, says:
“Considering him (Paul) as writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, then we have from the plain, grammatical meaning of the words which he has used, the fullest demonstration (for the Spirit of God cannot lie,) that He who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification, and in whose blood we have redemption, was GOD over all.”-Clarke on Colossians 1.
“‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.’ If this be said of the Son of God, i.e., of Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ must be God: and indeed the design of the Apostle is to prove this.”-Id. on Hebrews 1:8.
Dr. Clarke thinks it was the human, not “the divine nature of our Lord” that died: hence, that human nature, according to his note on Colossians 1,is GOD over all.” Again: he says that the divine nature was not the “Son of God,” but Hebrews 1:8 speaks of the Son: on which he says it “must be God;” and that “the design of the Apostle is to prove this.” Now, if the “divine nature” was God, as he affirms, and if “the Son” or the “human nature” was also God, as he says in this note, and these natures are so distinct that what is affirmed of one may not be affirmed of the other, the conclusion is unavoidable that, in the person of our Lord, there was a Divine God and a human God. Nothing can be more absurd or ridiculous than “theology” and “divinity” are rendered by the learned doctors.
Dr. John Harris, in his first volume on Theological Science-the Pre-Adamite Earth-says:
“For en arche-in the beginning-even then He already en-was. The assertion of his pre-existence is included alike in arche and in en. For when every created thing had yet to be, He already was. He comprehends every being in himself.” P.31.
Of Christ as the Logos, the “Divine Revealer,” he says:
“Now, the being who sustains this relation must, in every respect, be co-equal with God.” P.33.
And speaking of his manifestation he uses the following language:
“His disciples subsequently declared, that the life had been manifested, and that they had seen it: that that which was from the beginning they had handled and seen, even the Word of Life.” P.34.
Now, when the disciples also declare that that Word which they saw and handled, was put to death on the cross, and rose from the dead, we cannot avoid the conclusion that that which was from the beginning, which was before all things, actually died for man. Of course we cannot believe what men say about his being coequal with God in every respect, and that the Divine Son of God could not suffer nor die. These are mere human words. But that the Word, or Logos, was the Son of God, that he was before all things, that he was made flesh, that he was seen and handled of men, that he was put to death, that he was raised from the dead; these are the words of inspiration. “What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.” So long as such inconsistencies and contradictions, as those here pointed out, are put forth by the professed advocates of truth, so long must the truth suffer the painful consequences. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald - November 10, 1863, p. 190.19
James H. White [END]
