CHAPTER IV. THE DOCTRINE OF PROPITIATION. THE doctrine of the infusion of a new Life into the believer's heart, and of its triumphal progress there until the whole man is reduced under its power, presupposes, by the very fact of its gradual rather than immediate operation, the existence of a disturbing forcean adverse power which will at least attempt resistance. We come next therefore to the inquiry, whether the fourth Gospel recognizes such a fact as sin, and if so, how is it dealt with? The doctrine of the restoration of human nature through the implanting of a Divine Life, although, as we have seen, it is the central doctrine of our faith, becomes altogether useless to us if that most universal characteristic of human nature, the fact of man's universal transgression of the Divine law, be left untouched. For sin as a disease, the implanting of a Divine Life might be, and no doubt is, a remedy. For sin as an act of disobedience to a Divine Person, the fact of such an implanting is in no sense an atonement. Granted that man could be restored from the effects of his fall by the infusion of a new Life from above, how would this meet the fact that each individual of the race was deeply stained with the commission of deliberate and wilful offences against the Everlasting Ruler of the universe? How, in fact, to use the vivid language of St. Paul, can God at once be "just, and the justifier of every one who believeth in Him?" Is there any hint that such a difficulty had occurred to St. John? There can be no doubt of it. It would be a simple impertinence to take up the reader's time with the proof that St. John recognized the fact of sin. It is sufficient to inquire how he treats it. There are several significant passages in the Gospel in which the later theology of the Epistles is distinctly foreshadowed. Thus the first historical introduction of Jesus to the reader is in the words of the Baptist, "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world."2 Moreover, the 1 Rom. iii. 26. 2 St. John i. 29. We might almost infer the identity of the author of the Revelation with that of the Gospel from this one passage. No writer of the New Testament is more impressed by the figure of the Lamb than he who wrote the Revelation. The writer of that book is admitted by many who dispute the genuineness of the Gospel and many other books of the New Testament to be the disciple of the Baptist. But if the fourth Gospel be genuine, he either heard with his own ears, or must immediately after have had reported to him by others, the striking words in which that great teacher first pointed out Jesus to his disciples; for St. John was the partner and friend of St. Andrew, and, as some bave thought, his companion on this occasion. Is the continual recurrence of the figure in the Apocalypse no indication of the genuineness of the Gospel? The only other New Testament writer who speaks thus of Christ is St. Peter. The expression does not occur in St. Paul. And if it be urged that àμvós is the word in the Gospel, and apvíov in the Apocalypse, we may remember (1) that the only other place where the word apvíov occurs in the New Testament is in the Gospel of St. John; and (2) that it is the figure, rather than the precise word, which is the important point in this case. It has been disputed by commentators to which Lamb under the Jewish law the Baptist must be held to refer. We shall not perhaps be far wrong in embracing every reference which would be likely to occur to the mind of a Jew when listening to such a proclamation. For the different meanings of the word atpwv, see Hengstenberg in loc. Here, again, we He " layeth and the fact Son of Man must of necessity (deî) be "lifted up," as the serpent was in the wilderness, and this in order that He may "draw all men unto Him." down His life for the sheep," we are told, is again referred to as a proof of His surpassing love.3 He is pointed out to us as the Paschal Lamb, whose blood, let us not forget, was to be sprinkled on the doorposts, in order to save the Israelites from destruction." And these prophetic hints of Christ and His forerunner are explained by the other writings attributed to the Evangelist. Christ, who is referred to twenty-six times in the Apocalypse as "the Lamb," is there declared to have "washed us from our sins in His own blood," and to have "redeemed us by His blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." He is described as a "Lamb as it had been slain," and in His blood all the nations should wash their robes, and make them white. The Epistle, as might be expected, carries the matter further. The effects of Christ's death are formulated into a doctrine. He is the ixaoμós, ἱλασμός, the propitiatory offering for the sins of the whole world." He was "manifested to take away sin," "10 and it is "His blood" that "cleanseth us from it.11 8 may venture to include all those meanings in the scope of this unquestionably pregnant declaration. 1 St. John iii. 14, 15; Cf. Ib. viii. 28; xii. 32. In the latter passage the expression is explained to refer to the death of Jesus. 2 St. John x. 11, 15. 5 Exod. xii. 13. 3 Ib. xv. 13. 6 Rev. i. 5. 4 Ib. xix. 36. 7 Ib. v. 9. 9 1 John ii. 2; iv. 11. 8 Ib. v. 6, 12; vii. 14. 10 1 John iii. 5. Observe here a confirmation of the argument respecting the identity of authorship of the Epistle as well as the Revelation with that of the Gospel. The mind of the writer of the Epistle dwells particularly on the declaration of the Baptist. 11 Ib. i. 7. 2 This cleansing effect of the blood of Christ is moreover symbolised by effusion of blood and water from the Saviour's side mentioned with such emphasis by the Evangelist as having been seen by him at the Crucifixion. That he held the circumstance to have had some symbolical meaning is sufficiently evident from the Gospel itself, but the reference to it in the Epistle removes all possibility of doubt on the point. And if we couple this declaration with that concerning the new birth of water and the Spirit in the discourse to Nicodemus, we can hardly escape from the inference that some allusion was intended to the Sacrament of baptism, as one of the "means whereby " purification by the blood of Christ was conveyed. Yet the words "not by water only, but by water and blood," must surely involve the doctrine of Propitiation to which we have above referred. It is difficult to attach any meaning to them unless we conceive them to imply that no purification could be effectual, but such as was obtained by means of the blood of a Victim, who was offered for the salvation of our souls.3 Turn we now to the Synoptists. in perfect agreement with the fourth 1 St. John xix. 34. We shall find them 2 1 John v. 6. 3 It has been reserved for the later ages of the Church to systematise, to humanise so to speak, this Divine doctrine. The mingled simplicity and mysteriousness of the language of St. John and St. Paul is copied by the earlier Christian writers, with little or no attempt to shape it into formulas. Bishop Patteson, with that rare theological instinct with which he was endowed, has remarked on this. "The doctrine of the Atonement," he writes, "was never in ancient times, I believe, drawn out in the form in which Luther, Calvin, Wesley and others have lately stated it. The fact of the Atonement through the death of Christ was always clearly stated."-Life of Bishop Patteson,' vol. ii. p. 535. 2 All four narratives agree that significant hints were dropped by Christ and those who prophesied of Him, which were expanded by His followers into the theological system we find in the later writings of the New Testament. Remission of sins is the key-note of the Gospel system, as the restoration of fallen humanity is its complete harmony. It was foretold by Zacharias,1 it was announced by Christ, it was preached to the world with one voice by His Apostles after His Ascension. And that this was to be accomplished by His death we have a distinct declaration in the assertion that He would give His life a ransom (λúτρov ávτí) for many. The new covenant is instituted in the blood of Christ, which was shed for the remission of sins.5 And though it is remarkable how little stress is laid by the author of the third Gospel, in his treatise on the Acts of the Apostles, upon the effects of the death of Christ-though it is singular how he, or rather those whose speeches he reports, at once turn away from the thought of the Death of Christ to proclaim "the power of His Resurrection," yet there is one passage in which the sacrificial aspect of that death is plainly, if incidentally, declared. St. Paul speaks of the Church of God as "purchased with His own blood." 6 4 זיי But in the Epistles of St. Paul the doctrine of redemption through Christ's blood is most prominently brought out. It is quite unnecessary to cite many passages, when the whole of St. Paul's writings are permeated with the doctrine. But some of the most 2 Ib. iv. 18; v. 20; xxiv. 47, &c. 4 St. Matt. xx. 28. 1 St. Luke i. 77. 3 Acts ii. 38; v. 31, &c. 5 Ib. xxvi. 28, &c. 7 Acts xx. 28. |