|
|
The following piece is from Bonar's book 'Truth and Error' or 'Letter to a friend on some controversies of the day.' This is letter 6 from that book. The Work Of Christ. "The Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood."—Acts 20:28. MY DEAR FRIEND, I do not intend to enter fully upon the subject of Christ's work. This would require a much fuller discussion than I am able at present to bestow upon it. It would in truth require a volume by itself. This, however, is the less necessary on account of Dr. Candlish's admirable work on the atonement, to which I would, in passing, call your attention. You will find sufficient materials there to enable you to judge for yourself on this momentous doctrine. All that I mean to do is, merely to advert to one or two points which may tend to establish you in the truth, and assist you in disentangling yourself from the snares laid for unwary feet in the present day. I set out then with asserting that Christ is said in Scripture to have given himself as a ransom and substitute for his Church, and to have done so in a way such as he has not done for any other beings. This seems implied in the very first promise,—the promise regarding the woman's seed. Here we have at the very outset the identifying of Christ and his people,—the setting them before us as entirely one with him. For while it is especially Christ himself that is the woman's seed, it is doubtless also his church as one with him. His destinies and theirs are thus from the beginning represented as entirely one. We recognize here not only the Redeemer, but the chosen people, the people given him of the Father, with whom he identifies himself, for whom he is to substitute himself, and in whose behoof he is to do and to suffer,—to bruise the serpent's head, and to submit to the bruising of his own heel.Or to present it in another aspect. Adam stands before us as the figure of Christ, Eve as the representative of the Church or "seed of the woman;" for it is evident that it is not all who are her seed according to the flesh that are here called her "seed," but only the chosen ones between whom and the seed of the serpent a deadly warfare was to exist. As there existed then a peculiar relationship between Adam and Eve, so there exists between Christ and his Church. And as Eve was given to Adam by God as his wife, so is the Church given by the Father to Christ as his bride. Thus two personages stand before us from the beginning,—Christ and his Church, the Bridegroom and the Bride. We find them meeting us at every turn and in every page of sacred history. It is with their history that the whole Bible may be said to be occupied; and in the glorious consummation when the Lord returns, we find the same two personages that are seen at the beginning, coming forth in visible glory and brightness,—the long absent Bridegroom returning to the beloved of his heart, and sitting down with her in festal triumph at the marriagesupper of the Lamb. Who chooses this bride for Christ? It is the Father. Who gives this bride to him? It is the Father. She is his eternal choice. She is his eternal gift to his beloved Son. She must then be the object of the Father's personal affection and regard. And as we know that this bride is composed of the great multitude that no man can number, so we are sure that each individual composing that multitude must be known and loved of the Father in a peculiar way. In the Father's purpose she is from eternity the Bride, just as in that purpose the Son is from eternity the Bridegroom. She then must be a distinct object in the Father's eye, just as much as he is. And if so in the Father's eye, so also in the Son's. If she was an object of personal and peculiar affection to the Father, so also must she be to the Son. Yea, if we may so speak, even more so to the Son than to the Father. For she is his own in a peculiar sense,—his own in the Father's gift, his own in everlasting-betrothment,—his own in a way such as she can be to no other in the universe. But the bride is a captive, and must be won from the enemy. She is a lawful captive, and a ransom must be paid. She is lost, and must be found. She is naked, and must be clothed. She is diseased, and must be cured. She is polluted, and must be washed. And who is to do all this for her? The Son himself. Her betrothed bridegroom. He as the bridegroom is to redeem her as his bride. All that he does for her, in seeking, ransoming, freeing, clothing, cleansing, he does for her as his bride, and because she is already betrothed to him in the Father's purpose. And will he go to redeem a bride whom he does not love? And will he love one whom he does not personally know? Will he work a work for one whom he knows not? Will he shed his blood upon a vague peradventure that some lost ones will choose him and cleave to him? Will he pay down a priceless ransom, and then leave it to chance, or what is worse than even chance, man's sinful will, to determine who is to be his bride? The work of Christ is the work not of a man for men, but of a bridegroom for his bride. Next to Christ himself, it is his bride who is most glorious in the Father's eyes. It is she who is so specially to share the love of God,—the love of the Father and the Son; "as the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you." It is she who is to be brought nearest to the Godhead of any created being. It is she who is to share the royalty of the Son of God, to sit upon his throne, to wear his crown, and to wield with him the sceptre of universal dominion. From first to last then she stands out before the Father's eyes, and also before ours, as next to Christ, the one glorious and prominent object in Scripture. It has been well said that "time, past, present, or future, as regards the Church, is but the unfolding of the one THOUGHT of God concerning the elect. The Father has prepared, and the Son has purchased, a throne for her; and to raise her from the miry clay to that everlasting throne for the work which the Son of God undertook and accomplished. That work did all for her. It did not merely leave her within the reach of salvation—it made salvation sure, nay, it made glory sure, it made the crown and kingdom sure. The bridegroom came forth out of his royal palace to bring in the bride which the Father had given him. He loosed her cords, he opened her prison doors, he bound up her wounds, he threw his mantle over her, he made her meet for the kingdom, and when the day arrives when he shall appear in glory, he shall conduct her in joyful triumph into the kingdom prepared for her from the foundation of the world.Or take another view. It is not merely Christ who is said to have died. His people are spoken of as dying with him. Very frequently does the Apostle Paul dwell on this idea,—representing the church as crucified with Christ, dying with him, rising with him, ascending up with him and sitting with him in heavenly places. In Jehovah's eye his people were with him all the time, from his coming into the world. He stood in their stead, and they were viewed as one with him from his cradle to his cross, and from his cross to his throne. They were taken up to the cross with him. They died there with him. They went down to the grave with him. They came up again along with him. They ascended up along with him. Now I confess I cannot understand these expressions unless I believe in a definite number, for whom all this was specially done. I cannot see how it is possible for the atonement to be indefinite, so long as I read that in all its parts the church was associated with Christ. This renders definiteness an essential element in the idea of redemption.But how can there be any truth in all this, if Christ had no special object in view in dying, save merely to render salvation possible to all, but certain to none? In that case he could only die as a man for his fellow-men—not as a substitute, not as a representative, not as a surety, not as a shepherd, not as a bridegroom at all. I put it to you, my friend, which of these is most in accordance with the word of God. Being myself what is called a millennarian, I confess this seems an important view, and weighs very strongly with me; but I am sure that even with others it cannot fail to have its weight. It is the view which would present itself to an eye looking from the past eternity into the future, contemplating the glorious issue. And it is the view which we hereafter shall, I doubt not, more fully realize when we get into that eternity, and begin to look back upon the whole finished scheme. Viewed from either of these points, the far past or the far future, the thing seems striking and vivid. I confess, that, standing as we do in the present in the very midst of the scenes, with the smoke, and confusion, and sin of the world around us, seeing but through a glass darkly, we may find it more difficult to realize this. But faith can rise out of these dark elements below. It can transport itself to either of these eternal eminences of which I speak; and, looking at things as God looks upon them, contemplating results as He does, it will be able to realize God's purpose regarding the church in all the different stages of its progress now, as if it had actually been presented in visible brightness, and the other parts which confuse us hidden from view. The moment when the statuary is hewing out his statue is not the best time for ascertaining what he means. You must either look at his designs, or you must wait till he has finished his work. In connection with this, I may appropriately introduce here some of the many passages which represent Christ's work as a peculiar one on behalf of his church.
In these passages we hear Christ repeatedly speaking of those whom he calls sheep, and telling us he gave his life for them—for them in a peculiar sense, as he did for no other. It is as a shepherd that he dies with a shepherd's love and a shepherd care,—for his sheep as such.Again, he prays for his own, for those whom the Father has given him, NOT FOR THE WORLD. Can words be plainer? Here is certainly a distinction made, "I pray not for the world." Here, at least, is something peculiar, for his church alone.[24] And one such peculiarity is enough, at least, to answer the objections of adversaries. Some have said, Oh, but he prays for the world in another place. I answer, he does not. But even though he had, here is at least one prayer of Christ, in which he expressly leaves out the world. And who can say how much virtue there was in that one short prayer? Is not the way in which he prayed, an illustration of the way in which he died. Are not those for whom he prayed, the same as them for whom he died?Again, Christ is said to have saved the church as husbands love their wives. This surely is decisive. The love of the husband for the wife is such as he bears to no other. So is the love of Christ. And as was his love, even so was the purpose of his death. It is somewhat startling to be told that Christ loved the world just as much, and in the same way as he loved the church,—that "the seed of the woman" had no greater share in his purpose and affection than "the seed of the serpent,"—that it is man and not God that determines who are to constitute the members of that church,—that instead of their names being "written in the book of life, from the foundation of the world" they are merely written down at the time when they themselves determine to believe and be converted.But over against all this are set those many passages in which the word all occurs, and in which we read "Christ died for all." Now, with reference to this, I ask your attention to a few remarks.1. The passages I have already quoted are quite explicit, and cannot be overthrown. They are too plain to be mistaken. And if our opponents would take them in their simplicity, I confess I should have less fear with regard to others. But this they refuse to do. 2. I admit there are difficulties with regard to some of the passages in which the word all occurs. But I would rather confess the difficulty, and wait for further light, than at once proceed to do violence to the passage itself, or make its difficulty a reason for doing violence to others.3. I also admit that there are passages in which there can be no doubt as to the universality of the terms. These you will find enumerated by Dr. Candlish, to whose work I again refer you. Such passages, says he, refer to the discovery which the work of Christ is "fitted to make of the Divine character, especially of the Divine compassion and benevolence, and are to be regarded as giving intimation of the widest possible universality. This is particularly the case in that most blessed statement, 'God so loved the world,' &c.; for we would be little disposed to qualify or explain away the term 'world,' as here employed. We would rather rejoice in this text as asserting that the gospel has a most gracious aspect to the world, or to mankind as such." p. 26. 4. With regard to the meaning of the word "all" in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, a few remarks will be necessary. It occurs there upwards of 1200 times, as any scholar will find by consulting his Greek Concordance. These 1200 texts may be subdivided into four classes. Class I. consists of a very large number of passages, several hundreds, I am sure, in which it is undeniable that the word cannot mean literally all. I give one or two specimens. We are told in one place, (Mark 1:5) "there went out unto him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him," &c. This we know was not literally the case. Every individual in the whole land did not come; for we are expressly told in another place, (Luke 7:30), that "the Pharisees and lawyers were not baptized of him." Again we read, (Mark 1:37), "All men seek thee." Literally this was not true. Every individual in the human race, or even every individual in Judea, did not seek him. Again, we have such passages as these:—"He told me all that ever I did,"—"all things are lawful to me"—"all our fathers were under the cloud"—"all they who are in Asia are turned away from me"—"ye know all things."Class II. consists of passages in which it is very doubtful whether all be literally universal. It may or it may not. There is nothing positively to determine it. "Every nation under heaven," Acts 2:5. "All they which dwelt in Asia," Acts 19:10. "The care of all the churches," 2 Corinthians 2:28. "All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him," Revelation 13:8. These are specimens of a very large class of doubtful passages, which, of course, can prove nothing as to the literal meaning of all.Class III. consists of passages which are only determined to be literal by the context, not by the expressions themselves. The whole passage, taken together, fixes the literal universality. But were it not for that, the literal meaning would have been doubtful. "All ye are brethren," Matthew 23:8. "All these things shall come to pass," Matthew 24:6. "They all slumbered and slept," Matthew 25:5. "When Jesus had finished all these sayings," Matthew 26:1. In all these passages, and many similar ones, it is not the word all itself that points out the strict universality; it is some other word that occurs along with it, such as "all these things"—"all these sayings." In these cases, while in one sense the word has a universal sense, in another it has a limited one—limited by the words with which it is connected. It means all of a certain class, all of a certain number. So that we gather from these, that when all is to be understood literally, we must learn from the context what "all" it is that is to be understood—whether all of one nation, or all of another—whether all of one class, or all of another. And this consideration answers at once the oft-repeated argument, which consists merely in vociferating the word "all," as if the loudness or the frequency of the outcry were enough to demonstrate the meaning of the word. That meaning must be determined in each separate case by the other words, or other parts of the passage.Class IV. are the passages in question, which are supposed to imply a universal atonement. On these I cannot enter here. They are, in point of numbers, the fewest of all the four classes. Our opponents say, that they must be interpreted literally. Let us see how the proof stands. There are upwards of 1200 passages, in which the word "all" occurs in the New Testament. Of these a very large number cannot possibly mean literally all. Another large number are exceedingly doubtful. Another large number are only proved to mean literally "all" by the context. The fewest in number of these four classes are those which are claimed by our opponents! You may judge of the strength of their argument.The result of this statement is simply this: that the mere occurrence of the word "all" does not determine the question at all. Nothing but a careful examination of the whole passage can settle it. Do not then, I beseech you, be deceived by the loud repetitions of the words all and every which you hear, and which are intended to supply the place of more solid proof.I should like to have entered into an examination of some of the passages often rested on. But this is impossible. I select one, as being one of the strongest, and also one that affords an admirable illustration of the necessity of looking at the context to determine the meaning of the word. It is Hebrews 2:9, "He tasted death for every man." It is literally "for each;" there is nothing about men in the original. The question then arises, what does the apostle mean by "each?" The context must settle it. It either carries us back to the "heirs of salvation," or forward to the "many sons." For obviously it must refer to some of whom the apostle was speaking. Now, he was only speaking of the angels and of the many sons, the heirs of salvation, and of no other. It cannot be meant of the former, and therefore it must he of the latter. They may be said to be the peculiar theme of the whole chapter, and any one following the apostle's reasoning, would naturally understand this expression to refer to them. It is straining it to refer to any others. If it does refer to others, it might as well refer to angels; more naturally so than to the world, for he is speaking of them, but not of the world at all. The fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians is an illustration of this. The apostle is treating of the resurrection of the saints, and not of the wicked. It is only by keeping this in view that his statements there regarding the "all" can be fully understood. So the each (pad) here referred to must be the each of those he was speaking of. And very strikingly is the singular used here,—not simply as individualizing the saints, but as doing so in connection with the whole work of Christ. All that Christ did, he did for each. His whole work, his whole propitiation, his whole tasting of death, belongs to each, just as much as if only one had been saved. The whole of what Christ did is the property of each saint. His work is not made up of so many pasts, or extending to certain dimensions, greater or smaller, according to the number of the saved; so that each of them only gets a part of himself, and a part of his work. No. His work is such, that each gets the whole of it,—the whole of his glorious self, and the whole of his glorious work. Each gets the benefit of his tasting death, as if endured for himself singly and alone.But I cannot dwell longer upon this topic. I have merely thrown out a few hints, which may lead to stablish you in the faith, and may assist you in repelling the objections of opponents. The real question before us is, was the atonement of Christ a definite or indefinite thing?[25] That is the essence and marrow of the controversy. It is upon this that the case hinges. There is a mighty difference between a definite and an indefinite work. Search the Scriptures, and see if the language in which they speak does not necessarily imply something definite and certain,— something which infallibly secured the object for which the Son of God took flesh and died. That was, you know, "to bring many sons into glory."I am yours, &c. THUS SAITH THE LORD:
|