ililllljlllli

yniuiiniiliuiiiuli

k^.^.^.^.l.^.l.I.^.l.l.^.l.l./.l.l.^.l.1.l.l.l¦I.l.!.l¦l.l.l.l.l.l.^.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.T.I,l,l.l,l,l,^,l.L!:p

Library ofthe
l^ale ©ivinit? Scbool

¦^T'

,*^'

The Books of
jfranh Cbamberlain porter
Winkley Professor of
Biblical Theology

"'I'l''  i'.'i'.'i'.'ivi','i',iivi  i.iM.,'iii'/i.iiviViviiiM  !¦.  I'l'lvivlvr.T

Biblical Ideas of Atonement

Biblical Ideas of
Atonement

Their History and
Significance

BY
ERNEST DEWITT BURTON
JOHN MERLIN POWIS SMITH and GERALD BIRNEY SMITH

"^nrarypfi
YALE DIVIMTY SGHOOl!

CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
1909

COPYEIGHT 1909 Bi
The Univeestty of Chicago

Published NoTember 1909

Composed-aDd Printed Ey
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A,

PREFACE
The aim of the following chapters is to set
forth the content of the biblical teachings upon
the subject of Atonement, and to suggest the
point of view from which these conceptions may
profitably be studied at the present day. The
attitude assumed toward the records throughout
is that of historical interpretation rather than
of theological systematization. Consequently
the effort is to discover precisely what ideas of
atonement are reflected by the biblical laws,
institutions, and utterances.
The historical method of approach to the
problem has been chosen as best adapted to the
purpose in hand. To trace the history of an
idea is to discover the forces that have co
operated to produce it and to transform it
from age to age. The history of the idea is
thus its best explanation. Yet the purely histori
cal treatment which the subject demands falls
short of meeting the natural desire of those who
are interested in this aspect of theology. Realiz
ing that most of our readers would desire, not
only a historical statement of what was believed
and taught by the prophets and teachers of old,
but also some indication of the value of those

vi Preface
teachings for the present day, the closing section
of the book (chaps, xii, xiii) has been added in
an endeavor to meet this legitimate demand.
The history of the idea of atonement in the
Christian church lies beyond the line of the task
here contemplated, as does likewise the formu
lation of a theory ef atonement valid for modern
times. It is enough to have tried to state with
accuracy the development of the atonement
idea in biblical times and to indicate some
results of that biblical development which must
enter into the formulation of any satisfactory
theory of atonement.
The first eleven chapters were written for
publication in the Biblical World and appeared
in its pages from January, 1908, to January,
1909. The interest in the subject which has
been indicated in various ways of late has led
the authors to believe that these papers would
serve a useful purpose if revised and repub
lished in more accessible form.
The lists of books added as an appendix are
not intended to be exhaustive in any sense, but
rather to serve as guides to the best in the exten
sive literature called forth by the general and
continuous interest in this central and vital
problem of all religion.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE IDEA OF ATONEMENT IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT
CHAPTER PAGE
I. Atonement in Preprophetic Israel . 3
II. Atonement in the Prophets and Deuter
onomy ... . 25
III. Atonement in the Later Priestly Litera
ture ... 42
II. THE IDEA OF ATONEMENT IN NON-
CANONICAL JEWISH LITERATURE
IV. Atonement in Non-Canonical Jewish
Literature . . 65
III. THE IDEA OF ATONEMENT IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT
V. Atonement in the Teaching of John the
Baptist ... . . -93
VI. Atonement IN THE Teaching of Jesus . . no
VII. Atonement as Conceived by the Early
Church ... 145
VIII. Atonement IN THE Teaching OF Paul 157
IX. The Teaching of the First Epistle of
Peter and of the Epistle to the Hebrews 202
X. Atonement in the Writings Ascribed to
John  227
vii

viii Table of Conteiits
IV. SUMMARY OF THE BIBLICAL TEACHINGS
CONCERNING ATONEMENT
XI. Summary of the Biblical Teachings . . 247
V. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BIBLICAL
TEACHINGS CONCERNING ATONEMENT
XIL The Significance of the Biblical Teach
ings Concerning Atonement . . . 269
XIII. Atonement in the Light of Modern
Thought .291
APPENDIX
Lists of the More Important Books on the
Idea of Atonement ... 321
INDICES
Subject Index . . . . 329
Scripture Passages . . . .331

THE IDEA OF ATONEMENT IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT

BY

JOHN MERLIN POWIS SMITH
Assistant Professor of Old Testament Language and
Literature, The University of Chicago

CHAPTER I
ATONEMENT IN PREPROPHETIC ISRAEL
The consciousness of sin has been common
to all races and all ages. The content of the
concept may change with var)dng degrees of
culture and with differing environments; but
the concept itself is always and everywhere
present. Accompanying this consciousness is
the sense of the corresponding need of the divine
forgiveness and pardon. All sorts of ideas pre
vail as to the methods by which, or conditions
upon which, such pardon is obtained.^ These
ideas are in every case determined in large part
by the prevailing conception of God. Among
' These statements are made in full consciousness of the fact
so clearly brought out by W. Robertson Smith, Religion ofthe
Semites, (2d ed.), pp. 400 fi., viz., that the atoning ritual originally
had little to do with sin in any strict sense of the word, "the whole
object of ritual" being "to maintain the bond of physical holiness
that kept the religious community together." But the many ills
to which flesh is heir and the innumerable accidents and calamities
of primitive life were speedily interpreted by early man as expres
sions of the displeasure and anger of the spiritual powers that
controlled his life. The occasion of the anger might not be clear
to the sufferer, but in any case he sought to propitiate the deity
or to exorcise the demon or spirit that tormented him and so to
obtain peace. When the affliction was traceable to a deity
worshiped by the sufferer the realization of the divine displeasure
approximated closely to a sense of sin.

Biblical Ideas of Ato'nement

early Semites the deity seems to have been con
ceived of as forming one of the same community
of blood-relations with his worshipers.' He is
one of the family. The bond of union is the
common life which they share. The act of
sacrifice thus is an act of communion between
the deity and his worshipers. This communion
is renewed and strengthened from time to time
by participation in a common sacrificial meal.
Just as the guest in an Arab's tent becomes
temporarily a brother to his host by partaking
of his food, so the worshiper relates himself
to his god by inviting him to share his meal.
The underlying thought is that in eating at a
common table they have shared in the same
life-giving food, and so common life pulsates
within them. They have become one in a most
literal sense; the interests of the god are identi
cal with those of his people. Consequently
the sure preventive of misfortune and divine
chastisement is the maintenance of this identity
of interests through frequent sacrificial com
munion. The element in the sacrifice peculiarly
efficacious in cementing the union is the blood.
The later codifications of the Hebrew law still
retain and recognize at its full value this superior
I W. R. Smith., op cit., 2d ed.. Lecture II.

In Preprophetic Israel

eflScacy of blood (e.g.. Lev. 17:11), although
the original significance of its use may have been
left far behind in the abysmal past. To the
primitive mind blood, as the very embodiment
of life, when shared in by worshiper and deity
alike, brought about community of life between
the two in greater measure than any other kind
of sacrificial food.'
~ For a wholly different view of the significance of primitive
sacrifice, see R. Campbell Thompson, Semitic Magic, Its Origins
a'nd Developments (1908), pp. 175-218, where the theory is
advanced that the sacrificial animal serves as a substitute-victim
offered to the devil or demon whose activity has brought the sacri
ficer into trouble. The aim of the priest is to entice or drive the
malignant spirit out of the sick or sinful man into the sacrificial
victim where it can be destroyed or isolated. True though
this may be in cases where demons are looked upon as the respon
sible agents or causes of a man's loss or suffering, it ceases to apply
the moment that man becomes ethical in his dealings with the
gods and realizes his own personal responsibility for the offenses
that arouse their anger. Theft, treachery, unjustifiable homicide,
and the like, are sins originating within the heart and as such
cannot be atoned for by any exorcism of malignant spirits. No
single example of violation of ethical law is cited by Mr. Thompson
as having been pardoned by a process of exorcism. Nor is it
easy to see how a process of magic such as this could be carried
over into the sphere of ethics and become effective there. In cases
of bodily sickness, tabu, clean and unclean, and the like, the old
ritual of exorcism may easily have been long retained even if it
had lost its original significance; but the deepest ills of men were
not so easily cured. In irreconcilable conflict with this theory of
the transference of a malignant spirit into the body of the sacri
ficial victim, is the fact that the flesh of the sin-offering is " most
holy/' and isset aside for the exclusive use of the priests, who

Biblical Ideas of Atonement

But as experiences vary and multiply with
the advance of civihzation and "the thoughts
of men are widened with the process of the
suns," man's conception of God likewise en
larges and advances with equal step. Hence
in the course of time it became impossible for
the Hebrews to think of God as on the same
familiar terms with themselves. He inevitably
became more and more exalted and unap
proachable. His increasing majesty and holi
ness caused the old feeling of the family rela
tionship between him a,nd his people to recede
into the background of consciousness, yielding
would certainly not have touched it had they thought of it as
defiled by the occupation of a demon (Lev. 6:25 ff.; 10: 17 ff;.
Num. 18: 9,10.). Closely allied to the view of Mr. Thompson
is the theory of sacrifice presented by H. Hubert and M. Mauss
in Melanges d'histoire des religions (Paris, 1909). The function of
sacrifice, according to these two scholars, is "to establish a com
munication between the sacred world and the profane through
the mediation of a victim, i. e., of a consecrated thing which is
destroyed in the course of the ceremony" (p. 124). The sacrificial
victim is a colorless medium; holiness is conferred upon it by
the sacrificial process itself. Hence, the victim may serve to
absorb the holiness of a consecrated man and transmit it back to
deity whence it came, thus leaving the consecrated one free to
return to the sphere of ordinary, profane life; or it may serve to
transmit sacredness from the religious world to the profane. In
this exchange of sanctity the victim represents both man and God;
they meet in the sacrificial offering. The intermediary victim is
necessary, since immediate contact of man with deity involves
death. Hence the victim serves as the sacrificer's substitute.

In Preprophetic Israel

place to awe and reverence. Keeping pace with
this transformation in the conception of God
was a corresponding change in the idea of sacri
fice. The old sacrificial meal of which the
worshiper and his God partook gave way to
the more or less splendid and acceptable gift
presented to God by the worshiper. The gift
served as an expression of gratitude and love,
as a salve to the feehngs of the deity outraged
by the worshiper's sin, or as a bid for further
favors. This conception of sacrifice as a gift is
that reflected in most of the Old Testament
teachings and usages pertaining to the subject.
From this general consideration of the Hebrew
idea of God and the conception of sacrifice we
may proceed at once to the history of the
idea of atonement in the Old Testament.
This history falls naturally into three stages:
(i) the age prior to Amos, (2) the period from
Amos to Ezra, (3) the post-exilic days. Each
of these periods is responsible for the production
of a code of laws, viz., the Covenant Code, the
Deuteronomic Code, and the Priestly Code,
respectively; and each period has alongside
of its code a characteristic type of religious
thought and teaching. In the first period it is
the primitive Mosaic rehgion as gradually modi-

8 Biblical Ideas of Atoneinent
fied and enriched through contact with
Canaanitish civilization and rehgion; in the
second period prophecy finds its full fruition;
and in the third the Hebrew philosophers
wrought out the universal truths expressed in
the Wisdom Literature. The idea of atone
ment must be traced through these three
periods. The present chapter hmits itself to
the first period.
Sin is the occasion of divine punishment, and
calamities in general are interpreted as chastise
ments for sin (Judg. 9:225.; 20:35; II Sam.
6:7; I Kings 2:31 ff., 44; Exod. 21:12, 15 ff.;
22 : 18 f.). The penalty for sin against Jehovah
is for the most part death; witness the narrative
of the Fall and the story of the Deluge. In
general, righteousness is the only guarantee of
escape and safety from the divine wrath. The
connection between sin and punishment is
almost automatic, and innocent and guilty not
infrequently are alike involved in disaster.
Achan's offense brings defeat upon all Israel.
David's census subjects the nation to the ravages
of the pestilence. Not only so, but the sin of
the guilty is often deliberately visited upon the
innocent as in the case of the hanging of the
grandchildren of Saul to expiate the guilt of

In Preprophetic Israel

his crime (II Sam. 2: 14), or in the death of the
child of David and Bathsheba's guilt; cf. the
teaching of the second commandment of the
Decalogue upon this point, where the emphasis
is on the certainty of the pumshment.
To this general principle that sin must be
punished there were certain exceptions. The
data at our disposal are insufficient to enable
us to draw a sharp line between pardonable and
unpardonable sins, or even to say whether
such a distinction was recognized. Some sins
evidently were pardonable; as to others we are
uninformed beyond the fact that in every case
of their occurrence known to us in this period
they met with condign punishment. Repent
ance serves as the occasion and ground of pardon
in the case of David when Israel was affiicted by
pestilence on account of the census ordered by
him (II Sam. 24: 15-25). But the contrition of
David was reinforced by the offering of sacrifices
and the narrative apparently lays at least as
much stress upon the outward act as upon the
inner feeling. In any case the former is the
necessary demonstration of the latter, the guar
antee of its sincerity. In the case of Rahab,
the harlot of Jericho, her good' deeds done to
ward the Hebrew spies atone for her past

IO Biblical Ideas of Atonement
wickedness and secure her immunity from the
destruction meted out to her fellow-citizens
(Josh. 6:25).
But not only were righteousness and good
ness considered eflScacious in behalf of those
characterized by their possession; they were
also regarded as inuring to the benefit of
others not righteous. The character of the
wicked is in no way changed thereby, nor is
the divine estimate of them altered; they do
but escape the immediate consequences of their
guilt, or reap the rewards of another's piety,
by virtue of their being bound up in the same
bundle of life with him. Of this point of view
there are two illustrations in this period, viz., the
plea of Abraham in behalf of Sodom (Gen.,
chap. 18), and the captivity of Joseph which
resulted in blessings to his evil-minded brethren.
There is here no transferred righteousness nor
supererogatory goodness; the benefit accruing
to the wicked is only incidental ; it is no inahen-
able right pertaining either to the righteous or
the wicked. It is the recognition of a plain fact,
and not the formulation of a theological prin
ciple. The prayers of the righteous do some
times avail to shield the wicked from destruc
tion; for example, Jehovah spares Israel for

In Preprophetic Israel 1 1
the sake of Moses and in response to his plea
for his people (Num. 21:7-9).
Another specific case to which special atten
tion must be called is that of Jonathan, the son of
Saul (I Sam., chap. 14). Saul, in the day of
battle against the Philistines, had laid Israel
under oath to abstain from food till the evening.
Jonathan, who had wrought a great victory
for Israel, unwittingly violated that oath. Jeho
vah at once manifested his anger by refusing
to respond to Saul's request for an oracle. Upon
investigation by lot the offense of Jonathan was
discovered and he was condemned to death by
his father. But the people protested and
"ransomed Jonathan that he died not." Un
fortunately we are left in ignorance as to the
nature of the ransom. The significant fact,
however, is that one who in accordance with all
precedents should have been put to death in
order to appease the divine anger is allowed to
remain alive and no serious results follow. The
moral sense of Israel asserts itself and casts off
for the moment the chains of religious custom.
What the compensation to the outraged deity
was or whether there was any, the record does
not say.
The story of the return of the ark by the Phil-

1 2 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
istines (I Sam. 6:i-i8) shows clearly what the
underlying conception of propitiation was. The
word used here to describe the propitiatory
offering is 'asham. The ark must be restored
to its own land and with it must be sent an
'asham of gold. This 'asham, in the story as
it now stands, evidently serves as a gift to Jeho
vah in compensation for the offense against his
majesty. What the original signification of
the golden mice, and tumors was, is more or less
doubtful;' but in the present text they serve
only as gifts constituting a reparation to the
outraged Jehovah. The incident may legiti
mately be used as representing the Hebrew
point of view, even though the transaction is one
ascribed to Philistines; for the interpretation
of the transaction is unmistakably Hebrew.
Thus far we have considered cases in which
atonement in one form or another was made,
I The association of "tumors" and mice (cf. LXX) is some
what confusing until we recall that the mouse was associated with
pestilence in antiquity and that modern science has traced the
spread of the bubonic plague to rats. It was probably some such
plague from which the Philistines suffered; hence they made
images of the "tumors'' and of the rodents that propagate the
plague, put them all in a box, and sent them out of the country,
hoping thereby to banish the pestilence— cf. Frazer, Golden
Bough, Vol. II, p. 427. Later tradition has seized hold of some
such proceeding as this and found therein valuable material for
the glorification of Jehovah.

In Preprophetic Israel 13
though the technical term for the act of atone
ment was not employed. It remains to note
the few occurrences of this word in this period,
and to discuss its significance as revealed by
the context and in the hght of the facts already
considered. The root upon which the word
"to atone" is formed (^55) is common to
the main Semitic languages, being found in
Arabic, Assyrian, Syriac, and Hebrew. The
primitive meaning of the word, which no longer
appears in Hebrew, but in Assyrian and Syriac
is still plainly discernible, and hes close to the
surface in Arabic, was "to wipe out," "obht-
erate."' This primitive meaning underlies the
Hebrew usage and at times shines through, but
for the most part it has given place to certain
derived meanings.
The starting-point for the proper study of
the Hebrew usage in this early Old Testament
period is the use of the noun Kopher C^^S)
in Exod. 21:30 (=E). The law here provides
I So W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
2d ed., p. 438; H. Zimmern, Die Keilinschrifte und das Alte
Testament, 3d ed., p. 601; Gesenius-Buhl, Hebraisches wnd Ar-
amaisches Handiviirterbtcch iiber das AUe Testament, 14th ed.;
and especially an admirable article on the Hebrew usage of this
word by H. P. Smith, American Journal of Theology, Vol. X, pp.
412-22. For a contrary view see the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexi
con and the references there cited.

14 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
that in the case of an ox known to be vicious
its owner shall make good the loss of any human
life destroyed by the ox, by the forfeit of his
own hfe, or, if the relatives prefer, by the pay
ment of a Kopher, i. e., a bloodwit, a ransom.
This bloodwit is defined by the context itself as
the "redemption of his life." This is ostensibly
a purely human transaction; but evidence is
not lacking that the whole proceeding was under
divine auspices and that failure to comply with
the requirements of the law would have brought
down the vengeance of heaven upon the offender.
In any case the Kopher is a payment required
of the ox's owner by those who have a right to
demand his life but for financial considerations
are willing to commute their demand. The effect
of the ransom is the appeasement of the kins
men's wrath and the consequent escape from
death on the part of the guilty. The normal
operation of the lex talionis is thus diverted from
its course by a money payment. The same con
ception of Kopher as a gift of money intended
to deflect the natural course of justice appears
in its common usage as denoting a "bribe"
(e. g., I Sam. 12:3). The thought resident in
the word therefore is that of "compensation"
rather than "substitution."

In Preprophetic Israel 1 5
The verb " to atone " is unanimously conceded
to be a denominative derived from the more
original Kopher; the same general sense there
fore should characterize both. It does certainly
satisfactorily represent the verb in I Sam. 3: 14,
"the guilt of the house of Eli shall not be com
pensated for by sacrifice or offering forever,"
which clearly imphes that ordinary guilt may
be so expiated. In II Sam. 21:3 f. the answer
of the Gibeonites to David's question, "Where
with shall I make compensation ?" shows that
two kinds of expiation were allowable in such a
case (cf. Exod. 21:30), either the bloodwit or
the life for life, and that the surviving kinsmen
had the right to decide between them. The
sequel indicates that the decision was binding
both upon God and man; they were alike
appeased. Appeasement brought about
through gifts by way of compensation for past
injuries and offenses is the content of the verb
in the only other passage belonging to this
period in which it occurs, viz.. Gen. 32: 21 (=J).
Jacob says concerning Esau, "I would appease
his face with the present that precedes me, and
afterward I would see his face; perhaps he
will be gracious to me." The method and the
result are thus indisputably clear.

1 6 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
The usage of the word in these three
passages then points to appeasement, or
propitiation, as the end aimed at in the
atoning process, and to the making of a
gift, whether voluntary or obhgatory as the
common method of securing this end. This
is in perfect agreement with the testimony con
cerning the theory of atonement^ furnished by
the actual historical cases already considered;
and it is very definitely established by other
passages wherein the word "iSS does not itself
appear, e.g., I Sam. 26:19; II Sam. 24:25;
Gen. 8:20-22 (=J), that the sacrificial gift was
thought to have great influence in placating
the angry Jehovah. But no special form of
the propitiatory sacrifice was required. Appar
ently any ordinary sacrifice might be used for
the purpose of making atonement ; Noah offered
burnt-offerings (Gen. 8:20-22); David, burnt-
offerings' and peace-offerings (II Sam. 24:25).
It remained for later generations to develop an
elaborate ritual for the specific purpose of atone
ment. In addition to this reliance upon sacrifice
we have seen that even in preprophetic Israel
the effectual, fervent prayer of -a righteous man
was thought to avail much in behalf of the guilty.
Moreover, the sincere repentance of the trans-

In Preprophetic Israel 1 7
gressor, at least in certain instances, was em
phasized as helping to make a sinner acceptable
to God.
One phase of the atonement idea still calls
for consideration, viz., the theory of propitiation
by substitution. Is there any evidence that in
this period it was deemed possible to shield the
sinner from the anger of Jehovah by the sub
stitution of an innocent victim ? The whole
gift idea of atonement involves a certain kind
of substitution: Jehovah accepts a more or
less valuable offering as an evidence of genuine
sorrow for guilt, and so is willing to forego his
right to vengeance upon the sinner. When
the sacrificial act, however, reflected no corre
sponding change of heart the gift was little more
than a bribe, and so the great prophets came to
consider it. But the compensation is made
by the guilty party and to that extent he does
not escape punishment for his sin — it is simply
commuted. The passages in which the thought
of substitution, in the sense of the exchange of
one life for another, may possibly reside are' I
Sam. 14:43-45; Exod. 34:20; Gen. 22:1-14
(E); II Sam. 21:1-14. In reference to I Sam.
14:43-45 the question must remain open; the
narrative furnishes no answer, nor any slightest

Biblical Ideas of Atonement

hint of the correct solution. Exod. 34: 20 (= J)
provides for the redemption of the firstborn in
Israel. The method of redemption is not indi
cated. The law of vs. 19, however, applies to
men and domestic animals alike. From vs. 20a
it is clear that the firstborn of cattle was sacri
ficed to Jehovah; its life belonged to him. The
same right is apparently held . by Jehovah to
the human life.' But as the firstborn of the
ass, not suitable for sacrifice, is to be redeemed
by the substitutionary sacrifice of a lamb, failing
which the ass's firstborn must be put to death,
so the firstborn son must be redeemed. Here
again the means and method of redemption
are left indeterminate. Two things only appear
from the context: (i) the life of the firstborn on
general principles belongs to Jehovah and
should be sacrificed to him ; (2) Jehovah accepts
I That the life of the firstborn was at one time in Israel actually
surrendered by death to the deity can scarcely be doubted in view
of (i) the wide prevalence of human sacrifice among the western
Semites, (2) the revelations of infant sacrifice disclosed by the
excavations at Gezer, at Taanach, and at Megiddo ( =Tel-Mutesel-
lim), (3) the statements concerning the rebuilding of the town of
Jericho (I Kings 16:34), (4) the story of Abraham's temptation to
sacrifice Isaac, (5) the manifest meaning of Exod. 13:15. The
law of Exod. 34:20 is evidence of the amelioration of this horri
ble custom by the advance of civilization and by a better under
standing of the character of God. Cf. Thompson, Semitic Magic,
pp. 219-44.

In Preprophetic Israel 19
something else as a satisfactory substitute for
the surrender of this life. This substitution,
of course, has nothing to do with sin ; but it is of
importance to note its presence within the sphere
of religion, and in a matter having direct relation
to God. If Jehovah will accept a substitute in
one sphere, may he not also in another ?
The story of the Gibeonites' vengeance upon
the house of Saul (II Sam. 21:1-4) reveals a
certain kind of substitution. Saul had wronged
the Gibeonites by slaying some of their number
in violation of the old covenant of friendship
between them and Israel. In' so doing he had
incurred the wrath of Jehovah, the guardian
of justice. The law of blood-revenge called
upon the Gibeonites to retaliate against Saul
in like manner. But the relative weakness of
the Gibeonites rendered this impossible. Time
passed and the crime remained unavenged.
Jehovah therefore vented his wrath by sending
a famine upon Israel. The hanging of Saul's
grandsons propitiates Jehovah and satisfies
the Gibeonites. Innocent persons here pay
with their lives the penalty that should have
been paid by the guilty one himself. To esti
mate aright the significance of this occurrence
we must bear in mind the fact of the solidarity

20 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
of the ancient Hebrew family. In the adminis
tration of primitive justice the unit was the
family rather than the individual. For exam
ple, in the primitive Semitic custom of blood-
revenge the law was satisfied by the slaughter of
any member of the murderer's family; it was
not necessary to identify and punish the mur
derer himself. The family was thought of as a
social body; to punish any member of it was
to punish all members. From this point of
view there is no substitution; the family has
committed the offense and the family bears
the penalty. But it is exceedingly improbable
that this primitive solidarity remained in full
force at so late a time as that from which this
story comes. The individual began to come
to his full rights and responsibihties rapidly
after the entrance into Canaan with its high
plane of civilization and accompanying com
plexity of life. Complete solidarity is possi
ble only in primitive communities. The civili
zation of Canaan, however, was centuries old,
and Israel proved an apt pupil in the hands of
her Canaanitish teachers.' The law of blood-
¦ For a study of the development of the consciousness of indi
vidual responsibility, see J. M. P. Smith, The American Journal
of Theology, Vol. X (1906), pp. 251-66; cf. M. Lohr. Soziolismus
und Individualismus im AUen Testament (1906).

In Preprophetic Israel 21
revenge itself as administered in the times of
David and Solomon shows that particular pains
were taken then to wreak the vengeance upon
the guilty individual (II Sam. 3:27; 14:7, 11;
I Kings 2:5, 31-33). In the case of Saul this
was impossible; hence in accordance with the
older usage his descendants die in his stead.
This case can be accounted for neither on the
gift hypothesis, nor on that of penal substitution.
Were it only the most valuable present that was
necessary to assuage Jehovah's wrath any group
of individuals might have served for the sacrifice.
Likewise any individuals might have served
as penal substitutes. But the whole point of
the incident is in their being grandsons of the
guilty man. By them alone can propitiation
be made. In a time, however, when the indi
vidualistic point of view was rapidly forging to
the front, such a procedure" would inevitably
come to be looked upon as a case of substitution
in -v^bich the innocent took the place of the
guilty. The step from the thought of suffering
punishment as a member of the family unit in
which each and all are liable to suffer because
of the sin of any member to that of the innocent
individual suffering definitely and directly on
account of the sin of another individual who

22 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
thereby escapes punishment is, at the most, a
very short one.
The story of Jehovah's command to Abraham
to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22: iff.), though not
concerned at all with the thought of atonement,
nevertheless testifies to the prevalence of the
idea of substitution. The story takes for grant
ed the possibility that Jehovah might have
required a human sacrifice, and so represents
Abraham receiving the command in unquestion
ing obedience. Probably, as Gunkel main
tains, it is a tradition connected with the sanc
tuary at Jehovah-jireh intended to describe
the way in which the older custom of the place
in accordance with which human sacrifices were
offered there gave way at a certain time to the
milder, more humane custom of offering sacri
ficial animals to Jehovah. The substitution
of the ram for the boy was entirely acceptable
to Jehovah, and has remained so ever since.
This again is not penal substitution, but simply
an example ofthe general practice in accordance
with which Jehovah accepts a substitute for
that which he has a right to insist upon, were
he so minded.
The facts of the preprophetic period thus
seem to show that the main idea regarding

In Preprophetic Israel 23
atonement was that of compensation made to
Jehovah for the purpose of mitigating the pun
ishment, or, in the case of the infliction of the
death-penalty, in order to save the hfe forfeited
by guilt to Jehovah. There is no clear case of
penal substitution in this period; that is, of an
offender saved from death by the infliction of
the penalty upon a guiltless, human substitute.
The general idea of substitution, viz., that
Jehovah will sometimes forego his right to
demand the surrender of a life to him in death
and will accept compensation in lieu of it, is
unmistakably present. ' Certain cases, however,
seem to imply that nothing less than the death-
penalty would have appeased the outraged
Jehovah in these particular instances. Involved
in some of the records of atoning processes is
the more or less clearly implied teaching that
the outer act of atonement is but the reflex and
symbol of a genuine, heartfelt sorrow for the
sin; but events are not lacking to show that sin
liable to the death-penalty in this period did
not always come within the sphere of volition
and consequently was not always of such a
character as to render true repentance possible ;
such stories as those of Jonathan unwittingly
¦ Cf. p. S3.

24 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
violating his father's vow and Uzzah slain for
steadying the ark show that there was a certain
automatic element in the incurring of guilt and
infliction of punishment.' These two aspects
of the doctrine of sin and atonement, the exter
nal or mechanical and the ethico-spiritual,
abide throughout the history of Hebrew thought.
1 This wholly unethical conception of sin and guilt was wide
spread in antiquity; cf. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 4th ed., Vol. II,
p. 127; W. R. Sraith, Religion of the Semites, 2d ed., pp. 400 ff.;
R. Carapbell Thorapson, op. cii., pp. 95 ff.

CHAPTER II
ATONEMENT IN THE PROPHETS AND
DEUTERONOMY
The great task of prophecy was the transfor
mation of the rehgion of Israel. To this task
it gave itself with unselfish and unremitting
zeal and achieved a large measure of success.
The glory of the prophets is that they knew
where to place the emphasis in religion. They
sought to substitute for rites and ceremonies,
splendid and sincere as they were, still more
splendid ideals and purposes. They would
make religion a genuine heart experience,
changing and controlling all the currents of life.
A passion for justice, truth, and mercy must
be far more highly prized than any degree of
zeal for sacrifices and institutions. True reli
gion is a right attitude of mind and heart toward
God and man. Prophecy moves not in the
sphere of the external and mechanical, but in
that of the inner and vital. The best formu
lation of the religious ideal of prophecy is that
furnished by the description of the "new cove
nant" in Jer., chap. 31.
The prophets' teaching concerning atone-
25

26 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
ment runs along different fines from those
followed by the preprophetic teaching on the
one hand, and the priestly conceptions on the
other. The reason for this hes in the prophets'
conception of sin. For them sin is an attitude,
or an act of the will. There can be no uncon
scious, "unwitting," or automatic sinning. Sin
is not an accident, but a choice. Man wiUs
to be and to do evil rather than good. Therefore
sacrifices and offerings in themselves can be of
no effect in appeasing God when angry on ac
count of sin. Nothing will serve to assuage the
divine wrath save the total abandonment of the
evil ways or thoughts that have occasioned
the wrath. No gifts can atone to the Lord of
the whole earth for violations of his moral and
spiritual law. Resolute turning-away from evil
is the only thing required; but it is an indis
pensable prerequisite of pardon and the restora
tion of divine favor. Repentance precedes
forgiveness. A humble and contrite heart is
the only recommendation the sinner needs with
God.' It is precisely the kind of atonement
that every right-minded parent desires from a
^ E. g., Isa. 1:10-20; 6:10; 58:6,9; Jer.7:22; 4:14; 14:11 f.;
chap. 18; 26:13; 36:3; Mic. 6:6-8; Hos. 6:6; Amos 5:14!,
25 f.; Ezek. 36:26 ff.

In the Prophets and Deuteronomy 27
wayward child — a genuine repentance, in
cluding sorrow for past offenses and deter
mination henceforth to exhibit filial obedience
and love.
The prophets' idea of atonement was too
lofty, too simple, too penetrating for the mass
of their contemporaries. The almost unbroken
succession of calamities that befell Israel in the
prophetic period did but confirm the people in
the error of their ways. They sought to pro
pitiate the angry Jehovah by loading him down
with offerings. They tried to buy his favor.
They failed absolutely to appreciate the pro
phets' insistence upon right character as the
only acceptable thing in the eyes of Jehovah.
Driven to desperation by their failure to reach
the heart of God, they at length agonizingly
sought to placate his obduracy by offering him
their most precious treasures, their own children.
The dark days immediately preceding the fall
of Jerusalem saw this type of religion put forth
its mightiest efforts, only to give place in the
case of many of its adherents to doubt, apostasy,
and idolatry (Mic. 6:68; II Kings, chap. 21;
Jer. 44:15-19; Ezek. 8:7-18; chap. 22).
Over against this whole commercial aspect of
religion in general and of atonement in particu-

28 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
Iar, and engaged in a life-and-death struggle
with it for supremacy, the teaching of the pro
phets concerning sin and forgiveness stands
out glorious in its purity of motive, simplicity
of conception, clearness of vision, and depth
of insight into the character of God.
Indications are not wholly lacking that some
of the prophets, at least, believed man unable
to make himself acceptable before God. Not
only are forgiveness and pardon the prerogatives
of God, but the prerequisite of their bestowal
must likewise be besought of God. It is God
who cleanses the heart and life by purging away
the dross (Isa. 1:25:6:7; Jer. 31 : 31-34; 33 ¦ 8)-
But the prophets never pushed this idea to the
point of eliminating the human element entirely
from the transaction, as some theologians have
done. They conserved the dynamic of their
preaching by insisting upon an attitude of re
pentance of evil and longing for good. God
so transforms the life that these longings become
attainments. A great advance step in the history of the
ideas of sin and atonement was taken by the
prophets when they succeeded in placing the
responsibility and penalty for sin where they
belonged, viz., upon the sinner himself. This

In the Prophets and Deuteronomy 29
was a part of the great movement away from
family and clan solidarity toward individualism. '
The popular proverb current in the exilic
period, "the fathers have eaten sour grapes and
the children's teeth are set on edge" (Jer. 31-29;
Ezek. 18:2) shows that the doctrine therein
stated was still believed but that it was held
by many to be an unjust principle of action for
the Deity to employ. But yet, certain prophetic
teachers did not hesitate to uphold it (Jer. 32 : 18)
and to declare that the fall of Jerusalem was
due to the sins of Manasseh and his contem
poraries (II Kings 23:26f.; 24:23f. ; Jer.
15:4). In like manner, they held that the
righteousness of one might apply on the account
of another (Jer. 5:1; 15:1; Deut. 10:10).
Ezekiel, however, denies the possibility of vicari
ous righteousness (Ezek. 14: 12 ff.) and declares
emphatically "the soul that sinne th, it shall
die" (Ezek. 18:4, 19, 20). Each man's sin
recoils upon his own head and each man's
righteousness inures to his own benefit, and not
to that of any other, even his own child. With
Ezekiel rehgion is a private, personal experience
wrought out in the soul of each individual.
Consequently, every man stands or falls before
I See p. 20, note i.

30 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
God upon his own merits. Ezekiel, therefore,
has but worked out the prophetic teaching to
iits inevitable conclusion. Sin angers God and
is thus doomed to punishment; God's anger
may be assuaged only by repentance; this
repentance must be experienced by the sinner
himself; there is no other way of salvation.
Ezekiel's teaching on this point is, of course,
open to the criticism that he takes no account
of the fact that "no man liveth to himself," but
each is involved in the life of all. We cannot
isolate ourselves if we would. It must be
remembered, however, that the prophet in
this connection is thinking only of man's
responsibility to God and of God's judgment
of man.
Here we must turn aside for a moment, and,
by way of contrast, note the conceptions of
atonement appearing in the Book of Deuter
onomy. This is a body of law set in a prophetic
background. It is with the legal element that
we are now chiefly concemed; for it is in this
element alone that there is any marked variance
from the teachings of the prophets. The
Deuteronomic form of the Decalogue continues
the earlier teaching that children suffer at the
hands of Jehovah for the sins of their parents

In the Prophets and Deuteronomy 31
(Deut. 5:9). But in another section of the law
this old conception is repudiated in the plainest
terms (Deut. 24:16), and the law moves over
to the platform of Ezekiel. The conflict be
tween these two formulations of the law cannot
be removed by saying that the latter is applica
ble to the administration of human law, while
the former applies only to the divine execution
of justice. For it can scarcely be maintained
that the law would deliberately represent Jeho
vah as acting in accordance with less lofty and
just standards than those that control the actions
of men; nor does such an attempt at harmon
ization take sufficient account of the fact that
the very law that applies to the administration
of human justice is represented as a divinely
ordained law. The whole law is of God. The
only h)rpothesis that satisfactorily explains the
conflict in this particular case is that of a con
siderable lapse of time between the promulgation
of the two laws, during which man's sociological
and rehgious ideas had been undergoing a
thorough revision; or that of the origin of
the Deuteronomic Code from different sources
finally brought together, but not completely
harmonized. A Deuteronomic passage of especial interest

32 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
is the section of the law which provides for the
atonement to be made in case a man is found
murdered and the identity of the murderer is not
discovered (21:1-9). This law is without
parallel elsewhere in the Old Testament, and
is undoubtedly a survival of an old 'custom,
The elders of the city nearest to the scene of
the murder are to take an unbroken heifer, slay
her on the bank of a perennial stream, wash
their hands over her body and take oath that
they have had no knowledge of or share in the
crime. Only thus can they clear themselves
and their city from responsibility for the guilt.
The old feeling of the community's responsibil
ity for blood shed in its vicinity is here repre
sented. The whole proceeding is clearly reli
gious, and, though not regarded as a sacrifice
proper by the Deuteronomic legislators, it is
quite generally conceded to have been a sacri
ficial rite in some earlier stage of the religion of
Israel. Its religious character appears in the
specifications concerning the heifer, which are
the same as those for a sacrificial animal, in the
character of the place chosen for the perform
ance of the rite, in the presence of the priests,
and in the final appeal to Jehovah for pardon.
The heifer evidently is a substitute for the un-

In the Prophets and Deuteronomy 33
known murderer and bears the penalty that
properly belonged to him.'
The substitutionary sacrifice was certainly
the essence of the transaction in its earliest
form, which fact testifies to the existence of the
idea of substitution in early Israel and helps to
interpret some of the hints in this direction
noted in the customs of the preprophetic period.
But in the Deuteronomic version of the custom,
the emphasis is not upon the slaughter of the
animal so much as it is upon the state of mind
of the elders, their attitude toward the crime
and toward Jehovah. The slaughter is neces
sary, indeed, but it serves largely as demon
strating the sincerity of the elders' protestations
of innocence and pleas for mercy. The substi
tutionary function of the slaughter is reaffirmed,
but it is supplemented by the prophetic
requirement of clean hands and a pure heart.
A primitive, legalistic, non-ethical element in
the law is the conviction that the spilling of
human blood must be avenged and atoned for,
even if the guilty person cannot be found, lest
I So also Dilhnann, Driver, Steuemagel, and Bertholet in loc;
Koberle, S'ilnde und G-nade, p. 83 ; Herrmann, Die Idee der Siihne
im Alten Testament, pp.' 47 f., 54 f.; Smend, Lehrbuch der alttes-
tamentlichen Religionsgeschichte, 2d ed., p. 144; Stade, Biblische
Theologie des Alten Testaments, p. 204; Bennewitz, Die Siinde im
Alten Israel, p. 253.

34 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
divine wrath rest upon the land. The same
feeling about blood is attested by Deut. 19:13
and 22:8.
Reverting once more to the prophetic teach
ings concerning atonement, we are confronted
by that most famous of all prophecies, Isa.
52 : 13 — 53 : 12. This is a narrative of the bitter
experiences of the Servant of Jehovah with a
prediction of his coming glorification. The
purpose of the passage is to explain the sufferings
of the Servant, and it does this by showing their
vital relation to the successful accomplishment
of his mission. Apart from them he could have
accomplished nothing; "Except a grain of
wheat fall into the ground and die it abideth
alone . ' ' The Servant here described is the people
of Israel,' the nation as a whole and not any part
of it, nor any individual member of it. It is
the nation idealized, to be sure, a nation so trans
formed and spiritualized in the process of inter
pretation as to be almost unrecognizable to those
not gifted with the same degree of prophetic
I So also Budde, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. Ill,
pp. 499 ff. ; Giesebrecht, Der Knecht Jahves des Deuterojesaja
(1902); Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (1905),
pp. 307 f.; Smend, Lehrbuch der Alttestamentlichen Religions
geschichte, 2d ed. (1899), PP- 355 f-; Marti, Jesaia (1906);
Koberle, Siinde und Gnade im religiosen Leben des Volkes Israel
bis auf Christum (1905), pp. 240 ff.

In the Prophets and Deuteronomy 35
imagination as our prophet. It is an idealiza
tion, however, the same in kind and no greater
in degree, than that which meets us on every
hand in the prophetic interpretation of Israel's
past and portrayal of the future.
The purpose of the prophecy is not to explain
how atonement is wrought out for sinners, but
rather why the innocent suffer, and how this
suffering, which is but for a moment, will work
out a far more exceeding and abiding weight
of glory for the sufferer. The reason for the
suffering is found, not in the sins of Israel, but
in those of the heathen nations. The penalty
due their sins has beeh borne by Israel. He
has suffered in their place. No thought appears
so frequently in the passage as this of the right
eous Servant's substitution for the wicked (vss.
4, 5, 6, 8, 10, II, 12). The thought is that of
vicarious satisfaction of the demands made by
the divine righteousness. For the Hebrews
the character of God made it necessary that he
should punish sin. This punishment came in
the way of earthly disasters and calamities.
If suffering came to nation or individual, it
constituted indisputable evidence of sin. But
the Servant suffers, and yet he is innocent. His
suffering, then, must be vicarious; he is bearing

36 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
the penalty of others' sins, he has been con
stituted an 'asham, a compensation, a ransom
for the guilty (vs. 10). In obedience to the
divine law that sin must be punished he has
"poured out his soul unto death." He has
voluntarily submitted himself to the extreme
penalty and has uncomplainingly borne witness
to the justice of the divine law. The guilty,
too, may have suffered, but it is this voluntary
suffering of the righteous in behalf of the un
righteous that alone satisfies the demand of
Jehovah and saves the guilty from the extreme
penalty of the law.
The teaching of this truth, however, was not
an end in itself with our prophet. He does not
stop here. This is only a stage in his journey.
The greater lesson he has to convey is that this
vicarious suffering on the part of the Servant
has redemptive power; "by the knowledge of
himself shall my righteous Servant make many
righteous." His experience serves as an object-
lesson setting forth to the nations of the world
the character of the righteous God and the
depths of their own iniquity. It awakens in
them amazement and repentance. It stirs the
depths of their being and leads them to acknowl
edge their sins and accept the "healing" rend-

In the Prophets and Deuteronomy 37
ered accessible to them through his sufferings.
Furthermore, because of his submissive accept
ance of the burden and penalty of the world's
sin, the Servant is to be exalted. The justice
of Jehovah will not suffer such a one to end his
days prematurely and in disgrace. He is to
be raised from the dead and given a position
of power in the world. His latter end will be
glorious. It is this message of hope and en
couragement that was the prophet's burden.
He sought to cheer suffering Israel by showing
the larger meaning of the exilic experiences
and revealing their vital import in bringing
the world to a knowledge of the true God. In
this converted world shall Israel find his true
place and reap the full reward of his labors.
His sufferings are not to be taken as indicative
of Jehovah's punitive wrath against him, but
rather as the way chosen by God to exalt him
in the sight of the world and to reconcile the
world unto Himself. The doctrine of vicarious
suffering, prominent as it is, is thus only the
basis for an expression of assurance of Israel's
worldwide mission. ' It is to be noted that the
I Important as this attempt to solve the problem of suffering
was, it remained without appreciable influence upon the discussion
of the problem until after the close of the Old Testament period.
It is not again employed or alluded to until IV Macc. i : 1 1 ; 6 : 29 ;
17:21 f.

38 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
redemptive efficacy of the Servant's mission
does not lie in his sufferings alone, but that his
resurrection and glorification are needed to
complete the work. It is not until the Servant
has been "exalted and lifted up" that the true
significance of the sufferings becomes apparent
to the astonished world.
In leaving this division of the subject, atten
tion must be called to the few occurrences of
the word ^Si "to atone," in the Deuter
onomic and prophetic hterature, not including
Ezek., chaps. 40-48, which will be considered
in connection with the later legal literature.
In the story of Aaron's calf, Exod. 32:30 ff. ( =
a late addition to E), Moses returns to the pres
ence of Jehovah expressing the hope that he
might perhaps appease his anger aroused by
Israel's sin. The idea of the verb is here evi
dently "make propitiation or appeasement;"
the means whereby it is to be accomplished is
the prayer and supplication of one especially
close to God; forgiveness is besought as a
special favor granted for Moses' sake. The
intensity of Moses' desire for his people's pardon
is evidenced by his plea that he himself be blotted
out of the book of Jehovah if forgiveness be not
granted. It is forcing the language to find here.

In the Prophets and Deuteronomy 39
as some have done,' a proposal on Moses' part
to surrender his own life as a substitute for that
of the people. This idea of appeasement was
found to be resident in the word as used in the
preprophetic period. (See pp. 14-16.)
A second meaning in which "atone" is em
ployed in this literature is that of purifying the
sinner or purging away his sin. The agent
of the purification or purging in all these cases
is Jehovah himself (Ezek. 16:63; Isa. 6:7;
22:14; Jer. 18:23; Deut. 21:8), and he does
it of his own free grace. Certain conditions
may be required, of course, as in Isa. 27:9 and
Deut. 21:1-9, but the actual purification is
Jehovah's work. This usage of the word hes
very near to the primitive meaning, "wipe out,"
"obhterate;" how near may be judged upon
reference to Jer. 18:23, where the verb to
"atone" is paraUel to the verb "wipe out,"
"blot out" (nna).
In Isa. 28:18, as the text now stands, the
verb "atone" is apphed to the breaking of a
covenant, and must have its primitive force —
"your covenant with death shall be wiped
* E. g., Holzinger, Exodus, in loc. In any case, even if the
thought of substitution does lie in the words attributed to Moses,
the futility of substitution is distinctly asserted in Jehovah's answer
(vs. 33).

40 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
out," i. e., annulled; but the text is, perhaps,
corrupt. The only other occurrence of the word is in
Isa. 47:11, "there shall befall thee disaster,
which thou shalt be unable to avert by ransom."
The ordinary renderings here, "propitiate,"
"expiate," are unsuitable; one does not pro
pitiate a disaster, but a person; nor does one
expiate a calamity, but rather a sin. The
meaning "avert by ransom" becomes practi
cally certain if in the parallel line the difficult
nima be corrected to mriffl, i. e., "avert
by bribe."' This meaning of "iB3 is derived
immediately from the noun ^S3, "ransom,"
"blood-wit." The new phases of the atonement idea pre
sented in the Deuteronomic and prophetic
literature thus seem to be: (i) the emphasis,
upon repentance as the sine qua non of pardon ;
(2) the teaching that it is Jehovah only who can
purify the guilty; (3) the declaration that each
man's fate is in his own hands; his sins can be
borne by no other; (4) the unmistakable accept
ance of the idea of penal substitution in Isa.,
chap. 53; and (5) the new teaching of the re-
I So Marti, Krochmal, Graetz, Cheyne, in loc; and the lexicons
of Gesenius-Buhl, and Brown-Driver-Briggs.

In the Prophets and Deuteronomy 41
demptive and regenerative power of the suffer
ings of the innocent in the hearts of the guilty.
There is, thus, no carefully wrought-out system
of thought upon this subject, nor were pains
taken by the prophetic teachers to bring their
utterances into harmony with those of their
predecessors and contemporaries. They hesi
tated not to strike out new paths. The religious
opinions of the past were not a burden or a
constraint upon their own thoughts, but a
stimulus to better thinking. The problems
of life received varying solutions then as now.
The prophetic soul enjoyed fuU hberty, and
theological consistency was lost sight of in the
passion for truth.

CHAPTER III
ATONEMENT IN THE LATER PRIESTLY
LITERATURE
The adoption of the Priestly Code in the
days of Ezra and Nehemiah marked an epoch
in the history of the Hebrew religion. It sig
nalized the triumph of the legalistic, priestly
aspect of rehgious thought. Prophecy had
emphasized the value of the ethical element,
and of man's right relations to his fellows, as
indispensable to his acceptance with God;
legislation lays its stress upon the distinctively
religious element, and upon the necessity of
man's right attitude toward God himself. It
seeks to secure the desired attitude by providing
a series of regulations which shall control all
the activities of hfe on their Godward side. It
furnishes a rule, or ritual for the performance
of every religious function, and it recognizes
the rehgious element present in practically
every human act or experience. The inevitable
result was a transfer of emphasis from character
to act, from being to doing, with the accompany
ing danger of externalism and formalism in
religion. Nevertheless, the whole movement
42

In Later Priestly Literature 43 ,
grew out of and attempted to give utterance to
two great thoughts, viz., the immeasurable
holiness of God, and the enormity and univer
sality of sin. These two truths were driven
deep into the consciousness of Israel's religious
thinkers by the fall of Jerusalem and the agonies
of exile, drastic penalties inflicted by a most
holy God upon a desperately wicked people.
The task of atonement is now greater than ever
before; God and man are at the farthest poles
of estrangement. None but the most rigid,
exact, minute, and comprehensive provisions
for atonement will secure the desired forgiveness
and restoration to favor.
The chief literature expressive of this feeling
is Ezek., chaps. 40-48, the Priestly Code, the
P document, and the books of Chronicles, Ezra,
and Nehemiah. This does not comprise the
total literary output of the exilic and post-exilic
age, but it represents the predominant spirit
of the age which breathes through almost
all of its literature, e.g., the later prophets,
many psalms, and even some of the Wisdom
Literature. In the study of the atonement ritual an initial
fact of great significance presents itself; sin
is no longer primarily the product of the will.

44 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
It may be and frequently is existent entirely
apart from any act of volition ; ' ' unwitting sins ' '
play a large part in the law, for they require
atonement no less than dehberate sins.' Not
only so, but even certain inanimate objects are
under the necessity of being made acceptable to
God through atonement. Certain inevitable,
natural processes also involve the necessity
of atonement. The truth of these statern^nts
appears from such regulations as those concern
ing childbirth (Lev. 12:6-8), where instead of
I It is not to be supposed that this phase of the conception of sin
appeared for the first time in exilic and post-exilic times. It is
rather a survival of earlier beliefs, which were ignored, if not op
posed by the prophets, but were always a part of the popular con
sciousness and held their place uninterruptedly in the ritual.
This sort of material constitutes strong proof for the antiquity of
much of the contents of the Priestly Code. In this connection
attention may be called to the theory of Thompson, Semitic
Magic, pp. 193 ff., to the effect that "the 'unwitting' sins of
Leviticus were always followed by some physical manifestation
in the unlucky man; or inversely, sickness was held to be the
result of an 'unwitting' breach of tabu, which demanded an
'atonement' to free the sick man from the demon he had attracted."
This hypothesis may have applied in early times to some phases
of "unwitting" sin, such as leprosy (Lev., chap. 14; see below
p. 49). But it fails to cover the ground. The case of Jonathan,
for example, in I Sam. 14: 24 ff. is a clear case of "unwitting" sin,
though the term is not applied to it in the context. But Jona
than evidently sinned without knowing it, and this is the whole
of "unwitting" sin. Yet he neither experiences any "physical mani
festation" in his own person nor observes any in the persons of his
countrymen. Nor is there any room for demoniac activity in

In Later Priestly Literature 45
something calling forth di-vine displeasure,
there seems to be rather a gracious manifesta
tion of divine favor; those concerning the person
who has accidentally come in contact with a
corpse (Num., chap. 19) ; those providing for the
propitiation to be made in behalf of the altar
(Ezek. 43:19-27; Exod. 29:36^); and those
dealing with "unwitting sins" (Lev., chaps.
4, 5). Such matters as these do not constitute
sin in the Christian sense of the word at aU,
yet the necessity for atonement is imper-
thecase. Again, Lev. 4:3 makes provision for cases of "unwitting"
sin on the part of the "anointed priest" which "bring guilt on the
people.'' There can be no question of the priest's sickness here,
for this would not inform him that he had involved the people in
guilt; nor can it well be a case of national plague, for this would
in no way imply that the cause was to be sought in priestly sin.
Similarly, when the "unwitting" sin is that of the congregation as a
whole (e.g.. Lev. 4:13 ff.), neither the language employed nor the
method of procedure prescribed seems appropriate to a case of
national pestilence. Furthermore, the phrase, "if his sin, where
with he hath sinned, be made known to hira" (Lev. 4:23, 28),
rather points to other channels of information than that of sickness.
In short, it seems that Mr. Thompson seeks to make his hypothesis
carry raore than it will bear, and that he has brought over into
the Old Testament from his indispensable studies in Babylonian
demonology (see his Devils and E-vil Spirits of Babylonia; and his
Reports ofthe Astronomers and Magicians of Nineveh and Babylon)
a prepossession in favor of the activity of evil spirits which is not
supported by the facts. One of the raarked differences between
Babylonian and Hebrew religion is the relatively slight recognition
of deraons in the latter; cf. Hans Duhra, Die bosen Geister im
Alten Testament (1904).

46 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
ative; failure to provide it means death (Lev.
15:31)- In general we may say that atonement, ^s
called for by three classes of offenses : (a) cases
of uncleanness where atonement serves for
general purificatory purposes, making the per
son or thing acceptable in the divine presence;'
(b) "unwitting sins," i. e., unintentional or
accidental transgressions;'' (c) deliberate, inten
tional sins. This ¦ third category is excluded
by some from the list of sins for which atone
ment may be made.^ This limitation of the
efficacy of atonement to cases of unwitting sin
either against ttioral or ceremonial law is sup
ported by Num. 15:30 ff., which expressly
declares that for sins committed "with a high
hand" there can be no atonement. This
general principle is in accord with a number of
specific laws decreeing the death or excom
munication of persons guilty of such offenses as
incest, witchcraft, adultery, blasphemy, murder,
disregard of the Sabbath, and various violations
I E.g., Exod. 29: iff., 36!; Lev. 8:14 f.; 9:1 ff., chaps. 12, 14,
15; Num. 6:9 ff.; chaps. 7, ig, 28, and 29.
2 E. g.. Num. 15:22-29; Lev. 4:1 — 5:19.
3 So Schultz, American Journal of Theology, Vol. IV,
p. 297; Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, Vol.
I, p. 164.

In Later Priestly Literature 47
of the ritual.' But over against this general
law and its many concrete illustrations, there
arg several cases of a contrary character which
none but the most sophistical methods of inter
pretation can convert into unwitting sins. For
example, atonement is available for perjury,
betrayal of trust, robbery, oppression, sexual
intercourse with another man's bondmaid,
and murmuring against Jehovah's represen
tatives. "
How shall we account for these conflicting
views? It must be borne in mind that the
Priestly Code is a compilation from various
sources and represents generations of ritualistic
usage and theory. The point of view control
ling the most of this material is that only unin-
tentiofial sins are open to atonement; but not
all of it has been brought into harmony with the
dominant view. Furthermore, it is not improb
able that the exclusion of deliberate sins from
¦Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38; 31:14, 15; 32:33 ff.
35:2; Lev. 7:20 f., 25-27; io:iff.; 17:4,9,10; 18:29; ^Q-S
20:2, 6, 9-12, 27; 22:3; 23:29 f.; 24:15-17, 21; Num. 9:13
15:32; 19:20; 35:31-34.
2Lev.5:i; 6:1-7; 19:20 ff.; Num. 16:416. InNura.5:6ff.
and Lev. 16:21 f., all sins seera to be provided for, but possibly
unwitting sins only were in mind, and in Lev., chap. 16, the sins
of the community as a whole rather than those of individuals are
certainly intended.

48 Biblical Ideas of Atoneinent
the possibility of atonement was an ideal of
the earlier strata of the Priestly Code which
was found to be impracticable; time showed
it to be impossible of realization. The later
revision of the statutes therefore made a con
cession at this point to human weakness. '
The purpose of the atoning act, in the Priestly
Code as elsewhere, is to facilitate communion
with God, to remove obstacles to such com
munion of whatever sort they may be. The
efficacy of the transaction lies in the perform
ance of the atoning act; that is the sine qua non.
In certain cases confession of sin accompanied
the act (e. g.. Lev. 16: 21). But in many others
where atonement was called for there was noth
ing to confess; the act was all in all. While
there was this insistence upon the performance
of the rite, there went along with it a practically
complete tolerance as to behefs concerning the
rite! This is characteristic of all ancient rites;
provided a man discharge his ritual obligations,
he is at liberty to interpret them according to
his own pleasure.' Furthermore, sacrificial
I As a matter of fact Lev. 6:1-7; 19:21 f-! and Num. 5:5-8
are quite generally assigned to the latest accretions to the Priestly
Code for reasons quite apart from their position with reference
to deliberate and inadvertent sins.
2 See W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, 2d ed., pp. 16 ff.

In Later Priestly Literature 49
rites are a growth, not an invention. They
go on from generation to generation and gather
to themselves new meaning with the progress
of time. So that, to a sacrificial institution
dating its origin far back in the past, we need
not be surprised to find more than one explana
tion attached.
This is certainly true of the rite of atonement.
One value assigned to the rite is evidently that
of a purging agency. It purifies persons and
things from uncleanness and sin. Blood plays
a large part in this ritual. The person or thing
to be cleansed is anointed or sprinkled with
blood and this act removes all impurity as if
by magic. An illustration of this is furnished
by the ritual for the cleansing of lepers (Lev.
chap. 14).' The leper is already healed of his
disease before application is made for cere
monial cleansing. The purpose of the atone
ment therefore is not to placate the wrath of
God in order that the leper may be healed, but
rather to remove from him all traces of the
uncleanness of his leprosy, which was conceived
of originally, in all probability, as due to the
malevolence of a demon. This cleansing func-
I Sirailar cases are to be found in Lev. 8:23, 30; 12:6-8;
14:48 ff.; Exod. 29:12, 20, 21.

50 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
tion of blood belongs in the same category with
that of the lustral water for the purpose of remov
ing uncleanness due to contact with a dead
body (Num. 19: ii f.), the burning and washing
necessary after participation in war (Num.
31:21-24), the incense burned by Aaron in
order to turn aside the plague which was devas
tating Israel (Num. 16:46 ff.), and the sacred
oil used in the consecration of priests (Lev. 8:12).
This conception of the efficacy of blood goes
back to ancient usages and ideas, which have
persisted among the Arabs even to the present
day. The Bedouin sprinkles blood when he
digs a well, erects a building, or tills new land,
and believes that by so doing he protects him
self from the activities of hostile demons.'
Blood was one of those substances which tradi
tionally had power to remove persons or things
from the sphere of the profane to that of the
sacred. An animal having been set apart to
Jehovah, its blood was holy and was able to
impart the quality of holiness to that with which
it came in contact. '
This conception of the cleansing or sanctifying
power of blood applies in all cases in which
- Doughty, Arabia Deserta, Vol. I, pp. 136, 452.
2 So H. P. Smith, American Journal of Theology, Vol. X, p. 419.

In Later Priestly Literature 51
the blood is actually applied to the person or
object which is to be made clean or holy. There
are many cases of atonement, however, in which
no such physical contact between the sinner
and the blood is required.' For such, some
other explanation must be sought, and the clue
to it seems to be furnished by the fact that fat
and blood are so commonly associated in the
sacrificial ritual. Now fat is well known to have
been regarded as the best part of the animal
in the Semitic world. The best of the fruit is
called its fat in the Old Testament itself (Num.
18:12). The crime of Eli's sons was probably
that of taking the fat which, as the best part of
the offering, belonged to Jehovah. Fat and
blood are described as Jehovah's food in Ezek.
44:7. Blood thus seems to have been held in
equally high esteem with fat as an article of
food.' The use of blood and fat accordingly
points back to early times when the sacrifice was
regarded as a family meal of which the deity
I It is very probable that in earlier stages of the ritual blood
was applied to all persons seeking atoneraent just as it was to
things, and that the same idea of purifying held good in all cases
(cf. Exod. 24:8; 29-20; Lev. 8:23 ff.).
' For evidence of this custom among the Semites and other
primitive peoples, see W. R. Smith, ReUgion of the Semites, 2d
ed., pp. 234; cf. Ps. 50:13.

52 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
and his worshipers ahke partook and thus ce
mented the fellowship between them. But it is
impossible to suppose that this crude, sensuous
conception was present in the mind of the exilic
or post-exilic legislator. It is more probable
either that he accepted long-cherished customs
without understanding or seeking to understand
their true significance, or that he regarded the
sacrificial blood and fat in many cases as a gift
to God. It is scarcely credible, however, that
the priestly revisers of the ritual assumed so
unquestioning an attitude as the former alterna
tive imphes; and certain positive facts favor
the latter alternative. The eating of the sin-
offering is not permitted to the offerer but is
confined to the priests, the representatives of
God. In the early stages of the Hebrew ritual,
sacrifice was certainly looked upon as a gift to
God. In the Priestly Code itself sacrifice is
constantly represented as a gift; even the sin-
offering is so designated (Lev. 4:23, 28, 32;
5:11). The fact that the Nazirite must offer
a sin-offering at the close of his Nazirate is
explicable on the gift basis, i. e., now that the
Nazirite is about to withdraw from his close,
undivided attachment to Jehovah, he propitiates
him with liberal gifts lest he be incensed by

In Later Priestly Literature 53
such abandonment of him (Num., chap. 6).'
The substitution of fine flour for an animal in
the case of the sin-offering of a poor man like
wise points toward the gift hypothesis (Lev.
S:iiff-)- In any case, the interpretation of the sin-
offering and the trespass-offering as representa
tive of atonement through vicarious satisfaction
of the divine demand for justice cannot stand.
The death of the sacrificial animal does not
represent the death of the sinner. The sin is
not transferred to the slain victim. The im
possibility of the theory of vicarious satisfaction
appears from several facts. As previously
noted, fine flour may constitute a sin-offering
(Lev. 5: II ff.); there can be in such a case no
vicarious death for sin. Not only so, but this
'- Hubert and Mauss, op. cit,, pp. 78 f., explain the ceremony
and sacrifice connected with the expiration of the Nazirite's vow
as intended to release him from the sanctity his Nazirate conferred
upon him so that retum to profane life would be possible and safe
for him. The ceremony of release as described in the Talmudic
treatise Nazir requires hira to take a bath of purification; offer
a burnt offering, sin-offering, and peace-offering; cut off his hair
and cast it into the sacrificial flames; and to receive into his hands
the heave-offering and the wave-offering with a portion of the ac
companying food-offering, which offerings are then presented to
Jehovah. He is then released frora his sanctity; it has passed to
the altar through the hair and the victiras that have ascended
upon the altar.

54 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
flour and the flesh of the sin-offering and tres
pass-offering were most holy, so that only
priests might eat of it, and that too under re
strictions (Lev. 5:13; 6:24f.; 7:6). This
is scarcely consistent with the view that the sin
has been transferred to the slain animal.'
Then, too, the emphasis of the ritual is not upon
the slaughter, as would be the case if the death
of the sinner were the end in view, but rather
upon the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar. '
' The fact that in certain cases the flesh ofthe sin-offering is not
eaten by the priests but is burned "without the camp" (Exod.
29:14; Lev. 4:11 f., 21; 16:27) is not inconsistent with the view
that the flesh was holy. The cases in question are the sin-offerings
for the high-priest, the priests, or the community as a whole. The
priests would scarcely be expected to eat offerings made to God in
their own behalf. There was evidently difference of opinion as
to the propriety of the priests eating of the sin-offering of the
community of which he himself was a part (Lev. 4: 21; 10: 16 ff.),
but such an offering is specifically declared to be "most holy"
(Lev. 10:17). The holiness of these offerings appears likewise
from the emphasis laid upon the necessity of sprinkling their blood
upon the altar for purifying purposes, and from the fact that the
flesh was to be burned in a "clean place,'' The burning outside
of the carap was merely an additional precaution against the danger
of anyone coming in contact with the most holy flesh (cf. W. R.
Smith, Religion ofthe Semites, 2d ed., pp. 371 ff.).
2 Cf. W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, 2nd ed., pp. 32 ff.
337 fi-i 344 f- The sprinkling of the blood is the last relic of the
original custom of eating the raw flesh of the victim, imraediately
after its slaughter, in the sacrificial meal wherein the deity also
participates. Thereby communion of the deity with his worshipers
is established. When men abandon the eating of raw flesh, the

In Later Priestly Literature 55
Furthermore, animals were slain for other
sacrificial offerings where the purpose was not
to make atonement for sin;' hence the death
of the sacrificial animal is evidently consonant
with other interpretations than that of vicarious
satisfaction. Finally, certain offenses were be
yond the possibihty of atonement; nothing but
the sinner's death would suffice (Exod. 35:2;
Lev. 20:9-16, 27; 24:16 f., 21; Num. 15:32-
36). It is quite clear, therefore, that the death
of the animal was not regarded as the equiva
lent of the death of the sinner.
What is the significance of the laying-on of
hands in the atonement ritual ? Some have
urged the substitutionary hypothesis as furnish
ing the only solution: the sinner lays his hands
upon the head of the victim and thereby imparts
his own guilt to the animal which dies in his
place. It appears, however, that outside of
the cultus the laying-on of hands often signifies
drinking of the blood still remains (cf. the prohibitions of this
custom in Lev. 7:26 f.; 3:17; 17:10-12); but only to give place
in its tum to the smearing or sprinkling of blood upon the person
(Exod. 24:6,8; Lev. 8:23; 14:6,14). Finally, the blood is all
poured out before the deity as his share or sprinkled upon the altar,
while the sacriflcers and priests content themselves with the eating
of the cooked flesh (Exod. 29:12; Lev.4:7, 18; 17:13).
I See e. g., Lev., chap. 3.

56 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
the impartation of good gifts but never the trans
mission of evil. ' Furthermore in the non-sacri
ficial laws the laying-on of hands at times desig
nates something other than transmission or
impartation; e. g., in the case of one accused of
blasphemy, the witnesses lay their hands upon
his head, probably for the purpose of solemnly
identifying the offender, or of vouching for the
truthfulness of their testimony, but certainly.
not in order to transmit to him any guilt that
attaches to them, for by hypothesis he is
already guilty and they innocent (Lev.
24:10 ff.). The only case in the cultus
in which there is clearly transmissio culpae
through the laying-on of hands is that of
the goat sent away to Azazel (Lev. 16:21); but
this animal is not slaughtered in sacrifice, nor
was its blood sprinkled upon the altar. There
is thus no parallel here to the atoning sacrifice.
The goat is merely the means by which the
iniquity is carried away from Israel's land and
• The best discussion of this subject is that by Matthes, Zeit
schrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Vol. XXIII, pp. 97 ff.
the results of which are here stated. Hubert and Mauss (op. cit.,
pp. 44 f.) present a different hypothesis, namely, that the laying-
on of hands identifies the personalities of the offerer and the victim,
so that the latter becomes a representative of the former, or, rather,
the personalities of the two are fused. In the death of the victim,
the offerer himself dies.

In Later Priestly Literature 57
so does but discharge the same function as the
ephah of the vision in Zech. 5:5-10.' Hence
in the sacrificial ritual there is, a priori, an alter
native explanation open to us; we are not shut
up to the hypothesis of transmission of guilt.
But this latter hypothesis is out of the question
in the case of certain sacrifices in which the lay
ing-on of hands constitutes a part of the cere
mony, though they have no relation to the
function of atonement, e. g., the peace-offering
and the burnt-offering (Lev. 1:4; 3:2). These
sacrifices are distinctly gifts to the Deity, and
the laying-on of hands seems to have been the
sacrificer's method of presenting his gift, the
way in which he designates it as coming from
him. This view is supported by the fact that
modern Semites lay their hands upon the head
of the sacrificial victim only when it is slaugh
tered by someone other than the offerer himself. '
The sin-offering, however, is also a gift (Lev.
4:23), and so open to the same interpretation
of the laying-on of hands. That there was
actual or S)Tnbolical transference of guilt to
the sacrifice seems ruled out moreover by the
- For other examples of this widespread practice of expeHing
sin see J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, Vol. Ill, pp. 14 ff.
2 See Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-Day, p. 196.

58 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
simple fact that the animal was thereafter
sacrificed to God and its flesh was "most holy."
A subsidiary question in this connection is
the significance of the representation of the
Priestly Code that the Levites were demanded
by Jehovah in lieu of the firstborn who right
fully belong to him (Exod. 13:2; Num. 3 : 1 2 f.,
41; 8:16-18; 18:15). This claim to the first
born is based upon the deliverance from Egypt
and from the slaughter that annihilated the
firstborn of Egypt. What the historical ante
cedents of this theory concerning the Levites
were it is impossible to say, but the view of P
is perfectly simple: The Levites are a gift to
God in substitution for the firstborn of Israel
upon whom Jehovah has the same claim as he
has upon the first-fruits and firstlings.' It is
a vicarious offering certainly; but it is not penal
substitution for there is no question of guilt here,
nor is there any thought of death in the law,
whatever there may have been at some rem.ote
period in the past. The life-service of the
Levites is dedicated to Jehovah as a gift in
compensation for the life-service of the firstborn
(cf. the case of the dedication of Samuel to the
service of Jehovah in the temple at Shiloh).
I See p. 18, note.

In Later Priestly Literature 59
A similar conception underlies the poll-tax
levied upon all male Israelites over twenty years
of age whenever the census was taken (Exod.
30:11 ff.). This is declared to be "atonement
money" (or ransom) to make atonement for their
lives, that there might be no plague among them.
A census was an occasion fraught with danger —
witness the plague that followed David's census;
to forestall an outbreak each male must appease
the Deity with an offering (Exod. 3o:i3f.).
Thus the atoning sacrifices of the Priestly
Code can all be explained as acting in one or
the other of two ways, serving either as cleansing
agencies which render unclean persons or things
clean, or as gifts to Jehovah which assure him
of the sinner's sorrow and desire for pardon.
The gift of course was not looked upon by the
legislators as be|ng of any value in itself to Jeho
vah, but only as representative of the offender's
attitude of mind and heart. From this point
of view it is difficult to understand the objection
sometimes urged against this interpretation,
viz., that the conception of God was so exalted
and spiritual during this period that any thought
of offering him gifts must have been impossible. '
I So, e.g., W. P. Paterson, article "Sacrifice," in Hastings'
Dictionary of the Bible.

6o Biblical Ideas of Atonement
Gifts are still offered to God with more or less
directness even by the civilization of the twen
tieth century. It must not be forgotten, how
ever, that for the great body of worshipers the
ritual was the all-absorbing thing and that the
theology out of which it grew was in all proba
bility confined to a relatively small number of
people. The exact performance of the entire
ceremony was the essential thing; it is not
likely that one part of the sacrificial rite was
considered to have any more efficacy than
another; the entire rite was necessary to secure
the desired atonement. Not only was this so
in the case of any particular sacrifice, but the
later priestly cultus as a whole came to be looked
upon as possessed of atoning value. The pur
pose of it all was to propitiate Jehovah, who
had shown himself capable of such awful wrath.
Lest further outbreaks of his anger occur, the
most minute care is taken to guard every detail
of life, both sacred and profane, so zealously
that there shall be no possibility of offending his
divine majesty beyond the point of endurance.
The whole cultus is expressive of the desire of
the pious to conform in every shghtest detail to
the divine will. It is the apotheosis of obedience .
This obedience is practiced in the eager hope

In^LaterlPriestly Literature 6i
that thereby the heart of God may be touched
so that his afflicting rod may be withheld (Lev.,
chap. 26). The large amount of ritual for the
express purpose of making atonement, with its
climax in the legislation for the great Day of
Atonement (Lev., chap. 16), is the outstanding
characteristic of the Priestly Code as over against
the Deuteronomic and Covenant Codes. There
we move in an atmosphere of comparative
freedom and joy; here we are oppressed by
fear and sorrow. In the hands of the majority
the performance of this atoning ritual degener
ated into an unethical and unspiritual formalism;
but to the spiritually minded it was but the
concrete embodiment of the great teachings
regarding sin, repentance, and God enunciated
by the prophets.

II
THE IDEA OF ATONEMENT IN
NON-CANONICAL JEWISH
LITERATURE BY
ERNEST DEWITT BURTON
Professor of Ne-w Testament Literature and Interpretation
The University of Chicago

CHAPTER IV
ATONEMENT IN NON-CANONICAL JEWISH
LITERATURE
In the preceding chapters, the history of
the idea of atonement for sin has been traced
through the canonical books of the Old Testa
ment. But contemporary with the latest of
these books, and subsequent to them down to
and overlapping the period of the rise of the
New Testament books, is a body of Jewish
religious writings which cannot be overlooked
in a study of the biblical idea of atonement.
For though these writings have not been taken
up into our Bible as the limits of the canon are
defined by Protestants — several of them are in
the canon of the Roman Catholic church —
yet none the less they reflect Jewish thought of
the period preceding and contemporary with
the rise of Christianity. And this being the
case, they belong to the sources of our knowledge
concerning that movement of thought which
we are studying, and which assuredly did not
cease when the last of those books subsequently
taken up into the Old Testament canon was
written, to be resumed only when the earliest
6s

66 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
New Testament book was written or the earliest
New Testament sermon was preached. On
the contrary it was continuous even through
the period once wrongly called the four centuries
of silence. It is the purpose of the present
chapter to set forth the ideas of atonement which
are expressed in this non-canonical Jewish
literature of the period approximately 200 B. c.
to 100 A. D.
One of the most notable facts respecting the
Jewish thought about atonement as reflected
in this literature is the small place which that
thought apparently gave to the sacrifices.
From the restoration of the temple in the days
of Zerubbabel till its destruction in 70 A. D.,
temple worship, including sacrifice, continued
practically without interruption. With the ex
ception of the three years from the desecration
of the altar in 168 to its restoration in 165 b. c.
the daily sacrifices failed not, so far as we know,
for a period of nearly 600 years, 516 B. c. to
70 A.D. First and Second Maccabees bear
abundant evidence that the loyal Jews of the
second century b. c. were zealous for the temple
and the sacrifices, and the victory of the Macca
bees was in no small part a victory for the
temple.

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 67
With these facts before us it might seem as
if the temple was the center of Judaism, and
sacrifice the central element of the Jewish reli
gion. This, however, is very far from being
the case. . Two facts of this period must be
remembered, the rise of the synagogue and the
practical triumph of legalism. Throughout
by far the larger part of the period of which we
are speaking the real center of the religious life
of the Jewish people was the synagogue rather
than the temple. And the synagogue was under
the control of Pharisaism, and Pharisaism was
fundamentally neither ritual nor spiritually
ethical, but legalistic. This does not signify
that the sacrifices were neglected. On the
contrary they were diligently and enthusiastic
ally observed. A large body of priests offered
not only the daily sacrifices, but the multitudes
of offerings made by pilgrims from afar on the
occasion of the great feasts. Nor does it signify
that Pharisaism was opposed to sacrifice. It
means that the sacrifices were taken up into
the legal system, and that so far as they were not
simply acts of worship having no theological
significance, they were looked upon purely from
the point of view of legalism. Sacrifices were
to be offered, not because of any inherent virtue

68 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
in them, but as the sabbath and the fasts were
observed, because the law required it and God
demanded obedience to the law.
Bousset, speaking of the rites of the syna
gogue, says:
The new religion was a religion of observance, which
along with many other things had taken up into itself the
content of the cult-piety which was already devoid of
yital force and hastening to death. And this is the real
reason that the cult maintained itself at all in that uncon
tested respect which it undoubtedly enjoyed. It retained
its standing not on its own account, but in consequence
of the authority of the law. The requirements of the cult
were and remained a part of the great incomprehensible
divine will as this was expressed in the law. Cult was
no longer the basis and support of piety, but legal piety
instead was the support of the cult.'
A striking evidence of the correctness of this
statement of Bousset, which shows also that it
applies even to the pre-Maccabean period, is
fumished in Sir. 35 : 1-7 :
I. He that keepeth the law multiplieth offerings.
He that taketh heed to the commandments sacrificeth
a peace-offering.
2. He that requiteth a good tum offereth fine flour;
And he that giveth alms sacrificeth a thank-ofiering.
" Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 2d ed, p. 134. The
context shows that by "cult" Bousset means particularly the sacri
fices.

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 69
3. To depart from wickedness is a thing pleasing to the
Lord.
And to depart from unrighteousness is a propitiation
(e^tAa«r/ios).
4. See that thou appear not in the presence of the Lord
empty.
5. For all these things are to be done because of the
commandments .
6. The offering of the righteous maketh the altar fat;
And the sweet savor thereof is before the Most High.
7. The sacrifice of a righteous man is acceptable;
And the memorial thereof shall not be forgotten.
The first three verses affirm that keeping of
the law and doing righteousness constitute the
acceptable offerings to God. The sentences
must not be reversed; the thought is not that
he that multiplieth offerings keepeth the law,
and he that sacrificeth a peace-offering taketh
heed to the commandments. The author is not
exalting sacrifice, but on the contrary depreciat
ing it, affirming that keeping the law and doing
righteousness are the things that make one
acceptable to God. The meaning of vss. 4-7
is not wholly clear. If the words "offering"
and "sacrifice" be interpreted in the hght of the
preceding verses as referring to acts of right
eousness, then the later verses only reinforce the
thought of the earlier ones. If the words be

70 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
taken in their hteral sense, vss. 4-7 supplement
vss. 1-3 by affirming that though unimportant
as compared with the keeping of (other) com
mandments and almsgiving, sacrifices are never
theless to be offered. Upon the latter inter
pretation, however, the bringing of offerings
is enjoined simply on the legalistic ground that
the law commands it. Sacrifice is not as such
propitiatory; propitiation is achieved by depart
ing from unrighteousness (vs. 3) ; sacrifices are
to be offered because the law requires them, and
from a righteous man are acceptable.
In the preceding chapters of Sirach the other
side, the uselessness of sacrifice on the part of
the wicked, is set forth, repeating in effect the
teaching of the prophets. '
The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of
the ungodly;
Neither is he pacified for sins by the multitude of
sacrifices.
As he that killeth the son before his father's eyes
Is he that bringeth a sacrifice from the goods of
the poor (Sir. 34:19).
The chief thought of the writer is of course that
sacrifice is unavailing for a man who is continu
ing in his sins. Yet it is not enough to say that
I Cf., c. g., Isa., chap. i.

In Non-Canonical Je-wish Literature 71
he denies that sacrifices alone, without right
eousness, avail to make one acceptable to God;
this he does not so much say as take for granted.
Atoning value lies for him not at all in the sacri
fices as such, but wholly in righteousness and
obedience to the law. Sacrifices are of signi
ficance only as a part of legalism, and have no
other value than any other acts of obedience to
law. And this is the doctrine of the book
throughout. The writer approves of the priest
hood and the sacrificial system (7 : 31 ff. ; 14:11;
38:11 ff. ; 45:6-22) and men are even enjoined
in time of sickness to couple with repentance,
and the aid of the physician, an offering, as
means of averting death. Yet the sacrifices are
as a whole simply a part of what the law requires
and their offering is chiefly for the benefit of
the priesthood, i. e., for the maintenance of the
cult. To atone for sins or to make peace with
God they are of no value save as obedience to
the statutes of the law, and indeed of less value
than other acts of righteousness.
If we turn from this book which stands at
the beginning of our period to one which belongs
near its close, the so-called II (or IV) Esdras,
we find here an even more marked absence of
any dependence upon the sacrifices as a basis

72 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
of atonement. This is doubtless due in no
smaU measure to the fact that the book was
written after the fall of Jerusalem, when, the
temple no longer standing, sacrifices could no
longer be offered. Yet it remains a significant
indication of the relatively unimportant place
which the sacrifices had filled in the Jewish
thought concerning the basis of atonement that
in a book written within a decade or two after
the destruction of the temple, and dealing
specifically with the problem of sin and its con
sequences, and especially the sin of Israel, there
is not a single direct or indirect reference to
sacrifice, beyond the bare mention of the fact
that the altar is broken down and the temple
destroyed (10:21).
Nor does the literature of the period disclose
any considerable divergence from the legalistic
attitude toward the sacrifices. The book of
Sirach, indeed, says of Aaron:
He chose him out of all living
To offer sacrifice to the Lord,
Incense and a sweet savour, for a memorial
To make reconciliation {iiiXda-KeaOai) for thy people
(4S:i6).
But it continues immediately:
He gave unto him his commandments,
Authority in the covenants of judgments.

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 73
To teach Jacob the testimonies,
And to enlighten Israel in his law (45 : 17).
Johanan ben Zakkai also (about 70 A. D.)
calls the altar "the sign of reconciliation" and
says of the stones that they bring reconciliation
between Israel and the heavenly Father,' and
Rabbi Joshua, according to tradition, lamented
the destruction of the temple, saying "Woe is
us, because the place is destroyed at which the
sins of Israel were atoned for." Yet it is to be
observed that this language does not, at least
in the case of the son of Sirach, go beyond the
distinctly legal point of view already ascribed
to him; moreover, that taken at its highest
valuation the altar has to do with the relation
of Israel as a whole to God and not with that
of the individual.
The idea of atonement for the sins of the
individual through sacrifice is expressed, how
ever, in one book of the later pre-Talmudic
literature. In II Maccabees (written about
90 B. c), we read that when Hehodorus, having
essayed to seize the treasures on deposit in the
temple, was smitten and brought to utter help
lessness, certain of Heliodorus' familiar friends besought Onias
- Bousset, 2d ed., p. 228, citing from Tosephta Baba, VII. 3.

74 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
to call upon the Most High, and grant life to him who
lay quite at the last gasp. And the high-priest ....
brought a sacrifice for the deliverance of the man. But
as the high-priest was making the propitiation, the same
young men appeared again to Heliodorus .... and
said, Give Onias, the high-priest, great thanks, for for
his sake the Lord hath granted thee life (3 : 31-33).
Again, speaking of certain soldiers of Judas who
had fallen in battle, and under whose garments
there were found tokens of heathen idols, the
author says that the survivors
betook themselves unto supplication beseeching that the
sin committed might be wholly blotted out  And
when Judas had made a collection man by man to the
sum of two thousand drachmas of silver he sent unto
Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice for sin, doing therein right
well and honorably in that he took thought for a resur
rection. For if he were not expecting that they that were
fallen would rise again, it were superfluous and idle to
pray for the dead (12:42-44).
It is notable that in neither of these cases does
the offender himself bring the sacrifice; personal
repentance is apparently excluded. It looks
as if the sacrifice had intrinsic propitiatory value.
But on the other hand the second passage sug
gests that the sacrifice was conceived of as a
prayer offered by the survivors for their com
panions who, they believed, had lost their lives
because of their unfaithfulness to Jehovah. And

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 75
the first passage read in the light of this
seems also to convey a similar thought. It is
for the sake of Onias, who offered the sacrifice,
that the Lord grants Heliodorus life. While
therefore these passages are sufficient to show
that at least as late as a century before the Chris
tian era (and doubtless much later) sacrifice was
by some conceived to have propitiatory value,
even apart from the repentance of the sinner, they
contain no clear theory as to how the sacrifices
effect their result. They are elements of a
legalistic system, or have the value of interces
sory prayer. Expiatory value is never ascribed
to them.
If from the incomplete and not wholly con
sistent evidence we conclude that probably
throughout this period there persisted among
the people, perhaps encouraged by the priests,
the idea that sacrifice atoned for sin, with a
more or less indefinite theory as to how it ac
complished this, this is but the continuation of
what we have seen to have existed in the Old
Testament periods (cf. chap, iii, p. 60). Sacri
fices were undoubtedly offered: regularly by
the priests for the people; in connection with
the feasts; as special thank-offerings; and
sometimes as means of deliverance for those

76 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
who for their sins had fallen under the special
wrath of God. How these latter sacrifices, or
indeed the other, became effective — of this little
is said in the extant literature. But there
is distinct protest against the idea, which there
fore was probably more or less common, that
sacrifices possessed an intrinsic value, even aside
from repentance and righteous conduct. This
denial of intrinsic value to the sacrifices, repeat
ing the teaching of the pre-exilic prophets, is
the teaching of the period, so far as it has come
down to us; the faith in them is the more or
less prevalent error of the time against which
the successors of the prophets protest as the
prophets before them had done. In short, we
find sacrifices as a part of an accepted legalistic
system, and protest, in the spirit of the old
prophets, against reliance upon them as having
intrinsic atoning value.
But it is not in connection with the sacrifices
only that we must seek for the thought of the
Judaism of the Maccabean and New Testament
period in respect to atonement. For there are
traces in Jewish literature of this period of the
idea that the suffering and death of men effect
the escape of others from punishment or disaster.
This takes place however not through human

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 77
sacrifice, of which there are occasional traces
in the Old Testament, but through the voluntary
death of members of the community. Whether
the idea as found in the later Jewish books is
developed from the germ contained inthe con
ception of the suffering servant of Jehovah in
Isaiah, chap. 53, or under the influence of pagan
ideas, the conception appears at any rate in a
few passages of this period. Josephus, Ant., i,
13, 3, puts into the mouth of Abraham the state
ment that Isaac offered in sacrifice will inure
to his advantage, but without a hint that the
death of Isaac is of advantage to him because of
any expiatory value that it possessed. The
language is:
And since thou wast born, die not by the common
way of departing from life, but by thine own father sent
forward to God the father of all, by the law of sacrifice,
since he (God), I suppose, hath decreed that thou shalt
depart from life not by disease or war or any of the other
calamities that are wont to befall men, and expects thy
soul with prayers and the offices of religion, and will
place thee by himself. And thou, for my protector and
guardian of my old age — ^for this especially did I bring
thee up — thou shalt have procured me God instead of
thyself. The Second Book of Maccabees, speaking of
the death of the seven sons of a widow who were

78 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
slain by Antiochus for their fidehty to the
Jewish religion, reports that the last one of the
seven spoke thus to the tyrant:
For we are suffering because of our own sins; and if
for rebuke and chastening our living Lord hath been
angered a little while, yet shall he again be reconciled
((CttTaWay^creTat) with his own servants  But I,
as my brethren, give up both body and soul for the laws
of our fathers, calling upon God that he may speedily
become gracious to the nation (tXtwv Ta\v t<3 eOva yevea-dai) ,
and that thou amidst trials and plagues mayest confess
that he alone is God; and that in me and my brethren
thou mayest stay [or, there may be stayed] the wrath of
the Ahnighty, which hath been justly brought upon our
whole race (II Macc. 7:32, 33, 37, 38).
The so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees
(written probably between 60 B. c. and 70 A. d.)
records this as the prayer of the martyr:
Thou O God knowest that I might have delivered
myself, but under the torments of the fire I am dying,
for the sake of the law. Be gracious to thy people. Let
the punishment suffice thee which I for them endure.
For a purification let my blood serve them, and as a
substitute for their lives take my life (6 : 27-29).'
The author himself says:
For because of their courage and endurance, admired
not only by all men but even by their tormentors, have
I iXeas YeraC ri} eSvei irov, ipKeirBels tJ ¦fiperipf irepl airav SIk-tj.
Ka$dpinov airav Trolijaov rb ipiiv atpa, Kal ivrl^vxov airav Xd/3e
ri)v ipijV ^vxijv.

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 79
they become the cause that the tyranny which was en
dured by the people has come to naught, they having con
quered the tyrant by their endurance, so that through
them the fatherland was purified (i :ii).
And again:
These therefore, for God's sake sanctified, have been
honored not only with this honor, but also in this that
for their sakes the enemy had no more power over our
people, and that the tyrant was punished and the father
land purified, they becoming as it were a substitute'
(ovto/tjx"'') for the sins of the people through the blood
of those pious ones, and through their reconciling death
(iXaem/pioD ^avaTou) the divine providence has rescued
I The translation of dvTlfvxov (6:29; 17:22) by "substitute"
is not quite accurate and is liable to mislead, but is used for lack
of a better term. All the observed instances of the word occur
within about two centuries, the present passages being the earliest,
followed by Ign. Eph, 21:1, Symrn. 10:2; Polyc. 2:3; 6:1; Luc.
Lex, 10; Dio Cass., 59:8. These examples show that the word is
an adjective equivalent to SoSels ivrl i/vxijs (not to i/'i'XT! SoBela-a
Avr I); see especially Luc. Lex, 10: XP^A"'''''* dvrltj/vxa SiSSvai
ijBeXev. Ci. for such compounds with similar force of this preposi
tion avrlSovXos, ivriKoirpririljs, dmiraffeios. The word is
probably much older than the earliest extant examples. In IV
Macc. and Ign. it is employed as a neuter substantive. In Ign. it
bears a somewhat attenuated sense, meaning given on behalf of, u.
thing devoted to (another) without iraplying apparently that the
life of that other is thereby saved (cf. Zahn on Ign. Eph. 8: i and
Lightfoot's translation). In IV Macc. it is probably used in its
proper sense, a thing given for a life, and with reference to the
fact that the martyr is saving the life of his fellow-countrymen.
It is the context, not the word, which conveys the thought that he
does this by giving his own life in death, and which shows ho-w his
death was conceived to secure the life of his fellows.

8o Biblical Ideas of Atonement
the hitherto sadly oppressed Israel. For the tyrant
Antiochus turned his attention to the manliness of their
courage and to their steadfastness under torture, and
proclaimed to his soldiers their steadfastness as an exam
ple (17:20-22).
These passages do not seem to yield a per
fectly clear and self-consistent view. Even
the passages in IV Maccabees waver between
two views, or seek to combine them. There
is probably truth in the remark of Deissmann:'
These passages are important for the understanding
of the thought of the representative character of the suffer
ings of the righteous. It is evident that the whole
thought arose not as a fixed dogma, but perfectly clearly
through the mystical and acute intuition of religious
pathos.
In other words, these passages reflect not a
clearly formed doctrine, but a thought concern
ing the meaning of suffering arising under
especial and exceptional circumstances, and
not unnaturally combine views not wholly
assimilated to one another.^ On the one side
the death of the martyr is represented as suffi
ciently meeting God's demands because of the
sin of the people (IV Macc. 6:28); and on the
' Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, Vol. II, p. i6o,
footnote. ' Cf. Dr. Smith's remarks on Isa., chap. 53, in chap, ii, pp. 34 ff.

In Non-Canonical Jeivish Literature 8i
other it averts further evil by the effect which
the spectacle of the courage and devotion of the
mart)n: has upon the mind of the tyrant (i 7:23).
If these two conceptions are to be blended in
one, this would -yield the thought that God in
his providence permitted these to suffer that
under the influence of their courage and fidelity
to the law the tyrant might be moved to stay
his hand; and that their death became propi
tiatory in that it furnished to God the means by
which he might check the persecuting hand of
the t5Tant. It is perhaps in favor of this view
that the writer in vss. 22, 23 connects the sub
stitutionary suffering and propitiatory death
of the martyr, the providence of God, and the
effect of their courage on the mind of the tyrant.
Yet the course of thought as expressed is not
transparently clear, and it is perhaps most
probable that the writer has conjoined different
points of view without thoroughly harmonizing
them. If then there are two points of view not
wholly assimilated, it is with the first of them
that we are specially concerned. It is clearly
said that by the death of the mart)TS further
suffering is averted from the nation and that their
blood is therefore given for the life of the nation,
and their is death propitiatory. Yet this is not

82 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
in the sense that the place of the guilty is taken
by other and wholly innocent persons. For
those who suffer are a part of those who have
sinned. In II Macc. the mart)^ included him
self in the sinful nation of whom therefore he
is the representative. In IV Macc. he prays
that the punishment which he and his brothers
voluntarily endure may suffice to meet the de
mands of God. The whole passage implies not
that they have endured the equivalent of that
which was due the nation, but that they repre
sent the nation, and that their representative
suffering is graciously accepted by God.
Whether the thought of the writer goes beyond
this and includes some explanation of how the
suffering of a few suffices does not clearly appear.
It is clear only that the idea of substitution is
qualified by that of representation.
Possibly we may discover in this passage the
germ of that conception which more or less
dominated later Jewish thought, that a man's
standing before God is determined by the
amount of good works to his credit. These
good works are primarily a man's own deeds
of obedience to the law. But as it became
impossible not to recognize that so tested men
fell short of full satisfaction of the law's demands

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 83
there arose the theory, which eventually became
a distinct element of later Jewish theology, that
the man who is deficient in good works may
draw upon the superabundant good works of
the fathers. As a specific form of this idea it is
occasionally said that the sufferings of the inno
cent, even of children dying in infancy, count
also as a treasure to be credited to others. ' But
this idea of the merits of the fathers was not in
New Testament times a controlling thought.
StUl less so was the notion of merit through
suffering. The passages in the books of Macca
bees referring, it will be observed, exclusively
to the case of the seven mart)Ts put to death
by Antiochus, show us only the possible early
beginnings of this idea, but by no means reflect
a definitely framed doctrine.
It is perhaps quite as likely that the underly
ing thought of the Maccabean passages is
that which is implied in a notable passage in
Sirach :
And Phinehas the son of Eleazar is the third in glory.
In that he was zealous in the fear of the Lord,
And stood fast in the good forwardness of his soul
when the people tumed away.
I See Weber, Z>je iefereciei raZjmid, pp. 3143., 320 f.; Bousset,
Die Religion des Judentums, 2d ed., pp. 228 f.; S. Schechter,
Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 254.

84 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
And he made reconciliation (iitXdffaro) for Israel
(45:23)-
The passage is evidently based upon 'Num.
25:11: Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the
priest, hath turned my wrath from the children of Israel,
in that he was Jealous with my jealousy among them,
so that I consumed not the children of Israel.
Phinehas had slain an Israelite and a Midianitish
woman whom the Israelite had brought into
the camp. "So the plague was stayed from'
the children of Israel." The explanation given
by the author of Numbers is that by his act
Phinehas had manifested God's displeasure
against sin even as Jehovah himself felt it; and
that this manifestation of divine wrath sufficed,
so that further exhibition of it was unnecessary.
This is evidently also the view of the son of
Sirach, who adds expressly that thus Phinehas
made reconciliation for Israel. Phinehas made
atonement not by suffering but by the infliction
of suffering, and this act has its value in its
revelation of the divine attitude toward sin. It
is probably too much to affirm with confidence
that this idea was also in the mind of the author
of II and IV Maccabees. But it is evident that
such a doctrine would account for both the

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 85
Sirach and Maccabean passages and that it is as
old as Num. 25:11. Manifestation of the divine
wrath against sin, whether through the infhction
or the endurance of suffering for sin, suffices to
make further punishment unnecessary. He
who accomplishes such revelation of the divine
wrath makes atonement.
But if the forgiveness of the sin of the indi
vidual is not achieved through sacrifice, and if
the suffering or righteous zeal of individuals for
God avails for their brethren only in the sense
that through the manifestation of the divine
displeasure with sin thus accomplished the
nation as a whole is spared further expression
of God's wrath, how was the Jew of the
Maccabean and New Testament period
taught to expect to secure the forgiveness of
his sins ?
The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach is quite
clear on this point. Sin is forgiven because of
subsequent righteousness, especially because
of almsgiving. Righteousness makes atone
ment for sins.
He that honoreth his father shall make atonement for
sins (3:3).
For the relieving of thy father shall not be forgotten
And instead of sins it shall be added to build thee up.

86 Biblical Ideas of Atoneinent
In the day of thine affliction it shall remember thee;
As fair weather upon ice,
So shall thy sins also melt away (3:14,15).
Water will quench a flaming fire;
And almsgiving will make atonement for sins (3 : 30).
Conceming atonement (eltXaa/xoI), be not without
fear,
To add sin upon sins (5:5).
Sin not against the multitude of the city,
And cast not thyself down in the crowd.
Bind not up sin twice;
For in one sin thou shalt not be unpunished.
Say not, He will look upon the multitude of my gifts,
And when I offer to the Most High God, he will
accept it.
Be not fainthearted in thy prayer;
And neglect not to give alms (7 : 7-10).
Fear the Lord with all thy soul;
And reverence his priests (7:29).
Before judgment examine thyself;
And in the hour of visitation thou shalt find forgiveness
(evp-fjcrui e^iXaa-jjLOv).
Humble thyself before thou be sick;
And in the time of sins show repentance.
Let nothing hinder thee to pay thy vow in due time;
And wait not until death to be justified (18 : 20-22).
My son, hast thou sinned? add no more thereto;
And make supplication for thy former sins (21 : i).

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 87
He that taketh away vengeance shall find vengeance
from the Lord;
And he will surely make firm his sins.
Forgive thy neighbor the hurt that he hath done thee;
And then thy sins shall be pardoned when thou prayest.
Man cherisheth anger against man;
And doth he seek healing from the Lord ?
Upon a man Uke himself he hath no mercy;
And doth he make supplication for his own sins ?
He being himself flesh nourisheth wrath;
Who shall make atonement for (e|iXao-£Tat) his sins ?
(28:1-5).
This is also the doctrine of the book of Tobit :
Give alms of thy substance, and when thou givest
alms, let not thine eye be envious; tum not away thy
face from any poor man, and the face of God shall not
be tumed away from thee. As thy substance is, give
alms of it according to thine abundance: if thou have
little, be not afraid to give alms according to that little:
for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the
day of necessity: because alms delivereth from death, and
suffereth not to come into darkness. Alms is a good gift
in the sight of the Most High for all that give it (4:7-11).
Good is prayer with fasting and alms and righteous
ness. A little with righteousness is better than much
with unrighteousness. It is better to give alms than to
lay up gold; alms doth deliver from death, and it shall
purge away all sin. They that do alms and righteousness
shall be filled with life; but they that sin are enemies
to their own life (i 2 : 8-10) .

88 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
The Prayer of Manasseh, of uncertain date,
but probably belonging to our period, lays all
stress upon repentance as the condition of for
giveness, making no mention of sacrifice or other
means of obtaining it.
I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowl
edge mine iniquities: but I humbly beseech thee; forgive
me, O Lord, forgive me, and destroy me not with mine
iniquities. Be not angry with me forever, by reserving
evil for me; neither condemn me to the, lower parts of
the earth. For thou, O Lord, art the God of them that
repent. The Psalms of the Pharisees' express rever
ence for the altar and the sacrifices, but make
repentance, righteousness, and fasting the
ground of forgiveness.
They went up to the altar from every kind of unclean
ness: yea even in their separation they polluted the sacri
fices, eating them Uke profane meat (8:13).
Whoso doeth righteousness layeth up for himself Ufe
at the Lord's hand: and whoso doeth wickedness is
guilty of his own soul to destroy it.
For the judgments of the Lord are in righteousness
according to each man and his house.
With whom wilt thou deal kindly, O God, save with
them that call upon the Lord ?
He will cleanse the soul that hath sinned, if it make
confession and acknowledgment.
" Written about 60 b. c.

In Non-Canonical Jewish Literature 89
For upon us and upon our faces is shame because of
all these things.
And to whom will he forgive sins save unto them that
have committed sin?
The righteous thou wilt bless and wilt not call them
to account for the sins that they have committed: and
thy kindness is in respect to those that sin, if they repent
(9:9-15)- The righteous man maketh inquisition continually
in his house that he may put away iniquity.
When he falleth into transgression he atoneth for his
sin of ignorance' by fasting, and will humble his soul
(3:8,9). If then we attempt to state the view of atone
ment that is reflected in the literature of this
period it is this: Peace between God and the
- Ryle and James read, "With his trespass ofEering he maketh
atonement for that wherein he erreth unwittingly, and with fasting
he afflicteth his soul." But this (a) requires emendation of the
text, iv irapaTriitpari airov i^iXdaaro irepl dyvolas iv vijffrelq,
Kal raireivJxrei rijv i'vxip' airov by the transposition of Kal and
iv vrjffrelq,, and (b) involves the assumption that the translator
misunderstood his Hebrew original and having before him perhaps
DTBS mistakenly took it to mean sin inigtead of sin-oflfering; (c)
yields a meaning less consonant with the thought of these psalms
as elsewhere expressed and with the general thought of the times
than do the words as they stand unamended. Gebhardt rejects
the emendation of Ryle and James, but for r^v ^ux^" reads
rfjs ^vxvs. This yields the meaning, "he atones for his sin of
Ignorance by fasting and humiliation of his soul." With iv
irapairnipari, cf. iv Apaprlais, 9:12. On the thought of the
passage cf. vs. 4; 9:12-15; Tobit 12:8 ff.

90 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
nation is maintained through the keeping of the
law, of which sacrifice forms a part, but not an
especially conspicuous part. When God is
especially angry with the people for their
sins he may be reconciled by a conspicuous act
of righteousness on the part of some member of
the nation, or a manifestation of the righteous'
attitude of God toward men in the suffering or
death of representatives of the people. As
respects the individual, there still remain
traces of the idea, which the prophets had
denounced, that sacrifice has intrinsic atoning
value. But such traces appear chiefly in the
opposition to such a conception. The writers
of the period, with one exception, teach that for
the individual atonement is effected through
repentance and righteous living. The definition
of what constitutes righteous living is partly
ethical in the proper sense, partly legalistic.
Of all righteous deeds almsgiving was appar
ently thought of as most effective for securing
the divine favor.

Ill
THE IDEA OF ATONEMENT IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT BY
ERNEST DEWITT BURTON
Professor of New Testament Literature and Interpretation
The University of Chicago

CHAPTER V
ATONEMENT IN THE TEACHING OF JOHN
THE BAPTIST
The teaching of John the Baptist bearing
directly or indirectly upon the subject of atone
ment' for sin is found, so far as reported in the
Synoptic Gospels, in Luke 3:7-17" and the
parallels in Matthew and Mark.
Luke 3 : 7-1 7 : He said therefore to the multitudes that
went out to be baptized of him, Ye offspring of vipers,
who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring
forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin
I The word "atonement" does not occur in the gospels. Else
where in the New Testament it is found in the A. V. of Rom. 5:11
only, where the Greek word is KaraWay-^. This word found also
in Rom. 11:15; II ^°^- 5 '¦ ^^> ^9 '^ always translated in R. V. by
' ' reconciliation. " It is the idea expressed by this word in reference
to relations between God and man with which this work deals.
Whether the word occurs in a given teacher or writer is of minor
consequence. Conceming the word "forgiveness," which is
Jesus' common term, see below pp. 129 S.
2 The material of this passage is derived by Luke, mainly at
least, from a source common to himself and Matthew, and distinct
from Mark. While it is possible that the portion peculiar to
Luke is derived from a special source, it is on the whole more prob
able that Matthew has in this case, as in not a few others, omitted
a portion of the material before him, and that the whole passage
as it stands in Luke is based on the same authority. The sub
stantial correctness of this report of John's teaching there is no
reason to question. 93

94 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these
stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And even
now the axe also lieth at the root of the trees: every tree
therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down,
and cast into the fire. And the multitudes asked him,
saying, What then must we do ? And he answered and
said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart
to him that hath none; and he that hath food, let him
do likewise. And there came also pubUcans to be
baptized, and they said unto him, Master, what must we
do ? And he said unto them, Extort no more than that
which is appointed you. And soldiers also asked him,
saying, And we, what must we do ? And he said unto
them, Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse
any one wrongfully; and be content with your wages.
^ And as the people were in expectation, and all men
reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether haply
he were the Christ; John answered, saying unto them
all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh
he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I
am not worthy to unloose; he shall baptize you in the
Holy Spirit and in fire: whose fan is in his hand, thor
oughly to cleanse his threshing-floor, and to gather the
wheat into his garner; but the chaff he wiU burn up with
unquenchable fire.
The teaching of this passage is unmistakably
clear. There is even now impending an expres
sion of the divine wrath in irremediable judg
ment. This is to fall upon the Jewish nation,

In the Teaching of John the Baptist 95
and, chosen people though they be, none can
escape from it on the ground that they are sons
of Abraham. Yet it is not to destroy the nation
as such; it is to be individual, judging between
man and man, discriminating between wheat
and chaff, and utterly destro}dng the latter. It
behooves those who would escape to do so
quickly. For the axe already lieth at the root
of the trees. When the Mightier One whom
John announces shall have come with his win
nowing shovel, and his unquenchable fire, then
forbearance will cease, repentance be too late,
and judgment without remedy fall upon the un
repentant. This picture of the Coming One
strongly resembles in some features the picture
of the Son of David presented in the Psalms
of the Pharisees, save that on the whole John's
representation is much sterner than that of the
Psalmist. Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their King, the
son of David, in the time which thou, O God, knowest,
that he may reign over Israel thy servant.
And gird him with strength that he may break in
pieces them that rule unjustly.
Purge Jerusalem from the heathen that trample her
down to destroy her, with wisdom and with righteousness.
He shall thrust out the sinners from the inheritance,
utterly destroy the proud spirit of the sinners, and as

96 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
a potter's vessels with a rod of iron shall he break in
pieces all their substance.
He shall destroy the ungodly nations with the word
of his mouth, so that at his rebuke the nations may
flee before him, and he shall convict the sinners in the
thoughts of their hearts.
And he shall gather together a holy people, whom
he shall lead in righteousness, and shall judge the tribes
of the people that hath been sanctified by the Lord his
God (17:23-28).
The cause of divine anger and impending
judgment that John announces is clear. It is
the sin of men, the sin of the nation.
The message, however, is not solely one of
judgment. If judgment fall it will indeed be
irremediable, but it is not inevitable. There
are conditions on which one may escape the
destruction of the axe that lies at the roots of the
trees, and the unquenchable fire that burns up
the chaff. The character of these conditions
is significant. The prophet says nothing con
cerning temple sacrifice as a basis of forgiveness,
as he says nothing concerning the neglect of
temple or sacrifice as the cause of the divine
wrath. There is sin to be forgiven, wrath to
be escaped, but for all that John says there
might have been no temple in Jerusalem, no
altar, no sin-offering. Nor will Abrahamic

In the Teaching of John the Baptist 97
descent, membership in the elect people, avail
to deliver from judgment. That John singles
out this imaginable condition of atonement
for express repudiation indicates that the men
of his day must have been depending on it.
But in John's thought it is worthless. Of a
suffering servant of Jehovah on whom the
iniquity of the nation is laid, and by whose
stripes they are healed, the synoptic report of
John's teaching says nothing. The mightier
than he, who is to come after him, is to be a
judge, not suffering, but inflicting swift judg
ment on all unrepentant sinners. It is John
himself, not his greater successor, who brings
a merciful message of warning and of possible
escape from danger. The one condition of
such escape is repentance. The repentant
sinner, who evinces his repentance in his con
duct, alone escapes the unquenchable fire that
consumes the chaff. Baptism is indeed en
joined and administered, but so strongly does
John insist upon the ethical condition of escape
from wrath that the baptism must be regarded
as no more than the outward act in which one
expresses obedience to the message, and which
as such expression contributes to securing repent
ance and forgiveness. Manifestly this is simply

98 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
 7 — —
the doctrine of the prophets of a much earlier
time. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your
doings from before mine eye; cease to do evil, learn to
do well. If ye be wilUng and obedient ye shall eat the
good of the land, but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be
devoured of the sword (Isa. i:i6ff.).
This clear and unmistakable message of John
is in no way quahfied by the message which at
a later time he sent to Jesus, asking. Art thou
he that cometh or look we for another? For
the reply which Jesus makes to this question
indicates that John was still looking for Jesus
to carry out the programme of judgment which
he had announced for his greater successor, and
that the comparative gentleness and merciful
ness of Jesus' character, exceeding even that of
John himself, was to John a stumbling-block.
The answer of Jesus is in effect that John
has thought too exclusively of judgment
and given too little place in his thought of
the greater coming one to those characteristics
of mercifulness and kindness which equaUy
with the sterner side had been set forth in the
prophets of old. Yet with generous consider-
ateness Jesus treats John's reluctance to mod
ify his view not as a grave fault, but almost

In the Teaching of John the Baptist 99
as a virtue. He is no reed shaken with the
wind to believe one thing today and another
thing tomorrow. Yet blessed is he that finds
no occasion for stumbling in the mercifulness
of Christ.
If there is any teaching of John concerning
atonement in the Fourth Gospel it is contained
in the one sentence, "Behold the Lamb of God
which taketh away the sin of the world " (i : 29).
The phraseology and imagery of this verse, we
may without hesitation conclude, are derived
from the description of the servant of Jehovah
in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah.' The pre
cise phrase, "Lamb of God," does not indeed
I The expression, "that taketh away sins," might suggest the
scapegoat; but with this explanation of the origin of the expression
the word " lamb " is inconsistent. The word " lamb " might suggest
the lamb of the passover; but the passover ritual makes no men
tion of the taking-away or the bearing of sin. The lamb of the
sin-offering, or of the trespass-offering, might be supposed to be
referred to; but neither of these offerings requires a lamb, the law
at various times prescribing a bullock (Lev. 8:2), a goat (Lev.
10:16), a ram (Lev. 6:6), a larab (Lev. 14:12), and in others
leaving to the offerer his choice between a lamb and a goat (Lev.
4:28,32; 5:6). Though each of these parts of the Old Testa
ment ritual may have had some influence in producing the ex
pression "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the
world," no one of them fully accounts for it, and it is unneces
sary to include them even as contributory influences, since Isa.,
chap. 53, of itself furnishes an adequate explanation of the
expresion.

loo Biblical Ideas of Atonement
occur in Isaiah, but it is easily produced from
the combination of the expressions, "a lamb
that is led to the slaughter," and "my righteous
servant," or "smitten of God." Similarly the
expression, "that taketh away [or beareth]
sins," reproduces the first part of vs. 4, "he
bore our griefs" (LXX, "he carries our sins"),
or combines the thought of this verse and that
of vs. 5, "the chastisement of our peace is upon
him and with his stripes we are healed." The
last words, "of the world," are probably an
enlargement of the horizon of the original pas
sage, as the latter was generally understood in
New Testament times. Yet even these words
have a legitimate basis in the passage if the
interpretation set forth by Dr. Smith (see pp.
34 ff .) is correct.
What then does this language, looked at as a
reflection of the preaching of John the Baptist,
affirm conceming Jesus and his relation to the
forgiveness of sin ? Two answers must be
considered. On the one side, if we confine ourselves to
the language which John is reported as actually
using, and take the words in the sense which
they bear in Isaiah, they describe Jesus as (a)
gentle and innocent; (6) appointed of God; (c)

In the Teaching of John the Baptist loi
suffering vicariously in that he bears' as a load
the sin of the world.
This characterization of Jesus is markedly
different from the description which according
to the Synoptic Gospels John gave of him who
was to follow him. There he is a stern judge com
ing in swift and irremediable judgment upon
unrepentant Israel, before whose coming there
is opportunity to repent, but after whose advent
there is only swift judgment for the sinner;
here, a gentle, innocent man, to whom the sin
of the world is a grief and a burden. But it is
not impossible that the same prophet should
have held both these conceptions. For let it
I There has been no little difference of opinion respecting the
precise meaning of the words, 6 atpuv, which the English versions
render, "that taketh away." In itself the word may equally well
mean "take up, bear, carry," or "take away." It is moreover
used in both senses in the Johannine writings: in the former in
John 5 : 8-i 2 ; in the latter in I John 3:5. In the LXX of I Sam.
15:25, precisely this idiom, alpeiv i-pjiprlav occurs, and in I Sam.
25:28 a synon3Tnous expression, atpeiv ivbpijpa. In both cases
atpeiv means "to forgive;" in both cases the Hebrew verb is
SWD, as in Isa. 53 : 4. In I John 3 : 5 we have the expression,
iva rks apaprlas Ap-jg, "to take away the sins," meaning, "to
cause sins to cease, to cause men to desist frora sinning." In Isa.
53:4 the Hebrew is Stej SIH 13!;bn, "he bore our griefs;"
the LXX, ri,s apaprlas rjpQiv (pipa, "he bears our sins." The
Greek verb, <t>ipa, never raeans "to take away," but "to bear, to
endure." If then we assume that the expression in John 1:29
reproduces the thought of Isa. 53:4, as given in the LXX, then

I02 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
be observed in the first place that the two utter
ances are not in the strict sense predicates of
the same subject. The synoptic utterances of
John pertain not to the person Jesus, but to the
expected Greater One. In other words, John
is there setting forth the kind of a successor
that he expected. The language is that of pro
phetic expectation, not of observation. But
in John i : 29 the Baptist is telling what he saw
when Jesus came. True, he has just previously
declared that Jesus is the one whom he expected.
But it does not follow that he saw in him pre
cisely what he expected. Having expected a
stern judge, not more but less mild than him-
6 alpav must mean, not "that taketh away," but "that beareth as
a burden." Nor does the change from ^ipei to atpav modify
this result. For the presumption is that when an author in quoting
substitutes for an unambiguous terra an ambiguous one, he means
to take the latter in the sense of the former, not in the sense which
the former does not bear. If it be said that we ought to go back
to the Hebrew for John the Baptist's thought, since he presumably
spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, then there will be in the word SWS
(found in Isa. 53:4 and in I Sam. 15:25; 25:28), which he pre
sumably used, no presumption in favor of the meaning, "to take
away," since though this word has much the same ambiguity as
alpeiv, it clearly has in Isa. 53:4 the meaning, "to bear, to carry
as a load." From the point of view of John the Baptist, therefore,
and the meaning of the word alpav interpreted by the original
passage in Isaiah, there is little support for any meaning other
than "that beareth as a burden.'' What the words meant to the
evangehst is not at this point under consideration.

In the Teaching of John the Baptist 103
self, and having become convinced that Jesus
was that Coming One, he may yet have seen in
the face of Jesus coming back from his tempta
tion the evidence of gentleness and of suffering
because of human sin which wrung from his
lips the startled cry, "I looked for a judge, and
behold the Lamb of God that bears on his heart
the sin of the world." Nor is the possibility
of such a combination excluded by the synoptic
narrative of John's later message to Jesus.
That only shows that the new impression of
Jesus did not radically modify his original
expectation. Gentle and suffering though Jesus
be, he looks for him still to act the part of
judge. But on the other hand it may be maintained
that if John derived the language from the fifty-
third chapter of Isaiah, it is but reasonable to
suppose that he meant to express in this
phrase more than the bare meaning of the
corresponding expression in Isaiah, repro
ducing also some part of the thought of the
context. And to this it may be added that
we must of necessity reach the thought of the
Baptist through that of the evangelist, and
that as a Johannine word, a'ipav must be
interpreted in the light of I John 3:5 and so

I04 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
means "taking away."' This interpretation
resolves itself again into three : (a) If we take
the participle in the sense suggested in I John
3:5, but interpret it harmoniously with the
synoptic representation of John's conception
of the Coming One, the phrase wiU be strongly
paradoxical, like the expression "the wrath of
the Lamb" in Rev. 6:16. In this case John
combines his previous thought of the coming
one with his new impression of Jesus, exclaim
ing, "Behold the gentle lamb who by executing
irremediable judgment upon obdurate sinners
is to banish sin from the world." (b) If we give
to the participle the meaning which is suggested
by combining the thought of Isa. 53 : 4 with that
of 53 : 5, and interpret these verses in accordance
with that interpretation of the whole chapter
which Dr. Smith has set forth (chap, ii, pp. 34 ff.)
it presents to us Jesus as one who, bearing himself
the penalty of men's sins, delivers them thereby
from condemnation and wrath, (c) If we
insist not too strongly upon the reproduction
in this phrase of precisely the idea expressed
in Isa., chap. 53, or if we allow for some possible
' The possibility that alpav should be taken in the sense in
which the verb is used in I Sam. 15:25; 25:28 hardly calls for
discussion in view of the fact that the meanings suggested by Isa.
53:4 and I John 3: 5 lie so much nearer at hand.

In the Teaching of John the Baptist 105
uncertainty as to precisely the idea of the pro
phet himself, we may think of John as looking
upon Jesus and saying: " Behold the servant of
Jehovah whose mission it is to suffer, not for
his own sin, but that he may bring light and
enlightenment to those who are in sin, and so
deliver them from sin. " We reach substantially
the same result upon more tangible grounds if
we take the participle aipeov in the sense sug
gested by I John 3:5, and understand it to refer
to such a banishment of sin from the world as is
harmonious with the idea expressed in the phrase
"Lamb of God." Jesus is then characterized
as a meek and gentle one who wins men to
righteousness and banishes sin by converting
men to goodness.
Of these three variant forms of the second
interpretation, form (a) differs from the first
interpretation only in that the diversity of
thought which that view found between the
synoptic representation of John's idea of his
successor and the Fourth Gospel report of John's
impression of Jesus when he appeared, this view
finds within the limits of the Johannine language
itself. One's judgment of the two views must
accordingly be much the same. The utterance
ascribed to John is on this interpretation sur-

io6 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
prising, indeed strikingly paradoxical, but it does
not necessarily conflict with the synoptic report.
The other two views however are quite incon
sistent with the synoptic narrative. For on
either of these interpretations of John i : 29 the
language of that verse does not simply express
frankly the impression which Jesus makes upon
John at the moment, but constitutes an ascrip
tion to Jesus of a career and mission quite at
variance with that expectation which John had
cherished respecting the Coming One, and which
neither now nor later did he wholly surrender.
It is one thing to be Israel's swift judge and
punisher; it is quite another to be the sufferer
through whose sufferings light and salvation
are to be brought to men, Not indeed that
Jesus might not be both sufferer and judge.
Christian thought at least has found a way of
combining them, either conceiving that Jesus
was first sufferer and then judge, or looking upon
his judgment as self-executing, a revelation upon
the basis of which men judge themselves, and
all the more surely because the revelation was
in part through suffering. But according to
the synoptists John looked for a judge coming
to speedy judgment and inflicting punishment
upon sinners. And such a judgment is irre-

In the Teaching of John the Baptist 107
concilable with the character of the lamb who
endures the penalty of the sins of others, or
who, himself the embodiment of meekness and
gentleness, banishes sin by winning men to
righteousness. It is one thing to purge the
world of sin by swift destruction of the sinners ;
it is quite another to accomplish this result by
gently winning men to righteousness or by
suffering vicariously the penalty of their sin.
It appears therefore that, of the four inter
pretations of John 1 : 29 which are lexicographic
ally possible, two bring the language into such
conflict with the synoptic report that if we accept
the former as historical we must regard the
Johannine record as at this point unhistorical;
two are not wholly inconsistent with the synoptic
record, but find in this verse no teaching con
cerning atonement beyond the intimation that
sin causes suffering to the righteous representa
tive of God, or that it is his mission by his gentle
ness and purity to win men from sin. No one
of them therefore gives us a doctrine of atone
ment which we can ascribe to John the Baptist. '
• Which of the two positions we take respecting the historicity
of the record will be determined mainly by considerations outside
of this passage. If such considerations compel us to assign the
gospel to the second century and to an author who neither had the
material for a trustworthy history nor undertook to write a book

io8 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
What then is the teaching of John the Baptist
concerning atonement and forgiveness of sin as
we learn it from aU the gospels ? Substantially
this: The wrath of God which is about to fall
upon the sinners in Israel in dire punishment
inflicted by the Coming One may be escaped,
and men may attain unto salvation, by repent
ance on their part manifesting itself in good
works. According to the Fourth Gospel, he
whom John recognized as the Coming One for
whom he had looked, bore when he appeared,
not the appearance of a stern judge, but of a
meek and gentle lamb of God, suffering under
the load of human sin. This, however, is not
of history, then there will be no decisive reason for exempting this
passage in particular from the general sentence of untrustworthi-
ness: along with the rest of the book it will represent the ideas of
the second-century author rather than of the prophet of the wilder
ness of Judea. A discussion of what this passage would mean
as an expression of the views of such a second-century writer lies
outside the scope of this chapter. But I think I have shown that
there is nothing in these words as they stand to necessitate our
denying them to John if only they be interpreted as an expression
of the impression which Jesus made upon John when he came to
him after his baptism, framed in language derived from the fifty-
third chapter of Isaiah, though not necessarily reproducing the
whole thought of the chapter. In other words, if on other grounds
the historicity of the Fourth Gospel be impugned it will of course
be impossible to afi&rm the accuracy of this particular statement
respecting John's preaching; but in this expression itself there is
no valid ground for denying the historicity of the record.

In the Teaching of John the Baptist 109
an element in John's doctrine of atonement,
but a testimony of observation and insight which,
while he honestly expressed it, he could not
altogether harmoniously combine with his ex
pectation concerning the work that was to
follow his own.

CHAPTER VI
ATONEMENT IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS
I. IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
Were it not that the limitations of space for
bid it, it would be wise to begin our study of
Jesus' teaching concerning atonement with a
' careful survey of his thought about sin and God's
attitude toward it, and about sacrifice and the
temple. We must content ourselves, however,
with brief statements on these points, and pass
on to that which has more strictly to do with our
subject, Jesus' teaching concerning his own
death, his attitude in the presence of death, and
his express statements concerning the conditions
of divine forgiveness.
Jesus clearly recognized the fact of ahenation
between God and man and found the cause of
it in human sin. He gave no formal definition
of sin, but especially in the teaching which is
recorded in the synoptic gospels clearly meant
by sins those evil deeds both of heart and life,
inward and outward, which men commit and
the committal of which creates evil character
and other evil consequences. See especially
Mark 7 : 15-23. These sins so separate between

In the Teaching of Jesus 1 1 1
God and man that persisted in they cause eternal
alienation from God and the everlasting ruin
of the sinner (Mark 3 : 28, 29).
Toward the sacrifices of the temple Jesus'
attitude was that of toleration. Though not
opposing them, he ascribed to them no intrinsic
value as a means of reconciling God and man.
He taught explicitly that they had no such value
in the case of a man who having wronged his
fellow-man had not made peace with him (Matt.
5 : 23, 24), and never pointed men to them as a
means through which they might come into
right relations with God. His cleansing of the
temple was not an expression of zeal for the
sacrifices. On the contrary, it was a defense
of the rights of those who came there not to
sacrifice, but only to worship, as against those
who permitted the Court of the Gentiles to be
used as a market-place for sacrificial animals.
His participation in the Passover ritual shows
that he was not opposed to sacrifice as such,
but fumishes no evidence that he thought of
the Passover lamb as having expiatory or pro
pitiatory value.
The earhest recorded clear statement of
Jesus concerning his death is that found in
Mark 8:31 ff.:

112 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must
suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and
the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after
three days rise again. And he spake the sa)dng openly.
And Peter took him and began to rebuke him. But he
turning about and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter
and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou thinkest
not the thoughts of God, but the thoughts of men. And
he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and
said unto them, If any man would come after me, let
him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever would save his life shaU lose it, and who
soever shall lose his Ufe for my sake and the gospel's
shall save it.
For our present purpose three things are most
significant in this statement of Jesus : (a) At the
time of this utterance Jesus foresaw that he
would be brought to his death by the opposition
of the Jewish leaders, (b) The fact that Peter's
protest against the thought of death was for
him a temptation to be repelled, suggests that
he could have escaped it; that he was to die
because of the opposition of the Jewish leaders
suggests how he could have escaped it, viz., by
conforming in a measure to their ideas. But this
is the thought of men, not of God. Fidelity
to God's thought demands that he go forward
unflinchingly, though death awaits him along
that path, (c) What is happening to him is not

In the Teaching of Jesus 113
something exceptional. All his disciples must
follow in the same path, not, indeed, necessarily
of death at the hands of the Jews, but of readi
ness to die if fidelity to the will of God involve
death. Like himself they must deny themselves
and take up the cross, and he who takes up his
cross, though he may not die upon it, has in
spirit and intent laid down his life.
Thus Jesus evidently looks forward to his
death as the inevitable result of fidelity to the
work that was given him to do; the working-
out in his life, under the conditions imposed
upon him, of the principle which it is the com
mon duty of himself and his disciples to accept
and follow even unto death.
The second passage of capital importance is
Mark 10:45. The sons of Zebedee had asked
for seats at the right hand and the left in his
glory. And Jesus had told them that they
should indeed share in his sufferings, drink the
cup that he drank, and be baptized with his
baptism, but that to sit on his right hand and
on his left was not his to give. And when the
ten heard it and were displeased,
Jesus called them to him and saith to them, Ye know
that they which are accounted to rule over the gentiles
lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority

114 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
over them. But it is not so among you; but whosoever
would become great among you, shall be your minister,
and whosoever would be first among you shall be servant
of all. For verily (koi = also, even) the Son of Man
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to
give his Ufe a ransom for many.
The context here also is of great significance.
Jesus laid down as the principle in. accordance
with which his disciples must live that true
greatness is greatness in service. The leader
must be servant of all. And this principle he
enforces by the statement that it is the principle
of his life also, and that he carries it even to the
point of giving his life a ransom for many. '
The expression "to give his life" (Sovvai
rrjv '^vxhv avTov) is in itself capable of, or at
least suggests, two meanings according as the
word "life" is taken (i) in its physical sense,
meaning that which constitutes one a living
being, the loss of which is death, or (2) in the
broader sense, meaning the soul as endowed
with energy, power, self-direction, hence in
I It has indeed been questioned whether these words are those
of Jesus, and not rather a comment of the evangelist. But the
uniform habit of this evangelist in using the term " Son of Man ' '
only in words of Jesus, together with the fact that the occurrence
of the passage in Matthew is against its being an addition to the
original Mark, makes it highly improbable ¦that the words are here
an editorial comment.

In the Teaching of Jesus 115
effect one's life-energies. In the former case
the phrase means "to surrender one's life, to
die;" in the latter case "to devote one's self,
one's energies," involving no doubt death itself
as a possibility, yet only as an incident of the
self-devotion; essential in spirit, but not in
fact. The similar expression Tid'rjfii, ¦^jrvx'nv
probably has the former meaning in John 10: 15,
17. But in the only example which I have
discovered of precisely the expression employed
in Mark, it bears the second meaning:
And the days of Mattathias drew near that he should
die, and he said unto his sons. Now have pride and
rebuke gotten strength, and a season of overthrow and
wrath of indignation. And now, my children, be ye
zealous for the law and give your Uves (Sore tos i/ajxas
vfiSiv) for the covenant of your fathers. And call to
remembra;nce the deeds of our fathers which they did
in their generations (I Macc. 2:50 f.).
And then foUows a list of the faithful fathers,
no one of whom died for his faith. Mattathias,
moreover, it is to be remembered, died a
natural death, having devoted his life unto
death (but not strictly speaking in death) to
the defense of the law and the covenant of
the fathers.
The word here translated "ransom" (Xttrpov)

ii6 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
is found in classical writers from Herodotus and
Pindar' down, and is used in three senses (i)
"a money price paid to secure the release of
one who is in captivity or bondage," (2) "any
thing by which one may avert the vengeance of
the gods for a crime conimitted," (3) "a recom
pense, requital, offset." In the Septuagint
the verb \vTp6m is used of release effected in
any way whatever; Xinpov with one exception
denotes a money price. This one exception
is Num. 3:12, where the Septuagint uses this
word in the statement that the Levites shall be
the ransoms for the firstborn, meaning that
God wiU accept the life-service of the Levites
instead of that of the firstborn sons of the
nation.^ There is no instance in which the
word is used of a life given in death. The verb
is used not infrequently in the later Jewish
books in the general sense "to deliver." But
I have found no examples of the noun.'
1 See, e. g., Pindar, C. T. 7, 141; Aesch. Chor. 48; Plat. Rep.
393 D.
2 Cf. chap, iii, p. 58.
3 Mention ought also to be raade in this connection of the pas
sages in IV Maccabees discussed in chap, iv, p. 79, where the
word dvrij/vxov is used. If it be supposed that the two words
are synonjrmous, the Maccabean passage would perhaps suggest
that Jesus looked upon the giving of his life in death as so satisfying
the necessity for revelation of the divine attitude toward the sin

In the Teaching of Jesus 117
The preposition "for" {avrC) in the phrase
"for many" caUs for no extended discussion.
A reference to any lexicon wiU show that it is
used much like the English "for " in a variety
of senses, and in particular may mean either
"instead of" (Luke 11 : 11), or "for the sake of,
to obtain the release of" (Matt. 17:27).
Combining these various lines of evidence,
(a) the context in which Jesus impresses
upon his disciples the necessity that they who
would be leaders must give themselves in ser
vice to others, and foUows this instruction by
an appeal to his own example, (b) the usage
of the words and phrases, "to give life," "ran
som," "for," (c) the implication of the word
"ransom" that the many are in some state from
which release is desirable, we reach this as the
most probable meaning of Jesus' words: the
Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,
of the nation that it constituted for the nation a means of deliver
ance from death. But there is no direct evidence that Jesus had
this passage in mind, still less that he meant to express by his
word not only the idea of dvrl\j/vxov in IV Maccabees but also the
suggestions of the context. Indeed, it is not at all certain that IV
Maccabees was written before the time of Jesus. All that this
passage respecting the Jewish martyrs can do for us, therefore,
is to bear witness to the existence of certain ideas conceming the
significance of martyrdom as current approximately in the days
of Jesus.

iiS Biblical Ideas of Atonement
and without reserve to devote his life, even if
need be unto death, that by so doing he might
release many from the bondage or misery in
which they are held. This also his disciples
ought to do for others.
Though no express mention is made of that
from which men are to be released, the general
tenor of Jesus' teaching and attitude toward hfe
leaves no room for doubt that he has in mind the
sins of men and their consequences. It is easy
to go beyond this and to read between the lines
various definitions of the precise relation be
tween Jesus' own devotion of himself to service,
even to death, and the deliverance of men. But
we are, probably truest to his thought when we
rest simply in that which the passage clearly
expresses, viz., that he gave his whole life-ener
gies that he might deliver men from the bondage
and consequences of their sins; adding only
that the context implies that in this he was
fulfilling a universal human duty — ^for he de
manded the same of his disciples — and that the
passage already examined, Mark 8:31 ff., sug
gests that such self-devotion issued in his case
in a violent death because of the implacable
hostility of the Jewish leaders to him and his
unflinching fidelity to this very duty. His

In the Teaching of Jesus 119
death is the consummate expression of his life.
The passage is thus, despite the great difference
in setting and terminology, at one with Isa.,
chap. 53, in teaching the great principle of
vicarious suffering. The mission of the good
is to serve their fellow-men, suffering if occa
sion require for the wicked. This universal
law finds its pre-eminent exemplification in the
life and death of the Son of Man.
A third passage of great importance is Mark
14:24: And he said unto them, This is my blood of the cove
nant, which is shed for many.'
The language concerning the blood of the
covenant seems to be based on Exod. 24:6-8.
As God there made a covenant with Israel
sealed with blood, so Jesus seals with his blood
a covenant'' between God and men represented
-Matt. 26:28 adds the words "for the remission of sins,"
els &(j>e(riv apapriwr, and Luke 22:20 speaks of the covenant as
new. Both these variations from the Mark form are probably
interpretative additions, correctly interpreting Jesus' thought,
but not otherwise to be taken into account in the study of the
teaching of Jesus. It is therefore unnecessary at this point to dis
cuss the question whether Luke 22:196, 20 is an original part of
the Luke text or an addition from I Cor. 11 : 24.
» There is perhaps atso a tacit reference to the new covenant
of Jer. 31:33, though this is clearer in reference to the Pauline
account in Luke 22: 196,20 than in the original synoptic account.

I20 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
in the person of the disciples. On the occasion
of the ratification of the covenant between Jeho
vah and his people, to this effect that they would
keep the law of God, peace-offerings and burnt-
offerings were offered. And Moses divided
the blood into two parts, half he sprinkled on
the altar and half, when the people had heard
and accepted the covenant, he sprinkled on the
people. That the people may solemnly express
the devotion of their lives to God without giving
them up in death, an animal is slain and the
blood, which symbolizes their lives, sprinkled
upon the altar to indicate the giving of their life
to God. On the other hand, when they have
pledged themselves to keep God's covenant,
the other half of the blood representing the hfe
of God is sprinkled on the people to signify
the giving of his life to them. Thus the people
and their God are bound together in a mutual
life-covenant, according to which they are to
devote their lives to him in keeping his law and
he is to be their God.
But the use of the word "poured out" or
"shed" (eKxwvofjLevov) in Mark 14:24, for which
there is no corresponding term in Exod. 24,
suggests the possibility that Jesus had in mind
something besides this passage. Two explana-

In the Teaching of Jesus 121
tions are possible. The verb used in the gospel
is never employed in the Septuagint of the kiUing
of a sacrifice, but is used (a) of the shedding of
blood in murder (Gen. 9 : 6) and {b) of the pour
ing out of the blood of the sacrifice at the base
of the altar. This is spoken of, e. g., in the
consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exod.
29:12), where it apparently signified the devo
tion of their lives to the service of God; and
in connection with the sin-offering (Lev. 4:7,
18, etc.) but not in reference to any other sacri
fice. The use of this word in this connection
therefore suggests either the violent character
of Jesus' death, or an association of it with the
sin-offering. In the former case it conveys
no implication as to the meaning of his death.
In the latter case the parallelism cannot be too
hard pressed, since of course there was no act
after his death strictly corresponding to the
pouring-out of the blood of the sacrificial animal
at the base of the altar; it can only suggest that
his death was one of the steps in the divine plan
for bringing to men the forgiveness of their
sins (cf. chap, iii, p. 60). It is the latter inter
pretation which was adopted by the first evan
gelist and expressed in the added words "for
the forgiveness of sins." If we accept this view

122 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
as on the whole more probable, the language of
Jesus combines a reference to the burnt-offering
and peace-offering, by which the covenant be
tween God and Israel was ratified, with a refer
ence to the sin-offering, in which the poured-out
blood symbolized the self-devotion of the offerer
to God, through which atonement was made
and his sin forgiven. In either case the expres
sion "on behalf of many" indicates that the
suffering and death of Jesus were vicarious and
endured to accomplish something for men.
That that something pertained to their relation
to God and was therefore essentiaUy atoning
in the proper sense of the word, we are assured
not only by the whole work and spirit of Jesus,
but in particular by his reference to the cove
nant. In neither case do the words in them
selves or through the implication of the Old
Testament passages which they suggest express
the idea of atonement through vicarious endur
ance of penalty. The death of Jesus is on behalf
of men, that they may come into covenant rela
tion with God. To this the word iicxvvvoijievov
adds either the suggestion that this death is a
violent death, or that as the death of the sacri
ficial animal is necessary to the obtaining of
the blood by which a covenant with God was

In the Teaching of Jesus 123
symbolized, so it is at cost of his death that
Jesus brings men into the covenant with God.
But we have still to ask what is the significance
of the fact that the disciples drink the wine
which is the symbol of Christ's blood ? If drink
ing means only what sprinkling means in the
covenant-making to which the language, con
tains a reference, then it implies the impartation
to them of the life of God, which is indeed the
essence of the covenant. But it seems evident
that it means more than this. In the drinking
they are active. It can hardly signify less,
therefore, than that they accept the covenant
and for themselves ratify it. But not even this
seems quite to satisfy the meaning of the act.
That which they drink is the symbol of Jesus'
life, not, we must believe, that physical life that
he was surrendering, but that ethical life which
he was expressing in shedding his blood. To
drink this s}Tiibol of his life is to accept for
themselves that ethical life, that principle of life,
which was that of Jesus, the principle which he
had laid down months before when he told his
disciples that if any man would come after him
he must deny himself and take up his cross and
follow him. Possibly we are in this suggestion
going beyond what is distinctly implied in these

124 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
words. But we are certainly not exceeding the
limits of Jesus' thought as elsewhere clearly
expressed, and can hardly be wrong in finding
in the words at the Supper a re-expression of
the previously expressed thought.
By his language at the Last Supper, then, Jesus
taught his disciples that he was giving his hfe
to the end that a covenant of peace might be
ratified between God and many men. He dies
not that his death may furnish the physical
blood for a covenant ceremony — ^for there was
no such ceremony — but that he may bring about
in very fact that which was s)TnbolicaUy ac
complished when Moses in the wilderness sealed
with the blood of animals the covenant between
Jehovah and the people. This is essentiaUy
the idea of Isaiah, chap. 53. With this is
perhaps associated also the thought that such
covenant relation of God with sinful men
involves confession of sin on man's part and for
giveness on God's part. It is in any case
distinctly implied that the spirit which Jesus
exemplifies in his death must be the spirit and
principle of his disciples, and there is no sug
gestion that this death is of value save to such
as thus accept as theirs the life-principle of
Jesus.

In the Teaching of Jesus 125
There remain two passages in the Synoptic
Gospels which call for brief discussion.
Luke 22:37: For I say to you that this which is written
must be accompUshed in me. And he was reckoned with
lawless men: for that which concerneth me hath fulfil
ment. Luke 24: 25, 26: O fooUsh men and slow of heart to
believe in aU that the prophets have spoken ! Behooved
it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter
into his glory ?
Into the critical and exegetical problems
which these passages present it wUl not be neces
sary to enter here. It is sufficient to say that
taking the passages as they stand they indicate
that Jesus found in the Old Testament certain
ideals of life and conduct which he felt it needful
for him to follow and which involved for him
a death at the hands of his opponents. This
fact, and the nature of those ideals we have
already discovered in the other passages which
we have examiaed, in which we have also dis
covered that Jesus looked upon these ideals as
of universal application and obligation.
But the thought of Jesus about the meaning
of his death is conveyed not only in express
teaching concerning it, but in his attitude in
the presence of it. One of the passages already

126 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
discussed, Mark 8:31 ff., is the first to demand
our .consideration under this head also. Jesus
having predicted his rejection by the Jews, and
his death in consequence, and Peter having
strongly rejected this thought, Jesus turns on
him with the words : " Get thee behind me, Satan.
Thou thinkest not the thoughts of God but those
of men." The word "Satan" indicates that
to Jesus Peter was at that moment a tempter.
And this signifies in turn that the thought that
Peter presented was one that appealed to Jesus,
but which he instantly recognized and put away
as not in accordance with God's thought. And
this means that the death that he had predicted
was repulsive to him, that he shrank from it,
that his facing it was a matter of courageous
devotion to duty, not a choice of that which
was agreeable.
This attitude Jesus maintained to the end;
his feeling of repugnance for death only grew
more intense as he drew nearer to it. It is
expressed again in the prayer in Gethsemane:
Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove
this cup from me; howbeit not what I will, but what thou
wilt (Mark 14:36).
Here as before there is evident the shrinking
with horror from death, and yet the resolute

In the Teaching of Jesus 127
going forward to death. Only, as it draws
nearer, there springs up the hope that possibly
he may escape it consistently with God's wiU.
But this he sees is not to be, and he goes forward
unflinchingly to his death.
This horror of death cannot be the mere dread
of physical pain, or of the act of dissolution.
Many a hard-hearted criminal has faced death
with a calmness and an indifference which are
wholly lacking in Jesus. Many a mart)T has
gone to the stake with songs of triumph on his
lips, and with a positive exultation in his fate
which made him almost indifferent to pain.
But Jesus cannot die thus. The only credible
answer to the question, why this is so, is found
in the language in which he first speaks of his
death distinctly. He is to die rejected by his
people. His death is the culmination of his
nation's hostUity to God his Father. AU this
is too terrible to him, too full of horror to per
mit either the calm indifference of the man to
whom sin is no evil, or the exulting joy of the
martyr. This dread of death, this pain under
the sense of what death means to him reaches
its climax in the experience of the cross: "My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?"
These words are from the twenty-second Psalm,

128 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
which portrays the experience of a godly man
who is suffering most keenly at the hands of his
foes and cannot understand how the righteous
God can permit it, how the God who loves him
can thus apparently leave him in the hands of
his enemies. The language is that of deep
perplexity, the language of one who can put no
other interpretation upon the facts than that
God has forgotten him; yet in the midst of these
facts refuses to surrender his faith in God, and
in the same words in which he expresses his
perplexity and boldly puts upon the events the
interpretation which seems to him the only
possible one, expresses also his faith in God:
"My God, my God!" In the latter part of the
psalm he issues from the storm into the calmness
of quiet trust. But the first part expresses as
real a faith as the latter. For there is no
stronger faith than that of him who clings
to God in the face of what seems to him
convincing evidence that God has forgotten
him. It is certainly fair to presume that the words
on Jesus' lips have the meaning which they
bear in the psalm. He, too, in the midst of
sufferings which perhaps cloud his inteUectual
clearness, and certainly seem to him to mean that

In the Teaching of Jesus 129
God has deserted him to his enemies, he, too,
refuses to doubt God, and clings to him still
in the words, "My God, my God 1 " And, as in
the case of the Psalmist, so in his case also, after
the storm there ensues the calm, and he yields
up his spirit with the calm and trustful words:
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."
The attitude of Jesus toward his death is then
consistent throughout. It is to him the dread
ful result of human sin, from which, because
it is this, he shrinks with horror, but to which,
because it is necessary in order that men may
be delivered from sin, and therefore is for him
God's wiU, he unflinchingly goes forward.
It thus appears also that Jesus looked upon his
suffering and death as vicarious, endured for
others and for their deliverance . Yet it must also
be observed that in his teaching as recorded in the
oldest records he never definitely made it the
basis of the forgiveness of sins.'
It remains therefore for us to ask what he
taught expressly concerning forgiveness. The
essential elements of his teaching are found in
the following passages:
That ye may know that the Son of man hath authority
on earth to forgive sins .... (Mark 2:10).
1 On Matt. 26:28, cf. above, p. 119.

130 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven
unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith-
soever they shall blaspheme: but whosoever shall blas
pheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness,
but is guilty of an eternal sin (Mark 3:28, 29).
Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many,
are forgiven, for she loved much (Luke 7:47; cf. 48-50).
Think ye that these Galileans were sinners above all
the GaUleans, because they suffered these things ? I tell
you Nay: but except ye repent, ye shall aU in like manner
perish (Luke 13:2, 3; cf. 4, 5).
And he spake this parable: A certain man had a fig
tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit
thereon, and found none. And he said unto the vine
dresser, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit
on this fig tree, and find none; cut it down; why doth it
also cumber the ground ? And he answering saith unto
him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about
it and dung it: and if it bear fruit henceforth, weU; but
if not, thou shalt cut it down (Luke 13:6-9).
But the pubUcan, standing afar off, would not lift up
so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast
saying, God, be merciful to me a sinner. I say unto you.
This man went down to his house justified rather than
the other: for everyone that exalteth himself shall be
humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted
(Luke 18:13, 14)-
And Jesus said unto him, Today is salvation come to
this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham
(Luke 19:9).
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly
Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men

In the Teaching of Jesus 131
their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses (Matt. 6:14, 15).
To these passages should also be added. Matt.
18:21-35, and Luke, chap. 15, which though
of capital importance are not printed because
of their length and familiarity.
The usual words for "forgive" (aij>ir]fii) and
"forgiveness" (d^ea-K) as employed in reference
to sin are undoubtedly taken from the legal
vocabulary of the time, and refer to remission of,
or forbearing to enforce, a debt or penalty.
To forgive a sinner is to forbear to punish him,
or not to enforce a claim against him. To for
give sins is to remit the penalty which would
otherwise be enforced. Yet it is evident that
the term as used by Jesus transcends the hmits
of the strictly legal sense. The parable of the
prodigal son, to cite but one example, indicates
that the repentant sinner is not simply released
from punishment, but positively received into
the feUowship and favor of his father.
Of the condition of forgiveness there is in the
teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels a
fourfold statement. It is sometimes said to be
repentance, sometimes faith, sometimes love
of Christ, sometimes forgiveness of others.
Yet this fourfoldness is only apparent. There

132 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
is in fact but one condition. Repentance
involves, on the one side, a turning-away from
the sin in which one has been living and, on the
other, the beginning to live in a new and right
way. That repentance in this sense is a con
dition of forgiveness, has its obvious ground
in the fact that only when one has given over
sin and turned toward righteousness can the
righteous Father look upon the sinner with
approval. And this in turn suggests what is
also suggested by the variety of the conditions
of forgiveness named in different passages, that
forgiveness, involving the reception of the sinner
into the fellowship and favor of God, is of neces
sity conditioned on the sinner himself becoming
essentiaUy right. Such essential righteousness
may express itself in repentance, in faith toward
Jesus, in love for him, or in the forgiveness of
others. The nature of forgiveness and the essentially
ethical character of its condition are further
indicated by the fact that the forgiveness which
men are required to exercise toward their feUow
men is not the ignoring of wrong unrepented
of, but the passing-over of the wrong which the
wrongdoer has abjured. Men are never en
joined by Jesus to "forgive " unrepentant wrong-

In the Teaching of Jesus 133
doers. "If thy brother sin, rebuke him, and
if he repent, forgive him; and if he sin against
thee seven times in a day and seven times turn
again and say, I repent, thou shalt forgive him."
God himself offers no forgiveness to the unre
pentant or the unforgiving; neither does he ask
of men that they shaU forgive the unrepentant.
Forbearance toward the unrepentant sinner
God exercises, and bids men exercise, but not
forgiveness. This also makes it clear why there is a sin
which hath no forgiveness. The sin itself is
apparently the assumption of an attitude of
hostility toward truth, the speaking against the
Spirit of God himself. This attitude, Jesus
conceived, may itself become fixed, an eternal
sin, and hence intrinsically unforgivable. For
giveness of sin still continuing is for a holy
being a moral self-contradiction.
It thus appears that, according to the teaching
of Jesus, the condition of divine forgiveness is
distincdy ethical. God approves and receives
into fellowship not the man who has never
sinned (of such Jesus knows none) and not the
unrepentant sinner, but the sinner who with
fuU purpose of heart turns from his sin to live
righteously. Of a condition of forgiveness out-

134 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
side the man himself Jesus never speaks. His
own suffering and death are effective in bringing
about forgiveness because in them he exempli
fies that relation to God and to men which God
approves. Its significance in relation to for
giveness is in the revelation of the conditions
of obtaining divine approval. But he alone
is forgiven, received into divine approval, who
appropriating this revelation fulfils the ethical
condition therein revealed.
II. IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL
So far we have drawn our evidence concerning
the teaching of Jesus from the Synoptic Gospels
only. Were there any marked difference be
tween this report of Jesus' teaching and that
which appears in the Fourth Gospel it would
be necessary to inquire which of them is to be
accepted as giving the more accurate account
of Jesus' thought. We are released from this
necessity by the fact that the difference between
the two records, so far as concerns our present
subject, is mainly one of form rather than of
substance. The Fourth Gospel is undoubtedly
much more affected in the presentation of Jesus'
teaching by a desire to adapt it to the needs of
the readers of the book than is the case with

In the Teaching of Jesus 135
the S3Tioptic Gospels. In accordance with this
general tendency the dpctrine of sin is presented
in a much more abstract form than in the Synop
tic Gospels. Instead of sins, concrete deeds,
such as fornication, theft, dishonoring of parents,
and the hke, this gospel speaks of sin, of which
the center and heart is rejection of truth, pre
eminently manifest in the rejection of Jesus,
who is the Truth and the Sent of God. But
fundamentally the doctrine is the same that is
contained in the Synoptic Gospels, only adapted
in form of presentation to a more philosophical
type of mind than that for which the Synoptic
Gospels were written.
As respects temple sacrifice, there is even less
difference between John and the s)Tioptists.
The attitude of Jesus is entirely the same and
the form of presentation differs but little. Here
as there Jesus distinctly recognizes the tempora
riness and intrinsic valuelessness of sacrifice.
They that worship God must worship him in
spirit and in truth, and neither Jerusalem nor
Gerizim are to abide as places speciaUy devoted
to and suitable for worship.
As concerns the conditions of forgiveness,
the situation is much the same as in respect td
sin. The doctrine is fundamentally the same

136 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
but the form of presentation widely different.
But in this case the form is so different and so
related to the teaching concerning the death of
Jesus that we must pause for a little fuller con
sideration of it.
The central thought of Jesus as it is given
to us in the Fourth Gospel is expressed in the
word "life" (10:10; 5:40; 17:3)- Defined
in the broadest sense in which the word is
used in this gospel, life is the existence of
a moral being according to the true ideal
of such existence. Of life thus broadly
defined God is the original possessor and
ultimate source: "The Father hath life
in himself." Other moral beings possess life
through participation in the life of God, i. e.,
through fellowship with him. "This is life eter
nal to know thee, the only true God and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent." Life in this sense
is something more than existence. It does not
come by birth or heredity. "That which is
born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit," and without such birth from
the Spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Moreover, sin separates men from God and
creates the need of a new moral force to give
true life. The slave of sin has no abiding place

In the Teaching of Jesus 137
in the Father's house, does not live in fellowship
with him. It is this universal need that gives
occasion to the mission of Jesus. "I am come
that they may have life." "As the Father hath
life in himself even so hath he given to the Son
to have life in himself." This life it is his mis
sion to impart to others. The water that he
gives is a fountain of life springing up unto
eternal life. He is the bread of life, and he
that eats his flesh and drinks his blood, even he
that believes on him, has eternal life. To
believe on Jesus is to accept him as the Christ,
the representative of God, one with him in
thought and in action; it is to accept his leader
ship and to enter into the divine way of living
by entering into Jesus' way of living. It is to
form a moral partnership with Jesus and thus,
because he truly represents God, to come into
fellowship with God. But even this statement,
effective for practical purposes as it is, calls still
for a definition of this life in moral terms. What
is the central principle of that life which is repro
duced in us through our fellowship with Jesus ?
The answer is twofold, though the principle
is really simple and single. The controlling
principle of the life of the Son is to do the Father's
wUl. And the Father's will is that the Son shaU

138 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
give his life for men. Obedience to the Father's
wiU, service to men: these are the two sides of
the one controlling principle. To live thus is
to fulfU the ideal of moral life; this is to be at
one with God.
The problem of atonement is therefore the
problem of producing such life in men who now
by reason of sin are out of harmony with God,
in darkness and death. As in the Synoptic
version of Jesus' teaching, therefore, so here the
problem is an ethical one, and the conditions
are moral; not arbitrary or artificial but such
as the very nature of the end to be achieved
demands. What then has the death of Jesus to do with
atonement, with the bringing of men into fellow
ship with God ? The passages may be consid
ered more briefly than in the Synoptic Gospels.
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even
so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever
believeth may in him have eternal life (John 3 : 14, 15).
I am the Uving bread which came down out of heaven:
if any man eat of this bread, he shall Uve for ever: yea,
and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the Ufe
of the world (John 6:51).
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth
down his Ufe for the sheep. . . . and I lay down my life
for the sheep. . . . Therefore doth the Father love me,

In the Teaching of Jesus 139
because I lay down my Ufe, that I may take it again.
.... No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down
of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power
to take it again (John 10:11, 15, 17, 18).
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat
fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but
if it die, it beareth much fruit. He that loveth his Ufe
loseth it; and he that hateth his Ufe in this world shall
keep it unto Ufe eternal. If any man serve me, let him
follow me ; and where I am, there shall also my servant
be; if any man serve me, him will the Father honor.
Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say ? Father,
save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto
this hour. Father, glorify thy name. There came
therefore a voice out of heaven, saying, I have both glori
fied it and will glorify it again (John 12 : 24-28).
And I, if I be Ufted up from the earth will draw all
men unto myself (John 12:32).
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down his Ufe for his friends (John 15:13).
Taken together, and in their several con
texts, these passages testify to the following as
elements of Jesus' thought about his death:
{a) It is a necessity of his mission and his
Father's wiU for him. Except a grain of wheat
fall into the ground and die it abideth alone.
But if it die it bringeth forth much fruit, (b)
In itself death was abhorrent to him. He
shrank from it, and went forward to it not with

I40 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
desire, but under the propulsion of his resolute
purpose to do his Father's wiU. For this pur
pose had he come to that hour, (c) He laid
down his life, voluntarily, out of love to his fellow
men. Of that love his death was the supremest
possible expression. Like a good shepherd
he gave his life on behalf of the sheep, (d) In
this act of love he was the object of God's approv
ing love. "Therefore doth my Father love m^e
because I lay down my life for the sheep."
(e) The principle under which Jesus acted in
giving his life for others is one that applies also
to all who follow him. (/) Through his death,
wherein he reveals most completely the princi
ples of liis own life, he will exert upon men a
powerful attractive influence, winning them to
a life like his own.
If now we ask for a more specific definition
of the way in which his death was to effect the
end for which he died, how by dying he effected
deliverance for men, and like seed cast into the
ground brought forth much fruit, the answer
must be suggested mainly by John 6:51 and
12:24-32. There is indeed a question whether
in the former passage Jesus is speaking ex
pressly of his death. Certainly this is not the
pre-eminent thought suggested by the passage.

In the Teaching of Jesus 141
Neither before nor afterward in that discourse
does he mention his death; nor does the lan
guage of vs. 51 unambiguously refer to death.
The case stands much as with Mark 10:31;
death is probably involved in Jesus' thought as
a corollary of that which he has chiefly in mind, a
necessary consequence for him of that devotion
to the welfare of others of which he is expressly
speaking, but is not itself the subject of discourse.
What then does he mean by giving his flesh for
the benefit of (p-Kep) the world ? Literal refer
ence to his body the discourse itself repudiates
as coarse and absurd (vs. 63). To eat his flesh
and drink his blood is to enter into fellowship
with him through faith in him, through the ac
ceptance of his teaching and the partaking of
his spirit. The words, "I will give my flesh,"
then, can refer only to an act which promotes
faith in him and the reception of his spirit.
In so far as death is involved it is in this aspect,
as a revelatory act wherein his spirit is mani
fested and men are led into true spiritual feUow
ship with him. As in the Synoptic Gospels,
so here death is the culminating act in his revela
tion of the spirit of self-sacrifice, the supreme
act of self-devotion to the good of others, a
devotion which men must share with him if

142 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
they would be his disciples. It is involved in
his mission because only through death can he
fully accomplish his work, and adequately ex
press his own self-devotion.
If there be any doubt respecting the intention
of Jesus to intimate the application to his death
of the moral principle which this passage teaches
there can be none in the case of 12 : 24 ff. Here
Jesus clearly speaks of his death, clearly charac
terizes it as a necessary means to the achieve
ment of his mission, and distinctly indicates
that the principle by which he was govemed
must govern the disciples also. He is to be as
seed cast into the ground from which shall spring
up an abundant harvest of lives like his own.
To draw back from death is to fail of the end
of his life, because he should abide alone. It
is only a change in form of speech, not in thought,
when in vs. 32 Jesus affirms that if he be lifted
up from the earth he will draw all men unto him.
Self-sacrifice for the good of the world makes
universal and powerful appeal to the latent
nobility that is in all men.
If then we compare the teaching of Jesus
in the Synoptic Gospels with that in John, we
find that they are in substantial agreement.
Two elements of Jesus' thought about his death

In the Teaching of Jesus 143
stand out distinctly in both: (i) His death is
the result of two factors: the sin of the world,
and his own loyal adherence to the principle
of self-devotion to the interests of others; and
(2) this principle is the true principle for all
moral beings; all are bound to accept and obey
it. What he did others ought to do. Iri so far
as we fail to do it we fail to be truly his disciples.
For it is not too much to say that Jesus did
nothing, suffered nothing, that he did not ask
his followers to do and suffer in principle, and,
if occasion require, in fact. His own life and
death are in all respects the exemplification of
principles which he maintained to be applicable
to all men and which he desired and expected his
disciples to exemplify in their lives. He gave
his life a sacrifice for sin in no sense in which he
did not ask that we also give our lives in sacrifice.
To live in accordance with this principle is
to obtain the divine approval. To live other
wise is to incur God's displeasure. Atonement
is accomplished when men, abandoning their
unloving way of life, turn with repentance to
Jesus' way of hfe; forgiving as he forgave,
loving as he loved. Apart from such repentance
there is no forgiveness.
The supreme significance of the death of

144 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
Jesus as of his life is in its revelation of the will
of God, and consequently of the ideal of life.
It is redemptive for those who accept the truth
thus revealed. Men are reconciled to God
when, accepting the revelation made in the life
and death of Jesus, they enter into the fellow
ship of his death and become partakers of his
life. This it is to eat his flesh and drink his
blood. Thus he ransoms them from sin. Thus
he brings them into covenant relation with God.

CHAPTER VII
ATONEMENT AS CONCEIVED BY THE EARLY
CHURCH
The title of this chaptet might easily be chal
lenged. For it must be admitted at the outset
that we have no documents of which we can
certainly affirm that they reflect the ideas of
the early church on atonement, if by the early
church is meant the pre-Pauline church or the
church unaffected by Paulinism. Yet we are
not without documents which, however incom
pletely they may represent to us the early non-
Pauline Christian thinking, do at least afford
us evidences of a t)^e of thought not derived
from Paul. The speeches in the early part of
Acts certainly represent a type of thought about
the death of Jesus and its relation tb the salvation
of men which is simpler than that of Paul and
which can hardly be supposed to have come from
him. Nor is the Epistle of James open to sus
picion of having been produced under the posi
tive influence of Paul. For though it is alleged
by weighty authority among modern scholars
to be one of the latest books of the New Testa
ment, it seems more in accordance with the
I4S

146 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
evidence to assign its type of thought, if not the
actual writing of the book, to a very early period.
We venture therefore to class together the early
chapters of Acts and the Epistle of James, and
to ask what evidence they afford as to the
thought of the early non-Pauline church about
atonement. The t)7pe of sin almost uniformly spoken of
in the early part of Acts is resistance to the Holy
Spirit and rejection of God's messengers, mani
fest conspicuously in the putting of Jesus to
death. This is Peter's charge against the Jews,
which Stephen reiterates, associating it (as
Jesus had done in the parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen) with the rejection of the prophets
by the earlier Jews, and attributing both to
resistance to the Holy Spirit.
In James the sins reproved are of a more
general character, selfishness, love of the world,
greed, oppression of the poor, a mercUess spirit.
Two passages are, however, of special signi
ficance: "To him that knoweth to do good and
doeth it not it is sin" (4:17), and, "Judgment
is without mercy to him that showeth no mercy"
(2:13). The former of these finds sin in the
rejection of truth known, the latter recognizes
both God's hostility to sin and his willingness

As Conceived by the Early Church 147
to show mercy to those who are themselves
disposed to mercy.
In the matter of temple sacrifices the early
church took no decided step. Retaining the
consciousness of relationship to Israel, with
which at first it did not occur to them to break,
they naturaUy continued to offer sacrifices, yet
attached to them no special significance in
relation to the forgiveness of the sins for which
men were under the condemnation of God.
They were a traditional part of worship, per
haps a means of atoning for unwitting trans
gression or neglect of ritual requirements, but
in the main probably simply a part of the
requirement of the law. They were not con
ceived of as a basis of the forgiveness of sins.
In none of the passages in which the speakers
in the Book of Acts answer the question. What
shall man do to escape from the penalty of
his sins ? is sacrifice mentioned, but in all
cases the inquirer is bidden to repent of his sins
and turn to God, believing in Christ.
As concerns the significance of the death of
Jesus, and the conditions of forgiveness, there
is no lack of testimony:
Him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, ye by the hands of lawless men

148 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
did crucify and slay, whom God raised up, having loosed
the pangs of death (Acts 2 : 23, 24).
The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob hath glori
fied his servant Jesus; whom ye deUvered up and denied
before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to
release him. But ye denied the Holy and the Righteous
One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you and
killed the Prince of Ufe, whom God raised from the dead
(Acts 3:13-15).
But the things which God foreshowed by the mouth
of all the prophets that his Anointed should suffer, he
thus fulfiUed (Acts 3:18).
In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye
crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him
doth this man stand here before you whole. He is the
stone which was set at naught of you builders, who was
made the head of the corner. And in none other is
there salvation; for neither is there any other name under
heaven that is given among men, wherein we must be
saved (Acts 4:10-12).
For of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant
Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius
Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were
gathered together to do whatsoever thy hand and thy
counsel foreordained to come to pass (Acts 4:27, 28).
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye
slew hanging him on a tree. Him did God exalt with his
right hand to be a prince and a savior for to give repent
ance and remission of sins to Israel (Acts 5 : 30 f.).
Now the place of the scripture which he was reading
was this:

As Conceived by the Early Church 149
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
And as a lamb before his shearer is dumb,
So he openeth not his mouth:
In his humiliation his judgment is taken away:
His generation who shall declare ?
For his life is taken from the earth.
And the eunuch answered PhiUp and said, I pray thee, of
whom speaketh the prophet this ? of himself, or of
some other ? And PhiUp opened his mouth, and begin
ning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus (Acts
8:32-35)- And it shall be that whosoever shaU caU upon the
name of the Lord shall be saved (Acts 2:21).
Repent ye and be baptized, every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2 :38).
Repent ye therefore and tum again that your sins may
be blotted out, so that there may come seasons of refresh
ing from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19).
Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent
him to bless you in tuming away every one of you from
your sins (Acts 3 : 26).
Of a tmth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons
but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh
righteousness is acceptable to him (Acts 10:34, 35).
The word which he sent unto the children of Israel,
preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (Acts
10:36). To him bear aU the prophets witness that through his
name every one that beUeveth in him shaU receive remis
sion of sins (Acts 10:43).
They held their peace and glorified God, saying, Then

150 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto
Ufe (Acts 11:18).
In these passages taken from the speeches
which the author ascribes to Peter, Stephen,
and Philip, the death of Jesus is characterized
as an act of wickedness and murder on the part
of those who put him to death. This is repeat
edly affirmed and the charge brought home to
the consciences of the Jews before whom Peter
and Stephen made their defense of themselves
and their message.
On the other hand, it is looked upon as pre
determined by God. The motive of the re
peated assertion to this effect is not an insistence
upon a doctrine of predestination, but a defense
of Jesus against the assumption, natural to a
Jewish mind, that death on the cross indicated
his rejection by God. As against this interpre
tation of Jesus' death, the early Christian preach
ers contended that this death was predetermined
by God, that it was a part of the divine plan.
This assertion, the motive of which was primarily
apologetic, naturally became a part of the positive
faith of Christians, a positive argument for
believing in Jesus as the Servant of God, ap
pointed to be lord and savior.
This conviction that the death of Jesus was

As Conceived by the Early Church 151
predetermined of God is evidently based upon,
or at least associated with, the persuasion that
this death was in fulfilment of Old Testament
prophecy. Thus Peter in Acts 4:11 quotes the
language of Ps. 118:22 concerning the stone
rejected by the buUders, and Philip finds in Isa.,
chap. 53, and its picture of the suffering Servant
of Jehovah a text from which he could preach
Jesus to the eunuch. It is significant also that
the usual title for Jesus in these early chapters
of Acts is ira'K Kvpiov, Servant of the Lord, an
expression which is almost certainly derived
from Isa., chaps. 42 ff. The very employment
of this name of Jesus, found in the gospels only
once or twice, and quite as rare in other parts
of the New Testament, indicates that the early
church laid hold of these chapters as furnishing
an explanation of the death of Jesus. By this
term and these chapters they turned his rejection
and suffering from a reproach into an argument
in his favor. By this application to Jesus of
the prophetic description of the Servant of
Jehovah, moreover, the early church not only
turned the edge of the argument of their oppo-
nants against his messiahship, but evidently
found also confirmation of their faith in him
as lord and savior. In him as the Servant of

152 Biblical Ideas of A tonement
Jehovah they preached salvation, exhorting
men to repent of their sin, especially the sin of
rejecting him, and to believe in him; and as
sured them that in him and no other was there
salvation, God granting forgiveness to all who
thus repented and believed, even to the very
murderers of his Servant Jesus Christ.
It would be easy of course to assume that
because the apostles found in Jesus' suffering
the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the
Servant of Jehovah, therefore they found in this
predicate or in Isa., chap. 53, all those ideas
which the Christian church of later Centuries
found there and applied to Jesus. But the
Book of Acts does not take this step, and if we
are not to go beyond our evidence, we must
forbear to ascribe to these early days the ideas
of a later period not here expressed. And when
we consider the situation in which they were
placed, and the particular assertion respecting
Jesus which they were then called upon to
defend, we seem to have the less reason to go
beyond the evidence. The simple, oft-repeated
teaching which the Book of Acts reports as that
of the pre-Pauline church is that forgiveness is
granted even to the greatest of sinners when
he repents of his sin, turns to the Lord, and

As Conceived by the Early Church 153
believes in Jesus whom God sent to turn men
from their sins (2:21, 38-40; 3:19, 26; 4:12;
5:30, 31; 8:22; 10:34, 35, 36, 43; 11:18).
He who rejects Jesus will find no other savior.
For though baptism is mentioned in one pas
sage (2:38-40), it is evidently as the outward
expression of the acceptance of Jesus, and
indispensable in the sense that a refusal thus
to confess Jesus would under the circumstances
be presumptive evidence that one did not really
accept him.
Fear of God and the doing of righteousness
are mentioned in one passage as the ground of
acceptance with God (10:34, 35). This latter
statement of the matter is significant as indicat
ing why repentance is the condition of forgive
ness. What God desires is a heart that loves
righteousness and a life which practices right
eousness. For the sinner this involves repent
ance, and for the rejecter of Jesus it involves
acceptance of him.
In James, forgiveness is promised to those
who repent and confess their sin, exaltation to
those who humble themselves before God, sal
vation to those who put away their wickedness
and receive with meekness the implanted word,
and acceptance with God to those whose faith

154 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
manifests itself in works. Faith is in the main
conceived of as faith in God, rather than speci
fically as faith in Jesus Christ, though the latter
expression of it is also spoken of. The death
of Jesus is nowhere spoken of in James.
The teaching of the early church concerning
sin and atonement, therefore, so far as it is re
flected in the first half of Acts and the letter of
James is substantially as foUows :
I. That which separates between God and
man and brings upon men the wrath of God is
resistance to truth, manifest in unkindness and
injustice to men, in falsehood and perversity,
and most of all, as respects the Jews of Jesus'
own day, in their rejection of Jesus, the Servant
of the Lord. On this wicked and untoward gen
eration there is impending the judgment of God.
,2. To deliver men from their sins God sent
his Servant to turn men from their sin and to
give repentance to Israel and remission of sins.
The death of Jesus was at the same time a ful
filment of the divine purpose disclosed in pro
phecy and an act of consummate wickedness on
the part of those who brought it about. The
suffering of Jesus was vicarious, in that he suf
fered innocently and on behalf of, for the benefit
of, the guUty, but is not described as expiatory.

As Conceived by the Early Church 155
Nor is it set in any special relation to temple
sacrifice, whether as supplementing it or sup
planting it. The possibility that it was thought
of as having the same function as the sacrifices
and hence as taking the place of them is obviously
excluded by the fact that whUe preaching that
the death of Jesus was in fulfilment of prophecy
and that he, raised from the dead, was a prince
and savior, they continued their temple worship
as heretofore. And that while thus preaching
the death of Jesus and continuing the temple
worship they preached forgiveness of sins on
the basis of faith, repentance, and righteousness
shows that neither in the temple sacrifices nor
in the death of Jesus as displacing the sacrifices
and having expiatory value did they find the
basis of reconciliation with God.
3. Men are saved from the judgment of God,
however great their sins, by repentance and
turning to God, accepting Jesus Christ in faith.
"For whosoever shall caU upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved." But for those who
reject the Lord as Christ there is no way of
salvation. It is but another statement of the
matter to say that faith must show itself in
works, and that he that feareth God and work
eth righteousness is acceptable to God.

156 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
Such apparently was the simple conception
of the significance of Jesus' death and of the
basis of forgiveness which was held in the early
church. It lacks much that was subsequently
in Christian thought; but in its simplicity and
its effectiveness it closely resembles that faith
which common, everyday, untheologically
minded Christians have held probably in aU
the Christian centuries.

CHAPTER VIII
ATONEMENT IN THE TEACHING OF PAUL
In turning to the teaching of the apostle Paul
we find ourselves dealing with a mind for which
the question of reconciliation with God, justi
fication before God, was one of capital impor
tance and for which, moreover, this question had
immediate relation to the death of Jesus.
Partly because of the abundance ofthe ma
terial in Paul's letters, partly because there are
some differences of emphasis between his earlier
and later letters, and partly because the authen
ticity of the earlier letters down to and including
Philippians, regarded as the first of the letters of
the Roman imprisonment, is more firmly estab
lished than that of Colossians, Ephesians, and
the Pastoral Epistles, it seems best to deal first
with the teaching of the letters to the Thessa
lonians, Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, and
Philippians, and later and more briefly with that
of the later epistles.
Though the epistles of Paul are peculiarly rich
in passages dealing with the fact of alienation
between God and men, and with the cause of
it, we must content ourselves with a few sum-
IS7

158 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
mary statements. The existence of such aliena
tion is clearly and repeatedly affirmed by Paul
(I Thess. 1:9; II Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 1:18).
The cause of it is found in sin, which is for
Paul a comprehensive expression for all that is
evU in the moral world (Gal. 5:19-21; Rom.
3:23; 5:12). The characteristic sins of the
Gentiles, who as compared with the Jews are
without law, yet are not devoid of divine reve
lation but have a knowledge of God and of his
law, are idolatry, sensuality, violence, sins both
of heart and outward hfe, both against man and
against God (Rom. i : 21 ff. ; I Thess. 1:9; 4:5;
Gal. 5:19-21; I Cor. 6:9 ff.). The Jews, also,
to whom was intrusted the law, i. e., the revela
tion of the will of God in organized form, have
faUed to live in accordance with God's law. In
general they have been guilty of the same sins
as the Gentiles, and in particular have rehed
upon obedience to statutes, circumcision, and
the Abrahamic covenant, to make them accept
able to God, rather than upon their righteous
ness of life (Rom. 2:3, 17-24, 25-27; Gal. 3:10,
11). That which is common to the sin of both
Jew and GentUe, its central element, because
of which men are guilty, is resistance to truth.
"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven

In the Teaching of Paul 159
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men who hold down the truth in unrighteous
ness." Of sinless men, in the sense of men who have
fully conformed to the law of God and can
therefore stand before him on their own merits,
there are none, save Jesus. Yet this does not
mean that all men have been whoUy given over
to sin, and are objects of the divine wrath.
There are those who by patient continuance in
good works have sought, and not in vain, for
glory and honor and incorruption. In other
words, while all have sinned, and none are able
to stand before God on a basis of legal merit,
yet there are those who, fUled with the desire
for righteousness, and living uprightly, have
sought and obtained divine approval (Rom.
1:18 — 3:20).
Concerning the origin of sin in the race the
apostle speaks only incidentally and somewhat
obscurely. Rhetorically objectifying, almost
personifying, sin, he speaks of it as entering
the race through one man, and as passing in
some sense from him to his descendants (Rom.
5:12). Yet the idea of a race-sin has not been
taken up into Paul's theology as one of its vital
elements. It is at most a remnant of his Judaic

i6o Biblical Ideas of Atonement
thought unassimUated to his Christian thinking.
The only sin that Paul knows of is the doing of
sin by men, or the deeds which they do, and for
such doing or deeds he regards the individual
sinner as guUty because they involve violence
to his better knowledge.
In the experience of men, at least of those
who have not on the one hand wholly surrend
ered themselves to evil, and on the other not
fully attained unto righteousness, sin involves
a constant internal conflict. The better self
approves the good and strives to do the good.
The evil side of man, which is associated with
his physical nature, impels him to sin (Rom.
7:5). Even the law which forbids the evil
at the same time stimulates the evil nature to
oppose the good (Rom. 7:7-24). All this,
however, is experiential, not philosophical; it
is but another expression -of what has already
been stated, namely, that sin involves resistance
to or suppression of known truth. The "I"
that does the evU, and the "I" that chooses the
good, so that it is no longer "I" that do it, these
are not for Paul two entities psychologically or
phUosophically distinguished but two aspects
of the self which every earnest man discovers
within himself, but which few ever attempt to

In the Teaching of Paul i6i
define. For Paul the flesh as a physical thing
was not morally evU, and as a moral thing it was
not a distinct entity, but simply the self doing
evil in the face of a knowledge of good, and even
of a certain choice of good. Fundamentally it
is action contrary to known truth that makes -
sin guilt, and is the cause of the divine disap
probation of men.
Although the teaching of Paul concerning
the basis of forgiveness is so intimately
associated with his utterances concerning the
death of Christ that the former must be ex
pounded chiefly in connection with the latter,
yet there are certain elements of his teaching
concerning justification which require to be
stated before entering upon the discussion of
the meaning of Jesus' death. Three proposi
tions, aU found in Paul's writings, demand
attention. I. Jews arid Gentiles alike are justified by
faith only. This principle, estabhshed in the
case of Abraham, has been in all periods since
operative in God's relation with men, and now
that God has revealed himself in his Son Jesus
Christ, it is with new clearness reannounced
to aU men (Gal. 2:16; 3:9; 5:5; Rom. 3:21-
28; 4:1—5:2).

1 62 Biblical. Ideas of Atonement
- 2. Christ is the minister of God for the recon
ciliation of the world unto God. God was in
Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not
reckoning unto them their trespasses (II Cor.
5:19). Ultimate deliverance from wrath, more
over, is through his life. It is only through the
results of the life of Christ operative in men that
they are ultimately delivered from that wrath
of God which otherwise must have fallen upon
them. Permanent peace with God, ultimate
escape from his disapproval, is achieved only
through righteousness. "We by faith through
the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness"
(Gal. 5:5)-
^ 3- In the final judgment God will render to
every man according to his works. To them
that by patience in weU-doing have sought
for glory and honor and incorruption, he will
award eternal life ; to the self-seeking that have
obeyed not the truth, but have obeyed unright-
, eousness, there shall be wrath and indignation,
This principle applies both to Jew and to Greek,
and' knowledge of law will justify none. In
the day when God shall judge the secrets of
men, not hearers of law, but doers thereof shall
be justified (Rom. 2:5-16).
On the face of it the first and third of these

In the Teaching of Paul 163
teachings are in direct contradiction. On
the one side Paul affirms that not by works of
law, but by faith does God justify men, whUe
on the other side, he explicitly affirms that
according to his works shall every man be
judged, and that only doers of law shall be
justified. This seeming contradiction has even
been made the basis of the assertion upon the
part of certain modern critics that the Epistle
to the Romans is a composite work representing
contradictory points of view and doctrinal posi
tions. But such criticism is in fact wholly
superficial. One must indeed read more than
the bare words, must penetrate somewhat be
neath the surface of Paul's language, but it is
not difl&cult to discover the doctrine which
underlies both these statements, and of which
both are but variant expressions. The judg
ments of God are according to truth; not indeed
based upon a reckoning-up of good and bad
deeds, the one set down in bookkeeping fashion
on the credit side, and the other on the debit
side of the account, but upon actual character
as God reads the heart, and as character mani
fests itself in life. Between this and the doc
trine of justification by faith there is no contra
diction. For in the thought of Paul faith is

164 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
fundamentally a receptive and obedient attitude
toward God's revelation of himself and his will,
especially as this is made in Jesus Christ.
In dealing with Paul's teaching concerning
the death of Christ we are confronted with so
serious an embarrassment of riches that to
discuss all the passages as the intrinsic signifi
cance of each would demand, is forbidden by
the limitations of our space. We must be con
tent to examine a few with care and to deal very
summarUy with the rest. In discussing these
passages it is of less importance that we take
them up in their chronological order than that
we avoid the error of reading into them meanings
that they do not contain and then making the
meaning thus imputed to them the basis for
the interpretation of other passages. It is there
fore expedient to begin with those passages
which are most clear, or at any rate least obscure,
and then proceed to those that are of less obvi
ous meaning, guiding ourselves in the interpre
tation of these latter by the clearer meaning of
the former. Adopting this order of treatment
we may well begin with Rom. 5 : 5-10 :
And hope putteth not to shame; because the love of
God hath been shed abroad in our hearts through the
Holy Spirit that was given unto us. For while we were

In the Teaching of Paul 165
yet weak, in due season Christ died for the ungodly.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: for per
adventure for the good man some one would even dare
to die. But God commendeth his own love toward us,
in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall
we be saved from the wrath of God through him. For
if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God
through the death of his Son, much more being reconciled
shall we be saved by his Ufe.
The purpose of the passage, 5 : i-io, is to
exalt the justification into which the believer
enters by faith, by showing how much it involves,
how much it carries with it; in particular
by showing that if we are justified by faith, there
is in this fact a weU-grounded hope of final and
complete salvation. The fulcrum of the argu
ment, so to speak, is the love of God, which,
on the one side proved by the death of Christ
for our justification while we were yet sinners,
on the other hand itself proves that God will
not fail to save us from his wrath through Jesus'
life. For our present purpose we have to note
two points, (a) The death of Jesus is a con
vincing demonstration of God's love for sinners.
God proves his love to us in that while we were
yet sinners Christ died for us. (b) In the blood
of Jesus, that is, in his death, we were justified ;

1 66 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
through the death of Jesus we, while we were
enemies, were reconcUed to God. "Recon
ciled" and "justified" (as passives) are prac
ticaUy s)Tion)mious terms. "In his blood"
and "in his death" are equivalent expressions.
Of these two propositions the first is entirely
clear. To God his Son is infinitely precious.
Yet even his Son he gave to die that we, sinners
and objects of his wrath, might be reconciled
to him. Herein is incontestable proof of God's
love to sinful men. The wrath of God against
sinners does not exclude love. The death of
Christ is the more convincing proof of God's
love because it was for sinners, objects of his
wrath, that he gave his Son.
The same thought that the death of Jesus is
a manifesation of the divine love is expressed
by Paul again in the eighth chapter of Romans:
What shall we say to these things ? If God is for us,
who is against us? He that spared not his own Son,
but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also
with him freely give us all things ? . . . . For I am per
suaded that neither death, nor Ufe, nor angels, nor prin
cipalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor
powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, whi.ch
is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8 : 31-38).
Akin to the thought that the death of Jesus is a

In the Teaching of Paul 16'J
manifestation of the divine love is also the con
ception that the death of Jesus is a manifestation
of the love of Christ. Thus in Gal. 2:20, the
apostle speaks with evidently deep feeling of
" the Son of God who loved me and gave himself
for me." And in the midst of the passage just
quoted in part from the eighth chapter of Ro
mans, occurs the sentence, "Who shall separate
us from the love of Christ ?" The expression
"love of Christ," closely foUowing a reference
to the death of Christ, is evidently thought of
as manifest in that death.
The second proposition expressed in Rom.
5 : 5-10, that through the death of Jesus we are
justified, i. e., reconciled, taken into God's
favor, is clear and unmistakable in itself. But
there evidently lies behind it something that the
statement itself does not disclose, viz., a thought
as to what there is in the death of Jesus that
should make it the basis of justification and
reconciliation. For the answer to the question
thus raised we shall have to look to other pas
sages. And of these none is more important
than Rom. 3 : 24-26 :
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemp
tion that is in Christ Jesus : whom God set forth to be a
propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his

1 68 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done
aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I
say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he
might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath
faith in Jesus.
Again limitations of space forbid us to enter
into detaUed interpretation of this most impor
tant passage and compel us to content ourselves
with a statement of the results of interpretation.
We begin with a summary of the propositions
stated or clearly implied in it:
I. In the ages before the coming of Christ,
God passed over sins of men; i. e., he suffered
them in part to go unpunished.
2. This passing-over of sins was an act of
forbearance on God's part; i. e., these sins
deserved and might justly have received a pun
ishment which they did not receive.
3. As a consequence of this passing-over of
sins in forbearance, the righteousness of God
came under suspicion, i. e., because God did
not punish sin to the full, the impression was
created in men's minds that God was indifferent
to sin, was not pained by it, was not indignant
at it.
4. Under these circumstances, accordingly,
God's righteousness having been brought under

In the Teaching of Paul 169
suspicion by his forbearing to punish sin to the
full, God made a public manifestation which
had for its object the removal of this suspicion
and the demonstration to men that he was
righteous, that he was not indifferent to sin.
5. This public manifestation consisted in a
setting-forth of Jesus in his blood, i. e., in his
death before the eyes of all the world. It need
scarcely be said that not the visible spectacle
of Jesus on the cross, but the fact viewed in its
moral and historical significance is what is
chiefly referred to.
6. That which this public setting-forth of
Jesus shedding his blood proved is something
which was already true, but which having become
obscured was in this event made manifest. This
is implied in the choice of the words "set forth"
and "showing," the latter made emphatic by its
repetition. The death of Christ is in the view of
our present passage a demonstration. God pre
sents him to the view of men as djdng; he does
not, however, put him to death. And this pre
sentation demonstrates God's righteousness, not
creating nor satisfying it. God had not faUed
to be righteous, he had only failed, through
forbearance, to convince men that he was right
eous. The death of Jesus is a demonstration

170 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
to the world that what seems true of God is not
true, but that so far from his being indifferent to
sin it is on the contrary a perpetual pain to him,
and he perpetuaUy disapproves it, is angry with
it. At the same time the expression "that he
might be righteous" implies that a perpetual
"passing-over" without "demonstration" would
not only seem but be unrighteous.
7. In Jesus thus set forth in his blood, thus
demonstrating God's righteousness, showing
that God is not indifferent to sin, God provides
himself a propitiation, i. e., makes it possible
for him to show mercy toward those toward
whom otherwise he would have been compelled
to show wrath.
8. This manifestation of Jesus Christ in his
blood, through which God's righteousness is
demonstrated, becomes propitiatory through
faith on the part of the individual sinner. In
other words, it avails to turn away wrath not
from all who have sinned, not from men in
masses or nations, but from him who has faith.
9. These two last-named facts may be stated
in other words, viz., that God set forth Jesus
in his blood in order to prove his righteousness,
this in turn having as its purpose that God might
be righteous and accept the sinner who has faith

In the Teaching of Paul 171
in Jesus. Thus it is evident that the propitious-
ness of God, which is on condition of faith on
man's part, is more specifically the acceptance
of the sinner who has faith.
10. Thus in Jesus Christ is provided for men
a redemption, a deliverance from the condemna
tion of sin: in the words of vs. 24 they are
"justified through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus."
II. This deliverance, viz., the acceptance
of men on condition of faith apart from works
of law, is undeserved on their part, a gratuitous
act of grace on God's part.
Thus it appears that by direct assertion or by
implication Paul represents the whole activity
of God in this matter as one of grace. The
sins of the past were passed over in forbearance.
The demonstration of the divine righteousness
which was needful to enable him to assume the
forgiving and justif}dng attitude toward men
was provided by God himself. The acceptance
of men on condition of faith is expressly charac
terized as an act of grace.
While, therefore, the passage differs at first
sight markedly from Rom. 5:5-10 in viewing
the death of Christ as a demonstration of the
divine hostility to sin rather than of love, yet

172 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
on closer 'comparison the same fundamental
conception is seen to underlie it. If that passage
expresses what we may venture to term the
unreasoned intuitive interpretation of the funda
mental meaning of the death of Jesus, this shows
the result of the apostle's reflection upon the
specific end which God sought through that
death to achieve, without in any degree modify
ing or qualifying the view of the fifth chapter.
Even for divine love there are in Paul's view
conditions subject to which it must achieve its
end. Two of these conditions are set forth in
this passage. Forgiveness, acceptance with
God, is possible only when on the one hand there
is an adequate demonstration of the divine
righteousness, and on the other hand faith on
the part of him who is to be forgiven.
But' this leads again to the raising of several
questions, viz.: How does the setting-forth of
Jesus in his blood make manifest the righteous
ness of God ? How does the exhibition of
Jesus in his blood become propitiatory ? Why
is the death of Jesus propitiatory through faith ?
It must be admitted at the outset that Paul
has neither here nor elsewhere returned direct
answers to these questions. Yet it is scarcely
possible that he had no answers to them. And

In the Teaching of Paul 173
we can but make the attempt to bridge the chasm
in his expression of his thought with such answers
as are at least consistent with what he has him
self expressed.
The first question is the most difficult to
answer. How does the death of Jesus make
manifest the righteousness of God ? Righteous
ness is here, as the context shows, specifically
the hostility of God to sin, the opposite of indif
ference to it. How does the suffering and death
of Jesus demonstrate that God is not indifferent
to sin ? Some have been ready to answer that
God's righteousness had been brought under
suspicion by his failure to punish sin; it is now
vindicated by the fact that the accumulated
penalty of these sins is borne by Jesus in his
death. Nor can it be denied that there are
some expressions of Paul which might seem at
first sight at least to favor such an interpretation.
"Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on
our behalf that we might become the righteous
ness of God in him." "Christ redeemed us
from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for
us." Yet it must be observed that these passages,
whatever be their true interpretation, do not in
any case convey precisely the thought which is
by this interpretation attributed to the passage

174 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
in Romans. Paul does unquestionably con
ceive of the death of Christ as on behalf of men,
and in a sense as instead of men. Yet he never
afl&rms that the righteousness of God demands
punishment of every sin, still less that it could
be satisfied or vindicated by the endurance of
punishment by another than the sinner. And
certainly this passage is very far from conve)dng
by anything which it expresses such a conception
of the divine righteousness. It cannot therefore
be claimed that we are shut up to this interpre
tation of the apostle's language, or that it is
directly sustained by any other utterance of his.
On the other hand there is another explana
tion of this thought, which, though also nowhere
expressly put forth by Paul, almost necessarily
results from things which he has said. It may
well be said that the apostle's underlying thought
is that the death of Jesus demonstrates God's
hostUity to sin, through its exhibition of Jesus'
own abhorrence of sin. Let several utterances
of Paul be considered together: (a) Jesus is the
image of God, the revelation of the glory of
God (II Cor. 4:4-6). (b) God was in ChrJst
reconciling the world to himself, i. e., in Christ
God is revealed reconcUing the world to liimself
(II Cor. 5:19). (c) The reconciliation of the

In the Teaching of Paul 175
world is effected through the death of Jesus.
{d) The death of Jesus manifests God's love
and Jesus' own love. In this, therefore, there
is illustrated the general principle that Jesus
is the revelation of God, that what we see Jesus
to be we may infer God to be. (e) But the death
of Jesus also manifests both God's hostUity
to sin (Rom. 3 : 25) and Jesus' own hostility
to sin (Rom. 6:io).- It is natural, therefore,
to infer that when the death of Jesus is said to
be a demonstration of God's hostility to sin, it
is in accordance with the principle that in the
face of Jesus Christ we see the character of
God. If this falls short of demonstration, and
it must be admitted that it does, it is at least to
be said in its favor that it is in perfect harmony
with all that the apostle says, and that it adds
to what is expressly said only that which is
needful to make the thought complete, and
only what is in perfect analogy to what is ex
pressly said.'
•- It may help to apprehend the apostle's thought if, we endeavor
to conceive vividly the situation which he had in mind, even though
we cannot be sure that he thought of that situation in just the way
in which he describes it. Jesus was crucified on the cross by men
who hated him and whose deepest reason for hating him was the
holiness of his character. He had claimed to be in the fullest
possible sense the representative of God the Father. In spite of
the substantiation of this claim by a life of holiness, rather because

176 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
If, then, from the examination of this passage
in the third chapter of Romans we return to
consider the second of the two propositions
which we found clearly stated in Rom. 5:9, 10,
viz., that in the death of Jesus men are justified,
reconcUed to God, we find that it furnishes the
answer to the question, what there is in the death
of Jesus which makes it the basis of justification
and reconcUiation. Remembering that the two
passages stand in the same epistle, only a few
of this substantiation, men hated him and delivered him up to
death. His suffering is therefore an exhibition of the hostility of
the world to God's holiness. Far deeper, we must believe, than
any physical pain connected with the suffering of the cross was the
pain that came to Jesus in the consciousness that men so hated
holiness (and therein, however much they professed or even
beUeved the contrary, really hated God) as to put to death him who
manifested the divine holiness. In this Jesus is God's representa
tive to us. In his suffering on the cross we have a manifestation
more clear than anywhere else in the world of the true nature of
sin and at the same time of the pain which such sin continually
inflicts on God. It is the fullest manifestation of human sin
because here we see most clearly illustrated that spirit which would
lead men, if only they had the power, to put God out of his own
universe; it is the fullest manifestation of the divine pain at sin,
because at no other point in human history does God so uncover
to us his heart as it suffers under the stroke of human sin.
The cross of Christ is in this view simply the emergence into
the plane of human history, into the sight of human eyes, of the
eternal divine tragedy. It is God's perpetual word to us that every
sin of man smites him to the heart. The death of Christ is not
the concentrated accumulation of the divine pain — it is the momen
tary laying bare to the gaze of men of that fact which is as old as

In the Teaching of Paul 177
pages apart, and in the same general course of
argument, we can but assume that the thought
which is unexpressed but assumed in the fifth
chapter is the same that is set forth in the third
chapter. We conclude, therefore, that when in
Rom. 5:9, 10, the apostle speaks of men as
justified in Christ's blood and reconciled to
God through the death of his Son, it is probable
that his thought is that through this death there
sin, and will last while sin lasts, that the sin of man is a blow at
God, which he feels with all its force. Thus is Jesus' death the
manifestation of the sensitiveness of God to sin, i. e., of his right
eousness. But Jesus is also in his death man's representative. It is the
continual representation of the apostle that Jesus died for men,
on their behalf. He is a member of the human race. As such he
joins himself in closest sympathy with men, his fellow-men. By
virtue of this close union, this profound sympathy, he realizes
intensely the hostility of God toward sin, because it is directed
against his fellow-men. Being himself holy, he knows how God
looks at sin; being a man in closest sympathy with men lie realizes
what the anger of God against men is, and suffers intensely in the
consciousness that his fellow-men are the objects of the divine
disapproval and anger. "Him who knew no sin, he made to be sin
for us." He became for us a curse that he might redeem us from
the curse. Thus he suffers on behalf of men for their sins, because
this suffering is caused by their sin, by this close, vital, and sym
pathetic, though voluntary union with men; and at the same time
through their knowledge of his suffering he manifests to men the
true nature of God's attitude toward sin. Thus in this aspect
of his sufferings also is there a manifestation of that righteousness
of God which had been brought under suspicion by his forbearance
with sin.

178 BibUcal Ideas of Atonement
is afforded such a demonstration of the divine
attitude to sin as makes possible the forgiveness
and acceptance into favor of those who have
faith in Jesus.
It is certainly in favor of this interpretation
that it is more consonant with the apostle's
clearly expressed dictum, that the judgment of
God is according to truth, than that which finds
in his words the intimation that Jesus endured
penal suffering on behalf of men; while it by
no means denies to them the expression of that
true vicariousness which the apostle repeatedly
afl&rms of the suffering of Jesus.
The answer to the second question. How does
the death of Jesus become propitiatory by its
demonstration of divine righteousness, is less
difficult, being indeed almost immediately sug
gested by the context. The passing-over of
sins had brought the divine righteousness under
suspicion. This cannot always continue. God
must not only be righteous, it is a necessity of
his righteous relation to men that he shall leave
them in no reasonable doubt respecting his
righteousness. It is in particular a necessary
condition of forgiveness, the acceptance of the
sinner. To accept a sinner under circumstances
which would imply that such acceptance was

In the Teaching of Paul 1 79
grounded in indifference to sin would itself be
to encourage sin. Hence a demonstration of
divine righteousness, such as can leave no room
for doubt concerning God's attitude toward sin,
is the necessary basis of propitiation. The
death of Christ is propitiatory because by its
furnishing such a demonstration it makes pos
sible a gracious attitude on God's part toward
the sinner. This is indeed almost exactly
what Paul says in 3:26, viz., that this demon
stration of righteousness was made in order that
God might be righteous and the justifier of
him that beheves in Jesus, two things which
but for the manifestation of the divine right
eousness in the death of Jesus would have been
inconsistent, the acceptance of one not really
and fully righteous, in itself and unaccompanied
by some correcting demonstration, impl)dng
that God did not disapprove sin and hence was
not righteous.
Nor is the answer to the third question, why
faith is necessary to propitiation, difl&cult if
only we hold firmly to the apostle's conception
of the nature of God's judgment and the nature
of faith. He speaks of Jesus set forth in his
blood as propitiatory through faith, implying
that the death of Christ has no propitiatory

i8o Biblical Ideas of Atonement
power in respect to the unbelieving. It is
distinctly implied also that the propitiation of
God must not be inconsistent with the mani
festation of his righteousness, since the setting-
forth of Christ as a propitiation has as one pur
pose of it the manifestation of that righteousness.
By the parallelism of his sentence Paul implies
that the being propitious toward men is the
acceptance of them. How then does faith make
possible the acceptance of men ? Now faith,
as the apostle thinks of it, is as already stated
a receptive and obedient attitude toward God's
revelation of himself and of his will. The faith
of Abraham is of essentially the same character,
Paul implies, as his own Christian faith. Such
faith is itself incipient and germinal righteous
ness. It is the keeping of the law of God in its
inmost essence. It contains also the promise
and potency of complete and actual righteous
ness, since it is the opening of the door of the
soul to God, through which God enters, never
again to depart and never to give over his work
until it is complete. By faith we wait for the
hope of righteousness; and he who has begun
in us a good work will go on to complete it.
Now to accept as righteous one who has such
faith in Jesus is simply to recognize the germ as

In the Teaching of Paul

i»i

existing and as containing the promise and po
tency of the full fruit. It is to treat men in
accordance not merely with the actual moral
attainments of the present moment, but in ac
cordance with what they are in fundamental
character, and with what they are certain to
become in actual conduct and character. It
does not involve the assertion that men are now
actually all that God requires, but that they are
fundamentally so, and that there is in their
fundamental rightness the potentiality of full
attainment, a potentiality which is certain to
become an actuality.
Thus faith makes possible propitiation and
justification. Moreover, it is an indispensable
condition of propitiation. To accept as right
eous one who has no faith, is to accept as right
eous one who is not righteous and gives no prom
ise of becoming righteous. This would be not
to prove but to disprove the divine righteousness.
The death of Jesus is propitiatory only because
it provides a means by which God is able con
sistently with the maintenance of his righteous
ness to be merciful to the sinner; it is propitia
tory only in respect to those who have faith,
since the acceptance as righteous of one who
does not by faith lay hold on God would be a

1 82 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
demonstration that God was indifferent to the
distinction between righteousness and unright
eousness. The death of Jesus cannot avaU to
make this possible, for it is a contradiction of ex
actly that which the death of Jesus was intended
to demonstrate. Propitiation is not withheld
from those who have no faith. It has intrinsi
cally no effect in respect to them.
Thus in Jesus Christ is provided for sinners
a redemption, a deliverance from the condemna
tion of sin. From the penalty of sin which
otherwise must have been infiicted upon sinners,
that the divine righteousness might be mani
fested or even maintained, there is provided
for all who will believe a way of deliverance,
because in the suffering and death of Jesus
Christ has been found another method of mak
ing manifest the righteousness of God, and so a
basis of reconciliation to God of all who have
faith. This death he suffered on our behalf.
He died that we might not die. His death is
at once a demonstration of God's disapproval
of sinners and of his love and of Christ's love
for them. But this demonstration is of no avail
for the reconciliation of the sinner unless there
be faith on the part of the sinner. Him who
has faith God accepts, because in that faith is

In the Teaching of Paul 183
germinal righteousness and the possibility of a
complete achievement of God's purpose respect
ing man. By such faith men come into moral
fellowship with the living Christ; and by his
life they attain unto righteousness and are saved
from wrath. The death of Jesus is revelatory.
The life of Jesus is djaajnAc. That death fur
nishes a demonstration of God's attitude toward
men on the basis of which they who by faith
partake of his life may be reconciled to God.
Pursuing still the plan of interpreting the less
clear passages by those which are more clear,
we come to the obscure but unquestionably
important statement of the apostle Paul in Gal.
3:i3> 14:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming
a curse for us; — for it is written, cursed is everyone that
hangeth on a tree; — that upon the Gentiles might come
the blessing of Abraham; that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith.
That the apostle employs the term "law" in
this sentence in its legalistic sense, i. e., as denot
ing not the total revelation of the divine will,
or the legislative portion of the Old Testament,
but the strictly legalistic element of the Old
Testament revelation, is a fact of fundamental
importance for the discovery of his thought in

184 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
this passage. That such is in fact the meaning
of the word here even a study of the word as
used repeatedly in this chapter of the epistle
wUl make reasonably clear. Observe, for exam
ple, the antithesis in which the apostle sets the
dictum of the law in vs. 10 and the Scripture
doctrine of faith in vs. 11. Both are derived
from the Old Testament, yet they directly
contradict one another, and the apostle clearly
regards the latter as that which is reaUy revela
tory of God's attitude toward men. Observe
also the apostle's declaration in vs. 17, that the
law cannot set aside the principle of faith that
underlies the promise made long before to
Abraham.' Law is in this sense, according to
Paul's thought, an element of the divine revela
tion, but neither the whole of that revelation,
nor its controlling element. It was just here
that Paul differed from those pharisaicaUy
inclined thinkers whom he was opposing. They
made law, in its strictly legalistic sense, the
whole or the determinative element of the
divine revelation. To Paul it was a subordinate
element of revelation, and the exaltation of it to
I For fuller discussion of the usage of the word "law" in Paul
and a detailed interpretation of Gal. 3:r3, 14, see Burton, "Re
demption from the Curse of the Law," American Journal of
Theology, Vol. XI (October, 1907), pp. 624-46.

In the Teaching of Paul 185
the supreme place was an utter misrepresenta
tion of God and a perversion of religion.
When it is clearly recognized in what sense
Paul is using this term "law," then it follows
that by "the curse of the law" he does not mean
a curse which God veritably pronounces on
everyone "who continues not in all the things
that are written in the book of the law to do
them," for, as vss. 10, 11 clearly show, he holds
that the Old Testament itself affirms quite a
different basis as that of the divine judgment.
This curse is rather that which is pronounced
by the purely legal element of the Old Testa
ment when isolated and set off by itself. Such
a declaration is not false. It has its value as
disclosing to men where they stand when judged
purely on the basis of their conduct, and is
especially calculated to deter Paul's readers
from adopting the legalistic view of his oppo
nents, since on such a basis there could be for
them only a curse for their non-conformity to
all the statutes of the law. But they greatly
err, the apostle clearly indicates, who think that
such a curse of law truly represents God's
attitude to men. He desires mercy and not
sacrifice. Faith wins his approval, and for him
who has faith there is no divine curse even

1 86 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
though he has not fulfiUed all the law's detailed
requirements. From this it follows further that redemption
from the curse of the law is not forgiveness of
sins, but deliverance of the mind from a mis
conception of God's attitude toward men.
From the curse that God pronounces, only in
the sense that in the law-element of his revelation
he discloses to us our shortcomings, pointing
out that judged on the basis of our own conduct
we are indeed under a curse — from this curse
which never expressed God's thought in full,
which taken alone utterly misrepresents the
attitude of God to men, men are redeemed when
they learn at length, what the prophets perpet
ually afl&rmed, that God is not a bookkeeper,
recording in his ledger the daily deeds of men
and issuing his curse on those who faU in any
requirement of the law, but a righteous God,
loving righteousness in men, and faith by which
men come into fellowship with him.
Precisely how the apostle conceived that this
redemption from a degrading and enslaving
conception of God, Jesus wrought for us in that
he died on the cross, he has not here clearly
indicated, and it may not be possible for us with
certainty to afl&rm. Yet there are two possible

In the Teaching of Paul 187
answers to this question which are suggested
by the apostle's language elsewhere, and which
are sufficient to account for the language of the
present passage without the necessity of resort
ing to explanations which have rio basis in his
expressed thought. It is beyond question that
the apostle looked upon the death of Jesus as
a disclosure and demonstration of God's love
for men. ' This thought alone may be the basis
of his expression here. That God loves men,
even sinful men, his enemies, as the death of
Christ shows that he does love them, is itself a
refutation of the conception that he is a mere
legalistic judge of men, ignoring their striving,
their aspiraition, and their faith, and pronoun
cing on them a curse because they have failed
to fulfil all the requirements of the law. But
it is probable that this thought of the divine
love, if it underlay the language of the apostle
at this point, was supplemented in his mind
by another, for it is beyond question that the
apostle believed that Jesus himself was without
sin (II Cor. 5:21). If then even he endured
the cross, the climax of suffering and the extreme
symbol of divine displeasure, it cannot be that
it is the lawpf the divine government that each
I See Rom. 5:9, 10; 8:31, and cf. pp. 165 ff.

1 88 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
is dealt with on principles of legalistic justice.
Look, you who think that God awards to each
that joy or that pain which his punctilious ful
filment of statutes or his failure to fulfil them
deserves; look at the cross of Christ, where he,
the righteous, who knew no sin, died on the
tree of cursing, for us, who had fallen far short
of meeting the law's demands; and learn how
widely you have missed the truth concerning
God's real attitude toward men. There is
certainly no more need here than in Rom.
3:24-26 to suppose that Paul thinks of Christ
as veritably the object of divine displeasure, or
as enduring a penalty transferred from sinful
men to himself. That he suffers because of sin
and on behalf of men has its sufl&cient explana
tion in his relation to God and to men, in con
sequence of which the pain of their sin falls on
him. And that he who is the revealer and reve
lation of God does thus suffer itself disproves
the whole legalistic conception of God.
Thus it appears that if we are guided by the
apostle's own usage of words, and if we inter
pret his less clear assertions by those that are
more clear, we find him thinking of the death
of Jesus as vicarious in the sense that it is en
dured for the sake of men, as revelatory in that

In the Teaching of Paul 189
it discloses to men God's true attitude toward
them, and as redemptive through the fact that
it is thus revelatory. It is by the knowledge
of God that men are redeemed; only of course
such redemption becomes actual only as men
accept and act upon the revelation of God thus
given in Christ.
From this passage it is natural to turn to one
in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians:
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we
judge this: that one died for all, therefore all died; and
he died for all that they who Uve might no longer Uve to
themselves but to him that for them died and rose 
All things are from God that reconciled us to himself
through Christ, and gave to us the ministry of reconciha
tion, to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world
to himself, not reckoning to them their transgressions;
and committed to us the word of reconcihation. On
behalf of Christ therefore we are ambassadors, as if God
were entreating you through us. We entreat you on
behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. Him who
knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf that we
might become righteousness of God in him (II Cor.
5:14, 15, 18-21).
Concerning this remarkable and remarkably
interesting passage it must sufl&ce to notice only
those things which are strictly pertinent to our
subject. LogicaUy, if not also grammatically,
the word "this" in vs. 14 is defined not by the

190 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
immediately succeeding clause, but by aU that
follows to the end of vs. 15. In the death of
Jesus the apostle sees the supreme expression
of the love pf Christ, and holds that all, for whom
he thus suffered, are potentiaUy and ought to be
actually participative in it. The death that he
died is ours, both in that it was for us, and in
that it belongs to us to enter into it and share
it with him, living no longer for the fulfilment
of our own purposes and ends but for his, who
for us died and rose again. Thus to the oft-
expressed thought that the death of Jesus is
vicarious, on behalf of men, being an expression
of his love for men, this passage adds that it is
also representative, and of universal significance.
It sets forth to men the ideal of their own life
and appeals to them, moved by its manifestation
of his love, to reproduce it in themselves. Simi
larly, in Rom. 6: 10, 11, the apostle declares that
as Jesus in his death died to sin, .utterly and
finally repudiating it, so we ought to count our
selves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ
Jesus. Both passages look at the death of
Jesus as an act of profound moral significance,
an act of righteousness on the part of Christ,
mirroring for men their true attitude toward
sin and righteousness. By its revelation of

In the Teaching of Paul 191
ideal human life the death of Jesus becomes
redemptive. But the Corinthian passage also represents
Jesus as the revelation of God, and as in that
revelation working atonement. God was in
Christ, reconcUing the world unto himself.
The addition of the words, "not imputing their
transgressions unto them," combined with
lexicographical evidence not necessary to be
cited here, shows that it is the laying-aside of
divine wrath rather than the overcoming of
human hostility that the apostle has specially
in mind when he speaks of the reconciliation
of the world to God. This reconcUiation is
accomplished through the revelation of God in
Christ; whether by a demonstration of his
righteous hostility to sin (cf. Rom. 3 : 25 f.) or
of his love (Rom. 5 : 8 f .) or through both, the
passage does not clearly indicate. The most
noteworthy fact is that it is through revelation
that atonement is effected.
But this passage further presents Jesus — and
we can scarcely be wrong in thinking that the
apostle has speciaUy in mind the death of Jesus
— ^in yet a third aspect. " Him who knew no sin
he made to be sin on our behalf." It requires
no argument to show that the expression "made

192 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
to be sin" involves metonymy. To make a
person to be sin, and that one become right
eousness, are both alike impossible and unthink
able in a literal sense of the words. But it is
almost as clear that the metonymy is double;
that is, that the words do not mean that he
made him sinful, caused him to sin. Such an
idea is so far removed alike from Paul's idea of
Jesus and of God as to be an impossible inter
pretation of his language. He can only mean
that God made him to experience the effect
of sin; not his own, for he had none, but that of
others. The thought is clearly akin to that
of Gal. 3:13. There is the same antithetical
form of expression and the same kind of meton
ymy. That men might in him enter into the
divine righteousness (whether in the strictly
ethical sense, or in the forensic sense, is not
needful to decide at this point) he entered into
the experience of human sin, not indeed by
sinning, but by suffering even unto death, be
cause of that sin. How such experience of sin
enabled men to enter into the divine righteous
ness, the sentence itself leaves unsaid; but the
most obvious suggestion of the context is that
it was through the revelation of God that was
thus made.

In the Teaching of Paul 193
Two passages from the epistle to the Philip
pians, worthy in themselves of extended study,
must be briefly considered:
And being found in fashion as a man he humbled
himself, becoming obedient (to God) unto death, and
that a death on the cross (Phil. 2:8).
That I may know him and the power of his resurrection
and the feUowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed
to his death, if so be I may attain unto the resurrection
from the dead (Phil. 3:10, 11).
These passages have in common the thought,
intimated also in the earlier letters, that in his
death Jesus is a pattern for his followers. For
the first occurs in that remarkable statement
concerning the self-abnegation of Christ, which
is introduced by the words, "Have this mind
in you which was also in Christ Jesus.". And
the second is part of the expression of the apos
tle's fervent longing after the achievement of
that for which he had forsaken aU and turned
to Christ. The former passage afl&rms more
explicitly than any previous one that Jesus in
his death was obediently fulfliUing the wiU of
God, and goes on to add that for this God highly
exalted him. It yields decisive disproof, if
any were needed, that the apostle conceived of
Jesus as being in his death in any sense the

194 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
veritable object of divine wrath. The second
passage, joining together the power of Christ's
resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering
as both alike to be experienced by the Christian
and as alike conditions precedent to his own
participation in the resurrection, confirms what
Rom. 4: 25 and 5 : 10 not obscurely suggest, that
the final achievement of divine approval is
attained not through any sacrifice of Christ as a
fact external to the redeemed, or by faith as an
enacted condition precedent to the ascription
to the believer of an achieved merit of Christ,
or by both of these combined, but by the dynamic
of fellowship with Christ in that moral experi
ence of which his death was the culmination.
In that he died he died once for all to sin. In
that he liveth he liveth unto God. This experi
ence in all its essential moral elements must
be repeated in him who is to attain unto atone
ment, i. e., reconcUiation with God, and the
sequel of it, resurrection from the dead. That
men might through him learn to know God
and repeat in themselves this experience, for
this Jesus, for love of men and on their behalf,
was obedient even unto death, even that of the
cross. It is scarcely necessary to proceed farther in

In the Teaching of Paul 195
the interpretation of what we have caUed the
earlier Pauline epistles. Such passages as I
Thess. 1:10; 4:14; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 4:25;
6 : 4 ff. ; 8 : 3, etc., though raising many questions
of detaU, do but repeat, for the most part in
less explicit form, the conception found in those
which we have already examined.
No doubt the apostle often expresses his
thought in language shaped by the current
legalistic ideas or by his own formerly held, but
now for the most part abandoned, legalistic
conceptions. Yet when that language is care
fully examined it yields a conception of the work
of Christ in the reconcUiation of God with men,
which is ethical rather than legalistic. The
fundamental significance of the death of Jesus
as Paul conceives of it, is in the revelation which
it effects. It reveals the love of God for men,
and the righteousness of God, especiaUy in its
aspect of hostility to sin. This revelation of
God, which makes manifest his essentiaUy
ethical character and attitude toward men,
emancipates men from false ideas of God and
provides a basis on which they may be freely
forgiven by God. Yet this is only on condition
of faith — and that too not arbitrarily, or as if
faith were a quantitative complement of an

196 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
expiation for sin effected through the death
of Jesus, but on the ethical ground that the
judgments of God are according to truth and
God can approve as righteous only those who
are fundamentally righteous. Approaching it
from another point of view the death of Jesus
reveals 'the ideal of human life. It is itself a
moral act wherein is disclosed Jesus' own
attitude to sin and the attitude which it belongs
to all men to take. He who by faith in him
accepts his principle of life enters into fellow
ship with him who died and rose again, d)dng
with him to sin and rising with him to newness
of life. They are reconciled to God and obtain
divine approval who, accepting the revelation
of God which, begun in ages past, reached its
culmination in Jesus Christ, commit themselves
in faith to him and become partakers of the life
that was, and is, in him.
The letters to the Colossians and Ephesians^
afi&rm the pre-existence and pre-incarnate activ
ity of the Christ and his function in creation
I Were it possible to discriminate with certainty between the
Pauline and the later non-Pauline elements in those letters and
the pastoral epistles, the non-Pauline would of course call for
separate treatment. But in view of the difficulty of doing this,
and in the interest of proper proportion of treatment, the wise
course seems to be that which we have chosen, viz., to treat first

In the Teaching of Paul 197
and pre-Christian revelation with a clearness
and emphasis not found in the earlier letters,
and attach to his redemptive work a cosmic
significance hardly expressed at all in them.
But these differences affect but slightly their
doctrine of atonement. Nor do the pastoral
epistles, whatever their authorship, depart in
any important way from the teaching of the un
questionably Pauline letters on this subject.
In the interest of brevity, therefore, we may
summarize the teaching of all these letters in
one series of statements, indicating by the refer
ences which of the several elements are expressed
in the several letters.
The Gentiles were before the coming of Christ
and, apart from their acceptance of Christ,
remain alienated from God by evil works, hos
tile to him, and objects of his wrath because of
their sin. The Jews also were by nature chil
dren of wrath even as the rest (Col. 1:21; 2:13;
3:7; Eph. 2:3; ITim. 1:13-16).
the quite certainly Pauline literature and then those which are open
to doubt and in any case later. II Thessalonians, which if genuine
is early, is passed over as making no addition to the teaching of
the more certainly genuine epistles. I cannot myself feel that the
doubts respecting Colossians are justified. Ephesians is less cer
tain, but this also seems to me more likely to be Paul's than not.
The pastoral epistles seem pretty certainly compounded of Pauline
and non-Pauline elements.

198 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
Yet men were at the same time, even in their
sin, the objects of God's love. He was rich
in mercy and loved us with a great love. The
salvation of men is the work of divine grace;
it is he that delivered us out of the power of
darkness (Col. 1:13; 2:2,3; Eph. 1:7; 2:4, 8;
Tit. 3:4 ff.)-
Jesus, himself the object of divine love, is also
himself full of love for men. He is the Son of
God's love, and the revelation of the Father,
loving men with a love that passes knowledge
(Col. 1:13, 15, 19; Eph. 2:4; 3:19).
The death of Jesus was an act of love on his
part which was at the same time well pleasing
unto God (Eph. 5:2,' 25; cf. I Tim. 2:5,
6; Tit. 2:14). By this death the middle wall
of partition between Jew and GentUe has been
broken down. The bond written in ordinances
has been blotted out and the believer in Christ
is no longer subject to judgment in meat or
drink or feast days or Sabbath days. They
who were once afar off are made nigh in the
blood of Christ, he having abolished in his flesh
the law of commandments. Through the cross
' On this passage which is one of the few in which Paul uses
sacrificial language, cf. T. K. Abbott, in the International Critical
Commentary.

In the Teaching of Paul 199
both Jew and GentUe are reconciled to God
(Col. 2:14-16; Eph. 2:13-22). But the pur
pose of Jesus' self-surrender to death is also
stated in more personal and likewise in more
distinctly ethical terms. He gave himself a
ransom for all to redeem them from iniquity and
to secure for them forgiveness of sins (Col.
i:2of.; 2:13; Eph. 1:7; I Tim. 2:5, 6;'
Tit. 2:14). All this is in essential agreement
with the doctrine of the earlier epistles, that
Jesus is in his blood propitiatory through faith,
that in him there is redemption, that justified
through his death we are saved through his life,
and that Christ is the end of the law for right
eousness to them that believe. Only there is
now a strong emphasis upon the last-named
thought and consequently on the inter-racial
significance of Jesus' death as abolishing the
partition between Jew and gentUe, both now
having their access to God in the same way.
It is important to observe that this result is
achieved and the GentUes come into possession
of all the privUeges of the Jews, not by their
coming under the law, but by its abolition.
Faith remains for all the sole condition of access
to God, because Christ, in his death, blotted
I Cf. Mark 10:45, and chap, vi, pp. 113 ff.

200 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
out the bond written in ordinances, nailing it,
as the apostle expresses it, to the cross. The
sufferings of the ' Christ are complemented by
those of the followers who fill up that which is
lacking. The implication is that his suffering
and theirs are of hke significance.
Acceptance with God is achieved not by
works of law (which has been abolished), but
through faith and the dweUing of Christ in the
heart. In him we have our redemption from
iniquity, and the forgiveness of our sins. Christ
in us is the hope of glory (Col. 1:23, 27; 2:7;
Eph. 1:13; 2:8; 3:12; I Tim, 2:5, 6; Tit.
2:14). Finally, the death of Jesus not only has rela
tion to the Jews and Gentiles; it is of cosmic
significance. Through it, it is God's purpose
to reconcile to him all things in heaven and
earth (Col. 1:20; 2:15; Eph. 1:10).
Except therefore in emphasis, and in a not
unimportant extension of horizon, the epistles
to the Colossians and Ephesians and the pastoral
epistles, by whomsoever written, reflect a con
ception of the significance of Jesus' death and
of the basis on which sinners may be reconciled
to God which is essentially Pauline. In Jesus,
God is so revealed to men that the ordinances

In the Teaching of Paul 201
of the law are done away, and men, whether
Jews \ or Gentiles, may enter into peace with
God through faith in Christ, who dwelhng in
them is the hope of glory. Thus does the
Father, because of the love wherewith he loved
us, deliver us out of the power of darkness and
translate us into the kingdom of the Son of his
love.

CHAPTER IX
THE TEACHING OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF
PETER AND OF THE EPISTLE TO THE
HEBREWS
The First Epistle of Peter is addressed to
Christians who are suffering temptation and
persecution, and is evidently designed to en
courage those thus suffering to endure without
surrender of their faith. For this purpose the
writer appeals on the one side to the sufferings
of Jesus and on the other to the salvation that
is yet to be revealed. The wrath of God against
sin and the basis of forgiveness are naturally
enough but little spoken of. What is said is
sufl&cient to indicate that the writer holds the
common doctrine of early Christianity that the
manner of life which was common among the
Gentiles, having been handed down from their
fathers, was displeasing to God, and made them
objects of his wrath (i:i8; 2:1; 3:12; 4:18).
He refers also to faith as that through which
salvation is obtained (1:5, 9) and through this
salvation is conceived of as something not yet
obtained, but to be received at the revelation of
Jesus Christ. Yet it is also clearly set forth that

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 203
they who having believed now await this revela
tion of Christ and the accompanying salvation,
have already purified their souls in their obedi
ence to the truth (1:22) and are already the
people of God (2:10), having been begotten
through the word of God (i : 23) unto a living
hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead (1:3).
The single incidental reference to sacrifice'
is significant as indicating that the writer thinks
of the sacrifice of the Levitical system as dis
placed by the self-devotion of Christians to
God, in which they are at the same time priests
and offering, not slain but living, an offering
which becomes acceptable through Jesus Christ,
i. e., apparently through the fact of their spirit
ual feUowship with and likeness to Jesus Christ
(cf. vs. 15).
Of the passages that speak of the sufferings
of Jesus none is more clear or important than
2:21-25: For hereunto were ye caUed: because Christ also
suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should
follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found
in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not
I "Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, to
be an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 2:5; cf. Rom. 12:1).

204 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
again; when he suffered, threatened not, but committed
himself to him that judgeth righteously: who his own
self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having
died unto sins, might Uve unto righteousness; by whose
stripes ye were healed. For ye were going astray Uke
sheep; but are now retumed unto the Shepherd and
Bishop of your souls.
It is worthy of notice, first of all, that there are
four expressions in this passage which are taken
substantially from Isa., chap. 53, and follow
almost literally the Septuagint version: "He
did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth ;"
' ' Who himself bare our sins ;" "By whose stripes
ye are healed;" "As sheep were going astray."
The use of these expressions, combined with
the evidence of i : 11,' leaves no room for doubt
that the writer regarded the Isaiah passage as
predictive and as fulfilled in Jesus. The two
passages are complementary, one declaring
that the prophets foretold the sufferings of Christ
but without naming the passages, and the other
appljdng to Jesus, in respect to his sufferings,
the language of Isa., chap. 53, but without
expressly saying that the language was predict-
I "Of which salvation the prophets inquired and searched
diligently, .... searching what time or what manner of time
the spirit of Christ which was in them did point to when it testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ."

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 205
ive. There can be no doubt that the writer
included Isa., chap. 53, among the passages
which he understood to be definite predictions
of the suffering of Jesus. What other passages
he included in the same list we do not know.
But it is also clear that our author thought of
the death of Jesus as having relation not simply
to the men of his own generation but to all the
human race, even to men whom he characterizes
expressly as not contemporaries of Christ, but
as Gentiles of another generation, having,
therefore, nothing directly to do with the death
of Jesus, for he says, "He bore our sins on the
tree." "By his stripes ye are healed." The
death of Jesus was in fulfilment of the divine
plan and prophetic announcement, and was of
universal significance. He suffered for our sins
once for all (3:18).
The purpose of Jesus' sufferings is afl&rmed
to be that we, having died unto sin, might live
unto righteousness. This language reminds
us strongly of that of Paul in Rom. 6:10, 13;
"In that he died, he died unto sin once for all,
but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even
so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin,
but alive unto God  Present yourselves
unto God, as alive from the dead and your

2o6 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
members as instruments of righteousness unto
God." How the sufferings of Jesus under sin,
wherein he bore our sins in his body on the tree,
are to achieve the result that we should die to
sin and live to righteousness — on this point the
writer is silent, as Paul also is on the similar
point in Rom., chap. 3. But it is clear that our
writer has in mind a moral reformation or regen
eration as the result aimed at in the sufferings
of Christ. This is made most clear by the
twenty-fifth verse in which he interprets the
words, "by whose stripes ye were healed."
"For," he adds, "ye were going astray like sheep,
but are now retumed unto the shepherd and
bishop of your souls." The healing through
his stripes is accomplished in their return from
their wanderings to God as their shepherd and
bishop. That the sufferings of Jesus are looked
at from the point of view of their moral effect
on men is further made clear from the fact that
in them Jesus left us an example that we should
follow in his footsteps. The context makes it
clear that that in which the writer means to hold
up to his readers the example of Jesus for their
imitation is his patient suffering, innocently,
not for any sin of his own, but for that of others.
Thus as in Jesus and in Paul, so also in Peter

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 207
we find the sufferings of Jesus brought under
a general moral law. Vicariousness, the suffer
ing of the innocent for the guilty, this is the law
of righteous living. In this Jesus has set us a
great example which we should foUow. But
it is not simply a necessity to which we ought
to submit; it has redemptive value. He suffered
that we, having died to sins, might live to right
eousness, that we who were going astray might
return unto the shepherd and bishop of our souls.
Such also is to be the effect of like conduct on
the part of Jesus' followers. They who speak
against you as evil-doers wUl by your good
works, which they behold, glorify God in the
day of visitation (2:12). Ungodly husbands,
even if they obey not the word, may without
the word be gained by the behavior of their
wives (3:1). Wherein ye are spoken against,
they will be put to shame who revUe your good
manner of life in Christ (3:16, cf. vss. 17, 18,
with the reference to the sufferings of Christ).
To the thought of this passage, the four others
in which the sufferings of Jesus are spoken of
add little that is significant for our purpose
except emphasis.
In 3:18, having urged his readers to suffer
Avillingly for weU-doing, because it is better,

2o8 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
if the will of God be so, to suffer for well-doing
than for evil-doing, he adds, "Because Christ
also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the
unrighteous, that he might bring us to God,
being put to death in the flesh, but quickened
in the Spirit."
In 4: 1 the author seems to follow the thought
of Paul in Rom., chap. 6, more closely than in
2:21-25. Exhorting his readers to have the
sam^e mind in them that was in Jesus, he adds,
using language which he had just above applied
to Jesus, but which he evidently means here shall
apply both to Jesus and to all who follow in his
steps, "For he that suffered in the flesh hath
ceased from sin."
In 4:12, 13, he bids his readers not to be
surprised at the fiery trial that is coming upon
them, but, inasmuch as they are partakers of
Christ's sufferings, to rejoice.
In 5 : 1, the writer refers to himself as a witness
of the sufferings of Christ, but without entering
into the question of their significance.
In two passages the writer speaks of the blood
of Christ :
Knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible
things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of Ufe
handed down from your fathers, but with precious blood,

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 209
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, (even
the blood) of Christ (I Pet. 1:18, 19).
The most notable fact about this passage is
that the redemption is not from the penalty or
punishment of sin, but from the vain manner
of life handed down from the fathers. How
this is effected by the blood, i. e., the death of
Christ, can hardly be doubted in view on the
one side of the comparison of Jesus with a lamb
without blemish or spot, and on the other of
the repeated reference in the epistle to the suf
fering of Jesus as the suffering of the righteous
for the unrighteous, yet also as a death to sin
in which the foUowers of Jesus become par
ticipators. Entering into spiritual feUowship
with Jesus in his death, they are delivered from
the vain and sinful life they would otherwise
live. In the salutation of the letter the writer ad
dresses his readers as elect unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (1:2),
conveying, no doubt, in the word "sprinkling"
an allusion to the sacrifices of the Old Testa
ment, and so, by implication, ascribing to the
death of Jesus the atoning value. But into the
question how it atones, the passage does not
at aU enter.

2IO Biblical Ideas of Atonement
It thus appears that the writer of this epistle
conceived of the sufferings and death of Jesus
as (a) predicted by the prophets, in particular
by Isa., chap. 53; (b) as vicarious, the suffering
of the righteous for the unrighteous; (c) as
having relation not simply to Jesus' contempo
raries, but to all men; (d) as having as its pur
pose the redemption of men from the evil man
ner of life which their ancestors followed ; (e) as
falling under a general principle applicable to
all and setting an example which his followers
should foUow and in the following of which they
would in their measure achieve results like those
which Jesus himself achieved.
For those of us who have always read Isa.,
chap. 53, as expressive of the idea that the serv
ant of Jehovah endures the penalty of other
men's sins transferred to him, thus making
expiation for them, and who find this language
quoted in I Peter as applicable to Jesus and
indeed uttered predictively of him, it is natural
perhaps to assume that the author looked upon
the death of Jesus as substitutionarily expiative. ^
But not only does he not say this; what he does
say practically excludes it. We may not indeed
make too much of the fact that some of the best
modern interpreters do not find the idea of

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 211
substitution in the strict sense in the Isaiah
passage; for we cannot assume that our author
was in agreement with these particular modern
interpreters. But it is pertinent to point out
that the whole intent of his references to the
death of Jesus is to urge first that the purpose
of Jesus' death is that men having died to sin
might live to righteousness, and especially to
exhort them to follow his example, suffering
patiently not for iU-doing, but for well-doing.
Unless therefore we are prepared to ascribe
to our author a thought about the death of
Jesus which he does not at all express, and
which is out of harmony with what he does say,
we must abide by the thought that the death of
Jesus fulfils a divine purpose and has universal
significance in its revelation of the principle that
it is the duty and privilege of the righteous to
suffer innocently for the wicked, and by such
suffering to win them to righteousness. Indeed
we thus somewhat understate the fact. For
since we know what significance the writer
attached to the suffering of Jesus' followers
(2:12; 3:1, 6, etc.), and since he expressly
classes together the sufferings of Jesus and his
foUowers, it is practically demanded of us that
we give to the sufferings of Jesus a hke meaning

212 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
to that which our author expressly ascribes to
those of his followers.
We conclude, therefore, that the author of
the First Epistle of Peter is in harmony with
most other New Testament writers in finding
the fundamental value of the death of Jesus
in the sphere of revelation, but that he lays
especial emphasis on the vicarious sufferings
of Jesus as setting an example which his fol
lowers ought to follow and by the following
of which they may work results akin to those
which Jesus himself accomplished inthis death.
The purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews
is to maintain the, finality and perfection of
the revelation made in Jesus and of the way of
salvation revealed through him. It maintains
this proposition in large part by setting forth
the superiority of Jesus and the new covenant
to the several corresponding elements of the
Old Testament religion. Throughout the argu
ment the validity of the old is not denied, but
rather insisted .upon. But upon the basis of
such validity the superiority and finality of the
new is maintained.
Such an argument might be addressed either
to men who held fast to the old and were unwill
ing to surrender it in order to accept the new,

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 213
or to men who, having regarded the new as a
mere addition to the old, in no way modifying
it, and, seeing the old about to perish, were
tempted to give up their faith in God, surrender
ing old and new together. The total evidence
of the letter makes it clear that it is in fact ad
dressed to men of the latter class. The danger
which threatens them, and which the letter seeks
to ward off, is not a return of Christians who
have abandoned Judaism to that Judaism, but a
total loss of faith in God on the part of men to
whom the perishing of the old was practically
a perishing of the whole.
To such men the writer comes reafl&rming the
validity of past revelation, but contending that
fhe passing-away of the old in no way justifies
surrender of faith in God, for, in place of the
old, God has already provided in Jesus that
which is better, the final and permanent.
As in Paul, so in this epistle, the sin that is
condemned, perhaps we should rather say that
in sin which makes it the object of divine wrath,
is resistance to truth, an evil heart of unbelief.
It is the drifting-away from the message of the
gospel against which the writer warns his readers
especially. It is they who have tasted the good
word of God and then fallen away whom it is

214 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
impossible again and again to renew unto
repentance. It is those who sin wUfuUy after
they have received the knowledge of the truth
for whom there remains only a certain fearful
expectation of judgment and a fierceness of
fire which shall devour the adversaries. The
unforgivable sin is the neglect of truth of which
men have already had apprehension (2:1-3;
3:12-19; 4:11; 6:4-6; 10:26-30).
To quote all that the writer has to say con
cerning the significance of sacrifice would
involve the quotation of the major portion of
7 : 26 — 10: 31. A reference to this portion of the
epistle wUl make it clear that in the thought
of the writer the sacrifices of the old covenant
were themselves valid only unto cleanness of
the flesh, and were never able to cleanse the
consciences of men. It is impossible, he says,
that the blood of bulls and goats should take
away sins. This system of sacrifices, which is
but a shadow of the true, has been done away
in the establishment of the new covenant in
Christ. It is most important to observe that
while the writer regards the sacrifices as divinely
appointed, he does not think of them as ever
having validity for the actual cleansing of the
conscience or the securing of forgiveness. They

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 215
achieved only the cleansing of the flesh, and
s5mibolized the real cleansing of the soul and
foreshadowed the real cleansing of conscience
which was to take place through Christ.
In the ninth chapter he refers to the covenant
spoken of in Exod. 24:7, to which, as we have
judged, there is also reference in the language
of Jesus in connection with the Last Supper.
The word Sta^^/e?/ which he uses in this con
nection has been the occasion of much perplexity
and its ambiguity has probably led to a general
misinterpretation of the passage. The revised
version reads:
And for this cause he is the mediator of a new cove
nant, that a death having taken place for the redemption
of the transgressions that were under the first covenant,
they that have been caUed may receive the promise of
the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is (notice
that the word is the same that is above translated cove
nant) there must of necessity be the death of him that
made it. For a testament is of force where there hath
been death, for doth it ever avail where he that made it
liveth ?
If this is the correct translation the writer
has apparently played fast and loose with the
ambiguous word SiadiJKj], using it first in the
sense of covenant, and then proving concerning
it as a covenant things which can be proved only

2i6 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
by taking it in the sense of testament, wUl. But
it is quite possible that this translation and the
suggested interpretation misrepresent the writer's
thought, and that he intended rather to speak
of a covenant throughout. The passage may
be read as follows:
And for this cause he is the mediator of a new
CQvenant, that a death having taken place for redemption
of the transgressions that have relation to the first cove
nant, they that have been called may receive the promise
of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a covenant
it is necessary that a death should be offered, for a cove
nant is valid in respect to dead men (where there has been
death), since doth it then have force when he that made it
liveth ?
If this is the correct translation then the
writer has retained the' same sense of BiaO'^Ki],
and has interpreted the slaying of the animal
in connection with the covenant as signifying
the death of the maker, or since the term is
probably generic, the makers of the covenant.
In this case the underl)dng thought is that in the
making of a covenant the parties to it signified
that they died and thus cut off all relationship
to their past lives. The revocation of the cove
nant is therefore impossible, for the men who
made it are dead and cannot revoke the act by
which it was made. This interpretation, which

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 217
is substantially that of Westcott and of RendaU,
avoids ascribing to the author an argument
the whole force of which, depending upon the
ambiguous meaning of a word, is of course in
itself entirely invalid. But its significance
for our present purpose is as showing that the
writer looked upon the death of the sacrificial
animal in connection with the ratification of the
covenant as a purely symbolic act intended to
set forth the irrevocabUity of the covenant. If
the more common interpretation be adopted
the inconsequentialness of the argument itself
makes it impossible for us to discover any
significance in the fact of the death of the sacri
fice. But aside from this somewhat obscure
passage it is clear that the writer of the epistle
ascribes to the ancient sacrifices only symbolic
and foreshadowing significance.
It forms no part of the author's purpose to
set forth explicitly a doctrine of forgiveness
or of justification. Yet he is in no doubt as
to his thought. As unbelief, inhospitality to
truth, is the great and fundamental sin, so faith
is the condition of salvation. Among the first
principles of Christ he names first repentance
from dead works, and faith toward God (6:1).
It is they who have faith who enter into the

2i8 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
divine rest (4:3). He has confidence that his
readers are those who have faith unto the saving
of the soul (10:39). Indeed the whole purpose
of the letter may be stated to be to exhort and
persuade those to whom it is written to maintain
their faith steadfast to the end. The entire
eleventh chapter is devoted to the setting-forth
of the examples of faith in the Old Testament.
As is natural under the circumstances the ele
ment of persistent endurance even in suffering,
is emphasized in the presentation of faith and
following this eleventh chapter the author ex
horts his readers to lay aside their easily beset
ting sin, by which he doubtless means unbelief,
and to run with patience the race which was
set before them, looking unto Jesus the author
and perfecter of their faith. The author is but
expressing the same thought in other words
when in the eighth and tenth chapters he de
scribes it as the mission of Jesus to bring in a
better covenant, and in language taken from
Jeremiah describes that covenant in the words,
"I will put my laws into their mind and on their
heart also will I write them. And I will be to
them a God and they shall be to me a people.
For I will be merciful to their iniquities and
their sins will I remember no more." The new

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 219
covenant is a covenant of forgiveness of the
sins of those on whose heart the law of God is
written. This is, of course, the old familiar
doctrine of the prophets set forth not only by
Jeremiah in the passage which the author is
quoting, but by Isaiah in the words, "Wash
you, make you clean; put away your evil doings
from before mine eyes; cease to do evil, learn
to do well  Though your sins be as scar
let they shall be as white as snow, though they
be red like crimson they shall be as wool."
To deal adequately with the sufferings and
death of Jesus as set forth by our author would
require a careful exposition of a long list of
passages (Heb. 2:9, 10; 2:14; 5:7-9; 7:25;
7:26, 27; 9:11-28; 10:10; 10:19-22; 12:24;
13:12; 13:20). This would in turn demand an
exposition of almost the whole epistle. Limi
tations of space excluding this, we must content
ourselves with an articulated summary of the
teachings of the epistle concerning the signifi
cance of the death of Jesus.
I. The sufferings of Jesus are the means by
which he learned obedience and was made per
fect, as is fitting for one who is to be the author
of salvation to men (2:10; 5:7). The concep
tion of suffering is intimately bound up with that

220 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
of incarnation itself. "Since then the children
are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself
in hke manner partook of the. same 
For verily not to angels doth he give help, but
he giveth help to the seed of Abraham. Where
fore it behooved him in aU things to be made like
unto his brethren  For in that he himself
hath suffered being tempted he is able to succor
them that are tempted" (2 : 14-18).
2. Having thus been made perfect through
suffering, he becomes the author of salvation
to those that obey him (5:9), having obtained
eternal redemption (9:12).
3. In his death he bears the sins of many.
He was manifested to put away sin by the sacri
fice of himself (9:26, 28). He offered himself
once for all for the sins of the people (7:27).
4. In this offering of himself he is both priest
and offering, and by the perfection of his priest
hood and of his offering he does away with all
previously prescribed sacrifices.
5. Whereas the blood of goats and bulls
and the ashes of a heifer sanctified only unto
the cleanness of the flesh, the blood of Christ
cleanses the consciences of men from dead works
to serve the living God (9:13, 14; 10:22).
6. He becomes the mediator of a new cove-

In Fir s^ eter and Epistle Jo Hebrews 221
nant, and his blood is the blood of the new
covenant with God. As in the ratification of
the old covenant a death takes place symboliz
ing the irrevocability of that covenant, so in the
new covenant there is likewise a death, and the
covenant is ratified with blood.
7. The new covenant differs from the old,
however, fundamentaUy in this, that whereas
in the old covenant the laws of God which the
people covenanted to keep were external, writ
ten upon stone; in the new covenant they are
put into their minds and written upon their
hearts. The covenant is one of ethical relation
ship between God and man in accordance with
.which the will of God is written upon the hearts
of men, and he forgives their sins.
The relation of these various thoughts which
the writer gathers about the death of Jesus to
one another and to the conception of atonement
for sin is not transparently clear. For us the
thought is obscured by the fact that the writer's
controUing motive is to show that to every signifi
cant element of the old regime there is a corre
sponding element in the life and work of Jesus,
that the new is in every case superior to the old,
and that it authoritatively displaces the old.
From this point of view it is not necessary that

222 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
he should expound the significance of each of the
several elements of the old system to which he
finds a parallel in the life and work of Jesus;
it is enough that for each element of the old
there is a parallel element in the new which is
superior to the old and displaces it.
Nevertheless there is certainly a clue to the
writer's thought in the fact that he expressly
finds the basis of feUowship between God and
man in the new covenant of which Jesus is the
mediator, and which involves on man's part an
attitude of faith and the law written upon the
heart. When to this we add the thought
repeatedly expressed in various forms that Jesus
makes propitiation for the sins of the people,
that his blood cleanses the conscience from dead
works, and that his blood is the blood of the
new covenant, and that he was manifested to
take away sins; when we add to this also that
in that he himself hath suffered being tempted
he is able to succor them that are tempted, and
that having learned obedience by the things
that he suffered he becomes to them that obey
him the author of salvation, we seem to have
the elements, only partiaUy co-ordinated to be
sure, but still the elements, of the doctrine that
men are brought into reconciliation with God

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 223
through a faith in Jesus Christ which makes
them partakers of his achieved virtue, that
virtue which he achieved in his sufferings
through the shedding of his blood. Thus he
becomes the mediator of a better covenant
because there is thus written upon the hearts of
men that law of God to which he learned obedi
ence, and to which they also become obedient
by that fellowship with him into which they
enter by faith.
It must be granted that there is a certain ele
ment of h3^othesis in this reconstruction of the
writer's doctrine of atonement. He has no
where set it forth thus organized. His doctrine
is in a certain sense of the word formal; this,
namely, that what the sacrifices of the old system
and the priests of the old regime never could do,
but could only symbolize and shadow forth,
that Jesus veritably did. How he did, it does
not primarily concern him to explain. For his
readers his purpose is accomplished if he can
convince them that in the perishing of that old
regime God has not forsaken his people. Nor
is there reason to abandon all faith in God, for
the old has at once vindicated itself as divine
and branded itself as obsolete, in that its types
and prophecies, themselves ineffectual save as

224 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
types and prophecies, have found perfect ful
fUment in the life and work of Christ. To dis
cover in the epistle a positive content for the
writer's doctrine of atonement one must depend
in no small part upon his incidental references
to the significance of Christ's work. Other
combinations and interpretations of these inci
dental references may perhaps be possible, but
that which seems most fully to account for them
is the interpretation above suggested, in brief
this: Men are reconciled to God when through
faith in Jesus they appropriate from him that
attitude of faith in and obedience toward God
which he exemplified when, learning obedience
through the things that he suffered, he shed
his blood that he might bring men to God.
We may then sum up the teaching of the
epistle as a whole in these propositions:
I. It is resistance to truth, an evU heart of
unbelief, especially sinning wilfully after one has
received the knowledge of the truth and become
partaker of Christ, that incurs the divine dis
pleasure. 2. Sacrifice has no power to cleanse the con
science. Once valuable for the cleansing of the
flesh and as a symbol of spiritual cleansing, it
has now been whoUy superseded and set aside.

In First Peter and Epistle to Hebrews 225
3. The sufferings of Jesus are of significance
(a) as perfecting the character of Jesus, (6) as
taking the place of all temple sacrifice, (c) in
that in his death he bears the sin of many,
and {g) becomes the mediator of a new cove
nant. 4. Men become acceptable to God by the
entrance into the new covenant of which
Jesus is the mediator, whereby the law of
God is written on their hearts. Atonement
is through Jesus in that it is through faith in
him that they become partakers in the new
covenant. It is not wholly clear whether the author was
content to ascribe to Jesus the more perfect
fulfilment of aU that the ritual system rep
resented, and the effectual accomplishment
of all that it sjmabolized without distinctly
defining to himself how he did this or the rela
tion between the death of Jesus and the forgive
ness of sin, or whether he conceived that Jesus
became the mediator of a new covenant through
^the impartation to men of that spirit which he
manifested in giving his life for men and the
consequent creation of character acceptable
to God. What is clear is on the one side that
he regarded Jesus as taking up into himself

226 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
and superseding the system of priestly sacrifice,
and on the other that he conceived of atonement
as accomplished through transformation of char
acter by faith.

CHAPTER X
ATONEMENT IN THE WRITINGS ASCRIBED
TO JOHN
It is beyond the scope of the present discus
sion to enter into the question of the authorship
and date of the Fourth Gospel, the epistles
commonly called John's, and the Apocalypse.
It is assumed, though without attempt to argue
the case, first, that all these writings are among
the later of the New Testament books, and
hence call for consideration at about this point,
and, secondly, that the gospel and first epistle
proceed from the same author, or at least from
the same school of thought, and that therefore
what they severally have to say about atonement
may be considered together. The ideas of the
book of Revelation about atonement must be
treated separately, since it cannot be confidently
afl&rmed that this also is from the same school
and period as the gospel and epistle. With
the second and third epistles we need not
concern ourselves, since they have nothing to
say about atonement. The evidence of the
gospel concerning the thought of John the
Baptist and Jesus has already been considered.
227

228 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
That the author of the Gospel and First Epistle
of John believed that there was alienation be
tween God and men and hence need of atone
ment, is perfectly clear. "The whole world
lieth in the evil one" (I John 5:19). "The
wrath of God abideth on him who obeyeth not
the Son" (John 3:36). "He that believeth
not God hath made him a liar" (I John 5:10).
The general term for the cause of this alienation
is sin (I John 2:4; 15:17). The specific forms
of sin most commonly spoken of are the hatred
of one's brother, love of the world and the things
that are in the world, and most especially rejec
tion of Jesus, denial that he is the Christ, not
believing the witness that God hath borne con
cerning his Son, not obeying the Son. The
central condemnatory element in sin is the
rejection of the light that God has given to men.
"This is the condemnation, that the light has
come into the world, and men loved the darkness
rather than the light because their deeds were
evil" (John 3:19). This is identical with the
doctrine of Paul that the wrath of God is against
those who hold down the truth in iniquity.
The condition of forgiveness is very definitely
stated in the first epistle. "If we say that we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth

In Writings Ascribed to John 229
is not in us. If we confess our sins^ he is faithful
and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse
us from aU unrighteousness" (I John 1:3, 9).
The use of the two terms "faithful" and "right
eous" to describe that in God which assures the
forgiveness of the sinner and his cleansing from
unrighteousness is of great significance. If
with Westcott we join the word "faithful"
with "forgive us our sins," and the word "right
eous," with "cleanse us from all unrighteous
ness," the fidelity of God to his promises assures
us of forgiveness, and his righteousness, his
moral uprightness, involving hatred of sin and
desire that men shaU cease from sinning, carries
with it the moral purification of the confessor.
In that case there underlies the passage the
thought, first, that God has promised to forgive
him who confesses his sins to be sins, and so
repudiates them, and that he will keep this prom
ise, and, second, that God, loving righteousness
and hating sin, will certainly avaU himself of
the confession of sin on the part of any sinner to
cleanse that one from sin. If on the other hand
the two predicates "faithful" and "righteous"
are both related to both the consequent phrases,
to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness, then both God's fidelity to his

230 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
promise and his righteousness, meaning his
recognition of the moral status of men and his
treatment of them in accordance with that
status, involve both forgiveness and cleansing.
Upon this interpretation which is perhaps the
more probable one, it is involved in God's faith
fulness and righteousness that he should recog
nize the changed moral status of one who con
fesses his sin, not continuing his disapproval and
wrath toward one who is no longer purposing
to sin, but approving and restoring to favor such
a one, and accomplishing the moral cleansing
which repentance makes possible. Thus, in
Pauline phrase, the judgment of God is accord
ing to truth.
The converse and complement of this teach
ing is expressed in a later passage. "He that
doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he
is righteous" (I John 3:7). The assertion is
evidently directed against those who continue
in sin and justify themselves in so doing while
StiU claiming to be children of God. The term
"righteous" in the first clause must be taken as
at least including the thought of acceptableness
to God; for otherwise the sentence is mere
tautology. He whose conduct is righteous,
he only is righteous, approved of God. It is

In Writings Ascribed to John 231
indeed evidently one of the chief purposes of
the epistle to insist upon this doctrine of the
essentiaUy ethical as well as religious character
of the Christian life. There is no forgiveness
of sins while we refuse to acknowledge our sins.
There is no acceptance with God while we do not
work righteousness. The righteousness of the
Christian is not an attached or fictitious thing. All
unrighteousness is sin, and he who professes to
love God but hates his brother is a liar. ' 'Whoso
ever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither
he that loveth not his brother. " But he who con
fesses and repudiates his sin, he finds forgiveness.
That the epistle also teaches that sins are
forgiven for his name's sake (2:12) in no way
modifies this teaching. The pronoun "his"
doubtless refers to God, who ini : 9 has been said
to be faithful and righteous to forgive sins.
The name stands for the character of God as
there set forth, his faithfulness and righteous
ness. The meaning then is that because of his
faithfulness and righteousness he has forgiven
their sins. Confession of them is of course
taken for granted and the passage in effect
repeats the thought of 1:8, 9.'
I If, as some think, the pronoun refers to Christ, the expression
is brachylogical, meaning, "Your sins are forgiven you because

232 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
The teaching of 5 : 16 of the epistle, "If a man
see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he
shaU ask and God shall give him life for them
that sin not unto death," is twofold: that sin is
forgivable, there is a sin that is not unto death;
and that prayer avails to secure forgiveness for
another. This, however, cannot be taken to
exclude those conditions of forgiveness either
in the sinner or in the work of Christ which
we elsewhere find clearly set forth by the
writer. The doctrine of this epistle is, then, that
acceptance with God,> reconciliation with him,
is conditioned upon a change of life to right
eousness, but that he who does by confession
of his sin turn his back upon his sin is forgiven
and enters upon a new life in which there is
cleansing from all unrighteousness.
Thus far we have dealt with passages which
speak of forgiveness without associating it with
the sufferings of Jesus. It remains to examine
those which indicate the writer's thought con
cerning the relation of Jesus to forgiveness of
sin, and the meaning of his death. The follow-
you have believed in the name of the Son of God," i. e., accepted
him as the Son of God. If this is the thought, the passage belongs
below with those that speak of the relation of Jesus to forgiveness.

In Writings Ascribed to John 233
ing passages from the First Epistle caU for
consideration :
If we walk in the Ught as he is in the Ught, we have
fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his
Son cleanseth us from aU sin (1:7).
If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for
our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole
world (2:1, 2).
And ye know that he was manifested to take away
sins (3:5).
Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life
for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the breth
ren (3:16).
Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God
hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we
might live through him. Herein is love, not that we
loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be
the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved
us, we also ought to love one another (4:9-11).
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that
beUeveth that Jesus is the Son of God ? (5:5).
It is of course difl&cult to distinguish sharply
between those elements of the gospel that are
traceable to John the Baptist and to Jesus, and
that which belongs to the later author. But
account must be taken at least of such passages
as these:
On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and

234 Biblical Ideas of Atoneinent
saith. Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the
sin of the world! (1:29).
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever beUeveth on him should
not perish, but have eternal Ufe. For God sent not the
Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world
should be saved through him. He that beUeveth on
him is not judged; he that believeth not hath been judged
already, because he hath not beUeved on the name of
the only begotten Son of God (3:16 ff.).
He that beUeveth on the Son hath eternal Ufe; but he
that obeyeth not the Son shaU not see Ufe, but the wrath
of God abideth on him (3:36).
Again we must forego extended interpretation
and endeavor to sum up the unmistakable ele
ments of the writer's thought as expressed both
in epistle and gospel.
I. The sending of Jesus into the world was
an expression of the love of God for the world,
and was for the salvation of the world. If God
so loved us we ought also to love one another.
2. The death of Jesus was an expression of
his own love for men, and an example to us
that as he loved so also ought we to love, and
be ready to lay down our lives for the brethren.
This is in accordance with the teaching of Jesus
himself that his death was in obedience to a
principle which ought to rule in other men's
lives also as in his.

In Writings Ascribed to John 235
3. Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of those
who believe in him, and for the sins of the whole
world. The necessity of propitiation for sins
implies that sins have created alienation, that
God is displeased with sinners, that they are
objects of his wrath. It is the mission of Jesus
Christ to remove this alienation and bring about
reconciliation. Yet he does not do this by
changing the disposition of God toward sinners.
It is God who so loved the world that he gave
his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish. It is God who sent his
Son to be the propitiation for sins. In his love
the Son is the expression of the Father's love
for the sinful world. Nor does he become the
propitiation for the sins of the world in that he
provided some objectively available compensa
tion for the sins of the world. For it is emphati
cally afl&rmed that they only are at peace with
God, who do not deny but confess, and thereby
repudiate, their sins, who love as God loves,
who being born of God sin not, but work right
eousness. We must understand therefore that
he becomes propitiatory through the effecting
of a moral change in those who become recon
ciled to God through him. And this view of the
case is the more clearly seen to be that of the

236 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
writer, when we note that he says that the Son
was manifested "to take away sins," the context
making it clear that to take away sins is to cause
them to cease. It is further confirmed by the
statement that the blood of Jesus his Son
cleanseth us from sin. For whUe the blood
undoubtedly conveys a reference to the death
of Jesus in the sense that it designates his
shed blood, yet alike the general usage of the
Old Testament, in which blood is the symbol
of life, and especially the language of the gospel
in the sixth chapter, make it evident that the
blood of Jesus is the symbol of his hfe, which
may be imparted to, and appropriated by, those
who believe in him, and who through such
appropriation become hke him in character,
living by the same principle of life. This prin
ciple of life he disclosed pre-eminentiy in that
he laid down his life for men. It is the principle
of love, and in its exemplification he both re
vealed the love of God, for God is love, and the
one principle by which all human hves should
be lived.
It is worth observing that the epistle no
where says that the death of Jesus is propitiatory.
He is propitiatory and his death is vicarious.
But the interpretation of these statements which

In Writings Ascribed to John 237
consistently accounts for them is that the death
of Jesus is effective in that it discloses that
principle of living which, being the principle
of God's own life, must become the principle
of human hves in order that they may be recon
ciled to God, and that it so reveals this principle
that they who believe on the Son of God in whom
it is revealed become partakers of his life.
It is from this point of view that we must
understand the statement that if any man sin,
we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous. The sentence refers not
to the world in general, but to those who have
confessed their sins and are living righteous
lives. If such fall into sin, they have an advo
cate with the Father, their sin does not utterly
separate them from God. The hfe of Jesus
Christ the righteous with whom they have fellow
ship pleads for them. And he is the propitia
tion for their sins, and not for theirs only, but
for any who will come into life-relationship with
him. From this point of view also it becomes evi
dent that the testimony of John the Baptist
conceming Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God
that taketh away the sin of the world," may
mean for the gospel writer. Behold the innocent

238 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
one, who wUl suffer not for his own sin but for
that of others, and who suffering thus wUl win
men from their sin, thus causing sins to cease.
This meaning which we judged to be possible
as an interpretation of the language, but im
possible, in view of the synoptic testimony, to
ascribe to John the Baptist (cf. chap, v, pp. 99 ff.)
there is no inherent difl&culty in ascribing to
the author of the gospel.
The doctrine of the atonement taught by the
writer of the Epistle and Gospel of John is, we
conclude, this: that the sinner is reconciled
to God through confessing his sins, beheving
in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and
appropriating his spirit as manifested pre
eminently in his laying down his hfe on behalf
of men.
It is not the immediate purpose of the Johan
nine Apocalypse to set forth either the cause
of alienation between God and sinful men, or a
doctrine of the basis of forgiveness. Yet it is
clearly implied in many passages, both that
there is such ahenation and that reconcUiation
is possible. The present discussion is limited
to the consideration of this latter matter and
the relation of Jesus to it, i. e., to atonement and
the part which Jesus has in it.

In Writings Ascribed to John 239
The passages that specially caU for considera
tion are the foUowing:
And he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto
his God and Father; to him be the glory and the domin
ion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh
with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they
that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall
mourn over him. Even so. Amen. I am the Alpha and
the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and
who is to come, the Ahnighty (i :6-8).
And I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four
living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb
standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns
and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent
forth into all the earth. And they sing a new song, say
ing. Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the
seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst purchase
unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue,
and people, and nation, saying with a great voice, Worthy
is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power, and
riches, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory,
and blessing (5:6, 9, 12).
And they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall
on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on
the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb : for the great
day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand?
(6:16, 17).
And I said unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he
said to me. These are they that come out of the great
tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them
white in the blood of the Lamb (7:14)-

240 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
If any man hath an ear, let him hear (13:9).
And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the
mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four
thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father,
written on their foreheads. These are they that were
not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These
are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
These were purchased from among men, to be the first-
fruits unto God and unto the Lamb (14: 1-4).
These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall
overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of
kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him,
called and chosen and faithful (17:14).
Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us give
the glory unto him: for the marriage of the Lamb is
come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And it
was given unto her that she should array herself in fine
linen, bright and pure : for the fine Unen is the righteous
acts of the saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed
are they who are bidden to the marriage supper of the
Lamb (19:7-9).
These passages repeatedly speak of th^ Lamb
that was slain, or that stood as having been slain.
There can be no doubt that this is a title for
Jesus Christ. For it is of Jesus Christ specifi
cally that it is said in 1:6, that he "loveth us
and loosed us from our sins by his blood," and
to the Lamb it is said in 5:9, "For thou wast
slain and didst purchase unto God with thy

In Writings Ascribed to John 241
blood men of every tribe and tongue and people
and nation." By his blood, therefore, meaning
his blood shed in his death, it is taught that
Jesus redeemed men from their sins. The
thought and phraseology are similar to the
language of Paul in Rom. 3:24f., "through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom
God set forth .... in his blood;" and stiU
more to that of I Peter 1:18, "Knowing that
ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things,
with silver or gold, from your vain manner of
life handed down from your fathers; but with
precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish
and without spot, even the blood of Christ."
Which of the two ideas of redemption, that of
Romans, which is probably redemption from
the condemnation of sin, or that of I Peter,
which is clearly redemption from an evil life,
the apocalyptist has in mind is not perfectly
clear. Nor is it wholly clear how Jesus' death
accomplishes redemption. The explanation is
possibly to be found in 7:14, "These are they
which come out of the great tribulation; and
they washed their robes and made them white
in the blood of the Lamb." This language
seems clearly to refer to a moral purification,
and if the washing is thought of as taking place

242 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
in the blood of the Lamb, this can scarcely
be other than a highly figurative expression for
moral purification through the all-cleansing
influence of that moral life of the Christ which
he manifested in his death. ' That the cleansed
robes are the symbol of righteous character is
made quite clear from 19:7-9, "The marriage
of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made
herself ready. And it was given unto her that
she should array herself in fine linen, bright arid
pure; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of
the saints."
One other aspect of the conception of the
Lamb also deserves mention. When the sixth
seal is opened the wicked say to the rocks and
to the mountains, "Fall on us and hide us from
the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and
from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day
I Weiss thinks that "in the blood" denotes not the element in
which the washing takes place, but that through which those who
come out of the great tribulation were enabled to cleanse their
robes, the cleansing itself taking place in their martyrdom. In
substantiation of this view, Weiss appeals to 12:11, "And they
overcame him (Satan) because of the blood of the Lamb, and be
cause of the word of their testimony, and they loved not their life
even unto death.'' In this latter passage clearly, and if it furnishes
the clue to the interpretation of the former, then in that also, the
martyrs win their victory, cleanse their robes, through the influence
of the shed blood of Jesus, that is, through participating in that
spirit with which he also endured the cross.

In Writings Ascribed to John 243
of their wrath is come" (6:16, 17). And in the
great judgment those who were not written in
the book of life (elsewhere called the Lamb's
book of life) were cast into the lake of fire.
It thus appears that in the thought of the
apocalyptist :
I. Those who sin are punished. They are
objects of the wrath of the Lamb.
2. They who have been cleansed from sin,
whose robes are clean, being of the fine linen
of righteous acts, become the bride of the Lamb.
3. Men are cleansed from sin, their robes
are washed, they are purchased unto God to
be his people, they overcome Satan because of
(or through) the blood of the Lamb that was
slain; and by this is meant, apparently, through
participation on their part in that moral life,
that attitude toward sin and the world, which
Jesus manifested in laying down his life.

IV
SUMMARY OF THE BIBLICAL TEACH
INGS CONCERNING ATONEMENT
BY
JOHN MERLIN POWIS SMITH
AND
ERNEST DEWITT BURTON

CHAPTER XI
SUMMARY OF THE BIBLICAL TEACHINGS
The previous chapters have presented in
rapid survey the thought conceming atonement
as held in the successive periods of Old Testa
ment history, in the period lying between the
Old and New Testaments, and by the various
teachers and writers of the New Testament.
It remains now to summarize the results at
tained, to indicate the fundamental and enduring
elements in the teaching as distinguished from
the incidental and transitory, and to compare
the teachings of the various periods one with
another. I. Summary of the Old Testament doctrine.—
There is no uniform, persistent doctrine of
atonement in the Old Testament. Each new
age brought with it new ideas concerning God
and sin. Change in these conceptions neces
sitated corresponding change in the formulation
of the idea of atonement. The ever-widening
experience of Israel forced the acceptance of
changes in these great fundamental concepts
of religion.
Certain phases of the idea of atonement were
247

248 BibUcal Ideas of Atonement
developed under the stress of circumstances,
answered the need of the age, and were left
behind with the age to which they belonged,
having no further function to perform in the
new religious and social environment. Certain
other elements of greater vitality survived all
through the history, wielding more or less of
influence upon the religious life of the nation.
But whatever the fate of such subsidiary ele
ments, the idea itself went on and increased in
power. From a relatively unimportant place
in the ritual of early times, it passed on to the
stage where atonement apart from a specially
created and elaborated atoning ritual was
unthought of, and ended by dominating the
whole ritual of the temple, so that the splendid
constructions of the priestly legislation were all
made to subserve the overwhelming need of
reconciliation between God and his people.
This thought fUled the whole horizon of the
later legislators.
1 Among those elements in the idea of atone-
: ment which faded out of Israel's consciousness,
j two were of special significance and prominence.
I The first is the view of the sacrifice or offering
as a compensation to Jehovah for an offense
against his majesty and hohness. This was

Summary of Biblical Teachings 249
the prevailing teaching in the earliest times, but
it changed its significance as the conception of
God grew more and more ethical and spiritual
and the gift came to be looked upon finally as
only the outward manifestation of an inward
and spiritual grace. Closely allied to this view j
was the second, which saw in the animal sacri- 1
ficed a substitute for the man whose guilt was/
deserving of death. This substitutionary theory'
of the atonement appears clearly in the old cus
tom recorded in Deut. 21 : 1-9 and in the expla
nation of Israel's sufferings furnished by Isa.,
chap. 53, and probably lies behind many of
the older usages. But it is wholly without
influence upon the later legislation regarding
atonement and is incompatible with the teaching
of the individual's personal responsibUity for
his own sins which is insisted upon by Ezekiel
and his successors.
An ancient aspect of the atoning ritual which
persisted all through Israel's history is the con
viction -that "unwitting" sins must be expiated.
Some scholars contend that atonement was
available for unwitting sins only; but this con
tention does not reckon faithfully with such
passages as Lev. 5:1; 6:1-7; Num. 16:41 ff.
The entire conception of "unwitting" sin in-

250 BibUcal Ideas of Atonement
volves the holding of a mechanical and unethical
idea of God. It makes sin a matter of formiS
and ceremonies instead of, or at least alongside
of, its being regarded as a product of the human
will. This view, however, is confined to the
priestly school which treasured the ancient rites
and never entirely freed itself from primitive ideas
about God and sin. Another priestly concep
tion, closely allied to and concurrent with that
of "unwitting" sins, is that atonement is an
act of purification whereby the uncleanness
and sin so obnoxious to Jehovah are removed
from his sight and all obstacles to the free
course of his grace are done away with. This
work of purification can be accomplished only
by God himself; the most that man can do is to
put himself in an attitude of receptivity toward
the divine favor.
The final teaching of the priests was that
atonement was to be obtained through absolute
obedience to the divine will. The complete
expression of that will is found in the require
ments of the Mosaic law. The faithful and
exact performance of aU these requirements
assures the nation and the individual of the
permanent possession of the divine favor. Im
plied in all the later teaching regarding atone-

Summary of BibUcal Teachings 251
ment was the belief that the atoning act or series
of acts was primarUy indicative of a change of
attitude on the part of the one making atone
ment. This change is prerequisite to the
bestowal of pardon.
Underlying all the ceremonies, figures, and
symbols of the atoning ritual, there is the ineradi
cable teaching of the holiness of God. This
holiness, unmoral in its beginnings, is at the
close allied to and informed with ethical truth.
Holiness includes justice and demands right
eousness. But it is a justice "touched with the
feeling of our infirmities." The penalty of sin
is death; but the justice of God does not insist
upon "the due and forfeit of my bond." It is
a justice tempered with mercy and throbbing
with love. Jehovah is "long-suffering and
plenteous in mercy and repenteth himself of
the evU." The avaUabUity of pardon is im
plied in every atoning rite. The prerequisites
to the securing of pardon are so graduated as
to rule out none who sincerely desire it, no mat
ter how poor or friendless. It is of the utmost
importance that the conditions be met, but they
are not intended to be unreasonably severe.
The ritual of atonement was hardly looked upon
as a thing in itself pleasing to God, except in so

252 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
far as the performance of it was a test of obedi
ence to divine law. Whatever notions may have
prevaUed about the efl&cacy of the ritual in early
times, or in the minds of the populace at large,
\ it can scarcely be doubted that for the later
! legislators themselves the chief value of the
ceremony was on its manward rather than its
' Godward side. It served as a great educational
agency inculcating in the hearts and minds of
participants and spectators right conceptions
of the sinfulness of man and the holiness and
mercy of the just God.
To the prophets must be conceded the honor
of having most clearly discerned the character
of God and of having consequently best under-
, stood the nature of the atoning process. Caring
j little for forms they insist upon repentance as
jthe sine qua non of forgiveness. Fellowship
with God and the enjoyment of his favor are
open only to those who with singleness of eye
seek to do his wiU. "Seek good and not evU,
that ye may live and that Jehovah, God of Hosts,
may be with you as ye have said." The sim
plicity and depth of this prophetic teaching
are unsurpassed. It reveals on the one hand
a full understanding of the human heart and,
on the other, a true appreciation of the will of

Summary of Biblical Teachings 253
God. At one other point the prophets attain
to high vision; that is, in the teaching that the
unmerited suffering of the innocent may have
redemptive power in the hearts of the guilty
to whom the suffering was due. Through the
observation of this suffering, the wicked come
to the knowledge of the true God and so are
bowed in repentance before him. Beneath
all the prophetic teaching concerning recon
ciliation lies the assumption that the power to
place himself in an attitude pleasing to God
resides in the sinner; nothing but his own will
separates bim from God, who wUleth not the
death of a sinner but rather that the "wicked
turn from his way and live" (Ezek. 33:11).
2. Later Jewish ideas. — From the restoration
of the temple in the days of Zerubbabel till its
fall in 70 A. D., temple worship and temple
sacrifices continued practically without inter- ,
ruption, but sacrifice was no longer, if it ever |
had been, the central element of the rehgion of /
the individual Jew. Sacrifices were taken up
into the legal system and were offered, not
because of any inherent virtue in them or power
to secure the forgiveness of sins, but because the
law required it, and the altar sacrifices had to
do chiefly with the relation of Israel as a whole

254 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
to God, rather than with the individual. Sacri
fice is mentioned in connection with the atone
ment of the sins of the individual in one book
(II Maccabees) of the later pre-Talmudic litera
ture, but it is not clear that even for this writer
it had intrinsic propitiatory value (cf. chap, iv,
pp. 66 ff.). Of atonement for the nation through
the suffering of the righteous members of the
nation there are traces in Josephus and in IV
Maccabees. The thought seems to be that when
the nation has sinned, God must manifest dis
pleasure with their sin, and that he may do this
if he wiU, not by punishing the whole nation,
but by permitting evil to f aU upon a few who are
representatives of the whole. At the same time
there is here perhaps the germ out of which there
grew that conception which more or less domi
nated later Jewish thought, that a man's stand
ing before God is determined by the good works
to his credit.
If we may discern any constant doctrine run
ning through these later writings, it is that the
individual is forgiven when he repents and
lives righteously; the sin of the nation may be
forgiven in consequence of a manifestation of
the divine wrath falling upon the righteous
representatives of the sinful nation, or of an act

Summary of Biblical Teachings 255
of notable righteousness by an individual even
though this involves no suffering on his part.
3. Common elements of New Testament teach
ing. — Before passing to the summary of the
teachings of the individual teachers and writers
of the New Testament, it will be well to call
attention to certain elements of that teaching,
in which they are all substantially in agreement.
a) It is the doctrine of practically all the books
of the New Testament that human sin causes
alienation between God and man, making sinful
men the object of his righteous wrath.
b) The New Testament writers differ greatly
among themselves in the particular classes of
sins which they especially condemn, but it is
the common teaching of all of those who express
themselves on this matter that that in sin which
makes it guilty, and which makes sinful men
the object of divine displeasure, is the suppres
sion of known or knowable truth and failure
to act in accordance with it. Paul's statement
that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all impiety and wickedness of men who
hold down the truth in unrighteousness" is one
with which all New Testament writers substan
tiaUy agree.
c) All New Testament teachers and writers

256 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
agree that the condition of forgiveness of sin
and reconciliation with God is ethical. This
ethical condition is variously stated as repent
ance, faith in Jesus Christ, forgiveness of others,
participation in the moral hfe of Christ, the doing
of law. But the variant statements, found
often in the same writer, indicate no real differ
ence of teaching.
d) The New Testament writers agree that
there is a relation between the reconcUiation
of the sinner with God and the sufferings and
death of Jesus. What the nature of this rela
tionship is, and the extent of variation in the
teaching of different writers on this point, wUl
appear later.
4. John the Baptist. — There is no satisfactory
indication that John the Baptist connected
atonement for sins with the death of Jesus.
His conception of the coming one was of a judge
who was coming to speedy and decisive judg
ment on Israel. The wrath of God which is
to be inflicted by him may be escaped and men
saved by repentance manifested in good works.
Jesus, when he appears, is recognized as one who
suffers in that he bears the load of human sin ; but
this is a testimony of observation and insight,
not an element of John's doctrine of atonement.

Summary of Biblical Teachings 257
5. The teaching of Jesus — The whole repre
sentation of Jesus' teaching in the Fourth Gos
pel differs widely in form and to some extent
in substance from that of the Synoptic Gospels.
But the two reports are strikingly similar in
substance so far as concerns Jesus' teaching
concerning the meaning of his death and the
basis of forgiveness. Two elements of Jesus'
thought about his death stand out clearly both
in the Synoptic Gospels and in John :
a) He recognizes his death as the resultant
of two factors: fidelity on his own part to a
principle of life which is universally obligatory,
and human sin as manifested in his own nation.
His sufferings, therefore, fall under a general
law. They who follow him in the adoption
of this principle of life may not die a violent
death, but they devote themselves to the interest
of their feUow-men without reserve even unto
death. Jesus did nothing, suffered nothing
that he did not ask his followers to do and suffer
in principle, and, if occasion should require,
in fact.
b) The death of Jesus is not a mere matter
of necessity. It has redemptive value for men.
He gives his life a ransom for many; but in
the sense that his death is an exemplification

258 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
of the true principle of human life, and becomes
the means of bringing men into covenant rela
tionship with God, thus effecting reconcUiation
between God and sinful man.
6. The primitive church. — ^The early church
so far as its thought can be discerned from the
sources accessible to us (chiefly the first part
of the book of Acts) looked upon the death of
Jesus as that of the suffering servant of Jehovah.
It emphasized especially (a) the wickedness of
those who murdered him, and (b) the fact that
his death wais nevertheless a fulfUment of proph
ecy and of divine purpose. This representa
tion was no doubt in part apologetic, made under
the influence of the desire to defend the messiah-
1 ship of Jesus against the apparently conflicting
fact of his rejection and death at the hands of
his own nation, and to convert this fact into an
argument in favor of his messiahship. But it
reflects at the same time the thought of the
church that the death of Jesus was vicarious,
being not the punishment of his own sin, but
endured that he might give repentance and
remission of sins to Israel. Of a more definitely
formulated doctrine, there is no trace, either in
Acts or in the Epistle of James. Forgiveness,
even of the murderers of Jesus, is freely granted

Summary of Biblical Teachings 259
by God on condition of repentance and accept
ance of the Jesus whom they had kUled. In par
ticular the death of Jesus was not interpreted as
succeeding the old sacrifices and taking over their
meaning. 7. The teaching of the apostle Paul. — (a) The
apostle Paul looks upon the death of Jesus. as
at once proof of the divine love of sinful men
and a manifestation of Christ's own love. This
conception, which is undoubtedly latent in all
the earlier New Testament teaching, is explicit
in Paul and fundamental to his. whole thought.
b) The most characteristic element of Paul's
thought about the death of Jesus is that it is a
demonstration of the divine righteousness, a
revelation of God's hostility to sin. This is an
explicit statement of a doctrine which perhaps
underlies the statements of IV Maccabees about
the death of the martyrs. '
c) By the virtue of his death and its demon
stration of divine righteousness, Jesus is in the
divine plan propitiatory for those that have
faith. In other words, a revelation of God's
holy displeasure against sin being furnished in
the death of Jesus, it is possible for God gra-
- It is to be remembered that the two writers are nearly con
temporary.

26o Biblical Ideas of Atonement
ciously to forgive and accept those who on their
part accept Jesus by faith.
d) Through the death of Jesus and the accom
panying new revelation of a principle of faith,
the law as a statutory system is abolished and
men are delivered from the curse of the law,
i. e., are enabled to see that that curse which
the law, according to a strictly legalistic in
terpretation of it, pronounces on aU men, be
cause they have not continued in all the things
that are written in the book of the law to do
them, does not truly represent God's attitude
toward men, but that he desires the pardon
and redemption of men, and forgives those
who have faith.
e) In common with Jesus himself Paul recog
nizes Jesus' death as faUing under a law under
which the disciple also is placed. He desires
himself to enter into the fellowship of Christ's
sufferings and to fUl up that which is lacking
in them. Of any relation between the death
of Jesus and the sacrifices of the Levitical system,
there is but the slightest hint in the writings
of Paul. His conceptions are influenced by
the dominant legahsm of Jewish thinking rather
than by the ritualistic thought which, as we have
already seen, had largely fallen into the back-

Summary of Biblical Teachings 261
ground in this period, existing, so far as it did
at all, as a mere phase of legalism.
/) In his later letters Paul gives to the death
of Jesus not only a racial, but even a cosmic
significance. Through it, it is God's purpose
to reconcile to him all things in heaven and
earth. 8. The teaching of I Peter. — The author of
the First Epistle of Peter speaks of the death
of Jesus chiefly with the purpose of exhorting
his readers to endure patiently suffering for
well-doing and not for ill-doing. In so doing
he points to Jesus as fulfilling the prophecy of
Isa., chap. 53. The assertion that Jesus bore
our sins on the tree has for its chief purpose to
present the example of Jesus as suffering will
ingly though innocently. It means not that
he bore the penalty of our sins but that the
necessity of his death lay not in his own sin,
but in that of others. Its purpose is that men
should die to sin and live to righteousness.
The doctrine of the epistle is in essential points
identical with that of Paul, though less fully
and clearly expressed.
9. The -writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews
speaks of the sufferings of Jesus as the means
of his perfecting, and as accomplishing what the

262 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
sacrifices faintly symbolized but could never
accomplish, the cleansing of the conscience from
dead works. This he does in that his blood is
the blood of a new covenant, the pecuharity
of which is that the law of God is written on
the heart. Here are the elements of a doctrine
of atonement, but unorganized, because it was
no part of the purpose of the epistle to expound
a doctrine of atonement. If from these ele
ments we may frame a doctrine, it seems to be
that men are brought into reconcUiation with
God through a faith in Jesus Christ which makes
them partakers of his achieved virtue, that
virtue which he achieved in his sufferings
through the shedding of his blood. Thus he
becomes the mediator of a better covenant
because there is thus written upon the hearts
of men that law of God to which he also learned
obedience, and to which they become obedient
by that fellowship with him into which they
enter by faith.
10. The author of the Gospel and the First
Epistle of John teaches that Jesus is the pro
pitiation for the sins of the world. It is the
mission of Jesus to remove the alienation which
sin has created between God and man, and to
bring about reconciliation. He is propitiatory

Summary of Biblical Teachings 263
and his death is vicarious. How it is so is not
distinctly said ; but its effectiveness in the recon
ciliation of men to God is intimated to be in
that it discloses principles of living, which, being
principles of God's own life, must become the
principle of human lives, in order that they may
be reconciled to God, and that it so reveals this
principle that they who believe on the Son of
God, in whom it is revealed, become partakers
of his life.
II. The Apocalypse. — ^It is the doctrine of
the Book of Revelation that they are acceptable
to God who have been cleansed from sin, who
are clothed in the fine linen of righteous acts.
Men are thus cleansed and purchased unto God
to be his people, because of, or through, the
blood of the Lamb that was slain; i. e., through
participation in that moral life, that attitude
toward sin and the world which Jesus mani
fested in the laying-down of his life. Thus the
condition of acceptance by God is ethical, and
the death of Jesus has its significance in that it
is efl&cient for the bringing-about of this ethical
condition. 12. FinaUy then, no -New Testament writer
teaches the doctrine that the death of Jesus
satisfies a demand of God that sin shaU be pun-

264 BibUcal Ideas of Atonement
ished, or is substitutionary in the sense that in
it Jesus endures the punishment due to others.
The New Testament writers find the significance
of his death in its revelation of God's love, in
its realization of the ideal of the suffering servant
of Jehovah, in its fulfilment of the principle of
devotion to the interests of mankind, in accord
ance with which all men ought to hve. In other
words, he, through his death, reconciles to God,
brings into the favor of God, those who have
faith in him, those who become partakers of his
life, i. e., follow in his footsteps and adopt his
principle of life.
It is the distinctive thought of Paul that the
death of Jesus is a demonstration of the divine
disapproval of sin, and as such furnishes a ne
cessary basis for the justification through faith
of those who have sinned ; and that through his
death he brought to an end the reign of statutory
law and broke down the wall between Jew and
gentile. It is the distinctive thought of Hebrews that
through this suffering Jesus was made perfect,
and that by his offering of himself through the
eternal spirit, he being at once priest and offering,
he displaced the old sacrificial system.
It is the distinctive thought of First Peter that

Summary of Biblical Teachings 265
the suffering of Jesus innocently, the righteous
for the wicked, set for us an example that we
should follow.
But these peculiarities in no case amount
to contradiction or involve mutually exclusive
ideas. The common doctrine of the New Testa
ment is that as sin creates alienation between
God and man, making man the object of divine
displeasure, so repentance, faith in Jesus,
adoption of that principle of life which Jesus
exemplified pre-eminently in his death, is the
basis of forgiveness and acceptance with God.
The best elements in the Old Testament
teachings concerning atonement have been !
gathered up and carried on into the New. The
unethical phases of the idea of sin have been
eliminated; the mechanical and ritualistic
aspects of the atonement idea have been left
behind; and primitive notions of the transfer
of guilt or righteousness from one person to
another are outgrown. The prophets' empha- \
sis upon repentance is the core of the New |
Testament teaching. Their insistence upon ;
right character as the only way to reconcUiation
with God is everywhere taken for granted in
the New Testament. The "exceeding sinful
ness of sin" is even more keenly realized in the

266 BibUcal Ideas of Atonement
new dispensation than it was in the old. But
in the new, the beauty of holiness and the
winsomeness of righteousness are also corre
spondingly appreciated. The God who hates
sin bends every effort toward converting the
sinner, withholding not even his only begotten
Son. The measure of the intensity of God's
longing for reconciliation is far greater than the
prophets ever dreamed. The Old Testament
teachings find their full fruition in those of the
New. In both, communion with God is re
gafded as the highest good; and as the concep
tion of God becomes continually more exalted,
ethical, and spiritual the requirements necessary
to fellowship with him become correspondingly
more personal and vital, finding their full
satisfaction in the life and character of Jesus,
the anointed of God.

V
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BIBLICAL
TEACHINGS CONCERNING
ATONEMENT BY
GERALD BIRNEY SMITH
Associate Professor of Dogmatic Theology
The University of Chicago

CHAPTER XII
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BIBLICAL
TEACHINGS CONCERNING ATONEMENT
The preceding chapters have set forth the
various aspects of the problem of atonement as
these appear in the Bible. We have stUl to
ask what is the value of the biblical material
to men in the twentieth century who wish to
formulate vital convictions. To attempt merely
to add together the various teachings of the
Bible would give to us a scholastic summary
so loaded with details that it would prove a
serious problem to master it. Moreover, if
We assume that our theology must reproduce
biblical theology, it is hard to resist the subtle
temptation to read into scriptural texts our own
pet theories. Thus the advocates of the doc
trine of penal substitution have been quite sure
that they were consistently setting forth the
teaching of Scripture; and those who hold the
"moral-influence" theory have with equal
confidence cited proof-texts in confirmation
of their position. How, then, shall we
evaluate the teaching of the Bible ? Of what
use may it be to us in formulating our con-
269

270 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
victions on the important themes with which
it deals ?
The historical method of biblical interpreta
tion, while it specifically disclaims any purpose
of formulating doctrines for immediate use in
systematic theology, nevertheless fumishes us
with a clue to the next step in the process. This
method aims to set forth as accurately as pos
sible the convictions which lay in the mind of
the biblical writer. But in order to accomplish
this end the historian must read the documents
before him with the desire to reproduce in imagi
nation the actual experience of the man whose
convictions he is interpreting. Thus, as the
background for the interpretation of a biblical
passage, the historical student gives to us an
appreciation of the concrete historical situation
which occasioned the problems which found
their solution in the moral and spiritual con
victions recorded. In other words, for the his
torical student the biblical teachings are not
ultimate. They are rather the means by which
we are enabled to apprehend the actual life and
the genuine spiritual problems which the biblical
writers met. Words, sentences, arguments,
conclusions — these are all like the features on
a man's face, like the gestures of an orator.

Significance of Biblical Teachings 271
They are of value only as they reveal to us the
spirit of the man himself. To be furnished
with Paul's conclusions concerning the signifi
cance of the death of Christ is less important
than is the privilege of meeting with Paul the
challenge to make a positive place for that
death in the providential purpose of God. Thus
a spiritual fellowship with the great souls who
have grappled in earnest with the profound
problems of the spiritual life is developed by the
historical method of biblical interpretation.
Modern psychology is constantly warning us
not to substitute the theories of books for
contact with reality. Modern science com
pels the student to turn from the textbook to
the laboratory in his search for truth. The
historical method of biblical study is in accord
with this spirit of research in other realms of
learning. It leads us into the presence of the
realities of the Bible. It gives to us, not abstract
theories, but concrete instances of spiritual
achievement. It furnishes us, not with a sub
stitute for theological thinking, but with a
powerful inspiration to do that thinking. It
communicates to us the impulse which would
not let the prophets of Israel rest until God had
become supreme in a world where the chosen

272 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
people were conquered by the enemies of Jeho
vah. It inspires in us something of the faith
which sent Paul out as an apostle of the Jesus
whose foUowers he had once despised and per
secuted. To be forced to face the facts of life
instead of repeating the solutions of other men
is a tremenduous gain, both for a scientific
understanding of theology and for a vital exposi
tion of religious doctrines.
This discovery of the concrete nature of the
realities of the Bible is conditioned on an under
standing of the historical and social conditions
under which a doctrine was formulated. If
religious convictions are to be real and vital,
they must solve living problems. Theology
must interpret the social and physical environ
ment of its age if it is to enable men to see the
working of God in that environment. So the
Bible spoke primarUy to men living in Bible
times. It penetrated the clouds of their per
plexities by revealing the light of the divine pur
pose. It is true that the clouds of one period
are not the clouds of another. The precise solu
tion of a rehgious problem for one age is not the
exact solution which a subsequent age needs.
Theology is being constantly reconstructed as the
experience of the race changes. But when the

Significance of Biblical Teachings 273
light has once broken through the clouds, when
humanity has once seen the glory of God, each
later generation has its insight quickened and
thus finds positive aid in its own religious
thinking. A sympathetic appreciation of the
biblical doctrine of atonement, therefore, puts
us into possession of certain aspects of the prob
lem of God's dealings with men, an acquaint
ance with which will enable us more clearly
to apprehend our own task of explaining how
religious communion with God is possible for
sinful men.
With this suggestion as to the way in which
the biblical material is to be used, let us ask
what inspiration and help we may gain from it
for our own religious thinking ? What is the real
heritage left by the men of the Bible for the
spiritual enrichment of later generations ?
We must picture the early Israelites living
amid the circumstances common to other Sem
itic peoples of the day, accepting as a matter of
course the social ideals of their time. The tribe
or clan was of primary importance. An injury
to any member of the clan must be avenged by
the clan. A wrong done by some member of
the tribe could be made right by other members
of the tribe who had had no individual respon-

274 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
\ sibUity for the wrong. Men were accustomed
I to live under the sway of arbitrary rules which
I often had small regard for personal rights. The
' >. welfare of the social group to which the indi
vidual belonged was believed to be secured by
maintaining right relations to the god of the
group. For the individual Israelite, the pri
mary duty was to keep intact the conditions on
which Jehovah's favor might be expected.
Current religious exposition pictured gods whose
favor was attained if they could enjoy the smell
and the taste of a sacrificial feast, gods whose
life was physicaUy bound up with the life of the
tribe, gods who would accept various forms of
commutation for sins. It is evident that such
modes of securing the favor of the deity, whUe
they may involve moral elements, are not pri
marUy moral.
The Old Testament shows traces of these
unmoral conceptions. But the significant trait
in the development of Hebrew religious thought
is the constant emphasis on the essentially
moral nature of atonement. In the teachings
of the prophets this emphasis on righteousness
takes the form of a severe denunciation of ritual
and cultus when it obscures the direct moral
responsibility of man in the sight of God, or

Significance of Biblical Teachings 275
when it leads man to suppose that God will
accept any substitute for a repentant purpose
on the part of the wrong-doer. The priestly
teaching, while retaining a positive place for
ritual and sacrifice, made the details of the
ritual primarily expressions of moral obedience
to God. The atoning value of sacrifice is to
be found in the fact that it indicates the com
plete obedience of the worshiper to the minutest
commands of God. Thus the real significance
of the Old Testament teaching concerning
atonement is not to be found in sacramental
conceptions which Israel shared with other
nations of antiquity, but in the complete tri
umph of the ideal of righteousness as the all-
important element in any ritual. A doctrine
of atonement which faithfully reproduces the
details of the Old Testament sacrificial concep
tion may be quite incompatible with the real
teaching of the Old Testament if it violates the
canons of morality. Granting that God may
be propitiated by outward acts, still these out
ward acts are of value only as they embody a
completely righteous purpose on the part of sin
ful man. When we look at the teaching of
the Old Testament against that historical back
ground which furnishes so many elements en-

276 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
tirely capable of another interpretation, we see
that the distinguishing mark of Hebrew theol
ogy is the primary emphasis on righteousness.
To hold as true a doctrine of atonement, all the
details of which may be found in the Levitical
cultus, but which failed to make these detaUs
subservient to righteousness, would be to retain
the shell and to throw away the kernel of the
biblical teaching. Any theory which fails to
enlist the highest moral approval, which must
construct a defense for itself before the bar of
moral judgment, merits the denunciations which
the prophets pronounced against similar theo
logical teachings in their day. Thus, if we are
to foUow the clue fumished by the Old Testa
ment teaching concerning atonement, we must
judge the correctness of our doctrine, not by
external conformity but by inner moral quahty.
The traditional cultus was largely incidental in
the religious history of Israel. If the prophets
and the reforming priests had come into a dif
ferent social and religious environment, they
would have seized upon that different cultus
for the purpose of inculcating the righteousness
which God desires as the end of aU worship and
all ceremonies. In Judaism, we find that the
original significance of many of the rites had

Significance of Biblical Teachings 277
been entirely forgotten. All had come to be
regarded primarUy as requirements of the right
eous God, by keeping of which his children may
become righteous in his sight.
In addition to this moralizing of sacri
ficial rites in the history of Israel, another
important "element comes to view. This is
the Hebrew solution of the problem of evil.
The presence of disaster is naturally inter
preted as an evidence of the displeasure of deity.
It is believed to be a punishment inflicted so as
to recall men to a sense of obligation to God.
But there are two very different conclusions
which may be drawn from the experience of
pain. One may simply seek freedom from
suffering in any possible way; or one may
through the discipline of pain be morally and
spiritually transformed. The first conclusion
has often been drawn. Shall not man's primary
aim be to escape physical evil ? to avoid want
and to seek ease and comfort ? Shall not atone
ment be made for the purpose of securing
worldly prosperity ? Pagan sacrifices are fre
quently little more than forms of religious magic, '
by which favorable results may be obtained by
non-moral means. Israel, too, was tempted
to regard religion as a means of obtaining

278 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
worldly prosperity. And the naturalistic con
ception of a tribal god, whose very existence
was believed to be bound up in the persistence
of the tribe, who would cease to have any place
in the world if he had no people to worship him,
tended to promote this species of superstition.
To promote national prosperity therefore meant
to please God. To employ a cultus learned
from Baal-worship, in order to obtain plentiful
harvests, sometimes came to be quite as impor
tant as to seek righteousness. Even the earlier
prophets regarded national glory as the end to
be promoted by religion. But the later prophets
proclaim the complete dissolution of the earlier
; union between moral and physical welfare. Phys-
' ical evU may be a moral good. The destmction
of the nation, terrible as it is, may nevertheless
be the only way in which God can accomplish
his purpose to make men righteous. Through
such a bitter experience of national aflfliction
was born that sublime conception of suffering
as a means of redemption so eloquently por
trayed by the Isaiah of the ExUe. Here indeed,
we have the conception of vicarious suffering
as a redemptive agency; but it is at the farthest
remove from the quantitative picture of an
equivalent rendered that the status quo may be

Significance of Biblical Teachings 279
restored. It suggests a mysterious sharing in
the work of atonement by the elect of God, so
that suffering is not merely a discipline for the
sufferer, but is also a means by which those who
do not know the atoning purpose of God are
made aware of it, and are drawn by it to seek
God. To transform the conception of sub
stitutionary sacrifice into so sublime an inter
pretation of the significance of suffering is a
spiritual achievement at which the world will
ever marvel. To believe that righteous men,
by moral transformation through suffering,
may in the very moment of seeming defeat
and humiliation be actually working out the
redemptive purpose of God is to give to the
world a transcendent interpretation of the
deepest mystery of life. Even what human
judgment declares to be a dire afl&iction serves
the purpose of the righteous God, and although
it does not cease to be a real evil, it becomes
completely moralized . It receives positive value
when it becomes a means through which the
gentiles are to be brought to acknowledge God,
Atonement through vicarious suffering gives
a place for evU in God's world without destroy
ing faith in the holy love of God.
When we turn to the New Testament, we

28o Biblical Ideas of Atonement
find a reinforcement of the principles already
found in the development of the doctrine of
atonement in the Old Testament. Judaism
had so far moralized ritual, that the sig
nificance of a rite was found in the fact that
it was the commandment of God. To enjoy
the favor of God one must keep the law of
righteousness. There was no other way. Super
stition and magic had been displaced by
moral seriousness. But along with this con
ception of the moral significance of aU cultus
went a new danger, that, of a mechanical inter
pretation of religious life. The horizon of the
Pharisee was limited. He could not see beyond
the external manifestations of the divine will
into the infinite depths of the larger purposes
of God. He could be so exclusively devoted
to the technical commands of God that he could
be unaware of his religious defects in neglecting
to show a godlike love toward God's chUdren
who were in need. Jesus devoted his life to
the proclamation and realization of this larger
and deeper righteousness, and suffered death in
his fidelity to this higher revelation. His death
thus embodied the consequences of the conflict
between the divine revelation of goodness and
the hostUity aroused among men by the proc-

Significance of Biblical Teachings 281
lamation of that goodness. It revealed once
for all that righteousness cannot be identified
with the comfortable, respectable routine of the
Pharisee. It involves mystery and tragedy.
It seems to reverse the values of men, and to
place upon those who least deserve it the heav
iest burdens, while sinners escape the punish-,
ment which should be visited upon sins. The
death of Christ is thus in the foreground of the
early Christian thought.
But this should not blind us to the fact that
the disciples of Jesus knew that the primary
condition of experiencing the favor of God was
internal rather than external. Jesus had con
stantly denounced those externals which stood
in the way of a complete inner devotion to the
will of God. It was the witness of the
Spirit, rather than any theory of the atone
ment, which gave to the early Christians their
confidence and joy. It was the Christ living
within him whom Paul worshiped and from
whom he received the assurance of God's bless
ing. Nothing could more completely misrepre
sent the teachings of the New Testament
concerning the forgiveness of sin than a doctrine
of atonement which primarUy emphasizes an
external balancing of accounts. AU theories

282 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
which draw their inspiration from the New Tes
tament must be tested by their ability to promote
that vital inner life with God which the disciples
of Christ enjoyed day by day. This evident
character of the New Testament will prevent
us from any mere technical construction of an
"objective" theory of the atonement. When
externalism was the source of the religious blind
ness which caused the death of Christ, and which
inspired the persecution of the disciples, we
may be sure that the remedy for this spiritual
blindness would not be sought in a new formal
doctrine. In order to estimate the significance of the
teaching of Paul, then, we must not center our
attention in the externals of his theory of atone
ment. We must remember that he had been
trained in the school of legalism. Paul had
felt the moral rigor which had been incorporated
into the life of the Pharisee. But his rehgious
experience had led him to see that it was legal
ism which had cmcified Christ, legalism which
had inspired the attempt to exterminate the new
faith. So Paul's whole Christian preaching
was devoted to the attempt to lift men out of
legalism into something better. But if the new
way of being reconcUed to God was better than

Significance of Biblical Teachings 283
the old, it must not appear less rigorously moral.
It must not represent God as compromising with
sin. Forgiveness must not mean a lower moral
standard on the part of God. Therefore, just
because legalism stood for the righteous demand
of God, Paul deliberately interpreted the Chris
tian doctrine in terms of the legalistic conception
of atonement. But the purpose of this inter
pretation is not to perpetuate legalism, but to
show that the law is superseded in the deeper
righteousness made possible in Christ. It is
beyond the power of man to keep the law of
God. Every soul faUs and comes short of the
glory of God. If God were to execute strict
judgment, no one could escape the death penalty.
In the death of Christ, who had identified him
self with men because he embodied God's love
for men, God shows his absolute condemnation
of sin. The penalty which we deserve fell on
Christ — not that by this substitution we might
entirely evade the penalty, but in order that by
uniting ourselves in faith to Christ, and thus
in spirit suffering death with him, we might
share in the transformation of suffering from
a mere penalty into a redemptive power for
men. God could never be satisfied with mere
external punishment of sin. He must have

284 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
the acknowledgment on the part of the sinner
that sin is so terrible that its meaning can be
expressed only by death. But with this con
fession the repentant wrong-doer may so iden
tify himself with the sufferings of Christ that
he shall become a missionary of the cross with
its message of redemption.
When, then, we find in Paul's epistles those
technical expressions which have often been
made fundamental in expounding the doctrine
of atonement, we should remember that these
are but the current ideas of the age. It is
questionable whether even to Paul and his
contemporaries they were understood literally.
Paul knew perfectly weU that the death of Jesus
was not a bloody death, as was the case with
an animal whose blood was used for ritual
purposes. Such terms as these and others were
elements of the social vocabulary of the age, and
naturally entered into any exposition of religious
truth. Now, the evident purpose of the apostle
is to lead man out of the technical, legalistic
ideal of the relation between God and man into
the inner experience of the redemptive work of
Christ. The ritualistic and sacrificial figures
represent the historical conditions of any reli
gious thinking of the day. The significant thing

Significance of Biblical Teachings 285
is not that these figures of speech were used,
but that they were so used as to expound the
conception of a profound inward and spiritual
redemption wrought in the soul of man by the
indweUing presence of Christ, and the mystical
self-identification of the Christian with the
death and resurrection of his Lord. The
doctrine of the atonement took the particular
form which Paul gave to it because he lived
under the sway of certain current religious ideas.
His spiritual problems were formulated in
terms of these conceptions, and it is only as
we learn to see in the Pauline doctrines the
spiritual realities for which they stood that we
are in a position to give to them a right inter
pretation. If in our modern thought these
conceptions do not embody vital religious con
victions, we are in danger of caricaturing the
apostle by setting forth the externals of his
theory without the direct religious suggestions
which they embodied for him.
And the same is true of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which has furnished so much material
for theologians. It uses, indeed, the conception
of sacrifice. But the whole aim of the argument
is to show that Christ did away with aU exter
nalism. The literal sacrifices had no real

286 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
power save as they symbolized the great coming
work of Christ. The new covenant is to be
written in the heart, not outwardly executed.
And Christ makes possible this new covenant
just because his work was spiritual, not external.
His sufferings were the means of his spiritual
perfecting. They thus derive their entire sig
nificance from their connection with his inner
life; and the followers of Christ must become
sharers of that inward life in order to re
ceive the benefits of his redemptive work.
The inner transformation of the Christian
is of more importance than the ritual of sac
rifice. Thus we find in the New Testament, as in the
Old, that the existing rehgious convictions of
the age are taken up and developed into a more
perfect expression of the truth that the end of
atonement is to make men inwardly righteous.
God is concerned less to maintain the inviola
bility of his external relations with men than to
enable men to turn from sin and to be spiritually
transformed. The Jewish ritual, which had
been the expression of rigorous moral ideals,
is declared to be inadequate to produce the
highest type of righteousness. StiU the new
ideal of inward rightness must be shown to be

Significance of Biblical Teachings 287
better than the old legalism. Thus the detaUs
of the old conceptions, wherever they embody
high ideals of morality, are taken as means of
expounding the new. And in this way the
redemptive love of God, which reaches farther
than the Jew had dreamed, is proclaimed with
out the slightest diminution of the ideal of right
eousness which had attached itself to the older
order. The various writers of the New Testa
ment employ various aspects of this older ritual
in order to expound their convictions. But
they all agree that the end to be attained is the
securing, not simply of acquittal at the final
judgment, but of an inward righteousness which
shall make that acquittal a moraUy trae judg
ment on the part of God and not a mere tech
nical release.
The real reason why the death of Christ
occupies so large a place in the expositions of
the New Testament is because that fact was
the great mystery to be explained. How could
it be possible that God should allow the Messiah
to suffer death? This question is parallel to
the great problem which engaged the later
prophets: How could God allow his chosen
people to be nationally annihilated ? We saw
that in the Old Testament this tragedy became

288 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
the vehicle of a new conception of the meaning
of evil in the world. Exactly so the New Testa
ment writers are able to transform the death of
the Messiah into a revelation of the redemptive
love of God. The cross, which had been the
symbol of human disgrace became for the
apostle Paul the symbol of divine love and the
means of winning the world to God. The
redemptive purpose of God is supremely re
vealed in the vicarious suffering of the One who
completely incarnated the divine love and
righteousness. The pictorial representation of
the way in which God's righteousness and his
mercy are both satisfied may seem strange to
us today, after our centuries of education away
from legalism. But even the most mechanical
interpretation of Pauhnism cannot conceal the
fact that for the great apostle "God was in
Christ reconcUing the world unto himself."
If it seemed to Paul that certain juridical de
mands must be satisfied in order that men niight
not suppose that God, in forgiving, was less
insistent on holiness than the Jew believed him
to be, it was only because Paul, like the other
biblical writers, was concerned that salvation
should afl&rm unequivocally the righteousness
of God in his purpose to secure the salvation

Significance of Biblical Teachings 289
of men. The moral return of sinful men to
God could be secured only by vicarious suffering
on the part of God's chosen one. In the evU
of human history lies the possibility of a great
moral redemptive agency. The death of Christ,
instead of being an evidence of the defeat
of God, is rather the crowning exhibition
of the power of God to save even to the
uttermost. The significance of the biblical teaching con
cerning atonement, then, is to be found in the
spiritual meaning which was given to the cur
rent modes of thinking about God's relations
to men. While positive use was -made of the
rituals and the theological concepts of the age,
the end of the biblical interpretation is the eman
cipation of faith from these very externals when
they have done their work. The details of the
redemptive theology of the Bible are there, not
so much to expound an external plan of salva
tion, as to enforce the ideal of a moral salvation.
Any doctrine of the atonement which does not
lift a man morally is not biblical in spirit, even
if it employs bibhcal proof-texts. But along
with this emphasis on the moral end of redemp
tion goes the deepening sense of the cost of such
redemption. Thus suffering comes to have a

290 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
new significance for religious faith. Instead
of being the sign of divine anger, it may be the
evidence of divine election to a vital share in the
work of saving men.

CHAPTER XIII
ATONEMENT IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN
THOUGHT
It is generally recognized that modern men
find difficulties in existing theological statements
of the doctrine of the atonement, and that efforts
should be made to restate it so that it may come
with power to our age. This task, however, is
often conceived as the translation of the apos
tolic conceptions into modern language. It is
thought that if we can only substitute current
twentieth-century equivalents for Paul's first-
century words and phrases all difficulties should
vanish. It is felt that we may thus preserve
the biblical doctrine intact, and at the same
time make its meaning clear.
Such an attempt at rewriting the biblical
doctrine, however, is likely to be a failure. At
best, it can arouse only an intellectual apprecia
tion of the thoughts of other days; and at the
worst it may make the doctrine of atonement
seem fatally artificial. For not only are the
biblical words foreign to us ; the very ideas which
they embody may belong to a dead social life.
There may actuaUy be no modern equivalents.
291

292 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
And nothing can be more fatal to the vitality
of a religious doctrine than to relate it indis
solubly to archaic concepts. In an age when
every child had seen literal sacrifices, and knew
their religious significance, a doctrine of atone
ment in terms of the blood of Christ would
bring an instant vital response, and the belief
in the sacrificial efl&cacy of Christ's death would
be genuine. But if one has first to discover
the meaning of sacrifice to an age which has
entirely abandoned this form of religious cultus,
one begins with an artificial basis for doctrine.
To us an altar is a strange thing, and the notion
of a religious value in the shedding of blood is
either absurd or repugnant unless famUiarity
with the idea through Sunday-school instmction
has overcome our protest. But even this ac
quired familiarity is academic. It represents
no real experience in our life. The doctrine
of physical sacrifice may be accepted on author
ity, but if so it is a truth isolated from our actual
spiritual life. To try to set forth the basis of
atonement with God in terms of such sacrifice
will thus mean that what should be the most
profoundly vital element in religion comes to
be viewed as a formal transaction. The genu
ine emotion which is often connected with the

In the Light of Modern Thought 293
afl&rmation of a theological proposition may,
indeed, lend to the doctrine some accidental
value. But unless theology be actually related
to reality as we know it, it tends constantly
toward mechanical and superficia;l ideals.
What is true of the word "sacrifice" is equally
true of many other biblical terms. What
possible direct meaning for us can be found in
the conception that Christ is our "passover"?
The passover feast is entirely foreign to our life.
To explain the work of Christ in such phrase
ology would be to elucidate what is reasonably
clear by what is vague and uncertain. It is
true that the historian may reconstruct the
passover for us and introduce us to the real
religious significance of the event; and this is
more or less successfully done in our biblical
study. But no concept from a far-away age
artificiaUy introduced into our circle of thought
can begin to compare in influence and power
with the concepts inwrought into our thinking
by the stress of actual life. In a day when the
ransom of prisoners was a familiar occurrence,
it was possible to use the term "ransom" with
real efficiency. And men who were in daily
contact with a government which exercised
absolute powers regardless of the personal wel-

294 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
fare of individuals, could accept without pro
test a conception of punishment as something
which the government had a right to exact as an
equivalent in payment of the offense. A people
which could demand the substitution of Barab
bas for Jesus would not be over-critical of a
doctrine of atonement which involved substi
tution. But our modern political experience leads us
into a different conception of the relation of
government to subjects. Accordingly, it would
be an undertaking devoid of real religious value
to try to reinterpret the biblical conceptions
in modern equivalents. We haveabsolutely no
equivalents for some of these conceptions.
Indispensable as is a sympathetic historical
understanding of the biblical doctrine of the
atonement, it does not furnish us with the pri
mary materials for the task of theological con
struction today. The first characteristic of all
biblical teaching is genuineness rather than
conformity. The writers dealt with what every
one felt to be real. And one reason why the
Bible is a living book in contrast to most later
theologies lies precisely in the fact that it pre
sents truth directly from life, while our theo
logians have tried the academic task of repro-

In the Light of Modern Thought 295
ducing the teachings of a book. If, then, we are
to preserve the trait of genuineness which is
characteristic of the Bible, we must first ask
what things are real to us today in the religious
realm. The history of the doctrine of the atonement
is an admirable illustration of the necessity for
beginning with actual life. Those theories
which have passed into permanent form were
built up by using conceptions real to the age
in which they were formulated. Anselm pic
tured the relation of man to God in terms of
the feudal polity of his day. Grotius employed
that ideal of the sanctity of governmental re
quirements which in the infancy of our modern
democratic development was dear to the heart
of every tme man. . Bushnell appealed to the
self-forgetting devotion of mother and patriot,
and found a quick response. None of these
great theories attempts primarily to reproduce
the biblical doctrine. Each employs the exist
ing institutions and conceptions of the day to
interpret the transforming influence of the
Christian ideal of salvation.
Our first task, then, must be to ascertain the
essential elements of modern thought; to find
what are the great reahties in the spiritual life

296 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
of today, and to ask how we may best interpret
these in the light of our Christian convictions.
What is the real moral evil from which men seek
deliverance? What is the pathway by which
wrongs may be righted ? How can the penitent
soul find reconciliation to God ? These ques
tions must be asked in such a way as to meet
the conditions of the twentieth century.
Preachers and theologians often deplore the
decline of the sense of sin in modern times.
The awful "conviction df sin" which was a
normal part of the confessions of our fathers
is seldom found save in missions where outcasts
and vicious men are converted. The ordinary
religious experience takes the form of a desire
to lead a better life. It does not necessarily
involve a consciousness of a radical inner trans
formation. In many churches education and
culture are more efl&cient than the old-fashioned
evangelism. Somehow our age does not feel
the reality of that conception of sin which our
forefathers held. We may deplore the fact;
but the change in this respect is too evident
to be denied. Indeed, religious aspiration too
often expresses itself in such movements as
Christian Science, seeking a redemption from

In the Light of Modern Thought 297
general evil rather than from sin in the strictly
ethical sense. Even evangelical preachers fre
quently become advocates of culture rather
than heralds of redemption from the curse
of God.
Now the older presentations of the doctrine
of the atonement presuppose a poignant con
viction of sin. When a man feels himself to
be deservedly under the wrath of God, the pos
sibility of forgiveness does not seem to him to
be a light thing. It demands some special
adjustment at the hands of God himself. The
elaborate provision of the incarnation and cruci
fixion of the Son of God seems appropriate in
so important a matter as sin against the infinite
Holy One. But the conditions which made
such a conviction of sin natural in former days
have passed away. No longer in impressible
chUdhood do we read in our primers that "in
Adam's Fall we sinned all." Indeed, under
the influence of the doctrine of evolution, our
age is left in doubt whether any such man as
Adam ever existed; or if he did, whether he
possessed the primitive righteousness portrayed
by systematic theologians. We have leamed
from biology that death is not due to sin, but is as
normal an element in the world as is life. Thus

298 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
the Pauline basis of appeal to Adam's sin and
its fatal consequences fails to affect us. It is
impossible for men today either to repent of
Adamic sin or to regard death as a penalty for
sin. A doctrine of the atonement which pre
supposes belief in these elements will fail to
grip our moral life.
But it is misleading to say that the conscious
ness of sin is not present today just because it
does not exist in the older form. It was to be
expected that as science made men famUiar
with the doctrine of evolution, and as biblical
scholarship modified the older conception of
authority, there should be a period of uncer
tainty and readjustment. In the first bewilder
ment at losing the old moorings, men raise
pertinent queries. If I am not to repent of my
depravity because of Adam's sin, of what do I
need to repent? Am I not a pretty decent
fellow after aU? Do I need to do anything
more than to educate my present good self
into a better self? And for this do I need
anything more than Jesus, the teacher ? Does
not he himself teach that I am God's chUd?
May I not simply assume a filial relationship
to God without the agony of despair through
which my fathers felt called to go ? Such has

In the Light of Modern Thought 299
been the not unnatural reaction from the tradi
tional doctrine.
But we are gradually coming to feel the force
of certain facts which call forth a new sense of
sin destined to increase its hold on the coming
generation. We have discovered that even
Christian men, members of our churches, en
joying the esteem of their fellow-citizens, have
been so completely devoted to the worship of
Mammon, that they have falsified accounts,
bribed legislatures and executives, debauched
the conscience of their employees, blotted out
the image of God in boys in the coal-breakers
and in little girls in the factories, paid to young
women a wage which left to them the alternative
of starvation or moral min, extorted from men
fortunes for which they rendered no equivalent
in service, used the power of possession to shut
their poorer brethren out of chosen vocations,
sanctified gambling so that the shrewd manip
ulator of stocks is haUed as a king of finance —
in short, have given themselves to the pursuit
of worldly success with frightful indifference
to human welfare. From the social conscious
ness of today arises a mighty protest against
this spirit. Strong words seem appropriate here.
The damnable cmelty of it aU makes our blood

300 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
boU. Here, in the mighty ethical revival of
our day is to be found the real sense of sin. In
stinctively we are turning back to the prophets
of Israel to flmd an adequate voicing of our
moral indignation. And not the least ominous
symptom is that where this injustice is felt most
keenly, in the home of the working-man, there
is arising a moral protest which we cannot leave
unheeded — the condemnation of ecclesiastical
Christianity because it retains unrebuked in its
membership some of these very oppressors of
mankind, because it is tithing mint, anise, and
cummin in matters of theology, and neglecting
justice and mercy.
This general situation is familiar; but let
each one of us ask what part he has in this
moral degradation. Have I ever, for the sake
of my little share in the worship of Mammon,
worn clothing over which some poor consump
tive woman has stitched away her life in the
sweatshop? Have I, by my unwUlingness to
part with a few dollars, encouraged shop-owners
to underpay the girls who sell me their goods ?
Have I, in my eagerness to join some "get-rich-
quick" project, invested my money on condition
that I should be "in on the ground floor," and
that there should be plenty of hindermost ones

In the Light of Modern Thought 301
for the devil to take when the day of reckoning
comes ? Have I as a religious editor admitted
to my pages advertisements which spell fraud
and quackery? Have I allowed an irrespon
sible agent to lease to purveyors of vice the
houses from which I draw my income ? Have
I taken from the poor rent for wretched struc
tures which by their ugliness and neglect of sani
tary laws debase and enfeeble human beings ?
The moment I ask these questions, I find that
I am perhaps no whit better than those upon
whom I have been calling down maledictions.
We are aU involved in the social and industrial
system which makes these things possible. We
are aU sharers in the guilt of our age. And many a
man today, aghast at the revelations which have
come in the clearer vision of the past months, is
crying out in spiritual agony, "Who shall deliver
me from the body of this death ?" Terrible as
was the old doctrine that we are under a curse
because of our sharing of Adam's sin, no less
terrible is this share which we have in the main
taining of industrial conditions and ideals which
make possible the thefts and debaucheries and
maimings and murders of our day. We are not
mere victims of social injustice. Every one of
us is to some extent particeps criminis.

302 BibUcal Ideas of Atonement
When we face this situation, we leave behind
the finished phrases of our theology, and talk
in naked terms. If we do not use the word
sin, it is because it is too conventional to express
our deepest convictions. And yet sin has re
cently been expounded by a sociologist in sting
ing phrases which by contrast make our theo
logical conceptions seem pale and artificial.'
In the social consciousness of our age there is
latent a sense of moral obliquity which despairs
of a laissez-faire policy, and which cries out for
deliverance. If Christianity can link its doc
trine of atonement to this real sense of sin, it
will not have to devise arguments to persuade
men to accept it.
If atonement is to be made for this sin, what
form must it take ? When men pictured God
as a monarch, making his laws for men as an
earthly ruler does, it was self-evident that atone
ment must be made by satisfying the monarch.
A broken law meant defiance of the ruler. One
must pay a penalty unless the king should sug
gest some alternate way of being restored to his
favor. God was believed to have provided
such an alternative in the cmcifixion. By ac-
I Edward A. Ross, Sin and Society.

In the Light of Modern Thought 303
cepting this divine provision, man might find
reconcUiation with God. The doctrines of
atonement which have passed into our theology
are based on this conception of God, with its ac
companying ideal of moral procedure. The laws
of morality were God's laws. Violation of these
laws meant God's condemnation. Atonement
meant forgiveness by God. The problems of
human life were all problems between the indi
vidual and God. To be sure, forgiveness could
be conditioned upon social virtues. But these
virtues were valued because they were require
ments of God. The Catholic penitent, for
example, gives alms, not because of a direct
interest in the poor, but because charity is
required by God's priest as a condition of for
giveness. But the same process which has dimmed the
old conception of sin has also made a monarch-
God unreal. When the doctrine of evolution
discarded the special creation of man, it made
inevitable a changed conception of God. Man
owes his origin not to a transcendent creative
act, but to the slow working-out of a world-
process. The creator- God becomes the imma
nent power in the universe rather than the out
side monarch. Add to this scientific view the

304 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
political fact that democracy is the self-evident
form of society for us. Laws do not come from
above but from the people themselves. Our po
litical regulations must be referred to ari imma
nent authority. The right of a given procedure is
to be found in the approval of the people rather
than in the dictates of a monarch. Moreover,
in ethics we have discovered that moral laws
are not to be referred to a transcendent source.
The principles of right and wrong have grown
up in the history of the race, and owe their
existence to their ability to promote human
welfare, rather than to some superhuman sanc
tion. It is true that our liturgies, hymns, and
theologies retain the picture of a monarch-God,
but this conception is having less and less power
over men. Do we really fear an angry God
today? Do preachers proclaim the wrath of
the Almighty against men? Does the vision
of a literal final judgment influence our conduct ?
Those conceptions which constituted the moral
strength of the religion of a monarch- God are
softened and reinterpreted today. Heaven and
heU are "states of character." The judgment
of God is the actual moral state in which a man
finds himself at any time. To win the approval
of God one has simply to achieve a character

In the Light of Modern Thought 305
which will merit approval. And if a man
chooses not to do this, it would seem that the
only hell which awaits him is the consciousness
of being separated from a God whose presence
he never wanted anyway. We need only state
these current modern modifications of doctrine
to see plainly that a theology which attempts
to expound the deepest meaning of life in terms
taken from an outgrown conception of the rela
tion of God to the world is powerless. The
church today is vaguely feeling this impotence,
though it is perplexed when it seeks to remedy it.
Atonement, then, cannot today be set forth
as the propitiation of an angry monarch- God.
The need for atonement must be found where
there is a real sense of sin. This means that
reparation is immediately due to humanity
whose rights have been outraged. In the social
movements of the time we can read the steady
determination of our age that our evils shall be
so atoned for. The social sinners are actually
under a curse which is silently being breathed
from thousands of human hearts. And this
curse can be annulled in only one way — by
the repentance of greedy men, and their identi
fication of themselves with the rightful interests
of humanity. Just as the God of the Bible

3o6 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
demanded repentance and righteousness as the
indispensable condition of atonement, so hu
manity today demands repentance and conver
sion of heart.
Many of the proposed reconstructions of the
theory of the atonement faU to grip the con
science of the age just because they begin
with the God of traditional theology, rather
than with the bald fact that man has acted
damnably toward his fellows. In view of
the current criticism that the church is too
lenient toward social and industrial sinners,
it is a doubtful procedure to attempt to reinstate
Christian doctrine by preaching the love rather
than the wrath of God. To set forth the
fatherhness of God under these circumstances
means too often sentimentalism instead of
rigorous moral conviction. To transfer primacy
from one divine attribute to another does not
reach the real difl&culty. Our trouble is with
the general conception of God in the older
theology rather than with any particular aspect
of it. A God who must be discovered by philo
sophical argument or by exegesis of an ancient
literature is an academic deity. Even to begin
with "Christ's conception of God" may mean
an artificial starting-point, if such a conception

In the Light of Modern Thought 307
is an intellectual acquisition without the moral
fire which is kindled only by concrete experience.
Thus even the admirable expositions of the
doctrine of atonement by Sabatier 'and by Stev
ens' will seem to many a man like academic
meditations. Fatherliness on the part of God
is not an adequate starting-point in the presence
of the desperate moral issues of which we are
part and parcel. The crime of wicked men
against humanity is much more real to the pres
ent age than is the crime of man against God.
And reality demands that we begin with this
poignant moral consciousness of our debt to
humanity. But, after all, is this not parallel to the atti
tude of the prophets and of Jesus himself?
Did not Isaiah find that current religious inter
pretations of atonement were encouraging laxity ?
Did he not recaU men to the primary facts of
social morality ? To be sure, he put his moral
appeal in the form of a "thus saith the Lord."
But even in this form it meant an abandonment
of a theology which held God to be too easy
going. Did not Jeremiah derive his message
from the actual social and political conditions
^The Doctrine ofthe Atonement (Putnam, 1904).
'The Christian Doctrine of Salvation (Scribners, 1906).

3o8 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
of his time ? And did not this mean an aban
donment of the traditional conception of the
ways of God with men ? Did not Jesus demand
that one who seeks forgiveness from God must
first ask if he has wronged his brother, and
must forego sacrifice at the altar until he has
become reconciled with the man whom he has
injured ? If, then, we today adjust our theology
to the moral demands of social life, shall we
not be treading in the path marked out by the
prophets and by Jesus ?
The fact is, we have not yet satisfactorily
reconstructed the doctrine of God to meet the
moral demands of our age. The Copernican
astronomy, the doctrine of evolution, and the
triumph of democracy have all made unreal the
older picture of God. With no heaven located
above us in space, with no dramatic act of crea
tion, with no actual experience of an earthly
monarch, we find a God seated on his throne
in the heavens to be a less immediate influence
than are the secular forces which press upon us
daily. Theologians who have attempted to
reconstmct the conception of God in accord
ance with the notion of divine immanence have,
it is true, presented us with a rehgious ideal
which is philosophicaUy and esthetically satis-

In the Light of Modern Thought 309
fying. But they have failed to bring the moral
issue into sharp relief. Now an age which is
suffering from moral wrongs cannot be satis
fied with a God to whom moral distinctions are
mere philosophical refinements. Unless God
can be felt to hate the sin which humanity hates,
men will tum to the social agitator rather than
to the Christian church. Philosophically, our
conception of God has been reconstructed for a
century. Morally the work is yet to be done.
And it is to be done, not by the academic inter
preter of biblical theology, but by men who
share the conviction of the prophets and of
Jesus, that God actually cares about the moral
welfare of his children. Mr. R. J. Campbell
has voiced this conviction when he exclaims:
"The poor crippled chUd who has been maimed
by a falling rock, and the white-faced match-box
maker who works eighteen hours out of the
twenty-four to keep body and soul together have
surely some sort of claim upon God apart from
being miserable sinners who must account
themselves fortunate to be forgiven for Christ's
sake  This kind of a God is no God at all.
The theologian may caU him infinite, but in
practice he is finite. He may call him a God
of love, but in practice he is spiteful and

3IO Biblical Ideas of Atonement
silly." ' And yet Mr. Campbell himself, with his
doctrine of divine immanence drawn from Hegel-
ianism, is not able to do complete justice to this
problem of making real the God of righteous
ness, who shall at the same time be immanent.
If God is to be as real to us as he was to the
biblical writers, must our new theology not be
drawn from our moral awakening rather than
from our science and our philosophy? Sup
pose it were possible for men who are feeling
the horror of sweatshops, child-labor, disease-
breeding tenements, and white slavery, to feel
that they are not simply voicing the protest of
humanity but are uttering the condemnation of
God Almighty. Should we not then have a
social religion of power? Suppose our settle
ments and our social experiments should be
come in the minds of men embodiments of God's
moral purpose to redeem humanity, should we
not have a tremendous revival of religion?
These movements for the rescue of men are
separated from the rehgion of the church because
they cannot use the redemptive theology of the
church. The doctrine of atonement for the
coming age must speak in terms which the
social worker will understand.
I The Ne-w Theology, p. 20.

In the Li^ht of Modern Thought 311
Such a theology cannot be constructed off
hand. It cannot be worked out in the study
of the scholar. It must grow out of the deeper
interpretation of the moral struggle which is so
real to us today. But we can perhaps hint at
one or two elements which it must emphasize.
I. The God demanded by a modern doctrine
of atonement must be something different from
the benign immanent presence portrayed by
the philosopher. He must be something other
than the Therapeutic Love worshiped by some
modem cults. The evils of life are not to be so
easily eliminated. We cannot reason wrong
out of existence, nor can we nuUify it by a philo
sophical definition. EvU is an intensely prac
tical thing, and as such it must be seen to be
of importance to God. But this means that
such conceptions as impassibility and immutabil
ity, which have been inherited from the older
metaphysics, cannot be made supreme. If
God is really immanent, if he is really at the
heart of the cosmic process, then he must
actually be bearing the burden of evil in his
world, or else he will become the helpless fate-
god of pantheism. We need to take the sym
bols which Bushnell used, and to push them
farther. The mother must indeed suffer the

312 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
burden of her child's wrong-doing, because she
is identified with the child in love. If the
immanent God is actually present, not simply
as the love of one human being may follow
another, but as the life and soul of the artist is
in his work, then the marring of that work by
the wicked will of man must cause more than
a sympathetic pain. It is an actual injury
wrought to the life-purpose of God. Not an
injury to the mere honor of God. Not a mere
violation of his laws. But an actual defeat,
for the time being at least, of his dearest ideal.
A suffering God, bearing the burden of the evU
in his world — this must be the conception of
the coming theology. This is already a famihar
idea in modern religious thought. But so long
as the conception is hnked to the far-away God
of the older transcendent philosophy, it is senti
mental rather than morally potent. It does not
closely enough identify God with the moral
stmggle. Now if there shaU arise some prophet
who can interpret the moral wrestiing and suf
fering of our age as the life of God who strives
and suffers with his chUdren, we shall have
again a gospel with power. Evil costs some
thing to God himself. That afl&rmation is at
the basis of aU substitutionary theories of the

In the Light of Modern Thought 313
atonement. And to eliminate this element of
cost means to fail to see the deepest significance
of sin.
2. The above conception of God makes pos
sible the next step in the reconstmction of the
doctrine of atonement. If God is not separate
from humanity, if he is actually bearing the
burden of the evil done to his chUdren, then
atonement made to an outraged humanity is
atonement made to God. And God has a right
to demand it, just. because it is not a case of
God versus humanity, but of God in humanity
versus sinners against humanity. To contem
plate forgiveness without atonement of some
sort would be repugnant to us. We do not wish
our criminals to be freed because of sentimen
tality. We have little interest in the technical
question whether a man is acquitted or not in the
courts. The only satisfaction with which de
mocracy can be content is that the man who
has been anti-social, who has selfishly wronged
others for his own profit, shall actuaUy share
and approve the social consciousness which
condemns him for his wrong. Mere external
punishment does not reach to the root of the
matter. Democracy demands conversion — a.
change of heart — as the supreme atonement for

314 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
the sins of the past. And if this takes place,
democracy is willing, nay glad, to take upon
itself the consequences of the wrong, to endure
the pains resulting from past evUs in order to
set free the converted soul to devote its energies
to the social welfare. Is this attitude of hu
manity not an echo of the words of Micah 6:8:
"What doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do
justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly
with thy God" ? Is it not parallel to, the teach
ing of Paul that redemption cannot be effected
in any external way, but must mean the identi
fication of the believer with Christ? "There
is now, therefore, no more condemnation to
them that are in Christ Jesus." To Paul,
Christ represented the surn-total of the suffering
which should rightly belong to man because of
sin. And the sinner could be forgiven only
as he identified himself with those very sufferings
which he had tried to evade. To be sure Paul
thought of penalty where we think of conse
quences. But atonement meant not only that
Christ should suffer, but that sinners should
voluntarily identify themselves with him. A
similar identification of the sinner with the
suffering caused by wrong is demanded by the
modem democratic spirit. And if the imma-

In the Light of Modern Thought 315
nent God shall reveal himself in human history
the social conversion of a man may have much
the same religious value as Paul's doctrine of
mystical union with Christ.
3. Finally, what significance will the cross of
Christ have? It, too, must be interpreted on
the basis of belief in a God who is immanent in
humanity. The cross was not a device by
which a far-away God enabled men to cancel
their debt to him. The significance of Jesus
cannot be made clear to modern thought by
starting from a transcendent divine decree, or
by attempting to define the transcendent deity
of Christ. Men wiU inevitably ask the question
whether Jesus has a positive place in the moral
struggle which is so real to them. Did he ac
tually feel the power of temptation? Did he
tmly taste the bitterness which is inevitable
for one who tries to walk uprightly in a world
of injustice and sin? Did he, without com
promise or flinching, stand firm for the social
righteousness which is of primary concern to
us ? It is only as Jesus can be shown to have
made the most complete identification of him
self with the moral rights of humanity that he
can be the redeemer of men. To locate his
significance in some transcendent "substance"

3i6 BibUcal Ideas of Atonement
or some supernatural physical power would be
to remove him from the real moral conflict
where we so bitterly need a God incarnate.
But if the world shall come to believe that in
Jesus we have the most perfect expression of that
ideal toward which humanity yearns, if we can
feel that he took upon himself without evasion
the burden of this moral strife, and was faithful
to the ideal even at the cost of crucifixion, then
we can believe that Jesus is the incarnation of
the immanent God who is sharing with men the
burden of evil. And to know that Jesus, the
perfect expression of the moral will of the imma
nent God, was crucified because he would not
be false to the divine purpose means that the
cross becomes the eternal s)mibol of identifi
cation with God. Death itself cannot defeat
God. The moral redemption of humanity is
God's eternal purpose, cost what it may. In
the light of this vision, we may perhaps rise
above the delicacy of an age which wants reli
gion to cure pain, and may see again, as did the
prophet of the exile, that suffering is the royal
road by which the elect may lead the nations
of the earth to the kingdom of God, if suffering
be not robbed of its moral power. The cross
of Christ will be no longer a problem for sen-

In the Light of Modern Thought 317
timental sermons but will be the heroic standard
by which the armies of the church shaU again
conquer the world. Sacrifice and suffering
are God's means of winning men to him.
Nothing is more needed than such an interpre
tation of the doctrine of atonement for our age.
The doctrine of the atonement seeks to show
how men who are truly repentant may find peace
with God. Evangelical Christianity has pro
tested against any modification of the doctrine
which should omit this rehgious emphasis.
Does such a conception as has been outlined in
this chapter do justice to this important element ?
If it does not, it can hardly lay claim to a right
ful place in Christianity. The ' 'moral-influence ' '
theories of the atonement have generally been
criticized at just this point. They have seemed
to stop when man has been persuaded by the
cross to repent. They have not shown how the
cross assures the penitent of divine forgiveness
and favor. But an examination of such criti
cisms will show that those who make them are
holding the picture of the transcendent God, to
whom the cross was external, and from whom,
therefore, must come a message not contained
in the moral influence of the cross itself. If,

3i8 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
however, God is immanent, he is in the cross.
The appeal which it makes is his appeal. And
no one can hope to attain peace with God who
makes the cross external to himself. Paul, who
made so much of the significance of the death
of Christ, also insisted that atonement meant
the identification of the sinner in spirit with the
Christ who died on the cross. Salvation comes,
not because of a transaction between God and
man, but because man may share the very life
of God if he identifies himself with the way of
the cross. Do we not, in our expositions of the
biblical doctrine, often overlook the integral
place which missionary consecration had in the
conception of atonement ? Was it not moral
zeal for saving men quite as much as his theol
ogy which gave to Paul his rehgious assurance ?
Did not the prophets of Israel draw their con
sciousness of being the elect of God from their
actual experience of devotion to the purposes
of God ? Is there any real atonement which
does not involve at-one-ment with the sacrificial
spirit of the cross ?
After aU, doctrine in any age is simply an
attempt to make consistent the reality which
comes through actual experience. The bib
lical doctrines are interpretations of the biblical

In the Light of Modern Thought 319
experience. That experience was necessarUy
different from ours because of different physical,
political, social, and scientific environment.
But in one respect we are precisely where man
has always been. We cannot undo the evil
which we have wrought. We can only "cease
to do evil," and "learn to do weU." We must
leave in God's hands the consequences of our
past wickedness. The doctrine of atonement
means that God assumes this burden, and en
ables the sinner to find through repentance
and consecration an assurance of union with
God which nothing can disturb. Nowhere
do we find religious attainment interwoven with
moral regeneration as in the Bible. Whenever
mankind longs for a religious deliverance which
shall at the same time create moral power, it
must turn to the Bible for its inspiration; for
here is the revelation of the supreme source of
man's deliverance from sin.

APPENDIX
LISTS OF BOOKS ON THE IDEA OF
ATONEMENT

APPENDIX
LISTS OF THE MORE IMPORTANT BOOKS
ON THE IDEA OF ATONEMENT
I. OLD TESTAMENT
Smith, W. Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites, 2d ed. (London, 1894).
Curtiss, S. I. Primitive Semitic Religion To-Day
(Chicago, 1902).
Lagrange, M. J. Etudes sur les religions semitiques
(Paris, 1903).
Jastrow, Morris, Jr. The Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria (Boston, 1898). German translation and
revision, in two volumes (Giessen, 1909).
Thompson, R. Campbell. Semitic Magic: Its Origins
and Development (London, 1908).
Schultz, H. Old Testament Theology: The Religion
of Revelatioit in Its Pre-Christian Stage of Develop
ment (New York, 1892), Vol. II, pp. 87-100.
Fifth German edition (Gottingen, 1896).
Stade, B. Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments,
Band I, "Die Religion Israels und die Entstehung
des Judentums" (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 191-203.
Smend, R. Lehrbuch der Alttestamentlichen Religions
geschichte. 2d ed. (Leipzig, 1899).
Peake, A. S. The Problem of Sufiering in the Old Testa
ment (London, 1904).
Koberle, J. Siinde und Gnade im religiosen Leben des
'Volkes Israel bis auf Christtum. Eine Geschichte des
vorchristlichen Heilsbewusstseins (Munich, 1905).
323

324 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
Beeching, H. C. and Naime, A. The Bible Doctrine of
Atonement (New York, 1907).
Hermann, J. Die Idee der SUnde im Alten Testament.
Eine Untersuchung iiber Gebrauch und Bedeutung
des Wortes Kipper (Leipzig, 1905).
Davidson, A. B. The Theology of the Old Testament
(New York, 1904), pp. 306-55.
Bennewitz, F. Die Su-nde im Alten Israel (Leipzig,
1907).
Staerk, W. Siinde und Gnade nach der 'Vorstellung des
alteren Judentums, beso-nders der Dichter der fioge-
nannten Busspsalmen (Tubingen, 1905).
Schultz, H. "The Significance of Sacrifice in the Old
Testament," The American Journal of Theology,
Vol. IV (1900), pp. 257 ff.
Moore, George F. Article "Sacrifice," Encyclopedia
Biblica (1903). II. NEW TESTAMENT
Wendt, H. H. The Teachings of Jesus, Vol. II, pp.
218-65 (New York, 1899).
Wendt, H. H. System der Christlichen Lehre, pp.
503-17 (Gottingen, 1906-7).
Holtzmann, H. J. Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen
Theologie, Vol. I, pp. 284-95; Vol. II, pp. 97-121,
473-83 (Leipzig, 1897).
Clemen, Carl. Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des
Neuen Testaments, pp. 142-58, 261-66 (Giessen,
1909).
Stevens, G. B. Theology ofthe Neiv Testament, pp. 119-
34, 403-16 (New York, 1899).

Appendix 325

Stevens, G. B. The Christian Doctrine of Salvation,
PP- 35-135 (New York, 1905).
Scott, E. F. The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and
Theology, chap, vii (Edinburgh, 1906).
Cone, Orello. Paul — the Man, the Missionary, and
"^ The Teacher, chap, n (New York, 1898).
III. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Ansehn. Cur Deus Homo. English translation by
Deane, St. Anselm (Chicago, 1903).
Foley, G. C. Anselm's Theory ofthe Atonement (London
and New York, 1909).
Grotius, H. Defensio Fidei. . . . De Satisfactione
Christi. Enghsh translation by Foster, A Defense
of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of
Christ (Andover, 1889).
Campbell, J. McLeod. The Nature of the Atonement,
and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal
Life. 6th ed. (New York, 1895).
Bushnell, Horace. The 'Vicarious Sacrifice, Grounded
in Principles Interpreted by Human Analogies.
2 vols. (New York, 1891).
Ritschl, A. Die Christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung
und Versohnung. 3 vols., 3d ed. (Bonn, 1889).
English translation of Vol. I, by Black (Edinburgh,
1872); of Vol. Ill, by Mackintosh and Macaulay
(Edinburgh, and New York, 1900).
Dale, R. W. The Atonement. 14th ed. (London, 1892).
The Atonement in Modern Religious Thought. A the
ological symposium by seventeen eminent theo
logians (London, 1900).

326 Biblical Ideas of Atonement
Lidgett, J. S. The Spiritual Principle ofthe Atonement
(London, 1901).
Moberly, R. C. Atonement and Personality (New York,
1901).
Walker, W. L. The Cross and the Kingdom (Edinburgh,
1902).
Denney, James. The Death of Christ: Its Place and
Interpretation in the Neiv Testament. 2d ed.
(New York, 1903).
Denney, James. The Atonement and the Modern Mind
(New York, 1903).
Sabatier, A. La doctrine de I'expiation et son ivolution
historique (Paris, 1904). English translation by
LeuHette, The Doctrine of the Atonement and Its
Historical Evolution (New York, 1904).
Tymms, T. V. The Christian Idea of Atonement (Lon
don and New York, 1904).
Stevens, G. B. The Christian Doctrine of Salvation
(New York, 1905).

INDICES

INDICES

SUBJECT-INDEX

Acceptance with God, 153, 155, 200,
225, 230 f., 232, 263, 265.
Adam, 297, 298, 301.
Alienation from God, 158, 228, 235,
238, 2SS, 262, 265.
Alms, 89, 90.
Anselm, 295.
'Asham, 12, 36.
Atone, meaning of verb, 13 ff., 38 ff.
Azazel, 56.
Baal-worship, 278.
Baptism, 97, 153.
Blood, 214, 220.
— as life, 120.
— shedding of, 121.
— pouring-out of, 121, 122.
— of Christ, 123, 141, i6s, 169, 20S,
220 f., 222, 224, 236, 241, 243, 263.
— significance of, 4 f ., 33 f., 49 ff., 292,
Blood-revenge, 19, 20.
Bushnell, Horace, 295, 311.
Character, 163, 242, 265.
Campbell, R. J., 309, 310.
Christ, death of, 271, 280, 281, 282,
284, 285, 287, 289, 292, 316.
Christ, mystical union with, 283, 285,
314,315,318.
Christian Science, 296, 311.
Cleansing, 232.
Communion with God, 4 f., 48, 51 f-.
54-
Confession, 229, 231, 235.
Conscience, 220, 224, 262.
Covenant, 119 f., 122, 123, 124, 144,
iS^j 212, 215 f., 218, 221 f., 223, 225,
262.
Cross, meaning of, 288, 315, 316, 317,
318.
Curse, 185 f., 260.
Day of Atonement, 61.
Death of Jesus, 112 f., 118, 119, 121 f.,
124 f., 129, 134. 139 f-, 150, 154,
164 f., 166, 167, i6g, 172, 17s f.,
183, 187, 190 f., 193 f.. 195, 198,

205, 209, 211, 212, 219, 22s, 232
f., 234, 236, 2S7f., 263 f., 271,
280, 281, 282, 284, 28s, 2S7, 289,
292, 316.
— Jesus' thought of his, 143-
— Significance of Jesus' 144. i47, 161,
188, 199, 200.
— predetermined, 150 f.
— a duty, 126 f.
— horror of, 127.
Demons, 6, 44, 45, 49, 50.
Early chiurch, 145.
Evil, problem of, 277, 278, 279, 281,
289,311,312.
Faith, 161, 163, 164, i6s, 172, 179,
180 f., 195, 199, 202, 217, a 18,
260.
— in God, 154, 213, 223, 224.
Faithfulness of God, 229 f.
Fasting, 88.
Fat, significance of, 51, 52.
Fear of God, 153.
Fellowship, 222.
— with Christ, 194, 196, 262, 266.
Firstborn, redemption of, 18, 58.
Flesh, 161, 215.
— of Christ, 141.
Forgiveness, 28, 38, 85 f., 108, 147
186, 199, 217, 221, 232, 257, 265,
281, 283, 297, 308, 313, 314-
— in Jesus' teaching, 129 f,, 131, 161.
— conditions of, 88, 131 f., 133, 135,
147, 152 f., 153, 202, 231, 254, 256.
— impossible, 133, 214.
God, modern conception of, 303 ff.,
311-13, 315-
Governmental theory, 295.
Grace, 171.
Hebrews, Epistle to, 285.
Historical method, V, 270, 271, 272,
293, 294.
Holiness, 6, 43, 54, S8, 251.
Holy Spirit, 146-

329

33° Biblical Ideas of Atonement

Ideals of Jesus, 125.
Individualism, 29.
Isaiah, 307.
Isaiah of the Exile, 278, 316.
Jeremiah, 307.
Jesus, significance of, for modern life,
31S, 316.
Jesus, teaching of, 281, 307, 308, 309.
Judaism, 280.
Judgment, 96 f., 98, 106, 154, 155,
162, 178, 179, 214, 287, 304.
Justice, 37, 251.
Justification, 161 f., 163, 165, 166, 167,
176, 181, 199, 217, 264.
Lamb, 240, 242 f.
— of God, 104, 105, 209.
Law, 158, 183 t., 198, 199, 223, 260,
262, 264.
Laying-on of hands, 55 f.
Legalism, i6j, 195, 250, 254, 260,
280-84, 287 f .
— triumph of, 67 f.
Lepers, cleansing of, 49.
Levitical cultus, purpose of, 60 f., 260,
265.
Levites, s8.
Life, 136, 183, 236.
— eternal, 162.
Love of God, 16s, 166, 187, 198, 234,
236, 259, 264.
— of Christ, 167, 259.
Mercy of Jesus, 98.
"Moral Influence" theory, 269, 317.
Morality, 274, 275, 276, 280, 283, 309,
319-
Nazirite, 52, 53.
Obedience, 203, 219, 220, 224, 250,
252, 262.
Offerings, 122, 248.
Pardon, 251.
Passover, iii, 293.
Paul, teaching of, 271, 281, 282, 283,
284,288,298,314,318.
Peace, 162.
Penalty tor sin, 277, 283, 303, 313.
Pharisaism, 67, 280, 281, 282.

Prophets of Israel, 271, 274, 276, 278,
288, 300, 307, 309, 318.
Poll-tax, 59.
Pre-existence, ig6.
Priestly Code, origin of, 47 f.
Prodigal Son, 131.
Prophecy, 25.
Prophets, teaching of, 252 f.
Propitiation, 16, 27, 38, 170, 179, 181
182, 199, 222, 235, 236 f., 2S4, 259,
262.
Punishment, 263.
Purification, 53, 250.
Ransom for sin, 11, 14, 40, 59, 116, 144,
199, 257, 293.
Reconciliation, 155, 162, 166, 174 f.,
176, 182, 191, 195, 196, 199, 222,
224, 232, 235, 238, 248, 256, 258,
262 f ., 264, 265, 266.
Redemption, 171, 182, 186, 199, 220,
241.
Regeneration, 206.
Repentance, 16 f., 23, 26 f., 28, 30, 36,
59, 61, 97, 154, ISS, 252, 26s, 305,
306, 317, 319.
Resurrection, 194, 203.
Revelation, 158, 191, 19s, 196, 202,
-212, 213.
Righteousness, 153, 162, 168, 172 f.,
179, 181, 186, 229 f., 232, 259, 274,
275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281,
286, 287, 288, 310.
Sabatier, A., 307.
Sacrifice, significance of, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
21, 52, 57, 59, 274, 275, 277, 284,
285, 292,308,318.
— human, 22, 27.
Sacrifices, 66, 75, 76, 203, 214, 220,
223, 248.
— in non-canonical Jewish literature,
66 f., 71, 72.
— from legal viewpoint, 67, 72.
— Jesus' attitude toward, iii.
Salvation, 153, 198, 202, 212, 217, 219,
220.
Self-sacrifice, 142, 199.
Semitic ideas, 273.
Servant of Jehovah, 34 ft., 151.
Service, 138.
— greatness in, 114.

Indices

331

Sin (s), 3, 8, 24, 26, 43, 118, 146, 158,
159, 168, 179, 192, 222, 296 fif.,
299 ff., 305, 313.
— etei;^al, 133, 214.
— individual responsible for, 29.
— in Fourth Gospel, 135.
— in teaching of early church, 154.
— is resistance to truth, 158, 160, 161,
213, 217, 224, 228, 255.
— of race, 159.
— pardonable, 9, 47 f.
— punishment for, 8, 9, 23, 30, 46.
— remission of, 154.
— unpardonable, 9, 47 f ., 55.
— imwitting, 23, 26, 44 f -, 249 f .
Sinlessness, 187,
Sin-offering, 5 f ., 52, 53, 54.
Smith, H. P., 13, 50.
Smith, W, R., 3, 13, 24, 48, 54-
Social concepts underlying doctrine,
273, 274, 284, 28s, 286, 289, 291,
292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 299, 302,
303,304,305,306,307,308, 313, 318,
319.
Solidarity of society, 19 f., 29.
Stevens, G. B., 307.

Substitution, s, 6, 17, 19, 21, 22 f.,
32 f., 35, 39, S3, SS, 58, 210, 249,
264, 269, 279, 283, 294, 303, 312.
Suffering, problem of, 35 f., 277 ff- ,
286, 288, 289, 313, 314, 316.
Sufferings, 134, 200, 202, 203, 204,
205 f., 207 f., 209, 211, 219, 220, 225,
238, 264 f .
— atoning value of, 76 f., 80, 122.
— of martyr, 81, 82 f .
— vicarious, loi, 122, 129, 154, 178,
207, 210, 212, 2j6, 254.
Synagogue, real center of Jewish re
ligious Me, 67.
Tabu, 44.
Temple worship, 66, 67.
— cleansing of, in.
— sacrifice, 135, 147, 155, 225, 253 f.
Temptation, 222.
Testament, 216 f.
Thompson, R. C, s, 24, 44 f .
Trespass-offering, 53, 54.
Vicarious righteousness, 29.
Vicarious suffering, 37, 278, 288, 289,
311, 312, 313, 314.
Wrath, 162, 197, 202, 256.

SCRIPTURE PASSAGES

Genesis

8:20-22

IS

9:6

121

18

10

22:1-14

22

32:21

IS

Exodus

13:2

S8

14:6, 14

SS

21:12, 15 ft.

8

21:30

13 f., 15

22:i8f.

8

24:6-8

119 f.

24:7

215

24:8

51

29:12, 20, 21

49, 55, 121

29:14

54

29:20

51

29:36 f.

45

3o:i3f.

59

32:30

^l

34:20

18

3St2

55

Leviticus

1:4

57

3

SS

3:2

57

3:17

SS

4

4S

"¦3 „

45

4:7, 18

55, 121

4:11 f., 21

54

4:i3ff.

45

4:23, 28, 32

52

4:23

57

4:28, 32

99

5

45

5:1

249

S-* „

99

5:11 n.

52, 53

6:1-7

48, 249

6:6

99

6:25 ff.

6

7:26 f.

55

8:2

99

8:12

50

8:23 ff.

51,55

332 Biblical Ideas of Atonement

Leviticus

II Samuel

8:23,30
io:i6fi.

49

2:14
9
24,
99
3:27
21
io:i7ff.
6
6:7
8
12:6-8
44,
49
14:7-11
21
14
49
21 : 1-14
19 f.
14:12
99
2i:3f.
15
14:48 ff.
49
24:15-25
9, 16
15:31
16
46
61
I Kings
16:21
48,
56
^ = 5„
21
16:27
54
2:31 ff., 44
8, 21
17:10-1217:1117:13,19:211.
55
55548
II Kings
2123:26f.24:23 f.
2729
20:9-16, 27
55
29
24:ioff.
S6
Psalms
24:i6f. 21
55
118:22
151
26
61
Isaiah
Numbers
i:i6f.
98
3:12
116
1:25
28
3:12 f., 41
5?
6:7
28, 39
5:5-8
48
22:14
39
6
8:16-18
5358
27:9 28:18
3939
15:22-36
55
42 f.
ISI
15:30 ff-
46
47:11
40
16:41 s.
16:46 ff.
24950
52:13—53:12
34 S., 99, 104,
119, 124, 151,
18:9, 10
6
152, 204,^205,
18:12
5!
249, 261 i
18:15
S8
53:4
101,^104
19:11 f.
45
53:5
104
50
21:7-9
II
Jeremiah
25:11
84, 85
5:1
29
31:21-24
SO
15:1, 4
29
Deuteronomy
18:23
31
3925
5:9
10:10
3129
31:29
29
19:13
21:1-921:822:8
3432,39 34
249
31:31-34 31:3332:18
33:8
281192928
24:16
31
44:15-19
27
Joshua
Ezekiel
6:2s
Judges
IO
8:7-18
14:12 ff.
16:63
2729 39
9:22 ff.
8
18:2, 4, 19, 20
29
20:3s
8
22
27
Samuel
33:11
253
3:146:1-18
IS12
43:19-27
44:7
45 51
12:3
14
Micah
14
11,
17, 44
6:6-8
27
15:25
101
25:28
101
Zechariah
26:19
16
5:5-10
57
Indices

333

Sirach

Luke

3:3

85

3:7-17
93
3:14, IS, 30
86
7:47
130
5:5
86
11:11
117
7:7-10
86
13:2
130
7:29
86
13:6-9
130
7:31
71
15
131
14:11
11
18:13, 14
130
18:20-22
86
19:9
130
21:1
86
22:190, 20
119 n, a
28:1-5
87
22:20
119
38:11
71
22:37
125
45:6-22
71
24:25, 26
125
45:16
72
45:17
73
John
45:23
84
1:29
99, 101, note 1,
106, 107, 234
Psalms of Pharisees
3:14, IS
138
3:8,9
89
3:16 ff.
234
8:13
88
3:19
228
9:9-15
89
3:36
228, 234
17:23-28
96
5:8-12
101 n.
I Maccabees
5:40
6:51
136
138, 140
2:50
115
10:10
136
II Maccabees
10:11, 15, 17, 18
139
3:31-33
74
10:15, 17
115
7:32,33,37,38
78
I2:24f.
142
12:42-44
74
12:24-2812:24-32
139 140
IV Maccabees
12:32
139
1:11
37,
'R „ •
15:13
139
6:27-29
37,
78,80
17:3
136
17:20-22
37,
80
17:23
80
Acts 2:21
153, 149
Prayer of Manasseh,
88, 232
2:23, 24
148
2:38
149
Tobit
2 : 38-40
153
4:7-11
87
3:13-15
148
12:8-10
87
3:18
148
II (or IV) Esdras
3:19 ^
3:19, 26
149153
10:21
72
3:26
149
Josephus Ant. 1. 13. :
! 77
4:10-12 4:11
i48 151
Matthew
4:12
153
5:23, 24
6:14, IS
111
131
4:27,28 5:30 f.
148148
17:27
117
5:30, 31
153
18:21-35
131
8:22
153
26:28
119
note I
8:32-35
10:34, 35, 36, 43
149
149, 153
Mark
11:18
ISO, 153
2:10
129
3:28, 29
III,
130
Romans
7:1s, 23
110
1:18
158
8:31
III,
118, 126
1 : 18 — 3 : 20
'59
10:31
141
1:21 f.
158
10:45
113,
199, ".
2:5-16
162
14:2414:36
119, 126
120
2:3, 17-24, 25-27
3
158
206
334

Biblical Ideas of Atonement

Romans

Colossians

3:21-28

161

1:21

197

3:23

is8

1:23, 27

200

3:24-26

167, 188

2:2, 3

198

3:2Sf.

175, 191

2:7

200

3:26

179

2:13

197, 199

4:1—5:2

161

2 : 14-16

199

4:25

194, 195

2:15

200

5:8 f.

191

3:7

197

5:1-10
5:5-10 5:12

i6s
164, 167, 17;
158, 159

I Thessalonians 1:9

iss

5:9, 10

176, 177, 194

i;io

195
158

6

208

4:5

6:4f.

195

4:14

195

6:106:10, 11
6:10, 13
7:5

175190
20s 161

I Timothy I : 13-16
2:5, 6

197 198, 199, 200

7:7-24

161

Titus

8:38:31-38

j66

2:14
3:4ff.

198, 199, 200
198

12:1

203 n.

I Corinthians
Hebrews
6:9ff.
11:24
158
2:1-3
214
119 n.
2:9, 10, 14
219
2:10
219
II Corinthians
2 : 14-18
220
4:4-6
174
3:12-19
214
5:18-21
158
4:3
218
5:19
162, 174
4:11
214
5:14, 15, 18-21
189
5:7
219
Galatians
5:7-95:9
219
220
2:16
161
6:1
217
2:20
167, 19s
6:4-6
214
3:9
161
7:26 f.
214
3:10, II
158
7:25, 26, 27
219
3:13
192
7:27
220
3:13, 14
183, 184 n.
9:11-28
219
5:5
161, 162
9:12
220
5:19-21
158
9:13, 14
220
Ephesians
9:26, 28
220
1:7
198, 199
10:10, 19-22
219
1:10
200
10:22
220
1:13
200
10:26-30
214
2:3
197
10:39
218
2:4
198
12:24
219
2:4, 8
198
13:12, 20
219
2:8
200
James
2:13-22
199
2:13
146
3:125:2, 25
200 198
4:17
146
Philippians
I Peter
2:8
193
1:2
209
3:10, 11
193
1:3
203
1:5, 9
202
Colossians
i;ii
204
1:13, IS, 19
198
1:18
202
1:20
200
1:18, ig
209
1:20 f.
199
1:22, 23
203
Indices 335

I Peter I John

2:1

202

3:5

IOI n, 103,

2:5

203 n.

104, 105

2:10

203

3:5, 16

233

2:12

207,

211

3:7

230

2:21-25

203,

208

4:9-11

233

3:1

207

5:5
233
3:1,6
211
5:10
228, 232
3:12
202
5:17
228
3:16, 17, 18
207
5:19
228
3:18
20s
V
4:1
208
Revelation
4:12, 13
20B
1:6
240
4:18
202
1:6-8
239
5:1
208
5:6, 9, 12
5:9
239
240
I John
6:16
104
1:3, 9
229
6:16, 17
239
1:8, 9
231
7:14
239
1:17
233
13:9
240
2:1, 2
233
14:1-4
240
2:4
228
17:14
240
2:12
231
19:7-9
240
II

ill PfT

Pi''
life'

Plililj!"

liil;!

li'.

Ill

II

wm

ii-ili''l||' :''
l> II i l|!:'
1 !.![¦

11:.

¦¦ipi**iiikM

ii_i:|:ii!M:iiii Hiiii