Il^-'2l,

^sce^'nded^JVffy1.

MZj

-

4900

THE RECONCILIATION.
WHO WAS TO BE RECONCILED?
GOD OR MAN? OB GOD AND MAN?

SOME CHAPTERS ON THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF
THE ATONEMENT.

BY

P. WALDENSTROM, PE. D.

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND OF BIBLICAL HEBREW AND
GREEK IN THE COLLEGE OF GEFLE, SWEDEN.

TRANSLATED FBOM TH-E SWEDISH, WITH SOME NOTES ADDED,
AND AN INTRODUCTION, BY
J. G. PRINCELL.

CHICAGO:
JOHN MARTENSON, Publisher,

Copyright, 1888. by John Maetbnson.

INTRODUCTION.
Here is offered to the English reader a devotional,
non-controversial, little book of the greatest importance
both as regards Christian Biblical knowledge and as re
gards the influence of that knowledge on the mind and
whole life of a believer in God and his Word. Facts and
experience in the cases of thousands of readers have shown
that the practical results of the Author's setting forth of
God and his work in Christ as is done in this book have
been these among others, to wit: — a clearer and more
satisfactory apprehension of the whole subject in all its
bearings, — a greater love of God, the Father, and of
Christ, his beloved Son, the Redeemer, — more faith and
interest in the Holy Scriptures, together with a wonderful
opening of eyes and hearts to their truths, accompanied
by a greater conformity to their teachings as well in regard
to the Church as in regard to individuals, — a more sanc
tified and spiritual life under the more clearly recognized
influence and guidance of the Holy Ghost, — a greater
Christian activity in genuine revival work and general
missionary effort for the cause and glory of Christ only.
Thus these teachings have stood and stand the test, "By
their fruits ye shall know them."
Of the Author and his works some few simple notices
are given in the Introduction to his treatise entitled
"THE BLOOD OF JESUS," published in English' si
multaneously with this, and in the "Announcements" at
the end of the same, to which the reader is referred.
Very likely many questions will rise in the minds of
thoughtful readers, especially of such as have preconceived
opinions concerning the subjects touched upon by the
Author in this book, which opinions they may be lokth to
give up. The Author asks for his presentations only a

4 INTRODUCTION.
candid reading, and a judging of them simply according
to the question which he has so solemnly propounded
these many years and made to ring in the minds and
hearts ofthe mass of Swedish Christians: "What is written
in God's Word?" Let the Scriptures be searched as to
whether these things be so! (Acts xvii. n). It is not
expected that this little book will answer all questions
that may be raised as to the subjects of which it treats;
many important points are cleared up and treated more
fully in other works of the Author, works that are referred
to in the notes here and there, and that will be published,
God willing, from time to time.
For obvious reasons some quite copious foot-notes
have been added by the undersigned; those not marked
J. G. P. are by the Author. Also in the text everything
within brackets has been added by the undersigned for
the sake of (at least supposed) greater clearness in the
bringing out of the thought in the original. The Bible
quotations are from the Authorized Version unless other
wise distinctly stated.
As the Author is thoroughly loyal to the Bible he
finds in it nothing to deny and nothing to explain away;
with him there is no denying of the full, absolute divinity
of Christ, no belittling of sin or the punishment due to it,
no questioning of the justice or wrath of God, - — rather
the reverse of all this: he lays greater stress on all these
facts than do most of his opponents. He brings no pet
theory to the Bible to be proved or defended by it; he
simply asks: "Blessed Book, what dost thou teach?" And
then he records the answer. Hence, he mentions and
combats no theories by name — whether the moral, the
vicarious, the governmental, or any other. If, dear reader,
you must have a name for the Author's view, call it the
Scriptural, or the Biblical, one, — the Bible View of the
Atonement. Chicago, May, 1889. J. G. Princell.

CHAPTER I.
Necessity and Cause of the Reconciliation.
i. "Therein is love, not that we loved God, but that he
loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our
sins" (i John iv. io). The salvation which God has in
Christ prepared for the world is in the Bible called some
times redemption, sometimes reconciliation, or propi
tiation. All those expressions, to save, to redeem, to
reconcile, denote the same thing, seen from different sides.*
* As there are at least three words used in English to ex
press the subject-matter of this treatise — to wit, atonement,
reconciliation, and propitiation — and only one word is used in
Swedish for all those three, that word being for soning, from the
German versohnen, (another word, fSrlika, to make alike, or to
make to like, is often used as synonymous with fSrsona, but
less frequently in religious literature), and also as there is in the
English Authorized Version of the New Testament considerable
irregularity in the translation of the Greek words in question, I
will here, for the convenience of the reader and for the purpose
of clearly stating at the outset the subject-matter of this treatise,
cite all the words and passages of the N. T. referring to the
subject which is variously called atonement, propitiation, recon
ciliation, and redemption. These four are Bible terms, but to
them have been added in man's theology several terms to express,
as supposed,, either the same thing more fully or some other
thing thought to be inherent in the Biblical terms. Such super
added theological terms are: expiation (and the verb, expiate),
appease, render satisfaction to divine justice, vicarious sacrifice,
substitution, and perhaps a few others of like import. Though
these terms may be appropriate, and are, no doubt, properly
used in various human relations and in reference to matters on
merely human spheres, they are never used in the Bible to ex-

6 THE RECONCILIATION.
In other meditations we have already seen what the term
"redemption" implies. This term is figurative. It sets
forth salvation under the figure of a purchase, according
to which a slave or prisoner is purchased or bought out of
the bondage in which he is found. The term reconcilia
tion, however, sets forth the real essence of salvation. For
salvation consists just in the reconciliation of man to God.
Let us, therefore, now examine the Bible passages which
set forth salvation as a reconciliation. May God graciously
lead us in his light and truth. This subject is of extra-

press any relation between God and man, never in reference to
any thing on the strictly divine sphere — most of them do not
occur in the Bible at all. The generic term, comprising all the
Bible terms on the subject, is salvation (Greek soteria, from soter,
deliverer, saviour, that from sozo, deliver, save, make or preserve
safe, afford safety, make whole or sound, restore, from soos,
safe, sound). Of that term it is not necessary to say anything
more special here. Of the four N. T. terms, atonement, propi
tiation, reconciliation, and redemption, the last one and its verb,
redeem, are considered by our Author in a separate treatise,
,, which soon will be published in English. Of the three other
terms, atonement is used in the Eng. Auth. Ver. of the N. T.
only once: to wit, in Rom. v. 11, where it is a translation of the
Greek word which is everywhere else rendered reconciliation,
and is thus rendered in the Revised Version also in Rom. v. 11.
It is for this reason that I have translated the Swedish title of
this treatise ("FSrsoningens beiydelse"), not thus: The Signifi
cance of the Atonement; but thus: The Reconciliation, its
Significance, etc. In the N. T. are, therefore, really only two
Greek words with their derivatives, just as in a true English
translation there need be but two words and their derivatives (in
the now accepted Swedish Version there is but one word with
its derivatives) to express the whole idea of the subject here
considered: to wit, man's salvation, or the means and acts of
bringing men into a true and happy relation to God. These
words are: 1. Kaiallasso, from kata, down, through.throughout,
and allasso, I change, I effect a change.hence katallasso,! change
thoroughly or throughout, I effect a thorough change, as between
parties at variance. This word occurs six times, rendered, recon
cile, viz. in Rom. v. 10 (twice), iu 1 Cor. vii. 11, in 2 Cor. v. 18,

NECESSITY AND CAUSE. 7
ordinary importance; and especially in consequence ofthe
unhappy questioning which has been going on among us
these late years concerning this subject, it is necessary as
well to examine what the word of God teaches, as also, in
the light of that word, in all quietness to test what men
have taught concerning this subject aside from the word
of God, and which side-teaching has so often perplexed
simple souls. By a sincere love of the truth, we can find
it; and by remembering that we can never lose anything
by giving up wrong opinions for the sake of the word of
19 and 20. Its derivatives are: (1) Katallage, a change throughout,
or a thorough change; it is used four tiroes, viz. in Rom. v. 11
(there incorrectly translated atonement; it should be reconciliation),
in Rom. xi. 15, reconciling, and in 2 Cor. v. 18 and 19, reconcilia
tion. (2) Apokatallasso, from apo, from, out of and katallasso (as
above), hence I change thoroughly from, or I effect a thorough
change from or out of, sts from or out of one state or condition
into another; it occurs three times, rendered reconcile, viz. in
Eph. ii. 16, and in Col. i. 20 and 21. (3) Diallassomai, from dia,
through, throughout, and the passive form of allasso (as above),
hence of the same force as katallasso in the passive, that is, be
changed throughout or thoroughly; it occurs but once, viz. in
Matt. v. 24, rendered be reconciled. 2. Hilasmos is the second of
the two principal N. T. words under consideration; its root-word
is the adjective Jiilaos (not used in theN. T.), gracious, favorable,
kind, cheerful, hence the noun hilasmos would mean gracious-
ness etc., but is restricted to the meaning of what makes graci
ous, kind, cheerful, hence the act or thing which affords grace,
cheer, kindness, favor, and is translated propitiation in the two
only passages in which it occurs, 1 John ii. 2 and iv. 10. Its
related words used in the N. T. are: (1) Hileoos, same as Jiilaos
above, gracious, merciful, kind; occurs twice, viz. in Matt. xvi.
22 (rendered be it far; better, have mercy, or spare) and in Heb.
viii. 12, rendered merciful. (2) Hilaskomai, the verb, meaning in
the two N. T. passages in which it occurs plainly this and nothing
more: I show grace, mercy or kindness with respect to, that is,
I pardon; Luke xviii. 13, rendered be merciful, and Heb. ii. 17,
the A. V. rendering, to make reconciliation, the R. V. rendering,
to make propitiation, plainly meaning, to show mercy with respect
to, that is, to pardon. (3) Hilaslerion, neuter adjective, showing

8 THE RECONCILIATION.
God, we can with serenity of mind search after the truth.
But by knowing and understanding the truth, we shall
better learn to know our God and his Son, Jesus Christ,
our Saviour, and thereby become more and more truly
free. "If ye continue in my word," says Jesus, "ye shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" Qohn
viiy3J> 32)-
" 2. Not only in the Christian religion, but also in
heathenism has the necessity of reconciliation made itself
felt. There is a witness within man, a witness whose voice
has never by any means been completely silenced, a wit
ness that testifies that it is impossible for man to be saved
or to obtain peace without reconciliation. Even pagans
feel that their happiness depends upon their being in a
right relation to God; but they also feel that now they are
not in a right relation to God, and this fills them with
fear before their gods. Therefore, also their hearts cry
mercy, one who or that which exhibits grace or mercy; occurs
twice: Rom. iii. 25, rendered a propitiation, that is, as one who
shows mercy, and Heb. ix. 5, rendered mercy-seat, the Septuagint
translation of the O. T. term kapporeth (the lid or covering ofthe
ark in the tabernacle of Israel) being hilasterion, Ex. xxv. 17, 21
and elsewhere. Taking it all in consideration, there is a real identity of
import and application of the three principal Biblical terms,
atonement, propitiation, and reconciliation, and that is what our
Author holds forth in this treatise, showing that God is never in
the Scriptures said to be the object of what these words imply,
but that man is the object, aud that God through his represen
tatives, and not man, — Christ being most supremely God's re
presentative, as he frequently declared (e. g. John v. 19, 30, 36,
43) — , is the subject, the author, or doer of the acts expressed in-
these words, these acts being always represented as directed
towards and bearing upon man. All the Bible terms on this
subject clearly denote, not God's becoming merciful, conciliated,
reconciled, appeased, propitiated, or the like, but God's showing
himself, by sending Christ and having him to do his work, as
already merciful and gracious, so that he needed not to be con
ciliated, reconciled, appeased, or propitiated. J. O. P.

NECESSITY AND CAUSE. Q
for reconciliation. Their many sacrifices, ceremonies,
tormentings of self, pilgrimages, etc. are just so many cries
after reconciliation unto God. This feeling of theirs is
no error, but a deep truth. All thoughts of salvation
without reconciliation only bear witness of a stupified con
science or an effort to silence it. The Holy Scriptures
testify with the greatest possible decisiveness of the
necessity of reconciliation. The whole object of Christ's
coming and work in the world was reconciliation. Every
religion — pagan, Jewish, and Christian ¦ — is penetrated
with the expressed or implied need of reconciliation. Not
to stifle or to explain away this need, but to confirm,
strengthen, and satisfy it was Christ sent by the Father into
the world. 3. Often even such men as, when there is no danger,
impudently and without fear deny God, are seen to tremble
at the nearness of death, because, in spite of all their
denials, they feel themselves standing before God. Their
conscience testifies ^that they are in a wrong relation to
him, and this fills their soul with fear and despair. There
was once a man who delivered a lecture before a large
concourse of people, in which lecture he tried to prove,
amid the applause of the audience, that there is no God
and no eternity, that no reconciliation is necessary, that
*no judgment or reckoning' would ever come or ought to
be expected, etc. When he had concluded" his lecture,
there stepped forward an old man, who related how once
from the banks of a river he had seen a boat in the act of .
being more and more drawn by the current towards a
waterfall. In the boat sat a man, who with all his might
was using one oar to stop the boat or bring it to the shore;
the other oar was broken. When the man saw that all his
work was in vain and that in a few moments he would have
to meet an unavoidable death, then in despair he let go
his oar, fell down on his knees in the boat and cried to
God for mercy. He was saved in a very wonderful

IO THE RECONCILIATION.
manner. "And" — thus the old gentleman concluded —
"that man was just this person, who now here before you
has tried to show that there is no God, no judgment, no
eternity, and no need of reconciliation." Pale and tremb
ling, the infidel withdrew while the old gentleman was
speaking; and the audience dispersed with feelings of
sadness. 4. Thus, as to the necessity of reconciliation, testifies
not only the word of God, but also the conscience of every
man. But then arises this question, whether it was God,
or man, or perhaps both parties, that needed to be recon
ciled. And in this question it is that the thoughts ofJSod
and man separate as far as heaven and earth. Just as
soon as Adam had sinned, he received in his heart another
image of God than he had had. Instead of returning, as
a fallen son, to God with confidence, he fled from him
with terror, hid himself from him and endeavored to con
ceal the truth from him. "The evil spirit had," as Luther
expresses himself, "snatched the true image of God from
Adam, darkened it and blotted it out of his heart." The
change which had taken place in Adam's heart made him
believe that God, also, had changed.
5. It is this thought about God that runs through
the whole of the worship of the heathen. The heathen
imagine God to be a dreadful being, and they always
regard the hindrance to man's salvation as lying in a
certain wrath or fierceness that has filled the heart of God
in consequence of man's sin. Their worship is therefore
always marked by fear and bondage. It is with reference
to this that Paul says to the Christians: "Ye have not re
ceived the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have
received the Spirit of adoption" (Rom. viii. 15). There
fore, the reconciliation which the heathen fancy is always
a reconciliation which has its source in man, and its aim
to appease God. They have only the light of nature to
judge by, and therefore they judge of God according to

NECESSITY AND CAUSE. II
what they are themselves. This wrath in the heart of
God they wish to appease, partly by gifts which they offer
to him, as gold, silver, animals, and human beings, and
partly by self-torture or pain inflicted on themselves.
They think that his wrath will allow itself to be soothed
by such means, and especially by seeing the sinful suffer.
They well know that their own wrath is soothed by gifts, or
by causing sufferings, or by seeing him suffer who has
offended them; and so they judge of God accordingly.
Such is their darkness. All their worship of God proceeds
from the principle that God is angry with them.
6. But, alas! this idea we find not only among the
heathen, but it is so deep-roted in all human nature, that
it seeks to maintain its hold even where the word of God
is known and read. From this wrong view of God it
comes that men often consider Christ, whom God in his
grace has sent to reconcile us to himself, as one on whom
God has poured out his wrath, in order that he might be
gracious to us. Yea, many truly living and dear children
of God view this as the very essence of Christ's work, and
they, even fear that, if they may not believe this to be
so, Christ would be entirely superfluous. They think
that they never can escape the wrath of God, unless it has
been poured out upon some one.else in their stead. In
their opinion, the chief significance of Christ is that he be a
shelter or shield against God, or, so to speak, a lightning-
rod for his wrath, in order that they may feel safe before
him. May God open their eyes more and more. They
do not understand what injury they are doing themselves
by thinking worse of him than he deserves. God would
fain, as any other father, like to be truly known by his
children. 7. Contrary to all such perverse imaginations, the
Scriptures teach that no change took place in God's dispo
sition towards man in consequence of his sin; that, there
fore, it was not God who needed to be reconciled to man,

12 THE RECONCILIATION.
but that it was man who needed to be reconciled to God;
and that, consequently, reconciliation is a work which pro
ceeds from God and is directed towards man, and aims
not to appease God, but to cleanse man from sin, and to
restore him to a right relation wiih God.
8. That no change of disposition in God towards
man took place on account of man's sin, this may indeed
far exceed our comprehension. Yes, we may be ready to
call it the most unreasonable thing, that the love of God
should not have suffered any abatement, or interruption,
by the fall of man. But however unreasonable and foolish
it may appear, still it is a fact. If you, with your little
understanding, cannot comprehend such love, well, that
does not alter the fact. It is far better for us that the
fact, happily, remains as it is. And God has shown this
in that he has so loved this sinful world, that he has given
it his only begotten Son to be its Saviour. "With God
there can be no variableness, neither shadow ot turning"
(Jam. i. 17). He remains the one he is from everlasting
to everlasting. Dreadful is the injury and desolation which
the sin of man has caused, but the desolation of changing
the disposition of God, that is a thing man's sin has not been
able to do. Just as the deluge, indeed, reached far above
the highest mountains so as to destroy all life on the earth,
but it did not reach to the sun to extinguish it or cool it
off; so the sin of man was, indeed, enough to make all
flesh on the earth depraved, but it could not change the
disposition of God or make him any thing else but love.
"God is love" (1 John iv. 8, 16). God has not only been
love or become love, but he as love from everlasting to
everlasting, perfect love. But perfect love can never be
diminished, because it would then no longer be perfect.
Only that which is imperfect can be increased or decreased.
9. Consequently, the love of God never needed to
be restored by any propitiation, because it was never
lost; it never needed to be increased, for it was never

NECESSITY AND CAUSE. 1 3
diminished. God loves because he is love, and he con
tinued to be love, in spite of our fall into sin. God's love
for the world was not of one kind before the fall, and of
another kind after the fall; and, again, it did not become
of still another kind after the death of Christ. A higher
degree of love cannot be conceived of than this, that God
gives his only begotten Son. But with such a love he has
loved Cain as well as the virgin Mary, Judas as well as
John, Demas as well as Paul. Just as God lets his sun
shine as mildly on the field of the ungodly as on the field
of the righteous, and as he lets the rain fall just as co
piously on the meadow of the ungodly as on that of the
righteous, so he has given Christ for the ungodly just as
well as for the godly; and this he has done, not as a help
for himself to love them, but that he might help them put
of sin, and help them to true love. Therefore Paul does
not say that God increased his love to us by Christ dying
for us, nor that the change supposed to have taken place
in God's disposition by our fall was remedied or removed,
but he does say this: "God commendeth his love toward us,
in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"
(Rom. v. 8). And John does not say: By Christ laying
down his life for us, the love of God has been restored to
us. No, he says this: "Hereby perceive we the love of God,
because he laid down his life for us" (1 John iii. 16). And
again (Revised Version): "Herein was the love of God
manifested in us [that is, in our case], 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" (1 John iv. 9, 10). And when the Lord him
self would by pictures illustrate this disposition of God,
he related the . stories of the lost sheep, the lost piece of
money, and the prodigal, or the lost, son (Lukexv). The
father of that prodigal son had felt grief, yes, deep grief,
but his love had not in the least suffered decrease; he

14 THE RECONCILIATION.
loved his son none the less now than before. The shep
herd had felt grief for the lost sheep, but he so loved it
that for its sake he left the ninety and nine, and went after
the one that was lost. And mark you: Christ is using
these illustrations, not in order to show the disposition of
God's heart before the fall, nor what it should become
after his death, but in order to show us how it always had
been and always is towards sinners.
10. But, perhaps, some one now says: "God had to
be reconciled, not indeed that it might be possible for him
to love man, but so that it might be possible for him to
bestow his grace upon man. His love may, indeed, have
remained unchanged, but without an expiation as a satis
faction no grace was possible for sinners." This is ap
parently a very important objection. And we will there
fore first of all inquire: Is this taught anywhere in the
word of God, so that we there'may read about it? This
question must be answered thus: No, nowhere. But whence,
then, has this thought been derived? Answer: It has been
derived from that wrong image of God which by the fall
has been burnt into our natural heart. But this image
cannot be harmonized or reconciled with the image which
the word of God gives us. But furthermore we ask:
Was it not grace that God gave his Son for the redemp
tion of sinners? Can any greater grace be conceived of in
heaven or on earth? Grace is a love that is wholly un
merited by him who is the object of it. But then, the
sending of Christ into the world, his life, his death, and
his work, all this is not a cause of God's grace, but a con
sequence of it, yea, the highest conceivable expression of
this grace. For no manifestation of love has ever been so
unmerited, no work of God has been such perfect grace,
as just this manifestation and this work, that he gave to
the world his only begotten Son. Yes, indeed, back of
all the works of God are his love and grace as the ever
unmoved and immovable foundation, the never failing,

NECESSITY AND CAUSE. 1 5
but always overflowing fountain out of which issue all his
acts of redemption. O fllay we allow our heavenly Father
to be as good as he is. He is jealous of the honor to be
considered just as he is.
ii. "But," so some one will say, "though the love of
God was not diminished by sin, still his justice suffered
injury, and it requires satisfaction; his love is bound by
his justice." To this we answer, first: It is nowhere so
written, and in such important matters it is not advisable
to teach anything else than what the word of < Jod teaches.
There is not to be found a single passage in the Bible setting
forth the atonement as having its cause in this, that the
justice of God needed satisfaction. But if some one says
that this is, however, the spirit of the whole Bible, then
let such a one, in the name of God, at once pause before
this solemn question: How is it that just that which is
said to constitute the spirit of the whole Bible, is nowhere
written in the Bible? No; the spirit of the Bible is what
the Bible says ¦ — that is certain. But love and justice are
never in the Bible set forth as being in conflict with each
other, so that one can bind the other. On the contrary, it
is right and just both for God and men to love, to have com
passion upon and to save sinners. It was righteous and
just that God so loved the world as to give his only be
gotten Son for its salvation. Yes, nothing can be more
just and righteous than such a love.*
* In translating into English the one Swedish word ("rcitt-
fardig", the adjective, "rattfdrdighef, the noun — the Swedish
letter a has* the sound of the English diphthong ai in air), the
word which the Author uses in this paragraph and in several of
the following, I think it best to use both of the words, just and
righteous, or sometimes right, and their corresponding nouns,
justice and righteousness. There are in Swedish, as well ac in
English, two distinct words with this shade of difference in
meaning; but the one means rather less than the -word just, and
the other rather more than the word righteous. The first is "rati-
vis", literally "right-wise", from which comes righteous (see the

j 6 THE RECONCILIATION.
' 12. To love those who are nearest to us, our friends
and brethren, is indeed a just and righteous act; but it is
a higher kind of righteousness, and justice to love our
enemies, and a. perfect righteousness or justice is perfectly
to love one's enemies. When, therefore, the Lord would
teach his disciples to be righteous after the likeness of God
he said: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, and persecute you .... For if you
love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not
even the publicans the same?" (Matt. v. 44,46). That is, if
you love only your friends, thenyotf are not more righteous
than the heathen and the publicans can be, because they,
also, love them by whom they are loved. Yea, what right
eousness is it which God in the law requires as correspond
ing to his own righteousness? The Saviour gives this an
swer: "Thou shalt love God above all things, and thy
large dictionaries), but which, singularly enough, has not the
meaning of righteous, but oijust, and that in rather more of an
outward,legal or moral sense than as an intrinsically virtuous or
right disposition; it is found in the N. T. only as a translation of
the but twice occuring word endikos,just (Rom. iii. 8; Heb. ii.
2). The fame is true, also, of the noun "rdtttisa", which like its
corresponding English,/ ustice is not used in the N. T. at all, and
in the O. T. less frequently than its English equivalent. The
second of the Swedish words referred to, is "raMfdrdig", literally
"right-whole" ', that is, wholly right, or thoroughly right, both as
to disposition and state. It comprises all that is generally meant
by both of the English words, just and righteous, and is the com
mon rendering of the Greek dikaios, occuring 83 times in the N.
T. and variously translated in the Revised as well as in the Old
Version: right, meet, just, righteous. Thus, also, its derivitive
noun is equivalent to both justice aud righteousness. As over
against the very common theological notion of "divine justice",
as mainly, if not only, exacting, harsh and severe,"our Author
shows the truth of these lines by Faber about this one of God's
glorious attributes: "Thy justice is the gladdest thing
Creation can behold." J. Q, p.

NECESSITY AND CAUSE. 1 7
neighbour as thyself". But by ¦ "neighbour" the Lord
does not mean friends only, but also enemies, as he him
self explains in the parable ot "The Good Samaritan".
To love enemies — remember this — to love enemies is
therefore a likeness of God's righteousness. Imagine two
men who have been offended. One of them says: "My
righteousness, or sense of justice, is violated or offended,
and requires satisfaction if I am to show any favor towards
him who offended me." But the other one, so far from
demanding any satisfaction, sacrifices all that he has, that
he may restore and reconcile the offender to himself.
Which of these two is like God? In which of them do you
see holy, righteous love reflect itself? Judge for yourself.
And if you are hesitating, ask: which one of them is like
Christ? Because he — Christ — is the pattern and touch
stone; he that is like him, is like God, because he is "the
express image of God's substance" (Heb i. 3). He that
loves like Christ, he loves with a holy and righteous love,
such as the love of God is. Verily, the love which was in
God showed itself to be righteous and holy just in this,
that he did not seek satisfaction for himself, but salvation
for us, yea, he sacrificed all — even his only begotten Son
— for our salvation.
13. But let us hear yet another objection that per
plexes many honest souls. Perhaps, if we hear it, we may
untie some knot for some such soul. "Well," says some
one, "certainly it is right and just to love and be gracious
and of course he is more righteous and more like Christ
that does not demand any satisfaction for himself, but in
stead sacrifices all, in order that he may save the one who
has sinned against him. But, still, there is in Go A yet
another kind of righteousness: namely, the righteousness
that judges and punishes, and this demanded satisfaction."
To this we must again answer: It is nowhere thus written;
and as something outside of the word of God, it is not
well to assert any such thing. The Bible does not know

1 8 THE RECONCILIATION.
of more than one kind of righteousness of God, although
this manifests itself in many different ways. Because God
is just and righteous, he loves sinners and sacrifices all,
that he may save them; he sends his Son, his Spirit, and
his word etc. For to do such things is just and righteous.
Not to love or not to seek to save sinners is not just or .
righteous. The person who does not love and try to save
sinners is not righteous. Paul suffered all things, forsook
all things and subjected himself to any thing, in order that
he might "by all means save some" (i Cor. ix. 22), for he
was a righteous man and a partaker of God's righteousness.
Without such love he could not have been righteous after
the likeness of God.
14. Further, because God is just and righteous, he
hates all sin and unrighteousness. Not to hate sin is never
just or righteous. He that does not with all his heart
hate all sin, cannot be just or righteous. No one on earth
has loved sinners so perfectly and hated sin so perfectly as
Jesus, for no one has in the matter of righteousness been
so perfectly like God as he. To love the sinner is not a
sort of righteousness different from that of hating sin, but
it is another manifestation of one and the same righteous
ness. 15. But still further: because God is just and right
eous in his relation both to sin and the sinner, he threatens
and punishes those who live in sin, and lets them taste of
the hatred which he has for sin, so that they may repent
and be saved. That father who does not in some way
punish his child for wrong-doing, is not a just and right
eous father, and has no true fatherly love. That govern
ment which does not punish criminals, is not a just and
righteous government, and has no true love for its people.
To punish in order to inflict evil on the one punished is
unjust and unrighteous, and only he that is evil can do
evil, but God is not evil, for he is love; but to punish
jn order to produce repentance is righteous, just, and good.

NECESSITY AND CAUSE. 19
16. But still more: because God is righteous, he re
joices over each and every sinner that repents (Lukexv. 6,
10, 32), \for it is just and righteous to rejoice over a sin
ner's repentance, and he who does not do that is not right
eous. Therefore, all those who partake of God's righteous
ness rejoice over the repentance of sinners. Jesus, also,
was glad over the repentance of sinners, but wept over the
hardening of their hearts, because he was just and right- ¦
eous like God. But further: because God is righteous, he
brings into everlasting bliss with himself all those who are
righteous, but separates for ever from himself all those
who have gone so far, that they cannot be renewed to re
pentance and be made righteous. For him who is per
fectly righteous, there is no suitable place but in heaven,
because he is fit for no other place. For him who is per
fectly hardened and unrighteous, there is no place in
heaven, because he is fit for no place there. And it is
just and righteous of God to put every one in his right
place. 17. All — all the things we have now set forth — arenot
different kinds of divine justice or righteousness, but only
different manifestations of one and the same justice or
righteousness, which manifests itself differently under dif
ferent circumstances. And this justice or righteousness
can never change. Also these manifestations of it will,
therefore, remain the same through all ages. To change
the righteousness or justice of God would be to change
God himself. His righteousness and justice are and will
continue to be through all eternity such as from eternity
they have been. Least of all has Christ come into the
world to change them, for he is himself just and righteous
exactly like and in the same way as his heavenly Father.
Yea, it would be a misfortune for us, if this state and con
dition of God's righteousness and justice in any way were
or could be changed. Righteousness is no antithesis to
love, no limitation of love, no restraint or check on love.

20 THE RECONCILIATION.
On the contrary, perfect love is the perfect manifestation
of perfect righteousness. Behold Christ. In him you can
see and learn that, for he is "the brightness of God's glory,
and the express image of his person" (Heb. i. 3).
18. "Well" — thus some one again objects — "this
may indeed be true, but the wrath of God cannot be de
nied. Most certainly the Scriptures speak of that. The
wrath of God had to be appeased through the death of
Christ, if we were to obtain grace." — Answer: We will in
our next chapter see what the word of God teaches con
cerning that subject. May God help us, that we may in
all simplicity follow the teachings of his word, for "the
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the
statutes of the Lord are right .... enlightening the eyes;"
and "the word of our God shall stand for ever," "it liveth
and abideth for ever" (Ps. xix. 7, 8; Is. xl. 8; 1 Pet. i. 23).

CHAPTER II.
The Reconciliation with Reference to the Wrath of God.
19. " While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall
be saved from wrath through him" (Rom. v. 8, 9). In the
preceding chapter we observed that the word of God no
where teaches that God was to be reconciled through
Christ, and that we ought not to speak of these things
otherwise than the word of God speaks of them. But
then, at last, this question arose: "What shall we say to
all that which the Scriptures teach concerning the wrath
of God? Did not the wrath of God need to be appeased?
And did not this take place through the death of Christ?"
— Well, let us see what God in his word says on this
subject. We would say with David: "The testimonies of

CONCERNING THE WRATH OF GOD. 21
the Lord are very sure" (Ps. xciii. 5*). Is it, then, any
where written in the word of God that God's wrath was
to be appeased through Christ's death, or that it has been
appeased through Christ's death? If it is thus written in
the word of God, then it must be held as true; if not, it
must be given up. The question is, therefore: Is it
written? To this it must replied: No, it is nowhere thus
written. In the whole Bible there is no such passage.
No prophet, no evangelist, no apostle, not John the Bap
tist, nor Christ either, has taught that the wrath of God
was to be appeased through the death of Christ; and then
it is not advisable for us to put any such doctrine into the
word of God.** No; it is always safest to keep to the
word of God.
20. But what, then, is the wrath of God? By the
wrath of God may be meant that God hates all sin and
unrighteousness. But this wrath of God can certainly
never be appeased or changed. Just think how dreadful
it would be if God should cease to hate sin. That would

* The Swedish Old (Authorized) Version gives these words,
in conformity with Luther's German Version,so very expressively
thus: "Thy word is a right [or true] doctrine." ("Dein Wortist
eine rechte Lehre"). J. O. P.
** It is now, presumably, both generally known and
acknowledged that the passages in our old [as yet Authorized]
Swedish Version, where the reconciliation of God is spoken of,
are incorrectly translated. These passages are: Ex. xxx. 16; 2,
Sam. xxi. 14; xxiv. 25; Mic. vi. 6; Heb. viii. 12. [Note by the
Author, P. W. — To which I would add: These greatly mis
translated passages in the Old Swedish Version, like Luther's
German, making God the object of the reconciliation or the
atonement, (giving respectively, "He permits himself to be re
conciled over their souls," "then was God reconciled to the
land," "with what shall I reconcile God?" "I will be reconciled
over their iniquities"; the last Luther gives: "I will be gracious
as to their faults," compare Jer. xxxi. 34), are all quite well and
correctly rendered both in the Authorized and in the Revised
English Version. J. (x. P.].

22 THE RECONCILIATION.
put an end to all hope of our salvation. For God would
then no longer be just and righteous. Not to hate sin
evinces an unrighteous person, as we have said now many
times. If you see a man that does not hate sin, you can
at once say: This man is not like God; this is not a right
eous man. Hence we can readily understand that Christ's
death did not make God to cease hating sin; and neither
would there in that effect, if it were possible, be any sal
vation for us.
21. But by God's wrath can also be meant that God
is displeased with, threatens, and punishes all who live in
sin. But neither is this wrath of God at all quenched or
appeased by the death of Christ. Nor can it be changed.
Because, still, after the death of Christ, God is displeased
with all who live in sin; even yet, this day, he threatens
and punishes them, and will continue to do so. Paul says:-
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Rom. i. 18).
Yea, after the death of Christ this wrath has manifested
itself more dreadfully than at any time before, as in the
destruction of Jerusalem. When the Lord predicted this ¦
destruction he expressed himself thus: "There shall be
wrath upon this people" (Luke xxi. 23). Even to-day, it is
true of all who live in sin, that they are "the children of
wrath" (Eph. ii. 3). In Rom. iii. 5 the apostle says that
"God visiteth with wrath". [English Revised Version] . For
this reason he also exhorts the Christians: "Avenge not
yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath" (that is, the
wrath of God). (Rom. xii. 19). The wrath of God shall
find them that do evil. In Eph. v. 6 and Col. iii. 6 the
apostle says that because of sins "the wrath of God cometh
upon the children of disobedience."
22. The apostle never intimates with as much as a
single word that this fact has been changed by the death
of Christ. On the contrary, his words show that it still
ceaselessly continues. And it would, indeed, be a mis-

, CONCERNING THE WRATH OF GOD. 23
fortune tor us if it were not so. If this relation were
changed, then ungodliness and spiritual lethargy would so
prevail in the world, that no one could be saved. But
this wrath of God is no more a bar to his love than the
true fatherly wrath in a man is a bar to his fatherly love.
A father cannot be pleased with his child that lives in
sin; but he can so love it, that if he could save it, he would
willingly die for it. And he punishes it, that if possible he
may save it. So, likewise, does God. What does also all
experience testify even unto this day? Behold what punish
ments God suffers to come over individuals as well as over
entire nations when sin gets the ascendency and prevails
over everything. Yea, even believers, when they sin,
must taste the displeasure of God and that often quite
severely both in their conscience and in outward chastise
ments. Least of all did Christ come into the world to
change this relation, because he himself has the same dis
pleasure as the Father toward those who live in sin. We
read in Mark iii. 5 about him, that "he looked round about
on them [his enemies] with anger," and in this wrath was
the same divine earnestness as in the wrath of the Father.
23. But by the wrath of God may, also, be meant
that at the last day, at the end of this age, he will for ever
separate from himself all those whom it has not been pos
sible "to renew again unto repentance" (Heb. vi. 6), but
who have obstinately defied all his endeavors to save
them. This is what the Bible calls "the wrath to come."
Of this wrath John the Baptist says to the Pharisees: "O
generation [offspring] of vipers, who hath warned you to
flee from the wrath to come?" (Matt. iii. 7; Luke iii. 7).
This wrath, surely, is not appeased; but just according to
the threatenings of GOd it shall, at the last day, come upon
all the ungodly, as Paul says: "After thy hardness and
impenitent heart thou treasurest up unto thyself wrath
against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous
judgment of God" (Rom. ii. 5). Yea, Christ is so far from

24 THE RECONCILIATION.
having appeased this wrath, that just he himself is the one
who will bring about and execute the sentence of God's
wrath upon the ungodly. Therefore this wrath is called
also the wrath of the Lamb, as when in Rev. vi. 16 it is
said that the ungodly shall 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 ofthe Lamb."
In the prophets, also, the breaking forth of the judgments
of God's wrath is put in connection with the coming of
the Messiah. Hence we can understand also this, that
there never can be any question of appeasing this wrath.
24. Let us here again bring to remembrance the
blessed words of our Saviour: "He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father" (John xiv'. 9; cf. xii. 45). Let us
not get tired of listening to these words, as if we knew
them to well, already. They are fully applicable here as
to the wrath of God. If there be in God any wrath differ
ent from that found in Christ, then it is not true, that he
that seeth the Son seeth the Father. For then the Son is
not so like the Father as he says. Then neither is that
true which the apostle says, that the Son is "the brightness
[effulgence] of God's glory, and the express image of his
person" (Heb. i. 3). When I then look on the Son I can
not say, "The Father is just like him," but, instead, I
must say, "The Father is not like him." But now Christ
is the very image of God's person, or substance, and hence
we know that fn God there is no attribute which is not
found in the Son. What God loves, the Son loves; what
God hates, the Son hates. Where God condemns and is
angry, there also the Son condemns and is angry. The
Father is not more "severe" than the Son, and the Son is
not milder or more gentle than the Father. Perhaps you
are amazed at such a saying. But quiet yourself before
the word of God. It is no jest, but a divine truth, that
"he that seeth the Son seeth the Father." That is just
what the Father is like — he is just like Jesus. The wrath

CONCERNING THE WRATH Of GOD. 25
of God is and continues to be the same that it has been
just as long as sin exists. This wrath is in its essence
nothing else than his hatred for sin. And as long as sin
exists God must hate it. Otherwise he would not be just,
or righteous. But this hatred of sin does not exclude
compassion for those who are captives in sin. Christ,
also, hated sin, but he had compassion upon sinners.
God's people, also, hate sin, but they love and take pity
on sinners, and that just because they are partakers of the
nature of God, for such is God. O my friend, do you
wish to see God, then stand not aside from Christ, but
look right at Christ. Do not imagine that behind Christ
stands a dreadful image representing God, but look right
into the eyes of Christ (may the expression be allowed!).
There, in him, you see the face of God. To do so will
make you intimately acquainted with God, and happy in
God, so that the words of Peter can be applied even to
your faith, that by Christ you do believe in God (i
Pet. i. 21).
25. It is wrath against the person, and hatred of the
person, which excludes or bars love. This hatred may be
called personal, because its object is not sin, but the person,
and because it wishes the person evil. Such is the wrath
of the devil, as it' is said in Rev. xii. 12: "The devil is
come down unto you, having great wrath, because he
knoweth that he hath but a short time." And again, in 1
Pet. v. 8: "Your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion
walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." Such
wrath the heathen think their gods possess, and therefore
they labor to appease them. Such wrath, also, is often
found among men, as the Scriptures say: "Their throat is
an open sepulchre; the poison of asps is under their lips:
whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet
are swift to shed blood" etc. (Rom. iii. 13 et seq.). This
personal wrath will often allow itself to be appeased, some
times by gifts, and sometimes by getting revenge. But

26 THE RECONCILIATION.
mark, this wrath in man is not a remnant of the image of
God, but, on the contrary, it is a part of that poison which
the serpent at the fall poured into the heart of man. In
God no such wrath exists, for in him is nothing sinful or
devilish. Therefore, neither in Christ, who is "the bright
ness of God's glory, and the express image ofhis person,"
do you ever see any such wrath. But if this wrath does
not exist in God, then neither is there any need of appeas
ing it. No, "God is love," and love excludes all personal
wrath. God cannot even be tempted with evil (James
i- 13)- .26. In John iii. 36 John the Baptist says: "He that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that be
lieveth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him." The Baptist says by these words that
those who live in sin are under the wrath of God, and since
they will not believe in the Son, who comes to save them
from sin, they will remain under the wrath or displeasure
of God, and will never see life. On the other hand, he
shows that he that believes in Christ has everlasting life,
and is thus delivered from the wrath which rested on him
while he lived in sin and unbelief. No passage can speak
more clearly than this concerning the wrath of God, and
no passage can more clearly show that the wrath of God
is not appeased or quenched, least of all that it was ap
peased on the day when Christ died; because, even after
the death of Christ, why this wrath abideth, as the Baptist
•says, on every one that does not believe the Son. But if
it abides, or remains, why then indeed it is not appeased
or quenched. To talk about a wrath being appeased, but
still abiding, is the same as to talk about a fire being ex
tinguished, but still burning. And what would that be?!
Consequently, the wrath of God abides on every one that
abides in sin and will not suffer himself to be saved.
27. But that the believer is delivered from that wrath
which abides on those who live in unbelief, that depends,

CONCERNING THE WRATH OF GOD. 27
on his having become righteous by faith in Christ. But
being righteous, he is taken out from the multitude of the
ungodly, on whom abides the wrath of God, and now he
belongs to the congregation of the righteous, on whom
rests the good pleasure of God. In every home you can
see a picture of this state. When a child lives in sin, it is
the object of its father's displeasure and punishment; but
when it leaves sin, then it becomes the object ofhis good
pleasure; mark: not ofhis love, — for even while it lived
in sin he loved it, - — but of his good pleasure or delight,
because a good father is pleased with or delights in obedient
and well-behaved children. But that the sinner thus has
become the object of God's good pleasure, by becoming
righteous, that is not any change in God, but in the sin
ner who now has come into a new relation with God, and
thereby has become a partaker of the good pleasure which
God has towards the righteous. Further, this is not a
change which took place on the day when Christ died,
but it takes place the day when a man believes in Christ.
For as long as a man continues in unbelief, so long the
wrath ot God abides upon him, as we see from the express
words of John the Baptist. And never in the Bibje is this
change called the appeasing or the reconciling of God; and
as we often have said, so we say again: it is always most
wholesome to speak as the oracles of God speak (i Pet.
iv. n). 28. Of another matter Paul speaks in Rom. v. 8 —
10, where he says: "While we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us. Much more then, being now justified by [or, more
correctly, wi] his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
him; for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we
shall be saved by [or, more correctly, in] his life." In
the first place, the apostle speaks here of something past
when he says that we were sinners, and that Christ then
died for us. Afterwards he speaks of something present

28 THE RECONCILIATION.
when he says that we now are justified in the blood of
Jesus, now are reconciled to God by the death of his Son.
Finally he speaks of something yet future when he says
that we shall be saved from wrath through him, we shall
be saved in his life. Mark this connection. In this pas
sage the apostle does not, therefore, say one word con
cerning the appeasing of God's wrath, but speaks only of
our salvation from wrath. And this salvation he repre
sents as something future. He does not say that we are
saved from wrath, but that "we shall be saved from wrath;"
and the words of the apostle must be read as they stand
written. But what "we" does the apostle mean when he
says: "We shall be saved from wrath"? He explains it
himself when he speaks of us who were sinners, but now
are justified in the blood of Jesus. Consequently, this
passage treats of the future deliverance of the believers
from wrath. Concerning this deliverance, or salvation, he
says also this, that it will be accomplished by or in Christ's
life; which shows plainly that it has not been accomplished
by or in Christ's death.
29. But what, then, is that future salvation of which
the apostle speaks? Answer: It is the salvation from the
wrath to come, — of which wrath we have spoken above.
Of this salvation Paul speaks to the Christians in Thessalo
nica: "Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and
true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he
raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered [more
correctly, delivereth, as the Revised Version has it] us
from the wrath to come" (1 Thess. i. 9, 10). But what,
f then, is "the wrath to come"? It is the judgment of wrath
1 which will come upon the world at the coming of our Lord,
and which he, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, will e"xecute.
' From this judgment of wrath the righteous shall be saved.
As God, before he let his judgment come upon Sodom,
sent angels to rescue righteous Lot; as Joshua, before he
let the judgment come upon Jericho, sent a messenger into

CONCERNING THE WRATH OF GOD. 29
that city to take thence righteous Rahab, in order that not
she, also, might perish in the general destruction; as the
Lord, before Jerusalem wa;s destroyed, gave his believers
a sign to flee and thus in time saved them from that terrible
judgment of wrath which swept over that city: so the Lord,
the living Saviour, will take away his own, the righteous,
from the judgments of wrath which shall come upon the
world at his toming. Of this God speaks through the
prophet Joel: "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and
the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day
of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that who
soever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be deliv
ered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliv
erance" [or more correctly, as the Revised Version and the
Swedish New Translation has it, "there shall be those that
escape"], "as the Lord hath said" (Joel ii. 31, 32). This
is expressed in the viith of Rev. by forbidding the angels,
who had the power to hurt the earth and the sea and
the trees, to do any hurt until the servants of God had
been sealed on their foreheads with the seal of the living
God. A type of this deliverance of the believers from the
wrath to come was the deliverance ofthe children of Israel
from the judgment of wrath which befell the Egyptians
through the angel of death. By their marking the door
posts of their houses with the blood of the passover lamb,
God delivered them from the general destruction which
elsewhere swept over the country.
30. However the subject under consideration may
be turned, there is nothing in God that could have been
changed, whether by the fall of man or by the work of
Christ. His love has not been disturbed by the fall of
man, nor has his displeasure of evil undergone any change
by the death of Christ. The latter (his displeasure of
evil) belongs to his being and is an expression of his
righteousness as well as the former (his love). Neither
has the manifestation of his love been restrained by the

30 THE RECONCILIATION.
fall^of man, because God has manifested his love in a
higher degree after the fall of man than he ever did be
fore. For the sending of the Son into the world is a mani
festation of love of God, which in gloriousness so far sur
passes everything else as the brightness of the sun sur
passes the brightness of the stars. Neither has the mani
festations of his wrath or displeasure been caused to cease
by the death of Christ, for such are yet seen in all the pun
ishments which God sends upon single individuals and
upon communities; and at the coming again of -Christ,
such wrath will manifest itself more dreadfully than ever
before in the judgment which will come upon the world.
31. From this we can easily understand why the
Bible never as much as in a single line speaks of the re
conciling of God, while all the religions of the heathen
are occupied in appeasing him [or what they suppose to
be gods]. To speak of reconciling God is just as foreign
to the Bible as to speak of reconciling Christ. Is it true
— we repeat it again — is it true, that the Father and the
Son are one, so that he who sees the Son sees the Father,
then, also, there is in the Son the same love, the same
righteousnes, the same wrath etc., as in the Father. Hence,
if one of them needed to be reconciled, then also the other
needed or needs to be reconciled. As it is a fact of great
significance, that the Scriptures never speak of Christ
being reconciled, of his wrath being appeased, or the like,
so it is a fact of equally great significance, that the Script
ures never speak of the Father being reconciled. And as
little as one can say that Christ is reconciled when his
disapproval of a sinner is turned into approval, because
the sinner permits himself to be conquered by his love
and believes in him, just as little can one say that God,
the Father, is reconciled when his disapproval of a sinner
is, in the same way, turned into approval by the sinner's
repentance and conversion. The love of God and the
love of the Lamb are one, and the wrath of God and the

CONCERNING THE WRATH OF GOD. 3 1
wrath of the Lamb are one; and the Lamb is he that exe
cutes both the purposes of God's love and the judgments
of his wrath. Think if any one began to teach that Christ
must be reconciled! Who could not at once prove that
such a doctrine is unbiblical? But since you know this,
remember then again those blessed words of his own
mouth: "I and the Father are one" (John x. 30, Rev.
Vers.). To be reconciled, to be redeemed, and to be
saved, are three different expressions for the same thing.
And as certain as it is that the Scriptures, to the question,
"Who was or is to be saved?" nowhere give the answer,
"God," but only, "the sinner;" so certain is it that the
Scriptures, to the question, "Who was or is to be recon
ciled?" nowhere give the answer, "God," but only, "the
sinner." And we ought humbly to abide by the Scriptural
way of speaking. Let us believe that God has spoken in
his word just as he meant and not otherwise.
32. "Very well, but" — thus some one again objects
— "God has said that 'the soul that sinneth, it shall die'
(Ezek. xviii. 4, 20), and as a just God, he cannot take
back his words without a compensating atonement." An
swer: These words have never been taken back, and they
never will be. It is still true, even to-day, "that the soul
that sinneth, it shall die," and it will be true until the last
day. No reconciliation in heaven or on earth can set at
naught these words. To set at naught these words would
be to set at naught the truth. But God is the truth. No;
unto the end of days it is fixed what the apostle, long after
the death of Christ, says: "The wages of sin is death"
(Rom. vi. 23). He does not say, "the wages of sin was
formerly death," — as if now in some way, by the death of
Christ, this fact had been changed, — no; but he does say:
"the wages of sin is death." Therefore, still, even now
these days, do all those die and perish who live in sin.*
* When it is taught that Christ paid all sins, and hence that
no one can be condemned for sins, but only for unbelief, then

32 THE RECONCILIATION.
But just as sure as sin is death, just so sure is righteousness
life; therefore, also, the righteous shall live. It is never
said in the Bible: "The soul that is righteous shall die."
No; if any one is righteous, all the word of God says that
such an one shall live. [See such passages as Ezek.
xviii. 9; Hab. ii. 4; Rom. i. 17 etc.]. And the one decla
ration can as little be taken back as the other. Hence, if
a sinner becomes righteous, he passes at once "out of
death into life" (John v. 24, Rev. Vers.). Just as little as
the Bible teaches that he who heretofore has been right
eous shall live even though he now is a sinner, just as little
does it teach that he who heretofore has been a sinner
shall die although he now is righteous (Ezek. xviii. 20 —
32). Here, therefore, nothing is taken back. If the
righteous fall again under the power of sin, then he comes
under the word: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." If
the sinner is restored and becomes righteous, then he
comes under the word: "The just shall live."
33. Of this the whole of Ezek. xviii. speaks very
fully, some passages of which we have referred to above.
Let us read portions of what the Lord there says: "But if
the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath com
mitted, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is
lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All
his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not
be mentioned unto him" [Rev. Version: "None ofhis
transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered
is taught a doctrine which is squareiy opposed to the words of
Paul: "The wages of sin is death." All sin brings with itself
death, and that as well after as before the death of Christ. "If
ye live after the flesh, ye must die," says Paul to the Christians
(Rom. viii. 13, Rev. Vers.). And unbelief is sin; but UDbelief is
different from all other sins in this, that it is a rejection of that
deliverance from sin which God in Christ offers the sinner. So
far condemnation depends upon unbelief; for if the sinner be
lieved, he would be saved from sin, but since he will not believe,
¦ he remains in his sins and in death.

CONCERNING THE WRATH OF GOD. 33
against him"] : "in his righteousness that he hath done he
shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked
should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should
return from his way, and live? But when the righteous
turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth
iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that
the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteous
ness that he hath done shall not be mentioned" [Revised
Version: "None ofhis righteous deeds that he hath done
shall be remembered"] : "in his trespass that he has tress
passed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he
die" (verses 21 — 24)'. This is spoken as plainly as any
thing can be: if the righteous man becomes unrighteous,
he shall die; if the unrighteous man becomes righteous,
he shall live. But for those who think otherwise the Lord
adds (vers 25): "Yet ye say, 'The way of the Lord is not
equal.' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is not my way
equal? are not your ways unequal?" As if he would say:
"Should I be wrong, as ye think? No; far be it. I am right,
but you are wrong." Then the Lord, for further certainty,
repeats the same thing that he has spoken of before, and
uses almost the same words (verses 26 and 27): "When a
righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and
committeth iniquity, and dieth therein; for his iniquity
that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked
man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath com
mitted, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall
save his soul alive" etc. — The Lord very well knew that
this thing needed to be said twice. May we allow it to
enter our understanding and our heart. The truth is al
ways the best gospel. The ways and judgments of God
are always right. It is our heart that is wrong.
34. A most remarkable illustration of these truths
we can read in the history of Nineveh. When Nineveh
was living in sin and wickedness God caused the announce
ment to be made by the prophet Jonah that the city

34 THE RECONCILIATION.
should perish. But when Nineveh repented it remained
standing. How could God in that case take back his
word? Did he get a satisfying payment that induced him
to do so? Answer: Not at all. The judgment of God
concerned Nineveh living in sin. If Nineveh had con
tinued in sin, then also the judgment would have been
fulfilled. But Nineveh repented. "And God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of
the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and
he did it not" (Jonah iii. 10.) The prophet did indeed
wish that the judgment, which God had pronounced upon
the wicked city, should be fulfilled upon the righteous city;
yea, he was provoked at its not thus occurring. "But it
displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, 'I pray thee, O
Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my
country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I
knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to
anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the
evil. Therefore now, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my
life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live"
(Jonah iv. i, 2). In Jonah you see the thoughts of man;
and as the grace of God came in conflict with them, Jonah
became so angry that he wished to die. O how foolish it
is to be provoked at God's abounding grace! But such is
the darkness of nature. However, God stood by his right,
reproved the prophet, judged according to truth, and let
Nineveh stand. Think what a blessed lesson. Let us
open our hearts fully for the inexpressible mercy of God.
35. Such passages of God's word reveal to us why
the Bible never says that Christ should appease God; but
rather that he should save men from their sins and make
them righteous. Because all depended upon that, as we
just have seen from the words of the prophet. For the
unrighteous man (as such) there is no salvation, however
gracious and merciful God may be; and for the righteous

CONCERNING THE WRATH OF GOD. 35
man (as such) there is no condemnation, however right
eous God may be. Yea, it is the very righteousness of God
which makes it impossible for the righteous to be condemned.
The righteous man belongs to God, because he is a partaker
of the righteousness of God; the wicked man, on the other
hand, is separated from-God, because he is unrighteous.
If, therefore, a way or means could be found to make
sinners righteous, then that would be a way or means to
save them and make them happy. This the apostle Paul
makes especially plain in Rom. v. 18 et seq., where, in
effect, he says that the cause of the death and condem
nation of "the many" is that through Adam's disobedience
they "were made sinners" — the sin of Adam has extended
to them all, and has brought death along with it. On the
other hand, the condition of life and happiness for "the
many" is that they "be made righteous." But can that be
brought about? Is any means to be found by which this
can be accomplished? Yes, God found such a means:
namely, the only begotten Son — and he gave him, for he
so loved the world (Joh. iii. 16). Through his obedience
it is, says Paul, that "the many shall be made righteous,"
and thus be brought from death unto life, from condem
nation unto blessedness. "He learned obedience by the
things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he be
came the author of eternal salvation unto all them that
obey him" (Heb. v. 8, 9).
36. In this connection we may consider a passage-
which often has been misunderstod: namely, Gen. ii. 17.
When God forbade Adam to eat ofthe tree of the knowl
edge of good and evil in Paradise he added: "For in the
day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Now
often, suggested by these words, thoughts have been ex
pressed like these: "This death sentence must be carried
out; and to make it possible for men to escape it, it was
necessary that some one else should suffer the threatened
death in their stead; otherwise God would not be just."

36 THE RECONCILIATION.
But let us read the words as they stand. We ask: Who
was it that should surely die? Answer: Adam, who ate of
the tree. Did not God say: "Thou, or some one in your
stead?" Answer: No; he said, "thou." All the rest is an
addition by men. When was it, then, Adam should die?
Answer: The same day he ate of the tree. Is it not
written: "In that day thou shalt die, or some one else must
d^e in stead of you some other day?" Answer: No; all such
is added by men. God's sentence was that he who ate ofthe
tree should die, and that on the very day when he ate. Are
these words changed or taken back anywhere in the Bible?
Answer; Nowhere. Was then this sentence executed on
him who sinned, and in the day that he sinned? Answer:
Yes, precisely as the words announced. In the same day
that Adam and Eve sinned they died. They were alienated
from the life of God; this was the spiritual death. Their
bodies became subject to physical death. And had they
remained in this condition, they would have been subjected
to eternal death. The word of God could not come to
naught. 37. But not only that. The fall of Adam brought
sin into the world; and so death came upon all his de
scendants. Therefore, looking back on this dreadful ocur-
rence, Paul says: "The many died" (Rom. v. 15, Revised
Version). He does not say that many now must have died
if some one else had not died in their stead. No; he says,
"the many died" — they really died, just according to
what God had said. But if they were already dead, then
no one could die in their stead — it is impossible for any
one to die in stead of one who is already dead. The only
thing to be done was to make the dead alive again, if that
were possible. And it was possible. God found a means
— ahd that was to give the only begotten Son. And he
gave him. For he so loved the world. So little abate
ment had his love suffered through the fall. Shall we not
joyfully praise God as we behold such love?

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 37
38. But th& sacrifices — ¦ did not the Old Testament
sacrifices with their blood betoken the necessity of recon
ciling God? Answer: What the word of God teaches con
cerning them we will consider in the next chapter. May
God give us love for the truth, and a disposition to under
stand the truth.

CHAPTER IJI.
Concerning the Old Testament Sacrifices.
39. "And almost all things are by the law purged with
blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission"
(Heb. 9: 22). In these words the apostle is speaking of
how matters stood in the times ofthe Old Covenant. He
has before shown how the Old Covenant was dedicated
with blood; how Moses, after having read the law to all
the people, sprinkled the book and the people with the
blood ofthe sacrificed animals; further, how the tabernacle
and also all the vessels belonging to the service were sprin
kled with blood (Heb. ix. 18 — 21). Then he adds in our
quoted verse: "And almost all things are by the law purged
with blood," that is, within the jurisdiction of the Mosaic
law, nearly all cleansings are performed with blood, so
that there is no remission of sins without shedding of
blood. 40. These are words of very great importance. The
apostle here compares the Old and the New Covenants'
with each other, and points out the typical significance of
the former with respect to the latter. But before we pro
ceed any further, let us carefully look at the words, because
they have often been greatly misunderstood. First, then,
we notice that the apostle' is speaking of the covenant of
the law, and how matters were carried on under it. He
says, in effect, that under the Mosaic covenant of law it is
almost universally the case, that every thing is purged

38 THE RECONCILIATION.
with blood, and that remission of sins does not occur with
out shedding of blood. He is not speaking of the new
covenant, but of the type he afterwards makes an applica
tion with respect to New Testament matters. Further
we notice that he says, "almost all things" etc. He does
not say, "all things." For even under the Old Covenant
cleansing was sometimes effected without blood, as, for
instance, by water or by fire, which we can see from Ex.
xix. 10, Lev. xxii. 6, Num. xxxi. 21 — 24, and several other
passages. But usually the case was that cleansing took
place by means of blood. Likewise, it sometimes happened
even that remission of sins was given without shedding of
blood. For instance, when David had sinned with Bath-
sheba he was restored and forgiven without shedding of
blood (2 Sam. xii. 1 — 15). In Lev. v. 11 — 13 we see that
in a case of poverty the sin offering might be bloodless,
and consequently remission of sin could take place with
out the shedding of blood. Such cases the apostle suggests
when he says, "almost".* However, he does not now
devote particular attention to that point, but rather to the
usual case or order: to wit, that under the Old Covenant
there was no remission of sins without the shedding of
blood. Finally, he puts the purging and the remission of
* Upon this little word, almost, which is commonly over
looked or altogether to lightly passed over by most expositors,.
the apostle has laid special emphasis; for which reason he has
placed it at the beginning of the whole sentence. The construc
tion and order of the words show, also, that it belongs to the
whole verse and not only to the first part. [To this note by the
Author the translator would add: Very strange and unwarrant
able is the translation of this passage by the new Revisers of the
English Version; they transpose, add, and then freely render the
beginning of the verse thus: "And according to the law, I may
almost say, all things are cleansed" etc. — and that without a
marginal reading to show it might be differently rendered, and
without italics to show what is added, and without authority
from any ancient manuscript whatever! It is no translation, but
simply a poor gloss or comment. J. G. P.],

CONCERNING THE 0. T. SACRIFICES. 39
sins together in a very remarkable manner, which we will
soon more closely consider.
41. We can easily see that these words afford a very
instructive suggestion concerning the Old Testament
sacrifices, and we will now seek for an answer to the
question, what these sacrifices did signify. For a correct
understanding as well of the Old as of the New Testament
this question is of the greatest importance. Did the sac
rifices signify that God must be reconciled, or~did they
signify something else? We have already seen that in all
the heathen sacrifices there was the underlying thought,
that God must be reconciled; but here the question is,
whether the sacrifices ordained by God himself had the
same or some other significance. Has God himself any
where explained their significance, and, if so, how has he
explained it?
42. But before we set forth what God in his word says
in explanation of the sacrifices, let us first see how men
sometimes have misunderstood them. Often the way is
cleared for the truth by removing misunderstanding. Con
cerning the Old Testament sacrifices men "have often
thought this way: "The righteousness, or justice, of God
demanded that sin should be punished. Now, if the sin
ner himself were to escape punishment, some one else
must suffer in his place. In no other way and on no other
ground could sin ever be forgiven. Such penal suffering
Christ was to endure for the whole world. On the strength
of this coming payment God could in the Old Testament
times forgive sins, and he always kept this ground before
the people in the ever-recurring bloody sacrifices." It is a
pious and well-meant idea that has found expression in
this way of reasoning. May we now examine it in the
wonderful light of the word of God.
43. First and foremost it is to be noticed, that there
is no place in the word of God where it is said that God's
justice, or righteousness, demanded that the punishment

40 THE RECONCILIATION.
must be endured by some one if sin should be forgiven.
From the first line in the Bible to the last no such passage
can be found, and without the word of God it is not
advisable to assert any such thing. On the contrary, just
the opposite is written in clear examples and words in the
Bible. This we have seen, as considered in our preced
ing chapter, in the case ot Nineveh, but most plainly in
the words of the Lord by the prophet Ezekiel. There we
read, namely, that if a sinner is converted and made right
eous, then all his former transgressions shall not be men
tioned unto him, and that on the ground which the Lord him
self there states: to wit, that he has no pleasure at all in the
death of the wicked, but rather that he should turn from
his sins, and live. But to those who would not let such
conduct on his part be true he adds, in effect: "Am I not
right? O house of Israel, you are wrong" (Ezek. xviii. 25,
29). That the Lord judges in the same way also in the
New Testament we learn from the parable of the ten
thousand talents (Matt, xviii. 23 — 35). We there read
that when the servant who owed ten thousand talents
came to render an account, "he fell down and worshipped,
saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee
all'. Then the lord of that servant was moved with com
passion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt." This
conduct our Lord sets forth as an expression of how God
forgives sinners, and as a likeness of how he requires also
his disciples to forgive. There was no question of pay
ment or compensation which some one else should make
instead of the debtor. The Lord did never say, "I will
forgive you all your debt, for another has paid it in your
stead." 44. In the viith of Luke our Lord cites a similar in
stance. He says: "There was a certain creditor which
had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and
the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he
frankly [i. e. freely] forgave them both." Neither is there

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 41
in this passage the least intimation, that their pardon was
due to the fact, that another had paid in their stead. Nor
has the Lord ever represented it as unrighteous either for
himself or for us to forgive without compensation. And
if forgiveness could not otherwise take place, except on
the ground of compensation, why then has God never said
so in his word? Yea, why has he, on the contrary, as we
have seen, represented just the opposite as the right way?
Well, the case is this: it is more righteous to forgive for
nothing than to forgive for payment, and therefore God is
first and foremost in forgiving for nothing, because he is
first and foremost in righteousness.*
45. All talk of payment for the debt of sin is wholly
foreign to the word of God. A money debt can be paid;
the bodily injury which I may have caused another by
my sin can be recompensed with money; but the debt of
sin** can never be paid. This the Lord represents in the
* If God, in the times of the Old Testament, forgave sins
on the ground of a coming payment, then that would mean that
in those times he forgave sins on credit. But that is a degrading
thought concerning God and his righteousness.
** That is, the guilt, the wickedness or the wrong there is
in sin and which it constitutes. It may be important to remark
here that in Swedish (probably no less in English) religious speech
and literature a great deal of confusion has been caused by the
fact, that the one and the same word, "skuld", is used to designate
both debt and guilt. Hence, in what follows of the text above
I have had to translate the Swedish word now by the one, now by
the other of the corresponding English words, according to the
more predominant idea in the context; sometimes I have used
both words in juxtaposition. As the old idea of cost and pay
ment yet lingers in the English word guilt — from the Anglo-
Saxon geldan, to pay, Old German geltan, to be worth, to
cost, Swedish "gald" (pronounced "yeld"), debt — the confound
ing of the injury done by an offense, or the fine, or mulct, paid
'for an offense, with the offense itself, is very common, yet, nev
ertheless, very erroneous ; for sin is nothing less than moral
guilt, or something morally wrong, an offense against God,
which in its very nature cannot be paid or made good by any

42 THE RECONCILIATION.
above quoted parables by saying that the debtors had
nothing wherewith to pay. To pay the debt or guilt of
sin would imply that, by a payment, sin could be caused
to cease to be guilt. But. all sin is guilt; and no payment
can make sin to be anything else than guilt, or transgres
sion, or crime. The debt or guilt of sin can be forgiven,
but never paid. Therefore, it can also be clearly seen,
that in those Bible passages, where the forgiveness of sins
is likened to a relea? e from a debt of money (Luke vii. 41,
42; Matt, xviii. 24 — 27), not a word is said about payment,
but only about remission. He who teaches that the world's
debt of sin has been paid denies the very guilt of sin, that
is, if he means any thing real or earnest by the payment.
A paid debt is no longer any debt; and if the debt or guilt
of the sin of the world is paid, then the world has no
longer any debt and has no guilt; its sins are then no
longer debts, and there is nothing of guilt or criminality
about them.* But O how far is not such language from
the truth of God's word! May God keep us from falling
one, nor by any means, but in order to be removed must be con
fessed by the committer and forgiven by God. J. O. P.
* It will not do here first to make a wide distinction be
tween the punishment due to sin, as a sort of a fine, and the guilt,
offense, or moral turpitude inherent in sin itself; and then to go
on and say that it is the punishment which is regarded as a debt
paid by vicarious sacrifice and suffering, while the offense, or
the sin itself, must be repented of and confessed by the commit
ter, in order to be pardoned by God. Such distinction and such
teaching is not true in fact, for even yet God punishes sin and
will still more hereafter punish it — all punishment of sin is a
natural consequence of sin, — and to say that it is only the want,
or absence, or neglecting, of repentance which involves punish
ment, would be the same as to say that the debt of all sinhas not
been paid; for unbelief, or neglect of repentance, is sin just as
much as anything else is, and if the debt of that sin is not paid,
why, then the final and worst of all debts remains unpaid and
unatoned; if also that is paid, why, then it is simply impossible
for any one to be justly punished or condemned by God, no
matter what sin is committed. j, £, p.

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 43
into such error. Read, for instance, the first chapters of the
epistle to the Romans, and there you can see whether the
world has yet any moral debt or guilt,' or not. But the
debt can be forgiven; and how that is done the Lord teach
es us by the prophet Isaiah when he says: "Come now,
and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your
sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though
they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Is. i.
18). What we need is to get rid of our debt, in whatever
way that now may be done. According to our way of
judging by nature, a payment to God would be necessary;
but according to God's way of judging, sins are forgiven
"without money and without price." A paid forgiveness
is no forgiveness; just as the returning of a paid note is
no gift. Neither does God in his word ever speak of any
payment as ground, or reason, for forgiveness of sins.
46. Secondly, the Scriptures never represent in any
way that it is just, or righteous, to punish the innocent
instead of the guilty. Imagine a father having a lost son,
- a prodigal, who comes to him like the man that owed ten
thousand talents. Imagine, further, this father saying
that he cannot forgive his guilty son, unless he may pun
ish his innocent son in his stead. Do you think that he
were a righteous father? Would you say that he acted like
God? Far be it! Yea, even if the innocent son himself
willingly offered to suffer the punisment instead of his
guilty brother, do you think that then the father were
righteous if he inflicted such punishment? Far be it! Or, if
a civil government commenced to exercise such righteous
ness, so that innocent citizens were punished instead of
the guilty, what would you say about such a government?
Would anybody call it righteous or just? If officers of the
law should reason like this: "When a crime has been
committed, then justice must be satisfied by the infliction
of suffering; as to the cause itself it makes no difference
whether the guilty or some one else instead suffers; justice

44 THE RECONCILIATION.
is satisfied in either case" — ¦ would officers reasoning and
acting thus be just? Far be it! That would be shocking
injustice. But for God it would be just, would it?! Far
be it! May we leave it to heathen people thus to think
about their gods. But we, who have the fhght of God's
word, ought to know that God is just and righteous, that
there is "no iniquity with the Lord our God" (Deut.
xxxii. 4; 2 Chr. xix. 7), and that the righteousness and
justice which he enjoins on men is an expression of his own
righteousness and justice. Neither is it ever said in the
Bible, that God has inflicted punishment upon Christ in
stead of upon us. Yea, the prophet Isaiah represents it
as a delusion, that the Jews believed that Christ was pun
ished by God. The prophet says: "We did esteem him
stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, but he was wounded
for our trangressions, lie was bruised for our iniquities.''
[Is. Liii. 4, 5; more literally and correctly Dr. W. trans
lates the two last quoted sentences thus: "He was pierced
through by our sins, he was crushed by our misdeeds"].*
47. In the third place, the sacrifices of the Old
Testament could not express a penal suffering instead of
the sinner. This can be seen from the following circum
stances. The Old Testament offerings and sacrifices were
partly bloodless ones, consisting of fruits and the like
partly bloody ones, consisting of animals, such as lambs
oxen etc. That the bloodless offerings did not express
vicarious penal suffering we understand very well without
any further comment. Of course, sheaves of grain, and
other fruits of the earth could not suffer punishment.
Hence, only the bloody offerings and sacrifices can here
* As it would be too extensive a matter here to make any
comments on the fifty-third of Isaiah, we refer our readers to the
exposition of this chapter which we have published separately
under the title, "The Man of Sorrows". [This work, also, is
translated, and will soon be issued by the publisher of the
treatise herewith in the hand of the reader. It is a book of 320
12mo pages in Swedish. — J. O. P.].

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 45
come under consideration. These were partly such as
had in view the reconciliation of sinners, when they had
sinned: as the burnt offering, sin offering, and trespass
offering, that is, the expiatory or atoning sacrifices in
general; partly such as were intended to express a person's
gratitude to God for help received. That these latter of
ferings — that is, the meat offerings, and the peace or
thank offerings (which last-named also were bloody ones,
Lev. iii), — did not express a vicarious penal suffering is
easily understood; because by them it was not a question
of atoning for sin, but of expressing gratitude for favors
received. But from these we see directly something which
is of the greatest importance as to the question of the
meaning of the sacrifices: to wit, that we must never draw
the conclusion that a sacrifice expressed penal suffering
just because it was bloody. When, therefore, it is concluded
as to the sin and trespass offerings, that because they were
bloody they expressed penal sufferings, then is drawn an
entirely too hasty conclusion. Otherwise, the same thing
must be concluded also as to the peace or thank offerings,
since they likewise were bloody, as we now have seen.
48. But we need not longer tarry with this. Let us
proceed to consider the sacrifices which were offered for
atonement. We ask, then, if God has anywhere in his
word explained these sacrifices so as to express a vicarious
penal suffering. If God has explained them thus, then it
must be so. But no; God has nowhere thus explained
them. On the contrary, God's ordinance concerning
these sacrifices is such, that it excludes every thought of
vicarious penal suffering. For, in the first place, sacrifices
were never allowed lo be made for other sins than such as
were not to be visited by death, or capital punishment. Thus,
for instance, sins against the ten commandments were
never to be atoned for by sacrifices. Sacrifices were never
to be made for idolatry, sabbath breaking, adultery, etc.
But if sacrifices were allowed to be made only for such

46 THE RECONCILIATION.
sins as were exempt from death, or capital punishment,
how then could any one think that the animal which was
offered suffered the punishment of death instead of the
offender? Why, his sin was not at all liable to be visited by
the death penalty. — Secondly, in a case of poverty the
atoning sin offering might consist of fine flour (Lev. v. n).
But if the sin offering had been intended to express penal
suffering, then it could never have consisted of flour, for
how could offerings of flour express penal suffering? —
Thirdly, it is written in the law (Deut. xxi. i — 9) concern
ing a manslayer who was not discovered, that the people
— mark, the people — should be forgiven [literally, "aton
ed for," or "reconciled", vers 8] by the sacrifice of a young
heifer. But of course that could not mean that the heifer
suffered death instead ofthe people, for the people were
not indeed guilty of the sin and had not deserved to die.
That the heifer did not suffer death instead of the man
slayer, either, is evident partly from the fact that the
atonement, or reconciliation, did not have for its object
the manslayer, but the people, partly from the fact that in
Num. xxxv. 31 it is expressly forbidden to take ransom
[literally, "atonement"] for the life of a manslayer*, and
that just on the ground that he was guilty of death. If
the manslayer was afterwards discovered, he himself must
die, which shows indeed that the animal sacrified was not
considered to have suffered the penalty in his stead.
49. Nor, finally, did the laying of hands on the
victim (of which we read in Lev. iv. 15, 24; xvi. 21) signify
that the penalty was transferred to the animal. This we
can see, in the first place, from the fact that such laying
on of hands occurred even in the case of the peace or
* Thus the Revised Version: "Ye shall take no ransom for
the life of a manslayer, which is guilty of death: but he shall
surely be put to death." The Authorized Version has the less
correct terms "satisfaction" and "murderer". See the whole
passage in Num. xxxv. 15—84 in the Rev. Ver. — /. O. P.

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 47
thank offerings, where there was no question at all of pen
alty (Lev. iii. 2, 8, 13); in the second place, from the fact
that in Lev. xvith the laying on of hands is clearly repre
sented to be an expression ofthe confession of sin (verse 2 1).
Besides — and this is the most decisive argument — on
the Day of Atonement the hands were not laid on the
animal which was killed, but on the one that was kept alive,
as it is written: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon
the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the
iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgress
ions in [better, "even"] all their sins, putting them upon
the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand
of a fit man [or, better, "a man that is in readiness," or,
"that is appointed"] into the wilderness: And the goat
shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not
•inhabited [or, "a solitary land"] : and he shall let go the
goat in the wilderness" [Lev. xvi. 21, 22). If the laying
on of hands had been intended to symbolize a transferring
of punishment, it could at least never have taken place on
the goat which was to remain alive.
50. But what then did the Old Testament sacrifices
mean? You say, "It is not enongh, indeed, to know what
they did not mean." True! Let us therefore examine how
God himself in his word explains their meaning. We will
then first examine how they -are explained in the Old Test
ament, and afterwards how they are explained in the
New Testament. May God send us his light. Upon his
revealing, it depends what we are to see and understand.
51. First, then, we notice that it is never said in the
Old Testament that atonement, or reconciliation*, was

* See the note on pages 5, 6, and 7, for a statement of the
different English words, atonement, reconciliation, and propi
tiation, corresponding to the one Swedish word fSrsoning. The
English Bible (Authorized Version) evidently uses both the
words, atonement and reconciliation, as synonymous; thus, for
instance, the same general Hebrew word for atonement with all

48 THE RECONCILIATION.
effected by the death of the sacrificed animal. No; atone
ment was effected by the blood. And the blood is not ex
plained as a type of or a figurative expression for death,
but as a type of and a figurative expression for life; as the
Lord says in Lev. xvii. 1 1 : "The life of the flesh is in the
blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make
an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh
an atonement for the soul." [The last clause is better
rendered by the Revised Version: "that maketh atonement
by reason of the life;" or, still better, according to the
Swedish new proof-translation: "for the blood maketh
atonement through (or, by reason of) the life which is
therein.*] Notice that the atonement is not ascribed to
the blood by reason of the suffering or death which the

its various shades of meaning — kaphar, to cover, to purge or
cleanse, then figuratively as to sin, to forgive — is rendered
sometimes atonement, or, as a verb, to make atonement, some
times reconciliation, or, as a verb, to make reconciliation, or to
reconcile. See Lev. viii. 15 (reconciliation), verse 34 (atonement);
so also in chap. xvi. 20, reconciliation; in all the other verses,
atonement; in Ezek. xlv. 15, 17, 20, reconciliation, or reconcile.
The Revised Version gives, generally, atonement, but in Dan.
ix. 24 it retains reconciliation. Both words mean really thesame
thing, as do also such renderings (of the same Hebrew word) as
"purging", "cleansing", "forgiveness", "ransom", and the like,
all referring to some action of God himself, or of some one act
ing as his representative, directed upon man or his surroundings
on account of sin and for the purpose of restraining it oi its effects,
and, ultimately, of removing it entirely. In translating the one
Swedish word (forsoning) I use the word "atonement" where the
general Old Testament idea of considering the divine work in
and by itself is the more prominent, but the word "reconcilia
tion" where the idea of the effect of the divine work on man
is or appears to be more prominent; sometimes it seems best to
use both words in juxtaposition. J. G. P.
* For more information about this passage and its trans
lation see my translation of the Author's little treatise; "The
Blood of Jesus: What is its significance?" §§ 6, 22 (my note
there), and 33. J, Q, p.

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 49
shedding of it had caused, but by reason of (or through)
the life that is or was in it. Then in verse 14 [according
to the Swedish] : "For the life of all flesh is in its blood, and
it constitutes its life."* Not by t he shedding ofthe blood was
atonement made, but by the sprinkling of the blood. But
what did this sprinkling signify? It signified cleansing
or purging from sin, as the apostle in the text quoted
above says: "Almost all things are by the law purged with
blood." This, then, is what the type which lies in the Old
Testament sacrifices corresponds to: namely, atonement
is made for a sinner, or a sinner's reconciliation takes place,
by his being cleansed from sin. This is not a mere deduc
tion, or inference, which we ourselves have made, but it is
just what the Bible itself teaches in definite and plain
words, as we shall soon see.
52. The Hebrew word which in our [Swedish] trans
lation of the Bible is rendered "forsona" [English: atone,
or atone for, or make atonement for, or reconcile, or make
reconciliation for**] properly means to cover. To atone

* In the English Authorized Version this passage is almost
meaningless. The Revifed Version uses circumlocution, but
gets at the idea: "For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof
is all one with the life thereof" (the italics indicate here, as is al
ways the case with words thus printed in Bible passages, what
words have no equivalents in the original). J. G. P.
** The Swedish verb forsona is a clear transitive, taking
for its object either the person or the thing. With a personal
objoct (or any thing standing for a personal object, as tabernacle,
house, land, etc.), it corresponds to reconcile, make reconciliation
for, or, make atonement for; with the sin, guilt, or offense, as
direct object, it corresponds to atone, atone for, make an atone
ment for, or, expiate. The Hebrew verb kaphar, or, as it occurs
in the more usual form, kipper, is seldom used as a transitive
active, but most frequently with the preposition 'al {over, upon)
before the person for whom atonement is made, hence, literally, to
cover over, or to cover up, the sinner or what is affected by his sin.
The sin or offense is connected with the verb by the prepositions
min (from), V (to, as to), 'al(over, upon),orb'ad(through,inreference

50 THE RECONCILIATION.
for sin should therefore most properly be translated to
cover sin, if we could use the expression. But that it does
not mean merely a hiding of the sin is plainly seen from
the way the word is used in other places. When, for in
stance, God says in Is. xxviii. 18: "Your covenant with
death shall be disannulled," the same Hebrew word is
used for disannul that is used in expressing atonement for
sins. Already from this use- of the word we can surmise
that when sins are spoken of as being covered, it does not
mean that they are merely hidden under a. covering, but
that they are blotted out, or made void, as we blot out a
writing by crossing over it. The same thing is expressed
by the Lord in other words, as when in another place he
says: "I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgres
sions, and, as a cloud, thy sins" (Is. xLiv. 22). In God's work
of salvation there is really a question of blotting out sins so
completely, that they shall no longer exist, but be entirely
removed, as is darkness by the shining of the sun, or as is
a cloud when it is wh&lly dissolved. And just in this
consists the atonement which the sacrifices typified. The
whole injury which Satan wrought God would bring to
naught; he would not merely throw a cover over it, and
then let it remain, but would wholly undo it. Yes, God be
praised. Thus we have a complete gospel, a divine gos
pel, one worthy of God, a gospel that contains salvation
for us.
to), thus giving the meaning: to cover over the sinner from, or as to,
his sin. In the English Versions this second preposition is gen
erally translated "as concerning", or, "as touching", or, "for" (cf.
Lev. iv. 26, 35; v. 0, 13, 18; xix. 22). It is very interesting and
instructive to notice how the Holy Spirit in the sacred writers
more and more worked the word kipper into a fine deep spiritual
meaning, so that in the later O. T. writings it is used almost
exclusively with God as the subject and sin as the direct object,
and evidently in the sense of to forgive, purge, and the like; and
thus, also, it is translated in the Versions (seePs. lxv. 3; Lxxviii.
88;i.xxix. 9; 2 Chron. xxx. 18; Is, vi. 7; xxii. 14; xxvii. 9; Jer.
xviii. 23; Ezek. xvi. 63). J, ©, p.

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 5 1
53. But let us proceed. Who is set forth in the first
and foremost place as the one that atones for sins? An
swer: It is God. But if God is the one who makes atone
ment for sins, then it cannot mean that he makes atone
ment for or appeases himself in regard to sins. No; it must
mean that he atones for sin, that he really blots out sins
— exactly as it is written. Thus we read, for instance, in
Ps. lxv. 3: "As for our transgressions, thou shalt purge
them away" [literally, "thou wilt atone for them," or,
"thou wilt cover them"]. And again, in Ps. Lxxviii. 3:.
"But he, being full of compassion, forgave [literally, "aton
ed for," or "covered"] their iniquities, and destroyed them
not." And again, in Ps. Lxxix. 9: "Help us, O God of
our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us,
and purge away [literally, "atone for," or "cover over"]
our sins, for thy name's sake." Likewise we read in Ezek.
xvi. 62, 63, the following beautiful words: "And I will
establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know
that I am the Lord: that thou mayest remember, and be
confounded, and never open thy mouth any. more because
of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that
thou hast done, saith the Lord God" [the last clause liter
ally:'' when I atone for thee for all that thou hast done,
saith the Lord Jehovah"; of which the Rev. Version makes
good sense in rendering: "When I have forgiven thee
all," etc.].* Thus let us hold fast to this — for it is a
"golden treasure" in the knowledge of God — : God is the
one that atones and reconciles — mark well: not the one
for whom atonement is made, or the one who is recon
ciled, or propitiated, but the one who makes atonement
for sinners and for sins — for our sins.

* In such passages our [Swedish] Versions — even the
last proof-translation — render the word "atone" by "forgive".
Such rendering causes one who is unaquainted with the original
text not fully to see how the word "atone" is used in the Old
Testament.

52 THE RECONCILIATION.
54. Thus we have noticed the expression "atone for
sin," or, "make atonement for sin" — forgive, blot out sin.
Now let us note more particularly the other expression of
a similar import in the Old Testament: God atones for
sinners, or, makes atonement for sinners. For to atone,
or to make atonement, for sinners is nothing else than to
blot out their sins. Thus, for instance, it is said in Deut.
xxi. 8 [according to the Hebrew] : "Make an atonement,
0 Lord, for thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed."*
What could it mean that God should make an atonement
for his people? Answer: Nothing else than that he should
blot out that sin which was clinging to the people — that
he should cleanse and sanctify his people. Another pass
age where the same expression occurs is 2 Chr. xxx. 18
and 19, where we read: "But Hezekiah prayed for them,
saying, The good Lord pardon [literally, atone for] every
one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of
his fathers, though he be not cleansed** according to the
purification ofthe sanctuary" (that is, even if he be not
purified according to the Mosaic statutes). What, then,
did it mean, that God would make an atonement for those
who "prepared their hearts'' [better, acording to the Rev.
Ver., "set their hearts"] to seek him, but who were not
purified according to the law of Moses? Answer: It meant
that he would cleanse them from that uncleanness which
according to the law of Moses clung to them. This, too,
is the explanation immediately given in the next verse,
where it is said: "And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and
* Thus also according to the Swedish new proof translation.
The English Auth. Ver. has: "Be merciful unto," etc. The Rev.
Ver. has it: "Forgive," etc. J. G. P.
** As the italicized words, he be cleansed, have nothing cor
responding to them in the original text, they might just as well
have been omitted from the translation; or the words atoned for,
understood from the beginning of the sentence, might here have
been repeated so as to have made the clause read: "though he be
not atoned for [or, reconciled] according to," etc. J. G. P.

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 53
healed the people," — listen: "healed," that is, sanctified
and cleansed the people from their ceremonial and moral
uncleanness. Well, we say it again: Let us keep it as "a
golden treasure" in our knowledge of God, that he, God,
is not a God who demands compensation or atonement
for himself, but a God who himself atones for sins and
sinners, that is, he cleanses sinners by blotting out their sins.
55. It is, also, precisely the very same thought which
is expressed by the sacrifices of the Old Testament.
Through the blood of these sacrifices the priest, as the
representative of God, was to atone for those that were
unclean, that is, in a typical manner cleanse them from
their sins. This is expressed also in such a way that the
priest was said to "atone for him [the one who had sin
ned] from his sins" (thus literally, according to the Hebrew,
in Lev. iv. 26; cf. verses 20, 31, and 35*.) Think what a
remarkable expression this is: "atone a sinner from his
sins." But how plain does it not make the meaning ofthe
word, "atone," when I consider what meaning thus God
himself puts into it: namely, to cleanse, or, to sanctify.
Therefore, to make atonement for, or, to reconcile a sinner
"from" sin is to cleanse him from sin, and that is the work
of God, and not of men. But God did that then in a typ
ical or figurative way through the priest and the blood of
the sacrifices. Just as in Ezek. xvi. 63 it is said (accord
ing to the original, as we have seen) that God atones for
the sinner for all his sins, so in Lev. v. 18 it is said that
the priest shall atone for the sinner "concerning the thing
wherein he erred" [Revised Version]. It was the work of
God eVen when it was done by the priest. But by the fact
that God did it through the priest, he wished to give his
people a prophetic intimation of the true priest, the only

* The English Versions translate the Hebrew preposition
which corresponds to 'from" (min, contracted into mi' or m') by
"as concerning," or, "as touching." See note on pages 49 and
50. J. G. P.

54 THE RECONCILIATION.
begotten Son of God, who, as the representative of God,
should in truth by his own blood atone for, or cleanse, sin
ners from their sins.
56. This significance of the sacrifices, that they
should cleanse from sin, we find with special clearness set
forth in the great sacrifice on the day of atonement, which
sacrifice was the sum of all the sacrifices that were offered
for sin. Let us therefore more clearly consider the
description of this sacrifice as we read it in Lev. xvi. In
the first place, Aaron was to make an atonement for him
self and for his house by the blood of a sacrificed bullock
and by the sacrifice of a ram (verses 3, 6, 11), that is, he
should cleanse himself and his house from sin, that he .
might afterwards be fitted to make atonement for the
people. After that he was to take two goats, and kill one
of them as a sin offering for the people, but present the
other one alive before the Lord (verse 10). Then first
with the blood of-the bullock, afterwards with the blood
of the killed goat, he was to enter into "the holy place
within the veil, before the mercy-seat," and sprinkle it
(the blood) upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-
seat. When he had come out from the inner holy place,
then he was, in like manner, to sprinkle the blood upon
the tabernacle (the outer holy place), and particularly
upon the altar there (verses 14 — 19). And mark, God
calls these actions "to make atonement for the holy place,"
"to make atonement for the tabernacle," and "to make atone
ment for the altar." But how does he explain this atone
ment? Is it explained in such a way, that God should
thereby become gracious toward the holy place, the tab
ernacle, and the altar? No; but this is what is said in verse
16: "And he [Aaron, the high priest] shall make an atone
ment for the holy place, because of* the uncleanness of the
children of Israel, and because of* their transgressions in
* Instead of the words "because of" in the English Versions

CONCERNING THE 0. T. SACRIFICES. 55
all their sins." But if we wish to know what it means to
make an atonement for the holy place "from" sins [that
is, "for", or, "as to", or, "because of sins], then we are
plainly told, in the 19th verse, that it means to "cleanse
it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of
Israel." Some one, objecting, may say: "But the holy
place could not really have any sins from which it needed
to be cleansed." Answer: The cleansing of the taber
nacle was a type of the cleansing of the people. There
fore, also, it is said that the holy place, the tabernacle,
and the altar should be cleansed "from" [thus literally;
the Versions have it: "because of] "the transgressions of
the children of Israel" (verse 16). Here, then, not a word
is said about appeasing, or propitiating, or reconciling
God. No; all had for its aim the blotting out of sins and
the cleansing of the sinner. It is — we repeat it again with
joy — it is God, the ever faithful Jehovah, the God of Israel, .
who in the sacrifices of atonement reveals himself as the one
who atones for, or cleanses, his sinful people from all their
sins.*

the Hebrew has "from" (the preposition min, as observed in
previous notes). J. G. P.
* In the Old Testamenfthe expression "to atone for sin" is
used also with the meaning: "to procure the forgiveness of sins
by intercession." Thus Moses, for instance, speaks to the people
who had worshiped the golden calf: "Ye have sinned a great sin:
and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an
atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the Lord, and
said, 'Oh, this people have sinned a great sin .... Yet now, if
thou wilt forgive their sin — ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee,
out of thy book which thou hast written'" (Ex. xxxii. 30 — 32). Of
such an atonement of sin the apostle James speaks in chap v. 14
and 15, where he says: "Is any sick among you? let him call for
the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing
him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith
shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if he
have committed sins they sliall be forgiven him." Hence, this is
something which is continually taking place in the Christian

56 THE RECONCILIATION.
57. O how beautifully and sweetly has not God, in
that wonderful sacrifice of atonement, set forth what sig
nificance he meant there should be in that which he called
atonement! But in order that we may be still more cer
tain, Jet us look also at the last part of this expiatory
sacrifice, or the treatment of the live goat. This goat was
to be presented alive before God, and atonement be made
"for him" [thus literally and truly in vers 10 of Lev. xvi.
The rendering of the phrase in the Engl. Rev. Ver. is cor
rect, and the only rendering that is admissible, "for" de
noting the direct object of the atonement, here as every
where else] . What does it mean that atonement should
be made for the goat? Just think what a remarkable ex
pression: the goat should be atoned for. That can indeed
never mean that God should be appeased, or propitiated,
or reconciled. No; "atone for'' means here the same
thing as at other places, to wit, make holy, sanctify, or
cleanse. That atonement should be made for the goat
meant, therefore, that in a typical or symbolical way he
should be santified [separated, ordedicated] for the pur
pose of carrying off the sins of the people. For we read in
verse 21 that the sins ofthe people were to be confessed
over the live goat; and then that goat was to be sent out
into the wilderness, and on himself carry away all the ini
quities of the children of Israel into the wilderness. Think
what a lifelike painting! Let us repeat it once more: the
thing purposed by God in the atonement was the cleansing
of the people by the taking away of their sins. And this did
God do through the high priest in a symbolical manner by
the sacrifice. Therefore, finally, in verse 30 it is said, as
a complete explanation of this great sacrificial act: "For
on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you;

church, to wit, that one in this way atones for the sins of an
other. But it is evident that this is quite a different thing from
that which is spoken of God when it is said that he atones for
sin.

CONCERNING THE O. T. SACRIFICES. 57
from all your sins shall you be clean before the Lord."*
Hear, and hear it over again: "atonement made for you"
— not for God; — your reconciliation • — not the reconcilia
tion of God; — so that "ye shall be cleansed from all your
sins" — not that God should be appeased from all his '
wrath. Thus reads God's own clear explanation, and that
must be reliable. Praise be to God for ever.
58. Consequently, from the Old Testament itself we
obtain the most definite and the most reliable explanation
of the significance of the atoning or expiatory sacrifices,
and what kind of atonement was accomplished by them.
From this explanation we have found: i. that the atone
ment which was typified by the sacrifices never aimed at
appeasing or compensating God by means of vicarious
penal suffering; 2. that, for this reason, God is never in
the law of sacrifices mentioned as the object of the.atone-
ment;** 3. that the atonement typified by the sacrifices
* Thus the Revised Version, which is substantially like the
Swedish: "On that day your atonement [or, reconciliation] is
made," so that ye shall be cleansed," etc. The Auth. Version
needlessly inserts "the priest" in the first clause, and makes that
clause active instead- of passive. — J. G. P.
** Sometimes men have tried to make out that the Script
ural expression, "to atone for sins," properly means: "to make
atonement or satisfaction unto God in regard to sins," or, "to
make God propitious (or, to conciliate God) in regard to sins."
But how unbiblical this idea is can be seen from such passages
as, for instance, Lev. x. 17, where mention is made of making
"atonement for the sins of men before the Lord," which accord
ingly should mean : making atonement or satisfaction unto the
Lord before the Lord in regard to the sins of men! — or making
the Lord propitious before the Lord, or conciliating the Lord
before the Lord, etc. ! Likewise from such passages as, for in
stance, the one quoted above, Lev. iv. 26, where it is said that
atonement should be made for a sinner "as concerning his sin'*
[literally, "from his sin"]. What place in such an expression
has the thought of making atonement or satisfaction unto God,
or of making God propitious, or of conciliating God in regard to
sin?! [What meaning could there be in an "explanation" like

58 THE RECONCILIATION.
consisted in the taking away of sins, and the cleansing of
sinners before God; 4. that, therefore, always sinners or
their sins are set forth as the objects of the atonement; 5.
that God is spoken of as the one from whom the atone
ment proceeds. Noticing carefully this explanation ofthe
atonement by the Old Testament itself, who cannot then
see how one and the same great divine thought runs
through all the redemption works of God: to wit, man —
man, deceived by the cunning of Satan — man, gone
astray and lost in sin — man, wandering from and hostile
towards God — man is to be saved from sin; God wills
it, for he is love. God is the one who is to accomplish
this; he alone is able to do it — he, God, the eternally
unchangeable and faithful God. O my soul, sink down,
sink deep down into this thought. The deeper you sink
down into it, the more it will lift you up: up — up to the
eternally faithful and righteous God, the God with a

this: "The priest should make God propitious in regard to sin for
the sinner from his sin"? On the other hand, how clear andgrand
is not the meaning according to God's own explanation of the
atonement by the sacrifices: The priest should on behalf of God
cleanse the sinner from his sin; or, in other wi.rds, by accepting
the sacrifice which the sinner brought, who thereby expressed his
repentance and confession of sins, and his devotion to God, the
priest should give assurance that the sinner, thus sacrificing, had
his sins blotted out. — J. G. P.]. And besides this, please notice
that when the Old Testament writers mean to say "appease any
one," or, "pacify the wrath of any one," then they express them
selves just as they mean. Thus Jacob says in Gen. xxxii. 20: "1
will appease him (Esau) with the present," etc. There, to be most
accurate, the words read thus: "I will cover his (Esau's) face,"
etc. In Prov. xvi. 14 it is said: "The wrath of a king is as mes
sengers of death: but a wise man will pacify it." [See verse 6 in the
same chap, for the general deep spiritual meaning of the word
"purged," literally, "atoned for." — J. G. P.] Hence, "to appease
Esau," and "to pacify the wrath of a king," this indeed does the
Bible say. But "to appease God," that it nowhere says, and
why?

THE SACRIFICES ACCORDING TO THE N. T. 59
father's heart greater than all fathers' hearts in heaven
or on-earth. 59. But what the New Testament says concerning
the sacrifices we will reserve for the next chapter. God,
our 'Father in heaven, take away all veils from our eyes
and all deceit out ot our hearts, that we may be fitted to
look into the endless riches of thy truth and grace, as
they are in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

CHAPTER IV.
Concerning the Sacrifices according to the New Testament.
60. "But now once in the end of the world [or, ages]
hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"
(Heb. ix. 26). In the preceding chapter we have seen
how the Old Testament explains the sacrifices which were
appointed by the law of Moses; and we are now to exam
ine if, and how, the New Testament explains them. What
have the apostles seen in the sacrifices of the Old Testa
ment, and how have they, in their New Testament writ
ings, applied the doctrines which they found in them? —
behold, these are questions which indeed must be of great
importance to us. It might, perhaps, be eo that the
apostles through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit
saw a greater and deeper significance in the sacrifices
than Moses and the prophets could have seen. Let us
therefore conscientiously search into this matter.
61. As wev read John xi. 55 we find a little word
which at first seems insignificant, but which on closer
notice is forthwith fitted to throw Hght on the sacrifices.
This is what there is said: "The Jews' passover was at
hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem
before the passover, to purify themselves." Mark the
little word "purify" themselves (or, as the expression of

6o- THE RECONCILIATION.
the evangelist most properly means, "sanctify" them
selves). He that would approach the Lord must be clean
(Gen. xxxv. 2). When, for instance, the children of Israel
were to appear before God at Sinai, God said to Moses:
"Go unto the people, and sanctify* them to-day and to
morrow, and let them wash their clothes . . . And Moses
went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified
the people" (Ex. xix. 10, 14). If any one had become
unclean according to the Mosaic statutes, he must first
purify himself before he could eat the paschal lamb before
the Lord. The evangelist means to say that, for this
reason, many such as were "unclean" went up to Jerusalem
somewhat in advance of the passover feast itself, in order
that they might have time to purify, or sanctify, themselves
before the feast proper commenced. Such purifications
were done partly by washing, and partly by sacrifices
Consequently, the meaning of the sacrifices according to
this Scripture passage was that they were to purify, or
sanctify, those who in some way were unclean according
to the law of Moses.
62. In Heb. ii. 17 and 18 we read the following
words: "In all things it behoved him [that is, Christ] to be
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful
and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
reconciliation [the Revised Ver. has "propitiation"] for
the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered
being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."
There is no doubt that the apostle in these words refers
to the sacrifices of the Old Testament whose typical
significance he sees fulfilled in Christ. He, Christ, by
being made like unto his brethren, and by his own tempta
tions and sufferings, was to become a faithful highpriest
for them who are tempted and suffer. And his work as

* In this passage the Septuagint [the Greek translation ofthe
Old Testament] uses the same Greek word that is used in John
xi. 55, and which in our versions is rendered "purify."

THE SACRIFICES ACCORDING TO THE N. T. 6 1
high priest was to make propitiation for the sins of the
people. The apostle does not say, "to propitiate God,"
but, "to make propitiation for the sins of the people,"
precisely as in the Old Testament it was said of the sig
nificance of the sacrifices. But how was this to be done?
We can understand that from the type. As the high
priest, during the times of the Old Testament, in a typical
manner made atonement for sins by sacrifices, which act
was explained to mean that he sanctified and cleansed
sinners from their sins; so Christ, as the true high priest,
giving himself up for a sacrifice, was in truth and reality,
by means of his blood, to cleanse sinners from all their
sins, and to present them in the sight of God holy and
righteous, not having spot or wrinkle. As John says:
"The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin"
(i John i. 7). But to cleanse is to cleanse, or purify, and
nothing else. Perfect purity from sin — for this the high
priests of the Old Testament were groping with their sacriT
fices. But they never grasped or reached it. The blood
of Jesus, however, — it really cleanses from all sin; and
when once all his work shall have been consummated,
then there shall stand around his throne a great multitude,
which no man can number, a multitude of human beings
pure and holy like himself. And were you to ask how
they have become so pure, they would answer that they
"washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of
the Lamb" (Rev. vii. 14). Mark, mark, not that they by
the blood of Jesus have appeased God; no, but that they in
the blood of Jesus have washed their robes. Yea, perhaps
you yourself will stand there among that multitude —
will you? 63. But especially in the ninth and tenth chapters
of the epistle to the Hebrews it is permitted us to look
more deeply into the mystery of the Old Testament sacri
fices in the light of the New Testament. After the apostle
has, in the beginning of the ninth chapter, described the

62 THE RECONCILIATION.
sanctuary, and has shown that the Old Testament sacrifices
never could make them that did the service perfect, as
pertaining to the conscience, then he adds: "But when
Christ came as a high priest of the good things to come, he
entered in through the greater and more perfect tabernacle,
one not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation,
nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through
his own blood, once for all into the holy place, having ob
tained eternal redemption" (verses n and 12*). In the
blood of the Old Testament sacrifices there was never any
real deliverance from sins. The high priests went again
and again into the holy place with the blood of goats and
of calves; but they never found the sought-for redemption
or deliverance. But in the blood of Jesus redemption is
found from all sin forever. The blood of Jesus cleanses
really from all sin; and just therein the redemption con
sists — real deliverance from sin.
64. But let us now hear how the apostle more de
finitely explains the matter. In verses 13 and 14 (of Heb.
ix.) he says: " For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the
ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled,
sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more
shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit of
fered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your con
science from dead works to serve the living God?" [Revised
Version]. What was it the apostle said? Here, indeed, it
behooves us, as it were, to spell and syllabify each word.
Because we are like children who from the beginning have
acquired the habit of reading carelessly, and for whom
there is no other help than to begin to spell out the words
as if they never before had seen a book. What, then,
according to the idea of the apostle, were the sacrifices of
* Translated from the Author's (P. W.'s) Swedish render
ing, in which it appears that the clauses and the sentence as a
whole are more plainly constructed than in either of the English
Versions, — J. G. P,

THE SACRIFICES ACCORDING TO THE N. T. 63
goats and oxen meant to do? Answer: To appease God?
No; but to sanctify the unclean unto an outward cleanness.
To effect any spiritual cleansing or to make the worship
pers perfect as touching the conscience, that they could
not do (verse 9). "For the law made nothing perfect"
(Heb. vii. 19). But the sacrifices of the Old Testament
were only types. In the New Testament there is a better
sacrificial blood, the blood of Jesus Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit has offered himself unto God; and what
was its significance according to the idea af the apostle?
Did he say: "How much more, then, shall the blood of
Christ appease God, so that again it may be possible for
him to be gracious unto us'.'? No; but he did say this:
"How much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse your '
conscience, from dead works to serve the living God."
Hence, here also we have the same doctrine, the same
blessed gospel of God. To cleanse — to cleanse from
sin, that is the power of the sacrificial blood in the New
Testament. The sacred blood of Jesus cleanses from sins
"though they be red like crimson."
65. Further on in the same chapter the apostle shows
how almost all things in the old Covenant are purged with
blood, so that without shedding of blood there is no re
mission of sin (of which matter we have previously spoken),
and then he adds (verse 23): "It was therefore necessary
that the patterns [copies] of the things in the heavens
should be purified with these [viz., Old Testament sacri
fices] ; but fhe heavenly things themselves with better sacri
fices than these." Hence, according to this, what sig
nificance does the apostle see in the sacrifices of the Old
Testament? Answer: That they were to purify, or cleanse,
the typical sanctuary. And this, also, is precisely what is
written in Lev. xvi., as we saw in our preceding chapter.
But better sacrifices, namely Christ's, were necessary to ¦
cleanse "the heavenly things themselves," that is, the
heavenly sanctuary. Whatever the apostle may mean by

64 THE RECONCILIATION.
the heavenly sanctuary — yet surely we must see that he
sets forth the meaning ofthe sacrifices to be that of cleans
ing. And in one of the following verses he explains this
cleansing as meaning that Christ once for all now at the
end of the ages has been manifested "to put away sin by
the sacrifice of himself" (verse 26). In verse 28 he repeats
the same thought, saying: "Christ was once offered to
bear [that is, for the purpose of bearing or taking away]
the sins of many," Thus what in other places is called
atonement for sins through sacrifices, that is here called a
putting away* of sins, or a bearing them away. But to put
away or bear sins is really to take them away, not to throw
a covering over them, that God may not see them although
they remain; no, but it means to put them away, to re
move them, and present before God those who heretofore
were sinners as now truly holy and cleansed from all evil.
And this is the work of God, the work which he himself in
Christ carries out. This, too, is the essence of the atone
ment as typified in the sacrifices. With any thing less
neither God can be satisfied nor man be happy.
66. But we pass on to the tenth chapter. There the
apostle says: "For the law having a shadow of good things
to come, and not the very image [standard, or essence] of
the things, can never with those sacrifices which they [the
Old Testament worshippers] offered year by year con
tinually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then
would they [the sacrifices] not have ceased to be offered?
because that the worshippers once purged should have had
no more conscience of sins" (verses 1 and 2). Hence,
* To show what meaning lies in this expression of the
apostle ( "put away," in verse 26), we will here .remark that it is
the same word which the apostle uses in Heb. vii. 18, where he
says: "Por there is verily a disannulling of the commandment
going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof —
[these two passages (Heb. vii. 18 and ix. 26) being the only ones
in the New Test, where the word occurs as a noun; as a verb it
occurs in several.as e. g. 1 Cor. i. 19, Gal. ii, 31, iii. 15, — f,G,P.]

THE SACRIFICES ACCORDING TO THE N. T. 65
what significance did the apostle see in the sacrifices? An
swer: That of perfecting or perfectly cleansing sinners from
Sin. But this the sacrifices of the Old Covenant could not
•do. -They could represent sins as taken away, but could not
take them away. Wherefore they really came to mean
rather a yearly remembrance of sins than a blotting out of
them (verse 3). They could, indeed, as we have seen
before, effect a cleanness of the flesh (Heb. ix. 13), but
they could not effect a real, spiritual cleansing or deliver
ance from sin. "For," the apostle adds, "it is not possible
that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins"
(verse 4). Listen, here, consequently, we have it again:
not to appease God, but to take away sins — that was the
question. Mot to throw a covering over the sins, and
then let them remain; but to take them away — that was
the atonement-idea which lay in the sacrifices. Next, the
apostle quotes the words ofthe Messiah in Ps. xl: "Lo, I
come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do
thy will, O God." And he, the apostle, adds: "By the
which will [or, in consequence of which will] we are sancti
fied through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for
all" (verse 10). What, again, does the apostle here say?
"By which will" — whose will? Answer: God's will. And
"we," says the apostle — ¦ who, what "we"? Does he mean
the world? Why,. no; he did not write to the world, but to
the believers, such as were chosen out of the world. And
what had taken place by (that is, in consequence of) that
will of God? Answer: That Christ had come into the world,
and, by the offering of himself once for all, had sanctified
those who believed in him. Hearken, here it is yet once more:
to sanctify sinners, really to cleanse them from sin, that it
was which the oft-repeated sacrifices of the Old Testament
were indeed able to typify, but never to effect; but that is
just what the sacrifice of Christ, once for all made and
never to be repeated, does not typify, but does really ac
complish in all them that believe in him.

66 THE RECONCILIATION.
67. But the apostle in continuing begins, as it were,
over again, in order to impress the matter more thoroughly,
when he adds: "And every priest standeth daily ministering
and offering often times the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins" (verse 11). Hear, there you find
again what the question is about — not to render payment
to God, but to take away sins. And the apostle uses a
word [peri-elein, to remove or carry away round about or
on all sides] which indicates that we are on all sides
surrounded by sins, which entirely enclose us as the walls
of a prison. Then he adds: "But this man" (that is Christ),
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down
on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his
enemies be made his footstool" (verses 12 and 13). As
though the apostle would say: He needs not to come
again, in order to renew or repeat his sacrifice, as the priests
of the Old Covenant did. "For," he adds, "by one offer
ing" — not by a multitude of offerings — "he hath per
fected for ever them that are sanctified" (verse 14). Con
sequently, once more: to perfect, to sanctify — that was
the aim and object ofthe sacrifices, ofthe Old Testament
sacrifices and of Christ's sacrifice. That the apostle so
ceaselessly repeats the same thing shows how great an em
phasis he has put thereon. The Old Testament had many
offerings, yet these could never make any one perfect.
The New Testament has only one offering, and by that,
says the apostle, the Lord has "perfected for ever them
that are sanctified." The high priest in the Old Testa
ment, when he had sanctified the people, could never say:
"I have now by this offering perfected for ever the sanc
tified." No; after a little while the sacrifice had to be
done over again. But the sacrifice of Christ extends in its
effects over all time. All who hitherto have been sancti
fied have been perfected by this offering. But what it
hitherto has accomplished, it will also henceforth accom
plish. It never needs to be -repeated, but one and the

THE SACRIFICES ACCORDING TO THE N. T. 67
same sacrifice shall continually until the end of days —
yea, throughout ages to come — perfect all them that are
sanctified by faith in Jesus (Acts. xxvi. 18).
68. To the sacrifices ofthe Old Testament also the
apostle John has reference when he says that Christ is the
propitiation for our sins. His exact words are these:
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye
sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [or, a
helper] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he
is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but
also for the sins ofthe whole world" (i John ii. i and 2).
For the apostle it was an important matter, that the believ
ers should not sin. But if it so happened that any one
sinned, he would not turn him away from the mercy-seat,
or turn him over to death or the devil. No; God forbid.
On the contrary, he directs the attention of such a one to
the fact that, with the Father in heaven, or at the right
hand of the Father in heaven, he has a helper to whom he
may turn. The apostle uses here a word about Christ
\_parakletos] which properly means "one called or sent
for," that is, one that is sent for or called to the help or
assistance of any one in whatever case it may be. The
same word is used also of the Holy Ghost, and is then
commonly translated "Comforter" (John xiv. 16, 26; xv.
26; xvi. 7). Therefore, if you have sinned, do not think
this way: "Now all hope is gone, and I must despair;"
but make haste to this your exalted Helper, Jesus, who is
with the Father. He can help you, for "he is righteous,"
the apostle says; "and he is the propitiation for the whole
world" [thus correctly rendered by the Revised Version] .
If he himself were a sinner, he could not help sinners; but
now he is righteous, as God is righteous, wherefore he is
the right man for sinners to go to. Think what a com
forting representation this is of true righteousness.
69. "And he is the propitiation for our sins'" says the
apostle, "and not for our's [the believers'] only, but also

68 THE RECONCILIATION.
for the whole world." Mark the words. .They do not
say: "He has paid, or purchased a propitiation, for our
sins." No, it is not thus written, and therefore no one
ought to read it (or understand it) as if it were thus written.
Consequently, what here is written is this: "He is the
propitiation." Further, it is not written: "This or that work
of Jesus is the propitiation." It is not written: "His suf
ferings and death constitute the propitiation." No, the
words do not say so, and therefore no one ought to read
(or understand) them as if they did say so. No; but this
they say: "He is the propitiation" — he, he himself in his
own person. But what does that mean? Let us see. We
can learn the meaning of this from other similar express
ions. In John xi. 25 the Lord says of himself: "/ am the
resurrection, and the life." Now, what does that mean?
Answer: Why, of course, that he as the divine Saviour is
the one that raises the dead, and quickens them to life.
David often says of God: "He is my peace," "my salva
tion," "my consolation," etc., that is, he is the one that
gives me peace, saves me, and consoles me. Well, then,
neither is it now difficult to understand what it means
that he is the propitiation. He as the divine Saviour is
that person who through his blood "propitiates sinners from
their sins" (if we could use such an expression), that is,
he propitiates sinners so that they get rid of their sins, he
cleanses and sanctifies them from their sins. And this is
indeed just what a sinner needs. O think how beautiful
and comforting the reference of the apostle is, when he
refers the one who sins to such a Saviour who really sanc
tifies and cleanses sinners from all sins — a really right
eous and divine Saviour, who at the same time is a true
and real man. Therefore, thou sorrowing and troubled
soul, thou who hast sinned, and art distressed, and knowest
not what to do, remember that Jesus is the propitiation,
the' great propitiatory sacrifice for the whole world, he
whose blood cleanses from all sins. Go to him, and he

THE SACRIFICES ACCORDING TO THE N. T. 69
will help you out of your sin. Trust yourself wholly unto
him. He will forgive you all, and cleanse you from all
your wrong-doing.
70. The apostle uses the same manner of expression
when he says in another place: "Herein is love, not that
we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be
the propitiation for our sins" (i J ohn iv. 10). Mark the
words again ¦ — word for word. Foremost the apostle puts
love — not our love, but God's, — that love he puts at
head of the atonement. There everything begins: "God
is love" (verse 8). Who were they whom God loved?
Answer: "us," the apostle says; and by that little word
he means himself and those to whom he wrote. Hence,
his words in this passage have reference to believers. But
that which he here says concerning them, is true also con
cerning the world, as we see from other passages, for
instance John iii. 16: "God so loved the world." But what,
then, did God do on account of this his love? Answer:
"He sent his Son to be a propitiation 'as concerning our
sins" [thus literally rendered] , and "as concerning the sins
of the whole world" (i John ii. 2 [the last phrase of which
verse, more correctly rendered, says simply: "as concern
ing the whole world"]). There you see, consequently,
how the apostle speaks of God, not as one who for himself
demands satisfaction, but as one who sarifices his Son, in
order that he may atone for, that is, blot out, our sins, and
make good the injury which we have entailed upon our
selves and suffered through the fall.
71. Hence, also in the New Testament there is the
same explanation of the sacrifices. And how could it be
possible that God should contradict himself? Mark how
everything in this matter aims at this: to eliminate or
clear out from humanity that deadly poison — sin — which
satan has injected into us, and to restore us unto God so
thoroughly clean and holy as he originally had created
us. And this through the blood of Christ, by making us

7° THE RECONCILIATION.
partakers of the life of Christ, as the apostle John says:
"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth, us from all
sin" (t John i. 7). The blood of Christ is a poison for
sin. As sin has been for us a poison causing our death,
so the blood of Christ is for sin a poison causing its death
and our quickening in righteousness. O my soul, rest
and breathe here. Take deep breaths of this heavenly air,
for great is your God, and great are his works. Praise be
to God for ever for his unspeakable gift.

CHAPTER V.
Man and the World as Objects of the Reconciliation, or
the Atonement.
72. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself" (2 Cor. v. 19). These words of the apostle do
most briefly, yet very clearly and completely, set forth the
very essence of the atonement, or the reconciliation. When
we started to speak of the reconciliation [§§ 7 and 11], we
raised the question if it was God or man or both parties,
who was or were to be reconciled. Now we have searched
through the Bible, and have found that it does not in a
single place — either in the Old or the New Testament —
speak of God as being reconciled. But if the Bible, the
principal contents of which are all about reconciliation,
never speaks of reconciling God, then neither ought we to
speak thereof. For the apostle Peter says: "If any man
speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. iv. n).
The love of God had not been diminished through man's
sin, so that it needed to be improved, increased or re
stored; nor could, by any means, God's hatred of sin be
done away with, for if he did not hate sin, he would not
be righteous; neither could God's displeasure to those who
live in sin be done away with, because even yet, this very

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. 'jl
day, God is displeased with all who live in sin. No change
has taken place in him. He remains the same, the one
he is; with him there is "no variableness, neither shadow
of turning." He is the eternally faithful, unchangeable
God, whose name is Jehovah (i. e. "I am that I am").
73. On the contrary, man needed to be reconciled
to God. But before we proceed further to speak of this,
we will here remark that the Bible has two different terms
to express the idea of atonement, or reconciliation. One
of these terms is used to express what is generally trans
lated "atone for sin" [Swedish, " forsona synd"] or "atone
for sinners from (or, ay td) their sins" [Swedish, "forsona
syndarefrdn deras synder"], that is, blot out sin, or cleanse
and sanctify sinners from their sins.* Concerning this
we have in the preceding two chapters spoken at large.
The other term is used to express what is generally trans
lated "reconcile sinners to God" [Swedish, "forsona syn-
dare med Gud"**] . The meaning of this word ("recon-
* The Swedish transitive verb "forsona" takes as direct
object either the person or the thing; when both kinds of objects
are connected with the verb, the object of the thing is preceded
by the preposition "fran" (from), just as is the case with the
English verb cleanse — e. g. cleanse any one from any thing. As
to the corresponding Bible terms see my note to § 52. — J. G. P.
** It is to be noticed that the one Swedish word "fSrsona"
must be translated by different words in English: in expressions
like the above first mentioned we must say "atone for sin," and
"atone for sinners;" but in expressions like the second (i. e. the
one to which this note is attached) we must say "reconcile sin.
ners to God." A great deal of queer, mystifying English-Amer
ican theology has been grounded on these different ways of
expressing really the same thing. To "atone (or, make atone
ment) for sin" is, in biblical sense and language, to blot out or
purge away sin; to"atone (or, make atonement) for sinners" is to
purge or cleanse sinners morally and spiritually; — the one is
really cleansing (or removing) sin from sinners, the other is
cleansing sinners from their sins, and what more is done or can
be done when sinners are reconciled, that is, changed from a state
of mind in sin to a state of mind in holiness? Plainly, it is all the

72 THE RECONCILIATION.
cile") is, properly, to bring any one into a different, into a
right, relation to any one. Just as when the first of these
expressions is used, it is never said, "atone (or, make
atonement) for God or for the wrath of God," so when the
second of these expressions is used, it is never said, "re
concile God to sinners," but always, "reconcile sinners to
God." This we can also easily understand. God had
never come into any wrong relation to men, and therefore
he never needed to be brought again into a right relation
to them. On the contrary, men had come into a wrong
relation to God, and they therefore needed to be brought
again into a right relation to him. On this depended their
happiness, and their deliverance from all the suffering
which their apostasy had caused.
74. Behold here an illustration. If an arm be wrested
out of joint, and thereby comes into a wrong relation to
the body, it becomes useless for the work for which it was
created, and must suffer much pain. For it is so created
that it cannot be well, neither can it accomplish its work,
without being in a right relation to the body. If it is to
be healed, and to be freed from pain," and fitted for its
work, it must be brought again into a right relation to the
body. This is not a change that is to take place in the
body; no, but the change that must take place is a change
in and with the arm. When it again comes into a right
relation to the body, then it is fitted for its work and feels
well. Behold, in a similar manner man has through sin
come into a wrong relation to God, has thereby become
incapacitated for all the good whereunto he was created,
and has fallen under the dominion of 'death. Man has
been so created that he cannot be happy without God.
"In him we live, and move, and have our being," says the
apostle (Acts xvii. 28). To be, in a spiritual sense, severed
same thing, the same work, aDd the same result, only viewed
as to or under different aspects. More on these terms is said in
my notes to §§ 1 and 51. — J. G. P.

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. 73
from him is therefore death and unhappiness — ¦ a terrible
unhappiness. If the sinner is to be saved at all, his sal
vation depends on his coming again into a right relation
to the God who has given him his life. This is reconcili
ation, a necessary reconciliation, and the reconciliation of
which the New Testament speaks: the reconciliation of
- man to God, not the reconciliation of God to man.
75. The Scriptures testify that man by nature, as
estranged from God, is carnal. It is not the Spirit of
God that fills and rules him, but the flesh, that is, the old
inherited Adamic nature. But "the carnal mind" ["the
mind of the flesh," according to the Rev. Vers.]- "is en-"
mity against God," says Paul (Rom. viii. 7). That is the
chief trouble; not this or that transgression or misdeed;
nay, but the very mind, the entire nature, as inherited from
Adam, with all its quality, state, and condition, is enmity
against God: "for it [i. e., this mind] is not subject to the
law of God, neither indeed can it be." Of the same thing
the apostle speaks in Col. i. 21, where he says to the
Christians: "Ye were sometime alienated and enemies
in your mind by wicked works."* "The wicked [or evil]
works" of the ungodly are never isolated; they are ex
pressions of the wicked, or evil, mind. And the evil mind
is enmity against God. This the natural man will never
admit. Even though he may admit that now and then in
his life and in his works he may be at fault or be mistaken,
still he will hold that in the depths of his heart he is good.
But no, says the apostle, the natural mind itself in man is
enmity against God. It is a terrible judgment which the
apostle by these words pronounces upon all that bears
the name of man (as he is by nature); but it is a true
judgment. * The last part of this verse is more literally and correctly
rendered by the author (P. W.), according to the Greek: "ene
mies by [or, "through", or, "as to"] your mind in wicked works."
_ J. G. P.

74 THE RECONCILIATION.
76. Look at history as given in the Bible. As soon
as Adam and Eve had transgressed against God they be
came alienated in heart from him, averse to him, and fled
and hid themselves from him. This mind was transmitted
as a spiritual inheritance to all their posterity. God has
never done any evil or wrong to the world, nothing but
good; but still the world does shun him, and flees away
from him, not because he is averse to the world, but be
cause the mind of the world is averse to him. Men ofthe
world may, perhaps, read the word of God, make or say
prayers, and sing, and outwardly revere God, but still there
always remains a wall between them and God. They never
feel joyful and happy in God, are never really at ease in
his presence, but always feel most free and easy when they
can slip away from him, and forget him. For that reason
they also never really understand those who are happy in
God, but regard -them as extravagant and fanatical, and
believe that their lives must be very empty of joy, etc. In
short, the heart of the world is estranged from and dead
to God, averse to him; and this makes it unblest. Here,
as we have said, a reconciliation must take place, a re
conciliation which brings man into an entirely different
relation to God, if he is to become happy. But how,
then, can such a reconciliation be brought about? Answer:
By the removal of sin, and by the justification of man.
That which separates must be removed. Otherwise there
can be no reconciliation. But that which separates is
sin. From this fact we understand why "the reconcilia
tion ofthe sinner to God" always depends on "the atone
ment of the sins,"* that is, on the removal of the sins. We
* To show the force of the one Swedish word (f6rsona) for
both "reconciliation" and "atonement," the two expressions in
the text above might bo translated in this way: " 'The atonement
of the sinner uuto God' always depends on 'the atonement of the
sins.'" But at least the former of these expressions is not good
English, usage of language having decreed that it must be: "the
reconciliation ofthe sinner to God." And to use the word "recon-

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. 75
repeat it again: By being cleansed from sin, the sinner
comes into a right relation to God. In no other way can
such a relation be brought about.
77. Now let us consider all the passages in the New
Testament which speak of man's reconciliation to God.*
And may God give us grace carefully to attend to the
words, and to fix it firmly in our hearts that the spirit of
the Bible is nothing but what the words of the Bible tell
us. If we, in the judgment of some, should appear to fall
into repetitions while we endeavor to set forth these
matters, we answer with Paul: "To write the same things
to you, to me is not grievous [Rev. Vers.: "irksome"], but
for you it is safe" (Phil. iii. i). And most certainly it
gives the heart a wonderful sense of safety to see how
the dear old word again and again and everywhere speaks
and teaches the same thing. Now then, we will begin
with 2 Cor. v. 17.
78. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:
old things are passed away; behold, all things are become
new." Thus saith the apostle. He and all the believers
ciliation" in the latter of the above expressions would be still
less allowable, so as to say: "the reconciliation of sins." We
must, therefore, in English, use the word "reconciliation" in the
one instance, and ' 'atonement" in the other, — as if the two words
meant wholly different things, which in fact they do not, the
only difference being in the objects, not in the acts or results
tliemselves. See further the second note to § 13 — /. 6?. P.
* The expression, "to reconcile sinners to God," does not
occur in the Old Testament. There occur the expressions, ' 'alone
for "sins," "atone for sinners from [or, as to] their sins," and the .
like, meaning the same as "blot out [or, cleanse away] sins,"
"cleanse sinners from their sins," etc. While, consequently, the Old
Testament throughout considers the atonement, or the reconci
liation, from the view of blotting out sin, the New Testament
considers the same from the view of the sinner again coming into
a right relation to God. The one takes place through and si
multaneously with the other, but the latter says more than the
former. The former is more negative, the latter more positive.

76 THE RECONCILIATION.
of his time were, consequently, new creatures, new men;
their old manner of life in sin was ended, and a new mode
of being had begun. Their entire relation to God, to the
world, to sin, was different than before. And thus it was
by their being "in Christ," he says. "In Christ" is an
expression constantly recurring in Paul's letters. All that
the Christians are, all they possess, do, and expect, etc.,
all- — all this the apostle refers to this center: Christ.
Their peace, their life, their strength, their hope, their
salvation — all depends on their being in Christ. But to
be in Christ is to believe in him, for through faith the
sinner yields himself to Christ, and becomes one with
him. "But," the apostle adds, "all things are of God."
It is he who is the source of all this blessed change. And
in what way had God brought it about? Why, in this way
— the apostle answers — that he has "reconciled us to
himself by Jesus Christ." There you hear: only by the
way and means of reconciliation had this great salvation
come to them, to wit, that they had become reconciled to
God, and had thus come into a right relation to him. And
who had brought this about? Answer: God, the heavenly
Father. And by, or through, what means? Answer: By,
or through, Jesus Christ. Just think how plain and simple.
It was not Christ, who had reconciled God to them, but
it was God, who had reconciled them to himself by and
through Christ. Now this is clearly the teaching of the
apostle in this place.
79. Suppose you had a friend who sinned against
you, and thus became averse to you. Such things do,
indeed, often happen among men. But suppose again
that you still kept your good feelings towards him, and in
some way finally succeeded in subduing him, so that he
cordially returned to you, and all between you and him
became right and good again. Then would it not be
wrong to say that you had become reconciled to him?
Certainly; on the contrary, it was you who had reconciled

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. 77
him to yourself. And one who should say that you had
been reconciled, and that your wrath had been appeased,
he would do you a great injustice, and speak worse of you
than you deserved. Would it not be so? Well, then, learn
also from the words of Paul how you are to understand a
man's reconciliation to God. When God saw us fallen,
and averse to him, then he instituted ways and means to
reconcile us to himself. For this purpose he gave his Son,
and by this Son we (believers) have now been reconciled,
says the apostle, and have become entirely new creatures.
But he who, on the contrary, says that God has been re
conciled, he speaks worse of God than he deserves.
80. But when Paul says, "hath reconciled us," —
whom does he really mean by "us"? Perhaps the whole
world? By no means. Whom the apostle means by "us"
he explains directly after, when he adds: "And hath given
to us the ministry of reconciliation." Indeed this cannot
be said of the whole world. Now, throughout this
whole section of the epistle the apostle is speaking of his
own position. "We are made manifest," he says, "unto
God" and "in your consciences" (verse n); "we are not
again commending ourselves unto you" (verse 12, Rev.
Vers.); if "we be beside ourselves, it is to God" (verse
13) "henceforth know we no man after the flesh" (verse
16), etc. Hence, by the words "we" and "us" he means
himself. But beyond this plain liter-al reference of the
words, they can be applied to all such persons as stand in
the same relation to Christ as the apostle did. They are
all reconciled to God by Christ.*
81. "Because"** — thus the apostle proceeds —
* Incredibly great is the damage which has been done by and
the confusion which has arisen from the belief that the apostles
have meant the world when in their letters to believers they say
"we", "us", "our", etc. When the apostles mean the world,
then they say "the world".
** All the Swedish Version.", as also German, French and
some others that I have seen, have here in the beginning of verse

78 THE RECONCILIATION.
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."
In verse 18 the apostle had said that that which had taken
place in and with him was all of God. To this some one
might object, saying: "It was not of God, but of Christ,
that this took place." But "no, no," the apostle would
answer; "it is all of God, because it was God who was in
Christ, engaged in reconciling the world unto himself."
In order better to understand the connection of the
apostle's words, we will use an illustration. If I say,
"That I exist is of God, because it is God who has created
all things," then I explain my own existence as derived
from God by the fact that it is God who has created all
things, and therefore me also. Likewise the apostle says
in effect: "That we are reconciled to God is a work of
God, for it was he who was in Christ, reconciling the
world." The entire work of reconciliation is of God, who
dwelt and worked in Christ, therefore it is he who through
Christ has reconciled to himself every man who is recon
ciled. 82. "The world," says the apostle, ¦ — "reconciling
the world." The work of Christ, or the work of God in
Christ, did not limit itself to a certain few previously elected
ones, but extended itself to the whole world. All sorrow
which simple souls cause themselves on the question as
to whether, perchance, they belong to the elect or to the
non elect, is entirely needless, yea, really hurtful, and
19 a causal conjunction, — not as the English Authorized, and
the Revised, which have "to wit", erroneously making what
follows explanatory to the immediately preceding expression,
"the ministry of reconciliation." But even if the "to wif and
what follows could be, as it evidently should be, referred back
to the expression in the beginning of verse 18 — "all things are
of God" — verse 19 should not begin with "to wit, ' but with
"because," "for," "inasmuch as," or tho like, since plainly the
apostle is giving in this verse the reason or ground for his pre
ceding principal statement that "all things are of God." J. G. P.

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. 79
causes not only unrest and spiritual weakness, but some
times even disorder of mind. Though from some passages
in the Bible it might seem as if God had destined only
certain ones to be saved, it is nevertheless always a false
conception of such passages when they are interpreted or
understood in evident conflict with the definite testimony
of the Bible that the work of Christ holds good for all
men. "God so loved the world," — thus it testifies —
"that he gave his Son." The word "world" does not
mean a certain part of mankind, but all mankind, all men,
without any exception. God wills the death of no sinner.
Consequently he has manifested himself in Christ for the
purpose of reconciling all to himself. What he has pre
determined is this, that whosoever believeth in the Son
shall be saved. [See John iii. 15 — 17; xii. 47; 1 John iv.
14; Acts ii. 21; Rom. x. n — 13]. There has never been
found on earth so bitter an enemy of God, that God would
not reconcile him to himself. Neither will ever such an
one be found hereafter.
83. This we ought not only to know as a good and
true theological doctrine, but also be able to use it for the
comfort and confirmation of ourselves and others. When
sinners are awakened to a sense of their sins, it is, as we
well know, very common for the devil so to terrify such
souls, that they fear that God has given them over to a
reprobate mind, so that it is impossible for them to be
saved. "Too late!- — too late!" — is the cry in their hearts.
A confirmation of this they think they find in the fact that
their pious endeavors (their self-righteous work!) have
hitherto always been unsuccessful. They have resolved,
they have wept and prayed and worked to make them
selves better, and they have thought that, if they could
have succeeded, God would have been gracious to them.
But since they have never succeeded really to become
better — to become such as they wished to be, that is, satis
fied with themselves, — all their conflicts having ended in

80 THE RECONCILIATION.
overthrow or failure, — then they have begun to think this
way, each for himself: "Now indeed it is clear that there is
no hope for me. God has in anger shut up his tender mer
cies; to me he will be favourable no more." (Cf. Fs.
Lxxvii. 7 — 9). Thus and more in the same strain thinks
the distressed, wearied soul. At certain times it may
happen that even those who long have lived in the faith
of Jesus get into such darkness that they fear that God
has altogether forsaken them. This we can see from the
experiences of the saints as recorded in the Bible. Well,
then, 'in the case of either the sinner or the saint, such
passages as the one before us will be of right good service
— to wit, such passages as those in which God says that
his work in Christ pertains to all men, to the whole world.
When every thing is light and joyous for the heart, then
they may be or seem to be of less use, because then their
teaching this appears so clearly. But when darkness comes
on, then we realize their value. And if any one who reads
this is now in such darkness, we would gladly shout these
words, "the world", into the depths of his heart. Even
though you may say, "I am the worst, the guiltiest, the
most wretched person, that ever lived in the world," still
you can never say, "I am so guilty and bad that I do not
any more belong to the world." Nay, wherever you may
go or whatever you may be, you certainly still belong to
the world; and of the world Paul says: "God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself." You may be an
apostate, or a backslider; if so, then you have fallen back
into the world, and it was for the reconciliation of the
world that God was manifested in Christ. Now, since
God thus speaks, you ought to hearken to that word, and
believe it, to the glory oi God, and to your own comfort.
84. "In Christ," says the apostle. God's entire
work of salvation is, so to speak, comprehended in Christ.
God has, indeed, also in other ways manifested himself.
He has manifested himself in nature; he has specially

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. 8 1
manifested himself in the prophets, in the apostles, etc.
But the Bible never says that God was in nature, or in
the prophets, or in the apostles, reconciling the world.
No; but in Christ — only in Christ, — he alone is the
Mediator. It was already the Spirit of Christ that was in
and worked in the prophets (i Pet. i. n). It was Christ
who was in and worked in the apostles. It is Christ who is
still, even to-day, working in and through the word, bap
tism, the Lord's supper, etc., for the reconciliation of sin
ners to God. In him God is summing up all things (Eph. i.
io, Rev. Vers.); in him all fulness of the Godhead dwells,
and by or in him God has created all things (Col. i. 16,
19); in him and in none other, therefore, is there salva~-
tion (Acts iv. 12). No one can come to God, or be re
conciled to God, but by him. Such is the testimony of
the Scriptures in the most unambiguous terms.
85. But seeing it was God who was in Christ, re
conciling the world unto himself, you can in Christ see
also a truly beautiful and lovely image of God. All, all
the work of Christ — by his words as well as by his deeds
— was directed towards the restoration of sinners from
their sins, and towards bringing them back to God. You
will never find, either in his words or in his works, a single
thing wherein this does not plainly appear. Never will you
find a single instance where he in any way seeks com
pensation or satisfaction for himself; but his entire life
and work are given to sinners, in order to seek and save
them, to arouse them to a consideration of their needs, to
blot out their sins, to subdue their enmity, and to bring
them again into a right and good relation to God. With
this his heart was aglow, in spite of all their own bitter
opposition. Well, then, consider now that it is God, the
heavenly Father, you thus see in Christ, that it is he who
does and works all this in Christ, for it is he who is in
Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. Oh! how dear
and precious to your heart you will find God to be when you

82 THE RECONCILIATION.
thus behold him in Christ. Because in Christ you have
the true manifestation of him.
86. But as the apostle says, "God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself," the question arises, if
the matter itself of whieh the apostle speaks is to be un
derstood as being just this, that the whole world is now
once for all reconciled unto God, or if the reconciliation
is to be regarded as a work of God still going on. This is
a very important question — is it not? May God guide us
in his truth as we look into the Bible to find its answer.
87. Is the world reconciled to God? We answer in
the first place: Thus God nowhere speaks in his word. What
I see in the Bible on that subject is this, that the work of
God in Christ was to reconcile the world, that the whole
purpose of Christ's coming into the world, of his preach
ing, ofhis sufferings, death, resurrection, etc., was to re
concile the world unto God. But by this it is yet not
said that the world now as reconciled.* If any one says
* It is deeply to be regretted that the Lectors' Version of
the New Testament [which Version, thus called, was made by
certain learned men, "lectors", or professors, in a couple of higher
institutions of learning at Stockholm, and published^rst time
in 1863, by the Evangelical Native-Land Association (Erangeliska
Foster lands- Sliftehen, a Swedish home and foreign missionary
association)], — a Version, on the whole so excellent and merit
orious, generally faithfully following the original text, — does
however in certain points, as for instance just here in 3 Cor. v.
19, altogether depart from the original, in order, self-authorita-
tively, to put in something which Paul neither here nor any
where else has written. [The Author (P. W.) wrote this before
Sept. 1881, as it was published then. In the previous editions of
the Version referred to, the expression in question reads (being
translated): "For God reconciled in Christ the world unto him
self." Thus, alas! also the now authorized new Swedish Version
renders the sentence. The tenth edition of the above-mention
ed Version ("the Lectors' Version"), publishedin 1882, and every
edition since, has a foot-note to that rendering, which note reads
thus: "Or, For God was in Christ, reconciling the world unio him
self," p. W- has since very truly said that that note ought to

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. 83
that the object of Christ's work was to make the world
happy, and to bring it to heaven, then that is saying the
truth. But if from this the inference be made, that the
world now is happy and is in heaven, it would be utterly
erroneous. "Well, but," you say, "Christ did however cry
on the cross, "It is finished," and what was then finished,
if not his work of reconciliation?" Answer: All that Christ,
according to the prophecies, should fulfill here upon earth
for the salvation of the world was then finished. That this
was the meaning of his cry we can see from the context.
For thus it reads: "That the Scripture might be fulfilled
Jesus saith, 'I thirst'." Then they gave him vinegar, and
when he had received the vinegar he said, "It is finished"
(John xix. 28 — 30). Consequently, all that was written
concerning him was now accomplished. But by this it is
yet not at all said that the world as reconciled, saved,
happy, etc. No; here it is not advisable to go beyond
the plain words of Scripture. To say that the world is
reconciled is just as foreign to the Bible as to say that it is
saved and happy in God. There is not a single passage
in the whole Bible where either the one or the other of
such things is written. "God willeth that all men [i. e. the
the world] should be saved" — that is written (i Tim. ii. 4,
Rev. Vers.). When God sent his Son into the world, he
did so with this object in view, that the world should be
saved. Christ came, "finished the work which God had
given him to do" on earth (John xvii. 4), suffered, died,
and rose from the dead, all in order to save the world;
but nevertheless the world as not yet saved. This we all
understand very well; but precisely the same that holds
true of the salvation of the world, holds true also of the
reconciliation of the world.

be raised to the dignity of text, while the translation in the text
ought to be removed entirely. These observations on that par
ticular Swedish Version hold good also with reference to similar
translations in other languages. — J. G. P.]

84 THE RECONCILIATION.
88. But not only this. The apostle has in our text
a word which at once and expressly shows that the world
is not reconciled. "God," he says, "was in Christ, re
conciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them
their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word
of reconciliation. Therefore . . . . we beseech you on
behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God."* As he be
seeches the world to be reconciled to God, it proves that
it as not reconciled. Let us here look at an example, or
perhaps two examples. When Peter in Acts ii. 40 says
to the Jews, "Save yourselves from this crooked genera
tion," then by these very words he announces that they
were not saved. When he in Acts iii. 19 exhorts them,
saying, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your
sins may be blotted out," then again by these very words
he announces that they were not converted, and that their
, sins were not blotted out. Likewise here, when Paul says
to the world, "be ye reconciled to God," then by these
very words this apostle announces that the world as not
reconciled. Nothing can be clearer than this.
89. But now some one may say: "The apostle is
here speaking of a twofold reconciliation, one general,
which has been made for the whole world, and one indi
vidual, which consists in this, that every individual person
for and to himself appropriates or accepts the general re
conciliation."** Many of God's dear and upright children
* Thus the parts of the verses referred to are rendered in
the Revised Version, which here fully agrees with the Author's
(P. W. s) translation in Swedish. — J. G. P.
** What in the above statement of the view in questfon is
called "the general reconciliation," is jur,t what by many Eng
lish and American religious writers is called "the atonement",
"the purchased redemption", or "the finished work of Christ",
— also other terms or expressions are used for the same idea.
The term "reconciliation" alone is applied by such writers to what
above is called "individual reconciliation." In Scandinavian and
German religious literature this "twofold" reconciliation is ex-

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. 85
hold such a view, and will here surely put it forward as
an objection to what we have said before on this point.
But this view, or objection, rests upon a great misappre
hension. Neither Paul nor any other apostle speaks any
where about any such twofold reconciliation. And that
Paul does not so speak, especially in the text which we
are considering, he himself makes apparent by his using
the very same word in all the cases where he speaks of
reconciliation. See here another example. If I say,
"God was in Christ, saving the world, therefore we be
seech you on his behalf, be ye saved," then by this nothing
at all would be said of a -twofold salvation. Everyone
would by this understand that I besought the world to be
saved, not on the ground that the world was saved, but
on the ground that God had manifested himself in Christ
for the purpose of saving the world. The relation between
the different expressions is the same here. When the
apostle says, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto himself, therefore we beseech you, be ye reconciled [or,
allow yourselves to be reconciled] to God," then he speaks
about one and the same reconciliation. On the ground
that God was in Christ manifested for the purpose of re
conciling them, he beseeches them to be reconciled (that
is, to allow themselves to be reconciled). The Scriptures
do not know of any reconciliation which consists in any
thing else than in-this, that the individual sinners be recon
ciled to God. In reality the apostle says as much as this:
"It was God, who was in Christ, and his work in Christ
was to reconcile the world unto himself; We have been
(that is, we have allowed ourselves to be) reconciled to

pressed also by such terms as "the objective and the subjective
reconciliation" (or atonement) — on which more is said further
on (see note to § 109). In English religious literature the two
different, yet synonymous, words ("atonement" and "reconcilia
tion") have simplified the distinction, but at the same time car
ried it f aTther from the truth. — J. G. P.

86 THE RECONCILIATION.
him, and have from him received the ministry of recon
ciliation, through which we now cry to the world, that is,
to all men: 'Be ye reconciled'." Thus it was in the case of
the apostles, and in their days. In the same way it will
continue unto the end of days. Every man who has
been reconciled to God, has been reconciled by God.
It is the work of God — through Christ. And the recon
ciled man also, in his turn, is ordained to beseech others:
"Be ye reconciled unto God " And this, because the re
conciling work of God in Christ aimed at the reconcilia
tion of the whole world unto God, just as the apostle here
says. 90. We will understand this still more clearly if we
consider what we have before said of the proper meaning
of the word which the apostle here uses, and which in our
Bible is translated by the word "reconcile." It properly
means, "to bring some one into another relation, that is,
into a right relation, to some one else." To be reconciled
to God means, therefore, to be in, or stand in, a right rela
tion to God. But the world is not in such a relation. And
that it does not stand in a right relation to God the word
of God as well as all experience shows. What the apostle
Paul says in Rom. L, that is still true ofthe world: that it
is filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetous
ness, envy, murder, strife, deceit, etc.; but they who are
such do not stand in a right relation to God. Conse
quently, what is necessary for man, if he is to be saved, is
that he be again brought, or set, into a right relation to
God. And it was this that God had in view when he sent
his Son. Therefore, also, the gospel is now calling to the
whole world: "Be ye reconciled to God," that is, suffer
yourselves now to be brought into a right relation to
God, suffer yourselves to be reconciled to him. More
over, wherever the gospel is preached we see many and
again many who really become reconciled to God, and
thus come into a right relation to him. And this always

MAN AND THE WORLD AS OBJECTS. S7
happens by their coming to Christ, to whom the gospel
attracts them, and in whom God dwells. "God was in
Christ, reconcilingthe world unto himself."
91. Let us here employ an illustration which Christ
himself has used. When God by Moses lifted up the
brazen serpent in the wilderness, then it was done for the
healing of all who were bitten by the serpents. But, simply
for that reason, or only with that object in view, no one
could indeed have said as soon as the serpent had been
lifted up: "Now all who have been bitten by the serpents
are at once, and once for all, healed in and through this
brazen serpent; therefore, now every one individually
must for himself, by looking at the brazen serpent, appro
priate to himself this healing and thus become well." No;
but "rather did the announcement to the people (Num.
xxi. 8) say as much as this: "This serpent of brass is
lifted up for the healing of all; therefore we beseech you
on behalf of God, be ye healed — that is, allow your
selves to be healed, or, be ye willing to be healed — by
looking upon it." Was there at all any question of a
twofold healing? No, indeed. Well, now it is just the
same in this matter of reconciliation. Not that we can say:
"In Christ all sinners are now once for all reconciled to
God; this reconciliation they must now individually, each
one for himself, appropriate by faith." Nay, nay; but thus
we truly can say: "Christ is given by God to be the Sa
viour of the whole world (i John iv. 14); he has died, has
been buried, has risen from the dead, etc. — all, all, in
order that he may reconcile the world to God; therefore
come, all ye sinners, and be reconciled to God by sur
rendering yourselves to him. The true Physician is here
at hand, in order to heal all the sick; therefore, ye sick
ones, be ye healed, be ye willing, allow yourselves, to be
healed by believing in him, etc."
92. "But yet," says some one again, "in Rom. v.
10 it does stand, 'When we were enemies, we were recon-

05 THE RECONCILIATION.
ciled to God by the death of his Son,' and this shows in
deed — does it not? — that we were reconciled to God
on the day when Christ died, and hence long before any
of our believing, or before our conversion, yes, even long
before we were born into the world." Well, of this we
will speak in our next chapter. May God guide us in the
light of his eternal truth. "The testimony of the Lord is
sure, making wise the simple." (Ps. xix. 7).

CHAPTER VI.

Objects of the Reconciliation, or Atonement, continued, with
Special Reference to the Time, Manner, and Means thereof,
or, When and How Man is Reconciled to God.
93. "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son" (Rom. v. 10). The question
was raised at the close of the preceding chapter, if these
words do not prove that the whole world, apart from all
consideration of and every condition as to faith and re
pentance, was reconciled to God on the day when Christ
died. And we promised to examine this point more closely
in this chapter. In order rightly to understand the mean
ing of the apostle, we must pause at and carefully consider
every word of what he here says. First, we notice the
"we"' of the apostle in the text. Who are then the "we"
of whom he speaks? He himself shows whom he means
when he goes on to say: "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 [or,
in] his life; and not only so, but we also rejoice in God
through our Lord Jesus Christ."* Concerning the same
* Thus the Revised Version, which is here more like the
Author's (P. W.'s) own translation of the passage into Swedish.
— J. G. P.

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 89
"we" he ha;d previously written thus: "We have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (verse i); "we
rejoice in hope ofthe glory of God" (verse 2); "we glory
in tribulation also" (verse 3); "the love of God is shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given
unto us" (verse 5). Who, now, are these "we"? Are they
the world? Can it be said of- the world, that it has peace
with God? that it has the Holy Ghost? that the love of
God is shed abroad in its heart? that it shall be saved in
the life of Christ? that it rejoices in God through the Lord
Jesus Christ? Of course not. The apostle speaks of him
self and believers, not of the world. Therefore he says
just as he means — "we," and not "the world": "We
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"; and
then, "much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by
[or, in] his life."
94. "By the death of his Son," that is, of Christ, —
that is the next expression of the apostle which we notice.
Does not this mean, "the day when Christ died"? An
swer: It is not thus written. Neither does the apostle
ever say in any other place that we were reconciled to
God on the day when Jesus died. "By the death of Je
sus" is never the same as "on the day when Jesus died."
All who now are justified and righteous, the living and
happy children of God, have become such by, or through,
the death of Jesus; but this does not at all mean that they
became such on the day when Jesus died. The apostle
Peter, also, says to the Christians that they had been "be
gotten again unto a lively [i. e., a living] hope by the re
surrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pet. i. 3); but
this does not mean that they, without faith and repentance,
had been born again on the day when Christ arose from
the dead. Hence, when Paul says, "by the death of Je
sus," then he expresses — just as the words read — the
means, but not the time, of their reconciliation, — how,
not when, they were reconciled. And that means operates

90 THE RECONCILIATION.
continually, through the ages, to effect the reconciliation
of sinners to God.
95. "When we were enemies" ["While we were ene
mies," Rev. Ver.], or, literally, "Being enemies," — the
apostle says — "we were reconciled to God." Does not
this expression prove our reconciliation to have taken
place prior to any our conversion or faith, since it took
place while we yet were enemies? Answer: By no means.
The apostle does not in his language really say, "We were
reconciled," etc., but "we became reconciled to God at
the time when we were enemies."* Hence, that is saying
this much: "We were enemies at that time-, butwe6eca/ne
reconciled, and this was effected by Christ's giving his life
* As the English verb "to be" is used both as an auxiliary
to form the passive of transitive verbs, and also as a predicate
verb, by some grammarians called copula, the distinction be
tween the two different Swedish verbs here used by the Author
— vara and varda, exactly like the German sein and werden — can
not well be expressed by exact corresponding words in English.
The Author would certainly not like to lay himself open to the
charge of making hair-splitting distinctions. The predicate in
the sentence, "we were reconciled," etc., would in English
hardly be understood otherwise than as a passive verb in the past
tense. But in Swedish, with "voro" (past of "vara," to be) as a
predicate-verb, or copula, and "forsonade," "reconciled," as a
complement in the nature of a predicate-adjective, the meaning
would be: "At the time when we were enemies, *. e., unconvert
ed, we were already then reconciled, i. e., we were in a reconciled
state, or condition, effected by the death of Christ," — which
would mean that at one and the same time we were both enemies
to God and also friends (= reconciled) to him, — a doctrine.usu-
ally called "the objective reconciliation" (or atonement), really
held by some people. This the apostle cannot mean, since he
uses the passive kaiellagemen, which in Swedish is expressed by
"vordo fSrsonade". Corresponding forms of "blifva" ("become,"
"get") are frequently used instead of "varda," as being stronger
than this simple passive auxiliary. In English the passive is,
"were reconciled;" but in cases of doubt or ambiguity the strong
er verb "became" would be used instead of "icere". In popular
(vulgar?) phrase it would be said, "got reconciled." — J. G. P.

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 91
for us." The apostle does not say that we continued to
be enemies after we had been reconciled. No; rather
this does he say: "That God so loved us, that he spared not
his only begotten Son, but delivered him up, even unto
death, for our salvation, — this was the great and unspeak
able grace that reconciled us to God, brought us into a
different, yea, into a right relation to him, and made us
his friends, who before had been his enemies." He does
not say that God was made our friend, because he had
never been our enemy; no, but we, we who were enemies,
we were, or became, reconciled to God. Just think what
an enemy Paul himself had been. But he had been re
conciled to God. When and where? On the way to Da
mascus, at the very time when he was raging the worst in
his enmity. And by what means had he been reconciled
to God? By Jesus, having given his life for him, — that
self-same Jesus whom he was persecuting.
96. In order more easily to understand this point,
we will again make use of an illustration. If one who has
been a drunkard says, "God had compassion on me, and
regenerated me while, or at the time when, I still was in
the degradation of drunkenness, and was an enemy to
him," — now, would he by this mean that, before and
without any his repentance and faith, he was a regenerated
man while and at the same time as he was continuing in
drunkenness? Certainly not. But this he" means to say,
that he was a drunkard, but at that time he was born again
["became regenerated" — to use the manner of expression
spoken of before as clearer, stronger, and not liable to be
ambiguous] , and thus ceased to be a drunkard. And lo,
in the same manner the believers at Rome (as also all
other believers) had been enemies to God, had lived with
out God, yea, had despised him, and had walked in and
had had their pleasure in all kinds of sin. But now they
were reconciled* to God, and this had taken place by the
* Notice this expression, as illustrating what is said in the

92 THE RECONCILIATION.
death of his Son. Now they were enemies to him no
longer. Now they were standing in a right and good re
lation to God. The believers of all ages can give the
same testimony. Just think of yourself. Were you not an
enemy to God? And did you not then become reconciled,
so that you ceased to be his enemy, and instead became
his friend? Why, certainly. And by what means? Just by
Christ's having entered into death for you, which fact you
learned from the gospel. Well, then you yourself have
experienced what the apostle here is saying. What the
apostle says he does not seize out of the wind, or merely
fancy it; but he gathers it from such living realities as he
and all believers then had experienced, and as others since,
in all ages, have experienced.
97. But we need not rely on illustrations. The apos
tle himfelf explains what kind of reconciliation he means.
In verses 8 and 9 he says: "While we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us; much more then, being now justified 'by
[or, in] his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath through
him. For," he adds in verse 10, "if we, being enemies,
were [or, became] reconciled to God through the death
of his Son, much more shall we, being reconciled, be saved
in his life."* Note this connection: Formerly we were
sinners, and then Christ died for us; now we are not sin
ners any more, but righteous, and therefore we shall be
saved through him from the wrath to come. Formerly we
were enemies, and then we became reconciled through
preceding note. Here "were reconciled" is logically not in the
passive voice, which would give the sense that they now, just
at that time, became reconciled; but this is not what the Author
here wants to say. But "were" is here the predicate-verb (or
copula), and "reconciled" is the complement with the force of
an adjective, giving the meaning, "Now they were in a recon
ciled state, or condition," which is saying as much as and even
more than, "Now they had been reconciled." — J. G. P.
* Verse 10 (of Rom. v.) thus literally rendered and con
structed, following the Author's (P. W.'s) Swedish. — J. G. P.

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 93
his death; now we are not enemies any longer, but are re
conciled, and therefore friends, hence we shall much more
be saved in his life. Consequently, Paul here puts in op
position the two conditions: to be an enemy and to be
reconciled. He who is an enemy is not reconciled; he
who is reconciled is not an enemy. Hence, to be recon
ciled is the same as to have become a friend after having
been an enemy. Over against this the apostle puts to
gether, on the one hand, sinner and enemy, and, on the
other hand, to be justified and to be reconciled. To be a
sinner, or to be in sin, is to be an enemy; to be justified
from sin is to be reconciled and brought into a right rela
tion to God. Just think what a glorious connection. By
falling into sin man has come into a wrong relation to
God, has become his enemy; by being [i. e., becoming]
justified from sin man comes into a right relation to him,
is reconciled to him. Now, compare with this the sacri
fices of the Old Testament, and you will see how the same
beautiful line of scarlet thread runs through both the Old
and the New Testament. Because, as we have already
seen, the sacrifices were designed, in a typical way, to
blot out sins, and thus to cleanse and sanctify sinners
from their sins, which is just the way to bring them again
into a right relation to God, that is, to reconcile them to
him, — just as Paul here teaches. Praise be to God for
his unspeakable gift and grace.
• 98. Hence, the principal lessons to be gathered
from Rom. v. io, regarding the reconciliation, may be most
briefly summed up as follows: (i.) all men are by nature
enemies of God, because they are carnally minded; (2.)
the entire work of God in reconciliation does therefore
tend to this, that he may by it reconcile enemies to him
self; (3.) consequently, all who have ever become- recon
ciled have become so as enemies, that is, at the time
when they were enemies, or in a state and condition of
enmity to God. But we will proceed further, in order to

94 THE RECONCILIATION.
see how the apostle in other places speaks of the re
conciliation. J 99. In Ephesians ii. 14 — 16 the apostle says:*
"Christ is our peace, who has made both [i. e., peoples,
Jews and Gentiles] one, and has taken away the partition
wall of separation [i. e., the wall which was designed to
keep us, Jews and Gentiles, apart, and which actually did,
in heart and mind, separate us] , to icit, the enmity, having
in his flesh annulled the law of commandments in ordinan
ces; in order that he might in himself create of the two
[men, or kinds of men, Jews and Gentiles] one new man,
making peace, and reconcile them both in one body unto
God through the cross, having slain the enmity in himself."
Here the apostle is speaking again ot the reconciliation
of sinners to God. He has in the nearest preceding verses
shown how the Christians at Ephesus had been Gentiles,
separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth
of Israel, strangers from the covenants of the promise, and
far from God, but how they now in Christ were brought
nigh in the blood of Christ. They had now — they too
— become the people of God, although by nature they
were Gentiles. "For," the apostle then adds, "he, Christ,
is our peace." As much as to say: "The former state of
enmity, which existed between the Jews and the Gentiles,
had its foundation in the ordinances, or statutes, of the
Old Testament, which formed a kind of separating parti
tion wall. But this state has now ceased, and you Gen
tiles are now partakers of the same grace as we Jews, for
Christ has made an end of the entire Old Covenant with
its ordinances; and this he has done, in order that he might
make Jews and Gentiles to be one with each other, and
create them as one new man in himself." By the Gen
tile's being in Christ he has ceased to be a Gentile, and
by the Jew's being in Christ he has ceased to be a Jew.
* I translate quite literally the Author's own rendering in
the text. — J. Or. P.

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 95
Both of them have become something else, something
new; namely, they have become Christians, and are now
one in Christ. "And," the apostle adds, "Christ has done
this, further, in order that he might reconcile them both in
one body unto God through the cross." There he presents,
as the great principal aim of the work of Christ, the re
conciliation of all to God — the reconciliation both of
the Jews and of the Gentiles. But that they are to be re
conciled to God "in one body," this means that they were
regarded and are to be regarded simply as one people [e. i.,
as constituting one mass of humanity, all alike having
need of and being objects of the same reconciliation],
and as such are to be brought into a right relation to God.
The means for doing this is the cross, as the apostle says,
that is, the fact that Christ has sacrificed his life on the
cross for both Jews and Gentiles. It is this great act of
salvation, which, on the one hand, is to "slay the enmity"
between Jew and Gentile, and, on the other hand, is to
"reconcile them both to God."
100. In Colossians i. 19 and 20 the apostle says: "For
it has pleased God that all the fulness should dwell in him
[Christ] , and that he should through him reconcile all things
into himself, making peace through the blood of his cross;
through him reconcile all things whether upon the earth or
in the heavens."* As we see, the apostle is also in this
passage speaking of reconciliation to God, and his words
go much further than in the former passage. In the first
place, he sets forth our whole salvation, or reconciliation,
a? grounded, ultimately, in the good pleasure of God. It
did not please God to deal with us according to our sins,
to cast us off and destroy us, but it pleased him, on the
contrary, to sacrifice everything, in order to reconcile us
to himself. It passes all human understanding, that God
is so good; but what is now to be done about it? Such
* The verses are here translated in accordance with the
Author's Swedish rendering in the text. — J. G. P.

96 THE RECONCILIATION.
was the good pleasure of God, and there it stands; you
cannot get around it. If the devil contradicts it, if my
own feelings rise up against it and try to picture God dif
ferently — well, what of that? The devil is a liar, and my
own feelings are erratic. But the word of the Lord abideth
forever. All that our heart feels and thinks in opposition
to this word only testifies how far, by nature, our heart
has got from the true knowledge of God. Consequently,
it pleased God to reconcile us to himself. It was we that
needed to be reconciled to him, and it was he that took
measures to accomplish it.
101. Secondly, the apostle teaches us here that for
this reason it has pleased God that in Christ all the fulness
should dwell. By this fulness the apostle means the entire
fulness, abundance and riches, of divine grace. Of the
same thing John the evangelist speaks when he says: "We
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth" (Joh. i. 14, 16). Hence,
in order that he might reconcile us to himself, it pleased
God to let the full riches of all — not a part, but of all
— his grace dwell in Christ. A lesser person than the
only begotten Son was not sufficient for the great work;
and with anything less than all the fulness of God's grace
it could not be accomplished. Therefore it pleased God
to send just him, and fill him with all this fulness. Hence
it happens that Christ everywhere in the Gospels ascribes
to the Father all that he is and does and speaks. Hence,
also, it happens that he says: "He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father;" "He that believeth on me, believeth not
on me, but on him [i. e., the Father] that sent me," etc.
It was, then, all the fulness, all the abundance, of all the
grace of the Father, which dwelt in him and worked in
him for the reconciliation of sinners to God. And if the
ultimate motive for all this be sought, it is to be found in
God — in the good pleasure of God. "God is love" —
there the whole history of our salvation begins.

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 97
102. Further, the apostle gives us, by his very mode
of expression, a good understanding of what he means by
the word "reconcile". For he says that it was God's
good pleasure "to reconcile all things unto [literally,
"into"] himself." Thus, he here uses a different expression
than elsewhere used. In other places he says, literally, "re
concile with God"; here, however, "reconcile into God."*
But what is it to reconcile anyone into God? Answer: It is
to bring such a one into a right and good relation to God,
and just in this consists the essence of reconciliation.
This the apostle plainly expresses when for the sake of
explanation he adds: "Making peace through the blood of
his cross." To bring sinners into a true relation of peace
with God is, therefore, "to reconcile into God." But who
is it that is here held up as "making peace" and as "re
conciling all things to himself"? Answer: It is God him
self. And through what means? Answer: Through the
blood of Jesus. There was no need of making peace in
God [that is, in the heart and mind of God, — no need
of making him peaceably disposed], because there was
no enmity in him. But in us was enmity, therefore we

* In the following N. T. passages the verb "reconcile" is (in
•Greek) connected with a dalive,h.cncc without a preposition:Mat
v. 24; Rom v. 10, 2 Cor. v. 18 and 19; Eph ii 16. This con
struction is in Swedish uniformly rendered by "med" ("with",
like the German "mif) — "reconcile anyone tniih anyone." But
in English "to" or "unto" is used. The passage (Col. i. 20) un
der consideration in the text above is in Greek quite peculiar:
having tho verb "reconcile" connected with a preposition (eis,
into) followed by an accusative. This is expressed in Swedish
by the prep, "till" (German "su"), but the English will not ad
mit of any other preposition than "to" or "unto", which is
quite proper here where there is an underlying idea of spiritual
or mental motion to, toward, or into connection with, God. As
"to" has also the weaker sense of a dative connective — uniting
the remoter object with the verb — it becomes, in fact, aquival-
ent also to the Greek dative and the Swedish prep, "med" (Ger
man "mit"). — J. G. P.

98 THE RECONCILIATION.
needed to be brought, through the blood, into a relation
of peace with God — made peaceably disposed toward
him. And to do this, that was the work of God. For the
accomplishment of this work it pleased him to have all
the fulness of his grace dwell in Christ, and to send him
into humiliation, suffering, and death. For he so loved
the world. Oh, what a God! All — "all things are of
God," we have already heard the apostle say in 2 Cor. v.
18, — all is of God through Christ. God is the source,
the author; Christ is the mediator; and the blood is the
means. 103. But the meaning becomes still clearer when
the apostle in v. 21 et seq. (of Col. i.) adds: "And yon, being
in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil
works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh
through death, to present you holy and without blemish and
unreproveab/e before him: if so be that ye continue in the
faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the
hope of the gospel." — After the apostle had set forth the
great main object in the sending of Christ — to wit, to recon
cile the world to God — he goes on to say that thrs object
was realized in the case of the believers to whom he was
writing, inasmuch as they had been [had become] recon
ciled to God. The apostle is speaking here just as he does
in 2 Cor. v.: to wit, he first presents the object of God's
work in Christ as being the reconciliation of the whole
world, and then shows that this object is attained accord
ing as men become reconciled, or allow themselves to be
reconciled. And to those who had thus become recon
ciled the believers in Colosse now belonged. But he who
had reconciled them was God, as he says: "And* you hath
* The Author (P. W.), as does also the now authorized
Swedish new Version, translates the apostle's "kai" by "even",
or "also," which seems more forceable in contradistinction to
the "all things" in the beginning of verse 20. The translation
of the verses, as quoted above, is from the Revised Version
(English). — J. G. P..

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 99
he (God) now reconciled." But what the apostle meant
by this, that they now were reconciled, we can see from
his expressions about the opposite state; he says: "Ye were
in time past alienated ana" enemies in [or, by] your mind
in your evil works, yet [or, but] now hath he (God) recon
ciled you." Not to be reconciled is therefore the same
as to be alienated from God, to have one's affections
withdrawn from him, and to be in heart and mind an en
emy to him; and such the Colossians had been in time
past, as was then manifested by the evil works, or doings,
in which they were engaged. On the other hand, to be
reconciled is to have come nigh unto God, to stand in a
right relation to him, and to be his friend; and such the
Colossians were now since they had learned to know Jesus,
and had been united to him. Hence, according to the
teaching of Paul in this passage, the reconciliation of a
sinner to God consists in this, that from having lived in
sin and having been an enemy of God he becomes right
eous and enters into a true relation of peace with God.
Nothing can be clearer and more simple than this con
nection of the apostle's words. But as to the means he
says: "Through death" — "God has reconciled you in the
body of Christ's flesh through death," that is, by his hav
ing given into death for you the body ofhis only begotten
Son. This great fact, of which they had received knowl
edge through the gospel, was that which had drawn their
hearts to God, had wholly conquered their enmity, and had
made them the children and the friends of God. And
then the apostle adds, in effect, that if they continued in
the faith, they could expect sometime to stand holy and
perfect before God in heaven — all through the work of
the same God, and through the same Mediator, Jesus.
104. But the apostle has yet in this text a word that
is calculated to shed a most wonderful light on the mystery
of the reconciliation. He says, namely, that God would
reconcile to himself not only that which is on the earth,

IOO THE RECONCILIATION.
that is, humanity, mankind, the world of man, but also
that which is in the heavens, that is, the angelic host, the
world of angels. That, now, in his expression about the
angelic world, he does not include the evil angels, we
understand at once from his words, "in the heavens."
The evil spirit world is not in the heavens. Hence, what
God was concerned to do in Christ, was to reconcile
also the heavenly angel world unto himself. But what
does this mean, that God would reconcile the good angels?
Well, we understand, first of all, without even saying it,
that it does not mean that God would appease his wrath
against the good angels. Why, what an altogether un-
biblical doctrine that would be! But what, then, does it
mean? Answer: It means just what the words say, to wit,
that God would in Christ bring into a right relation to
himself not only the world of human beings, but also the
heavenly world of angels. In Eph. ii. the apostle has
spoken of the Jews and Gentiles, who had been separated
from one another, as united in one, and reconciled to God.
Here he ascends higher, and speaks of men and angels,
who had been separated from one another, as reunited
into an harmonious whole, and thus reconciled to God.
105. But are the angels sinful? or have they in any
other way come into a wrong relation to God? Answer:
The angels are not sinful, but through man's sin a disturb
ance has been occasioned even in their relation to God.
Originally the world of humanity and the world of angels
belonged together as one whole where the perfect hap
piness, in~ God, of the one was not possible but in con
nection with that of the other. Together they formed, so
to speak, one body with many members. Therefore,
the fall of man had an influence not only on his own re
lation to God, but also on the relation ofthe entire spirit
world, which thus was disturbed. Behold here an illustra
tion. When an important member of the body is badly
hurt, then all the other members of that body feel it.

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 101
None of these other members can then feel perfectly
well. Through the injured member they all suffer more or
less hinderance, although each one by itself is not hurt.
Therefore they are all concerned that the sick member
be healed. Something similar happened when man fell
into sin. The fall had a hindering and disturbing effect,
not only upon man himself, and not only upon that nature
which surrounded him the nearest and which was stricken
with a curse, but also upon the entire heavenly spirit
world. Hence, in the cause of man's restoration, not only
his own recovery is concerned, nor is it a matter that
concerns only the removal of the curse under which the
earth is sighing on account of man's sin, but that cause
comprehends also the removal from yonder world of
heavenly spirits and from its relation to God every dis
turbing element and condition, the existence of which
was caused by the fall. Wherein this disturbance really
consists it is not possible for us to know, but that a dis
turbance has been occasioned we can understand, and
the apostle teaches it here. When, therefore, the heav
enly spirits are so earnestly concerned about man's sal
vation, they are concerned about a matter that touches
also their own position, their own complete happiness,
which has been obstructed by the dislocation of a member
in the great body to which they belonged. Just think
what a wonderful look the apostle permits us, by these
his words, to cast into the mysteries of the spirit world.
But still more: just think what an insight he gives us into
the mysteries of the reconciliation when he presents that
subject to us from this point of view — to wit, that, by
the blotting out of man's sin, the world of good angels
and the world of redeemed humanity are to be restored,
as a united and indivisible whole, to a right relation to
God, in order that they may be able to enjoy his perfect
blessedness. 1 06. Now, this being really the full significance of

102 THE RECONCILIATION.
the reconciliation, we easily understand why the Bible
nowhere speaks of the reconciling of God. We thus un
derstand, also, why the Bible neither ever says that the
world already is reconciled. It does not say so because
the world is not now already in such a relation to God.
The Reconciler has been given; in his life and work, in
his death, resurrection, and ascension, and in his being
clothed with all power in heaven and on earth, the con
ditions are given for the reconciliation of the world.
And now the message is going out to the world: "Be ye
reconciled to God." Not this is the gospel message of
reconciliation: "God is now on his part reconciled to
you; be ye, also, now reconciled to him." No; neither is
' it this: "The whole world has once for all been recon
ciled to God; receive ye now, therefore, this reconcilia
tion, and be ye reconciled to God." No, no; but this is
the gospel message of reconciliation: "God is love, and
he has sent his only begotten Son to reconcile _you to
himself; therefore now accept him, the Son, the Recon
ciler, and be ye reconciled, that is, allow yourselves to be
reconciled, to God." O dear Lord, how simple and how
beautiful is not the truth of thy gospel!
107. "Yes, but," — thus some one will again object,
— "looking at it in this way, the reconciliation seems to
be brought about not by the death of Christ, as the apostle
says, but by faith." Answer: This objection rests on a
gross misunderstanding. If I inquire after the means
which God has used and is using for the reconciling of
man to himself, the answer will be, as the apostle teaches:
Christ, the giving of the only begotten Son into death for
sinners. Again, if I ask, in what way man is [i. e., becomes]
reconciled to God, then the answer will be: In this way, to
wit, that he accepts Christ. Behold here an illustration.
If some one has been very sick, but by an efficacious rem
edy has been healed, then he can say: "By this remedy
God has healed me." But if I then ask him, "How did it

TIME', MANNER, AND MEANS. ioj
happen? In what way was it done?" he would answer:
"Why, in this way, to wit, by my taking in the remedy."
When the Israelites had been bitten by the serpents in the
wilderness, then God healed them by [or, through] the
brazen serpent. Hence, the brazen serpent was the
means. But if I ask, "In what way were they healed by
the brazen serpent?" the answer is: "In this way, to wit,
they looked upon the brazen serpent." Now, the case is
really the same here: He who brings about, or effects,
the reconciliation is God, the heavenly Father; the means
is the giving of the life of the only begotten Son; the
manner, or the way, is faith whereby a sinner is united to
the Son, the Christ who was delivered up unto death, and
through him he is cleansed from sin, led back to God,
and united with him. Therefore, in the Bible, never any
others are called or said to be "reconciled" than those
who have accepted Christ, and have allowed themselves
really to be reconciled to God. All others are still un
reconciled, but yet they are objects of God's ever con
tinuing work of reconciliation in Christ. For this work
aims at the reconciliation of the whole world.
108. But now we go further. In Rom. xi. 15 the
apostle uses a very remarkable expression about the re
conciliation when he says: " If the casting away of them
[i. e., the Jews] is a reconciliation of the world, what shall
the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?"* Now,
what can this be? Does it not sound strangely that the
casting away of the Jews should be a reconciliation of the
world? Well, let us see. The apostle contrasts the Jews
* Literally translated from the Author's (P. W.'s) Swedish
rendering in the text. Both the English A. V. and the Rev. V.
are nearly like this, only that they both needlessly render the
plain noun (katallage — the same as in Rom. v. 11, 2 Cor. v. 18,
19) by the participial form "reconciling" instead of "reconcilia
tion." In the Greek this noun is here without the article, the
absence of which corresponds, in English,, to the indefinite ar
ticle a or an. — J. G. P.

104 THE RECONCILIATION.
and the world. From this circumstance we understand
that by "the world" he means the Gentile world. Then
the apostle expresses it as a fact that the casting away of
the Jews had now become a reconciliation ofthe Gentiles.
How had that happened? The Saviour shows it in several
passages. In the parable of the Great Supper (Luk. xiv.)
he teaches that when they who were bidden, that is, the
Jews, made excuses and would not come, then they were
rejected, and the invitation was sent to the Gentiles in
stead. In the same manner he speaks in the parable of
the Marriage Feast (Mat. xxii.). Precisely the same he
sets forth hi the parable ofthe Vineyard (Mat. xxi.). When
the householder finally sent his son to the husbandmen
to receive his fruits, they took the son, and cast him forth
out of the vineyard, and killed him. Then the householder
was angry with those husbandmen, destroyed them, and
let out the vineyard to others. And this the Lord applies ,
to the Jews, saying: "Therefore say I unto you, The king
dom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be
given to a nation [that is, Gentiles] bringing forth the fruits
thereof" (verse 43). See also Acts xiii. 46; xxviii. 28.
Hence, if we ask what it means that the casting away of
the Jews became a reconciliation of the world, we obtain
this answer: The message of salvation came in this way
to the Gentiles so that they learned to know Christ the
Saviour, received him as such, and thus were reconciled to
God through him. "By the fall of the Jews," says the
apostle in verse 11 (of Rom. xi.), "salvation is come unto
the Gentiles." Nothing can be plainer, therefore, than
that the apostle, by the word "reconciliation," means that
change which consists in a sinner's coming into a right
and good relation to God.
109. The same word the apostle uses in Rom. v. 11
where, after having spoken of the reconciliation effected
in his own case and in that of his fellow-believers (com
pare our remarks in §§ 93 — 98), he says: "We alsorejoice

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 1 05
in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we
have now received the reconciliation."* Who, then, — ac
cording to the words of the apostle, — who has or who
have received the reconciliation? Has God? Nay; "we
have received the reconciliation," he says. And of whom?
Of God, for it is in him the apostle rejoices. And through
whom? "Through Christ." But who, then, are these "we"?
Does that word include the whole word? Nay; the apostle
is here speaking not about the world, but about believers
and justified persons, as we have seen before (§ 93, cf. §
80). He says: "We have now received the reconcilia
tion." There is emphasis on the word "now," — by which
the apostle says as much as this: "Formerly we were
enemies, but now, praise be to God, we have received the
reconciliation." Behold again an illustration. All Isra
elites who were bitten by the serpents in the wilderness
received the brazen serpent as a healing remedy, but
health, or the healing itself, through that remedy, only such
received as looked upon the serpent according to the word
of God. Thus also here: The whole world has received
Christ from God to be its Reconciler, but the reconciliation
with God through him only they receive who accept him.
But to "receive the reconciliation" is the same as to be

* Revised Version. As observed in the note on pages 5— 8,
this is the only place in the New Testament where the Authorized
Version has the word "atonement," and that, too, as the render
ing of a word (katallage) which it everywhere else translates by
"reconciliation" or "reconciling." If the word "atonement,"
wliich so frequently occurs in the Old Testament, meant there
and in the New Testament what many theological writters have
expressed by such words and phrases as "expiation," "propiti
ating God," "appeasing the wrath of God," "satisfying the
justice of God," "paying man's penalty of sin," etc., etc., then
it is passing ptrange that nowhere in the N. T, — no, not in a
single place — is that word "atonement" used (meaning what it
is thus supposed to mean), nor any other word or expression
having just that supposed meaning. Could not the N. T. writers

Io6 THE RECONCILIATION.
reconciled, just as to "receive health" is the same as to
be healed.* As long as the sinner rejects Christ he remains,
in his enmity, without possession of the reconciliation.
no. In order to understand more clearly still what
the apostle means by reconciliation, we may cite also the
passage where he uses the same word about mutual
relations between human beings. In i Cor. vii. n the
apostle orders that a woman who has parted from her
husband remain unmarried or else "be reconciled to her
husband." But now, what does this mean? Nothing else
than that she should return to her husband, and enter upon
a true marriage relation to him. So much the more must
this be the duty ofthe woman if the husband on his part
had used all means to reconcile her to himself. Just think
how plain and illustrative this is. Thus through sin we
have become alienated from our true God and husband,
and now it devolves upon us to become reconciled to him,
and to come again into a right and good relation of peace
with him; and this we ought to do all the more as he,
in his unchangeable love, has done and sacrificed every
thing, in order to bring about such a reconciliation.
in. Concerning reconciliation between men, also
Christ uses the same word in Mat. v. 24 where he says:
"// thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy
gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to
thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." — Now,
say what they meant, or did they not dare to, or was is not ne
cessary? — J. G. P.
* When some try to make out something which they call
"an objective reconciliation" (or atonement), which is said to
consist in this, that the world, but not the individual, has been re
conciled to God, then they try to make out something which is
not only unscriptural but also self-contradictory. Why, the
world consists of individuals. Hence, if I take away or except
the individuals, what then is the world which is said to be re
conciled? Of course nothing.

TIME, MANNER, AND MEANS. 107
what does it mean for any one to be reconciled to his
brother? Does it mean to pacify, to appease, or conciliate,
his brother? Not at all. Because it may be so that the
brother does not need to be appeased, or conciliated; it
may be that his mind and loving relation have not at all
been disturbed. But still'it is necessary for him who has
wronged him to go and be reconciled to him. He must
then not think this way, and thus answer the Lord: "My
brother does not need to be reconciled." No; the Lord
did not say: "Go, and reconcile thy brother." But this
he said, "Go, and be thou reconciled to thy brother."*
And it still remains for him to be reconciled, even if the
brother does not need to be reconciled. On the other
hand, it certainly may be that the brother is so bitterly
hostile that he cannot at all be appeased, or conciliated.
This then would.be to the other a constant hinderance to
his offering; in case the Saviour had spoken of appeasing
the brother or effecting his conciliation. But no. There
fore you need not think this way: "My brother will not
be reconciled, and hence I can never go ahd offer my
gift." Nay, not so. Why, the Lord did not say, "Go,
and reconcile thy brother, and then come _ and offer thy
gift," but, "Go, be thou reconciled to thy brother," and
that can be done even though thy brother will not be re
conciled to thee. What the Saviour means is, therefore,
the same here as in other places — just what he says and
nothing else: "Thou, who hast wronged thy brother, thou
must go to him, confess thy sin and ask his forgiveness,
and in this way be reconciled to him, so that thou mayst
come into a right relation to him again. How he then
* In Swedish (as also in German) the verb is reflexive, "re
concile thyself," which makes the expression clearer and stronger.
The reflexive use of the verb does indeed occur in English, but
with a somewhat different sense — that of to submit, to make
content, etc., as "reconcile yourself to your afflictions or sur
roundings." But here the meaning is rather: to be kindly
affectioned, to be friendly disposed, etc. — J. G. P

108 THE RECONCILIATION.
feels toward thee, that is not thy business; that is his
own affair before God. If he be still hostilely disposed,
it will not be any hinderance to thy offering thy gift on
the altar. Nay, on the contrary it is then he who will be
met by this command: 'Do not come with thy offerings
before the altar, because thou standest in a wrong relation
to thy brother. Go thy way, and first be reconciled to
thy brother. Until this is done, God will not receive any
gift from thy hands'." Consequently, from this passage
we gain a new confirmation of what the Bible means by
reconciliation, and then, again, by this we understand
what it is to be reconciled to God.
112. "Well, yes; but" — thus at last some will say
— "is not this to take the very heart out of -the gospel?
If the world is not reconciled, what then shall I believe,
what then have I to live on, and die by?" — We know it:
many honest and well-meaning souls will thus question.
But to all such questionings we answer: "To let stand
what God in his word says, and to abide by it, that is not
to take away the gospel nor any part of it. That which is
written, that is the right and true doctrine, which will
suffice and hold both to live on, and to die by. Yea, it is
vastly more safe to live and die by what God says than
by what he does not say. Only dare boldly to commit
yourself to his word. But his word does not give you a
reconciliation to believe in, but it gives you a Reconciler,
a living person, the Son of God, in whom you can believe,
upon whom you can rely with full confidence of heart,
and to whom you can wholly surrender yourself. Believe
therefore in him, and then you are reconciled to God, and
can live happy and die blessed. Not this, "the world is
reconciled," but this, "Jesus is mine," shall be your faith's
joyous claim of salvation in life, and your heart's sweet
rest when, somewhere and sometime, you drop down
ready to breathe forth your last sighs on earth.

MINISTRY AND MOTIVES. IO9

CHAPTER VII.
"Be ye Reconciled to God," or, The Ministry and Motives of
Reconciliation.
113. "We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of
Christ, as though God were intreating by us: we beseech
you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor.
v. 20*). In the preceding verses the apostle had set forth
* Revised Version, which is here (as indeed also in most
other places) more nearly like the Author's (P. W.'s) Swedish
rendering in the text. The R. V. unwarrantably puts tbe pro
noun "you" in one place, — the A. V. has it twice in the verse.
But the apostle is speaking in general terms, not to Christians,
who as such of course had already become reconciled. By the
R. V. the Greek preposition "huper" (literally, over, for) is in
both places where it occurs in the verse translated "on behalf of,"
which is a great improvement over the inconsistent renderings
in the A. V., which has flrst "for Christ," and then "in Christ's
stead." But, as commentators generally agree to say, "an am
bassador speaks on behalf of, not instead of, the court which
accredits him." As will be seen in the next paragraph (§ 114),
P. W. translates "huper" by "for the sake of" ("for Christ's
sake"), which harmonizes best with its meaning throughout the
New Testament, especially here in this chapter (2 Cor. v.), which
by many has been supposed to teach substitution pure and
simple. The last clause of verse 15, however, upsets that theory
completely; for there the connection of the words (iu Greek) is
such that it cannot, by any manner or means, be construed so
as to mean any thing else than that Christ rose again as well as
died for us, that is, for our sakes, not in our stead. What an
absurd doctrine it would be to teach that he arose instead of
men, saints and sinners, the unborn as well as the dead, so that
they would never need to arise from the state of death! But
there the apostle puts the death and the resurrection of Christ
in exactly an equal relation to man. The Greek clause would
in English literally run thus: "unto the for (huper) them having
died and arisen," i. e., unto the one who for them died and arose.
There are two participles immediately connected by an ' and"
(kai) and preceded by. the definite article common to both; and

IIO THE RECONCILIATION.
that it was God who dwelt and worked in Christ, and
that his work-in Christ aimed at the reconciliation of the
whole world to himself. Every man's reconciliation to
God is therefore a work of God himself through Christ
(verse 18). After the apostle himself had been reconciled,
he had from the same God received "the word of recon
ciliation" (verse 19). And now he was an ambassador of
God for the sake of Christ. An ambassador has nothing
else to do than to deliver the words of his sender to him
whom they concern. His business is not to think out
something of his own, but simply with faithfulness to set
forth the words of the sender. Nor is it his business to
defend or explain the words of the sender, but only cor
rectly to present them. Now, such was the position of
the apostles in their relation to God. They were not to
think out anything of their own, any new doctrine, or
theology, to give to the people; but they were only to
deliver to all peoples, both to Jews and to Gentiles, plainly
and artlessly the word of God — not to explain or main-
tain it, but only to proclaim it. It is this that gives their
preaching such an extraordinary weight. Had they spoken
out of their own notions we. could say to them: "Who are
you, that we should hear you?" But now they can answer:
"It is not we, who speak, but it is God." It was God who
through his Spirit gave them all that they should speak.
Therefore Paul could say to the Christians at Thessaloni
ca: "When ye received from us the word of the message,
even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of
men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also
worketh in you that believe." (iThess. ii. 13. English
Revised Version).
between that mutual article and the participles is placed the
phrase "for them" (huper auton), wliich could not be placed any
where else, in order unmistakably to mark it as belonging to both
tho participles alike. If any other meaning had been intended,
the apostle certainly could, would and must have used a different
construction. — J. G. P.

MINISTRY AND MOTIVES. Ill
114. But the apostle's saying, "We are ambassadors
for the sake of Christ," that was not sayingmerely as much
as, "in Christ's stead," but it is saying vastly more. Imagine
a king sending an ambassador to a foreign court to pro
cure for his son a bride. 'Then that ambassador can say
that he is the king's ambassador for the sake of the king's
son, for his errand pertains to a matter of great impor
tance to the king's son. When the aged Abraham sent
his faithful servant Eliezer to his native country, in order
to procure a wife for Isaac (Gen. xxiv.), then Eliezer was
Abraham's ambassador for the sake of Isaac. Lo, similar
is the case also here. The apostle was the ambassador
of God for the sake of Christ: his embassy concerned
Christ, the cause of Christ, the kingdom of Christ, the
glory of Christ, the presenting of a bride to Christ (2 Cor.
xi. 2). When the apostle preached the gospel he did not
merely look upon the misery of men in their sins, or upon
their need of salvation, but still more — in the very first
place — upon the cause of Christ. The real motive power in
his missionary activity was not so much this thought, "It
is demanded for the salvation of lost men, which is the chief
matter concerned," but rather this thought, "It is de
manded for the glory of the name of Christ, which is
chiefly concerned, — to wit, that he may be honored, that his
kingdom may be extended until all things, according to
the promise of God, shall be put in subjection under his
feet." (Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 24—28; Heb. ii. 8). The first of
these motive thoughts is, indeed, good; it can also mightily
excite the feelings, and thus spur on the believer to ac
tivity. But it cannot give him the true steadfastness and
perseverance, nor the true power of victory. If, on the
contrary, his heart is filled with this great thought, that
his work concerns the glorification of the name of Christ
and the extension of his dominion, then this will give him
the right kind of power and persistence to devote him
self to the work, and to sacrifice all, yea, to go through

112 THE RECONCILIATION.
fire and water, if need be, in order to lay all men at his,
Jesus', feet.
115. In a similar strain the apostle expresses him
self in Rom. i. 5 where he says that through Christ he had
"received grace and apost/eship, unto obedience of faith
among all the nations, for his name's sake," that is, for the
purpose ot glorifying his name.* Here we see again the
great principal object on which his eyes were fixed first
and last, to wit: to glorify the name of Jesus by subduing
the nations (Gentiles, heathen) to him in the obedience of
faith. Most certainly the Gentiles' own salvation was an
important matter also to the heart of the apostle; but the
highest aim it was not. That highest aim was the glori
fication of Christ, as we, have just said. This way of
regarding the work of missions is now somewhat uncom
mon. But of this we will have occasion to speak some
other time. Meanwhile we understand from this what it
means that the apostle was God's ambassador "for the
sake of Christ."
116. "As God is intreating by us," the apostle adds (2
Cor. v. 20). Again he affirms that it was not he himself, but
God, who was entreating. Since God has sacrificed his only
begotten Son, in order to reconcile the world to himself,
* Thus it is seen that the Author (P. W.) takes the apostle's
expression, "for his name's sake" — literally, "for his name"
("huper," over, or, for) — in connection with the nearer phrase,
"unto obedience of faith," not in connection with the remoter
clause, "through whom we received grace and apostleship," as
the punctuation both in the R. V. and in the A. V. would indi
cate the meaning to be. That the apostle does not mean to say
that he and others had received grace and apostleship "for his
(Christ's) name's sake" — whatever such a phrase might mean —
is plain from his introductory phrase, "through whom"; forwhat
sense would there be iu saying, in connection with the very same
phrase and idea, first, "through whom," and then soon after, "for
his name's sake" ? Taken in direct connection with "obedience
of faith," the phrase, "for his name's sake," is full of grand and
glorious meaning. — J. G. P.

MINISTRY AND MOTIVES^ II3
he now by his ambassadors entreats, that is, invites, prays,
exhorts, the world to allow itself to be reconciled to him,
and not to continue in its enmity. And yet he has not
become weary, but age after age he is, .through the gospel,
reaching out his entreating hands to sinners. Oh, what
a God! Can this be the God of whom we, by nature, are
so afraid? — afraid of him, as if he would do us some evil?
Yes, just he is the one. God entreats, prays, • — mark and
¦hear again: God is begging and entreating you, "Be re
conciled to me." Have you the hardihood to resist?
117. During the last war between Russia and Turkey
all institutions of charity in Russia were ordered, without
remuneration, to receive and care for wounded soldiers.
Against this order the superintendent of a very large in
stitution protested, on a certain occasion, on fhe ground
that the officially approved regulations of the institution
forbade his complying with the order. When the emperor
had received information of this circumstance he himself
visited the institution. The superintendent, as commanded,
showed him all the rooms; but when the emperor told
him he wished him to receive wounded soldiers he an
swered humbly, but decidedly, that it was impossible.
"But if I, in a very nice manner, pray you to do so?" said the
emperor. That word touched the heart ofthe superinten
dent; he began to shed tears, and declared that, whatever
might happen, he could not resist his emperor's prayer.
This may serve us for a comparison. Perhaps you have
never yet from your heart prayed to God, but he stoops
to you and condescends to pray and entreat you. Just
think: God prays, entreats, implores you to open your
heart and receive him, in order that he may make you
happy. Can you resist that entreaty? Have you the hardi
ness to do so? That heart most be of stone which can
say "No" to such a prayer.
118. "We beseech for Christ's sake." Thus also the
apostle prays, because he is of one mind with God- He

114 • THE RECONCILIATION.
does not threaten and storm, but he prays and beseeches.*
And whom does he beseech? He beseeches the world, the
entire ungodly mass of humanity that is still lying dead in
trespasses and sins, that it might become willing to be re
conciled to God. He beseeches you — you who still are
living without God in the world. He beseeches on behalf
of God, for it is God who has given him the commission,
the embassy. And he beseeches for Christ's sake. He
repeats here the expression, "for Christ's sake," or "for
the sake of Christ." Not merely for your own sake, but
for Christ's sake, he beseeches you. As if he would say:
"It is not only your own salvation that is concerned, but
also the fulfillment of those promises which the Father
has given to his only begotten Son, that he shall have the
nations for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the
earth for his possession" (Ps. ii. 8). Nothing can be more
effectively moving than this. Just think how everything
is accumulating to the point of penetrating and stirring
up the depths of your heart: — the glory of Christ is con
cerned, — your own salvation is concerned, — God en
treats and Paul beseeches, "Be reconciled." — And you
— what are you doing? Have you still the hardihood and
power to say, "No"? Is there not something stirring in

* The Versions have, indeed, two different words to corre
spond to the different ones in the Greek original (parakaleo, used
about God, and deomai, predicate of the "we" in the text). But
the word to correspond to parakaleo should not be "beseech," as
the A. V. has it, and then the weaker "pray" to correspond to
the much stronger Greek deomai, which primarily means, "I am
in need," then "I pray, beseech, implore," etc. The apostle's
choice of words is highly and beautifully appropriate: the first
(parakaleo) meaning literally, "I call near to myself," then "I call
upon, invite, exhort, persuade, beg, entreat," implying "great
urgency, usually enforced by adducing reasons or arguments;"
the second (deomai), used only about man's praying, should then
have a corresponding stronger and humbler word like beseech,
implore, supplicate. —J. G. P.

MINISTRY AND MOTIVES. , 1 15
your heart that inclines you to say, "Yes"? Do you dare
to suppress it?
119. This concern on the part of God to have sin
ners reconciled to himself appears everywhere in the Bible.
In Isaiah lxv. i he says: "I am inquired of by them that ask
not for me; I am found of them that seek me not; unto a
nation that hath not called upon my name I said: Lo, I am
here! Lo, I am here!"* If the Lord, to some one who had
cried after him, had given the answer, "Lo, I am here!"
why, already that would have been a great favor; because
if he were to deal with us according to our deserts, he would
never notice us at all, nor care for our cry. But now in
his mercy he not only goes so far as to listen to our cries, —
nay, that does not satisfy him, for he says: "Before they
call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I
will hear" (Is. lxv. 24). But he does not let the matter
stop even at this point, — his graciousness goes still further.
To such as do not even call upon him he says: "Lo, I
am here! Lo, I am here!" It is just as if he would say:
"Perhaps you do not know that I am present, seeing that
you say nothing. But I am here. If you want anything,
let me know it. Because I have no pleasure in your death,
but in your salvation." Can you imagine anything kinder
than this? And this of the great and righteous God, of
whom the whole world thinks in its heart that he is se
cretly evil-disposed toward it. When Paul in his epistle to
the Romans cites these words of the prophet he says:
"Isaiah as very bold, and saith, 'I was found of them that
sought me not' " (Rom x. 20). As if he would say: "It

* I quote the words with the meaning given in the Revised
Version; but as the verbs, "am inquired of" and "am found," are
put in the present tense, I let "ask" and "seek" have the same
tense, as is the case in the Hebrew. The construction of the last
clause, and the exclamation, "io, lam here," I give according to
the Swedish rendering by the Author (P. W.), who generally
follows the Swedish New Proof- Translation. — J. G. P.

Il6 THE RECONCILIATION.
was very bold on the part of Isaiah to place himself, by
his preaching, so squarely against all men's natural
thoughts about God; but yet he did venture to take the bold
step." Yea, how could he have dared to- have avoided it?
Was he not — he, Isaiah, too — an ambassador of God?
Well, then, it was his duty to announce the word of his
Lord honestly and correctly.
120. But here it might stop. Is not this enough?
Oh, no! However great this seems to be, the Lord is still
greater. One is ready to ask: In what, then, can that be
possible? Why, just listen. In direct connection with the
previously quoted words (in Is. lxv.) the Lord continues:
"/ have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious
people, which walketh in a way that is not good, after their
own thoughts; a people that provoketh me to my face con
tinually." (Revised Version). — Now, listen to that:
Not only to care for such as did not call upon his name,
because, perchance, they did not know anything of him,
nor had thought of him, — not only to care for such did
he condescend; nay, that was not all; but he condescended
to care even for those who were "a disobedient and gain
saying people" (Rom. x. 21), implying that they knew of
him and had heard his voice, but spoke against him and
provoked him "before his face," that is, by serving idols
(having other gods before his face, as the expression is in
Ex. xx. 3, literally). Unto such he did spread out his
hands, and that not only once or twice; nay, all the day
he continued to spread them forth, in order to receive in
his arms the erring ones who, perhaps, yet in the eleventh
hour would consider, return, and be reconciled to him.
What do you think of such grace? Can you still hard-
heartedly bear this thought, this picture, of your God —
of him who has created you, of him who has sacrificed
his only begotten Son for you — standing with his hands
spread out all the day to you, entreating yci to let him
save you? Can you know this, and still feel safe in sin?

MINISTRY AND MOTIVES. H7
121. Let us relate a story, a true narrative of real
events. There was a Swedish workman who lived without
God. On the estate where he was working, many of his
comrades became converted, and this circumstance trou
bled him. At last he could not endure it, but left his po
sition and moved away. But in the new place where he
obtained employment, it was "no better." There also he
met Christians who "troubled" him. Then finally he de
cided to leave that place, too, and go to America. He
started. When he landed in the new world, there was a
countryman of his, "who met him, and asked him whence
he came and whither he intended to go. He told him.
But then the other man said: "It was not so much that I
meant; my question was rather concerning your soul,
whether you have ever thought about whence by sin you
have fallen, and where at last you will land." This was
too much for our man; he saw that it was God seeking
him, and with overflowing emotions he cried out: "Lord
God, is it then impossible to avoid coming in contact with
thee, since thou art even here meeting me and art stretch
ing out thy hands after me?" This was a stubborn man,
a gainsaying man, but the Lord pursued him and attacked -
him by his grace, so that he finally was obliged to sur
render. What do you say of such a God? If he now en
treats you also, will you still be determined to remain in
sin and in the world? Will you still not allow his grace to
overwhelm you?
122. The prophet Joel (in chap. ii. 12 and 13), after
having proclaimed the drawing nigh of a punitive judge
ment of the Lord, sets forth the following words of the
Lord:* "Yet even now, saith the LORD, turn ye unto me with
all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with
mourning: and rend your heart, and not your garments, and
turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and full of
* All the following quotations of Old Testament passages
are from the Revised Version. — /. G. P.

Il8 THE RECONCILIATION.
compassion, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy, and re-
penteth him of the evil" [changes his threats of punish
ments, on the conditions before named] . And in Isaiah
xlv 21 and 22 the Lord says: "There is no God else be
side me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:
for I am God, and there is none else." In Ezekiel xxxiii.
1 1 we read: "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no plea
sure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn
from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways;
for why will ye die, 0 house of Israel?" Ah, dear soul!
why should you want to die when the Lord wants you to
live? Now, now is an acceptable time, now is the day of
salvation; make use of the opportunity, for another day
is coming when it will be too late. Every step you take
brings you nearer eternity. You are just now, perhaps,
taking the last steps; "yet even now," says the Lord, "turn
unto me, for I am gracious, full of compassion, slow to
anger, and plenteous in mercy." Have you lived without
God forty, fifty, eighty years or more, — "yet even now"
hearken to his voice, and turn to him. His invitation is
not limited to any particular age. No one is too young,
and no one is too old. Neither is his invitation limited
to any certain class. No one is too high, no one too low,
no one too little a sinner, no one too great a sinner. Who
ever you may be — in the eyes of God you are too precious
to die and perish. Therefore, turn and be reconciled to
God, and you will be saved. Thus God entreats and im
plores, and he wants an answer — an answer to-day, an
answer from you. O say, what answer will you give him?
Have you the heart to answer, "No"?

BOOK-ANNOUNCEMENT.
Bibles. An large variety of style and price.
Bible Stories and Pictures. Large square quarto, cloth, gilt edges.
Bound in rich silk cloth, with handsome gilt edges  $1.50
Containing 24 large full-page colored plates and 40 pp. of vignettes,
in sepia tints, besides beautifully printed letter-press pages.
Cruden's Unabridged Concordance to the Holy Scriptures. The
special feature of this edition is the new translation, revision, and
extension of the proper names of the Old and New Testaments with
their meanings in the original languages. 758 pages, 8vo., cloth $1.25
Conversion of Children. By REV. E. P. HAMMOND. Paper 0.2i
Cloth  0.75
Child's Guide to Heaven. By REV. E. P. HAMMOND. Paper.. 0.15
Children's Meeting's, and How to Conduct Them. By LUCY J. RIDER
and NELLIE M. CARMAN. Paper..  0.50
Daily Comfort, in Four-Fold links. A New Wall Roll. Prayer,
Promise, Precept, Praise. Mounted on rollers in usual style with 32
pages, 18x24 inches  0.75
Foreign Missions of Protestant Churches; Their State and their
Prospects. By DR. J. MURRAY MITCHELL, M. A. Cloth  0.50
Grace and Truth. By W. P. MACKAY, M. A. Cloth, fine  0.75
Paper  0.35
How I Beached the Masses. By REV. CHARLES LEACH, F. G. S.
Together with twenty-two lectures delivered in the Birmingham
Town Hall on Sunday afternoons. 16mo., cloth  1.00
Jesus is Coming-. By W. E. BLACKSTONE. Arguments in favor of
the pre-millennial coming. New enlarged edition, 160 pp. Paper
covers  0.15
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Popular Portable Commentary. A
new edition, containing the complete unabridged notes, copious in
dex, numerous illustrations and maps, and a Bible Dictionary com
piled from Dr. Wm. Smith's standard work. Pour vol's, in neat box,
flnecloth  8.00
Memoir and Remains of the Bev. Robert Murray McCheyne. By
REV. A. A. BON AR. A new cheap edition. 12mo., cloth  1.50
Missionary Biographical Series :
WILLIAM CAREY, the shoemaker, who became a Missionary.
ROBERT MOFFAT, the Missionary Hero of Kuruman.
BISHOP PATTESON, the Martyr of Melanesia.
JAMES CHALMERS, Missionary and Explorer of Raretonga and
New Guinea.
ROBERT MORRISON, the Pioneer of Chinese Missions.
GRIFFITH JOHN, Founder of the Kaukow Mission, Central China.
Each volume very fully illustrated; gold and ink designs; 166 pages,
cloth  0-75
Per set, in box  1-50
Notes and Suggestions for Bible Readings. Acknowledged to be
the very best help for Bible Readings in print. Large 12mo., 262 pp.,
cloth  1-0°
Cheap edition, paper covers  0.50

S^tlllSllN