top of page
Search
Writer's pictureTodd
Jul 8, 202333 min read

Atonement: Governmental Theory Rejected

Updated: Jul 11, 2023

Adam & Eve are not equal to Hermaphroditus.


We covered the ideas that relate to the atonement which try to make God arbitrary in his forgiveness and only touched this current idea in passing. Many unstable people gravitate to only apparent sound teaching, and many times latch onto what winds of doctrine appeal to them for less honorable reasons. One book that is recommended as a standard bearer for the Governmental Theory of the atonement is available online called simply The Atonement by ALBERT BARNES. I wondered if in the process of digitalizing the book (from 1858) many periods were lost as the sentences seemed to run into paragraphs. But it appears that "a multitude of words" is the preferred technique for Albert Barnes. This book on Atonement might be better a treatise on how best to administer human government with the use of pardons. For much of the book ponders the analogies of atonement and how the pardon could be properly administered in government without undermining it.

In Ch.1 sec.1 considering human affairs he observes “Even if innocent persons could be found who would be willing to take the place of the guilty,—if there were those of exalted rank and character who would consent to take the place of the murderer or the traitor, the law would not admit the substitution, nor would it be supposed that the interests of justice could be secured by such a substitution.” “Why... should a device like that of the atonement be regarded as necessary? Since such an arrangement has never been found necessary in a human administration, the question may be asked with fairness, why, in a system absolutely perfect, as the divine government is alleged to be, and under the administration of one infinitely wise and just, should it be found necessary to resort to a device which has not been found needful under any form of human administration? And if such an arrangement as that of an atonement by the substituted sufferings of the innocent in place of the guilty would be impracticable in a human government, and would violate some of the plainest and most obvious principles of justice, how can it be introduced into the divine administration? Is that just in God which would be unjust in man?”

Sec.2 “The objects of a just moral administration are to save the innocent from the penalties which come upon the guilty and to punish the guilty, and thus to maintain the principles of law; not to transfer responsibilities, penalties, and rewards from one to the other... The essential idea of an atonement, it would be alleged, is a violation of this principle. Contrary to all the well-understood arrangements of law and justice,—arrangements so essential to the stability of the moral administration of the universe,— it represents the punishment of the sins of the world as passing over from the guilty to the innocent.”

Next in Sec.3 Barnes seems to wander into slanderous territory. “A third difficulty in the atonement considered in reference to the administration of the affairs of the world is, that it seems to be based on a view of the divine character which is unamiable, severe, harsh, stern. The doctrine of the atonement, it is said, represents God as not disposed to show mercy until it is procured by the blood of the innocent; as unwilling to pardon on the manifestation of repentance and reformation, unless the shedding of innocent blood shall have intervened; as demanding that the exact and the utmost penalty of the law shall be inflicted either on the guilty or on a substitute; as, in fact, so intent on the infliction of the penalty of law that there is in no case a remission of the penalty, but merely a transfer of it from the guilty to the innocent. According to the representations in the plan of the atonement, it would seem that no mercy is manifested toward the guilty which is not the result of purchase; that none are in fact forgiven in reference to whom the whole penalty of the law has not been borne by a substitute; that when God seems to forgive it is in appearance only; or that he has been changed by the atonement from a stern and inexorable being to a being who is mild and forgiving, and that, after all, even this is in appearance only, since he forgives only when pardon has been purchased by so much suffering for so much guilt... What would be the spirit which would be manifested among men in this respect if they were to imitate God according to the representations in the atonement? that is, if they were never to forgive unless an expiation or an atonement had been made for the offence; if they were to insist that a full equivalent should be paid for all the wrong done them, either by the offenders themselves or by a substitute; if they never pardoned unless in cases where the innocent had been made to suffer for the guilty; or even if they should admit the sufferings of the innocent at all as a reason why the guilty should go unpunished.... Does not God, in fact, in the New Testament, require us to act on a different principle from that on which it is alleged that he acts, enjoining it on us to forgive those who offend against us freely, fully, frankly? Does he not everywhere in the New Testament commend a spirit entirely different from that which is necessarily implied in demanding an atonement?”

Of course, God’s law is holy, just and good (Rom.7:12) and is a manifestation of his immutable nature. No sin is overlooked by him as we demonstrated in the previous discussion on atonement. For example:

Sinners generally slander God was being too strict in this respect, but this is simply immutable righteousness. They think it unfair if God will not pardon them, but this would involve God denying himself, which he cannot do. (2 Tim.2:13, Heb.6:13,18, Tit.1:2, Psa.33:4) God’s law is not arbitrary or capricious it is a manifestation of his divine nature.

Barnes seems to have this misunderstanding driving him to his governmental theory of atonement. Consider his notes on Rom.3:26 here:

“That he might be just - This verse contains the substance of the gospel. The word “just” here does not mean benevolent, or merciful... But it refers to the fact that God had retained the integrity of his character as a moral governor; that he had shown a due regard to his Law, and to the penalty of the Law by his plan of salvation. Should he forgive sinners without an atonement, justice would be sacrificed and abandoned. The Law would cease to have any terrors for the guilty, and its penalty would be a nullity. In the plan of salvation, therefore, he has shown a regard to the Law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners; not to endure its precise penalty, for his sufferings were not eternal, nor were they attended with remorse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper penalty of the Law; but he endured so much as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by him had been doomed to eternal death... Thus, no principle of justice has been abandoned; no threatening has been modified; no claim of his Law has been let down; no disposition has been evinced to do injustice to the universe by suffering the guilty to escape. He is, in all this great Transaction, a just moral governor, as just to his Law, to himself, to his Son, to the universe, when he pardons, as he is when he sends the incorrigible sinner down to hell. A full compensation, an equivalent, has been provided by the sufferings of the Saviour in the sinner’s stead, and the sinner may be pardoned.”

In response to his misunderstanding, Christ did not need to suffer hell forever to secure our eternal redemption. As we stated in the previous atonement study: “Hell is eternal because God is an eternal person. All our sins are against him. (Psa. 51:4, Gen.4:10, Lv.6:2, Jam.2:9, Mt.25:45, 1 Jn.3:4) Only an eternal person could satisfy his justice, thus Jesus alone could make propitiation as God manifest in the flesh. An eternal person propitiated an eternal person; deep calleth unto deep. (Ps.42:7, Heb.5:7) The redemption is not separated from the person of Christ. He alone can be the mediator and advocate because of who he is. (1 Tim.2:5, Jn.17:3, 1 Jn.2:1-2) There could not be a third-party suffering for sin for the law and righteousness itself forbids it, yea it would be unjust. (Prv.17:15, Ezk.18:4,20, 2 Chr.25:4, Ex.32:32-3, Dt.24:16) Only the incarnate God could mediate and propitiate God.”

Back to Barnes: “And why, since the evil has come into the system, and since men under the system actually become guilty, does not God pardon offenders at once, if penitent, and restore them to his favour? Why, if he is a benevolent being, is there a necessity of some stupendous intermediate work to make even repentance acceptable to God, and to dispose him to the exercise of mercy?”

Ch2 sec 1 He observes: “The difficulties in the way of pardon must be substantially the same in the divine administration as in a human government. It is proper, therefore, to inquire what those difficulties are:—

Those difficulties are such as exist in the following cases. 1. If pardon should never be extended to the guilty, or if the penalty of the law should be always rigidly executed. 2. If it is often extended to the guilty, or if there is a frequent exercise of the pardoning power. 3. If it should always be extended to the guilty, or if the penalty of the law were never inflicted”.

As if God’s thoughts and ways should be ours Barnes explains, “It would be, if such a thing could be secured, a government of perfect law, or a perfect administration of law. The principle would be that an equal and exact penalty for the violation of law should be specified; that the exact amount of criminality should be ascertained; that there should be no improper influence exerted on the mind of a judge or jury; that a just sentence should be in all cases pronounced; and that the law should always be suffered to take its course. But, if it were an admitted principle that pardon was never to be extended to the guilty, that principle would be at war with some of the finest feelings of our nature; for there is a law of our nature which requires that pardon should in some instances be extended to the guilty. We are so made that we cannot but feel that this is desirable and right. We ourselves are prompted by our nature, as well as by the precepts of revelation, to forgive an offender; and there is a demand in the very constitution of our souls which is not met if this is never done. Upright, and firm, and just, as a man may be, yet we feel that there is a defect in his character if he is only upright, and firm, and just, and that, however we may confide in him where questions of right are involved, he is nevertheless a man who cannot be loved. The same would be true in a government. However just and equal it might be in its decisions, and however impartial it might be in its administrations, it would, if pardon were never exercised, drive its decisions over some of the finest feelings, and be in conflict with some of the noblest impulses of our nature.”

Barnes begins to manifest his error which will develop as we continue. He sees a blending of justice and mercy as ideal in contrast to a complimentary and subordinate role of mercy to justice. It seems minor here but quickly changes.

“It is the manifestation of a law of our nature. It arises from the fact that we have been endowed with the emotions of sympathy and compassion as well as with a stern sense of justice.” And “since God has implanted this feeling so deeply in the human soul, and made the manifestation of it so essential to the good of society, that it may be inferred that it is a principle in his own nature and in his own administration 1 Would he make necessary in a human government a principle which has no place in his own? Would he implant in the human soul what has no counterpart in his own nature? Exercise so indispensable to the welfare of society?” His reasoning is from analogy- God made us like this and therefore he must be like this. Pardon is needed but not too frequently else “This result would be still more disastrous if pardon were always extended to the guilty, or even if it were proclaimed that pardon could, by any arrangement, be extended to all the guilty.” Again, as if God could pardon arbitrarily without satisfying justice.

In ch.3 he develops this justice and mercy blending idea further. "A fourth source of embarrassment in the administration of justice, which no human arrangement has been sufficient to overcome, is, that it is impossible to secure the exercise of both justice and mercy. The one, so far as it is exercised, sets aside the other. It is possible to be severely and sternly just, and it is possible to be tender, compassionate, and merciful; but it has not been found possible to blend the two. We have seen in the previous remarks that in our nature there is a demand for both, and that cases constantly occur where it is desirable that there should be an exercise of both; that is, cases of acknowledged crime where it is desirable that the offence should be punished, and yet cases so peculiar in their nature that it is desirable that there should be an exercise of clemency; cases where all the interests of justice demand that there should be punishment, and yet where all the benevolent feelings of our nature would be gratified by an act of pardon. There have been no arrangements in society for blending the two. There are no such arrangements in the ordinary courts of justice; there is no special tribunal where it is supposed that the two can be blended. There are arrangements in abundance for the administration of justice, and there are arrangements for the exercise of mercy, but there are none for the blending of the two. So far also as the character of one who is intrusted with administering the laws is concerned, in proportion as he is inclined to the one it is always at the expense of the other. He is merciful or just, not merciful and just.”

But that an ideal of a proper blending of these 2 traits in human government should in his mind, be the interpretive overlay to the ways of God. At this point we hear of the worn-out and emotively charged example of the “The King of the Locrians”; but eye spare you.

Barnes- “The two objects of mercy and justice have never been blended, and the devices which have been resorted to to secure the two have always been clumsy and ineffectual, and usually severe and unjust. One may easily be secured,—either justice or mercy; but frequently one is secured at the expense of the other.” Still, we are talking of administering human government not God’s divine counsel of his own will regarding atonement.

We pick up again in ch.4 where the atonement is seen as a device of administering government. “What is the purpose for which it is to be introduced into an administration of government? The second point to be secured by an atonement relates to the penalty of the law.

(1.) Penalty is "the suffering in person or property which is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime, offence, or trespass, as a punishment.''—Webster.

Punishment or penalty is evil inflicted by a lawgiver, or under his direction, to show his sense of the value of the law, or of the evil of violating the law. It is the measure of his sense of that value; it is an expression of his conviction of the evil which must necessarily follow from an infraction of the law.” And “in order to a correct understanding of the doctrine of the atonement, it is absolutely necessary to obtain a just view of the nature and design of the penalty of the law.” “In the case where it was supposed that pardon would be often extended to the guilty, we have seen that it is impossible so to do it as not to infringe on the arrangements made for securing the regular operation of law.—In a case where pardon should be always extended to the guilty, we have seen that the effect would be to encourage crime, and to render every interest in a community insecure. We have seen, also, that in human arrangements it has been found absolutely impossible to blend the two attributes of justice and mercy so that they shall be exhibited in proper proportions; so to dispense pardon, or so to administer justice, that the one shall not cast a shadow over the other.”


So, the governmental view Barnes is developing has in mind that the atonement is a device whereby a blending together of mercy and justice is to maintain balance in administering law to maintain order, albeit such a balance has not been found in human dominions. The mischaracterization of the atonement as we see illustrated by comparing the scriptures posted above, he kicks at with his idea a blending we took note of. “There should be in that atonement a real and not an imaginary display of mercy. There should not be a mere transfer of guilt; there should not be a mere infliction of wrath on the innocent instead of the guilty; there should not be mere punishment and nothing but punishment,—the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty; there should not be a mere stern demand of the ' last farthing,' demanded of the offender or of a substitute; there should be real mercy, real forgiveness, a real lessening of the infliction of pain. If this were not so, then, whether a pretended atonement were made or not, the entire representation of the character of God in the case would be that he was only severely and absolutely just, or that there was no mercy blended with justice in his character.” In addition to this he claims that were God to demand absolute justice and not suspend his own righteous requirements then this would not be real mercy on his part. Barnes defines God having mercy as the abdication or discarding of his righteousness; i.e. denying himself.


In scripture God’s justice must be satisfied in order to not deny himself and yet still have mercy. God does not change. The atonement was made so that mercy could be shown, what is problematic with that? Again, mercy is subordinate (but complimentary) to justice because God must judge sin and does not have to show mercy. He wants to show mercy because he is love. But again, he must judge sin because he is holy and just. The governmental view sees both mercy and justice as meted out arbitrarily from a blended state. Barnes again- “If an atonement can be so made as to furnish in itself a correct representation of the divine character in these respects, it is plain that so far as these points are concerned there can be no difficulty in pardoning offenders.” So, atonement is administered in a way that shows God’s mercy and justice so pardoning sinners will not undermine his rule. Thus, when we say regarding sin ‘Justice is necessary but mercy is not’, Barnes and his readers hear us saying ‘God is harsh and stern demanding the payment of the 'last farthing’. They forget the reason is to show mercy in a just way. (1 Jn.1:9) Rom.3:25-6 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

God is declaring to Albert and his disciples that He is indeed just when he forgives- not arbitrary from a blended amalgam of mercy and justice, rather a decent order of these. God’s atonement through Christ is to manifest his immutability in his nature of righteousness, and his free desire to love sinners who freely believe. Barnes again, “If an atonement can be so made as to furnish in itself a correct representation of the divine character in these respects, it is plain that so far as these points are concerned there can be no difficulty in pardoning offenders.” The difficulty he speaks of is in the administration of government related to being too merciful or too just with the pardon. The real difficulty however is in impugning God’s character; as when they claim he could justly forgive without a perfect propitiation being made. We are saying no, not without denying himself. They are saying yes, but it would not be wise administratively.

In Chapter 5 he ponders on the expectations of a remedy of ills found generally among people related to an atonement. Such as “laws of medicine" were designed for the purpose of healing; that is, that it was contemplated that there would be diseases demanding a remedy." They naturally suggest the idea of repairing moral evils. They bring the question to the mind whether it is not probable that the Author of all things, having made such arrangements for repairing the injuries resulting from a violation of the laws of health,—an injured tree, or a broken bone,—would not also make provision for repairing the higher evils that might disturb the moral system.”

Chapter 6 Barnes quoting from a “Dr. Priestley says, "We are commanded to forgive others, as we ourselves hope to be forgiven; to be merciful as our Father who is in heaven is merciful. But surely we are not thereby authorized to insist upon any atonement or satisfaction, before we give up our resentments towards an offending penitent brother. Indeed, how could it deserve the name of forgiveness if we did? It is only from the literal interpretation of a few figurative expressions in the Scriptures that this doctrine of the atonement, as well as that of transubstantiation, has been derived; and it is certainly a doctrine highly injurious to God; and if we who are commanded to imitate God should act upon the maxims of it, it would be subversive of the most amiable part or virtue in men. We should be implacable and unmerciful, insisting upon the uttermost 'farthing’.” And yet God does justly ‘require the uttermost farthing’. Every idle word, secret thing, thought and intent will be judged by the Just Judge. This contention from one Dr. Priestley again makes God like us. We however are not infinite and absolute and therefore we do not have to propitiate our just nature in order that we can have mercy, as the Creator to the creature. We do have a seed of it however as when Jesus instructs us in Lk.17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. In order that we maintain true fellowship we must incorporate justice and truth into our relationships. (e.g. Mt.18:15-17, 10:13, 34) In Dr. Priestley's example the penitence of the brother is the ground of reconciliation.


In chapter 7 Barnes lowers bar for the requirements of God’s justice. He reasons the atonement “is not a commercial transaction,—a matter of debt and payment, of profit and loss. It pertains to law, to government, to holiness; not to literal debt and payment. Sin is crime, not debt; it is guilt, not a failure in a pecuniary obligation. The atonement pertains to love, and mercy, and truth, and kindness, as well as to justice.” The part about a commercial obligation is literally true but ignores atonement money- Ex 30:12-6, 1 Pt.1:18 and that transgression is referred to as sin debt. (Mt.6:12, 5:25-6, Lk.11:4, Mt 18:23-35) Barnes continues,” there could be no mercy in the case. When a debt is paid, there is no forgiveness; when a penalty is endured, there is no mercy. It is an affair of strict and inexorable justice. Now, it need scarcely be said that this view is entirely contrary to all the representations of the atonement in the Scriptures. Nothing is more plain than that the whole transaction there is represented as one of mercy; that it is designed to illustrate the love, as well as the justice, of God.” He sees atonement through the blended perspective rather than the complimentary subordinate revelation. He assumes a false dilemma as either his government pardon view or "a mere exaction of the penalty”.


Albert continues to push the bar of God’s standard of righteousness even lower stating “It is not meant by the atonement that Christ endured the literal penalty of the law.” As an example, he points out the reaping of turmoil in one's life and the burden of conscience from sowing to drunkenness. And “it is certain that the Redeemer never suffered remorse of conscience.” He explains that since this is the real penalty Christ did not therefore endure it by definition. But the penalty inflicted by God directly from his throne of judgment in the day of judgment is his divine sentence upon each sinner, which is to drink the cup of his wrath forever. Christ did taste this death (Matt.26:39,53-4, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42) for every man when God laid upon him the iniquity of us all and he became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. (Heb.2:9, 1Jn.2:2,4:10, Isa.53:5-6,8,10-12, 2 Cor.5:19,21,1Pt.2:24, 3:18)

Barnes continues dulling the glory of Christ’s actual atonement arguing that “Equally certain is it that he did not endure eternal death. It will be admitted, by those who believe in the necessity of an atonement, that eternal death was the penalty of the law. Assuming that the penalty of the law is eternal death, then it is plain, as a matter of simple fact, that the penalty was not endured in making the atonement. Fearful and awful as the sufferings of the Redeemer were, they were not eternal. They were closed in a few hours; and by no possibility of fiction can it be imagined that they were eternal.” As we explained before, hell is eternal because God is eternal and does not change. Therefore, Christ alone could make propitiation because he is himself eternal. Only an eternal person could satisfy his justice, thus Jesus alone could make propitiation as God manifest in the flesh. The eternal person propitiated the eternal person.

Barnes recognizes this earlier in Ch.7 observing “It is impossible that this should have occurred unless the Divine nature actually suffered. If that were so, then it might be conceivable that an amount of suffering might have been endured in the time during which the Redeemer was on the cross which would be equal to all that those for whom he died would endure if in their own persons they bore the penalty of the law forever; for, if an infinite Being could thus suffer, the very fact that he is infinite would make such a supposition possible. But on no other supposition can it be conceived that, in the hours in which the Redeemer hung on the cross, or in the whole length of a human life, an amount of suffering could have been endured which would be equal to what countless millions could endure in the world of woe if prolonged to eternity.” He doesn’t appear from this statement to believe that “the Divine nature actually suffered” in the incarnate Word in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Barnes explains “This doctrine cannot be believed.... the doctrine was found that God had endured mortal pangs. Such a statement would so impinge on all the conceptions which men entertain of the Divine nature, that it could not, and would not, be believed. God cannot suffer and die. If there is any thing of which the human mind is perfectly confident, it is of the truth of this statement ; and if it were necessary that the Divine nature should suffer in order that an atonement should be made, it is clear that it would have been forever impossible.

God cannot die ; and yet, in all the representations which we have of the atonement, the statement is that it was made by the death of the victim.” (pg.225-6) If Christ is the express image of the Father in whom all fulness dwells, is he not fully God incarnate? (Col.2:9, 1:19, Heb.1:3) Had he not this muddleheaded oversight he would have written a more relevant treatment of the atonement.

At one point in Ch.7, Barnes almost seems to land upon the central point in Christ’s atoning work. He affirms the atonement “is a practical work, in the pardon of the guilty, and in placing him in a condition as if he had not violated the law. The essential reason why this is done, is that God is merciful; the manifested reason is, that the same ends have been secured, so far as the design in the appointment of the penalty of the law is concerned, which would have been if the offender had been punished: in other words, mercy can now be manifested consistently with justice; for the act of pardon does not imply, by a fair construction, any disregard of the claims of justice or of the real interests of the community.” But again, his concern with justice is that it relates to the community and not God’s immutability. In a nutshell this is what the governmental theory propagates: “Mere mercy could be shown in any case; but, as we have seen, there are insuperable difficulties in all governments in the exercise of pardon without an atonement.” God could be arbitrary in dispensing mercy, but it would in such a case create problems for those under God’s dominion. “Mere justice could be shown by a rigid infliction of the penalty of the law in all cases whatsoever. It could be shown in a human government on earth; it could be shown in the Divine government in hell,—for God could consign every violator of his laws, under the most exact administration of justice, to the woes which sin deserves. But then, as we have seen, this would be attended with numerous evils. It would impinge on the finer feelings of our nature. It would make a government harsh, severe, tyrannical,—an administration to be feared, not to be loved. It would violate principles which have been implanted by the Creator himself within us; for there is an arrangement in our constitution which shows that it was contemplated that mercy should enter largely into the course of things in the universe, and that the government of the universe should not be the exercise of mere stern, inexorable law.” God showing justice alone without mercy would be evil to us apparently! Impinging on the finer feelings of our nature, causing us not to love such a tyrannical administration. This is foolishness.


Blending the two is apparently how he perceives God exercising his infinite attributes to us-ward. God ends up being like the creature, rather than it is in truth God exercising himself in matters too great for us in ways that are higher than ours. We have neither part nor lot in such divine matters. Barnes however intrudes into such things. “The object of the atonement is the blending of the two. It is an arrangement by which one shall not be exercised at the expense of the other. In the ordinary course of things, and as affairs are actually administered among men, the two do not harmonize. One is sacrificed to the other. If mere justice is displayed, there is no mercy; if mere mercy, justice is sacrificed.” Barnes says that angels learn “in blending together in the work of redemption the attributes of justice and mercy. In no human government, as we have seen, have these attributes been blended. In no individual character on earth have they been perfectly combined. In no other world, so far as we know, have they been united. Angelic beings, therefore, could see in the work of redemption on earth a manifestation of the character of God more interesting by far, as we must suppose, than the exhibition of power and wisdom in the work of creation...” But in addition to wisdom and power the angels also saw the justice of God with regards to the devil and his angels. They did not see any mercy for the devil and his angels and yet this did not seem to be a problem for their worship and service of the Lord of Hosts.

In Ch.8 the defacing of the atonement proceeds by removing God’s integrity at the center. He continues. “In the case of redemption, ruin was coming upon the race of man. It was certain that unless there was some substitution the race would perish. Sufferings indescribable and awful—sufferings that would express the Divine sense of the value of law and of the evil of a violation of that law—must come either upon the offenders themselves, or upon some one who should take their place; and God chose that those sufferings should come upon the Redeemer rather than upon the guilty.” The “indescribable and awful” sufferings upon Christ in Alberts estimation “consisted essentially in his blood; that is, in the sacrifice of his life.” But not actually because in addition sufferings had to be inflicted; and apparently arbitrary afflictions since “the sufferings of the Redeemer were substituted sufferings, or that they were not the real and literal penalty of the law.” “The point now to be established is, that the sufferings themselves were substituted sufferings, or that they were not the real and literal penalty of the law, but were in the place of that penalty and were designed to answer the same end.

In a previous chapter I have endeavoured to show that it does not enter into a just view of the atonement that he who made it should endure the same sufferings as the guilty for whom he died, or that he should bear the same amount of suffering; or, in other words, that he should endure the literal penalty of the law.” "The inquiry now is, whether the Bible teaches that Christ endured the real and literal penalty of the law, or whether the doctrine of the Bible is that his sufferings were substituted sufferings, as well as that he himself was a substituted person.” The gospel is how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures so let's see what Barnes has to say.

“The particular idea as applicable to the work of the Redeemer, in the sense that his death was in behalf of or for us,—that is, was so substituted as to avert the curse that was descending on us,—may be seen in the following passages:—Luke 22.19: " This is my body which is given for you." Luke 22.20: "This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you." John 6.51: "The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 10.11: "The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." John 10.15: "I lay down my life for the sheep." John 15.13: "Greater love hath Do man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Still more explicitly the idea occurs in the following language:— "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." Rom. 5.6. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom. 5.8. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." Rom. 8.32. "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." Rom. 14. 15. So also in 1 Cor. 1.13: "Was Paul crucified for you?" 1 Cor. 5.7: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. 15. 3: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins." 2 Cor. 5.14, 15: "We thus judge that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again." 2 Cor. 5.21: "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." Gal.1.4: "Who gave himself for our sins." Gal. 2.20: "Who gave himself for me." Gal.3. 13: "Being made a curse for us." Eph. 5.2: "Christ hath loved us, and given himself for us." Eph. 5.25: "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." 1 Thess. 5.10: "Who died for us." 1 Tim. 2.6: "Who gave himself a ransom for all." Titus 2.14: "Who gave himself for us." Heb. 2.9: "That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." 1 Peter 2.21: "Because Christ also suffered for us." 1 Peter 3.18: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." 1 Peter 4.1: "Forasmuch, then, as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh." 1 John 3.16: "Because he laid down his life for us."

“The fair teachings of the Bible do not imply that he endured the penalty of the law. If an attempt were made to show that he did endure the literal penalty of the law, reliance would be placed on such texts as the following:—Isa. 53:6 "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." 2 Cor. 5.21: "For he hath made him to be sin for us." Gal. 3.13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." 1 Peter 2.24: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." Isa. 53.12: "He bare the sin of many." Commenting upon Gal.3.13: "Being made a curse for us" he states “It cannot mean that he bore the literal penalty of the law; for, as we have seen, there are parts of that penalty—remorse of conscience, and eternity of suffering—which he did not, and could not, bear. It cannot mean that he was sinful, or a sinner, in any sense; for this is equally contrary to all the teachings of the Bible in regard to his character. There is but one other conceivable meaning that can be attached to the passage, and that is that, though innocent, he was treated in his death As If he had been guilty; that is, he was put to death As If he had personally deserved it. That this is the meaning is implied in the explanation which the apostle himself gives of his own language:—" being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree... As the ideas above referred to exhaust all the conceivable meanings of the passage before us, the demonstration seems to be complete that it cannot mean that the Redeemer was made a literal curse, or that he endured the literal penalty of the law."


“So, in the plan of atonement, it is supposed that the Lord Jesus Christ took the place of sinners. He died that they might not die. He placed himself between them and the sword of justice; he received in his own person, as far as could be done, what was due to them; and he thus saved them from experiencing in the world of despair what was due to their sins. He effected so much by his voluntary sufferings that it was not necessary, by any demands of justice, to inflict the penalty of the law on those for whom he died.” Barnes dulls the edges to the “sword of justice” for what was due their sins was eternal damnation.


Next, Barnes leavens the discussion further with the same sort of ‘double jeopardy’ arguments we usually find among Calvinists- whom ultimately, he seems to be arguing against. (e.g. “If the true idea of the atonement is that Christ endured the literal penalty of the law, then the doctrine of a limited atonement must be true.” Ch.9.sec.1.c) “It would follow, further, that those for whom he died could not themselves be held and regarded as guilty. If there has been a transfer of their guilt, it is no longer their own, and they cannot be responsible. Two persons cannot be held responsible for the same offence. If a debt has been paid by a friend, it cannot be demanded of him who originally contracted it. If one could be substituted in the place of another in a penitentiary, and serve out the term of punishment assigned to the original offender, the offender could not be again imprisoned for the crime. If a man who is 'drafted' for military service procures a substitute who is accepted, he cannot be made to serve if the substitute dies of disease or is killed in battle. And so, if Christ was literally made 'sin' and a 'curse;' if he took literally upon himself the sins of men and paid the penalty of the law; if there was a real transfer of the whole matter to him, then it would follow that those whose place he took could no longer be held to be guilty.”

What they fail to apprehend is that Christ substituted himself and thereby became the judge of the living and the dead. Those for whom he suffered that have rejected his offering will succumb to that wrath through him. It is now the wrath of the Lamb. (Rev.6:16, 14:10) All judgment is transferred to the Son to administer. (Jn.5:22,27, Ac.17:31,10:42, Rom. 2:16,14:8-10, 2 Cor.5:10, Matt.28:18,16:27 Rev.5:5-7) So, ‘double jeopardy’ is not useful here speaking of divine matters.

Wrapping up this chapter (8) foray into scripture Barnes summarizes “The plain doctrine of the New Testament, therefore, is, that the blood of Christ—that is, that the giving of his life—was the means of making the atonement, or of securing reconciliation between man and his Maker. In other words, his life was regarded as a sacrifice in the place of sinners, by means of which the penalty of the law which man had incurred might be averted from him. The voluntary death of the Redeemer in the place of man had such an efficacy that man, on account of that, might be saved from the punishment which he had deserved, and treated as if he had not sinned. This is the doctrine of the atonement.”


Curiously absent in Alberts investigation of the atonement from scripture is the actual day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, thus the scriptures pertaining directly to a doctrine should be more than tertiary. The word atonement is found in the KJV 70 times interestingly; 69 of which are in the Old Testament, also interestingly (Dan.9:24-5). 43 times it is in Leviticus, 15 of which are in the chapter revealing the day of Atonement. I had to go to Barnes commentary of Lev.16 to locate his thoughts. What appears most interesting to Barnes in that chapter is “Azazel”, “the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh.” He references the scapegoat “for His service in carrying off the sins to Azazel”. If Azazel is translated scapegoat, how is he carrying sins to Azazel? Apparently, he was eating from the same trough as Ellen White regarding Azazel, pushing blasphemous ideas as the ransom to Satan theory of atonement (1 Cor. 10:20, Ex.22:20) or that Satan bears our sins in the end. (Mrs. White and Mr. Barnes published in 1858- Atonement by Barnes and The Great Controversy by White.) The most salient point with the scapegoat was the imputation by the laying on of hands. (See Lev 16 Day of Atonement and the doctrine of laying on of hands, which is considered milk in Heb.5:13-6:2) “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 transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.” Lev.16:21-2 All means all (Heb.2:2, Isa.59:18, Hab.1:13, Nah.1:3, 1 Ki.8:32, Rom.2:5-6), as in v16-17. All their personal sins and uncleanness were imputed to the two goats; not merely a substituted form of justice but an exact representation of it. Every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward. Heb.2:2 (Prv.24:12, Ecc.12:14, Mt.16:27, Rv.2:23, 20:13, 22:12, 2 Chr.6:23, Psa.9:4, Dt.21:5, Jer.11:20, 25:14, Jude1:15, Rom.2:6-10, 3:5-6, 12:19, Ex.34:7, Num.14:18, Heb.2:2, 10:30, 12:23, Mt.12:36, 2 Cor.10:5, Gen.6:5, Ecc.3:17, Dt.21:5) "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows... he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him... the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken...thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin...he shall bear their iniquities... and he bare the sin of many..."(Isa.53) It was indeed their sins and their iniquities which Christ bore and not an arbitrary inexact substitute of their sins and therefore of their general penalty. This is God’s just nature which changeth not and should not be interpreted by “a law of our nature”.


Barnes Ch.8- “This is, if I understand it, the true doctrine of 'imputation;' not that there is any transfer of moral character from us to the Redeemer, or from him to us, and not that God literally 'reckons' or imputes our sins to him as his, or his righteousness to us as ours, but that his work may be estimated as performed in the place and on the account of sinful men, and that in virtue of that we may be regarded and treated as if it had been performed by ourselves. On that account we may be justified and saved; for he has done more to honour the law than we should have done by our own obedience; he has done more to show the evil of a violation of law by his voluntary sufferings than we should have done if the penalty had been inflicted on us; and he has become the ‘surety' for us,—the public pledge that no evil shall result to the universe if we are treated forever as if we had not sinned. This is the meaning of the Scriptures where it is said, "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53.5.” No Mr. Barnes, you do not understand it. (Rom. 4:5-7)


The misunderstanding continues in the last chapter (9) as well. “If, therefore, the atonement was a commercial transaction,—the exact payment of a debt due to justice by the sinner,—it could be applicable only to those for whom it was made; and all who embrace this view of the work of the Redeemer must maintain the doctrine of limited atonement, and all offers of salvation made by them to those for whom Christ did not die, must be based on falsehood and insincerity.” “If the true idea of the atonement is that Christ endured the literal penalty of the law, then the doctrine of a limited atonement must be true. For, in that case, all that the law demands has been accomplished; all that a penalty implies has been endured. But there is no such thing as a general penalty. The penalty of law pertains always to individuals. The demands of the law are demands on individual men; the penalty for violating law pertains to the individuals who do it. If they could themselves bear the penalty, they would have a right to a discharge; and if another should bear it for them, they would have an equal right to it. If, therefore, the literal penalty be borne, the transaction must pertain to the individuals in reference to whom the claims of the law have been 'satisfied,' and can be extended to no other.” The infection of mind Barnes moves with is opposing Calvinism to excess; to cut off his nose to spite his face.

The reason ‘commercial’ debt is referred to in scripture regarding sin and atonement is to apply mathematical precision to God’s justice. (Ex 30:12-6, 1 Pt.1:18, Mt.6:12, Lk.11:4, Mt 18:23-35) To pay the uttermost farthing (Mt.5:25-6) is for every transgression and disobedience to receive a just recompence of reward. Heb.2:2 This is perfect justice and God cannot deny himself. This was what God intended on showing by the law of Moses. (Rom.7:12, Deut.4:8, Psa.19:9) The way out of God’s perfect justice was the shedding of blood, the way he provided through Christ alone, the only way unto the Father. (Jn.14:6, Heb.10:19-21) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal.3:24)

Barnes - “If, as I endeavoured to show, the atonement is (a) something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would have done; (b) that it secures reconciliation between God and man; and (c) that it is a manifestation of the character of God to the inhabitants of other worlds, in showing to them how justice and mercy may be blended in the pardon of offenders, then it would seem clearly to follow that it may be general in its nature, and may be applicable to any number of individuals.”


He has in fact not shown that “something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would have done”. Rather he has asserted it arbitrarily after using poor general argumentation which he substituted for exact and precise arguments. He piled the chains together but failed to link them. Barnes desire is to make God arbitrary thereby not having absolute integrity; to make him perfectly 'blended' in his attributes and thus arbitrary depending on how the creature will respond. The penalty of the law was arbitrarily altered and lessened (substituted) and administered according to his view of God’s justice. And “in showing to them how justice and mercy may be blended” he has not maintained the revelation of God regarding the subordinate role of mercy to justice. That the mercy of God appears all the more beautiful beside his justice when justice is as strong and perfect in application as can be. That justice must be the head since God cannot change and must punish equally and without respect to persons all their sins. But once this proper marriage of mercy to justice has been covenanted, God’s glory can be seen more purely. That to keep separate these two aspects of his nature and bring them into proper union at the cross is to enter into the great mystery. (Eph.5:22-33) But to follow Barnes and his disciples where the objective of the atonement is the blending of the two into one does not give us a marriage but a Hermaphrodite by the mystery of iniquity.




53 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comentarios

bottom of page