DR. WALDENSTROM AND NON-VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.

I.

The work of Dr. Waldenstrom may well take its place among the Current Events which deserve special notice at our hands. It is one of the signs of the times-sad signs of the departure from the faith which is going on every where, and will go on to the apostasy predicted as that in which the dispensation ends. (2 Thess. 2:) I do not take it up, however, merely to notice it as that, but to give full examination to the views themselves, which, having been widely accepted already among Scandinavians generally, are now being brought before the English-speaking public for an acceptance which they are but too sure to find with many. Dr. Waldenstrom's writings have in them a tone of piety which will attract, while they assume to deal exhaustively with Scripture on their several topics. It is something which assuredly they are very far from doing, a partial truth being very commonly mistaken for the whole, so that we have but to fill in the gaps to find the antidote. But the appearance of doing so will be enough with many to carry their convictions, at least for a time. Among his own countrymen, we are told,-

"The promulgation of the author's views on the atonement occasioned a very general and earnest searching of the Word of God by all classes of Christians, and as these so-called 'new views' were plainly found just in that Word, they were accepted by the majority of Swedes, in their own and in this country [America] ; also by many among Norwegians and Danes, by preachers and people in and outside the state church. Notwithstanding the cry of heresy raised in some quarters at the time against Dr. W–, he passed triumphantly (in 1873), by a discussion before the bishop and consistory of the diocese, his examination for admission into the higher orders of the clergy. In 1874, he was appointed professor of theology (including Biblical Hebrew and Greek) in the state college at Gene, one of the largest cities in Sweden. This position he still holds, while at the same time he is serving his second term in the Swedish parliament."

It is with the treatise on the "Blood of Jesus," the key-note to his views as to atonement, that we naturally begin. It leads us at once into the heart of our subject.

He tells us, first of all, that if, according to the law of Moses, "almost all things are purged with blood " (Heb, 9:22), "the purging itself was accomplished, not by the slaying of the victim, but by the sprinkling with the blood. This has a profound typical significance. In the New Testament also it is said that cleansing from sin is effected by the blood of Jesus-notice :not by the death of Jesus, but by the blood of Jesus."

This is true, and the reason is plain also:by the blood of Jesus our "hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience." (Heb. 10:22.) And this sprinkling is just the application to the person of Christ's blessed work Useless would His death be to us if it were not to be applied-that is, appropriated to us ; and the blood speaks of death, but of a violent death, not of a natural one; of a life taken, not merely ended. A natural death the Lord could not have died, and such a death could not have availed us, because it implies sin in the one who dies.

But, says Dr. Waldenstrom further, by the blood of Christ we cannot mean His bodily or physical blood ; but the blood must be a type of something:we have to ask ourselves, therefore, what the blood typifies.

This is a very serious mistake. The blood of Christ is not a type of something else. It is used metonymically, as the rhetoricians say,-that is, to express such a death as has been pointed out; but that is a very different thing from its being a type. This would deny the blood of the cross to have any real place in our cleansing from sin at all. It would be simply in such relation to it as was Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, and nothing more. Dr. Waldenstrom seems to have borrowed from Swedenborgianism here.

But he asks what is meant by the saints having "washed, their robes in the blood of the Lamb," or our eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood. " Every one understands," he says, "that the blood here is a type of something." I can only answer that, for my own part at least, I have never thought so. Figurative, of course, the expressions are; but it does not follow that every expression in a sentence is figurative even because some are. The washing and the garments, the eating and the drinking, may be figurative ; and are, surely :but it does not make the blood simply a "type." When the Lord says, "He that eateth me shall live by Me," is Christ Himself only a type ? It is strange that a professor of theology should make so rash a statement.

He bids us, again, observe that it is not "faith in the blood" which cleanses from sin, but the blood itself. And that it is not the " value of the blood in the sight of God," but only the blood. And again, that the blood of Christ is never represented as a payment to God for our sins; nor in the Old Testament is the blood of the sacrifices ever represented as such a payment.

What all this is to prepare the way for is pretty clear. But is it true? and is it the whole truth ?

For it is plain that if our hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience – and sprinkling is to cleanse, as Dr. Waldenstrom insists,-we read, on the other hand, of God "purifying hearts through faith" (Acts 15:9), and of " peace "-that is, a purged conscience-" in believing' (Rom. 15:13); just as we read of justification by faith, sanctification by the truth,-that is, of course, by faith in it,-and so on. Surely it is true that faith has for its object, not faith, but Christ, and His work, and that its power for blessing is in this very thing. Thus this is just how faith necessarily must say, "Not faith, nor any thing in myself, but the blood of Christ cleanseth." And that is true ; and yet without faith there would be no cleansing.

Now, when he says, It is not the value of the blood in the sight of God that cleanses, he makes another mistake . of the same kind. Whatever the value of a remedy, of course, it is not its value that acts in the cure. It is the remedy itself that acts. It is indeed the blood that cleanses, and by its being sprinkled ; but if we ask, how is it the sprinkled blood can cleanse? we shall then find that its cleansing power depends upon its atoning power,- that is, upon its value in the sight of God. Dr. Waldenstrom confounds here cleansing with atonement, while in general we shall find he makes atonement to depend upon cleansing, instead of making, as he should make, cleansing depend upon atonement. These two things are widely different. Cleansing is for man, (it is man who is cleansed), while atonement is for God. Once let us make this easy distinction, Dr. Waldenstrom's doctrine will appear the mere confusion that it really is.

As to the blood of Christ being payment for our sins, the expression, it is true, is indefensible, although those who use it have, after all, a truer thought than Dr. Waldenstrom. It is true that the sacrifices of old were not represented as payment for sin, and that this would be a gross, low thought, unworthy of God ; yet our author seems to have forgotten that there was such a thing as atonement-money (Ex. 30:12), and that this was said to be a ransom for their souls. It is to this also that the apostle refers when he says that we " were not redeemed with corruptible things, as with silver and gold,'. . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and, without spot." (i Pet. 1:18, 19.) Here, undoubtedly, the blood of Christ is regarded as the true atonement-money.

The thought, then, is, of a price by which we are redeemed; and with this, all are purchased. (2 Pet. 2:1:) Christ's sufferings are thus a price He paid for all, though only a ransom-price, for His people. Purchase must be distinguished from redemption, although every one that will may find in the first general truth what enables him to realize the special and distinctive one. Christ tasted " death for every man." (Heb. 2:9.) Here is the price paid, and for all:it is for faith to lay hold of this, and say, as it has title to say, "Then I am His." To him who receives this precious grace, the purchase is found to be redemption.

What, then, is the mistake in saying that Christ has made " payment for our sins"? This, that in Scripture the price is for us, not for our sins. He has bought us as that which had value in His eyes. True that the price He had to pay was really that of making atonement for our sins :here is the way open for the confusion, if we are not as careful as, in matters such as these, we should be; and yet we ought to be able easily to distinguish what is very different. Price paid for us speaks of where His heart is:price paid for sin conveys the thought of God being able to tolerate it if His demands are met. Yet no renewed soul could mean such a thing or think of it. The expression to him is only intended to convey that there was an absolute necessity for satisfaction to God's righteousness in order to our salvation, and Christ has given this. Blessed be God, He has! but price for sin is a different thought, and one to be rejected utterly- which every true soul brought face to face with it will assuredly reject.

But Dr. Waldenstrom sees no need of satisfaction to divine justice, as Mr. Princell on his part explicitly assures us ("The Reconciliation," p. 5, n.). Thus-with him there is not merely confusion of thought, but fundamental error, as will be clearly seen in the issue.

For him, the blood of Christ is a type, as we have seen; and he thinks that very commonly " Christians hear and speak and sing about the ' blood of Jesus ' without making it clear to themselves what this expression means," and so it is not "of any use to true edification" ! If this be so, it is surely sad enough. Think of it, that very commonly to true Christians (we must suppose) all their hearing and talking and singing about the blood of Jesus is really a vain and idle thing ! They do not even know what the blood of Jesus means ! What then ? do they not know that it is that which was shed for them upon the cross for their sins? And is the belief of that wondrous fact unedifying to the one who bows prostrate in adoration before God because it is so ?

What is, then, for Dr. Waldenstrom the meaning of the blood of Jesus ? He goes on to tell us,–

"In Lev. 17:11 (according to the original), we read, 'The life [or soul] of the body is in the blood, and I have given it you to sprinkle [or pour] upon the altar, that thereby atonement may be made for your lives [or souls]; for the blood maketh atonement by reason of the life [or soul] which is therein.' And again in ver. 14, ' The life [or soul] of all flesh is in its blood, and it [the blood] constitutes its life [or soul]. For that reason the Israelites were forbidden to eat blood. From these words we understand that the blood is a term for or expressing life ; and this immediately sheds a beautiful, heavenly light upon the language of the Bible concerning the blood of Jesus,"

The blood means, then, the life, for Dr. Waldenstrom:that is evidently not death, but its opposite. And the blood of Jesus of course means, not the death, but the life of Jesus !

Let us first of all examine Dr. Waldenstrom's translation of the passages to which he refers us. Would it be imagined that, he has more than once inserted words which are not there, but which are his commentary merely, and even emphasized what he has inserted, as if part of the text? Yet it is so:the words, "to sprinkle [or pour]," and "which is therein," the last of which is emphasized for us in his book, have absolutely nothing corresponding to them in the Hebrew; and the last of these additions is one of special importance for his argument. "For the blood maketh atonement by reason of the life which is therein." Therein, when? Remember that it is the blood sprinkled or poured upon the altar to make atonement of which this is said. Is the life in it then 1 That would seem perhaps too foolish a question to be asked. Yet the nature of Dr. Waldenstrom's argument requires one to say, Yes ; and he actually makes Scripture say so too ! The blood sprinkled makes atonement by the reason of the life which is in it!

Strike out the interpolated words, and we have Scripture, and what is consistent with the fact. The blood does make atonement by reason of the life, but not of a life which is still in it, but of a life rendered up. That is, it speaks of death, as every Christian perhaps before Dr. Waldenstrom has understood it. If "the blood constituted its life"-the life of the body,-it is surely in the body that it does so, and not out of it. "The life"-not soul-"is in the blood;" or, as this means, and is said further on, it is the blood that is the life. What, then, does the blood shed mean but life poured out? and what is life poured out but death!

But our author would put it rather thus, that the blood being the life of the body, when shed out it still represents its life; nay, he says this is a very common representation in the Bible. The instances he gives are singular enough:Jonathan's words to his father, "Wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause ? " David saying (Ps. 94:21), "They gather themselves together against the soul [or life] of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood;" Ezek. 3:18, The blood of the wicked required at the watchman's hand ; Pilate's words, " I am innocent of the blood of this just person ; " the people's answer, " His blood be upon us and on our children ;" Judas's confession, "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood ; " and then he curiously remarks,-

"From all these Scripture-expressions we thus see that it is very common for the Scriptures to say Hood instead of life; and especially is this very common when the question is of a life sacrificed in death, as we have seen already from the examples quoted" !

Truly we have. So that a life sacrificed is still "life" for the Swedish professor, and not death at all; and we may read, " His life be upon us and on our children," etc., etc.! What can one say? What need one say? The life which is not death turns out to be a " sacrifice in death; "and he even ventures to quote, "The Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many," as explaining "we have redemption through His blood," and to say, as the conclusion of it all, "The blood of Jesus is nothing else than His life given in His death for us." Of course it is; but what is "life given up in death" as distinguished from death ?

All the texts in which "blood" is spoken of here speak of death, yet Dr. Waldenstrom would teach that it is not death at all that is meant. What is it, then ? " Life given up in death"! ! And this is proved by the very texts which were to show us the difference.

To what is all this leading us ?We shall soon see:-

" In Matt. 26:28, the Lord says, while He hands the blessed cup to His disciples, ' This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.' In and with and under the wine He gave them His blood, made them partakers of His life, which He was now about to lay down for them in death. When He handed them the bread, He did not say, This signifies or represents My body;' but, ' This is My body;' and when He handed them the wine,"He did not say, 'This signifies or represents My blood;' but, 'This is My blood.' Thus, while giving them the bread and wine, He made them real partakers of Himself, joined them to Himself as members of His body, and made them partakers of His life."

Here, then, is the key of Dr. Waldenstrom's position. He is, as we see, thus far still a Lutheran, though with a strange gap in his defenses as that, through which the enemy will surely find an easy way. Go back to Marburg and the table-cloth, and conceive, if you can, Luther maintaining his thesis with the admission made that the blood of Christ was a figure, though the drinking it was literal! Dr. Waldenstrom apparently must believe this, although the Lord actually speaks of the shedding of His blood in the text quoted ; but this means, he tells us, His life laid down. Let us meet this straightforwardly, then:is it true that the Lord made His disciples then (or that He makes them now) partakers of that human life which He laid down for us ? It is not true ; or, if it be, it should be shown us plainly. It is "everlasting life" of which we, blessed be God ! are made partakers :was it everlasting life that the Lord laid down for us ? Can everlasting life become extinct in death ? Will even Dr. Waldenstrom say so?

Thus simply is the whole argument overthrown. As for the Lutheran view itself, it is as contrary to Scripture as it is to. reason; and Scripture is never contrary to reason, though it often transcends it. But Scripture plainly says that the Lord's Supper is a remembrance, and a remembrance of His death. The bread and the wine thus represent Christ's body and blood separate, as they are in death :the blood is shed; we show forth Christ's death till He comes. He Himself says, with reference to such a misunderstanding of like words elsewhere, "Doth this offend you ? What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?"-as if that would end all thought of this kind,-" it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing :the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (Jno. 6:61-63.)

(To be continued.)