(2.) And now mark, in the second place, how God treated him. The King of Kings was not ashamed of being the companion of the prisoner in the pit. It was a deep, dark dungeon; but the man of God was not alone there. The stone on the top could not shut out God, as it could not shut in prayer. And you will observe the prophet was not required to climb out of the pit to find the Lord, as so many people are continually trying to do, but the Lord drew nigh to him when he was at the bottom, not when he was at the top, or half-way up; but at the bottom,in the mire, and in the dark. It was there that God drew near to him in the day that he called, and most graciously spoke to his soul, and said, ‘Fear not.’ How often, how mercifully have these words been spoken! I believe they occur more than fifty times in Scripture. How often do we meet with such words as ‘Fear not, Abraham.’ ‘Fear not, thou worm Jacob.’ ‘Fear not, Daniel.’ ‘Fear not, Zacharias.’ ‘Fear not, little flock.’ ‘Fear not, Paul.’ ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last!’ Do not all these passages show that there is reason for fear in outward life, and that there is the element of fear in the human heart, but there may be a victory over fear even in the bottom of the pit, when the Lord Himself draws nigh, and says, ‘Fear not.’ But you may say you cannot hear the words, and, no doubt, in that you are correct, for we are not to expect loud voices from heaven. We have not the least reason to believe that Jeremiah heard a voice. When David prayed, ‘Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation,’ he did not mean that these words should be spoken audibly to his ear. But he did mean that the assurance of God’s salvation should be applied by the Holy Spirit to his heart. And sowhen God drew near to Jeremiah and said, ‘Fear not,’ we are not to understand that His person was visible to the eye, or the sound of His voice perceptible to the ear. But we are to understand that He so spoke to his heart as to assure him of His nearness, and to still his fears. And so it is with us. We do not look for anything perceptible by outward sense, but we do look for a rest from fear in the heart through the divine application of the Lord’s grace and very present help to the soul.
(3.) And now consider, thirdly, the practical result in Jeremiah’s attitude of mind. He could look calmly up to Him who had drawn nigh unto Him, and say, ‘O Lord, thou hast pleaded the causes of my soul, thou hast redeemed my life.’ It is difficult to determine exactly whether this was his language in the low dungeon, or after he was taken out of it. We read in Jer. xxxviii., that Ebed-melech, one of the king’s eunuchs, obtained permission to draw him up out of the dungeon, and he was subsequently confined in the court of the prison. As I have frequently pointed out, the word redemption sometimes stands simply for deliverance, and it is possible that it may do so here, and refer to the deliveranceby Ebed-melech. But I do not think it does, for the latter part of the chapter seems clearly to teach that when Jeremiah wrote these words he was not yet delivered, but was still enduring the bitter hostility of his revengeful enemies. I am, therefore, rather disposed to regard these words as the utterance of a trusting heart when he was still in the low dungeon. I look on them, not as the effect of Ebed-melech pulling him out, but of God drawing near to him when he was in it, and saying to his soul, ‘Fear not.’ I think the passage is faith’s reply to God’s address. God drew near, and said, ‘Fear not,’ and faith accepted it at once, though still in the pit, and said, ‘Thou hast pleaded the causes of my soul, thou hast redeemed my life.’ The language seems to lead us far beyond anything done by Ebed-melech, to a divine redemption, and a divine pleading of his cause. They remind us of those other words of Jeremiah, ‘Their Redeemer is strong; the Lord of hosts is his name; he shall thoroughly plead their cause;’ Jer. L. 34; and I cannot help thinking that Jeremiah looked forward, as David did, to the great redemption by the Lord Jesus, as purposed from eternity, and promised in thesure word of God. As David said, ‘Thou hast redeemed me;’ so he said, ‘Thou hast redeemed my life.’ It was the Redeemer Himself that drew near to him in his low estate, and as it were said unto his soul, ‘I am thy salvation.’ The promised work was not yet accomplished, but it was brought home to his heart, and, though the stone was still on the mouth of the dungeon, his soul was free, and his life was safe, for he was redeemed in the coming Christ.
If this be the meaning of the passage, does it not teach us that redeeming grace must always be our great help in trouble? If we are brought to the bottom of the pit, by sorrow, by sickness, by calamity, by the approach of death, or by the deep and painful sense of sin, all true source of strength must ever be in the great work of redemption wrought out for us by the Son of God. It is that which opens the way to the throne, and which enables us to rest in the assurance of the love of God. You may find many difficulties in the way of faith, and many drawbacks under the profound sense of your own unworthiness. But it is wonderful to find how they disappear before the cross of Christ; and if only you are enabled to say, ‘Thou hast redeemed my life,’you will find in that one fact, a blessed, holy, peaceful resting-place, even though by outward circumstances or inward trial you may still be at the bottom of the pit.
But whatever view we take of the expression, ‘Thou hast redeemed my life,’ one thing is perfectly clear, that the redemption was applied to Jeremiah’s soul at the bottom of the pit. If it is to be explained of deliverance it was when he was sunk into the mire at the bottom of the low dungeon that the deliverance was applied. And if it describes the application to his soul of the Lord’s redemption, and his acceptance of it as something already as sure as if it were perfected, it was when he was bowed down in the very depths of trouble that the blessed work was brought home with peace to his soul. Whatever meaning you give to the word ‘redemption’ in this passage, redemption was brought home to him at the bottom of the pit.
Now I cannot imagine a more important principle than this for all those who really desire to partake of all the blessings of redemption. Of course there are some who do not trouble their minds about it, being satisfied with their own religious respectability; but there are multitudesdeeply concerned about it. They earnestly desire to be able to say, ‘Thou hast redeemed my life,’ but they cannot do so; and yet possibly they have been really taking pains to do so for many years, although without the least sign of progress. Now may not their difficulties arise in many cases from their having reversed the order of the dealings of God? They have hoped to climb up partially out of the pit, and to reach redemption at the top, instead of accepting it as a free gift of God while they are still helpless at the bottom. In other words, they are endeavouring first to remove their difficulties, and then to trust redemption. No wonder then that they completely fail! for how are they to climb up out of the pit? and how are they to overcome their difficulties while they are still at a distance from redeeming grace? It is redemption that is to deliver, redemption that is to raise us from the dead, redemption that removes the difficulty, how then can we ever hope to rise until redemption is applied and realised? If redemption is not sufficient to reach down to one in a state of utter hopelessness, it is insufficient for the conscience-stricken sinner. Remember, therefore, the case of Jeremiah.Consider his case as an illustration of your own, and if you are yourself at the bottom of what I may term the religious pit, in a low dungeon from which you cannot rise, remember how the Lord drew near to him when he was at the bottom, and did not wait till he had climbed even half-way to reach His hand. Just so it must be with you. He must stoop to reach you before you can rise to reach Him. Your first act of faith must be when you are at the bottom. It will be there, and not at the top, or half-way up, that for the first time you will realise a finished redemption. If ever you have the unspeakable joy of saying in all the happiness of personal appropriation, ‘Thou hast pleaded the causes of my soul; thou hast redeemed my life,’ you will have to do so before you have risen above your present level. Do not therefore wait to make some poor, feeble, ineffective effort to rise; but as you are in the midst of your discouragements, though the stone still seems to stop the mouth of the low dungeon, trust at once with a bold act of fearless faith, and without waiting to deserve it, act at once on His own invitation, ‘Return unto me, for I have redeemed thee.’
But as for those amongst you that have been brought up out of the pit, what should be the language of your thankful heart? You have not only seen the great redemption finished, but you have experienced its application. You have not merely been taught to trust Him in the bottom of the low dungeon, but you can say as David did, ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, and out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.’ Ps. xl. 2. If so, will you not go on and add, ‘He hath put a new song in my mouth, even thanksgiving unto our God?’ Will you not join heart and soul in the language of our Communion Service, ‘We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty?’
‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’—Gal. iii. 13.
‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’—Gal. iii. 13.
Intracing the doctrine of redemption through the types and illustrative narratives of the Old Testament, we found that redemption always includes two ideas—deliverance and ransom—and that in some cases, ase.g., in the redemption from Egypt, the deliverance is the more prominent of the two. I cannot help thinking that in this respect there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New. In the New, as well as the Old, the two ideas are always found, and the deliverance is always included; but the writers of the New Testament appear to have had their minds so full of the marvellous love that was shown on the cross of Christ, that the ransom, and the ransomprice, appear in many passages to have been the prominent subjects of their thoughts. Hence it follows that in a great many religious books, and even in our Church Catechism, redemption is confounded with the atonement, and people lose sight of the fact that it includes the consequences of the atonement as well as the atonement itself, the release of the captive as well as the payment of the ransom; the actual salvation of the chosen people of God, as well as the satisfaction of the law by the substitution of the Son of God for man. In order, therefore, to get a clear view of the whole subject, we must consider the two parts separately; first, the ransom, satisfaction, or atonement, and after that the deliverance that follows. May it please God in His mercy to give us the sacred teaching of the Holy Spirit, and to lead us into the full realisation of the marvellous wonders of His redeeming love!
We must clearly begin with the great subject of the satisfaction for sin, and the deliverance from the curse, which was the immediate and first result of it. For this purpose we cannot have a finer passage than the text. It leads us straight to the root of the matter, and willsuggest four most important subjects—the Redeemer Himself, the curse from which He has redeemed us, the act by which He redeemed us, and the persons whom He has redeemed. These, if God permit, we must consider in order.
I. The Redeemer Himself.
It is perfectly clear that unless we know Him, we shall never understand His work. If there is confusion respecting Him, there will be confusion respecting all that He has done; so if we wish to enjoy the salvation, we must begin with the Saviour.
Now in this passage He is described as ‘Christ.’ This is the name continually given Him throughout this Epistle. I know of only one instance in the whole Epistle in which the name ‘Jesus’ occurs, without having either ‘Christ,’ or ‘The Christ,’ attached to it. The reason most probably was, that St. Paul was writing to Jewish believers, and so made use of the name by which the expected Redeemer was predicted in Jewish prophecy. There are, therefore, certain great lessons to be gathered from the name.
(1.) He was the predicted Redeemer. It was by this name that Daniel foretold His advent and death; for in Dan. ix. 25, 26, He is predicted as ‘Messiah the Prince;’ and it was under this name that the believing Jews were expecting Him, for Andrew said to his brother, John, i. 41, ‘We have found the Messias, which is being interpreted the Christ.’
(2.) Then again He was the anointed Redeemer. The meaning of the word Messias, or Christ, is anointed, so that the title, ‘The Christ,’ means ‘The Anointed One;’ and the words of the text might be rendered, ‘The anointed One has redeemed us.’ Now consider for one moment what was involved in this title. It conveys the assurance of the eternal purpose of God, and of His divine appointment of the Lord Jesus to the office. We all know that the anointing was the act of consecration to the sacred offices of Prophet, Priest, and King; and we can see at a glance why Christ was anointed, when set apart to fill an office which comprehended all the three—the prophetic, the priestly, and the royal. His great redeeming act, therefore, was not merely the result of His own mind and His own benevolence, but it was thesacred work unto which He was anointed by the Father. It was accepted by Himself, and laid upon Him by God. In undertaking it He had the support of divine authority, and before He undertook the office He was solemnly set apart to it by God.
(3.) But there are still further lessons taught us by this title ‘Christ,’ for we are taught in the Old Testament the Anointed One was in all respects qualified for the redeeming work, inasmuch as He was one of us, and at the same time was God. Turn to one passage, viz. Ps. xlv. 7. There we learn that He was a kinsman, and therefore qualified according to the law to redeem, for the words are, ‘Thy God hath anointed thee abovethy fellows;’ while at the same time the sixth verse teaches that the Anointed One is no other than God Himself, for He is addressed in the words, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’
Such, then, is our Redeemer. He was predicted from the first day of man’s fall; foretold by the whole line of prophets; expected by the whole line of believers; set apart to His work in God’s eternal purpose; anointed by God; and so, before men and angels, solemnly consecrated tothe sacred work which He was willing in the Father’s name to undertake; and besides all that, he is perfect both in manhood and Godhead, so that in His own double nature He is one with us as a kinsman, while He is one with the Father in the omnipotence of Jehovah. Such is our Redeemer—can He fail? Such is our Saviour—can there be disappointment in trusting Him? Such is the Lord’s Anointed One, and whatever be the deep wants of our fallen hearts, can we believe for one moment that He is insufficient to meet the need? Can there be any doubt respecting the statement of the Psalmist, ‘With the Lord there is mercy, and with Him is plenteous redemption?’ (Ps. cxxx. 7.)
II. We may proceed, then, to consider the curse from which He has redeemed us. According to the text it is the curse of the law, the curse described in verse 10, where we read, ‘As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’ It is most important to bear this well in mind, for the word ‘curse’ is so connectedin common conversation with that which is vindictive and merciless that there is danger of our losing sight of the fact that the curse of God is the calm, deliberate, and even merciful result of the just judgment of a merciful God. There is no cruelty in the maintenance of a righteous law, for the maintenance of law is essential to the happiness of a people. Thus the strict execution of law is consistent with the most true and tender affection.. David, as the king, was compelled, in the maintenance of law, to banish Absalom after the murder of Ammon; but all the while David loved him, and his ‘soul longed to go forth unto Absalom.’ So we have heard of judges moved to tears of tender pity while passing sentence on some unhappy criminal whom the law compelled them to condemn. In such a case there was no cruelty in the law, nor any want of mercy in the judge. The sentence on the sinner was the necessary and righteous condemnation of the sin. Parliament was not cruel when it passed the law; the jury was not cruel when it found the culprit guilty; the judge was not cruel when he condemned the criminal to death; and the Queen was not cruel when she signed the warrant forthe execution. Whatever was done by any one of the parties concerned was done simply because the maintenance of law is essential to the preservation of life and order throughout the land. Just so it is with the curse of the law in the government of God. There is no cruelty in God’s law, or God’s execution of its sentence. The law—it is holy, just, and good; a perfect law, without a fault. And the Judge—He is holy, just, pure, spotless, and merciful. He willeth not the death of a sinner, and has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth; and the curse is not the result of anything vindictive or unmerciful in Him. It is just like David’s sentence on Absalom, rendered necessary by the claims of a righteous government, and the necessity of maintaining law.
But, though the sentence is passed in what I may term ‘loving righteousness,’ there is something inexpressibly awful in it. Indeed it is all the more awful when regarded as the righteous sentence of a God who loves us. The fact that the sentence is passed, notwithstanding such love, is itself a proof of its awful importance, and the clearest possible evidence that a righteous God cannot clear the guilty, and cannot setaside the law which He has given to His people. We must conclude, therefore, that the curse is certain, and that it cannot be set aside by anything that we can do. We have no power to deliver ourselves from the awful curse of the law of God. It is a judgment far more certain, and far more awful, than that of the wretched criminal in the condemned cell waiting for execution. It is more awful, for it cuts us off from God Himself. It hides His countenance; it separates from His love, and it reaches right away into eternity. Such is the curse of the law, the curse that foolish sinners trifle with, the curse that ungodly men bandy about in foul oaths. It is a just curse—a curse inflicted according to law; a curse pronounced by one who loves the culprit; a curse that could not be set aside unless the Lawgiver were to neutralise His law, and the righteous King abandon the holy principles of His kingdom.
III. So we now turn to the third point,—the redemption price, or the great act by which He has redeemed us. Now, you will observe that with reference to this great subject there are no illustrations employed in the text. There isnothing said about a ransom, or an offering, or any other illustration; but we are brought at once to the great fact of the substitution of the Redeemer for the redeemed: ‘He hath redeemed us from the curse, being made a curse for us.’ I know of no way of explaining that passage, except by the doctrine of substitution. The passage is exactly like those other words of the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. v. 21: ‘He hath made him who knew no sin to be sin for us.’ In the one passage the Lord Jesus is said to be made a curse, and in the other to be made sin; and in both it is said to have been done ‘for us’ (ὑπερ ἡμῶν),i.e.on our behalf, or in our stead. Now do not suppose that I do not recognise the depth of mystery involved in this most wonderful truth. I can sympathise with those that scarcely know how to grasp it. I know there is a depth about it beyond the limits of human thought; but there are two considerations that have always satisfied my own mind.
(1.) It is not likely that the limited mind of a short-sighted man should be able to fathom the eternal counsels of God, and reduce the divine purpose within the compass of his ownintellect. If we once admit that the plan of salvation is divine, we must be prepared to meet with many things far beyond all human thought. So it is in this instance. The substitution of the spotless Redeemer for the guilty sinner has in it a breadth, and length, and depth, and height, that is utterly beyond all human capacity, and to the very last will pass all knowledge.
(2.) We can see the fact throughout the history. Is there any other way of explaining either the agony in the garden, or the cry on the cross? Again and again do we see happy believers stepping down into the valley of the shadow of death in perfect peace, with a holy joy filling their hearts, and a holy calm lighting up their countenance; but the Lord Jesus, when He looked forward to it, was in agony. He sweat, as it were, great drops of blood, and He cried, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’ I confess I know no way of explaining the difference, except by the principle of substitution, as laid down in this passage, ‘Being made a curse for us.’
So, again, I never met with any other explanation of that most marvellous cry whichHe uttered on the cross, when He exclaimed, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ How can that cry be explained except by the doctrine of substitution? Contrast the dying prayer of Stephen with the dying cry of the Lord Jesus Christ. Stephen said, as I trust you and I may be able to say, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,’ and so in perfect peace he fell asleep. But the Lord Jesus was forsaken of God, and so uttered that bitter cry. How can we explain the difference? How can we understand the marvellous contrast? I never could see any explanation but one, and that is, in the doctrine of substitution. The Lord Jesus was made a curse in the place of Stephen, so Stephen was free. The sin of Stephen was imputed to the Son of God, and the righteousness of the Son of God was imputed to Stephen; so the Lord Jesus cried under the burden of the curse, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ and Stephen prayed in the peaceful enjoyment of full reconciliation, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ The burden of the curse was too awful for us to bear, and too righteous for God to set aside. So the Lord, in boundless mercy, and with His own full consent,laid it on Him. There was a transfer of the imputation of guilt, and thus by God’s marvellous grace, blessed be God, in Christ Jesus we are free.
Now all this is done, and done for ever. Nothing can add to it, and nothing can take from it. We have nothing to do with any fresh sacrifice for sin. We want no masses for either the living or the dead, and we know we cannot make up any fresh sacrifice by penance or self-denial. In all such matters the one question is, Is the one redemption by the one substitute sufficient, or is it not? If it is, we want no further sacrifice, for the work is done. If it is not, we may give up in despair, for it must be obvious to any man that if the substitution of the Son of God fall short of the requirements of the law, nothing that we can add can ever supply the deficiency. But, thanks be to God, there is no room for discussion. As we are taught in our Communion Service, ‘He made there (by His one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.’ He was Himself the AnointedOne of God, even the Son of God. In His death He fulfilled the covenant of God. In His resurrection He was accepted as having completed the work of God; in His ascension He entered into the holy place, by one offering having perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
And now what is the result? What is the consequence of this completed act of substitution? Surely nothing short of this, that every soul found in Him is legally free. Of course I am not speaking of those who reject that substitution or live without Him. They must bear their own burden; and an awful burden, I fear, they will find it. I am speaking of those who accept Him as their representative, and are one with Him as their substitute. Now to any one of them the great act of substitution has brought a full, complete, legal release. They are as free from the curse of the law as if they had never sinned. The law has no more power to condemn them than if it had never been issued, or if they had never broken it. They are washed white as snow in the blood of the Lamb, and there is no condemnation for themthat are in Christ Jesus. So there we may rest in calm, happy, peaceful trust, for the law is satisfied, and the curse is removed. In His agony we see our peace, in His death our life, and in His bitter cry on the cross our full, perfect, and everlasting reconciliation to God.
‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’—Gal. iii. 13.
‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’—Gal. iii. 13.
Whenwe considered this passage in the last lecture, we did not complete the subject. We found who the Redeemer was, viz. the Christ. We found what it was that He redeemed us from, viz. the curse, or just judgment of God’s righteous law. We found also what was the redemption price, or great redeeming act, viz. the substitution of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God for the sinner. But there is a fourth point of the utmost possible importance which we had not time to investigate, viz. the question for whom, or in whose behalf, this great work was accomplished by the Saviour. But there is no part of the subject more vitally affecting our own practical life; for unless the Lord Jesus was a substitute forourselves, we as individuals may admire His mercy, but can never have a share in the blessing of His saving work. So far as we ourselves are personally concerned, our whole hope depends on our being included in that little word ‘us,’ when it is said, ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.’ If we cannot each one make use of that sentence in the singular number, and say, ‘Christ hath redeemedme, being made a curse forme,’ the passage may call forth our admiration, but to our own souls it will bring no abiding peace. It is, therefore, a matter of the deepest personal interest to us all that we should clearly understand who is included, and who is not included, in that word ‘us;’ or, in other words, who are they that the Lord Jesus Christ has redeemed by His blood.
It would have been strange indeed if a matter of such overwhelming interest had been quietly passed by without calling forth a very careful investigation, and accordingly it gave rise at one time to one of the most prominent controversies of the day. Indeed there has always been a division amongst the students of the Word of God on the subject. Some have believed inwhat is termed ‘particular redemption,’ a redemption limited exclusively to the elect; while others have most earnestly advocated the doctrine of a universal atonement, an atonement,i.e.made for the whole world in virtue of which a free offer of complete reconciliation is made without money and without price to every living soul.
It is my own belief that a great deal of the confusion respecting the subject arises from the indistinct use of words; and I am thoroughly persuaded that before we can ascertain whom He has redeemed, we must clearly understand what is meant by redemption. If we do not understand redemption itself, we shall never understand its limits. Now I cannot help thinking that I have proved that, throughout the word of God, redemption means deliverance; and in the case of the great salvation, deliverance through atonement. In some passages the delivering power is more prominent than in others, as, for example, in Luke, xxi. 28, and Rom. viii. 23; but in all it is there, and I do not know of a single passage in which redemption stands for atonement alone as disconnected with the consequent deliverance. Whenever it occurs it implies atonement applied, or atonement enjoyed,atonement made effectual for the actual salvation of the soul. But, though it is thus clear in the word of God, there is great confusion in many religious books. Many writers appear to speak of atonement and redemption as if they were the same, and so apply to redemption passages which speak only of atonement, and apply to atonement those texts which refer, not to atonement only, but also to the actual deliverance for which atonement has prepared the way. It is most important, therefore, that we should keep the distinction clearly in view, and never forget that the redemption of the Gospel includes two parts, deliverance and atonement. The two are bound together as intimately as it is possible. The deliverance is the consequence of atonement, and the atonement is the cause of deliverance, but both one and the other are included in the full idea of redemption, as we may see, for example, in the song sung before the throne, ‘Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.’ Rev. v. 9. That passage clearly goes far beyond the act of substitution in redeeming mercy, for it manifestlyincludes an actual separation and salvation by delivering power.
Now, if we consider redemption in its full and complete sense of actual deliverance through the precious blood of the Lamb, it is perfectly clear that none but the elect of God are included in the blessing. As a matter of fact the rest are not delivered. According to St. John, the whole world lieth in wickedness, and if it is still lying in wickedness in no sense whatever can it be said to be delivered. None but the chosen people of God can ever say, ‘Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.’ Col. i. 13. As for the rest they do not profess to be delivered. Some do not even wish for the great deliverance; some, though they may feel a certain languid wish for it, never in earnest seek for it; and others, if they do seek, seek in a wrong way, and so never find. The result is, that practically they are not delivered. Thus we all acknowledge a particular, or limited, deliverance. We none believe that all are saved; and we must believe that the Lord Jesus actually delivers those only who are His own, those whomHe describes in the words, ‘The men which thou gavest me out of the world.’
But suppose we take redemption in the sense in which it is perpetually employed in religious books, viz., as meaning the same as atonement, there arises another question of incalculable importance which demands our most attentive consideration. Is the atonement limited as well as the deliverance? It is perfectly clear that none are delivered but God’s chosen people. They, and they only, are plucked as brands from the burning, and eternally saved. According to the 17th Article, God ‘hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.’ But is nothing done for the remainder? In other words, did the substitution of the Lord Jesus Christ extend to the whole world, or did it not? Was atonement made for all mankind in that marvellous act of mercy, or were the great majority left out altogether most miserably to perish, without any hope of deliverance, and without the possibility of being saved in theLord Jesus? It is impossible to imagine a question of more urgent importance to all those who are anxious about their souls.
Now I am perfectly aware of the argument frequently urged, that the Lord Jesus Christ is certain to save all those for whom He shed His blood, and I am quite prepared to acknowledge that, humanly speaking, there is great apparent reason in it. But I do not believe that it is according to Scripture; and after all we must rely in all such matters on the statements of God’s word, and not on our own conclusions. I would refer you, then, to two passages which certainly seem to be conclusive on that point. The one is 1 Cor. viii. 11, ‘Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?’ The other is 2 Pet. ii. 1, where, predicting the dangers of the latter days, the Apostle says, ‘There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.’ The first of these texts seems certainly to teach very clearly that those for whom Christ died may perish, and the other that people for whom the Lord had given the redemption priceof His own most precious blood may still deny Him, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. We must not therefore be guided in such a matter by our own conclusions. The whole plan from first to last is divine. The eternal purpose is divine; the Saviour is divine; the salvation is divine; the atonement is divine, and the revelation of the great purpose must likewise be divine. We must not attempt, therefore, to cut our system square by the rule of our own opinion, but must take God’s Scripture just as it stands, and receive God’s salvation just as He has revealed it in His Word.
What, then, has He revealed? That is the question. Has He taught us that the Lord Jesus Christ shed His most precious blood for the elect alone or for all? Blessed be God! the testimony of Scripture appears as plain as the sun in heaven that the atonement was made for all, and that in consequence of that atonement the door is thrown open to every sinner upon earth. I have no time now to attempt to bring before you the multitude of passages which abound in Scripture in proof of this position. I must be content to draw your attention to only three, the first relatingto the fact itself, the second to the love that led to it, and the third to the offer made in consequence of it.
The first is from 1 John, ii. 2. But before you examine it, turn for one moment to the words of the same apostle in the fifth chapter of the same epistle, and 19th verse, ‘We are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.’ That verse shows with indisputable clearness who is meant by ‘we,’ and who by ‘the world.’ By ‘we’ is meant the people of God, believers, the elect. By the world the rest of mankind, those who live and die unconverted and unsaved. And now turn to the passage in the second chapter, ‘And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.’ Surely the ‘our’ in that verse must refer to the same persons as the ‘we’ in the fifth chapter, and ‘the whole world’ in the second chapter must be the same as ‘the whole world’ in the fifth. But if so it is perfectly clear that He died not for the elect alone but for all mankind; for the whole world that lieth in wickedness.
From the second passage we learn exactly the same respecting the love that led to it. Irefer to John, iii. 16. But before we refer to it let us turn to another text in explanation, viz., that most wonderful prayer of our blessed Saviour in John, xvii. 6, ‘I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.’ You will observe in these words the clear distinction between the world and the elect. The mass of men are described as the world, while the elect are said to be given to Him out of it, set apart as a separate people, and given Him in the covenant of God. And now turn to the passage in John, iii., ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ Surely we must take ‘the world’ here in the same sense as in the other passage. It is impossible to believe that by ‘the world’ he meant the elect of God given Him from out of the world, the peculiar people whom He Himself most carefully distinguishes from the world. Surely, then, we must conclude that the love which moved Him to make the atonement was a love for us all, a free love, anunmerited love, a compassionate love, a most merciful love, to every individual involved in the ruin of the fall.
We are brought to exactly the same conclusion if we look at the offer that results from it. Turn to that magnificent invitation which we find just at the conclusion of the book of life, Rev. xxii. 17, ‘And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.’ Now if you study that verse you find the Bride employed in proclaiming God’s invitation. Who then is meant by the Bride? Surely nothing else than the church of God’s elect; those who were chosen in Him before the world was. But how is the Bride to be employed? What is to be her work as described in this passage? Is it not to go forth in the Lord’s name, and proclaim to the perishing the free offer of His saving grace? ‘The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst, come: and whosoever will let him take the water of life freely.’ Would it be possible to constructa sentence which would proclaim more clearly a universal invitation? an invitation to be given by the elect to all the world?
Surely, then, we may every one of us accept that offer, and regard the atonement as an atonement made for ourselves. You may see no evidence of your election. You may look into your own heart, and find there nothing whatever to lead you to believe that you are one of God’s chosen people. But you are not called to wait till you have discovered such evidence; and if you do wait, you may wait for ever, for it is perfectly impossible that you should ever have evidence of your election till after you have trusted in His atoning blood. But without any such evidence you may fall back on the finished substitution of the Son of God for the sinner. You may take the words of this text, ‘Being made a curse for us,’ and, whatever you are, may put it in the singular number, and say, ‘Being made a curse for me,’ yes! ‘for me, even for me.’ If, therefore, you are really anxious about the salvation of your soul, do not stop to search into your own sinful heart for evidences of your election; but fall boldly on the fact that, whether you are elected or not, Christ Jesus wasyour substitute. Cleave to the fact that the propitiation was for the world, that the love that moved God to it was a love to the world; and that the offer made in consequence of it is an offer to the world. Trust that. Accept that. Rest in that, and leave it to God to settle the matter of your election; for of this you may be perfectly sure that you will never enjoy any evidence of your election unto life until you have learned to trust the Lord Jesus Christ, and His perfect work without it. You must learn a lesson from that poor woman of Canaan. She was apparently quite shut out by the doctrine of election, for she was not one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and the Lord Himself said to her that it was not right to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs. But she was not discouraged by the difficulty. She pleaded, ‘Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from the Master’s table;’ and the result was that she did not merely pick up the crumbs, but she was made partaker of the feast itself, and went to her home rejoicing in our Lord’s approval, and her daughter’s cure.
Let us all then accept the fact that in His boundless mercy He was made a curse for us.But we must bear in mind at the same time, that He does not force upon us the blessings of that substitution. If we choose to live without the substitute we may. If people are so occupied by the world that they do not care for it; or so satisfied with themselves that they do not feel the need of it; or so unmindful of the holiness of God that they cannot see the necessity of it; they are at full liberty to reject it, and have full power to live without it. But then, it is obvious they must bear their own burden, and all the weight of it. The Lord Jesus has satisfied the law as their substitute; but if they decline to accept that satisfaction, it is perfectly clear that there is nothing left for them but to satisfy it for themselves. They must blot out their own curse in their own way, and how they are going to do it I cannot tell. I know of nothing but Christ the substitute that can remove the just judgment of a broken law; and if men live and die without Him, I see no prospect for them but that they live in their sin, and die in their sin, and go down into eternity with the whole of the awful weight of unforgiven sin resting on their poor unforgiven souls. And who can say that such a sentence would be hard,or severe, or unjust? If there were no substitute provided we might possibly think the law severe. But, now that in boundless mercy God has Himself provided the substitute, who can say that it is a hard measure if the sinner is crushed under the burden which he resolves to bear?
‘In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.—Eph. i. 7.‘And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.’—Luke, xi. 4.
‘In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.—Eph. i. 7.
‘And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.’—Luke, xi. 4.
Inour study of the divine redemption we considered from the words of St. Paul to the Galatians the great foundation act of the whole, viz., the satisfaction made for sin by the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God. We had no time then to go on to the consequent deliverance. But we do not want to have either a building without a foundation, or a foundation without a building. In other words, we do not wish either to have a superficial life of Christian experience without a solid foundation in the great work of atonement, or to be so exclusively occupied by the atonement as to forget thegreat practical deliverance which is in fact the completion of redeeming grace. Having laid the foundation, then, in the study of the ransom, redemption price, or satisfaction for sin, we must pass on to the great deliverance with which God follows up His work of mercy. This we will now do, if God permit, and may He Himself put forth the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, and this very day in His own grace deliver souls!
Now what is the first great gift of God in delivering souls?—the first result of the blood of atonement when applied to the salvation of the sinner? I hope that if we were all to speak we should give the same answer to the question, and that there are none amongst us who would hesitate to reply, ‘Forgiveness.’ So long as sin remains unforgiven there can be no freedom, nor any deliverance of any kind whatever. Unforgiven sin blocks the way against all hope of escape, and therefore when God invites a sinner to return He first assures him of the blotting out of sin: ‘I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me, for I have redeemed thee.’ (Isa. xliv. 22.)
But now arises a question which has sometimes occasioned difficulty in thoughtful minds. A complete forgiveness is the starting-point of the Christian’s life; and accordingly this forgiveness of sin is described as a complete and present privilege, so we read, ‘In whom,’i.e., in Christ the Beloved One, ‘we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.’ The apostle speaks of it there as something of which we are now in the present enjoyment, for he says, ‘We have it.’ It is ours now. But yet in other passages, such as the Lord’s Prayer, the children of God are taught to ask for it with as much regularity as for their daily bread. How is it, then, that we are told to ask for that we have already? Why do we pray the Lord’s Prayer every day when we already have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins? It is a very natural question, and I cannot be surprised if persons feel the difficulty. But I believe that if we look carefully at the real work of redemption it will throw great light on the subject. We shall find if we do so that there are two kinds of forgiveness described in the word of God, the one the immediate, and the other the consequent, result of redemption.There is judicial forgiveness as the foundation, and parental forgiveness as the consequence: the two being closely connected with each other, and both resulting from redemption. Let us study them separately.