I have tried to show in former sermons, that the whole of these promises of what our writer calls' the New Covenant,' are, as our Lord Himself said, sealed' in His blood.' And that is especially true in reference to this promise of forgiveness. It is in Christ Jesus, and in Christ Jesus alone, that that pardon which my text speaks of is secured to men.
I need not dwell upon the Scriptural statements to this effect, but I desire to emphasise this thought, that the Christian teaching of forgiveness is based upon the conception of Christ's work and especially of Christ's death, as being the atonement for the world's sin. It is because, and only because, He bore our sins in His own body on the tree,' that the full-toned gospel proclamation can be rung out to men, that God remembers their transgressions no more.' Unless that foundation be firmly laid in the New Testament conception of the meaning and power of the death of Christ, I know not where there is a basis for the proclamation to man of divine forgiveness.
Of course, my text itself does show that the very common misrepresentation of the New Testament evangelical teaching about this matter is a misrepresentation. It is often objected to that teaching that it alleges that Christ's sacrifice effected a change in the divine heart and disposition, and made God love men whom He did not love before. The mighty I will' of my text makes no specific reference to Christ's death, and rather implies what is the true relation between the love of God and the death of Jesus Christ, that God's love was the originating cause, of which Christ's death was the redeeming effect. He so loved the world that He gave His… Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should … have eternal life.' And no wise evangelical teacher ever has asserted, or does assert, anything else than that the mission of Jesus Christ is the consequence, and not the cause, of the Father's love to sinful men.
But that being kept distinctly in view, I suppose I need not remind you how, like the strand that runs through the cables of the Royal Navy, the red thread of Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the whole world runs through the whole of the New Testament. It is fashionable nowadays to say that no theory of the atonement is needed in order that men should receive the benefit of Christ's work. That is partially true, in so far as that no human conceptions will exhaust the fulness of that great work, nor can penetrate to all its depths. But it is not true, as I humbly take it, inasmuch as if a man is to get the forgiveness that comes through Jesus Christ, he must have this theory, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.' And that is the teaching of the whole New Testament.
I need not remind you how all Paul's writing is saturated with it, but I may remind you that to people who were very lynx-eyed critics of him and of his teaching, he said, about that very statement that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures--whether it were they or I, so we preach.' And his appeal to the consensus and unanimity of the apostles is amply vindicated by the documents that still remain. We are told that there are types of teaching in the New Testament. There are, and very beautifully they vary, and very harmoniously they blend. But there are no diversities in regard to this matter. If Paul says,' In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of our sins,' Peter says, He bare our sins in His own body on the tree'; and John says, He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world.' And if, as I believe, the Book of the Revelation is his, the vision that John saw in the heavens was the vision of a Lamb as it had been slain'; and the song which he heard rising from immortal lips was of praise unto Him that' hath loosed us from our sins by His own blood.'
So they preached.' God grant that it may be true of all of us; so we believe.' For, brethren, this clear, certain statement of the gospel of forgiveness through Jesus Christ is the characteristic glory of the whole revelation. Without it, apart from Him and His Cross, I do not know how the hope of forgiveness can be more than dim and doubtful. I know not how any man that has once felt the grip of evil on his inclinations, and the responsibility and guilt which he has drawn down upon his head by his transgressions, can find a firm footing for his assurance of pardon, apart from the Cross of Jesus Christ. Without that, the divine forgiveness is but a peradventure, sometimes a hope, sometimes an illusion. The men that reject Christianity for the most part proclaim the gospel of despair. Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap,' in such a sense as to annihilate the possibility of pardon. But in Christ we understand that we may reap these fruits, and yet be pardoned. Thou wast a God that forgavest them, and tookest vengeance of their inventions.' Forgiveness apart from Christ stands, as it seems to me, in no intelligible relation to the divine character. And, apart from Christ, forgiveness is apt to dwindle down, and to be degraded into mere lazy tolerance of evil, and to make God a good-natured, indifferent Sovereign, who does not so very much mind whether His subjects do His will or not.
But when we can say, He died for my sins,' then we can see that the divine righteousness and the divine love are but two names for one thing, and forgiveness lifts us into a region of higher purity. Christianity alone teaches the loftiest ideal of human righteousness, the loftiest conception of the divine character, the absolute inflexibility of the divine law and withal full, free pardon. It stands alone in the sombre aspect under which it contemplates humanity, and the bound less hope of its possibilities which it entertains. It stands alone in that forgiveness is the means to higher holiness; and in that, pardoning, .it heals, and whispers Go thy way; sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee.' Therefore is it a gospel; therefore is it the New Covenant in His blood.
