by George Sidney Hurd George MacDonald was born in Scottland in 1824. As a young man he decided to pursue the pastorate and in 1850 at age 26 he was appointed minister of Trinity Congregational Church in Arundel England. However, even before entering into the ministry he had rejected many tenets of the dogmatic hyper-Calvinism of the Congregational Church he pastored, especially the belief in the predestination of all the non-elect to eternal damnation, considering such doctrines to be incompatible with the love of God. He was not well received by his congregation due to his contempt for doctrinal teaching, calling it mere theory, void of duty. He emphasized a more mystical experiential theology saying: “I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. To no system would I subscribe. [1] After three years of rejection by his congregation he resigned the pastorate, dedicating the rest of his life to writing fantasy novels and poetry. Also, no longer having a pulpit from which to preach, He wrote three series of sermons entitled, Unspoken Sermons. It is from these sermons that I will be considering his views on the atonement (or the lack thereof). Throughout his Unspoken Sermons he is notoriously vocal about the doctrines he rejects, while at the same time refusing to clearly set forth his own beliefs. After vehemently rejecting the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious substitutionary atonement for our sins, he said: “Well, then,’ will many say, ‘if you thus unceremoniously cast to the winds the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice, what theory do you propose to substitute in its stead?’ ‘In the name of the truth,’ I answer, None.” [2] While this unwillingness to clearly state his beliefs concerning the atonement makes it more difficult to determine exactly what he believed, as I hope to demonstrate, his theory can be ascertained from statements he made throughout his series of Unspoken Sermons. Here we will be determining his view of the atonement considering 1) His definition of atonement, 2) His denial of Christ’s vicarious substitutionary sacrifice, 3) His Denial of Justification through Christ’s Imputed Righteousness. All of these elements taken together make it abundantly clear that his understanding of the atonement is diametrically opposed to the actual Atonement of Christ presented to us in Scripture. 1) His Definition of Atonement George MacDonald rejected the historic belief in the atonement as Christ having born in Himself the just penalty due to us for our sins as our substitute, calling it “a low invention,” “a lie” and “a vulgar insult to God.” Instead, he based his understanding of the atonement upon the literal meaning of our English word “atonement” which was a 16th century invention, expressing the idea of at-one-ment or reconciliation. In response to those who believed in Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement he said: “In what you call the atonement, in what you mean by the word, what I have already written must make it plain enough I do not believe… But, as the word was used by the best English writers at the time when the translation of the Bible was made – with all my heart, and soul, and strength, and mind, I believe in the atonement, call it the a-tone-ment, or the at-one-ment, as you please.” [3] However, as I point out in my article Defining Atonement, the correct definition of the Hebrew word כִּפֶּר (kippur) and its cognates which were rendered in English translations as “atonement,” do not in themselves mean reconciliation or at-one-ment, but rather “to cover, to expiate or propitiate.” The equivalent for kippur used in the Greek LXX is ἱλασμός (hilasmos) and its cognates, which translate as, “propitiation, appeasement or satisfaction.” In the Old Testament the sacrifices were necessary in order to make propitiation or expiation (kippur) for the sins of the people. The at-one-ment was a secondary result of the sacrifice. Without the substitutionary sacrifice on behalf of the people, making propitiation for their sins before God, at-one-ment or reconciliation would not have been possible (Lev 17:11). In Leviticus 16:34 the Concordant Literal Version expresses well what the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) sacrifice accomplished. It reads: This will come to be for you as an eonian statute to make a propitiatory shelter over the sons of Israel because of all their sins, once a year. And he did just as Yahweh had instructed Moses.” The sacrifice was necessary in order to cover or make propitiation for their sins, thereby making possible reconciliation or at-one-ment between God and the sinner. Without the shedding of blood there was no expiation, no atonement, no remission of sins (Lev 17:11; Heb 9:22; Matt 26:28). We were reconciled unto God by nothing less than the blood of His cross (Col 1:20). How does George MacDonald respond to this biblical requirement of a substitutionary blood sacrifice in order to make atonement or expiation for sin? He rejects it outright, calling the Levitical sacrificial system a mere human invention. He said of the atoning sacrifices: “God took up and made use of the sacrifices men had…invented as a way of pleasing him.” [4] MacDonald not only redefines kippur (expiation) so as to simply mean reconciliation or at-one-ment, but he denies that God was the one who instituted the blood sacrifices for the remission of sin, saying that God simply accommodated their human invention. However, in order for him to do this, he must deny the authority of Scripture, since repeatedly throughout the Old Testament we see that it was God Himself who instituted the sacrificial system. God said: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement (expiation) for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement (expiation) for the soul.” (Lev 17:11) In spite of the fact that God Himself says that He gave the children of Israel the sacrificial system in order to make expiation or propitiation for their sins; and Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission; and in spite of the fact that Jesus said that the reason why He shed His blood was for the remission of our sins (Matt 26:28), MacDonald denied that Christ’s atoning death was necessary for the remission of our sins. To those who believed that Christ’s atoning sacrifice was necessary in order to satisfy God’s immutable justice he said: “But you do not believe that the sufferings of Christ, as sufferings, justified the supreme ruler in doing anything which he would not have been at liberty to do but for those sufferings?’ I do not… he is bound in his own divinely willed nature to forgive. No atonement is necessary to him but that men should leave their sins and come back to his heart.” [5] This is a total repudiation of what Paul presents in Romans 3:25-26 explaining why Christ’s atoning sacrifice (propitiation) was necessary: “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Paul here explains that the propitiation that Christ accomplished by shedding His blood for mankind demonstrates how God could be seen to have been just while letting sins committed prior to the cross go unpunished, and also how at the present time He can declare guilty sinners who put their trust in Jesus to be just or righteous and free from guilt without violating His justice. It is because of the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world that God can justly show mercy without being in violation of His own immutable justice (Rev 13:8; Num 14:18). If MacDonald denied that Christ’s atoning sacrifice as the Lamb of God took away the sins of the world, enabling God to be just and at the same time justify the ungodly through faith, then what did he believe the atonement involved? He believed in self-at-one-ment. He believed in a Moral Influence model of the atonement in which Christ’s example of unconditional forgiveness helps us at-one ourselves to God and others. He said: “I will and can make atonement, thanks be to him who is my atonement, making me at one with God and my fellows! …in the sense of the atonement being a making-up for the evil done by men toward God, I believe in the atonement.” [6] So, if the atonement is simply us making ourselves at-one with God, what role did he believe that Christ played in our atonement? MacDonald presents Christ as the head and mediator, showing us how we ourselves can make at-one-ment with God and our fellow man. He said of Christ’s role: “He is the head and leader, the prince of the atonement. He could not do it without us, but he leads us up to the Father’s knee: he makes us make atonement.” [7] So, working from the faulty English word at-one-ment, MacDonald presents an atonement that Christ could not have made without our participation. He presents Christ as simply going before us, showing us how it is done and helping us make our own atonement. This notion of the atonement would not have been possible in any other language. All Spanish versions correctly render kippur as expiación (expiation), as also do the French versions. Likewise, in German kippur is rendered sühne, and katallagē or reconciliation, versöhnung, thereby maintaining a clear distinction between expiation for sins and its resulting reconciliation. Some have mistakenly concluded that MacDonald held to the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. However, the Christus Victor theory teaches that Christ’s atonement gained victory over Satan and the evil powers of the world 2000 years ago at the cross. The statement MacDonald made which has led some to conclude that he held to the Christus Victor model is where he said: “Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound-spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement!” [8] Taken alone out of context this does sound similar to the Christus Victor model. However, that quote is in the context of MacDonald saying that it is we ourselves who must make atonement by following His example, thereby overcoming evil with good. Here is a more complete quote, showing the context: “Did he not thus lay down his life persuading us to lay down ours at the feet of the Father?... Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound-spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement! We sacrifice to God! – it is God who has sacrificed his own son to us.” So, what he is really saying is that Christ facilitated our at-one-ment by setting an example, persuading us to overcome evil through self-denial, not returning evil for evil, just as He as our forerunner modeled to us. In this way evil is conquered by us as we follow His example. As I explain in my article, Complementary Views of the Atonement, there are truths contained in the Christus Victor and Moral Influence theories of the atonement. However, the central truth of the atonement is that “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures” (1Cor 15:3). Therefore, any theory of the atonement which omits Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for our sins is at best incomplete. 2) His Denial of Christ’s Vicarious Substitutionary Sacrifice George MacDonald viewed Christ’s atonement as nothing more than Him suffering evil at the hands of wicked men without sin or retaliation, thereby setting an example for us to follow in making our own atonement or at-one-ment with God. He vehemently repudiated the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary death, in which He vicariously bore the penalty for our sins on the Cross. He rejected the idea that God’s justice could be satisfied by an innocent man suffering in the place of the guilty. He said: “Rather than believe in a justice that…could be any satisfaction for the wrong-doing of a man that a man who did no wrong should suffer, I would be driven from among men, and dwell with the wild beasts that have not reason enough to be unreasonable. What! God, the father of Jesus Christ, like that! His justice contented with direst injustice! The anger of him who will nowise clear the guilty, appeased by the suffering of the innocent!” [9] Apart from this statement revealing his misapprehension of the atonement as a Triune endeavor, essentially dividing the Trinity, this is also a repudiation of clear statements of Scripture. In Christ there was no sin. Yet in Isaiah 53:6 it says of Christ that, “The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” Peter said: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.” (1 Peter 3:18) Christ, the innocent and spotless Lamb of God, bore our sins on the cross (Isa 53:12; 1Peter 2:24; Heb 9:28). Paul said of that transfer of our guilt upon the sinless Son of God: “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor 5:21) Because Christ bore our sins, the just for the unjust, being made to be sin for us, we have been justified or declared to be the righteousness of God in Him. Having been justified by His blood, we have been saved from the eschatological wrath of God through Him (Rom 5:8-9). The transactional truth of 2Corinthians 5:21 is beautifully expressed in the 2nd century Epistle to Diognetus: “He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous... O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” [10] MacDonald argues that it is not possible for God’s justice to be satisfied by punishing an innocent victim in the place of the guilty. However, what he fails to consider is the fact that Jesus was not merely an innocent victim. He was not some independent third party suffering on behalf of the guilty. He was God the Son Himself in flesh, bearing our sins and dying in our place as our representative head. The atonement was a Triune endeavor. God the Father was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, and Christ through the eternal Spirit vicariously offered Himself without spot to God (2Cor 5:19; Jn 10:17-18; Heb 9:14). He was the spotless Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). MacDonald rejects Christ’s substitutionary death as a myth in the same way that he regarded as a mere human invention the sacrifices that God instituted to foreshadow Christ’s death in our place as the Lamb of God without spot or blemish. In my article, The Early Fathers and Penal Substitutionary Atonement, I cite numerous Fathers dating from the time of the Apostles, demonstrating that they all affirmed what the Scriptures teach: that Christ bore the penalty for our sins as our substitute, the just for the unjust. In spite of the historicity of the doctrine, MacDonald rejects it, saying that God simply accommodated man’s mistaken notions, just as he claims He did with the sacrifices which were given to foreshadow Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice. He said: “If it be asked how, if it be false, the doctrine of substitution can have been permitted to remain so long an article of faith to so many, I answer, On the same principle on which God took up and made use of the sacrifices men had, in their lack of faith, invented as a way of pleasing him.” [11] “They invented a satisfaction for sin which was an insult to God.” [12] The claim that Christ’s atoning sacrifice in which He made propitiation (satisfaction of justice) for our sins is merely a human invention is a denial of Scripture itself. Romans 3:25 says of Christ’s atoning sacrifice: “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood.” Far from it being man’s invention, it is seen to be God’s provision. MacDonald has no qualms about rejecting the Scriptures when they don’t align with his view of divine justice. To those who challenged his view of justice, saying that God is just in punishing sin, he replied: “You say he does, for the Bible says so. I say, if the Bible said so, the Bible would lie…” [13] 3) His Denial of Justification through Christ’s Imputed Righteousness Strangely, in MacDonald’s volume entitled, Justice, he doesn’t mention the words “justify” or “justification” even once. In fact, they don’t appear even once in his entire three volume set of Unspoken Sermons. This is in marked contrast to the Apostle Paul who mentions justification 18 times in the epistle of Romans alone: 16 times he uses “justify” (dikaióo), 14 of which refer to God justifying sinners (Rom 3:20,24,26,28,30; 4:2,5; 5:1,9; 6:7; 8:30,30b; 8:33), and two times he uses the word “justification or acquittal” (dikaíosis) Rom 4:25; 5:18). The reason why he didn’t mention justification is because he did not believe in it. He believed in salvation by one’s own righteousness, whereas “justification” (dikaíosis) by definition means “acquittal or removal of guilt.” [14] It is something that must be received, not achieved. We were justified the moment we believed. As Paul said: “Therefore, having been justified (perfect passive) by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom 5:1) Justification in Scripture is not something we attain unto after a lifetime of sanctification, it is something we received the moment we believed. It is a free gift, not the result of works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5-6). In Romans 3:23-24 it says: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” I personally find MacDonald’s repudiation of God’s free gift of justification through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness shocking. He said: “Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am.” [15] Equally strange is his claim that that the word “imputed” is used only once in the New Testament. He said: “We have the word imputed just once in the New Testament. Whether the evil doctrine may have sprung from any possible misunderstanding of the passage where it occurs, I hardly care to inquire.” [16] The one instance he refers to is Romans 4:3 where it says: "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him (logizomai) for righteousness.” I find it particularly strange that he would say that, considering that he was supposedly familiar with the New Testament Greek, and logízomai, which means, “to account as or impute,” is used by Paul in Romans alone 18 times, 12 of which refer to our justification in which Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (Rom 4:3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,22,23,24; 6:11). MacDonald not only ignores the recurring theme of Christ’s imputed righteousness in Scripture, but he even goes to the extreme of calling it satanic. He said: “And any system which tends to persuade men that…a man is saved by having his sins hidden under a robe of imputed righteousness – that system, so far as this tendency, is of the devil and not of God.” [17] “He will impute to him nothing that he has not.” [18] To say that God will not impute anything to us that we are not is a direct repudiation of the gospel of justification by faith alone apart from works. For brevity, I will just cite one example where we see that even when we were yet ungodly, the moment we believed we were justified, having Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Our sins were covered, being clothed in the robe of Christ’s imputed righteousness. In Romans 4:4-8 Paul said: “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted (logizomai) for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes (logizomai) righteousness apart from works: 7 ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute (logizomai) sin.” Here we see two opposite imputations: we have either been justified by faith, having God’s righteousness imputed to us (v. 5), or we are under condemnation, having our sins imputed to us (v. 8). MacDonald said: “Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am.” [19] In contrast, Paul says: “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.” To this MacDonald retorts: “It would be the worst of all wrongs to the guilty to treat them as innocent.” [20] Who are we going to believe, the Bible or George MacDonald? MacDonald said that if the Bible did not agree with his understanding of justice, the Bible would lie. In contrast, Paul said, “let God be true but every man a liar.” (Rom 3:4). George MacDonald makes numerous other interrelated claims which I believe to be equally contrary to Scripture, such as his denial that God can be both Father and Judge (cf. 1Peter 1:17), that His immutable justice requires a just recompense for every infraction (Heb 2:2) or that God’s justice is indistinguishable from His mercy (Heb 10:28; James 2:13). It is only because of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world that God’s justice has never been in conflict with His mercy. I had intended to consider these additional points here. However, due to space, I will have to leave it for another article. The good news is that Christ died for our sins, was buried and was raised because of our justification (Rom 4:24-25; 1Cor 15:1-3). Sadly, no such gospel can be found in the writings of George MacDonald. [1] Greville MacDonald, George MacDonald and His Wife (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924), 155. [2] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 198). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [3] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (pp. 199-200). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [4] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 195). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [5] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 201). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [6] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 200). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [7] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 200). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [8] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 200). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [9] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 194). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [10] Mathetes, The Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter 9 [11] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 195). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [12] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 195). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [13] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 188). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [14] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). [15] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Righteousness (p. 216). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [16] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 216). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [17] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, The Last Farthing (p. 100). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [18] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 197). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [19] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Righteousness (p. 216). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. [20] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 196). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. 
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |