A Review of the Age of Reason (Part 6): The Atonement
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Anyone who has been reading this review up to this point has already noted that the author of The Age of Reason has thus far complained about nearly everything related to the Bible. Although he claims that the evidence for the existence of God is irrefutable, he is equally certain that God has never given us a revelation, and if He did, it certainly is not the Bible, which (he thinks) is controlled by Roman Catholic priests. But could he answer this question: “Why did God create us and then determine not to communicate with us?” He spends time insisting that only the person to whom the revelation was made would know the validity of the message and that for all others it would be hearsay. He actually imagines that he has the Almighty over a barrel. (This claim was examined previously.) Had God so desired, He could have implanted a computer chip in all of us, or He could speak to each one of us one day during our lives, saying, “You really ought to read My Book.”
Paine also rails against the concept of the virgin birth of Jesus; so it will probably not come as a shock that he mocks the idea of the atonement. He questions how Christ’s death on the cross relates to the death that Adam was promised in the Garden of Eden. He reasons that what God promised Adam concerning death must either be physical death or eternal damnation (32). Actually, it was neither, although Adam did begin to die when he was separated from the Tree of Life. He died spiritually the day that he sinned. He lost the fellowship that he had enjoyed with God up to the time that he disobeyed.
Eternal damnation would only occur if he refused to repent (Rom. 6:23), but the implication of Genesis 5:3 is that Adam did repent, since Seth was begotten “in his own likeness, after his image.” Seth took the place of Abel, and the godly seed line continued through him. Seth is listed in the genealogy of Jesus, as recorded by Luke (3:38).
Since no specific type of physical death was defined for Adam as punishment, Paine theorizes that a “fever would have done as well as a cross” (32). He was astute enough to notice that Jesus’ sacrifice does not keep us from dying physical death (32); but he does not comprehend the innocent suffering in place of the guilty. Paine calls the various types of death quibbles and puns. He can call them whatever he wants, but the Bible defines the different usages of the word death.
1. Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body (James 2:26).
2. Spiritual death is the separation of a person from God. God can no longer extend fellowship to the one who has rebelled against Him (consider Isaiah 59:1-2). Adam and Eve died spiritually on the day that they sinned and were separated from God. One can be physically alive while spiritually dead (1 Tim. 5:6).
3. Spiritual death, if not repented of, leads to eternal death—eternal separation from God (Rom. 6:23; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). Those who repent of their sins and obey the gospel have their names written in the Book of Life. Those whose names are not written in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:15). The smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever (Rev. 14:10). They are forever in a state of death and torment.
4. But when a person repents and obeys the gospel, he dies to sin. He no longer subscribes to the temptations that come his way. He is dead to them and to the influence of sin. Then he is buried with Christ; he joins in Christ’s death, where the blood of the Savior washes away his sins in baptism (Rom. 6:1-11). These are not mere plays on words but definitions that make complete sense to someone not prejudiced against the Scriptures.
The Atonement
As already noted, when a person sins, he dies in that he is cut off from the fellowship of God. He might ask, “How can that fellowship be restored?” or say, “I see that I am condemned, but is there any hope for me to escape the horrible punishment that there is for sin?” That is the purpose for the atonement, and a fever does not come close to being a substitute for our sins. The death on the cross was not just to take our place physically, as though a physical death would keep everyone out of hell. No, the atonement was designed for Jesus to take our place, experiencing our torment.
The length of time is not the same, of course, but the separation from God was. Jesus tasted death for everyone (Heb. 2:9). Which death was that? Everyone agrees that it was not physical death, since we all still die. It certainly was not death to sin; each person must make up his own mind if he is going to repent or not. John the Baptizer identified Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus had no sins of His own (1 Peter 2:22); therefore, everyone else’s sins could be placed upon Him, and He could bear our punishment of spiritual death in being separated from God. The fact of that separation is seen in Jesus’ emotional outcry: “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken Me?”
In taking our place, Jesus’ blood was also poured out as an atonement for our sins, a type of which was commanded on the Day of Atonement under the Old Law (Lev. 16). We partake of that blood when we are baptized. God washes our sins away in the blood of the Lamb when we are baptized for the forgiveness of our sins (Rom. 6:3-5; Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). Life is in the blood used for atonement (Lev. 17:11). None of these things could be accomplished by a fever. No blood and no atonement exist with a fever, and God did not use any typology toward such a silly substitute.
Moral Justice
Paine says that the atonement makes no sense, but he offers no proof except his word on the matter.
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and if he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me; but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed; moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself; it is then no longer justice, it is indiscriminate revenge (36).
Is this some philosophical truth that Paine forgot to cite the source of? Who is the authority for his definition for moral justice? It is God’s universe; if He determines that moral justice can allow the innocent to take the place of the guilty, who is Paine (or anyone else) to say that He cannot do so?
This is not just a Biblical concept. In A Tale of Two Cities, which Dickens would not write until Paine was long gone, he would save a condemned man by having an innocent man trade places with him. Furthermore, in hostage situations, trades have been made. If a hostage is sick, the captors may allow someone who is free to take that unfortunate person’s place. Occasionally, one individual may be allowed to take the place of all the hostages. If evil men can make such a deal to allow prisoners to go free, why cannot God allow the innocent to take the place of the guilty?
Besides, it is not as though no foundation existed for Jesus taking the place of the condemned. It was foretold long before it happened. Isaiah wrote more than 700 years before the birth of Christ:
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement of our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him
The iniquity of us all (53:5-6).
Other parts of Isaiah 53 include the fact that “His righteous Servant shall justify many” (v. 11) and that “He poured out His soul unto death” (v. 12). Of course, the Day of Atonement (under Moses) was set up more than 1,500 years before Jesus made the sacrifice that He did. God had it planned not only at that time, but actually the Lamb “was slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). Now since God created the earth (a fact with which Paine agrees), on what basis can he say that God’s sense of moral justice cannot allow for this principle? What he means is that, if Paine had created the universe, he would not have allowed the innocent to take the place of the guilty.
A Childhood View
After touching briefly again on this topic on page 56, Paine then reveals his basis for taking issue with the doctrine of the atonement on page 65:
…when about the age of seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the Church, upon the subject of what is called redemption by the death of the Son of God. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son when he could not revenge himself in any other way, and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of that kind of thoughts that had anything in it of childish levity; it was to me a serious reflection, arising from the idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under the necessity of doing it. I believe in the same manner at this moment; and I moreover believe, that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.
Several observations are in order. First Paine sounds like a fundamental Baptist—with a horrible twist. Many of those folks would say, “I can tell you now the time; I can take you to the place where the Lord saved me by His wonderful grace.” In contrast, Paine can name the time and the place where he became lost and then determined to remain in that state by continually rejecting the salvation that Jesus had procured for him.
Second, while many people thought that Amy Carter was a tad precocious when, at the age of nine, she acknowledged that the problem that most bothered her was nuclear proliferation, she has absolutely nothing on Thomas Paine because at the age of seven or eight he was wrestling with the doctrine of Atonement. Most boys that age are playing with a yo-yo. And his reasoning powers far excel any other seven- or eight-year-old the rest of us have ever met. Even Jesus waited until He was twelve to astound the doctors of the law. What a serious child! What analytical powers he must have possessed, also, in order to weigh the central doctrine of the entire Bible and find it wanting—something that most theologians, for all their wackiness, have never done. So precise were the conclusions he drew as a youngster based on one sermon that he heard, that he never had cause to re-examine them.
Paul wrote, “When I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11). Paine should have done likewise. How much did the young Paine comprehend in the sermon on redemption? Did he, in fact, understand what sin is and how it offends the holiness of God? Youngsters of seven or eight do not have that capability. Unless one understands the meaning of sin, how can he appreciate the lengths to which God went to redeem him from it? Did he understand that sin separates us from God and that there is no way to undo it? Did he realize that sin merits eternal separation from God and that only God had the power to do something about our sin problem?
Third, God was not acting like a passionate man. He had coolly reasoned out all the ramifications of sin and its consequences before He ever created us. Before He ever said, “Let there be light,” God knew of the sacrifice that would need to be made for sin. Man’s choices were not a surprise to Him.
Fourth, revenge is not the motive behind redemption. Where would someone ever develop such a weird notion? Paine does not understand either holiness or justice in God’s moral universe. Since God is holy, He cannot fellowship sin or those who practice sin. Thus, a way must be sought to cleanse man of his sins. How could such a thing be achieved? Can an eight-year-old provide us the solution? Paine never addresses the concept of sin or holiness; is there a reason? Was there some sin he did not want to give up or repent of? Atonement is not about revenge; it is about purification—God finding a way to cleanse mankind of his sins.
It is not unlikely that a child could not understand these adult concepts and mistakenly thought the death of Jesus was about revenge instead of salvation, but when Paine became an adult, he should have reconsidered, replacing misunderstandings with the truth. He refused to do so, choosing rather to believe that a childish impression must be right.
Fifth, he concludes that God was much too good to allow Jesus’ life to be taken from Him—even if it was for the benefit of all mankind. He apparently fails to realize that God carried out this plan at great cost to Himself. He had to endure the ill treatment of His Son because it was the only way redemption could be achieved. He could not use His power to intervene or stop what was being done by shameless and guilty men. Jesus also volunteered to be the recipient of this unjust treatment in order to make our pardon available. How is it that Paine could not understand this amazing love and sacrifice? He saw men pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to obtain freedom in the United States. He would not have said that they did it for revenge on King George III, would he? He would not have assigned evil motives to the colonists; why does he do so to God Who wanted to set us free from sin?
The fact is that God was too good to let man remain condemned because of his sins and be separated from Him forever because of those sins. Even the best of men—those who have shown the most courage, the most love, the most compassion—would be lost without a means for their sins to be forgiven. God would not have been good—under anyone’s definition—to have had the means to cleanse us from our sins but then failed to implement that plan. It is not a matter of His being too Almighty to resist offering atonement; His goodness, mercy, love, and compassion compelled Him to do something about our sins that condemned us.
Sixth, is it the case that religion cannot have anything in it that shocks the mind of a child? Who sets the standard here—the God Who created the universe or an eight-year-old child? What it sounds like is that Paine thinks he should have been consulted so that God could get things right. Is not this the height of arrogance? The atonement is not a grotesque doctrine; it shows the greatest love and the greatest sacrifice that has ever been seen anywhere at any time (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8). God intended that people be shocked when they see how evil sin is—to necessitate this extreme suffering on account of it. God Himself paid the price so that human beings would not need to face eternal torment (the just punishment for sin). And for this He gets criticized? Paine failed to evaluate fairly the Atonement.