I know that Jesus Christ is said to have made far less of that aspect of His work in the Gospels than His disciples have done in the Epistles, and that we are told that, if we go back to Jesus, we shall not find the doctrine which for some of us is the first form in which the Gospel finds its way into the hearts of men.  I admit that the fully-developed teaching followed the fact, as was necessarily the case.  I do not admit that Jesus Christ ’spake nothing concerning Himself’ as the sacrifice for the world’s sins.  For I hear from His lips—­not to dwell upon other sayings which I could quote—­I hear from His lips, ’The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister’—­that is only half His purpose—­’and to give His life a ransom instead of the many.’  You cannot strike the atoning aspect of His death out of that expression by any fair handling of the words.

And what does the Lord’s Supper mean?  Why did Jesus Christ select that one point of His life as the point to be remembered?  Why did He institute the double memorial, the body parted from the blood being a sign of a violent death?  I know of no explanation that makes that Lord’s Supper an intelligible rite except the explanation which says that He came, to live indeed, and in that life to be a sacrifice, but to make the sacrifice complete by Himself bearing the consequences of transgression, and making atonement for the sins of the world.

Brethren, that is the only aspect of Christ’s death which makes it of any consequence to us.  Strip it of that, and what does it matter to me that He died, any more than it matters to me that any philanthropist, any great teacher, any hero or martyr or saint, should have died?  As it seems to me, nothing.  Christ’s death is surrounded by tenderly pathetic and beautiful accompaniments.  As a story it moves the hearts of men, and ’purges them, by pity and by terror.’  But the death of many a hero of tragedy does all that.  And if you want to have the Cross of Christ held upright in its place as the Throne of Christ and the attractive power for the whole world, you must not tamper with that great truth, but say, ’He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.’

Now, there is a second question that I wish to ask, and that is—­

II.  How does Christ’s death ‘commend’ God’s love?

That is a strange expression, if you will think about it, that ’God commendeth His love towards us in that Christ died.’  If you take the interpretation of Christ’s death of which I have already been speaking, one could have understood the Apostle if he had said, ’Christ commendeth His love towards us in that Christ died.’  But where is the force of the fact of a man’s death to prove God’s love?  Do you not see that underlying that swift sentence of the Apostle there is a presupposition, which he takes for granted?  It is so obvious that I do not need to dwell upon it to vindicate his change of persons, viz. that ‘God was in Christ,’ in such fashion as that whatsoever Christ did was the revelation of God.  You cannot suppose, at least I cannot see how you can, that there is any force of proof in the words of my text, unless you come up to the full belief, ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.’