The fact is, the enemy does not want souls to see that, in the death of Christ, sentence was passed on fallen human nature and upon the whole world. This was not the case in incarnation at all. An incarnate Christ put man to the test--a dead Christ put man to death--a risen Christ takes the believer into union with Himself. When Christ came in the flesh, fallen man was still under probation. When Christ died on the cross, fallen man was wholly condemned. When Christ rose from the dead, He became the head of a new race, each member of which, being quickened by the Holy Ghost, is viewed by God as united to Christ, in life, righteousness, and favor--he is viewed as having been dead, as having passed through judgment, and as being now as free from all condemnation as Christ himself. "He hath made Him to be sin for us, [He] who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
Now, it must be plain to the reader who bows to Scripture, that incarnation did not, and could not accomplish all this. Incarnation did not put away sin. Need we stop here to dwell upon the glories of the mystery of incarnation? Will anyone imagine that we take away from the value, or mar the integrity of that priceless fundamental truth, because we deny that it puts away sin, or forms the basis of our union with Christ? We trust not. That incarnation was essentially necessary for the accomplishment of redemption is plain to all. Christ had to become a man in order to die. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." He had to give His flesh for the life of the world. But this only goes to prove the absolute necessity of death. It was the _giving_ of His flesh, not the _taking_ of it, that laid the foundation of the whole fabric--life, pardon, peace, righteousness, union, glory, all. Apart from death, there is, and could be, absolutely nothing. Through death we have all.
But we cannot pursue this profound subject any further now. Enough has been said to set forth its connection with our special thesis--the ministry of reconciliation. When we read that "God hath made Christ to be sin for us," we must see that this involved nothing less than the death of the cross. "THOU," says that blessed One, "hast brought ME into the dust of death" (Psa. xxii.). What an utterance! Who can fathom the mighty depths of those words--"Thou"--"Me"--and "death"? Who can enter into the question, "My God, My God, why hast _Thou_ forsaken _Me_?" Why did a holy, righteous God forsake His only begotten, well-beloved, eternal Son? The answer contains the solid basis of that marvelous ministry whereof we speak. Christ was made sin. He not only bore our _sins_ in His own body on the tree; but He was made sin. He stood charged with the entire question of sin. He was "the Lamb of God bearing away the sin of the world." As such He gloriously vindicated God, in the very scene where He had been dishonored. He glorified Him in respect to that very thing by which His majesty had been insulted. He took upon Himself the whole matter--placed Himself beneath the weight of the whole burden, and completely cleared the ground on which God could lay the foundations of the new creation. He opened those eternal flood-gates which sin had closed, so that the full tide of divine love might roll down along that channel which His atoning death alone could furnish; so long as sin was _in_ question, reconciliation must be _out_ of the question. But Christ, being made sin died and put it away forever, and thus changed entirely the ground and character of God's dealing with man and with the world.
The death of Christ, then, as we have seen, is the alone basis of reconciliation. That divine work has opened the way for placing men and things in their right relationship to God, and on their proper footing before Him. And this, be it remembered, is the true sense and meaning of reconciliation. Sin had alienated "men" from God, and set "_things_" entirely astray, and hence both men and things needed to be reconciled, or set straight; and the death of Christ has cleared the way for this.
It is well to see clearly the distinction between "atonement" and "reconciliation." They are often confounded, through inattention to Scripture; and the honored translators of our excellent Authorised Version have not, with sufficient accuracy, marked this distinction. For example, in Rom. v. 11, they have the word "atonement" where it ought to be rendered "reconciliation" and in Heb. ii. 17, we have the word "reconciliation" where it ought to be "atonement."