|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
When I survey the wondrous cross,
On which the Prince of Glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
None other Lamb, none other Name,
None other hope in earth or heaven or sea,
None other Hiding-place from guilt or shame,
None beside Thee.
Christina Georgina Rossetti (1850-1894)
And can it be, that I should gain
An interest in the Savior's blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Charles Wesley (1707-1788)
I. Introduction
As we come to this subject we must realize that this is not merely a tragedy of history with which we are dealing. It is, rather, an eternal truth relating to all God's dealings for time and eternity. While man may be the chief beneficiary of the atonement, it goes far beyond man in its broad implications. Note that the death of Christ was planned in eternity past: he is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:19-20; Rev. 13:8); was accomplished in history; he is the Lamb of God bearing the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1 Pet.1:18-19); will be central in eternity future: he will be the Lamb on the throne (Rev. 5:6, 12; 21:22; 22:1).
Christianity is unique among the religions of the world in that it gives greater prominence to the death of its central figure than to his life. As Thiessen has observed, "Take away the death of Christ as interpreted by the scriptures, and you reduce Christianity to the level of the ethnic religions. Though we would still have a higher system of ethics, were we to take away the cross of Christ, we would have no more salvation than these other religions. Take away the cross and the heart of Christianity is gone." [i]
II. The Cause of the Atonement
A. The cause itself (Isa. 53:10; Eph. 1:5,9 (NIV); Col. 1:19-20)
One of the most remarkable statements in all of Messianic prophecy is found in Isaiah 53:10 where the cause of the atonement is identified. The NASB reads, "But the LORD was pleased to pleased to crush him, putting him to grief," and the NIV translates, "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer." He died because it was Yahweh's good-pleasure. Not all, of course, accept this passage as messianic. Most Jewish scholars see it as a reference to national suffering and even some Christians do not believe that this was previously viewed messianically.
John Bright, for all practical purposes, denies that "Jews expected a suffering redeemer," [ii] and Leon Morris questions whether Isaiah 53 was understood messianically in pre-Christian times. [iii] While it may be that Judaism in general did not so view this passage, it is quite apparent that this was a view held early in the history of the church (cf. Acts 8:30-35), and it is inconceivable that this view did not have roots in the early decades of the first century, at the very least. [iv]
As Henry notes, “… to identify that passage simply with the nation Israel will not do because Israel is herself depicted as a beneficiary of the servant’s work (cf. 53:8).” [v]
Whatever motifs both [Israel and Messiah] share in common, Gerhard von Rad notes, and rightly, that the collectivistic view does not fully fit the individualistic literary category of prophetic confession, and that in context the complete unfaithfulness and unwillingness of Israel cannot be identified with the unqualified self-surrender and unswerving faith of the suffering servant. [vi]
B. The foundation on which it was raised
1. Not an arbitrary act of will
God does not function as though he were exercising one perfection only, or even one at a time. All the perfections of God are symmetrically articulated and each impinges on the other so that the whole of his essence harmoniously touches all that he does.
2. The nature of God
The foundation for the atonement was love exercised according to the standards of righteousness (John 3:16; Eph. 2:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 3:25-26).
III. The Necessity of the Atonement
A. The necessity is a matter of biblical/theological certainty
If it is God's purpose to forgive sin and impart life, which it is, the death of Christ was a necessity.
1. The holy nature of God demands it (Exod. 34:6-7; Rom. 3:25-26)
"God cannot pardon sin merely on the ground of the sinner's repentance. That would be impossible for a righteous God to do." [vii] Paul declares that he acted in such a way as to be "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
2. The nature of sin demands it (1 John 3:4)
"Sin is lawlessness," that is the exact-opposite of God and therefore must be dealt with in justice.
3. The fallen nature of man demands it (Rom. 3:23; 6:23)
Mankind falls short of the glory (manifest character) of God.
4. The scriptures so state (Luke 24:26-27; Gal. 3:21-22; Heb. 9:22)
B. The nature of the necessity is a matter of theological debate
Is it a matter of arbitrary decision on God’s part; of sovereign decision as expressed in the divine decree; or of the inexorable dictates of the divine nature? It would seem that the third option is most in keeping with biblical data but see Louis Berkhof for discussion. [viii]
IV. Nature of the Atonement (The True Doctrine)
A. Introduction
Every false religious system rests on some inadequate view of atonement. This is reflected in the various theories of the atonement (see below) all of which imbibe in one or more common errors. While there may be elements of truth here and there in these theories, with some more than others, the central issue—the basic meaning of the death of Christ—is obscured or misstated. They are generally man-centered rather than God- centered; subjective rather than objective; and tend to omit any vicarious element whatsoever.
In faulting these various theories for being more subjective than objective we do not intend to deny any place for the subjective in this discussion. The issue is a matter of emphasis. Without the objective there is no place nor need for consideration of the subjective. Donald Bloesch has captured the significance of this relationship when he writes,
First it must be said that the atonement does have an objective basis in the life and death of Jesus Christ. Something happened for our salvation in the death and resurrection of Christ independent of our belief or response.... Yet though the work of Christ is finished for the sinner, it is not yet finished in the sinner.... Salvation includes not only deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin secured by the mediatorial work of Christ; it also consists in deliverance from the power and presence of sin effected by the operation of the Holy Spirit.... Christ suffered and atoned for all vicariously, but man remains bound to the powers of sin and corruption until he is brought by the Spirit into personal contact with the saving work of Christ…. The word of reconciliation does not achieve its validity through our acceptance, but it does become efficacious in this way. All people have been redeemed objectively and de jure, but only the believer is redeemed in toto and de facto, since only he has personally appropriated the reality of Christ's salvation. [ix]
The true doctrine is referred to variously as the doctrine of satisfaction or the penal, substitutionary (vicarious) [x] doctrine of the atonement. This teaches that Christ died in my place and for my benefit. He fully satisfied the demands of God's justice upon sin. His death was primarily directed toward God who is the offended party, not to man the offender. It is, also, to be noted that while his death makes salvation available to all it does not guarantee all will be saved. It is sufficient for all but effective only for those who, having been appointed for eternal life, believe (Acts 13:48).
Since the value of the atoning work of Christ will be no greater than the value of the sacrifice it is not uncommon to discuss the matter of Christ's righteousness at this point. This is seen to include the active and passive obedience of Christ.
The Reformed view ties these two concepts into the covenant idea of redemption. "Christ as mediator entered the federal relation in which Adam stood in the state of integrity, in order to merit eternal life for the sinner. This constitutes the active obedience of Christ, consisting of all that Christ did to observe the law in its federal aspect, as the condition for obtaining eternal life.” [xi]
He goes on to say, “Christ as Mediator also entered the penal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty in our stead. His passive obedience consisted in his paying the penalty of sin by His sufferings and death, and thus discharging the debt of all His people." [xii] They are further careful to point out that the active and passive obedience are both aspects of the same thing and thus not to be separated. As Bloesch warns, "the difficulty with this distinction is that it tends to overlook the fact that Christ was active as well as passive in both his obedience in life and suffering in death." [xiii]
We believe that the basic concept set forth in this doctrine is valid, but we do not believe that it is necessary to present it in the federal framework. His active obedience was to the Father's will and thus he proved to be an unblemished, fully qualified sacrifice (Matt. 5:17-18; John 15:10; 1 Pet. 2:22-23). Likewise, his passive obedience relates to the eternal purposes of God as a reflection of his character as he became obedient unto death (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8).
B. That which Christ accomplished in his death
1. Accomplishments for the sinner
a) A substitution for sinners was provided
1) Key words for substitution
i. Anti. While it does have other legitimate meanings in the New Testament, its dominant meaning in 1st century Greek is "instead of," "in the place of," (Matt. 20:2B; Mark 10:45). [xiv]
ii. Huper. It often means "on behalf of" only, but on occasion clearly has the same idea as anti as well. Thus those concepts of benefit and substitution are sometimes expressed by huper. This is proven by Philemon 13; John 11:50, cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14; John 6:51; Romans 5:6-8; Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 3:18. [xv]
While this usage for huper is disputed by some, "John 11:50-51 makes little sense if huper is not understood as referring to substitution. Caiaphas (like Balaam's ass) did not understand the full significance of his statement, but he certainly meant that it was better for Jesus to die 'for [instead of, huper] the people' than for all the nation to be slaughtered by the Roman legions. It was not merely a question of benefit; it was also a question of one instead of many (substitution)." [xvi]
There are also several non-Johannine passages in which huper either very nearly approximates or seems to be the exact equivalent. For example, Galatians 3:13 reads "having become a cur se for us"; Colossians 1: 7 has "a faithful servant of Christ for us (author's translation); and Philemon 13 has "that he might minister for you to me" (author's translation). The last reference is especially strong since Paul is speaking of a personal debt Philemon owed him. [xvii]
2) The significance of "vicarious" atonement
We must not overlook the fact that while God's love may have longed to save the sinner the immutable demands of his justice would not allow him to do so until those demands be met in a satisfactory way. On the basis of the substitutionary death of Christ, whereby the demands of justice were satisfied, God is free to act in saving the sinner. This is grace.
Since the "wages of sin is death" and since Jesus Christ had no sin of his own (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:8) it is clear that he died for the sins of others. Many scriptures witness to this truth but some of them are Isaiah 53:5-6; Mark 10:45; John 10:11; Romans 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18.
3) The judicial aspects of substitution
i. Forgiveness provided. As our sin bearer Christ secured forgiveness for the sinner. There is a subtraction of the judicial effects of sin, that is, guilt is removed.
Some would object to this saying "that satisfaction and forgiveness are mutually exclusive. It is held that if a substitute pays the debt we owe, God cannot collect the debt also from us but is morally bound to let us go free; that is, on this theory God does not exercise mercy in forgiving us, but merely does his duty." [xviii] Thiessen continues by answering,
But this objection is likewise removed by the fact that the one who pays the debt is not a third party, but the judge himself. Forgiveness, therefore, is still optional with him and may be offered upon terms agreeable to himself. The terms which God has laid down are repentance and faith. The obedience of Christ, therefore, does not make ours unnecessary, but still requires us to meet the terms before we can become the beneficiaries of his atoning death. [xix]
ii. Righteousness imputed. At the same time, as our substitute, Christ gave us the gift of eternal life together with the imputation of the righteousness of God. There is an addition of the divine righteousness from a judicial standpoint.
4) The efficacy of the substitute
The efficacy of the sacrifice, and of the sacrificial act, is directly related to the worth of the one who suffered and died. Because of His infinite' worthiness the sacrifice was of infinite value. Thus it is not only the fact of the death but who it was who died that is significant. The very nature of the substitute, then, demands that the atonement be unlimited in its sufficiency while the sovereign choice of God has determined that it will be effective only for some.
b) Redemption from sin
1) The concept of a theological “Covenant of Redemption"
This is said to be an agreement within the Godhead in eternity past regarding redemption to be worked out in time.
i. The biblical base (Eph. 3:11).
ii. The concept stated. The Son agreed to become incarnate; the Father agreed to sustain the Son and accept the work of the cross; and the Spirit agreed to apply the work of the Son.
iii. The degree of validity. This teaching arises from an Old Testament concept primarily related to the redeemed nation of Israel as they were delivered from Egypt in the Exodus. It related to a people redeemed from slavery and to land redeemed for its owner (Lev. 25; Ruth). What reference there is to redemption in a spiritual sense is very vague.
iv. The basic error. The major problem is that of redemptocentrism. Redemption is one aspect of the death of Christ. This view makes it the central thing; i.e., the Covenant of Redemption is equated with the entirety of God’s plan.
2) The Old Testament concept of redemption
i. Pictured in the Exodus (Exod. 12:1-14) as Israel is "redeemed" from bondage in Egypt by the blood of the Passover Lamb.
ii. Pictured in the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) as God's righteous demands regarding sin are met and the guilt of the people is removed.
iii. Pictured in the Kinsman-Redeemer (Book of Ruth). The goel (kinsman-redeemer) functioned to buy back a person or property which had been sold.
· Must be a kinsman, that is, he must be 0f the same family (Ruth 2:1; cf. Lev. 25:25, 47-49).
· Must be able to redeem, that is, he must have the resources (Ruth 2:1).
· Must be willing to redeem, that is, the action was not compulsory (Ruth 3:10-11).
· Must be free of the predicament which has befallen the one to be redeemed. A slave could not redeem a slave.
· Must act to redeem by paying the price (Ruth 4:9-10).
3) The New Testament doctrine of redemption
i. The need (Rom. 7:14, 24; Gal. 3:13). Mankind is sold into the bondage of sin and the curse of the law.
ii. The terminology.
· Agoradzo, purchase (1 Cor. 6:20; Rev. 5:9). This verb means to buy in the agora (marketplace), to acquire as a property, and is used of both believers and unbelievers (1 Pet. 2:1).
· Exagoradzo, remove from sale (Gal. 3:13; 4:5). This is an intensive form of the preceding verb and means to buyout of the market place, to release, to buy back. It is used of believer’s only. These two verbs place emphasis on the act of purchase. They may be distinguished in that agoradzo views the transfer of a slave from one master to another, while exagoradzo views a transition from slavery to freedom. The latter term shows that we do not need to be redeemed again and assures our security.
· Lutroo, manumit (Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18). This verb means to release; to liberate upon payment of a ransom; to set free. Here the emphasis is upon the price paid (lutron, ransom). Also to be noted is the cognate term apolutrosis which means release or redemption. This word gives emphasis to the freedom which is the result of the payment of ransom (see Rom. 3:24).
iii. The purchase price (Matt. 20:28; Eph. 1:7). The ransom price is the blood of Christ, i.e., his life given up. "When anybody heard the Greek work lutron, 'ransom,' in the first century, it was natural for him to think of the purchase money for manumitting slaves. Three documents from Oxyrhynchus relating to manumissions in the years 86, 100 and 91 or 107 A. D. make use of the word." [xx] While the Bible does not specifically say to whom the price is paid, Hebrews 9:22 would suggest that it is to God who set the price. “The ransom is not paid to Satan, but to God. The debt that requires canceling is due to God's attribute of justice; Satan has no legal claims against the sinner, and so does not need to be paid before the sinner can be set free." [xxi]
iv. The objective nature or direction of redemption. This is the aspect of Christ’s death that deals with sin.
v. The results of redemption.
· Deliverance from the obligation and curse of the law (Gal. 4:5; 3:13)
· Forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).
· The basis for sanctification provided (Tit. 2:14).
· The basis for glorification provided (Eph. 1:14; Rom. 8:23).
· Summary: Redemption is that work of God through the death of Christ whereby man is purchased from the slavery of sin and released unto the freedom of grace.
vi. The appropriation of redemption
Redemption is appropriated by faith in Jesus Christ
c) Reconciliation of man
1) The Old Testament concept
There is no real doctrine of reconciliation in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament sin only was covered (the Hebrew concept of atonement, kaphar, which means to cover over).
2) The New Testament doctrine
i. The need (Col. 1:21-22). Men are enemies of and aliens before God.
ii. The terminology.
· Katallasso, to change (Rom. 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:18-20).
· Apokatallasso, to change; reconcile completely (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20-22).
iii. The basis of the provision (Col. 1:20). The blood of Christ, that is, his life given up, is the basis for reconciliation.
iv. The nature of reconciliation
· It is objective in that it relates to the finished work of Christ. At root it is not existential although it leads to very personal results.
· It is God-directed in that it is solely a work of God for man. It is also God-directed in that due to sin God views us as enemies, and reconciliation makes it possible for him to view us as friends (Rom. 5:9-10. [xxii] This is not to say that God changes, for both his righteousness and his love are immutable. Rather, it is to say that a barrier which had been erected by sin between God and man has been removed. "Leon Morris [xxiii] rightly reminds us that we can speak of God being reconciled only in a qualified sense, since God's love is ever present." [xxiv]
· It is directed manwardly in that he is the focus of the reconciling work. Man is the one who has been alienated, who has changed, and must be changed completely to be brought back to fellowship with God. As noted above this does not exclude God from reconciliation but it is here that the New Testament emphasis lies.
v. The results of reconciliation
· The whole world is rendered savable (2 Cor. 5:19).
· Man's enmity and estrangement toward God is removed (Col. 1:21-22); and, this induction leads to the deduction that God's hostility toward man is removed.
· Those who believe are given peace with God (Eph. 2:13-18; Col. 1:20).
· Ground is provided for the believer's assurance (Rom. 5:10).
· A basis is given for the future restoration of the universe to God's favor (Col. 1.:20). This refers to the removal of the curse.
· Summary: Reconciliation is that work of god through the death of Christ by which sinful man is brought into a relationship of spiritual harmony with God. Hostility and enmity are changed into peace and friendship.
vi. The appropriation of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:20-21). Reconciliation is appropriated by faith in Christ. In contemporary theology reconciliation is sometimes viewed as an accomplished fact for all. This becomes the basis for neo-universalism. The New Testament viewpoint, however, is that while reconciliation is potentially available to all it must be personally appropriated by faith to be effective for anyone.
d) Propitiation of God
1) The Old Testament concept
i. The following terms are used in the Old Testament (LXX). Exilaskomai, "appease," is the primary term (see e.g., Gen. 32:20; "seek the favor of," Zech. 7:2). Hilasterion is used in Exodus 25:16-22 to refer to the lid on the Ark of the Covenant on which the blood was sprinkled. It is translated "mercy seat" (NASB; "propitiatory" in the footnote) or "atonement cover" (NIV).
ii. The relationship between, propitiation and wrath in the Old Testament. Whenever the Greek word for propitiate is found in the LXX, you will usually find reference to wrath nearby. This suggests that in propitiation God is relating to his wrath.
2) The New Testament teaching
i. The need (Rom. 3:25-26; also see the various references to God's wrath throughout the New Testament—e.g., Matt. 3:7; John 3:36; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:10). The necessity of propitiation lies in the character of God, viz. his righteousness and holiness, which has been outraged by sin.
ii. The terminology.
· Hilaskomai, to propitiate; to render agreeable, to satisfy; the turning away of wrath by an offering (Luke 18:13; Heb. 2:17).
·