CHAPTER XXIII
III. THE TRUE MEANING OF CHRIST’S DEATH
The prophet Isaiah gives the heart of the truth when he declares, “But the Lord was pleased to crush ,Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering” (53: 10). In giving a definition of the atonement, several items must be noted.
A. IT Is kARIOUS
It is evident that Christ did not die for his .own sin (John 8:46; Heb. 4:15;
1 Pet. 2:22). Everywhere it is said that he died for the sins of others. “The sufferings of Christ were not just the sympathetic sufferings of a friend, but the substitutionary sufferings of the Lamb of God for the sin of the world.“6 Isaiah writes, “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening of our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. . . . But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (53:5f.). Note some of the other Scriptures: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sin- ners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8); “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3); “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor.
5:21) ; “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Pet.
2:24); and “Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3: 18). Jesus himself said, “For 6Berkhof, System.atic Theology, p. 3 7 6 .
236 Soteriology
even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) and “1 am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10: 11). He died in our stead as the true Passover lamb (Exod. 12; 1 Cor. 5: 7) and was the true sin-offering (Isa. 53:10), of which the ones in the Old Testament economy were but types (Lev. 6:24-30; Web. 10:1-4; cf. also the scapegoat, Lev.
16:20-22).
There are objections brought against this interpretation of his death, the first lexical and the second and third moral. It is said that the Greek preposi- tion anti may mean “instead,” but that the preposition huper, which is nearly always used when the sufferings and death of Christ are spoken of, means “in behalf of,” ”with the view to the benefit of,” and never “instead of.” That anti means “instead of,” is evident from its use in Matt. 5:38*
20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 11:ll; Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15; Heb. 12:16:
1 Pet. 3:9. The term huper is used often in phrases which relate to the atone:
ment. Some of these are: “ This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20); “greater love has no one than this that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15: 13); “in that while w;
were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8); “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32) ; “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf” (2 Cor. 5:21); Christ tasted “death for every one” (Heb. 2:9); and “for Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18; cf. John 6:51; 2 Cor. 5:14; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 5:2, 25).
What is the significance of the preposition huper! Though this preposition often means “in behalf of” or “for the benefit of,” it can also mean “in the stead of.” This is the case in 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14; and Gal. 1:4, where the idea of substitution cannot be denied. It is evident that Christ died both for the benefit of the sinner as well as in his stead. Both ideas are contained the preposition huper, whereas anti has special reference to substitution.in
It is further objected that it is immoral for God to punish an innocent one and that for that reason alone Christ’s death is not substitutionary. But the error in this view lies in the assumption that God and Christ are two beings as different from each other as two individual men. If this were the case there might be some point to this objection. Since, however, Christ is Godthen incarnate, the substitute is God himself. It is not unjust for the judge to pay the penalty himself, if he chooses to do so. Furthermore, Jesus volunteered to be the substitute. He declared, “I lay down My life for the sheep. . . . The Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again” (John 10:15, 17f.).
Closely related to this objection is the third. It is said that satisfaction and
The Work of Christ: His Death 237
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. 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 is, therefore, 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.
B. IT IS SATISFACTION
Since holiness is God’s fundamental attribute it is only reasonable that he should be given some satisfaction to remove the outrage of sin. The death of Christ supplies this satisfaction.
2. It satisfies the justice of G o d . Man has sinned against God and has incurred his displeasure and condemnation. God rightly exacts the penalty of a broken law. He cannot free the sinner until the demands of justice are satisfied. God must visit sin with punishment. God will not, apart from substitution, clear the guilty (Exod. 34:7; Num. 14:18). Only through Christ’s death could God be just while justifying the sinner (Rom. 3:25f .). In whatever God does, his justice must be maintained; Christ’s death fully satisfied the just demands of God. As in the case of state criminals, if the offender suffers the penalty prescribed by the law, he is no longer liable to condemnation. “No further punishment can justly be demanded for that offence. This is what is called the perfection of Christ’s satisfaction. It per- fectly, from its own intrinsic worth, satisfies the demands of justice.“7 2. It satisfies the law of God. But Christ’s death is not merely a satisfac- tion of the justice of God, it is also a satisfaction of the law of God. The law of God is grounded in the very nature of God, and transgression of that law brings with it a penalty. “It is inviolable exactly because it is grounded in the very nature of God and is not. . . a product of His f ree will. ‘rB The sinner could not meet the demands of divine law, but Christ, as our representative and substitute, did. Thus God made provision for a vicarious satisfaction through the active and passive obedience of Christ (Rom. 8: 3f.). By his obedience and sufferings and his life of perfect righteousness, Jesus fulfilled all the demands of the law. Paul speaks of Israel, saying, “Not knowing about 7Hodge, S y s t e mtic Theology, II, p. 482.
BBerkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 370.
238 So teriology
God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:3f.).
3. It is involved in atonement. Involved in the thought of “satisfaction”
are a number of other terms found frequently in the Scriptures. Thus the death of Christ is an atonement and a propitiation. Lev. 6:2-7 speaks of individual atonement for individual sin: “When a person sins and acts un- faithfully against the Lord, . . .
to the Lord, . . .
he shall bring to the priest his guilt offering and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord; and he shall be forgiven for any one of the things which he may have done to incur guilt.” Lev. 4: 13-20 makes reference to national atonement for national transgression : “If the whole congregation of Israel commits er- ror, . . . and they become guilty;. . . Then the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the Lord, and the bull shall be slain before the Lord. . . . So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.” From these passages it is evident that the bull or ram must die, and that forgiveness is possible only on the ground of the death of a substitute. The Hebrew word for atonement in these and similar passages is kaphar, often translated “to make atonement.” It means literally “to cover over” so as not to be seen. Hoeksema writes of the expiatory nature of the Old Testament sacrifices: “They were called sin offerings or trespass offerings, and are said to bear the sins of the offender, to make expiation for sin, to be a propitiation, and to cover the sins of the people in the sight of God. And their fruit is the forgiveness of sins.“9 The thought of covering sins from the eye of God is suggested in verses such as
“Hide Thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities” (Ps. 51:9);
“For Thou hast cast all my sins behind Thy back’ (Isa. 38:17); and “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea” (Mic. 7:19).
4. It is involved in propitiation. In the Septuagint this Hebrew word kuphur is translated by a Greek word which has a slightly different emphasis.
The word is rendered in Greek exiluskomui, which means “to propitiate, to appease.” Evidently the thought is, if the sin has been covered or removed, then God’s wrath against that sin has been appeased or satisfied. Because of this truth, the translators of the Septuagint are justified in making this translation.
The term exiluskomui itself does not occur in the New Testament, but the verb hiluskomui occurs twice (Luke 18:13; Heb. 2:17), the noun hilusmos twice (1 John 2:2; 4:10), and the adjective hilusterion twice (Rom. 3:25; Heb.
9:5). The New Testament has much to say about the wrath of God (John
“Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 389.
The Work of Christ: His Death 239
3:36; Rom. 1:lS; 5:9; Eph. 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:lO; Heb. 3:ll; Rev. 19:15).
Corresponding to this thought, the New Testament represents Christ’s death as appeasing God’s wrath. Paul says, God set him forth “publicly as a pro- pitiation” (Rom. 3:25), and Hebrews uses this term for the mercy seat at the tabernacle (Heb. 9:5). John declared that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:2 ; cf. 4: 10) ; and Hebrews states that Christ became a merciful and faithful high priest “to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (2: 17). The tax-gatherer’s prayer was literally, “God be propitious to me, the sinner”
(Luke 18:13). By his death, Christ appeased God’s holy wrath against sin.
5. It is involved in reconciliation. Closely connected with the idea of propitiation is the thought of reconciliation. The two ideas seem to be related to each other as cause and effect; Christ’s death “propitiated” God, and as a result God is “reconciled” (Rom. 5:lO; 2 Cor. 5:lSf.; Eph. 2:16). The verb kutullusso occurs six times in the New Testament (Rom. 5:lO; 1 Cor. 7:ll;
2 Cor. 5:18-20), and the noun kutulluge four times (Rom. 5:ll; 11:15; 2 Cor.
5 : 18f .). Diullussomui appears once (Matt. 5 : 24). In all these occurrences the thought is that of reconciliation. Berkouwer states that Paul uses this term to refer “to the relationship of peace which is brought about by the death of Christ, to the communion in contrast with the previous enmity, to the reconciliation as the removal of all obstacles, to the access to the Father.“lO In the Scriptures the term reconciliation is applied to both God and man (Rom. 5:lO; 2 Cor. 5:18-20).
The thought is something like this. At first God and man stood face to face with each other in perfect harmony. In sinning, Adam turned his back upon God. Then God turned his back upon Adam. Christ’s death has satisfied the demands of God and now God has again turned his face toward man. It remains for man to turn around and face God. Since God has been reconciled by the death of his Son, man is now entreated to be reconciled to God. In the largest sense of that word, God has reconciled to himself, not only man, but also all things in heaven and on earth (Col. 1:20). Due to this reconciliation, God sends temporal blessings upon the unsaved (Matt. 5:45; Rom. 2:4), extends an opportunity to man to repent (2 Pet. 3: 9), and will deliver heaven and earth from the results of the fall (Rom. 8:19-21).
c.
IT IS A hNSOMThe death of Christ is represented as the payment of a ransom. The idea of ransom is that of the payment of a price in order to set another held in bond- age free. Thus Jesus said that he had come to give his life a ransom for many
“‘Berkouwer, The Work of Christ, p. 255.
240 Soteriology
(Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45), and the work of Christ is spoken of as a redemp- tion (Luke 1:68; 2:38; Heb. 9:12). In these references we have the word lutrosis. The verb Iutroomai occurs in Luke 24:21; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18. $ The compound apolutrosis occurs ten times (Luke 21:28; Rom. 3:24; 8:23; i;3 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7, 14; 4:30; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:15; 11:35). Deissmann says,
When anybody heard the Greek word 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. 11
This ransom is not paid to Satan, but to God. The debt that requires cancelling is due to God’s attribute of justice; Satan has no legal claims against the sinner, *nd so does not need to be paid before the sinner can be set free. As Shedd has well stated, “God’s mercy ransoms man from God’s justice.“12
Scripture teaches that we are redeemed through the death of Christ. This redemption is (1) from the penalty of the law, or as Paul says in Gal. 3:13,
“from the curse of the Law,” by Christ’s having become a curse for us; (2) from the law itself, by our being made dead to the law by the body of Christ (Rom. 7:4), so that we are no longer under it but under grace (Rom. 6:14); (3) from sin as a power, by Christ’s death to sin and our death to it in him (Rom. 6:2,6; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. l:lBf.), so that we need no longer submit to the domination of sin (Rom. 6:12-14); (4) from Satan, who held man in captivity (2 Tim. 2:26), likewise through Christ’s death on the cross (Heb. 2:14f.); and (5) from all evil, both physical and moral, including our present mortal body (Rom. 8: 23 ; Eph. 1: 14), to be fully granted at the return of Christ (Luke 21:28). The term “redemption” alludes sometimes to the payment of a debt and sometimes to the liberation of a captive. Christ’s sacrifice provided for both.