According to the Scriptures, Jesus Christ has a threefold office work, viz:
a prophetic ministry, a priestly ministry, and a kingly ministry. As someone
has said: “Christ must be a Prophet to save us from the ignorance of sin; a
Priest, to save us from its guilt; and a King, to save us from its power”.
TOPIC ONE: CHRIST AS PROPHET
I. PREDICTIVE ANNOUNCEMENT
The predictive announcement that Christ should be a prophet is recorded
in Deuteronomy 18:18, 19. See Matthew 13:57; 16:14; 21:11; John 1:21; 4:19;
6:14; 7:40; 9:17; and especially Acts 3:22 and 7:37.
II. EXTENT
Officially, the prophetic ministry of Christ began at the river Jordan,
when He was endued with the Holy Spirit, and ended at the cross of Calvary,
when He offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin: Matthew 4:23-25; Luke 4:14-27;
Acts 2:22, 23; Hebrews 9:26-28.
III. TWOFOLD NATURE OF PROPHET
The primary idea of the prophetic office is that of one who “brings things to light”, or “makes manifest”. The secondary idea is
prediction of the future. The O. T. prophet, then, exercised two functions:
first, insight; and second, foresight. The prophet had also, so to speak,
“hindsight”; for by revelation of the Spirit he frequently knew things of the
past. This was true of Moses, when he penned the panorama of creation: Genesis
1 and 2.
NOTE: The original name
of the prophet was seer: I Samuel 9:9; II Kings 17:13. A seer is one who sees,
i. e., who sees things not beheld by mortal eye.
The word prophet comes from the Greek pro, before or forth, and phemi,
to speak, signifying to speak forth or beforehand. Thus a prophet was one who
spoke to the people as the mouthpiece of God: Exodus 4:15, 16.
On the primary idea of the prophetic office, see Exodus 4:10-17.
IV. MANIFOLD CHARACTER OF PROPHETIC MINISTRY
An O. T. prophet fulfilled his ministry in three ways: by teaching
(Matthew 5-7), by predicting (Matthew 24), and by healing (Matthew 8, 9).
Our Lord did all these. Or, more particularly, Christ fulfilled His
prophetic office in the following ways:
1. By His gracious words: Matthew 5:2; 7:28, 29; John 6:63; Revelation 1:10, 11.
2. By His wondrous deeds: John 5:36; 10:25; 15:24; Acts 2:22.
3. By His matchless example: John 13:15; I Peter 2:21-23.
4. By His unparalleled silence: Matthew 27:13, 14; I Peter 2:23.
5. By His gift of the Spirit: John 14:26; 15:26; I Peter 1:10, 11; I John 2:20-27.
TOPIC TWO: CHRIST AS PRIEST
PREDICTIVE ANNOUNCEMENT
The predictive announcement that Christ should be a priest is recorded
in Psalm 110:4. See Hebrews 5:6; 6:20; 7:21.
NOTE: Our Lord’s
priesthood is not in the line of Aaron, but “after the order of Melchizedec”;
that is, it is exercised not on earth but in heaven; and it is unchanging and
eternal.
EXTENT
Officially, the priestly ministry of Christ began at the cross, when He
offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin, and will end at His return, when as
King He will sit on the throne of David: Hebrews 8 and 9.
NATURE OF PRIESTLY OFFICE
A priest is a mediator—one who intercedes with a just God on behalf of
guilty sinners: Leviticus 4:16-18.
NOTE: Says Wickes:
“Soon after the deluge, a class of men was set apart and consecrated to
this sacred office of mediatorship with God, which is the essential idea of a
priest— one to whom the offering of sacrifices is specially committed, that he
may intercede with heaven in behalf of the guilty, who themselves have no
access into the divine presence. Thus not only must a bloody sacrifice, or sin
offering, be made, but made by certain persons who have been clothed with this
special authority to act for others. They are appointed mediators between God
and man, through whose intercession, by the offering of blood, atonement is
made and justification obtained for the transgressor”.
In Israel, by the Law of Moses, the priesthood was lodged in the house
of Aaron.
THREEFOLD SCOPE OF PRIESTHOOD
The scope of the Old Testament priesthood was threefold, viz:
- First, to offer sacrifices before the people;
- Second, to go within the veil to make intercession for the people;
- Third, to come forth and bless the people.
Or RECONCILIATION, INTERCESSION and BENEDICTION. As the Great High
Priest, our Lord fulfilled these three functions.
- The first, reconciliation, He accomplished at His first coming, when
on the cross He offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin.
- The second, intercession, He is accomplishing now in heaven between
His first and second advent.
- Third, benediction, He will accomplish at and after His coming return.
Hebrews 9:27, 28; I Peter 1:18-20; 2:24; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25; II
Thessalonians 1:10; I Peter 1:4, 5; Revelation 11:15; 20:4.
NOTE: The priests had
access to the Holy Place of the ancient tabernacle; but the high priest alone,
and then but once a year on the great day of atonement, could enter the Holy of
Holies: Hebrews 9:6, 7. The formula of benediction, which the high priest used,
on emerging from the Holy of Holies, is believed to be recorded in Numbers
6:22-27.
THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST
I. THE FACT
By predictions, types, witnessing terms, and explicit statements, the
Scriptures clearly set forth the fact of the atonement.
A. Types.
The typology of the Old Testament is full of the atonement. We may
instance a few of the more striking types:
1. Coat of skins, Genesis 3:21.
2. Abel’s lamb, Genesis 4:4.
3. The offering of Isaac, Genesis 22.
4. The Passover lamb, Exodus 12.
5. The Levitical sacrificial system, Leviticus chaps. 1-7.
6. The brazen serpent, Numbers 21; see John 3:14; 12:32.
7. The slain Lamb, Isaiah 53:7. See John 1:29; Revelation 13-8-
B. Predictions.
The Old Testament abounds in predictions concerning the Messiah, His
character and career. Indeed, there are said to be 333 specific striking O. T.
pictures of the sacrificial death of Christ.
1. The seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15.
2. The sin offering, Psalm 22.
3. The substitutional Saviour, Isaiah 53.
4. The cut-off Messiah, Daniel 9:26.
5. The smitten Shepherd, Zechariah 13:6, 7.
C. Witnessing Terms.
There are five Scriptural witnessing terms of the Atonement. They are:
1. Atonement.
The word atonement occurs only once in the A. V. of the New Testament,
viz: Romans 5:11. The Greek noun here is katallage
which means reconciliation (see below). The root of the Hebrew word for
atonement is kaphar, which literally
signifies to cover, i. e., forgive
sin. See Exodus 30:10.
Psalm 32:1 gives us both the figurative and spiritual meaning of
atonement.
NOTE: The lid of the
ark, called the mercy seat, is in Hebrew the kapporeth, signifying the place of the covering (i. e., of sin).
The way some teachers divide the word atonement, viz., at-one-ment, is of
curious interest; but at best it is a mere verbal trick, and no Scriptural
warrant can justly be claimed for it.
2. Reconciliation.
Reconciliation is the translation of the Greek noun katallage, which literally signifies an exchange, i. e., of
equivalent value in money-changing, or an adjustment, i. e., of a difference.
The enmity between God and man has been destroyed and amity has been
restored. “The word is used in the N. T., “ says Thayer, “of the restoration of
the favor of God to sinners that repent and put their trust into the expiatory
death of Christ”: Romans 5:11; 11:15; II Corinthians 5:18, 19.
3. Propitiation.
Propitiation is the translation of the Greek nouns hilasmos and hilasterion,
literally signifying an appeasing, a placating, an expiation. Propitiation
comes from the Latin and means that which renders one propitious or favorably
disposed towards another.
Thus, the death of Christ is the ground whereby God is rendered
propitious or favorably disposed towards the sinner. Christ, in other words, is
the propitiation for sin: Romans 3:25; I John 2:2; 4:10. See Hebrews 2:17.
NOTE: Propitiation or
propitiatory is the Greek equivalent ol the Hebrew kapporeth, or mercy seat, the lid of the Ark of the Covenant.
4. Redemption.
Redemption is the translation of the Greek nouns lutrosis and apolutrosis,
signifying a releasing, or liberation from captivity, slavery, or death by the
payment of a price, called a ransom. Thus, Christ is the ransom, who delivers
us from sin and death. Redemption is from the Latin and signifies a buying
back: Luke 1:68; 2:38; Romans 3:24; I Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 1:7, 14;
4:30; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:12, 15.
NOTE: The medieval
schoolmen taught that Christ was the ransom-price which God paid to Satan to
release sinners. But this is pressing the figure of speech too far. See I Peter
1:18-20.
5. Substitution.
Substitution is not a Biblical word but it is a Scriptural idea. It
means that one person or thing is put in, or takes, the place of another person
or thing. Thus, Christ took the place of sinners and died, thus suffering the
penalty of sin, which they deserved.
This is the significance of the scapegoat, Leviticus 16. This is also
the meaning of Isaiah 53:6. And it is the clear teaching of the New Testament:
Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; II Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 2:20; I Peter 3:18.
NOTE: There are two
Greek prepositions which express the substitutional or vicarious idea, viz: kuper—in behalf of, and anti—instead of. Some regard them as
equivalents: Matthew 20:28: Galatians 2:20. The English preposition for is
ambiguous; it means both in behalf of, and instead of.
D. Explicit Statements.
The New Testament abounds in explicit statements concerning the
atonement.
If it be carefully read and all the passages bearing on this subject
marked, and these classified, something like the following will be the result:
1. The center and heart of the atonement of Christ is
declared to be:
a. His death, Romans 5:10;
Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 2:9-14; 9:16; Revelation 5:6, 9, 12.
b. His cross, I Corinthians
1:23; Galatians 3:1; 6:12; Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 1:20.
c. His blood, Matthew 26:28;
Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Ephesians 1:7; 2:13; Colossians 1:14; I John 1:7;
Hebrews 9:12, 15; Revelation 1:5; 5:9.
2. The atonement bears a relation to God:
a. It is grounded in His love,
John 3:16.
b. It manifests His righteousness,
Romans 3:25; II Corinthians 5:21.
c. It measures the extent of His
sacrifice, John 3:16; Romans 8:32; II Corinthians 5:21; I John 4:10.
d. It is the basis of our
reconciliation, Romans 5:11; II Corinthians 5:18, 19.
3. The atonement bears a relation to the law.
a. Christ was born under the law,
Galatians 4:4, 5.
b. Christ bore its curse,
Galatians 3:13; Philippians 2:8.
c. Christ fulfilled its
righteousness, Romans 5:18, 19; 8:3, 4; 10:4.
4. The sacrifice of Christ was necessary: Luke 24:26; Galatians 2:21; 3:21; Hebrews 2:10.
5. The sacrifice of Christ was voluntary: John 10:17, 18; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2;
Hebrews 9:14; 10:7-9.
6. The atonement of Christ was the only sacrifice for
sin: Acts 4:12; Romans 3:20-28; Hebrews 1:3; 9:22; 10:10,
12, 14, 26; I Peter 3:18.
7. The atonement of Christ was vicarious: Matthew 26:28; Romans 5:6; II Corinthians 5:14, 15;
Galatians 3:13, 14.
8. The atonement of Christ was for sin: John 1:29; Romans 3:25; 5:8; 6:10; 8:3; I
Corinthians 15:3; II Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 9:28; I Peter
2:24; 3:18; Revelation 1:5.
9. The atonement of Christ was for various classes:
a. For His own people, Matthew
I .at; John 10:11; 15:13; Ephesians 5-25; Hebrews 2:13, 14; I John 3:16.
b. For the many, Matthew
20:28; Mark 10:45; Hebrews 9:28.
c. For the lost, Matthew
18:11; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; 19:10.
d. For the whole world, John
1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 12:47; II Corinthians 5:14, 15; I Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; I
John 2:2.
10. The atonement of Christ produces many beneficial
effects:
a. Thereby Jesus becomes the
Saviour of men, Matthew 1:21.
b. Thereby justification is
received, Acts 13:39.
c. Thereby cleansing is received,
I John 1:7.
d. Thereby sanctification is
received, Hebrews 13:12.
e. Thereby healing is received,
I Peter 2:24.
f. Thereby universal blessings are
received, John 14:13; Ephesians 1:3; Hebrews 9:15.
II. THE NECESSITY
So far as we can penetrate into the mystery of the atonement, its
necessity was fourfold:
1. The Holiness of God.
The holiness of God was outraged by sin and demanded appeasement by
punishment.
a. The Law of God.
The law of God was violated by sin and demanded that the penalty of
death be inflicted. Law has been called “the expression of will”. While all law
is of God, we may distinguish between Natural and Divine law. Natural Law
underlies the physical constitution of the universe. It has been defined as the
observed uniform action or tendency of the forces or powers of the physical
universe, as gravitation, cohesion, chemical affinity, etc. Natural law implies
four things:
(a) a lawgiver or authoritative will;
(b) persons and things whereon the law operates;
(c) a command or expression of this will;
(d) a power enforcing the command.
On the other hand, Divine Law underlies the moral constitution of the
universe. It is twofold, viz: the moral law and the ceremonial law. The Moral
Law is a transcript of the character of God, that is, it is His essential
nature expressed in perceptive form, as the Decalogue, the ethical teaching of
the Sermon on the Mount, and the new commandment of Jesus: John 15:12. The
moral law, therefore, is elemental, universal, and permanent.
It implies six things:
(a) A divine lawgiver or ordaining will;
(b) subjects, or moral beings upon whom the law terminates;
(c) commands, or the expression of this will in the moral constitution
of the subjects and in the form of written perceptive enactments;
(d) power enforcing these commands;
(e) duty, or obligation to obey;
(f) sanctions, or pains and penalties for disobedience.
Now, it is the moral law which the sinner has transgressed and for which
transgression the penalty of death is threatened: Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 6:23.
The Ceremonial Law is the expression in written perceptive form of the
will of God for a specific purpose, as the Levitical system of ablutions and
the distinction between clean and unclean animals: Leviticus chaps. 11-15. The
ceremonial law, accordingly, was local in application and temporary in
character. Indeed, in Christ and His gospel, the moral law is fulfilled but the
ceremonial law is abrogated. Romans 10:4; Acts 10:9-16; I Timothy 4:1-5.
3. The Guilty Conscience.
The guilty and defiled conscience of the sinner can be acquitted and
cleansed only through punishment— the punishment of the sinner himself or of
his Substitute, the Saviour. Peace and rest cannot come to the condemned heart
till it is assured that it’s just penalty has been borne by the spotless Lamb
of God: Hebrews 10:1-8.
4. The Lost Sinner.
In the doctrine of Hamartiology (see Topic 5: The Result of Sin) it has
been shown that in consequence of sin man is both helpless and hopeless. HE IS
LOST, “having no hope, and without God
in the world”: Ephesians 2:12. For this reason “the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost”: Luke
19:10.
NOTE: Heathen
sacrifices bear witness to the necessity of atonement for sin. They are best
explained as a perversion of an original divine revelation. This perversion is
seen in the fact that while in heathen sacrifices the victim is offered to
appease an offended deity, the truth as set forth in the Scriptures is that
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself”: II Corinthians 5:19.
That heathen sacrifices are a perversion of an original divine
revelation is further seen in the fact that the idea of substitution is
uppermost; that is, the worshiper, conscious of his sinfulness, brings his
offering, by whose innocent blood he believes his guilt is expiated.
III. THE EXTENT
As to the extent of the atonement, a distinction must be made between
its sufficiency and its efficiency. In sufficiency the atonement in Christ is
universal; that is, potential provision is made for all mankind. But in
efficiency the atonement is limited; that is, actual provision is made only for
those who accept God’s gracious offer of salvation through Christ. Both aspects
are presented in I Timothy 4:10: … “we
trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that
believe”.
1. Passages bearing on the universality of the
atonement: Hebrews 2:9; I Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; I John
2:2; II Peter 3:9.
2. Passages bearing on the limitation of the atonement: Ephesians 1:4, 7; II Timothy 1:9, 10. See John 17:9,
20, 24.
NOTE: Christ is the
Saviour of all men in the sense that:
a. His atonement acts as a stay in
the execution of the sentence against sin, securing for all men a space for
repentance, and the enjoyment of the common blessings of life, forfeited by
transgression: II Peter 3:9; Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:17;
b. His atonement has made
objective provision for the salvation of all, by removing from the divine
mind every obstacle to the pardon and restoration of sinners, except their
willful opposition to God and refusal to turn to Him: Romans 5:8-10; II
Corinthians 5:18-20;
c. His atonement has procured for
all men the powerful incentives to repentance presented in the cross,
together with the combined agency of the Christian Church and the Holy Spirit:
Romans 2:4; John 16:8; II Corinthians 5:18-20;
d. His atonement provides for the
removal of the curse from nature: Isaiah 55:13; Romans 8:21, 22;
e. His atonement provides for the
salvation of infants: Matthew 18:10; 19:13-15. On the other hand, Christ is
the Saviour only of those who believe, because repentance and faith are the
conditions of salvation: Acts 2:38.
IV. PHILOSOPHY
The philosophy of the atonement seeks its rational explanation. It must
be frankly admitted that a complete and satisfactory philosophy of the
atonement is impossible, for at bottom it is a profound and impenetrable
mystery. Indeed, the early church viewed the atonement as a fact more than as a
doctrine; that is, as a historic event, not as a speculative problem. It was
the central truth of the gospel. Forgiveness was offered freely through the blood
of Christ on the simple condition of repentance from sin and faith towards God.
It would have been well if this had continued to be the case. But with the
scholasticism of the Middle Ages, the speculative element entered into the view
of the atonement. It has been estimated that fully fifteen theories, so called,
of the atonement have been formulated. Of these, six merit our attention: five,
which we believe to be untrue to the Scriptures; and the last one, which we
believe to be the true Biblical view.
A. The Socinian, or Example Theory of the Atonement.
1. Statement.
“This theory held that subjective sinfulness is the sole barrier between
man and God. Not God, but only man, needs to be reconciled. This can be
effected by man’s own will, through repentance and reformation. The death of
Christ is but the death of a noble martyr. He redeems us, only as His human
example of faithfulness to duty has a powerful influence upon our moral
improvement. This fact the apostles, either consciously or unconsciously,
clothed in the language of the Greek and Jewish sacrifices” (Strong).
NOTE: This theory was
fully elaborated by Laelius Socinus and Faustus Socinus, of Poland, in the 16th
century. Its modem representatives are Unitarians.
2. Objections.
a. Philosophically, it is based upon false principles; for example, that
will is simply the volitional faculty; that utility is the basis of virtue;
that law is the expression of arbitrary will; that penalty is a means of
reforming the offender; and that righteousness, in either God or man, is only
the manifestation of benevolence.
b. Historically, it is the outgrowth of the Pelagian view of sin, and
“logically necessitates a curtailment or surrender of every other
characteristic doctrine of Christianity—inspiration, sin, the deity of Christ,
justification, regeneration, and eternal retribution” (Strong).
NOTE: Pelagianism was
the denial of total depravity in man and the affirmation of “ability”— that is,
that man by his own efforts, with divine help, is capable of salvation.
The Socinian theory requires the abandonment of:
- The doctrine of inspiration because throughout the Scriptures a
vicarious and expiatory sacrifice is presented;
- The doctrine of sin, because sin as objective guilt and subjective
defilement is denied;
- The doctrine of Christ’s deity, because if man can save himself, he
has no need of an infinite sacrifice by an infinite Saviour;
- The doctrine of justification, because it denies our being declared
innocent before the law on account of anything Christ has done;
- The doctrine of regeneration, because it denies the necessity of the
birth from above;
- The doctrine of eternal retribution, because “this is no longer
appropriate to finite transgression of arbitrary law, and to superficial
sinning that does not involve nature” (Strong).
c. Scripturally, it contradicts the fact that sin involves objective
guilt as well as subjective defilement; that God’s holiness requires Him to
punish sin; that the atonement was vicarious and substitutional; and that such
vicarious and substitutional bearing of sin was necessary in order to furnish a
ground whereby God might show favor to the guilty.
d. Again, “it furnishes no proper explanation of the sufferings and
death of Christ.
The unmartyrlike anguish cannot be accounted for, and the forsaking by
the Father cannot be justified upon the hypothesis that Christ died as a mere
witness to truth. See Psalm 22. If Christ’s sufferings were not propitiatory,
they neither furnish us with a perfect example, nor constitute a manifestation
of the love of God” (Strong).
e. Once more, it makes the chief result of Christ’s death what at most
can only be a subordinate result; for neither Scripture nor Christian
experience finds in Christ’s example the principal motive of His death.
“Mere example is but a new preaching of the law, which repels and
condemns. The cross has power to lead men to holiness, only as it first shows a
satisfaction made for sins. Accordingly, most of the passages which represent
Christ as an example also contain references to His propitiatory work”
(Strong). See I Peter 2:21.
f. Finally, it “contradicts the whole tenor of the New Testament in
making the life, and not the death, of Christ the most significant and
important feature of His work. The constant allusions to the death of Christ as
the source of salvation, as well as the symbolism of the ordinances, cannot be
explained upon a theory which regards Christ as a mere example, and considers
His sufferings as incidents, rather than essentials, of His work” (Strong).
B. The Bushnellian, or Moral Influence Theory of the
Atonement.
1. Statement.
“This theory holds, like the Socinian, that there is no principle of the
divine nature which is propitiated by Christ’s death; but that this death is a
manifestation of the love of God, suffering in and with the sins of His
creatures. Christ’s atonement, therefore, is the merely natural consequence of
His taking human nature upon Him; and is a suffering, not of penalty in man’s
stead, but of the combined woes and griefs which the living of a human life
involves. This atonement has effect, not to satisfy divine justice, but so to
reveal divine love as to soften human hearts and to lead them to repentance; in
other words, Christ’s sufferings were necessary, not in order to remove an
obstacle to the pardon of sinners which exists in the mind of God, but in order
to convince sinners that there exists no such obstacle” (Strong).
NOTE: This theory was
held by Horace Bushnell, of New England, and by Robertson, Maurice, Campbell,
and Young, of Great Britain, and by Schleiermacher and Ritschl, of Germany.
2. Objections.
a. It is open to the same objection as the example theory of the
atonement, in that it magnifies a subordinate into the principal effect of
Christ’s death. Our Lord’s sufferings do produce a moral effect upon men; but
suffering with the sinner is one thing and suffering in his stead quite
another.
b. Again, as Strong points out,
like the example theory, it rests upon false philosophical principles: as,
“that righteousness is identical with benevolence, instead of conditioning it;
that God is subject to an eternal law of love, instead of being Himself the
source of all law; that the aim of penalty is the reformation of the offender”.
c. Again, it furnishes no proper reason for Christ’s sufferings. “While
it shows that the Saviour necessarily suffers from His contact with human sin
and sorrow, it gives no explanation of that constitution of the universe which
makes suffering the consequence of sin, not only to the sinner, but also to the
innocent being who comes into contact with sin”.
Strong continues: “The holiness of God, which is manifested in this
constitution of things and which requires this atonement, is entirely ignored”
(Strong).
d. Again, it contradicts the teaching of the Scriptures, like the
example theory, in that it asserts that the atonement was necessary, not to
satisfy God’s justice, but merely to reveal His love; that Christ’s sufferings
were not propitiatory and penal; and that the human conscience does not need to
be propitiated by Christ’s sacrifice before it can feel the moral influence of
His sufferings.
e. Again, “it can be maintained only by wresting from their obvious
meaning those passages of Scripture which speak of Christ as suffering for our
sins; which represent His blood as accomplishing something in heaven when presented
there by our Intercessor; which declare forgiveness to be a remitting of past
offenses upon the ground of Christ’s death; and which describe justification as
a pronouncing, not a making, just” (Strong).
f. And again, “this theory confounds God’s method of saving men with
men’s experience of being saved. It makes the atonement itself consist of its
effect in the believer’s union with Christ and the purifying influence of that
union upon the character and life” (Strong).
g. Finally, “the theory confines the influence of the atonement to those
who have heard it,—thus excluding patriarchs and heathen. But the Scriptures
represent Christ as being the Saviour of all men, in the sense of securing them
grace, which, but for His atoning work, could never have been bestowed
consistently with the divine holiness” (Strong).
C. The Grotian, or Governmental Theory of the
Atonement.
1. Statement.
“The vicarious sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin as a
conditional substitute for penalty, fulfilling, on the forgiveness of sin, the
obligation of justice and the office of penalty in moral government” (John
Miley, of Drew).
“This theory holds that the atonement is a satisfaction, not to any
internal principle of the divine nature, but to the necessities of government.
God’s government of the universe cannot be maintained, nor can the divine law
preserve its authority over its subjects, unless the pardon of offenders is
accompanied by some exhibition of the high estimate which God sets upon His law
and the heinous guilt of violating it. Such an exhibition of divine regard for
the law is furnished in the sufferings and death of Christ. Christ does not
suffer the precise penalty of the law, but God graciously accepts His suffering
as a substitute for the penalty. This bearing of substituted suffering on the
part of Christ gives the divine law such hold upon the consciences and hearts
of men, that God can pardon the guilty upon their repentance, without detriment
to the interests of His government” (Strong).
NOTE: This theory was
originated by Hugo Grotius, the Dutch jurist and theologian (1583-1645). It is
commonly known as Arminianism. It is
held prominently by the Wesleyan and Methodist Churches.
1. Objections.
a. Like the example and moral influence theories, it has the fatal
defect of substituting for the principal aim of the atonement a subordinate
one, namely, the securing of the interests of God’s government.
b. Like the two former theories, it rests upon false philosophical
principles: “that utility is the ground of moral obligation; that law is an
expression of the will, rather than of the nature, of God; that the aim of
penalty is to deter from the commission of offenses; and that righteousness is
resolvable into benevolence” (Strong).
c. Again, it “ignores and virtually denies that immanent holiness of God
of which law with its threatened penalties, and the human conscience with its
demand for punishment, are only finite reflections. There is something back of
government, and if the atonement satisfies government, it must be by satisfying
that justice of God, of which government is the expression” (Strong).
d. Again, it “makes that to be an exhibition of justice which is not an
exercise of justice; the atonement being, according to this theory, not an
execution of law, but an exhibition of regard for law, which will make it safe
to pardon the violators of law. Such a scenic representation can inspire
respect for law, only so long as the essential unreality of it is unsuspected”
(Strong).
e. Again, it makes the sufferings of Christ in the garden and on the
cross inexplicable “upon the theory that the atonement was a histrionic (that
is, a kind of theatrical) exhibition of God’s regard for His government, and
can be explained only upon the view that Christ actually endured the wrath of
God against human sin” (Strong).
f. Again, “the actual power of the atonement over the human conscience
and heart is due, not to its exhibiting God’s regard for law, but to its
exhibiting an actual execution of law, and an actual satisfaction of violated
holiness made by Christ in the sinner’s stead” (Strong).
g. Finally, “the theory contradicts all those passages of Scripture
which represent the atonement as necessary; as propitiating God Himself; as
being a revelation of God’s righteousness; as being an execution of the penalty
of the law; as making salvation a matter of debt to the believer, on the ground
of what Christ has done; as actually purging our sins, instead of making that
purging possible; as not simply assuring the sinner that God may now pardon him
on account of what Christ has done, but that Christ has actually wrought out a
complete salvation, and will bestow it upon all who come to Him” (Strong).
D. The Irvingian, or Theory of Gradually Extirpated
Depravity.
1. Statement.
“This theory holds that, in His incarnation, Christ took human nature as
it was in Adam, not before the Fall, but after the Fall”.
“Human nature, therefore, with its inborn corruption and predisposition
to evil; that, notwithstanding the possession of this tainted and depraved
nature, Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, or of His divine nature,
not only kept His human nature from manifesting itself in any actual or personal
sin, but completely purified it through struggle and suffering, until in His
death He completely extirpated its original depravity, and reunited it to God.
This subjective purification of human nature in the person of Jesus Christ
constitutes His atonement, and men are saved, not by any objective
propitiation, but only by becoming through faith partakers of Christ’s new
humanity” (Strong).
NOTE: This theory was
elaborated by Edward Irving, of England (1792-1834), and is held in substance
by some German scholars.
1. Objections.
a. It recognizes an important truth in the fact of the new humanity of
Christ, of which all believers are partakers by faith; but it denies the fact
of an objective atonement, through which alone we can receive this new
spiritual humanity.
b. It rests upon false fundamental principles, namely: that law is
identical with the natural order of the universe, and as such, is an exhaustive
expression of the will and nature of God; that sin is simply a power of moral
evil within the soul, instead of also involving an objective guilt and desert
of punishment; that penalty is the mere reaction of law against the
transgressor, instead of being also the revelation of a personal wrath against
sin; that the evil taint of human nature can be extirpated by suffering its natural
consequences,—penalty in this way reforming the sinner” (Strong).
c. It contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture, namely: “with regard
to Christ’s freedom from all taint of human depravity; misrepresents His life
as a growing consciousness of the underlying corruption of His human nature,
which culminated at Gethsemane and Calvary; and denies the truth of His own
statements when it declares that He must have died on account of His own
depravity, even though none were to be saved thereby” (Strong).
d. Again, “it makes the active obedience of Christ and the subjective
purification of His human nature to be the chief features of His work, while
the Scriptures make His death and passive bearing of penalty the center of all,
and ever regard Him as One who is personally pure and who vicariously bears the
punishment of the guilty” (Strong).
e. Finally, the theory requires the “surrender of the doctrine of
Justification, as a merely declaratory act of God; and requires such a view of
the divine holiness, expressed only through the order of nature, as can be
maintained only upon principles of pantheism” (Strong).
NOTE: The theory rests
upon three chief arguments:
First, that Paul teaches it in Romans 8:3: “God having sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”.
To this Farr replies: “If Paul’s language were ‘in sinful flesh’, the theory would be plainly taught, but it is
not. His words signify that the flesh of Christ was like the flesh of sin,
inasmuch as it was flesh, but unlike, inasmuch as it was not affected with sin.
Paul could not have said ‘in
sinful flesh’ without making Christ partaker of sin. He could not have said
merely ‘in flesh’, for then the bond between the manhood of Jesus and sin would
have been wanting. He says, ‘in likeness of flesh and sin’, meaning that Christ
had a nature like sinful human nature but He had not Himself a sinful nature”.
Second, that it is clearly implied in the susceptibility of Christ to
temptation and especially in knowing by experience how to succor those who are
tempted, the latter being sinners. Again Farr replies: “This argument is
plausible, but not conclusive. For if it be necessary to have a depraved nature
in order to feel the force of temptation, then Adam and the angels must have
been created with depraved natures. Also, if it be necessary to have been in
the moral nature of sinners who are tempted, in order to succor them, Christ
must have had not only a sinful nature but also a habit of sinning to qualify
Him for His work”.
Third, that it is implied in a proper view of the atonement, because
humanity in its fallen nature was summed up in the humanity of Christ and in
that humanity paid the just penalty for all its sin.
Once again Farr answers: “But the idea that the human nature of Christ
was the whole human nature, in any other sense than that in which human nature
is entire in any other, is a mere fiction and fancy. If He bore the penalty of
sin at all, it was not the penalty of His own personal sin, or sinfulness, but
the penalty due to others for their sins. Bearing the penalty of His own
sinfulness would not help them, unless it were in turn to bear the penalty of
their sinfulness. This is self-evident and if there were anything vicarious in
His suffering it presupposes His holiness rather than His sinfulness”.
E. The Anselmic, or Commercial Theory of the
Atonement.
1. Statement.
“This holds that sin is a violation of the divine honor or majesty, and,
as committed against an infinite being, deserves an infinite punishment; that
the majesty of God requires Him to execute punishment, while the love of God
pleads for the sparing of the guilty; that this conflict of divine attributes
is eternally reconciled by the voluntary sacrifice of the God-man, who bears in
the virtue of the dignity of His person the intensively infinite punishment of
sin, which must otherwise have been suffered extensively and eternally by
sinners; that this suffering of the God-man presents to the divine majesty an
exact equivalent for the deserved sufferings of the elect; and that, as the
result of this satisfaction of the divine claims, the elect sinners are
pardoned and regenerated” (Strong).
NOTE: This theory was
first held by Anselm, of Canterbury (1033-1100), who propounded it as a
substitute for an earlier patristic view that Christ’s death was a ransom paid
to Satan, to deliver sinners from his power. Many Scotch theologians hold this
view.
2. Objections.
a. It recognized an all-important truth in the fact that Christ’s death
satisfied a principle of the nature of Deity, but it errs in representing the
majesty of honor as higher than the holiness of God; while it is seriously at
fault in admitting a conflict between the divine attributes.
b. It overlooks entirely the value of the active obedience of Christ,
and of His holy life.
c. It gives “disproportionate weight to those passages of Scripture
which represent the atonement under commercial analogies, as the payment of a
ransom or debt, to the exclusion of those which describe it as an ethical fact,
whose value is to be estimated not quantitatively, but qualitatively” (Strong).
d. It limits the extent of the atonement to the elect, thus ignoring the
teaching of the Scripture that Christ died for all.
e. It is “defective in holding to a merely external transfer of the
merit of Christ’s work, while it does not clearly state the internal ground of
that transfer, in the union of the believer with Christ” (Strong).
F. Substitutional, or Satisfaction Theory of the
Atonement.
This theory, the first suggestions of which are found in the writings of
Augustine (4th century), was elaborated by John Calvin (16th century), and is
today held by the Reformed and Presbyterian theologies. It is commonly known as
Calvinism; sometimes it is called the “Orthodox Theory”, or “Ethical Theory”. Without
being Calvinistic, we believe it is the true Scriptural view.
a. Preliminary Points.
(1). The theory holds to a twofold element in Christ’s substitution,
namely: a vicarious obedience (known theologically as “active obedience”) for
righteousness, and a vicarious punishment (known theologically as “passive
obedience”) for sin.
Thus, Christ takes the place of sinners in both penalty and precept,
and, as their substitute, endures the punishment which on account of sin they
deserve, and in His obedience fulfils the righteousness required of them.
(2). Two Kinds of Substitution.
There are two kinds of substitution, namely: unconditional, which grants
full and absolute deliverance to those for whom substitution is made; and
conditional, which grants deliverance to those for whom substitution is made
only on the terms agreed upon between the one who makes the substitution and
the one who accepts it. Christ’s substitution was conditional, dependent upon
the repentance and faith of sinners.
(3). Two Kinds of Satisfaction.
“The satisfaction of Christ means all He has done to satisfy the demands
of the holiness and law of God in the place of and in behalf of sinners”. There
are two kinds of satisfaction, namely: pecuniary, a money payment, which can be
made by anyone, and penal, blood payment, which can be made only by the guilty.
Christ’s satisfaction was penal; the atonement was in His blood.
(4). Three Kinds of Penal Satisfaction.
There are three kinds of penal (that is, vicariously penal)
satisfaction.
- First, identical. Christ’s death was not identical because the death
of one could not be the same as the death of many: Mark 10:45.
- Second, equal. Christ’s satisfaction was not equal, because the death
of the entire race of finite beings would not be equal to the death of the
Infinite Being, Jesus Christ.
- Third, equivalent. Christ’s satisfaction was equivalent, because one
infinite factor, Jesus Christ, is inconceivably greater than all the finite
factors making up the race of Adam.
Illustration: a gold eagle ($10) weighs less than 500 pennies, but has
double the value.
b. The Two Questions Stated.
There are two questions which conduct us into the heart of the
atonement. And the answers to these questions give us its true philosophy.
- First: What did the atonement accomplish? Or, what was the object of
Christ’s death?
- Second: What were the means used? Or, how could Christ justly die?
The answer to the former question views the atonement in its relation to
God. The answer to the latter question views the atonement in its relation to
man.
Again, the answer to the first question is an unfolding of the meaning
of Romans 3:25, 26. The answer to the second question is an unfolding of the
meaning of II Corinthians 5:21.
c. The First Question Considered.
What did the atonement accomplish? Or, what was the object of Christ’s
death? Briefly, the answer is threefold:
(1). It satisfied the outraged holiness of God: Psalm 22; Isaiah 53;
Romans 3:25, 26; 4:25; 8:3; Galatians 1:4; 3:13; Hebrews 9:15; I John 2:2;
4:10.
(2). It avenged the violated law of God: Gen 2:17; Ezekiel 18:4, 20;
Romans 6:23.
(3). It exhibited the love of God, thereby furnishing man a motive for
repentance from sin and faith towards Christ: John 3:16; 15:13; Romans 5:8; I
Peter 2:21; I John 4:9, 10.
In viewing this aspect of the atonement Strong declares: “Its necessity
is grounded in the holiness of God, of which conscience in man is a finite
reflection. There is an ethical principle in the divine nature, which demands
that sin shall be punished. Aside from its results, sin is essentially
ill-deserving.
“As we who are made in God’s image mark our growth in purity by the
increasing quickness with which we detect impurity, and the increasing hatred
which we feel toward it, so infinite purity is a consuming fire to all
iniquity. As there is an ethical demand in our natures that not only others’
wickedness, but our own wickedness, be visited with punishment, and a keen
conscience that cannot rest till it has made satisfaction to justice for its
misdeeds, so there is an ethical demand of God’s nature that penalty follows
sin”.
The same writer continues: “Punishment is the constitutional reaction of
God’s being against moral evil—the self-assertion of infinite holiness against
its antagonist and would-be destroyer. In God this demand is devoid of all
passion, and is consistent with infinite benevolence. It is a demand that
cannot be evaded, since the holiness from which it springs is unchanging. The
atonement is, therefore, a satisfaction of the ethical demand of the divine
nature, by the substitution of Christ’s penal sufferings for the punishment of
the guilty. This substitution is unknown to mere law, and above and beyond the
powers of law. It is an operation of grace. Grace, however, does not violate or
suspend law, but takes it up into itself and fulfils it.
“The righteousness of law is maintained, in that the source of all law,
the Judge and Punisher, Himself voluntarily submits to bear the penalty, and
bears it in the human nature that has sinned. Thus the atonement answers the
ethical demand of the divine nature that sin be punished if the offender is to
go free. The interests of the divine government are secured as a first
subordinate result of this satisfaction to God Himself, of whose nature the
government is an expression: while, as a second subordinate result, provision
is made for the needs of human nature—on the one hand the need of objective
satisfaction to the ethical demand of punishment for sin, and on the other hand
the need of a manifestation of divine love and mercy that will affect the heart
and move it to repentance”.
NOTE: On Romans 3:25,
26. These verses expand the subject of the epistle—the revelation of the “righteousness of God”, righteousness
being that which God both provides and accepts. This righteousness is mentioned
in 1:17, and in 1:18-3:20 it is shown to be the only means whereby both Jew and
Gentile can be saved.
The commentator Meyer points out that in verse 25 the phrase “in His blood” is to be taken with the
verb “set forth”. The purpose of
this setting forth in Christ’s blood he says is “for the display of God’s
judicial and punitive righteousness, which received its satisfaction in the
death of Christ as a propitiatory offering, and was thereby practically
demonstrated and exhibited”.
On the expression “for the
remission (literally, passing over)
of sins that are past”, Meyer’s
comment is: “because He (God) had allowed the pre-Christian sins to go without
punishment, whereby His righteousness had been lost sight of and obscured, and
had come to need an exhibition to men”.
“Omittance”, he says, “is not acquaintance; the passing over or passing
by is intermediate between pardon and punishment. ‘Through the forbearance of God’ expresses the motive of the
‘passing over or passing by.’ Before Christ’s sacrifice, God’s administration
was a scandal— it needed vindication. The atonement is God’s answer to the
charge of freeing the guilty”.
On verse 26 Meyer says that it presents the final purpose of God’s act
as set forth in verse 25, namely, “God’s being just and His appearing just in
consequence of this”. On the whole passage Strong’s comment is that it shows:
(1) That Christ’s death is a propitiatory sacrifice;
(2) That its first and main effect is upon God;
(3) That the particular attribute of God which demands the atonement is
His justice, or holiness;
(4) That the satisfaction of this holiness is the necessary condition of
God’s justifying the believer.
d. The Second Question Considered.
With respect to the atonement, what were the means used: or how could
Christ justly die?
Briefly, the answer is threefold:
(1). He took our flesh: John 1:14; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews
2:14-18.
(2). He assumed our guilt: II Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13.
(3). He bore our penalty: Isaiah 53:4, 5; Matthew 20:28; II Corinthians
5:21; Galatians 2:20; 3:13; I Peter 2:24.
The consequences of Adam’s sin, both to himself and to his posterity,
are:
(1). Depravity, or corruption of human nature.
(2). Guilt, or obligation to make satisfaction for sin to the holiness
and the law of God.
(3). Penalty, or actual endurance of loss or suffering as punishment for
sin.
If Christ had entered the world in the natural way, He would have had
depravity; but through His virgin birth He escaped it: Luke 1:35; II
Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 7:26. However, together with His partaking of our
common humanity Christ assumed guilt with its consequent penalty.
The guilt which our Lord assumed was not of course the guilt of personal
sin. It could not be.
This is proved by the transfiguration. The transfiguration marks the
close to a sinless life, a life having taken on humanity immaculately
conceived, and having passed through the course of human existence without the
least taint of sin.
God’s voice, “This is my beloved
Son in whom I am well pleased”, assures us of Christ’s absolute
sinlessness. “The Lord hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all”, Isaiah 53:6, but it was our iniquity, not His that
was laid upon Him.
It was not in His birth, but in His death on the cross that the
assumption of our guilt took place.
In attempting to explain how Christ could justly suffer, the innocent
for the guilty, we must keep in mind that it is not the act of the cross which
is to be justified primarily, but God who is to be justified by the act of the
cross (Romans 3:25, 26). Moreover, the solution does not lie in making human
comparisons (such as, the innocent for the guilty) but in seeing Infinity
voluntarily bearing the guilt of the finite. This was done “through the obedience of one” (Romans
5:17-19).
The cross is in God’s eternal plan (both before and after time) and is a
necessary and adequate expression of a God of holiness, justice, righteousness,
love, and mercy.
The ground of His substitutional death is His voluntary reception of our
guilt, and God’s act in laying it upon Him. The death was just in that it was
voluntarily assumed: “I lay it down of myself”, John 10:18. It was vicarious in
that it was voluntarily assumed by a perfect, righteous One. It was complete
and acceptable in that God raised Him (the Sacrifice) from the dead.
The suffering of Christ, according to Strong, “was the enduring of the reaction of
the divine holiness against sin and so was a bearing of penalty (Isaiah 53:6;
Galatians 3:13); but it was also the voluntary execution of a plan that antedated
creation (Philippians 2:6, 7), and Christ’s sacrifice in time showed what had
been in the heart of God from eternity (Hebrews 9:14; Revelation 13:8)”.
NOTE: on II Corinthians
5:21. This verse gives us the scriptural support for the view that Christ assumed
our guilt and so justly bore our penalty. Notice these three points:
(1). Our Lord had no depravity. “Him
who knew no sin”; this expression teaches us Christ’s sinlessness.
(2). Our Lord incurred our guilt. “He
was made to be sin for us”. Since Christ had no depravity of nature, sin
here must mean guilt, that is, obligation to suffer for sin. Indeed, Meyer
calls attention to a parallel of meaning between “sin” here and “righteousness”
a little later in the verse. He says that if righteousness means holiness, then
sin must mean depravity; but if righteousness means justification, then sin
must mean condemnation. Of course, the latter is the true meaning; that is,
Christ was constituted a condemned person in order that the believer might in
Him be constituted a justified person.
(3). Our Lord bore our penalty. “He
was made to be [a sin offering] for
us”. The term sin here must carry the double meaning of guilt and penalty:
Hebrews 10:18.
TOPIC THREE: CHRIST AS KING
NOTE: The third topic
under the work of Christ, namely His Kingship, belongs more properly to
Eschatology, and in particular to the study of the Millennium. Accordingly, its
treatment will be presented there.
QUESTIONS FOR STUDY
1. What was the extent of Christ’s prophetic ministry?
2. What was the twofold nature of the prophetic office?
3. In what five ways did Christ fulfill His prophetic ministry?
4. What is the extent of Christ’s priestly ministry?
5. State clearly the idea of the priestly office.
6. What was the threefold scope of the Old Testament priesthood?
7. Trace the parallelism between the three steps in the work of the
atonement in the Old Testament and in the ministry of Christ.
8. Mention five types of the atonement in the Old Testament. Give
references for all and discuss one of the types.
9. Mention five predictions of the atonement in the Old Testament. Give
references and discuss one of the predictions.
10. Mention five New Testament witnessing terms of the atonement. Give
references for all and discuss one of the terms.
11. Show the fourfold necessity of the atonement.
12. What is the extent of the atonement?
13. What is the Socinian, or Example Theory of the atonement? What
facts, Scriptural and otherwise, refute it?
14. What is the Bushnellian, or Moral Influence Theory of the atonement?
What facts, Scriptural and otherwise, refute it?
15. What is the Grotian, or Governmental Theory of the atonement? What
facts, Scriptural or otherwise, refute it?
16. What is the Irvingian, or Theory of Gradually Extirpated Depravity?
What facts, Scriptural or otherwise, refute it?
17. What is the Anselmic, or Commercial Theory of the atonement? What
facts, Scriptural or otherwise, refute it?
18. What, briefly, is the Satisfaction Theory of the atonement? (a) What
are the two kinds of substitution? (b) What are the two kinds of satisfaction?
(c) What are the three kinds of penal satisfaction?
19. What two questions conduct into the heart of the atonement?
20. What is the threefold answer to the first question?
21. Give a brief exposition of Romans 3:25, 26.
22. What is the threefold answer to the second question?
23. Give a brief exposition of II Corinthians 5:21.
~
end of chapter 6 - part two ~
