The Latin type of the atonement understands the death of Christ legalistically. This legalistic misunderstanding of the death of Christ has its origin in the penitential system which was introduced into Christian theology by the North African moralist, apologist, and theologian, Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) (160/170?-215/220? A.D.). He had introduced the whole legalistic scheme of salvation with its idea of merit in reference to penance or repentance. "God cannot disregard good deeds", he said.
"God, we may be sure,Although Tertullian teaches that God helps man perform good deeds, [2] in the strictest sense of the word, man has to merit salvation. [3]
will not sanction the reprobation of good deeds,
for they are His.
Since He initiates and preserves them,
so also must He needs approve them;
since He approves them, so also must He reward them...
A good deed has God as its debtor and a bad deed, also,
because every judge settles a case on its merits.
Now since God presides as judge in order to exact
and safeguard justice, something so precious in
His sight, and since it is for this that He
establishes every single precept of His moral law,
can it be doubted that, just as in all our
actions, so, too, in the case of repentance
justice must be rendered to God?" [1]
"Faith is established in the Rule.Associated with the idea of merit was the idea of satisfaction.
There it has its law and it wins salvation by keeping the law." [4]
"What folly it is, what perversity,Penance is satisfaction, the payment of a temporal penalty to escape eternal loss. It is a compensatory work of satisfaction which propitiates God.
to practice an imperfect penitence
and then to expect a pardon for sin!
This is to stretch forth one's hand for merchandise
and not pay for the price.
And the price which the Lord has set on the purchase of pardon
is this -- He offers impunity to be bought in exchange for penitence.
If, then, merchants first examine a coin,
which they have stipulated as their price,
to see that it be not dipped or plated or counterfeit,
do we not believe that the Lord, also, pre-examines our penitence,
seeing that He is going to give us so great a reward,
to wit, life everlasting." [5]
"Herein [in some external act] we confess our sinTertullian did not apply this term to the death of Christ, but after he had introduced the legalistic vocabulary and concepts into Christian theology, the way was prepared for their application to the death of Christ. Cyprian (200/210?-258 A.D.), the Bishop of Carthage, in the third century was the first Christian writer to interpret Christ's death as a satisfaction. [7] He also began to apply the idea of merit to the work of Christ. Tertullian had already introduced the idea of merit; that is, associated with the performance of that which is commanded, the observance of the law, there was merit. Each man by his good works earns merit which may counterbalance the demerits of his evil or bad deeds. For most men, this is all that is necessary. But some exceptional individuals may earn more merit than is necessary to balance the demerits of their evil acts. This over plus of merit may be earned by acts that are supererogatoria, that is, go beyond what is strictly obligatory. Tertullian considered such acts as fasting, voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc. as going beyond what was required and thus earning for the doers of them an excess of merit. Cyprian introduced the principle that this superfluous merit may be transferred from one person to another, and he began to apply this principle to the over-plus of merit earned by the work of Christ as well as the saints and martyrs. Thus the way was prepared for the Anselmic theory of the atonement and the reformation theory of justification as the imputation of Christ's righteousness or merits earned by Christ's active obedience to the believer's account.
to the Lord, not as though He were ignorant of it,
but because satisfaction receives its proper
determination through confession, confession gives
birth to penitence and by penitence God is appeased." [6]
[2] William P. LeSaint, Tertullian, footnote 29, p. 142.
[3] Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson
(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969), p. 348.
[4] Tertullian,
Prescription Against Heretics in
Library of Christian Classics, vol. 5,
Early Latin Theology, ed. S. L. Greenslade
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 40.
[5] William P. LeSaint, Tertullian, p. 24.
[7] Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p. 82.
See also J. S. Whale, The Protestant Tradition
(Cambridge: The University Press, 1954), pp. 59-61.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.), like Gregory of Nyssa, recognized the Devil's just claim on man. God justly committed man to the power of Devil when Adam sinned. But the Devil exceeded his rights when he shed innocent blood in slaying Christ. Therefore, "it was no more than justice that he should deliver up those that were in bondage to him." [1] Augustine was inclined to dramatize this transaction by using colorful language which gives a misleading impression of his true thought. He speaks, for example, of the blood of Christ as the price which was paid over for us and which the Devil accepted, only to find himself enchained, [2] and, again, of His body as a bait by which Satan was caught like a mouse in a trap (compare, tanquam in muscipula escam accepit). [3] But his true thinking was more in line with that of Chrysostrom, Hilary, and Ambrosiaster, which Kelly summarized as follows. [4]
"(a) The Devil owned no rights, in the strict sense, over mankind; what happened was that, when men sinned, they passed inevitably into his power, and God permitted rather than enjoined this.But this at best is a secondary motif in Augustine's thinking. Augustine clearly represents our release from the Devil as a consequent upon and as presupposing our reconciliation to God; the Devil is conquered precisely because God has received satisfaction and has bestowed pardon.
(b) No ransom as such was therefore due to Satan, but on the contrary, when the remission of sins was procured by Christ's sacrifice, God's favour was restored and the human race might well have been freed.
(c) God preferred, however, as a course more consonant with His justice, that the Devil should not be deprived of his dominion by force, but as the penalty for abusing his position.
(d) Hence, Christ's passion, the primary object of which was of course quite different, placed the Son of God in Satan's hands, and when the latter overreached himself by seizing the divine prey, with the arrogance and greed which were characteristic of him, he was justly constrained, as a penalty, to deliver up mankind."
This brings us to the central thought in Augustine's theory of the Atonement. That is, that the essence of the redemption lies in an expiatory sacrifice offered for us by Christ in His passion. Christ as the mediator perform this principal act:
"Him Who knew no sin, Christ, God made sin, i.e. a sacrifice for sins,In its effect, a sacrifice is expiatory and propitionary:
on our behalf so that we that we might be reconciled". [5]
"By His death, that one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf,By this sacrifice the wrath of God is appeased and we are reconciled to Him:
He purged, abolished and extinguished ... whatever guilt we had." [6]
"He offered this holocaust to God;This means that Christ is substituted for us, and He being Himself innocent discharges the penalty we owe. Augustine writes,
He extended His hands on the cross...
and our wickednesses were propitiated....
Our sins and wickednesses having been propititated
through this evening sacrifice, we passed to the Lord,
and the veil was taken away." [7]
"Though without guilt Christ took our punishment upon Himself,And again,
destroying our guilt and putting an end to our punishment." [8]
"You must again confess that without our sinand,
He took the penalty owing to our sin upon Himself"; [9]
"He made our trespasses His trespasses,It was precisely His innocence which gave value to His sacrifice, for
so as to make His righteousness ours" [10].
"We were brought to death by sin, He by righteousness;Thus in Augustine's view of the atonement, the emancipation from the Devil is regarded as a consequence of, and thus subordinate to, the reconciliation itself. Augustine anticipates the objective view of the atonement,
and so, since death was our penalty for sin,
His death became a sacrifice for sin." [11]
But Augustine's teachings about the atonement also stressed the exemplary aspect of Christ's work. Both in His person and what He had done, Christ, our mediator, has demonstrated God's wisdom and love. The spectacle of such love should have the effect of inciting us to love Him in return. More particularly, it should bestir our hearts to adore the humility of God which, as revealed in the incarnation, breaks our pride. So for Augustine, the humility of the Word revealed in His amazing self-abasement forms a vital part of His saving work. He writes [12],
"This we well do to believe, nay, to hold fixed and immovable in our hearts, that the humility which God displayed in being born of a woman and in being haled so ignominiously by mortal men to death, is the sovereign medicine for healing our swollen pride. the profound mystery (sacramentum) by which the bond of sin is broken."Remember, according to Augustine, pride was the cause of the Fall. Thus not only has the Ransom Theory been replaced by the objective or juridical theory, but also the subjective or moral influence theory has been anticipated.
Thus Augustine summed up the theological insights of the Latin West about the death of Christ, and passed them on, with the impress of his genius and authority, to the Middle Ages. First, Augustine emphasizes Christ's function as mediator between God and man. He writes,
"He is the one true mediator,Augustine claimed on the authority of I Tim. 2:5 ("And there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.") that Christ exercises His activity as the mediator exclusively in His human capacity. He states,
reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace,
remaining one with Him to Whom He made offering,
making one in Himself those for whom He offered it,
Himself one as offerer and sacrifice offered." [13]
"In so far as He is man, He is mediator,The whole purpose of the Word's incarnation was that He might act as the mediator and as the Head of the Church. It is through His humanity that Christ exalts us to God and brings God down to us. The point of this line of reasoning Augustine did not intend to eliminate the role of the Word, Who is the subject of the God-man's Person, but rather to emphasize that Christ's humanity, in contrast with His divine nature, is the means of our restoration to God. While Augustine says, [15] "Christ is mediator between God and man as man, not as God"; he also says: [16] "We would never have been delivered by the one mediator ... were He not also God." By this doctrine Augustine seeks to establish that it is in Christ's humanity that fallen man and his Creator have a common meeting-ground where the work of reconciliation and restoration can take effect.
but not in so far as He is Word,
for as such He is coequal with God." [14]
Secondly, in expounding what the Mediator actually accomplished, Augustine uses several ways of explaining it. He sometimes speaks of deification as the goal of the incarnation, when he says,
"We are reconciled to God through our Head,and when he remarks that,
since in Him the God-head of the Only-begotten participated in our mortality
so that we might participate in His immortality." [17]
"Him Who knew no sin, Christ, God made sin, i.e. a sacrifice for sins,A sacrifice in its effect is expiatory and propitionary:
on our behalf so that we might be reconciled." [18]
"By His death, that one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf,By this sacrifice, the wrath of God is appeased and we are reconciled to Him:
He purged, abolished and extinguished ... whatever guilt we had." [19]
"He offered this holocaust to God;This means that Christ is substituted for us, and being Himself innocent, He discharges the penalty we owe. Augustine writes,
He extended His hands on the cross...
and our wickednesses were propitiated....
Our sins and wickednesses having been propititated
through this evening sacrifice, we passed to the Lord,
and the veil was taken away." [20]
"Though without guilt, Christ took our punishment upon Himself,And again,
destroying our guilt and putting an end to our punishment." [21]
"You must again confess that without our sinand,
He took the penalty owing to our sin upon Himself"; [22]
"He made our trespasses His trespasses,It was precisely His innocence that gave value to His sacrifice, for
so as to make His righteousness ours." [23].
"We were brought to death by sin, He by righteousness;Thus Augustine anticipates the satisfaction theory of the atonement,
and so, since death was our penalty for sin,
His death became a sacrifice for sin." [24]
[2] De trin. 13, 19. Footnote 8 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 291
[3] E.g. serm. 263, 1. Footnote 9 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 391.
[4] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 392.
[5] Enchir. 41. Footnote 3 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 392.
[6] De Trin. 4, 17. Footnote 1 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[7] Enarr. in ps. 64, 6. Footnote 2 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[8] C. Faust. Manich. 14, 4. Footnote 3 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[9] Ib. 14, 7. Footnote 4 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[10] Enarr. 2 in ps 21, 3. Footnote 5 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[11] De Trin. 4, 15. Footnote 6 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[12] De trin. 8, 7. Footnote 10 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393-394.
[13] De trin. 4, 19. Footnote 6 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 390.
[14] Confess. 10, 68: cf. tract. in ev. Ioh. 82. 4. Footnote 7 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 390.
[15] Serm. 293, 7. Footnote 4 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 391.
[16] Enchir. 108. cf. de civ. dei 9, 15, 1. Footnote 5 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 391.
[17] Ep. 187, 20. Footnote 6 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 391.
[18] Enchir. 41. Footnote 3 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 392.
[19] De Trin. 4, 17. Footnote 1 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[20] Enarr. in ps. 64, 6. Footnote 2 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[21] C. Faust. Manich. 14, 4. Footnote 3 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[22] Ib. 14, 7. Footnote 4 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[23] Enarr. 2 in ps 21, 3. Footnote 5 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
[24] De Trin. 4, 15. Footnote 6 in
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 393.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033?-1109) in the eleventh century A.D. gave classic expression to the satisfaction theory of Christ's death. In his famous work Cur Deus Homo (1098) [Why God Became Man], Anselm interpreted the death of Christ as that by which the obligation of the broken law, the debt man owed, was paid. Anselm defines sin as failing to render to God His due. The law sets forth these obligations.
"He who does not render this honor which is due to God,Anselm argues that man cannot make satisfaction for his own sins. For he already owes God complete obedience, and he has nothing left over to pay God for his sins. [2] Also man cannot make satisfaction for his own sins because sin against an infinite God requires an infinite satisfaction. To the suggestion that human repentance can make satisfaction for sin against an infinite God, Anselm replies with those famous words, "You have not as yet estimated the great burden of sin." [3] So Anselm sees the problem of the atonement.
robs God of his own and dishonors him, and this is sin...
it will not suffice merely to restore what has been taken away,
but considering the contempt offered,
he ought to restore more than he took away." [1]
"Man as a sinner owes God for his sin what he is unable to pay,Satisfaction can only be paid by God because the price paid to God for the sin of man is "something greater than all the universe besides God." [5] And since "it is necessary that he who can give God anything of his own... must be greater than all else but God himself," none but God can make this satisfaction. [6] But yet man must make the satisfaction for he is the one who has committed the sin and ought make the satisfaction.
and cannot be saved without payment." [4]
"No one but God can make the satisfaction,Thus if man is to be saved, satisfaction must be made and it must be made by a God-man, one who is perfect God and perfect man.
but no one but man should make it, since it is man who sinned." [7]
"For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay;Anselm then proceeds to explain that the one who is to make satisfaction must be born of Adam, since it is Adam's race who has sinned. [9] The Son, through his voluntary death, obtained excess merit, requiring a reward from God.
and man will not do it, because he cannot.
Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this,
it is necessary that the same being should be
perfect God and perfect man, in order to make atonement." [8]
"No man except this one ever gave to GodThis gift freely given by the Son deserves a reward from God. But since all things belonging to the Father were His, the Son having need of nothing, the reward can not be directly paid to the Son. Thus the reward is given in the form of salvation to those for whose sake the Son became man and suffered death. [11]
what he was not obliged to lose,
or paid a debt he did not owe.
But he freely offered to the Father
what there was no need of his ever losing,
and paid for sinners what he owed not for himself." [10]
"What is more proper than that,In the incarnation and the death of the Son, the mercy as well as the justice of God is shown. [13]
when he beholds so many of them weighed down by so heavy a debt,...
he should remit the debt incurred by their sin,
and give them what their transgression had forfeited." [12]
Anselm's theory of the death of Christ is clearly built on legalistic presuppositions; his whole theological structure is built on the penitential system. The key term in Anselm's concept of Christ's death is "satisfaction." [14] According to Anselm, the problem of the atonement is either satisfaction or punishment. A third alternative of God putting away sins by compassion alone, without payment or punishment, is unfitting and improper for God.
"To remit sin in this manner is nothing else than not to punish;To freely forgive without satisfaction or punishment is from the legalistic point of view impossible.
and since it is not right to cancel sin without compensation or punishment,
if it be not punished, then is it passed by undischarged...
It is not fitting for God to pass over anything in his kingdom undischarged...
It is, therefore, not proper for God thus to pass over sin unpunished." [15]
"Everyone knows that justice to man is regulated by law,Justice demands that God's honor be upheld.
so that, according to the requirements of law,
the measure of award is bestowed by God....
But if sin is neither paid for nor punished,
it is subject to no law....
In justice, therefore, if it is canceled by compassion alone,
is more free than justice, which seems very inconsistent." [16]
"If there is nothing greater or better than God,Therefore, sin which dishonors God must either receive satisfaction or be punished.
there is nothing more just than supreme justice,
which maintains God's honor in the arrangement of things,
and which is nothing else but God himself....
Therefore God maintains nothing with more justice
than the honor of his own dignity." [17]
"Does it seem to you that he wholly preserve it,The free forgiveness of sins cannot be allowed, and the order of law and justice must not be broken by such an infringement. Moreover, if God freely forgave sins without satisfaction or punishment, it would mean that sin is not treated seriously and so would amount to moral laxity. Hence the payment of satisfaction is required as a safeguard of moral earnestness.
if he allows himself to be defrauded of it
as that he should neither receive satisfaction
nor punish the one defrauding him....
Therefore the honor taken away must be repaid,
or punishment must follow;
otherwise, either God will not be just to himself,
or he will be weak in respect to both parties;
and this is impious to think of." [18]
But no sooner had Anselm completed the formulation of the satisfaction theory of the atonement than it was criticized by his younger contemporary from Pallet, Brittany, Peter Abelard (1079-1142 A.D.). Abelard in formulating the moral influence theory of the atonement in criticism of satisfaction theory began a controversy which has continued ever since. According to Abelard's moral influence theory, the saving death of Christ is directed toward influencing man to turn away from his sin by the example of God's love for sinful man in Christ. Anselm's theory made little reference to the love of God as the reason of Christ's death and man's love of God as the response to it. Abelard wanted to correct this omission. And in his formulation of his theory, Abelard attacked the basis of the satisfaction theory. He rejected the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, denying that all men are guilty of Adam's sin, and asserting that man has a tendency for good as well as for sin. Abelard also rejected Anselm's view of God that justice required a satisfaction of God's honor before sin could be forgiven. There was nothing in the nature of God that hindered the free exercise of forgiveness and the only obstacle to it was in man, not in God. [19]
Abelard raised a number of objections to Anselm's theory. But he never objected to legalistic basis of the theory and scheme of merit. In fact, he treated the love awakened in men by God's love in Christ as meritorious. Also he saw the merits of Christ as completing the merits of man by virtue of Christ's intercession for them. [20]
The main objection to the moral influence theory is to its purely subjective interpretation of Christ's death. If the death of Christ is regarded only as a demonstration of God's love and as doing nothing objectively about man's sin, then this theory fails to answer the question of the "must", the necessity for Christ's death. It does not tell why it was necessary for Christ to suffer and die such an awful death, why it had to be. If Christ did not have to die, then could not God have demonstrated His love some other way? Why does the death of Christ demonstrate the love of God? Also the theory seems to ignore the great body of scriptural teaching concerning Christ's death as a redemption and a propitiation. It truly emphasizes the subjective effect of Christ's death but at the expense of the objective work accomplished.
John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.) and Reformed theology modified this Anselmic satisfaction theory of the atonement. They said that God's justice, not his honor, needs to be satisfied by Christ's death. This view is called the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement. Christ's death paid the penalty of the sins of mankind and thus satisfied the justice of God. This view of the atonement is also called the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement because Christ died in the place and in the stead of man, the sinner. Calvin says,
"Thus we perceive Christ representingChrist is punished instead of the sinner. This is a theory of the satisfaction of God's justice through vicarious punishment. It differs at this point from the Anselmic theory which sees the atoning act as the payment of a debt rather than a penalty.
the character of a sinner and a criminal, while,
at the same time, his innocence shines forth,
and it becomes manifest that he suffers for another's
and not for his own crime." [21]
The penal satisfaction theory is clearly legalistic. It assumes that the order of law and justice is absolute; free forgiveness would be a violation of this absolute order; God's love must be carefully limited lest it infringe on the demands of justice. Sin is a crime against God and the penalty must be paid before forgiveness can become available. According to this view, God's love is conditioned and limited by his justice; that is, God cannot exercise His love to save man until His righteousness (justice) is satisfied. Since God's justice requires that sin be punished, God's love cannot save man until the penalty of sin has been paid, satisfying His justice. God's love is set in opposition to His righteousness, creating a tension and problem in God. How can God in His love save man from sin when His righteousness demands the punishment of sin? This is the problem that the death of Christ is supposed to solve. According to this legalistic theology, this is why Christ needed to die; he died to pay the penalty of man's sin and to satisfy the justice of God. The necessity of the atonement is the necessity of satisfying the justice of God; this necessity is in God rather than in man. And since this necessity is in God, it is a absolute necessity. If God is to save man, God must satisfy His justice before He can in love save man.
It is not surprising that in the popular mind this abstract problem of the seeming contradiction between love and justice in God is reduced to a concrete opposition between God the Father who wants to punish sin and God the Son who wants to forgive sin. That this is not true is clear from Scripture: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16). But this is the way the popular mind has seen this abstract problem.
[7] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 84.
[8] Anslem, Cur Deus Homo, II, 7, p. 246.
[11] Ibid., II, 19, p. 283-284.
[14] Aulen, Christus Victor, p. 86, and
Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 86.
[15] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II, 12, in S. N. Deane,
Saint Anselm: Basic Writings
(LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962) p. 203.
[18] Ibid., II, 13, pp. 206-7.
[19] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 88.
[20] Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p.96.
[21] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
translated by Henry Beveridge
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), II, xvi, 5.
Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that Christ died
to pay the penalty of man's sin and to satisfy God's justice.
Not in the three passages (Rom. 3:25-26; II Cor. 5:21;
Gal. 3:13) usually cited to support this doctrine does it
say explicitly that Christ paid the penalty of sin or
satisfied the justice of God.
Propitiation
is not the satisfaction of God's justice;
redemption
is not paying penalty of sin; neither does "being made sin" or
"a curse" mean paying the penalty of sin.
In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul writes,
"He who knew no sin was made to be sin for us,Historically, there has been three interpretations of the phrase "made to be sin" in II Cor. 5:21:
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (II Cor. 5:21 ERS)
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,he does not mean that Christ paid the penalty of sin as our substitute, but that Christ's death was to deliever us ("redeemed") from our sins and to save us from the wrath of God ("the curse of the Law", see Gal. 3:10). And Christ being made a curse for us, does not mean that Christ died as a substitute, in our place, paying the penalty of our sins, but that Christ's death was "for us", on our behalf (huper hemos), The Scripture that Paul here quotes (Deut. 21:23) does not mean that being made a curse was for another's sins but because he was being hung on a tree for his own sins (Deut. 21:22). And since Christ was hanging on the tree (the cross) was not because of His own sins (He was without sin - II Cor. 5:21) but it was on our behalf to redeem us from our sins and from God's wrath against our sins (Rom. 1:18). Paul does not say that Christ took our curse but that He became a curse for us to redeem us from the curse of the law. Christ's death sets us free from the law and from its curse.
having become a curse for us--for it is written,
'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'" (Gal. 3:13),
"The person who sins will die.
The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity,
nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity;
the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself,
and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
(Ezekiel 18:20 NAS; see also Deut. 24:16; Jer. 31:30).
If Christ did not die to pay the penalty for man's sin and satisfy God's justice, then why did Christ have to die to save man? Why then do men need to be saved? An examination of Scripture (John 10:10; Eph. 2:4-5; Heb. 2:14-15; I John 4:9; etc. -- see also the sections of Chapter 1 of this book entitled " Death" and " Death and Sin") clearly shows that the answer to this question is that man needs to be saved because he is dead and needs life. Being spiritual dead, man is separated and alienated from God (Eph. 4:18; Col. 1:21). He does not know God personally, and because he does not know the true God, he turns to false gods -- to those things which are not God and makes those into his gods (Gal. 4:8). The basic sin is idolatry (Ex. 20:2; Rom. 1:25), and man sins (chooses these false gods) because he is spiritually dead -- separated from the true God.
All men have sinned because they are spiritually dead. This is what the Apostle Paul says in the last clause of Romans 5:12: "because of which [death] all sinned" (ERS). Spiritual death which "spread to all men" along with physical death is not the result of each man's own personal sins. On the contrary, a man sins as a result of spiritual death. He received death from Adam, from his first parents. The historical origin of sin is the fall of Adam -- the sin of the first man. Adam's sin brought death -- spiritual and physical -- on all his descendants (Rom. 5:12, 15, 17). This spiritual death inherited from Adam is the personal, contemporary origin of each man's sin (Rom. 5:12d ERS). Because he is spiritually dead, not knowing God personally, man chooses something other than the true God as his God; he thus sins.
This is why a man needs to be saved. He is dead spiritually and is dying physically. Man needs life -- he needs to be made alive -- to be raised from the dead. And if he receives life, if he is made alive to God, death which leads to sin is removed. And if death which leads to sin is removed and he is made alive to God, then man will be saved from sin. Thus salvation must be understood to be primarily from death to life and secondarily from sin to righteousness. And since God's wrath -- God's "no" or opposition to sin -- is caused by sin (Rom. 1:18), the removal of sin brings with it also the removal of wrath. No sin, no wrath. Salvation is then thirdly from wrath to peace with God (Rom. 5:1, 9).
The righteousness of God is God acting in love for the salvation or deliverance of man. This righteousness of God has been manifested, that is, publicly displayed, in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-22). God was active in Jesus Christ, particularly in His death and resurrection, for salvation (Acts 4:12; I Thess. 5:9; I Tim. 2:10; 3:15; Heb. 5:9). Because He is the act of God for our salvation, Jesus Christ is the righteousness of God (I Cor. 1:30). The gospel or good news is about this manifestation of the righteousness of God. The gospel tells us about God's act of salvation in the person and work of Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15:3-4; Eph. 1:13). God acted in Him to deliver man from death, from sin, and from wrath. But since wrath is caused by sin and sin is caused by death, salvation is basically the deliverance from death to life. Man cannot make himself alive. Only God can make alive for He is the living God and the source of all life.
Because God loves man, He did not leave him in death but has provided for deliverance from death by sending His Son into the world.
"For God so loved the world,Thus God in His love for man sent His Son to become a man -- Jesus Christ, the God-man (John 1:14). He was the perfect man; He lived perfect fellowship with God and perfectly trusted God throughout His entire life (John 1:4; 8:28-29; 12:50; 16:32; 17:25). But He came not just to be what we should have been or to give us a perfect example. He came to die on our behalf in order that we might have life in Him.
that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth on him
should not perish, but have eternal life."
(John 3:16 KJV)
[Jesus said]He entered not only into our existence as man, but he entered into our condition of spiritual and physical death. On the cross, He died not only physically but spiritually. For only this once during His whole life was He separated from His Father. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46 KJV) He was forsaken for us; He died for us. "Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us" (I John 3:16).
"10b I came that they might have life,
and have it more abundantly.
11 I am the good shepherd:
the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
(John 10:10b-11 KJV)"In this was manifested the love of God toward us,
because that God sent his only begotten Son
into the world that we might live through him."
(I John 4:9).
But God raised Him from the dead. He entered into our death in order that as He was raised from the dead we might be made alive with and in Him (Eph. 2:5). Hence Christ's death was our death, and His resurrection is our resurrection (II Cor. 5:15). He became identified with us in death in order that we might become identified with Him in His resurrection and have life. He became like us that we might become like Him. As Irenaeus said,
"... but following the only true and steadfast teacher,The writer to the Hebrews said,
the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ,
who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are,
that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." [1]
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels,...He acted as our representative, on our behalf and for our sake.
so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." (Heb. 2:9 NIV)."14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood,
he himself likewise partook of the same nature,
that through death he might destroy him
that has the power of death, that is the devil,
15 and deliver all those who through fear of death
were subject to lifelong bondage." (Heb. 2:14-15).
The Greek preposition huper does not mean "instead of" but "on the behalf of" or "for the sake of". In the following passages, the Greek preposition huper cannot mean "instead of".
"For it has been granted to you that for the sake of [huper] ChristThus the Greek preposition huper does not mean "instead of" but "on the behalf of" or "for the sake of". And thus Chirst died on the behalf of all men, not instead of them;
you should not only believe in him
but also suffer for his sake [huper autou, on the behalf of him]"
(Phil. 1:29)"It is right for me to think this about all of you [huper pantan humon],
because I have you in my heart,
since both in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel
you all are partakers of grace with me." (Phil. 1:7 ERS)"5 On the behalf of [huper tou toitotou] such a man I will boast,
but on behalf of myself [huper emautou] I will not boast,
except of my weaknesses.
6 For if I wish to boast, I shall not be foolish,
for I shall be speaking the truth;
but I refrain from this lest anyone reckon to me
above what [huper ho] he sees in me or hears from me,
7and by the surpassing greatness [huperbole] of the revelations.
Wherefore, in order that I should not be exalted [huperairomai]
there was given me a thorn in the flesh,
a messenger of Satan to harass me,
in order that I should not be exalted [huperairomai].
8About this [huper touton]
I besought the Lord that it should leave me;
9 and He said to me,
'My grace is sufficient for you,
for my power is perfected in weakness.'
Most gladly therefore I will boast in my weaknesses,
that the power of Christ may rest on me." (II Cor. 12:5-9 ERS).
"For the love of Christ constraineth us;Adam, acting as a representative, brought the old creation under the reign of death. But Christ, acting as our representative, brought a new creation in which those "who have received the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life" (Rom. 5:17).
because we thus judge,
that one died for [on the behalf, huper] all,
therefore all have died" (that is, in Christ who represents all)
(II Cor. 5:14).
"21 For since by man came death,Acting through our representative, God has reconciled us to Himself through Him, that is, God has brought us into fellowship with Himself.
by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
(I Cor. 15:21-22)"Wherefore if any man is in Christ,
he is a new creature:
the old things are passed away;
behold, they are become new." (II Cor. 5:17)[Jesus said] "Because I live ye shall live also."
(John 14:19 KJV)
"18 And all things are of God,
who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ...
19 to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself..."
(II Cor. 5:18-19 KJV; see also Rom. 5:10-11; I Cor. 1:9; I John 1:2-3).
This representative work of Christ should be understood,
not as a vicarious act, instead of another,
but as a participation, an act of sharing with another.
Christ took part or shared our situation. He entered not
only into our existence as a man, but also into our
condition of spiritual and physical death. On the cross,
He died not only physically but also spiritually (Matt. 26:46).
We were reconciled to God through the death of Christ
because He shared in our death (Rom. 5:10; Heb. 2:9).
But He was raised from the dead, and that on behalf of all men.
"And he died for [huper] all,He was raised from the dead on our behalf so that we might participate in His resurrection and be made alive with Him (Eph. 2:5-7). His resurrection is our resurrection. He was raised from dead for us so that we might participate in His resurrection and life, both spiritual and physical. Thus the representative work of Christ is a participation, an act of sharing with another. He participated in our death so that we could participate in His life.
that those who live might live no longer for themselves
but for him who for their sake [huper] died and was raised."
(II Cor. 5:15).
Since spiritual death is no fellowship with God, being made alive with Christ, we are brought into fellowship with God. Hence we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:17-19). The Greek word (katallage), which is translated "reconciliation" in our English versions, means a "thorough or complete change." Hence it refers to a complete change in the personal relationship between man and God. Because man is spiritually dead, he has no personal relationship with God. When a man is made alive to God with Christ, he is brought into a personal relationship with God. Reconciliation can therefore be defined as that aspect of salvation whereby man is delivered from death to life. The source of this act of reconciliation is the love of God. It is a legalistic misunderstanding of reconciliation to say that God was reconciled to man. The Scriptures never say that God is reconciled to man but that man is reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:18-19). The problem is not in God but in man. Man is dead and he needs to be made alive. Man is the enemy of God; God is not the enemy of man. God loves man, and out of His great love He has acted to reconcile man to Himself through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is true that God in His wrath opposes man's sin and in His grace has provided a means by which His wrath may be turned away, by the death of Christ (Rom. 3:25). But this aspect of salvation is propitiation, not reconciliation. Reconciliation should not be confused with propitiation. God in reconciling man to Himself has saved man from death, the cause of sin, and hence He has removed sin, the cause of His wrath -- no sin, no wrath. Christ's death is a propitiation because it is a redemption and it is a redemption because it is a reconciliation, salvation from death to life.
Let's return to the question raised in the introduction
to this chapter: why must Christ die? The Biblical and
classic solution
to this problem of the necessity of the atonement
is that Christ must die if man is to be saved.
The problem that the atonement solved is not in God but in man:
it is man who is dead and sins because he is dead. Thus
Christ died primarily to save man from death and secondarily
to save him from sin and hence from wrath. The necessity of
the atonement is not in God and hence absolute, but in man
and hence relative. It is not the justice of God that
requires the death of Christ but the love of God who wants
to save man. It is not God's justice that is the barrier
to man's salvation but it is death. And Christ's death
and resurrection has overcome that barrier. Death
is a real and objective barrier to man's salvation; death
separates man from God (spiritual death) and man's spirit
from his body (physical death). Death had to be defeated
and this is not just dramatic and emotional language.
Neither the objective or subjective theories of the
atonement understands nor takes seriously this problem.
Since death came by a man, Adam, so death had to be removed
by a man, the God-man, Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15:21-22). All
legalistic theories of the atonement see sin as the primary problem;
death is always a secondary problem because death is always
seen as the necessary penalty of sin. They assume
that the law can make alive, contrary to the clear statement of the
Scriptures.
Paul says in his letter to the Galations:
"Is the law against the promises of God?If the law could make alive, then the death and resurrection of Christ would be unnecessary and Christ died in vain (Gal. 2:21). But the law cannot make alive; therefore, salvation is not by the law. Thus any legalistic interpretation of the atonement cannot be true because the law cannot make alive and can not produce righteousness; it cannot save from death and sin.
Certainly not;
for if a law had been given which could make alive,
then righteousness would be indeed by the law." (Gal. 3:21)
The Biblical and classic solution sees death as the primary problem and sin as a secondary problem because man sins because of death (Rom. 5:12d ERS). The death and resurrection of Christ solves the problem of death by making us alive to God in and with the resurrection of Christ. It thus solves the problem of sin. God saves us from sin itself (primarily, idolatry - trust in a false god) to the righteousness of faith (trust in the true God) by making us alive to God, when we receive by faith the gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God is salvation. Since salvation is basically from death to life, Christ on the cross entered into our death, both spiritually and physically, in order that man can be made alive with Christ in His resurrection. By faith we can then say; His death is my death and His resurrection is my resurrection. On the cross, Christ died both spiritually and physically. His body died physically on the cross when He gave up His spirit (Matt. 27:50; John 19:30). His spirit was separated from His body. But before He died physically, He died spiritually.
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,This cry was misunderstood by the bystanders as a calling upon Elijah (Matt. 27:47-49). But it was not a calling on Elijah, but it was His spirit as the Son of God calling upon God His Father. He had entered into our spiritual death inherited from Adam and His spirit was separated from God His Father. This spiritual death was not a non-existence of His spirit, but was a separation between His spirit as the Son of God from God His Father. This is only time in all eternity that He as the Son of God was separated from God His Father. It happened because He had entered on the cross into our spiritual death inherited from Adam (Rom. 5:12; I Cor. 15:21-22). This raises the problem of how is this possible. As it was expressed by those who mocked Him, saying
'Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'-ni?' that is,
'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'" (Matt. 27:46)
"He saved others; he cannot save himself.How can God die? As Greeks understood the divine, the gods are immortal; they never die. Then how could the Son of God die? Now their understanding of God as immortal was based on their understanding of God as unchanging in His being, therefore He could not change by dying. And they argued that God does not change because He is timeless. But the Biblical God does not change because He is timeless, but because He keeps His promises. The prophet Malachi says for God,
He is the King of Israel;
let him come down now from the cross,
and we will believe in him.
He trusts in God; let God deliever him now, if he desires him;
for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" (Matt. 27:42)
"6For I, the Lord, do not change;If Israel turns from their sins, then they will not be consumed because the Lord God is unchanging in keeping His promises not to destroy them if they will return to Him. Thus the Biblical God is unchanging, not because He is a timeless unchanging super-It, but because the Biblical God, who keeps His promises, is three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are without beginning or end. The Biblical God has time, but His time has no beginning nor end. His time is an absolute time, not like our created time which has a beginning.
therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
7From the days of your fathers
you have turned aside from my statutes,
and have not kept them.
Return to Me, and I will return to you,"
says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 3:6-7 NAS)
God created the heavens and earth by an act of His will.
As those in heaven sang,
"Worthy art thou, our Lord and God,God is three Persons by whose will all things were created and do exist. Now an act of the will, a choice, involves time: the time before the choice, the now of the choice, and the time after of the choice.
to receive glory and honor and power,
for thou didst create all things,
and by thy will they exist and were created." (Rev. 4:11)
And in eternity God also made the decision for the Son of God to become a man and to die on the cross for the salvation of men. So this once in all eternity, at the cross, the Son of God died spiritually by being separated from God the Father. He did not cease to exist, but He entered into our spiritual death and His personal relationship to God His Father was broken and He was temporarily separated personally from God His Father. But He did not remain in this spiritual death; God the Father raised the Son of God from the dead, not only physically, but also raised Him spiritually from the dead. And thus God provided for us salvation from death to life, both spiritually and physically.
Since wrath is caused by sin (Rom. 1:18) and sin by death (Rom. 5:12d ERS),
salvation is basically from death to life and then from sin to righteousness
and then from wrath to peace with God. Thus there are three aspects of
salvation.
(1) Reconciliation is salvation from death to life;
(2) redemption, is salvation from sin to righteousness; and
(3) propitiation is salvation from wrath to peace.
These three aspects of salvation are accomplished in and through the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ's death is a propitiation because it
is a redemption; and it is a propitiation and a redemption because it is a
reconciliation to God.
These three aspects of salvation are accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This threefold act of God for the salvation of man is the righteousness of God. The righteousness of God (=salvation) has been manifested (publicily displayed) in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-26). The gospel tells us about this act of God, about this manifestation of the righteousness of God. In the preaching of the gospel, the righteousness of God is being continually revealed or actualized (Rom. 1:17). That is, God is exerting His power for the salvation of man in the preaching of the gospel (Rom. 1:16).
