book_d2l6b
THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST
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, 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]
Although Tertullian teaches that God helps man perform good deeds, [2] in the strictest sense of the word, man has to merit salvation. [3]
“Faith is established in the Rule. There it has its law and it wins salvation by keeping the law.” [4]
Associated with the idea of merit was the idea of satisfaction.
“What folly it is, what perversity, 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]
Penance is satisfaction, the payment of a temporal penalty to escape eternal loss. It is a compensatory work of satisfaction which propitiates God.
“Herein [in some external act] we confess our sin 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]
Tertullian 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.
ENDNOTES FOR THE “TERTULLIAN”
[1] Tertullian, On Penitence, 2; William P. LeSaint, Tertullian, Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity, in Johannes Quasten and Walter J. Burhardt, eds. Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation (Westminter, Md.: The Newman Press and London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1959), pp. 16-17.
[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.
(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.”
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.
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, on our behalf so that we that we might be reconciled”. [5]
In its effect, a sacrifice is expiatory and propitionary:
“By His death, that one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf, He purged, abolished and extinguished … whatever guilt we had.” [6]
By this sacrifice the wrath of God is appeased and we are reconciled to Him:
“He offered this holocaust to God; He extended His hands on the cross … and our wickednesses were propitiated …. Our sins and wickednesses having been propitiated through this evening sacrifice, we passed to the Lord, and the veil was taken away.” [7]
This means that Christ is substituted for us, and He being Himself innocent discharges the penalty we owe. Augustine writes,
“Though without guilt Christ took our punishment upon Himself, destroying our guilt and putting an end to our punishment.” [8]
And again,
“You must again confess that without our sin He took the penalty owing to our sin upon Himself”; [9]
and,
“He made our trespasses His trespasses, so as to make His righteousness ours” [10].
It was precisely His innocence which gave value to His sacrifice, for
“We were brought to death by sin, He by righteousness; and so, since death was our penalty for sin, His death became a sacrifice for sin.” [11]
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, 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, 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]
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,
“In so far as He is man, He is mediator, but not in so far as He is Word, for as such He is coequal with God.” [14]
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.
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, since in Him the God-head of the Only-begotten participated in our mortality so that we might participate in His immortality.” [17]
and when he remarks that, “He Who was God became man so as to make those who were men gods.” But this is a secondary motif; for deification is a corollary to but not the primary purpose of the incarnation. Much more frequently Augustine speaks of redemption as our release from the Satan’s bondage. Augustine often dramatized this deliverance by using colorful language which gave a misleading impression of his true thought. Whereas Gregory of Nyssa had used the figure of a fishhook, Augustine used the figure of a mousetrap; that Christ’s body was a bait by which Satan was caught like mouse in a trap. But Augustine represents this release from the Devil’s dominion as consequent upon and as presupposing our reconciliation; the Devil is conquered precisely because God had received satisfaction and had bestowed pardon. The essence of redemption lies in the expiatory sacrifice for us by Christ in His passion. This is the principal act performed by Christ as the Mediator. Using II Cor. 5:21, Augustine says,
“Him Who knew no sin, Christ, God made sin, i.e. a sacrifice for sins, on our behalf so that we might be reconciled.” [18]
A sacrifice in its effect is expiatory and propitionary:
“By His death, that one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf, He purged, abolished and extinguished … whatever guilt we had.” [19]
By this sacrifice, the wrath of God is appeased and we are reconciled to Him:
“He offered this holocaust to God; He extended His hands on the cross … and our wickednesses were propitiated ….
Our sins and wickednesses having been propitiated through this evening sacrifice, we passed to the Lord, and the veil was taken away.” [20]
This means that Christ is substituted for us, and being Himself innocent, He discharges the penalty we owe. Augustine writes,
“Though without guilt, Christ took our punishment upon Himself, destroying our guilt and putting an end to our punishment.” [21]
And again,
“You must again confess that without our sin He took the penalty owing to our sin upon Himself”; [22]
and,
“He made our trespasses His trespasses, so as to make His righteousness ours.” [23].
It was precisely His innocence that gave value to His sacrifice, for
“We were brought to death by sin, He by righteousness; and so, since death was our penalty for sin, His death became a sacrifice for sin.” [24]
Thus Augustine anticipates the satisfaction theory of the atonement,
ENDNOTES FOR THE “AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO”
[1] Augustine, Sermon CXXX, 2; quoted by Sydney Cave, The Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, first printed, 1937, fifth impression, 1959), p. 119; quoted by Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement, p. 77.
[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, 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]
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.
“Man as a sinner owes God for his sin what he is unable to pay, and cannot be saved without payment.” [4]
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.
“No one but God can make the satisfaction, but no one but man should make it, since it is man who sinned.” [7]
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.
“For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; 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]
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.
“No man except this one ever gave to God 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]
This 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 is more proper than that, 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]
In the incarnation and the death of the Son, the mercy as well as the justice of God is shown. [13] 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; 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]
To freely forgive without satisfaction or punishment is from the legalistic point of view impossible.
“Everyone knows that justice to man is regulated by law, 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]
Justice demands that God’s honor be upheld.
“If there is nothing greater or better than God, 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]
Therefore, sin which dishonors God must either receive satisfaction or be punished.
“Does it seem to you that he wholly preserve it, 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]
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.
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 representing 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]
Christ 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 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.
ENDNOTES FOR “THE SATISFACTION THEORY”
[1] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, I, 11, in S. N. Deane, Saint Anselm: Basic Writings (LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962) p. 202.
[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. 3:24-25; 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. In the Rom. 3:24-25 passage, propitiation is not the satisfaction of God’s justice; and redemption is not paying penalty of sin.
“24 Being justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood. …” (Rom. 3:24-25 ERS; see also Isa. 32:17)
The redemption that is in Christ (Rom. 3:24) is deliverance from sin by the payment of a price, a ransom, which is the blood of Christ, that is, His sacrificial death. The price is not the payment of a penalty but it is the means by which the redemption from sin is accomplished.
“18Knowing that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; 19but with the precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ.” (I Pet. 1:18, 19 ERS; see also Heb. 9:14-15).
Redemption is deliverance from sin as a slave master by means of the death of Christ [His blood] as the price or ransom.
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the deliverance from our offences, according the riches of His grace…”
(Eph. 1:7 ERS)“In whom we have redemption, the deliverance from sins. (Col. 1:14 ERS)
According to the English translations of Eph. 1:7 and Col. 1:14, redemption is made equivalent to forgiveness of sins.
“In Him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according the riches of his grace …” (Eph. 1:7 RSV)
“In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. ( Col. 1:14 RSV)
But the basic meaning of the Greek word aphesis here translated “forgiveness” is “the sending off or away.” Hence to redeem from sins is to send them away, to deliver from sin. Jesus “was manifested in order to take away sins” (I John 3:5 ERS). He is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
Salvation is not just forgiveness. It is more than forgiveness of sins; salvation is also deliverance from death; it is the resurrection of the dead. Forgiveness of sins is not enough; man needs to be made alive to God because he is spiritually dead. And he is dead, not because of his own sins, but because of the sin of another, Adam. So the forgiveness of a man’s sins does not take away spiritual death because the spiritual death was not caused by that man’s sins. Thus forgiveness of sins does not remove spiritual death. But the removing of spiritual death does removes sins. Salvation as resurrection from the dead is also salvation from sin and thus it is also the forgiveness of sins. Thus to be made alive to God means that sins are forgiven.
This redemption from sin was accomplished by the death of Jesus Christ because His death is also the means by which we were delivered from death, the cause of sin. Since spiritual death leads to sin ( Rom. 5:12d ERS), sin reigns in the sphere of death’s reign (Rom. 5:21). And since Christ’s death is the end of the reign of death for those who died with Christ, it is also the end of the reign of sin over them. They are no longer slaves of sin, serving false gods. Sin is a slave master (Rom. 6:16-18) and this slave master is the false god in which the sinner trusts. We were all slaves of sin once, serving our false gods when we were spiritually dead, alienated and separated from the true God, not knowing Him personally. But we were set free from this slavery to sin through the death of Christ. For when Christ died for us, He died to sin (Rom. 6:10a) as a slave master. Sin no longer has dominion or lordship over Him. For he who has died is freed from sin (Rom. 6:7). That is, when a slaves dies, he is no longer in slavery, death frees him from slavery. Since Christ “has died for all, then all have died” (II Cor. 5:14). His death is our death. Since we have died with Him and He has died to sin, then we have died to sin. We are freed from the slavery of sin and are no longer enslaved to it (Rom. 6:6-7). But now Christ is alive, having been raised from the dead, and we are made alive to God in Him. His resurrection is our resurrection. “But the life He lives He lives to God” (Rom. 6:10b). This is the life of righteousness, the righteousness of faith. And so we, who are now alive to God in Him, are to live to righteousness. For just as death produces sin, so life produces righteousness.
“And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” (I Pet. 2:24)
Christ bore our sins to take them away (to redeem us from sin) so that we might die to sin with Christ and be made alive to righteousness in His resurrection. Having been redeemed from the slavery of sin through the death of Christ, we who are now alive in Him have become slaves of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18), that is, slaves of Christ who is our righteousness (I Cor. 1:30). Redemption is salvation from sin to righteousness.
Since in those days of the Old and New Testament, slaves were also sold at the market, to buy a slave at the slave market could also be called “redemption.” The context of the verbs translate “to redeem” is not the law court but the slave market and has nothing to do with “paying the penalty.” The purchase price or ransom is not the penalty for breaking the law but is the means by which the purchase is accomplished. A ransom is given instead or in place of those who are to be redeemed or delivered; it has nothing to do with a substitute paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the justice of God. The context of the words translated “to redeem” or “redemption” is not the law or the courtroom but slavery and the slavemarket. The redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt has nothing to do with a substitute paying the penalty of sin; and neither does the redemption in Christ Jesus by His death [His blood] have to do with a substitute paying the penalty of sin, but with delivering us from bondage and freeing us from the slavery of sin.
Neither does “made to be sin” or “a curse” mean paying the penalty of sin, in the II Cor. 5:21 and Gal. 3:13 passages. In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul writes,
“He who knew no sin was made to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
(II Cor. 5:21 ERS)
Historically, there has been three interpretations of the phrase “made to be sin” in II Cor. 5:21:
1. When Christ in His incarnation took on human nature, which is “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), God made Him to be sin.
2. Christ in becoming a sacrifice for sin was made to be sin, the word “sin” harmartia) meaning a “sacrifice for sin”
(Augustine and the NIV margin “be a sin offering”).
3. Christ is treated as if He were a sinner, and as such Christ became the object of God’s wrath and bore the penalty and the guilt of sin (the traditional Protestant interpretation).
In the first interpretation, it is assumed that Christ’s death is a participation, on the behalf of and for the sakes of sinful humanity. And in the second interpretation, the basic concept is sacrifice, but the scarifice has been usuallly assumed to be a substitution, not as a participation. In the last interpretation, it is assumed that Christ’s death is a vicarious act, a substitution in the stead of sinful humanity. And this substitution interpretation just assumes a legalistic interpretation of Christ’s death as a paying the penalty of sin for us.
But this substitution interpretation must here be rejected because it is contrary to the explicit statement in the verse that He was made sin “for us”, that is, “on our behalf” (huper hemos, NAS; see verses 14-15, and 20). 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] Christ 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).
Thus 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;
“For the love of Christ constraineth us; 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).
Christ was made to be a sin-sacrifice for us to save us from sin, to take away our sin (John 1:29). And Christ was made a sin sacrifice to take away our sin “in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” That is, that we might be set right with God in the risen Christ. As we have already seen, the righteousness of God is the activity of God to set us right with God; that is, to save us from sin (trust in false god) to righteousness (trust in the true God). Christ participated in our spiritual death to save us from sin (trust in a false god), so that we could participate in the risen Christ, being saved from death to life and hence being saved from sin to righteousness (trust in the true God). The substitution interpretation of Christ’s sacrifice does not understand this participation and just assumes a legalistic substitution interpretation of Christ’s death as a paying the penalty of sin for us. And when Apostle Paul writes to the Galatians,
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree’” (Gal. 3:13),
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.
The introduction of these legalistic concepts into the interpretation of these passages has obscured their meaning and interpretation. Apart from the clear and explicit statement of Scripture, it cannot be assumed that this is what these verses mean. Since this legalism is contrary to the clear and explicit statements of Scripture (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:28; 4:4-5; 11:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:5, 11), any interpretation employing these legalistic concepts is suspect. In fact, the Scripture explicitly rejects the principle of vicarious penal sacrifice upon which this interpretation depends.
“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.
Legalism has distorted the relationship of death to sin. Death is always the result of each man’s own personal sins. The Biblical concept of sin as basically trust in a false god, idolatry, is misunderstood as basically a transgression of the law, the breaking of the rules and a falling short of the universal divine standard. According to legalism, sin is considered to be a crime against God, and the penalty for these crimes is spiritual, physical and eternal death. Until the penalty is executed at the last judgment, man is under the burden of an objective guilt or condemmation which must be satisfied by the execution of the penalty. And in addition to this objective guilt there is a subjective guilt of a bad conscience, which may or may not correspond to the objective guilt. This objective guilt has been conceived in terms of a debt which man owes and/or as demerit on man’s record. Thus man needs to be saved because he is a guilty sinner.
This legalistic concept of death is a misunderstanding of the Biblical concept of death. In the Scriptures, death is not always the result of each man’s own personal sins. According to Romans 5:12-14, all men have received spiritual and physical death from Adam but not eternal death.
“12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, because of which all sinned: – 13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law. 14 But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (Rom. 5:12-14 ERS).
Since Adam, man is not responsible for being spiritually dead because he did not choose that state. He received spiritual death from Adam just as he received physical death from Adam. But man is responsible for the god he chooses. The true God has not left man without a knowledge about Himself.
“19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:19-20 ERS)
This knowledge about God leaves man without excuse for his idolatry. He knows that his false gods are phonies. But this knowledge does not save him because it is knowledge about the true God, and not a personal knowledge of the true God which is eternal life (John 17:3). But even though man is not responsible for being spiritually dead, he is responsible for remaining in the state of spiritual death when deliverance from it is offered to him in the person of Jesus Christ. If he refuses the gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus, he will receive the wages of his decision, eternal death (Rom. 6:23). If a man refuses the gift of spiritual and eternal life in Christ Jesus and continues to put his trust in a false god, remaining in spiritual death, then after he dies physically, at the last judgment he will receive the results of his wrong decision or sin, eternal death, separation from God for eternity.
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), then 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, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 KJV)
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.
[Jesus said]
“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)
[Jesus said]
“Because I live ye shall live also.” (John 14:19 KJV)[The Apostle John wrote:]
“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).
The Son of God 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).
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 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]
The writer to the Hebrews said,
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, … 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).
He acted as our representative, on our behalf and for our sake. 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).
“21 For since by man came death, 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)
Acting through our representative, God has reconciled us to Himself through Him, that is, God has brought us into fellowship with Himself.
“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, 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).
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.
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.