By Lewis Sperry Chafer
The Savior
Biblical Terminology Related to Christ’s Sufferings and Death
In the general field of truth respecting the sufferings and death of Christ there are specific words employed by writers—some of which terms are Biblical and some not—the meaning of which should be discerned by the student as to their precise import. Thirteen of these are here considered:
1. Atonement (Lev 5:10).
Whether it be accurately or inaccurately employed, the student will become aware of the fact that the word atonement is the term upon which men have seized with a view to expressing the entire work of Christ upon the cross. That such a word is sorely needed cannot be doubted. The almost universal use of atonement for this purpose may go far to give it authoritative acceptance regardless of its inaptitude for the immense service thus thrust upon it. Objection to the use of the term as employed generally arises from the fact that the word is not a New Testament term, and when used in the Old Testament some seventy-seven times it is a translator’s attempt at interpretation and poorly represents the meaning of kāphar, a term it purports to translate, which word originally means to cover. Though etymologically the word atonement suggests at-one-ment, it feebly relates itself to the New Testament truth which presents Christ as the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world.
2. Expiation.
The Standard Dictionary defines the meaning of this term thus: “The act of expiating, or the state of being expiated; also, the means by which atonement or reparation is made.” In general, the term expiation is more inclusive and definite than atonement.
3. Forgiveness and Remission.
Much having been written previously in this work on the doctrinal significance of these terms, no more need be added than to restate that divine forgiveness of sin is made possible only through the cross of Christ, and is never exercised apart from expiation—whether when anticipated, as it was in the Old Testament, or realized, as it is in the New Testament economy.
4. Guilt (Gen 42:21; Rom 3:19; 1 Cor 11:27; James 2:10).
Guilt, which means that the guilty one has offended God’s character and will, is predicated of every person and in two respects:
a. As personal and thus related to the historical fact of actual sin. Such guilt is non-transferable. History and its records can never be changed.
b. As an obligation to justice, which is the theological use of the term guilt. This is transferable, in the sense that an innocent person may discharge the obligation of one who is guilty.
5. Justice.
Generally speaking, whether as used in the Old Testament or the New Testament, the term justice is a synonym of righteousness. The conduct of one toward another is in view, and especially the truth that God acts toward men in justice. So perfect in itself is the plan of salvation through Christ, that God is said to be just (not, merciful) when He justifies the ungodly (Rom 3:26; 4:5). God is ever just in all His ways.
6. Justification.
Theologically considered, the term justification means to be declared righteous. It is true that, being in Christ, the believer is righteous; but justification is the divine acknowledgment and declaration that the one who is in Christ is righteous. That which God thus publishes He defends. Justification is immutable.
7. Penalty.
Though immeasurable by the finite mind, both reason and revelation assert that the penalty for sin is only that which God’s holiness requires. It is God’s judicial authority expressed. It is that which Christ satisfied. Whatever these demands were, it is now to be believed that Christ has met these demands for those who trust Him.
8. Propitiation.
As already stated, propitiation is the Godward effect or value of the cross. Since Christ has died, God is propitious. This truth is the heart of the gospel and that which is to be believed.
9. Reconciliation.
Similarly, but a brief added word concerning reconciliation need be offered here. It represents the manward effect and value of the cross. Since the word signifies a complete change, the term cannot be applied properly to God who is immutable, but it does apply to man who by the death of Christ is placed in a changed relation to God and to His judgments against man. By his own choice man may be turned about, or converted, respecting the rightful claims of God upon him.
10. Redemption and Ransom.
These two terms are practically the same in meaning. Redemption implies the payment of a ransom price, and in the redemption which Christ has wrought, the divine judgments against sin having been measured out, these do stand paid by Christ’s voluntary sacrifice. This, again, is not something yet to be done; but being accomplished is something to believe.
11. Sacrifice.
While this term usually means to relinquish that which one may hold in possession, its doctrinal meaning is that of an offering to God. Thus every animal slain in the Mosaic economy was a sacrifice, and these looked on in anticipation to the one final and perfect sacrifice which Christ became for lost men (Heb 9:26; 10:12 ).
12. Satisfaction.
The forces of modern thought have been for nearly a century arrayed against the doctrine of satisfaction. The offense of this doctrine is the claim that God, having certain holy, inherent demands against sin, which claims arise from His outraged righteousness and character, has accepted as satisfying the payment which Christ has made. This doctrine must be considered at length in the following section of this article.
13. Vicarious and Substitution.
Again the two words under consideration are identical, referring in this case to the suffering of one in the place of another in the sense that by that suffering on the part of one the other is wholly relieved. A vicar is an authorized or accepted substitute in office or service and not merely one conveying a benefit in general. Christ suffered and died that men might not be required to bear their burden of condemnation. To reject this truth is to reject the plainest doctrine of Scripture, to reject the gospel and the only righteous ground on which God may exercise grace toward the lost.
Theories False and True of the Value of Christ’s Death
Systematic Theology introduces no theme more difficult than an attempted analysis of the values secured by Christ in His death—as to its necessity; as to its effect upon God, upon man, upon angels; and as to the principles involved in its application. In approaching this subject, it may clarify the main discussion if certain truths are stated upon which any worthy attention to this aspect of doctrine must be based.
I. Preliminary Considerations.
1. General Facts Revealed.
According to the Scriptures, the original unity between God and man, from which Adam fell, is treated as a fundamental reality. Though God was in the beginning in unbroken communion with man, He was, because of the sin of man, compelled to drive man from the garden and to proclaim that “without shedding of blood is no remission”; and though man was in the beginning in communion with God, he became estranged from God and is ever in unrest until through divine provisions he is restored to the righteousness of God. What may constitute the detail of those renewed relations has varied with different ages and in harmony with different divine purposes. The Israelite under his covenants, when restored to right relations with God, quite nearly duplicated the estate of unfallen man. He was in communion with God and blessed with a long life of tranquility on the earth. On the other hand, the Christian, when in that right relation to God which characterizes his saved estate, is conformed henceforth to Christ the Last Adam, and all his possessions, positions, life, and expectation are centered in that realm where his Living Head now is. Whether salvation be restricted to that estate which resembles the first Adam or to the glorious transformation which brings one into the image of the Last Adam, the metamorphosis is a work of God for man, is wrought upon a righteous basis which God has constituted, and is available to man only on such terms as God has determined. It may be reckoned as characteristic of both God and man that God seeks the man—as He did in Eden, and that man hides from God and attempts—as symbolized by his apron of fig leaves—to clothe his nakedness from the eye of God. These three features of truth—God is man’s Savior, God originates the plan by which man may be saved, and God determines the terms upon which man may be saved—are a reasonable starting point for the study of the complex problem to be found in those theories men have formed respecting the value of the thing which Christ accomplished by His death and the application of the value of that death to those who are estranged from God.
The fact that the Bible so exalts the importance of Christ’s death—even making the world, if not the universe, redempto-centric—along with the corresponding human experience of sole relief and benefit in things spiritual being gained by and through the cross has compelled serious men to formulate theories respecting the whole divine undertaking. As the Bible offers no ready-made system of theology, in like manner it presents no ready-made theory of the value of Christ’s work on the cross; however, there is little difficulty, comparatively, to be encountered when the plain teachings of the Word of God are taken in simple faith. The attempt to formulate a philosophy which purports to analyze God and all His works is fraught with insuperable problems. Inductions must be made and have been made with great care covering all that God has disclosed from Genesis 3:15 on to the song of triumph with which the Bible closes. Out of such inductions certain truths emerge and these, when rightly arranged, might constitute a theory; but it is to be remembered that such a theory thus formed is, at best, characterized by the human element and is to that extent subject to error. A theory never creates a fact; it reaches its fruition when it explains a fact which already exists. Men have not originated any truth respecting the purpose and value of Christ’s death; they have sought only to trace the meaning of that which God has accomplished. On this vital point, Dr. R. W. Dale has written: “The Idea of an objective Atonement invented by theologians to satisfy the exigencies of theological systems! It would be almost as reasonable to maintain that the apparent motion of the sun was invented by astronomers in order to satisfy the exigencies created by astronomical theories. The Idea has perplexed, and troubled, and broken up successive systems of theology. It was precisely because they failed to account for it that theological systems which were once famous and powerful, and from which their authors hoped for an immortal name, have perished. If it had been possible to expel the Idea from the faith of Christendom, the task of theology would have been made wonderfully easier. The history of the doctrine is a proof that the idea of an objective Atonement was not invented by theologians…. It is true, and the truth has great significance, that the craving for a sacrifice for sin is one of the deepest instincts of the religious life of the race. It is also true that this craving is satisfied by the Christian Atonement. But that, apart from the clearest and most emphatic declarations of Christ Himself and His Apostles, the Church should ever have supposed that His Death could be the ground on which God forgives the sins of mankind, is incredible…. Had Moses perished at the hands of his inconstant and ungrateful and rebellious fellowcountrymen, I can imagine prophet after prophet insisting on his sufferings and death, in order to inspire the people with a fidelity to God like that which had been illustrated in the martyrdom of their great leader; and the Church might have made a similar use of His crucifixion. But what we have to account for is the universal prevalence of the idea that, while those who put Christ to death committed the greatest of human crimes, His Death was the Propitiation for the sins of the world. I can account for the prevalence of that idea in one way, and only in one way. It was a great and essential element in the original gospel which the Apostles were charged to preach to all nations. The Church received it from the Apostles. The Apostles received it from Christ.”[1] Primarily, the death of Christ answers a necessity and purpose in God. Human philosophy is strained beyond measure in its attempts to trace the majestic realities related to that death. Obviously, no theory can be formed by man respecting Christ’s death that will be complete in all its parts. At best, what God has said should be received and believed. If such a procedure gives the intellectual pride of man no great latitude, perhaps by so much the truth may be preserved in its purity and simplicity.
2. The Death of Christ Is Unique.
Not only is Christ’s death without a parallel in all human history both as to the way it was endured and as to the measureless achievement said to have been wrought by it, but it was a voluntary crucifixion. He offered no resistance, for He had said: “No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18). It is far from natural for one who is innocent to an infinite degree to project himself into a felon’s death. Of no other could it be said that he is God’s Lamb taking away the sin of the world, or that it pleased Jehovah to bruise him, and that Jehovah “laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6, 10). The philosophies of men are no more qualified to penetrate into this the most crucial of all divine undertakings than they are prepared to penetrate into the realm of infinity or into the Person of God. Nevertheless, the burden laid on the theologian is in evidence here as elsewhere. His is the task of systematizing and interpreting the precise revelation God has given. Mere speculation is debarred; yet, in spite of this obvious truth, very much of the literature bearing on the meaning of the death of Christ is permeated with human conjecture.
3. Its Extent.
The almost universal disposition to restrict the value of Christ’s death to the one truth that it is a ransom or redemption from sin leads unavoidably to various errors. That His death is the ground of imputed righteousness and justification, that it is the basis on which a Christian may be forgiven and may walk in divine enablement, that it provides eternal blessedness for Israel, that it is the foundation on which an oncoming sinless eternity will rest, or that, objectively, it means more to God than it means to all men and angels combined seem never to have occurred to many inventors of theories respecting the value of Christ’s death. It is evident that a theory which comprehends no more than the forgiveness of sin—as glorious as that truth may be—will be more given to error than to truth.
4. Its Three Directions.
The problem of sin when restricted to unregenerate men is met by the death of Christ and that value points objectively in three directions—a redemption toward sin, a reconciliation toward man, and a propitiation toward God. Though all originates in God, it yet remains true that He who originates both provides and receives a ransom; that He who originates both provides and acknowledges His own Lamb as the One to bear away sin, thus providing a reconciliation; and that He who originates provides, by Christ’s death, that through which He Himself is propitiated. Though rationalism condemns these truths as being contradictory, they are the very heart of the divine revelation regarding the saving work and grace of God. It is but another instance added to many already encountered in which revelation surpasses reason, and the devout soul may know by simple faith what he otherwise could never know.
It hardly need be indicated that a theory which purports to set forth the value of Christ’s death, and yet omits any part or parts of this threefold division of Christ’s work upon the cross, can only mislead and deceive.
5. Divine Satisfaction through Christ's Death Is Not Personal Salvation.
The satisfaction respecting the divine judgments against sin which Christ provided in His death does not in itself constitute the salvation of those for whom He died. The unsaved are forgiven and justified not at the time of the cross nineteen hundred years ago, but when they believe; and the saved who sin are not forgiven and cleansed on the date of Calvary, but when they confess. Regardless of the truth that the disposition to believe, in the one case, and to confess, in the other case, is wrought in the individual heart by the Holy Spirit, it yet remains true that these transforming blessings are conditioned on what is declared to be the elective choice of men. That treatment of the doctrine of satisfaction which invests it with such absolute provisions as to necessitate the salvation of those for whom Christ died without regard for the element of human responsibility is but another rationalistic deduction, and one grounded on a partial revelation and, therefore, like all part-truth, subject to great error.
6. Type and Antitype.
None who accept the Scriptures as the Word of God can doubt the divine arrangement, purpose, and sanction of the truth as it lies paralleled between type and antitype. Since so much typology pertains to the death of Christ, this peculiar body of truth must be given its full import if the full value of Christ’s death is to be recognized. That it is omitted from practically all theological discussion regarding Christ’s death is a self-evident fact and the effect of its neglect is obvious.
7. Theories May Be Questioned.
Strictly speaking, there could be no theory relative to the value of Christ’s death. That death is a fact and the Bible asserts its manifold effectiveness. Human speculation is ever active and reason has raised its objections to everv divine revelation. That a deep mystery is present in the greatest of all divine undertakings should be no surprise or cause for distress to devout minds. The heart of man—however much it may be disciplined—can and should do no more than to believe the record God has given concerning His Son. The careful study of all that is revealed to the end that its true message may be comprehended, is certainly enjoined (2 Tim 2:15); but rationalistic arguments which contradict revelation are foreign to a true theological method.
II. Historical Record.
The multiplied and complex views respecting the value of Christ’s death which have obtained within the Christian era may be divided into three time-periods: (a) from the beginning of the era to Anselm (1100), (b) from Anselm to Grotius (1600), and (c) from Grotius to the present time.
1. From the Beginning to Anselm.
It appears that no very definite attempt was made by men of the early church to formulate a doctrine relative to the value of Christ’s death. The teachings of Christ and the Apostles were received in simplicity of faith. The following from the Epistle of Barnabas (c. vii) will serve to indicate the belief of the men of earlier days: “If therefore the Son of God, who is Lord [of all things], and who will judge the living and the dead, suffered, that His stroke might give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could not have suffered except for our sakes.” To this may be added a quotation from the Epistle to Diognetus: “When our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment, and death was impending over us, and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and love—how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us—He himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave us His own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the Blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous, the Incorruptible One for the corruptible, the Immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other One was it possible that we, the wicked and the ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectations that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single Righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” (c. ix).
However, it was held from an early time and almost universally, in spite of voices raised against it, that the ransom which Christ provided was paid to Satan. Previously it has been pointed out in this work that the death of Christ accomplished the judgment of Satan (John 12:31; 16:11; Col 2:14, 15), that Satan is the mighty foe who opened not the house of his prisoners (Isa 14:17) and who was defeated by Christ in His death to the extent that Christ “opened the prison to them that are bound” (Isa 61:1). It is evident that such Scriptures as these particular ones were given an exceedingly important place in the early days of the church. Here, as is so often recorded in all centuries of church history, confusion arises from the assumption that Christ wrought but one thing in His death. Satan and his angels were judged, but the value of Christ’s death is not restricted to that truth, nor is it one to be given the important place. Most certainly there is no basis for the notion that Christ paid a ransom to Satan for the redemption of lost men. As an illustration of the protest which certain men raised against this unfounded conception, the following from Gregory Nazianzen is cited: “To whom, and on what account, was the blood which was shed on our behalf poured out, that precious and illustrious blood of Him who was God, and both High Priest and Sacrifice? We were held fast by the devil since we were sold as slaves under sin, and had purchased pleasure by vice. If, now, the price of redemption is given only to him who has possession of the captives, then I ask, To whom was this ransom given, and on what ground? To the evil one? Oh, what a monstrous outrage! Then the robber received not merely a ransom from God, but received God Himself as the price of our redemption! Magnificent wages for his tyranny, on the payment of which justice required him to spare us! If, however, the ransom was paid to the Father, how, in the first place, can this be? for it was not God who had possession of us. And, in the second place, for what reason should the blood of His only begotten Son give any satisfaction to the Father, who did not even accept Isaac when his father [Abraham] offered him, but changed the sacrifice of a rational being into that of a ram? Is it not clear that the Father received the sacrifice, not because He Himself demanded or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe…and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the Son of God?”[2]
2. From Anselm to Grotius.
The writing of Cur Deus Homo by Anselm abruptly changed much in earlier opinion. Anselm contended that the creature has wronged the Creator with His sovereign rights of ownership in that which He has made, and that a ransom was paid to God. The idea here borders closely upon the truth of divine propitiation, and is, again, an almost exclusive emphasis upon one aspect of truth. The following quotations from Cur Deus Homo will indicate the positive character of Anselm’s reasoning, who is deemed to be the framer of the doctrine of satisfaction: “Sin is nothing else than not to render to God His due… The entire will of a rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God…. He who does not render to God this honor which is due to Him, robs God of what is His own, and dishonours God; and this is what it is to sin… Every one who sins [is] bound to pay back the honour of which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner is bound to pay to God (c. xi)… Nothing is less tolerable in the order of things than that a creature should rob his Creator of the honour due to Him and not repay Him that of which he robs Him…. If nothing be more great or good than God, nothing can be more just than that which preserves His honour in the disposing of events, even the Supreme Justice, which is nothing else than God Himself…. That God should lose His own honour is impossible; for either the sinner of his own will pays what he owes, or God takes it from him against his will. For either man of his own free will exhibits that subjection to God which is due from him, whether by not sinning, or by making amends for his sin, or else God subjects him to Himself by tormenting him against his will, and by this means shows Himself to be his Lord, which the same refuses of his own will to acknowledge” (c. xiii and c. xiv).
Anselm made much of the representative character of Christ as the God-man, emphasizing that it is impossible for fallen man to render satisfaction to God, and that Christ, as the representative man as well as very God, did render that satisfaction as a substitute and thus the satisfaction was rendered both by God who alone could compass so great a requirement and by the Representative Man.
During the period which began with Anselm’s influence, certain other important and closely related subjects were under discussion, one of these being whether Christ actually became the sin which He bore—the sum total of all sinners—or whether, in a forensic sense, He bore the judgment of sin as is foreshadowed in the typical truth that a lamb was efficacious for an individual, as in the case of Abel, or for a family, as in the case of the passover, or for the nation, as in the case of the Day of Atonement. Martin Luther vigorously contended for the idea that Christ became the sin of all men and not merely the bearer of their judgments. In his commentary on Galatians 3:13 he declares: “The doctrine of the gospel (which of all others is most sweet and full of singular consolation) speaketh nothing of our works or of the works of the law, but of the inestimable mercy and love of God towards most wretched and miserable sinners: to wit, that our most merciful Father, seeing us to be oppressed and overwhelmed by the curse of the law, and so to be holden under the same, that we could never be delivered from it by our own power, sent His only Son into the world, and laid upon Him the sins of all men, saying, ‘Be Thou Peter, that denier; Paul, that persecutor, blasphemer, and cruel oppressor; David, that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged upon the cross; and, briefly, be Thou the person which hath committed the sins of all men. See therefore that Thou pay and satisfy for them.’ Here now cometh the law, and saith, I find Him a sinner, and that such a one as hath taken upon Him the sins of all men, and I see no sins else but in Him, therefore let Him die upon the cross; and so he setteth upon Him, and killeth Him. By this means the whole world is purged and cleansed from all sins, and so delivered from death and all evils.”
Another problem which received much consideration was one related to divine freedom as involved in the doctrine of satisfaction. If God must require just and full satisfaction—not being allowed to forgive sin as an act of sovereign leniency—is not His own freedom restricted and the exercise of His mercy limited? Turretin (1682) contended that God’s relation to fallen man is not private; it involves public interests which cannot be disregarded if the government of God is to stand.
The Socinians, in defense of their rationalistic interpretation of the value of Christ’s death, contended that if Christ actually rendered satisfaction to God for fallen men then those for whom Christ died would be automatically saved by that death, which is universalism. An answer to that challenge was the theory of a limited redemption, which asserts that Christ died only for the elect, or for those who were, according to God’s purpose, to be saved. Since this important question must yet receive extended treatment at a later time, it will not be pursued at this point.
3. From Grotius to the Present Time.
The Rectoral or Governmental Theory of the value of Christ’s death was originated by Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) of Leyden, Holland. This theory, yet to be discussed more fully, has held a strong influence over men of liberal minds, and has been, since its introduction, about the only competitor against the time-honored doctrine of Satisfaction, which doctrine, though formulated by Anselm first, has been the accepted belief of the church in all her generations.
III. Theories in General.
Certain more or less well-defined theories or human philosophies have been set forth which attempt to explain that which Christ accomplished in His death. Each of these, in turn, has been subject to variations and modifications corresponding to the idea which any individual might wish to incorporate into a given scheme. Some writers have sought, even at great length, to list these theories. In the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge,[3] Dr. B. B. Warfield presents the following five-fold classification of these theories: “(1) Theories which conceive of the work of Christ as terminating upon Satan, so affecting him as to secure the release of souls held in bondage by him. (2) Theories which conceive of the work of Christ as terminating physically upon man, so affecting him by an interior and hidden working upon him into participation with the one life of Christ; the so-called ‘Mystical Theories.’ (3) Theories which conceive of the work of Christ as terminating on him inducements to action, so affecting man as to lead him to a better knowledge of God, or to a more lively sense of his real relation to God, or to a revolutionary change of heart and life with reference to God; the so-called ‘moral influence theories.’ (4) Theories which conceive of the work of Christ as terminating on both man and God, but on man primarily and on God only secondarily…the so-called ‘rectoral or governmental theories.’ (5) Theories which conceive of the work of Christ as terminating primarily on God and secondarily on man…. This theory supposes that our Lord, by sympathetically entering into our condition…so keenly felt our sins as His own, that He could confess and adequately repent of them before God; and this is all the expiation justice asks…the so-called ‘middle theory’ of the atonement.”
As a further preparation for a right understanding of various theories regarding the value of Christ’s death, certain schemes which assign little or no importance to the work of Christ should be identified by every student of Soteriology. Among these and quite unique in its claims is Universalism. With a positiveness that exceeds the Satisfactionists, this system declares that the whole race was ruined by sin. It also claims that Christ died for all men in the most absolute sense and that no other step is needed. All men are saved by the death of Christ. By some this salvation is made to extend to fallen angels, including Satan. Likewise schemes are proposed which claim that men may be forgiven by the sovereign act of God. This conception exists in the minds of multitudes and is the natural result of careless forms of preaching and writing which cast the unsaved directly on the mercy of God without reference to the imperative truth that divine mercy is possible only by and through the death of Christ as Redeemer, Reconciler, and Propitiator. The Scripture does not say: “Believe on the mercy of God and be saved”; it rather asserts: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” That the sinful, whether lost or saved, whether of the old order or of the new, are never forgiven apart from the blood of Christ, or that which typified it, is the constant teaching of the Bible. It is well stated in Hebrews 9:22, “And without shedding of blood is no remission.” This notion of forgiveness by divine generosity is not only indifferent to the value of Christ’s death, but disregards the issues respecting the divine Person and government which that death so perfectly protects. This notion also fails to recognize that, if one soul were ever forgiven one sin by the sovereign act of God apart from the righteous ground provided by Christ in His death, a principle is being introduced which would make it possible for God to forgive all sin by a sovereign act and by so much render the death of Christ unnecessary. It is this same loose thinking which assumes that the sovereign love of God may be depended upon to keep souls from eternal perdition; yet no soul may ever be saved from perdition apart from the work of Christ. In this latter point the Universalists are more consistent than those who magnify sovereign forgiveness. The Scripture most depended upon by the advocates of the idea of forgiveness by sovereignty is the parable of the “prodigal son.” In that parable there is no efficacious blood, no regeneration, and no exercise of faith. There is confession and forgiveness such as is accorded a son being restored to the Father’s fellowship; and that forgiveness, elsewhere it is assured, always rests upon the blood of Christ (cf. 1 John 1:7, 9).
Out of the welter of human opinion and the din of conflicting voices the Word of God brings a clear assurance regarding the value of Christ’s death. However, several theories are to be considered specifically and the first three with brevity.
1. The Marturial Theory.
The appeal of the marturial theory is to the effect that the moral disability of man can be encouraged by Christ’s death as a martyr, and likewise by His resurrection. It is asserted that Christ died as a martyr to the truth He taught and the life He lived, that by His death He gave the ultimate confirmation to His doctrine, and that by His death He demonstrated His own sincerity. The theory lacks a recognition of the necessity of sacrifice and may well be classed with those schemes which avoid any reference to objective expiation. It is clearly taught in the New Testament that Christ’s death was wholly voluntary. The words of Christ are a final refutation of the marturial theory: “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day” (Matt 16:21); “No man taketh it [life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (John 10:18). It is also recorded that when He died He, as the Sovereign of life, dismissed His own spirit: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost” (Luke 23:46). Only the ethical aspect of Christ’s teachings as they bear on the present life and the life to come are in view in such a theory; these are made more effective, it is claimed, by a martyr’s death.
2. The Moral Influence Theory.
This scheme of doctrine was originated by Faustus Socinus (1539–1604) and became a distinguishing belief of his followers. The theory asserts that the value of Christ’s death is not objectively toward God, but fulfills its purpose in human salvation through the influence that such a death exerts on the daily life of men. It aims at reformation, with no thought of regeneration in its Biblical sense. To the last degree this scheme should be classified with others that attempt no worthy recognition of the value of Christ’s death. All of Christ’s life, His teachings, His mighty works, His death, His resurrection, and His ascension are made to serve but one objective purpose, namely, to exert a moral influence over men. The theory lends itself to a great variety of ideas, but its essential principle is unchanged. Modern Unitarians, being the nearest representatives of the Socinian views, more nearly perpetuate the moral influence theory than any others of the present day. The advocates of this theory have never been concerned to interpret the teachings of the Bible. It is recognized by all students of the Scriptures that the death of Christ does have its effect on the lives of those who are saved. No text declares this more clearly than 2 Corinthians 5:15, which states: “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”
A theory closely related to the moral influence theory and to be classed with it contends that the death of Christ was an expression of the sympathy of God for the sinner. An illustration used by the ones who preach this idea is of a mother leaning over the cradle of her sick child, and there is more pain manifest on her face through sympathy than is manifest on the face of the suffering child; but Christ did not die merely to become a companion of men who die. He died that men might not have to die. He does not merely hold their hand while they suffer the judgments of their sins; rather He bore the penalty that they might never have it to bear.
3. The Identification Theory.
This estimation of the value of the death of Christ may be stated in few words: It is declared by those who defend this idea that Christ so identified Himself with men as to be able to represent them before God, and thus to confess their sins and to repent in their behalf. It is obvious that the essential element of expiation is not included and that God, again, is supposed to be justified in forgiving sovereignly those who repent, whether it be their own act or the act of another identified with them.
Dallas, Texas
Notes
- The Atonement, pp. 299, 300, 309, 310.
- OperaCologne, 1680: Vol. I, pp. 691-92.
- Vol. I, pp. 349-56.
No comments:
Post a Comment