Soteriology, Part 3

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

The Savior

A. The Person of the Savior

III. Christ’s Sonships

As a further step in the general investigation as to who the Savior is, consideration should be given to the sonships which He sustained while here on earth. There are four.

1. The Son of God.

Various theories which contend that Christ was: (a) the Son of God by virtue of His incarnation—a Being comprising in Himself both Deity and humanity and who could not have merited the title either as God alone or as man alone; (b) that He was Son of God by virtue of His resurrection; or (c) that He was Son of God by mere title or official position, break down before the volume of Biblical testimony which asserts that He was Son of God from all eternity. It is not a question of the eternal existence of the Second Person, but rather as to whether the sonship feature was a reality in all eternity past. Not all that enters into the human conception of father and son relationship is represented between the First and Second Persons of the Godhead. In no sense is the Second Person inferior to the First Person. They are One as to eternal existence, and as to every attribute and capacity. It is almost wholly in the sphere of manifestation—the Logos character—that the sonship of the Second Person is exercised. It is true that He, for the purposes of incarnation and redemption, assumed while here on earth a place of subjection to the First Person, and that He was pleased to work in the power of the Third Person; but this subordination enters in no way into the truth of His Sonship. The theological term eternal generation implies that without beginning or ending, the Second Person is the manifestation of the Godhead. It is thus that the “only begotten Son” hath declared God to man (John 1:18). The Son said, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world” (cosmos—John 17:6. Cf. 1 John 1:2; 4:9). He was Only Begotten in the uniqueness of His begetting. In like manner, He was First Begotten, being first in point of time, as well as in His essential Being, above all others begotten. God gave to the world for its salvation Him who ever was His Son. The One who was given did not become a son by the process of being given; but was a son before and when He was given. Isaiah declares, “For unto us a child is born,” which relates to His humanity; and “Unto us a son is given,” which not only relates to His Deity, but implies that, though a child born, He is a son, not born, but given. After the same manner it is announced that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” As He was and what He was, such indeed, was that Gift which was given, namely, The Son of God.

2. The Son of Man.

This aspect of Christ’s sonship is, with due sanction, also termed The Son of Adam, or The Son of Mary. The Son of man title, used about eighty times in the New Testament, was Christ’s own almost universal designation for Himself, and its primary significance is of His humanity. In several notable instances, the appellation Son of man is used in association with divine undertaking; as, in like manner, the appellation The Son of God is used a few times in association with human features. An interesting question arises at this point as to why Christ placed a striking emphasis upon that name for Himself which so clearly designates His humanity. Could it be that, from the divine viewpoint—and quite outside the range of human appraisals, the element which was new, and therefore to be made impressive, was His humanity? The statement, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), indicates the beginning of an eternal reality in Christ. What is true as to His incarnation is equally true as to His association with His people, since they, being in Him, can never be separated from Him. The two facts, then, of His humanity and of His identification with His people cannot but demand a supreme recognition both on earth and in heaven. To the same end it will be seen that the redemption which Christ supplies is made possible through His humanity, and, though there is no redemption apart from both His Deity and His humanity, the Deity, being from everlasting, is not the immediate theme for public proclamation. It is The Son of man that has come to seek and to save that which is lost (Luke 19:10).

Of the title The Son of man, Dr. C. I. Scofield writes thus in a footnote under Matthew 8:20 in The Scofield Reference Bible: “Our Lord thus designates Himself about eighty times. It is His racial name as the representative Man, in the sense of 1 Cor 15:45–47; as Son of David is distinctively His Jewish name, and Son of God His divine name. Our Lord constantly uses this term as implying that His mission (e.g., Matt 11:19; Luke 19:10), His death and resurrection (e.g. Matt 12:40; 20:18; 26:2), and His second coming (e.g. Matt 24:37–44; Luke 12:40), transcended in scope and result all merely Jewish limitations. When Nathanael confesses Him as ‘King of Israel,’ our Lord’s answer is, ‘Thou shalt see greater things…the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.’ When His messengers are cast out by the Jews, His thought leaps forward to the time when the Son of man shall come, not then to Israel only but to the race (Matt 10:5, 6 with v. 23). It is in this name, also, that universal judgment is committed to Him (John 5:22, 27). It is also a name indicating that in Him is fulfilled the O.T. foreview of blessing through a coming man (Gen 1:26, note; 3:15; 12:3; Ps 8:4; 80:17; Isa 7:14; 9:6, 7; 32:2; Zech 13:7).” Similarly, under Ezekiel 2:1 Dr. Scofield states: “‘Son of man,’ used by our Lord of Himself seventy-nine times, is used by Jehovah ninety-one times when addressing Ezekiel. (1) In the case of our Lord the meaning is clear: it is His racial name as the representative Man in the sense of 1 Cor 15:45–47. The same thought, implying transcendence of mere Judaism, is involved in the phrase when applied to Ezekiel. Israel had forgotten her mission (Gen 11:10, note; Ezek 5:5–8). Now, in her captivity, Jehovah will not forsake His people, but He will remind them that they are but a small part of the race for whom He also cares. Hence the emphasis upon the word ‘man.’ The Cherubim ‘had the likeness of a man’ (Ezek 1:5); and when the prophet beheld the throne of God, he saw ‘the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it’ (Ezek 1:26). See Matt 8:20, note; Rev 1:12, 13. (2) As used of Ezekiel, the expression indicates, not what the prophet is in himself, but what he is to God: a son of man (a) chosen, (b) endued with the Spirit, and (c) sent of God. All this is true also of Christ who was, furthermore, the representative man—the head of regenerate humanity” (Ibid.).

3. The Son of David.

The theme of Christ’s kingship has received previous, though partial, consideration. Extended investigation into the Davidic Covenant, with all that the name Son of David connotes, must await a fuller treatment under Eschatology. Like the term Messiah, the designation Son of David is wholly Jewish in its import. As Christ is Lord and Head over the Church, so He is King and Messiah over Israel. Later, indeed, He will be King of kings, but that supreme authority will be exercised from the Davidic throne and in connection with His immediate relation to Israel.

4. The Son of Abraham.

Though the Davidie sonship is restricted to David’s house and David’s people, the Abrahamic sonship extends to “all the families of the earth,” in whose redemption they are blessed (Gen 12:3). It is significant that the order of truth in the Gospel by Matthew is indicated in the opening verse, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” This gospel of the King is primarily of His relation to Israel (Matt 10:5–7; 15:24, 26 ); but, following His rejection, He turns to that redemptive work described in the closing chapters of this Gospel, and in this redemptive service Christ—the Son of Abraham—procures blessings for all the families of the earth (Matt 28:18–20).

IV. The Hypostatic Union

The uniqueness of the incomparable Person who is the Savior, as has been indicated, is exhibited in His union in His one Person of two natures. He is Deity in the full and absolute sense. In this He is comparable to the Father and to the Spirit. Notwithstanding, He took upon Himself a perfect and complete human nature, and in this respect He was comparable to unfallen Adam, and to other men—except for the injury which sin imposes. That, then, which isolates the God-man from all other beings—whether it be in the Godhead Three, or in the realm of created beings—, is this union of two natures in one Person. None other of such character has ever existed, and none other will exist; for no need for such could ever arise. He is the eternal satisfaction of all that requires such a union.

In coming to know Christ as enjoined by the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:18) and thus to be gaining conviction as to who it is who undertakes the salvation of men, the mind must ever be alert to recognize both His Deity and His humanity. All thought of this Theanthropic Person must be adjusted to the presence in Him of that latitude of Being which completes an uncomplicated participation on His part in two spheres—Deity and humanity. Both of these natures were present in every moment of His existence, beginning with His birth of the Virgin Mary; but it is evident that, when considering any particular act or utterance of Christ’s, such will be found to arise either from His divine nature or from His human nature, but in no instance will such action or utterance arise from a combined action of these two natures. It is recognized that theologians differ widely as to their beliefs on this particular point. Probably there are situations presented which defy any final analysis by finite minds; yet much light may be gained by any thoughtful reader of the Gospels, and this investigation will take the student far along in the never-ending procedure of coming to know the Savior. Since the two natures which together constitute the One and only Theanthropic Person are distinct, the Spirit of God, in bringing to the believer’s attention the things of Christ (John 16:14), is pleased to make the Savior more real to those who preserve with utmost care the recognition of these two natures which are, in themselves, as dissimilar as are things infinite and things finite.

Conclusion.

Having reached the termination of this somewhat extended investigation as to who the Savior is, this thesis may now proceed to the contemplation of the next theme under the first major division of Soteriology, namely, The sufferings and death of Christ.

V. The Sufferings of Christ

Introduction.

As Moses, in the presence of the burning bush, was commanded to remove the shoes from off his feet since he stood on holy ground, thus, and in like manner, an approach should be made, with such a degree of holy awe and reverence as may be possible to those who are subject to human limitations, to the mysterious, sublime, and solemn revelation concerning the sufferings and death of Christ. On the plea that they transcend the range of human understanding, it would be easy to relinquish all attempts to penetrate into these inscrutable and unfathomable verities, were it not for the fact that the theme is so extended as set forth in the Bible—first by type and later by antitype. It is necessary to conclude, since it is thus set forth, that it is the divine purpose that these aspects of truth shall be pursued with intent and zeal, and be as much comprehended as it shall please the Spirit of God to reveal them to the waiting, attentive heart. The theme sweeps the broadest field of reality. On the one hand, the theme of the sufferings and death of Christ reaches out to the solution of the greatest problem of the universe itself whereas, on the other hand, it reaches down to the level of the lowliest among men. It is also asserted that He who suffered and died learned, or entered experimentally into, obedience through the things which He suffered (Heb 5:8; Phil 2:8). Thus, also—and strangely indeed—, He was perfected as an efficient Savior (Heb 2:10), and, having been thus tested, He is able to succor them that are tested (Heb 2:18). The individual heart may rejoice with eternal joy over the truth that its own needs are answered in the sufferings and death of Christ; but it is well to remember that the solution of the problem of the universe is in itself an achievement as much greater in extent than the issues related to the individual as the universe exceeds the interests of a single person. There are features in each case which relate themselves to infinity; but: one exceeds the other by knowledge-surpassing magnitude, and what may be said of all that lies in between these extremes of mass benefits such as redemption of Israel the purchase of the Church by His precious blood, the judgment of principalities and powers, and that marvelous achievement by which the eternal and holy God is free to satisfy the compassion of His own heart toward a lost world? The challenge of this inexhaustible thesis is yet further extended when it is remembered that the Theanthropic Person who suffered and died is none other than “God manifest in the flesh.” It was God who suffered and it was the blood of God that was shed (Acts 20:28).

The fact that the sufferings and death of Christ reach out to the universe and into the restricted sphere of the immediate need of one human life in but one of its testings, impels the devout mind to the query as to why so great a need could have ever arisen. The need is apparent and its answer in Christ’s sacrifice is perfect; but why should such a need arise in a universe which God has created as holy as Himself and as holy as are all the works of His hands—a universe over which He is supreme and ever must be? In this connection, it is equally as perplexing to note the truth that the intrusion of sin into the universe was, as He foreknew, to cost Him the greatest of all sacrifices that even God could make—the death of His Son. The evangel that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3) is indeed wonderful, but the Bible does not limit the purpose of Christ’s death to the need of a human soul. There are larger issues in the Word of God, and to these consideration must be given. That evil would become a reality and need to be judged was clearly anticipated in the mind of God from all eternity; for, in the divine purpose, Christ was a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). Sin was in anticipation and is in reality of such a nature that only the sufferings and death of Christ could answer its claims. If God could have saved a sinner from one sin by a mere release, discharge, or leniency, then He might have temporized with the problem of the universe and spared Himself the immeasurable sacrifice of His Son; but neither the problem of one sin in one life nor the problem of a universe could be answered apart from that sacrifice. When entering upon the contemplation of the sufferings and death of Christ, it is important that this truth respecting its necessity should be emphasized.

Though there is immeasurable inequality as to their importance, the general theme of the sufferings and death of Christ is divided into (a) His sufferings in life, and (b) His sufferings in death. In that order these themes are to be considered.

1. Sufferings in Life.

Far beyond the mere fact of Christ’s sufferings in various ways during His ministry of three and a half years is the theological importance of those sufferings. Importance first, because of the typical significance of those sufferings, and, second, because they have been overstressed in a number of respects; being supposed to achieve what is plainly not designed for them.

In type, the paschal lamb was proven to be without blemish by being confined—a symbol of suffering—from the tenth day of the month to the fourteenth (Exod 12:3, 6). Thus, also, the life sufferings of Christ served to give full proof of His sinless character, even in the midst of manifold testings; for He was “in all points tested like as we are”—apart from the sin nature (Heb 4:15). Though unrelated to this immediate theme, it is also to be observed that the four days of confinement of the paschal lamb typified the truth that Christ was “foreordained before the foundation of the world” and was “manifest in these last times for you” (1 Pet 1:20).

The life sufferings of Christ—too often misrepresented—are well classified as (a) sufferings due to His character; (b) sufferings due to His compassion; and (c) sufferings due to His anticipation of the supreme ordeal of His sacrificial death. However, before these three aspects of life sufferings are taken up separately, it should be noted that in none of them, or in any other feature of Christ’s life, did He undertake any aspect of that work upon which the salvation of a soul depends. Only dire confusion of doctrine results when it is not conceded that, whatever His life-ministry under divine appointment may have been, the finished work did not begin until He came to the cross, and that work was consummated when He died. The distinctive, efficacious character of the doctrinal aspect of the sufferings of Christ in death cannot be preserved from confusion unless this division of truth is observed.

a. Sufferings Due to His Holy Character.

If Lot’s righteous soul was vexed by seeing and hearing the unlawful deeds of the dwellers in Sodom (2 Pet 2:7, 8), how much more distressed was the spotless Son of God in the midst of the moral darkness and corruption of fallen men! Such suffering could be estimated only by One who is infinite purity and holiness; yet there is no saving value in these sufferings. What He suffered because of His holiness finds no parallel with His sufferings in death. In the one instance, the unique purity of His holy nature was offended, yet preserved in the midst of surrounding evil. In the other instance, He took the sinner’s place and was Himself “made sin,” even He who knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21). All that evil men or Satan might inflict upon Him in is lifetime was suffered because of His own holy character. Had He been one with fallen humanity and in league with the enemy of God, there would have been no occasion for Him to suffer in this respect. This truth is the basis of His warning to His own, who, as He was, are now in this cosmos-world. He said to them, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you. The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they have kept my sayings, they will keep yours also” (John 15:18–20). At no time in Christ’s earth ministry could it be implied that He was forsaken of His Father. But once, and only once, did He cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Only inattention will assume that Christ was bearing sin as a substitute at any other time than those darkest hours of Calvary. On the contrary, the voice from heaven, both at His baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration, declared that in Him—the Son—there was infinite pleasure. Though Christ always did His Father’s will—even in death—, He was not always making His soul “an offering for sin” (Isa 53:10). The precise line of division between the life sufferings and the death sufferings is not easy to determine. In Isaiah 53, all that enters into His death as the immediate preparation for it, is included. He is there said to be wounded, bruised, chastised, and subject to stripes by which there is healing.[1] In the minds of those who, inflicted the death-sufferings of Christ, it is probable that the scourging, the buffeting, the spitting, and the crown of thorns, like the nails and the spear, were but parts of the whole project. If this be true, the stripes are included in the death-sufferings and it would be without controversy that “by his stripes we are healed.”

b. Sufferings Due to Christ's Compassion.

Christ was in every respect the manifestation of the Father (John 1:18). The Psalmist declares, “Like as a father pitieth h children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him” (103:13), and in this the Lord Jesus Christ was a perfect representation of the Father’s heart. All His miracles of healing and restoration were prompted by His Compassion. In Matthew 8:16, 17 it is written: “When the was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” Much error is abroad because of a form of teaching which avers that Christ when healing was bearing as a substitute the diseases of those whom He healed. It is true that Matthew relates the physical healing described in this text to Isaiah, chapter 53, but a careful examination of this chapter will disclose that Isaiah refers to both the life-sufferings of Christ (vss. 1–4a), and the death-sufferings (vss. 4b—12). The turning point is in verse 4 and is marked by the word yet, which verse reads: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” If this division be accepted, the bearing of disease and sickness, reported in Matthew 8:16, 17, which is there based on Isaiah 53:4, belongs to His life-sufferings, and is wholly in the realm of His compassion; which compassion, due to His infinite perfection, was beyond human measurement. Isaiah 53:4a was fulfilled by Christ when He, moved by this boundless compassion, healed those who came before Him. Not all the sufferers in that land or in the world were healed by Him, and no such offer is ever extended to them. Compassion naturally is drawn out toward those immediately observed. None could deny the reality of physical healing on the part of God today, but it is properly based on His compassion for His own, and not on the death-sufferings of Christ.

c. Sufferings Due to Anticipation.

The anticipation of the cross was constantly before Christ. The words, “For this cause came I unto this hour”. (John 12:27), are but one of His recorded forward looks into the dark shadow which was before Him. His predictions concerning His own death (Matt 16:21; 17:12, 22, 23; Mark 9:30–32; Luke 9:31, 44, etc.), the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper, the cup to be emptied, and the sufferings of Gethsemane all belong to His sufferings in anticipation. On this aspect of Christ’s sufferings, Mr. C. H. Mackintosh in his Notes on Leviticus states, “We find the dark shadow of the cross casting itself athwart His path, and producing a very keen order of suffering, which, however, must be as clearly distinguished from His atoning suffering, as either His suffering for righteousness, or His suffering by sympathy. Let us take a passage, in proof—’And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation. And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground’ (Luke xxii.39–44). Again, we read, ‘And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me…he went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, thy will be done’ (Matt xxvi.37–42). From these verses, it is evident, there was a something, in prospect, which the blessed Lord had never encountered before,—there was a ‘cup’ being filled out for Him of which He had not yet drunk. If He had been a sin-bearer all His life, then, why this intense ‘agony’ at the thought of coming in contact with sin and enduring the wrath of God on account of sin? What was the difference between Christ, in Gethsemane, and Christ, at Calvary, if He were a sin-bearer all His life? There was a material difference; but it is because He was not a sin-bearer all His life. What is the difference? In Gethsemane, He was anticipating the cross; at Calvary, He was actually enduring it. In Gethsemane, ‘there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him’; at Calvary, He was forsaken of all. There was no angelic ministry there. In Gethsemane, He addressed God as ‘Father,’ thus enjoying the full communion of that ineffable relationship; but at Calvary, He cries, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ Here the Sin-bearer looks up, and beholds the throne of eternal Justice enveloped in dark clouds, and the countenance of Inflexible Holiness averted from Him, because He was being ‘made sin for us.’“[2]

At this point occasion demands that a return be made to the subject of Christ’s baptism because of the fact that His baptism is too often deemed to be an act of Christ’s which identified Him as Sin-Bearer with those He came to save. This conclusion is based on the conception of water baptism that makes it signify the death of Christ rather than the all-transforming baptizing work of the Spirit, supposing that, by His baptism, Christ anticipated His death-sufferings and was in the act of baptism taking His place with sinners. In harmony with this, it is believed that Christ received “John’s baptism.” It is true He was baptized by John, but it is not true that He received what is identified in the New Testament as John’s baptism, which was a well-defined, specific baptism unto repentance and unto the remission of sin. The following from George Smeaton[3] serves to illustrate the manner in which this theory is usually set forth: “Impurity of His own He had none. But He had truly entered into humanity, and come within the bonds of the human family; and, according to the law, the person who had but touched an unclean person, or had been in contact with him, was unclean. Hence, in submitting Himself to baptism as Mediator in an official capacity, the Lord Jesus virtually said, ‘Though sinless in a world of sinners, and without having contracted any personal taint, I come for baptism; because, in my public or official capacity, I am a debtor in the room of many, and bring with Me the sin of the whole world, for which I am the propitiation.’ He was already atoning for sin, and had been bearing it on His body since He took the flesh; and in this mediatorial capacity promises had been made to Him as the basis of His faith, and as the ground upon which His confidence was exercised at every step.” Over against this, the words of Dr. James W. Dale[4] serve to discover the weakness and error of the contention that Christ was baptized by “John’s baptism”: “It is one thing to be baptized by John, and quite another thing to receive the ‘baptism of John.’ Therefore, while the Scriptures teach us that Jesus came to the Jordan to be baptized by John, they do not teach us that he came to receive John’s baptism. Indeed it is impossible, in any just aspect of the case, that he could have received it. Whatever involves an absurdity must be impossible and untrue. That an absurdity is involved in such supposition is thus shown: ‘The baptism of John’ was for sinners; demanding ‘repentance,’ ‘fruits meet for repentance,’ and promising ‘the remission of sins.’ But the Lord Jesus Christ was not a sinner, could not repent of sin, could not bring forth fruit meet for repentance on account of sin, could not receive the remission of sin. Therefore the reception of ‘the baptism of John’ by Jesus is impossible, untrue, and absurd. Again: The baptism of John was ‘to prepare a people for the Lord.’ But to address such a baptism to the Lord (preparing the Lord for himself) is absurd. Therefore the reception of John’s baptism by the Lord Jesus is impossible, untrue, and absurd. It is just as absurd to suppose that he received this baptism formally but not substantially. A baptism exists only while its essence exists. The essence of John’s baptism is found in its symbolization of purification in the soul through repentance and remission of sin. But in the Lord Jesus there was no basis for such symbolization, and consequently there was no basis for the baptism of John. The idea that John’s baptism could be received representatively is just as impossible. To the glory of God in the highest, the Lord Jesus did ‘bear our iniquities,’ was ‘made sin for us’; but he was not hereby the more qualified to receive John’s baptism. The Lord Jesus did not represent penitent sinners, nor sinners whose iniquities were remitted. He came as the Friend of publicans and sinners, to call sinners to repentance, to give repentance to Israel; there was no adaptation in the baptism of John to such a Sin-Bearer. He must accomplish a baptism for himself; it must be of blood and not of water; ‘without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin’ such as Jesus bore. In his character as Bearer of the sins of others, he neither had nor could have anything to do with John’s baptism.”

Reference is made at this point to Christ’s baptism only because of the fact that His baptism is the event which, as often interpreted, serves more than any other to confuse the issues of Christ’s life and ministry with the issues of His death. It must be recognized that He anticipated His death from the beginning of His public service—as did the Baptist (John 1:29), but no contribution was made to His redeeming, reconciling, and propitiatory work by His baptism. The efficacious work which His Father gave Him to do was inaugurated at the cross; there it was prosecuted, and there it was consummated. If the distinction between that which Christ wrought in His life and that which He wrought in His death—and many are apparently not awake to it—is not observed, only confusion of doctrine will result.

Yet another consideration arises, namely, a distinction which devout men have made between what is termed the active obedience of Christ, and His passive obedience. By the word active they refer to that obedience in which the Savior maintained a perfect rectitude of life, keeping every divine requirement in infinite perfection. By the word passive they refer to that obedience which endured suffering both in life and in death. He not only did not do wrong, but He fulfilled perfectly every right action belonging to man. Later it will be demonstrated that, in His substitution, Christ not only bore the penalty of sin, but also presented His own infinitely perfect character to God. This offering included His earth-life in which He fulfilled all the will of God in the sense that His own character would have been incomplete without it. Similarly, it is asserted by some that His passive obedience entered into every privation which He endured while in this cosmos-world, and by this aspect of His obedience as much as by the death-sufferings, souls are saved. Jonathan Edwards declared that the blood of Christ’s circumcision at eight days old was as efficacious as that which flowed from the thrust of the spear. The weakness of such a claim is exposed in the fact that the Word of God does not assign saving value to any obedience of the sufferings of Christ other than that connected with His death. The declaration that He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil 2:8), intimates that a particular obedience was exhibited, or one peculiar to its own purpose, in the cross. It is true that salvation for sinners depends upon Christ’s passive obedience in His death-sufferings and the offering of Himself without spot to God. Salvation is based on the blood of the cross and not on the blood of circumcision or even the blood which He sweat in the garden. He provided no redemption, reconciliation, or propitiation when circumcised or when baptized.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. There is no reference here to physical healing. According to the Old Testament, healing might be either physical or spiritual. Reference is evidently made in Ps 103:3 to physical healing and in Ps 147:3 to spiritual healing. In Isa 53:5 and its parallel in the New Testament—1 Pet 2:24—the accompanying words employed are all related to things spiritual, namely, transgression, iniquity, peace, dead to sin, and healing. The last, to be in harmony with the context, must relate to healings of the soul. Christ did not bear disease as He bore sin; nor was He made disease as He was made sin. He was made poor that others might be made rich (2 Cor 8:9); but none would assert that, because of that truth, men have temporal riches provided for them in the death of Christ, which riches only wait the faith that claims them. Reference to riches contemplate spiritual riches which do wait on faith to claim them. In the same manner, healing by the stripes which Christ received is spiritual, or that of the soul, and not physical, or that of the body.
2. Pp. 64, 65.
3. The Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 99.
4. Christic and Patristic Baptism, pp. 27,28.