Soteriology, Part 6

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

The Savior

Things Accomplished by Christ in His Sufferings and Death

I. A Substitution for Sinners

4. Substitution with Respect to the Judgment of Sin

A previous paragraph has lent itself to the consideration of the force of the doctrine of substitution as expressed by the words ἀντί and ὑπέρ. This doctrine is not only clearly taught in the Bible, but its truth has done more to engender trust in God for the pardon of sin than all the ethical teachings of Christ, as such, and His life-example combined. It is well to note, also, that it is not the doctrine of Christ’s death for sin but rather the death itself that provides relief to the burdened heart. The study of theories becomes the student of theology, but that which the burdened sinner needs is the truth that Christ actually died in his room and stead.

Perhaps more has been written on the theme of Christ’s death than on any other subject in the Bible. Passages have been classified and analyzed with utmost care. The Biblical assertions are convincing and confirming that “Christ died for our sins; He bare our sins; He was made to be sin for us; He was made a curse for us.” Remission of sin and deliverance from wrath are said to be wholly through His death for sin: “He gave his life a ransom for many.” His death was a redemption, a reconciliation, and a propitiation.

Every objection that human learning could devise has been hurled against these declarations, but to no avail. The truth is self-justifying, and it is difficult indeed to argue against that which always produces the blessing it proffers. In this connection a statement from William Ellery Channing (1780–1842), “the apostle of Unitarianism,” is of interest. He declared, “We have no desire to conceal the fact, that a difference of opinion exists among us (Unitarians) in respect to an interesting part of Christ’s mediation; I mean in regard to the precise influence of his death on our forgiveness. Many suppose that this event contributes to our pardon, as it was a principal means of confirming his religion, and of giving it a power over the mind; in other words, that it procures forgiveness by leading to that repentance and virtue which is the great and only condition on which forgiveness is bestowed. Many of us are dissatisfied with this explanation, and think that the Scriptures ascribe the remission of sins to Christ’s death, with an emphasis so peculiar that we ought to consider this event as having a special influence in removing punishment, though the Scriptures may not reveal the way in which it contributes to this end. Whilst, however, we differ in explaining the connection between Christ’s death and human forgiveness, a connection which we all gratefully acknowledge, we agree in rejecting many sentiments which prevail in regard to His mediation.”[1] The fact that One who demonstrated His Deity, in ways which candid minds cannot reject, came into this world and died a sacrificial death—asserting with unimpeachable truthfulness that it was to the end that men might be saved from their sins, that satisfaction might be made to God, that man might be pardoned and justified on the ground of His death, that in no other way might God’s moral government be upheld—has imposed a body of truth upon the thought of the world which is calculated to become the most dominant factor in their philosophy of life. If it fails to become this, the reason must be sought in the sphere of inattention, or incapacity, or wanton insincerity. It is near dishonesty for men to say, as they have done, that there is not a word in the Bible about the punishment due for our sins having been inflicted by a just God upon His own Son. Nor does it answer the demands of the revealed truth to assert that Christ shared human sin only in sympathy for the sinner, or that He offered some kind of a vicarious confession for the sinner, or that, as a man, He virtually took His share of the consequences of sin as it is in the world. All this suggests the foolishness of 1 Corinthians 1:23.

An extended classification of the passages which bear on that which is accomplished by Christ in His death was prepared in 1871 by Dr. T. J. Crawford in the volume The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement. This analysis is appended herewith.[2]

I. Passages Which Speak of Christ

(1) As dying for sinners.

Matthew 20:28; Luke 22:19a; 22:19b, 20; John 6:51; 10:11, 15, 18; 15:12, 13; Romans 5:6–8; 8:32; 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15; 5:21; Galatians 2:20; 3:13; Ephesians 5:2, 25; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6; Titus 2:13, 14; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 3:16.

(2) As suffering for sins.

Romans 4:25; 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 1:4; Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:18; Isaiah 53:5, 8.

(3) As bearing our sins.

Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:6, 11, 12.

(4) As being "made sin" and "made a curse for us."

2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13.

II. Passages Which Ascribe to the Death of Christ

(1) The removal and remission of sins, and deliverance from their penal consequences.

John 1:29; Hebrews 9:26; Matthew 26:28; 1 John 1:7; Luke 24:46, 47; Acts 10:43; 13:38, 39; Ephesians 1:6, 7; Colossians 1:13, 14; Revelation 1:5, 6; John 3:14–17; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10.

(2) Justification.

Isaiah 53:11; Romans 5:8, 9; 3:24–26 .

(3) Redemption.

Matthew 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 3:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; Revelation 5:9.

(4) Reconciliation to God.

Romans 5:10; 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19; Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 1:21, 22.

III. Passages in Which the Lord Jesus Christ Is Represented

(1) As a Propitiation for sin.

1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; Romans 3:25.

(2) As a Priest.

Psalms 110:4; Hebrews 3:1; 2:17; 10:21; 4:14; 7:26 .

(3) As a Representative.

Hebrews 5:1; 7:22; Romans 5:12, 18, 19; 1 Corinthians 15:20–22, 45–49.

IV. Passages which Represent the Sufferings of Christ

(1) As "sacrificial."

Under this head, “Behold the Lamb of God,” etc., should reappear. To these may be added: 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2; Revelation 7:14, 15; Hebrews 9:22–28; 10:11–14 .

V. Passages which Connect Our Lord's Sufferings with His Intercession

1 Timothy 2:5, 6; 1 John 2:1, 2; Revelation 5:6; already quoted, reappear, and Philippians 2:8, 9, 10.

VI. Passages which Represent the Mediation of Christ

(1) As procuring the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit.

John 7:39; 16:7; 14:16, 17; 15:26; 14:26; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:13, 14; Titus 3:5, 6.

(2) As conferring all Christian graces which are fruits of the Spirit.

John 1:16; 15:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 1:4–7; 1:30; Ephesians 1:3, 4; 2:10; 4:7; Colossians 2:9, 10.

(3) As delivering us from the dominion of Satan.

1 John 3:8; John 12:31, 32; Hebrews 2:14, 15; Colossians 2:15.

(4) As obtaining for us eternal life.

John 3:14, 15; 5:24; 6:40; 6:47; 6:51; 10:27, 28; 14:2, 3; 17:1, 2; Romans 5:20, 21; 6:23; 2 Timothy 2:10; Hebrews 5:9; 9:15; 1 Peter 5:10; 1 John 5:11; Jude 21.

VII. Passages which Indicate the State of the Savior's Mind in the Prospect and in the Endurance of His Sufferings.

John 10:17, 18; Luke 12:50; John 12:27; Matthew 26:36–44; 27:46 .

VIII. Passages which Speak of the Mediation of Christ in Relation

(1) To the free calls and offers of the gospel.

John 14:6; 1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Timothy 2:5; Acts 4:12.

(2) To the necessity of faith in order to obtain the blessings of the gospel.

John 1:12; 3:18; 3:36; 6:35; Acts 13:38, 39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:28; 5:12; 10:4; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:8, 9.

IX. Passages which Speak of the Mediatorial Work and Sufferings of Christ in Relation

(1) To His covenant with the Father.

John 6:38–40; 6:51 .

(2) To His union with believers.

John 15:4; Romans 6:5; 2 Corinthians 4:10; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 2:5, 6; Philippians 3:10; Colossians 2:12; 3:3 .

X. Passages which Speak of the Death of Christ

(1) As a manifestation of the love of God.

John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 8:32; 1 John 4:9, 10.

(2) As furnishing an example of patience and resignation.

Hebrews 12:1–3; 1 Peter 2:20, 21; Luke 9:23, 24.

(3) As designed to promote our sanctification.

John 17:19; Hebrews 10:10; 13:12; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 5:25–27; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24.

It is natural that much that has been written regarding Christ’s first advent should assume that His objective in coming is exhausted in the one purpose that He was to be a sacrifice for sinners. It is thus claimed by not a few that all His sacrifice, even His leaving of heaven, and every privation and rejection, was vicarious in character—that is, it was wrought in behalf of others. No doubt others were benefited, but such sacrifice was not in any sense a substitution, since no other was ever appointed to the path which He pursued. All His life was a sacrifice, but by universal Biblical usage only that sacrifice by which He gave His life on the cross is vicarious and substitutionary. It will be remembered, also, that there was much accomplished in Christ’s first advent in manifesting God, in bringing the nation Israel to trial, and in satisfying the love of God. The sinner gained a benefit; but God gained a benefit of infinite proportions. Similarly, the death of Christ reaches out in its effect to angelic spheres and to heaven itself. Therefore, it is not sufficient to assume that the substitutionary death of Christ for sinners contemplates all that His sufferings and death accomplished. Certain titles suggest the wide scope of Christ’s interests and gracious undertakings. He is the Last Adam, Head, High Priest, Husband, Advocate, Propitiation, Intercessor; but in none of these is He taking the place of another as vicar or substitute.

In the midst of so great and complex a disclosure respecting the relationships and achievements of Christ, none is so constantly emphasized as that of His substitution in suffering and in death for sinners. If this great transaction—the Father offering His Son as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world—were supremely immoral, as some declare (which it is not), it would yet stand on the pages of the Bible more sustained by repeated assertion than almost any other one subject. In other words, the doctrine, of substitution is not only revealed to man by God as His gracious solution of the problem of sin, but is real, leaving but one obligation upon those for whom the Saviour died, which is that they believe. It would be difficult indeed to explain the Saviour’s agony in the garden and on the cross—an agony far exceeding physical torture—if it is contended that sin was not laid on Him. On this aspect of truth Henry Rogers, in his Third Letter on the Atonement, wrote: “And remember, that if you insist on the injustice of God’s inflicting suffering on Christ, for the sins of others, you cannot escape similar difficulty, and greater in degree, on your own system; for, can it be less unjust to inflict such sufferings on Christ for no sins at all? If it be unjust to accept Him as sacrifice for the guilty, how much more unjust must it be to insist on the sacrifice for nothing, and when the victim thrice implored in agony, that, if it were possible, the cup might pass from Him.”[3] The difficulty in accounting for the sufferings and death of Christ is greatly increased when it is considered that He was Himself the holy, undefiled, and spotless Lamb of God. In this there is no receding from the essential truth that Christ became a legal substitute, which undertaking demanded of Him that He meet the judgment due for the failure of those whom He represented. He became the voluntary Bondsman, their Surety (Heb 7:22), meeting their liabilities and providing the required ransom. This is the precise import of the language employed in the Sacred Text. If it be inquired to whom the ransom was paid and whose demands are met by the payment, it is answered that the obligation is to God in respect to His holiness. There is a distinction to be seen between pecuniary and moral obligations; yet the Bible implies that an actual parallel exists between these when it speaks of the sacrifice and blood of Christ as a ransom and a redemption. A debt of obligation to a broken law or offended authority may be as real as a financial debt which is contracted with a fellow being. A criminal in prison, or when executed, is paying the debt he owes to outraged law and government. The basis of all obligation is the duty of the creature to fulfill the purpose and will of the Creator. In this all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. A sinless Substitute purchased the deliverance of sinners (Acts 20:28), He paid the required price (1 Cor 7:23), a ransom (Matt 20:28), and redemption (Eph 1:7). The legal aspect of this revelation is that God required the sinner’s obligation to be met. There could be no receding from this holy demand. The love of God is seen in the fact that Christ voluntarily consented to pay the debt, and in the fact that the Father accepts the payment at the hand of the Substitute. Thus the way of salvation for sinners on the ground of the sufferings and death of the Substitute is established; and, in addition to the indisputable reality which this revelation sets forth, the same truth is vindicated by the unfailing efficacy of it in the experience of those who believe. It is possible to disbelieve and reject God’s provisions for the sinner in the Substitute; but it is puerile to assert that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of substitution. God is “of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity” (Hab 1:13). He rather magnifies the law and makes it honorable (Isa 42:21), and no more perfect upholding of the law of His holy Being could be conceived than is exemplified in the voluntary assumption of a qualified substitute taking on himself the discharge of the sinner’s obligation. The Apostle Paul states: “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead…to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation…. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor 5:14, 19, 21).

The import of these and other Scriptures is not that Christ, in a commercial sense, bore the sin of the world. This would mean that had there been one more sinner His sufferings would have been increased by so much, or had there been one less sinner His sufferings would have been decreased by so much. In a forensic sense Christ made a legal sacrifice for sin the value of which is available for all who believe. Had it pleased God to terminate human sin immediately after the first human sin, it would have required precisely the same sufferings and death on the part of the Savior to save that one sinner from his one sin. On the other hand, the invitation is extended to a lost world of humanity, since Christ has borne the judicial penalty of sin, to receive these provided benefits. On this vital truth, Dr. Augustus H. Strong writes: “Just as much sun and rain would be needed, if only one farmer on earth were to be benefited. Christ would not need to suffer more, if all were to be saved. His sufferings, as we have seen, were not the payment of a pecuniary debt. Having endured the penalty of the sinner, justice permits the sinner’s discharge, but does not require it, except as the fulfillment of a promise to his substitute, and then only upon the appointed condition of repentance and faith, The atonement is unlimited, the whole human race might be saved through it; the application of the atonement is limited, only those who repent and believe are actually saved by it” (Systematic Theology, p. 422). The Biblical illustration of forensic suffering and death is presented in type. A lamb might serve for an individual, as in the case of Abel; a lamb might serve for a family, as was true of the Passover; or a ram might serve for a nation, as on the day of atonement.

The value of the sacrifice is not to be discovered in the intensity of the Savior’s anguish but rather in the dignity and infinite worth of the One who suffers. He did not give more or less; He gave Himself, He offered Himself, but this self was none other than the Second Person of the Godhead in whom measureless dignity and glory reside.

Closely related to the above aspect of the substitutionary death of Christ is that held by earlier theologians, namely, that Christ actually became sin, rather than that He bore its penalty; that is, the actual estate of the Second Person ceased to be holy and became that which a fallen sinner is. What Christ bore or became cannot be measured by man, simply because of the fact that no man is able to contemplate these issues from the vantage point of the spotless Lamb of God. Nevertheless, God not only invites men to be saved by faith in His Lamb but as faithfully declares that the salvation He offers is based on the substitution which Christ undertook—the Just for the unjust. Sin was laid on Him, He was made sin, He bore our sins, His soul was made an offering for sin, and He gave Himself for us (cf. Isa 53:6, 10–12; Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; Heb 9:28; 1 Pet 2:24); thus it becomes man to seek to know all that God has spoken, believing that He means man to understand it and has greatly honored man by such a revelation. Dr. W. Lindsay Alexander, in his System of Biblical Theology,[4] discusses this feature of Soteriology in a manner well suited to this thesis. He writes: “Beginning with those who look upon the atonement of Christ in the light of a legal satisfaction or judicial expiation, I remark that all agree in thinking that the work of Christ derives its worth from the union of the divine and the human natures in His person, and all admit that worth to be not only only supreme, but infinite. There is a difference, however, between certain schools or classes of them as to the nature of the compensation rendered to the divine government and law on our behalf by Christ, His special purpose and intention in offering it, and the consequent extent to which His work was designed to be sufficient. Of these varying shades of opinion we notice the following: (1) That of the Hyper-Calvinists,—a name which has been given, not because those to whom it is attached are regarded as having gone beyond Calvin in their doctrine, but because they carry the views of Calvin on this head to their utmost extent, and hold them with unbending rigidity. a. According to them, the work of Christ was of the nature of a price paid for the release of man from penalties which he had incurred,—a price which bore a fixed and exact relation to the amount of debt which man had incurred by his sins. According to this view, what He rendered was strictly a quid pro quo; there was as much on the one side as on the other; the suffering obedience of the Saviour being an exact equivalent for the sins of the saved, and that not by a solutio tantadem, but by a solutio ejusdem, i.e. not by paying something of equal value of the same kind, but by paying the very thing that was due. This opinion cannot be ascribed to Calvin, who expresses himself in a very general manner as to the satisfaction made for many by Christ. ‘When we say,’ he remarks, ‘that favour was procured for us by the merit of Christ we mean this, that by His blood we have been cleansed, and that His death was an expiation for our sins.’ ‘This I take for granted, that if Christ satisfied for our sins, if He suffered the punishment due to us, if by His obedience He propitiated God, if, in fine, He, the just, suffered for the unjust, then salvation was procured by His righteousness for us, which is equivalent to our having merited it’ (Instit., ii, 17:4, 3). The statements are so general that they might be advanced by any one holding the Satisfaction theory. Among Calvin’s followers, however, both on the Continent and in this country, there were found some by whom the doctrine as above stated was asserted in all its rigidity. Not only was it maintained that Christ became ‘sponsor for those alone who by eternal election had been given to Him, …and them alone did He reconcile unto God’ (Form. Cons. Helvet., art. 13),—that He did not make satisfaction or in any way die save for all and only those whom the Father had given Him, and who are actually saved (Witsius, Oecon. Foed., ii, c.9, Par. 6); but the opinion was broadly avowed that there was a transference of the sin of the elect to Christ, and that He actually suffered the same as they should have suffered, and thereby paid for their redemption exactly what the law demanded as the due penalty of their offences. Thus, Owen says of the satisfaction made by Christ: ‘It was a full, valuable compensation made to the justice of God for all the sins of all those for whom He made satisfaction by undergoing that same punishment which, by reason of the obligation that was upon them, they themselves were bound to undergo. When I say the same,’ he goes on to explain, ‘I mean essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all accidents of duration and the like; for it was impossible that He should be detained by death’ (Death of Christ, Works, vol. x, p. 269). Farther on, in the same treatise,[5] he says, in reference to the laying of sins upon Christ, God ‘charged on Him and imputed to Him all the sins of all the elect, and proceeded against Him accordingly. He stood as our Surety, really charged with the whole debt, and was to pay the utmost farthing, as a surety is to do if it be required of him; though he borrow not the money, nor have one penny of that which is in the obligation, yet if he be sued to an execution, he must pay all. The Lord Christ (if I may so say) was sued by His Father’s justice unto an execution, in answer whereunto He underwent all that was due to sin.’ In another treatise the same great theologian gives the following as the expression of his view concerning the satisfaction rendered by Christ: ‘Christ paid the same thing that was in the obligation; as if in things real a friend should pay twenty pounds for him that owed so much and not anything in another kind.’ …’I affirm that He paid idem, that is, the same thing that was in the obligation, and not tantundem, something equivalent thereunto in another kind’ (Death of Christ, Works, vol. x, c. ii, p. 438). And farther on he says, ‘The assertion I seek to maintain is this: That the punishment which our Saviour underwent was the same that the law required of us, God relaxing His law as to the person, suffering, but not as to the penalty suffered’ (ibid., p. 447). These statements of Owen may be regarded as presenting clearly and in few words what were the views entertained by the English Puritans and early Nonconformists regarding the nature and extent of the atonement made for sin by Christ. They believed that to be in itself of infinite value; but they regarded it as limited both in design and in effect to the elect, and as being of the nature of a paying to the law of a quid pro quo, an enduring by Christ of the very penalty which they as sinners had deserved in order to secure their deliverance. By some: the commercial character ascribed to the atonement was carried out still farther, and the idea of an actual and exact commutation of man’s sins on the one hand, and Christ’s righeousness on the other, was entertained and advocated. The principal representative of this school was Dr. Crisp, minister of Brinkworth in Wiltshire, about the middle of the 17th century; and it numbers the names of Chauncy, Saltmarsh, and Gill among its adherents. The republication of Dr. Crisp’s works by his son at the close of the century led to his peculiar views on the subject of the atonement being commented upon by Dr. Daniel Williams, an English Presbyterian minister, in a work entitled, Gospel-Truth Stated and Vindicated (Lond. 1692), which passed through several editions, and gave rise to a somewhat violent controversy. Of the views advanced by Dr. Crisp a correct idea will be obtained from his own words, which I quote from the work of Dr. Williams. Writing of the laying of our sins on Christ, he says: ‘It is the iniquity itself that the Lord hath laid upon Christ; not only our punishment, but our very sin…. This transaction of our sins to Christ is a real act; our sins so became Christ’s that He stood the sinner in our stead…. To speak more plainly: Hast thou been an idolater, hast thou been a blasphemer, hast thou been a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, a liar, a drunkard? If thou hast part in the Lord, all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ.’ In another place he thus insists on the transfer of our sin to Christ and His righteousness to us: ‘Mark it well: Christ Himself is not so completely righteous, but we are as righteous as He; nor we so completely sinful, but Christ became, being made sin, as completely sinful as we. Nay more, we are the same righteousness, for we are made the righteousness of God; that very sinfulness that we were, Christ is made that very sinfulness before God. So that here is a direct change—Christ takes our person and condition and stands in our stead, we take Christ’s person and condition and stand in His stead.’ These passages may serve to convey a clear view of the doctrines held by this school—a school which, though numbering among its adherents some of the best and holiest of men, has been the main support and promoter of antinomianism in this country. By the great body of the English Nonconformists these views have been and continue to be repudiated. Bates, Howe, Alsop, along with many other very decided Calvinists, joined at the time in denouncing them as unscriptural and dangerous; and in later times the vigorous pen of Andrew Fuller—not to mention less famous names—was employed in exposing them and advocating Calvinistic views apart from them. Even Dr. Owen raised his voice against them, for in one of his greatest treatises, that on the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, he expressly says: ‘Nothing is more absolutely true, nothing is more sacredly or assuredly believed by us, than that nothing which Christ did or suffered, nothing that He undertook or underwent, did, or could, constitute Him subjectively, inherently, and thereon personally, a sinner or guilty of any sin of His own. To bear the guilt or blame of other men’s faults—to be alienae culpae reus—makes no man a sinner, unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake it’ (p. 201); and again: ‘Our sin was imputed to Christ only as He was our Surety for a time—to this end, that He might take it away, destroy it, and abolish it. It never was imputed unto Him so as to make any alteration absolutely in His personal state and condition’ (p. 203). And, on the other hand, he strenuously maintains that ‘notwithstanding this full, plenary satisfaction once made for the sins of the world that shall be saved, yet all men continue equally to be by nature “children of wrath,” and whilst they believe not the wrath of God abideth on them, that is, they are obnoxious unto and under the curse of the law’ (p. 216); and again: ‘The righteousness of Christ is not transfused into us so as to be made inherently and subjectively ours, as it was in Him’ (p. 218). From these passages it is evident that Owen was far from holding the extreme views of Dr. Crisp and his school. The views of Owen were accepted and advocated by the great American theologian Jonathan Edwards, who, in his Essay concerning the Necessity and Reasonableness of the Christian Doctrine of Satisfaction for Sin, uses such language as the following: ‘Christ suffered the full punishment of the sin that was imputed to Him, or offered that to God that was fully and completely equivalent to what we owed to God’s justice for our sins’ (p. 384). ‘The satisfaction of Christ by suffering the punishment of sin is properly to be distinguished as being in its own nature different from the merit of Christ. For merit is only some excellency or worth. But when we consider Christ’s sufferings merely as the satisfaction for the guilt of another, the excellency of Christ’s act in suffering does not at all come into consideration; but only these two things, viz., their equality or equivalence to the punishment that the sinner deserved; and secondly, the union between Him and them, or the propriety of His being accepted in suffering as the representative of the sinner’ (p. 389).”

In conclusion it may be observed that, in His sufferings and death, Christ bore more than the mere penalty—though it is clear that He bore the penalty, for the wages of sin is death, and the curse and condemnation fell upon Him. Other Scriptures indicate an identification on Christ’s part with the sinner and suggest that both sin and its penalty were laid on Him, but never to the injury of His own character or to the end that it could be said that He needed to be saved or forgiven. In fact, it was at this hour of His sacrificial death, as will presently be seen, that He was offering perfect merit to the Father in which the meritless sinner might be accepted forever. There is no ground for surprise that an inscrutable mystery is confronted when the infinite God is accomplishing His greatest undertaking, and in a way which is consonant with things eternal and celestial.

5. Substitution in the Realms of Divine Perfection

The words which make up this heading serve to introduce a much neglected feature of the gospel of God’s grace. It is assuredly true that righteous forgiveness of the sinner is secured by the substitution of Christ as sin-bearer; but the salvation of a soul involves much more than that removal or subtraction of sin from the sinner which forgiveness achieves. A sinner minus his sins could hardly be counted a fully constituted Christian. In the saving of a soul much is added—eternal life is the gift of God, and the righteousness of God is imputed to those who believe (Rom 5:17). Though eternal life is a sovereign gift, God no more legalizes a fiction when He imputes righteousness than when He forgives sin. It is conceded that there is no moral issue involved in the gift of eternal life and the imputation of righteousness as is involved in the forgiveness of sin; but a righteous ground for such blessings is imperative.

The two features of salvation—the gift of eternal life and the gift of righteousness—are counterparts of the one great fact of union with Christ. In the simplest of words—so far as the English translation is concerned—Christ referred to these two major facts of relationship when He said, “Ye in me, and I in you” (John 14:20). Of the first relation—ye in me—it is asserted that all spiritual blessing is secured by the Christian’s position in Christ. It is written, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3). And of the second relation—I in you—it is written, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36); “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:11, 12).

Of the gift of God which is eternal life it may be said that it is one of two closely related benefactions—that Christ is thus given to the believer, and that the believer is given by the Father to Christ (John 17:2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 24). Both of these gifts are the expression of the Father’s love and are sovereignly bestowed, when, through the work of Christ, the way is clear for the exercise of that love.

On the other hand, the believer’s position in Christ is secured on a righteous ground through the substitution wrought by Christ on the cross. Much has been presented already on the doctrine of imputed righteousness and its divine declaration when God pronounces the righteous one to be justified eternally. It has been stated on these pages that justification, grounded upon imputed righteousness, is not the legalizing of a fiction; it is the recognition of a fact, the fact being secured by infinite provisions to that end. In general, this provision is twofold: first, by the Spirit’s baptism into Christ’s body.

It is notable that the word βαπτίζω is used for both the ritual (water) and the real (Spirit) baptism, and, without reference to whatever convictions may be entertained respecting the mode of water baptism and what it signifies, the essential truth remains that the same word is used for both ritual and real baptism, the only variation being in respect to its primary and secondary meanings. The primary meaning is to submerge—not to dip, which verb implies two actions, that of putting in and taking out. Βαπτίζω means only to put in, and, when used to describe the Spirit’s ministry of uniting the believer to Christ, the one thing desired is that there shall be no taking out again. The primary meaning of this word suggests a physical envelopment—an intusposition. The secondary meaning—evidently derived from the primary meaning—is that a thing is baptized if joined closely to that which exercises a determining influence over it. Such, indeed, is the baptism into repentance; into the remission of sins; into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; into Moses; and into Christ. In the case of none of these is there a physical intusposition; yet these are baptisms that are vital beyond measure. By bestowing the Spirit, Christ baptized with the Spirit—ἐν πνεύματι—Matt 3:11. Cf. Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5. Similarly, of Christ it was promised that He would baptize also with fire (Luke 3:16). In both the baptism with the Spirit, and that with fire, the secondary meaning obtains. Believers are by the Spirit baptized into Christ’s body (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27), and, as has been stated, in this baptism there is no intusposition, though a vital union is secured which is defined as being joined to the Lord, and becoming a member of His body. This union determines that which qualifies life itself. To be placed in Christ is to have been taken out of the first Adam and his ruin and placed in the Last Adam and thus made partaker of all that He is. No change could be more real, nor could any be more transforming. It is the federal disobedience of the first Adam that has constituted men sinners, and it is the federal obedience of the Last Adam that constitutes those who “receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness” righteous in the sight of God, by an imputation which is based on their new relation to the New Creation head—the resurrected Christ (Rom 5:15–21). Christ is the righteousness of God and all that are in Him are, by the most arbitrary necessity, constituted what He is.

Though surgery has never yet joined members to the human body, that idea is employed in the New Testament as an illustration (Eph 4:13–16; 1 Cor 12:18). A most honorable man even the president of the country or its king—having lost one of his hands, might be thought of as having acquired by surgery a hand amputated from the most notorious criminal whose hand was stained with murder and whose finger-prints are recorded by the police. However, after being joined to the new organism, that hand, as a member not only loses its former evil association and dishonor, but is invested at once with all the virtue of the new organism to which it is joined. No member could be joined to Christ without partaking of that which Christ is—the righteousness of God. If difficulty arises when contemplating this marvelous truth, it will be from the inability to recognize the absolute union to Christ which the baptism with the Spirit accomplishes. Yet such an imputation of merit is not a matter of sovereign authority apart from the legal right thus to act. The legal aspect of this divine action is to be found in, second, that aspect of Christ’s death which is typified by the sweet savor offerings.

Reference has been made earlier in this discussion to the legal ground which the non-sweet savor offering aspect of Christ’s death provides for the forgiveness of sin, and it was observed that this one feature is too often deemed the sum and substance of the gospel of divine grace. However, no justification can be advanced for the biased discrimination which discovers so much in that which the two non-sweet savor offerings represent in Christ’s death, and yet almost wholly ignores that which the three sweet savor offerings represent. It will be found that the sweet savor aspect of Christ’s death secures the same sufficient legal ground for the bestowment of merit as is provided in the non-sweet savor offering aspect for the removal of demerit. In the one case, there is a displacing of sin through the Substitute bearing it for the sinner; in the other case, there is the placing of righteousness through the Substitute releasing it, or making it available, through His death.

The three sweet savor offerings represent the truth that Christ offered Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14). Such an offering is wholly free from the thought of sin being borne; it is a sweet savor to the Father since He ever delights in His Son and in all that His Son is. In the non-sweet savor offering the Father’s face is turned away and the Son is pleading, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In the sweet savor offerings the worthiness of the Son is presented to the Father and in this He takes delight. Of these three sweet savor offerings, Dr. C. I. Scofield has written in brief and clarifying words in The Scofield Reference Bible:

(a) “The burnt-offering (1) typifies Christ offering Himself without spot to God in delight to do His Father’s will even in death. (2) It is atoning because the believer has not had this delight in the will of God; and (3) substitutionary (Lev 1:4) because Christ did it in the sinner’s stead. But the thought of penalty is not prominent (Heb 9:11–14; 10:5–7; Ps 40:6–8; Phil 2:8). The emphatic words (Lev 1:3–5) are ‘burnt-sacrifice,’ ‘voluntary,’ ‘it shall be accepted for him,’ and ‘atonement’.”[6]

(b) “The meal-offerincy. The fine flour speaks of the evenness and balance of the character of Christ; of that perfection in which no quality was in excess, none lacking; the fire, of His testing by suffering, even unto death; frankincense, the fragrance of His life Godward (see Exod 30:34); absence of leaven, His character as ‘the Truth’ (see Exod 12:8, refs.); absence of honey;—His was not that mere natural sweetness which may exist quite apart from grace; oil mingled, Christ as born of the Spirit (Matt 1:18–23); oil upon, Christ as baptized with the Spirit (John 1:32; 6:27 ); the oven, the unseen sufferings of Christ—His inner agonies (Heb 2:18; Matt 27:45, 46); the pan, His more evident sufferings (e. g. Matt 27:27–31); salt, the pungency of the truth of God—that which arrests the action of leaven.”[7]

(c) “The peace-offering. The whole work of Christ in relation to the believer’s peace is here in type. He made peace, Col 1:20; proclaimed peace, Eph 2:17; and is our peace, Eph 2:14. In Christ God and the sinner meet in peace; God is propitiated, the sinner reconciled—both alike satisfied with what Christ has done. But all this at the cost of blood and fire. The details speak of fellowship. This brings in prominently the thought of fellowship with God through Christ. Hence the peace-offering is set forth as affording food for the priests (Lev 7:31–34). Observe that it is the breast (affections) and shoulders (strength) upon which we as priests (1 Pet 2:9) feed in fellowship with the Father. This it is which makes the peace-offering especially a thank-offering (Lev 7:11, 12).”[8]

If the question be asked is to why the Second Person is on a cross with the First Person’s face turned away, the answer is that He is bearing sin and that God cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance. If the question be asked why the Second Person is on a cross offering Himself with all His perfections to the First Person, the answer is not that He had some surprise revelation to make of Himself to the Father, but it is that He was releasing, or making available, His own infinite worthiness. This is substitution in the sphere of that which the most excellent of a fallen race could never present. Thus, when the Father would impute to the believer that righteousness of God which the Son is, and all His worthiness, He finds all this available and legally provided through that aspect of substitutionary death that is typified by the sweet savor offerings.

It is not commendable to ignore the sweet savor aspect of Christ’s death, nor necessary to assume that imputed righteousness is an arbitrary sovereign act which rests on no defendable ground. No more assuring word could be spoken than that recorded in Romans 3:26, which is that God is Himself just when He justifies those among the ungodly who do no more than to believe in Jesus (cf. Rom 4:5). The glorious achievement of all sin forgiven and the even greater achievement of a perfect standing before God—as perfect as Christ—being imputed, does not involve or jeopardize the character of God. He remains just when He justifies, not, indeed, on the ground of anything He ever finds in man, but on the ground of that which Christ has provided for those who believe. Such is the scope and reality of Christ’s substitution for sinners on Calvary’s cross.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Complete Works, Vol. II, pp. 515-16, cited by John Stock, Revealed Theology.
2. As edited by R. W. Dale, Atonement, 4th ed., pp. 443-58.
3. Cited by Stock, Revealed Theology, p. 156.
4. Vol. II, pp. 102-6.
5. Ibid., p. 285.
6. P. 126.
7. P. 127.
8. P. 128.