Christ’s Atoning Death

Graciously, by means of atonement, God has changed the situation between Himself and His own. As Jesus Christ obeyed God even unto death, the cause of our estrangement was removed and we know our Covenant God’s love and favor.

But the question is: Just exactly what took place as Jesus suffered and died on the cross? A variety of answers have been given to this question.

1. One of the more well-known answers is often called the Moral Influence Theory of the atonement. This view was first explained in a distinctive way by Abelard (d. 1142). He taught that God did not really need His justice satisfied. Therefore, Christ’s death was not an offering brought to pay for sin. Rather, it simply spoke of God’s love and was designed to soften hard hearts and lead them to repentance. Christ’s death was accomplished to assure sinners that nothing will prevent God from pardoning sins. Loraine Boettner wrote:

The atonement is then conceived of as directed not toward God, with the purpose of maintain·ing His justice, but toward man, with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Christ’s work on the cross is then made to be an impressive proclamation to the world that God is willing to forgive sin on the sole condition that men turn from it. His suffering and death is explained as merely that of a martyr in the cause of righteousness (Studies in Theology, p. 339).

To be sure, we are very uncomfortable with this answer. After all, missing is the idea that sin is guilt and worthy of punishment. In place of the Biblical teaching of total depravity is the essential goodness of man so that if only he sees how good and loving God is he will change.

2. Another answer is called the Example Theory. This answer was given by the Socinians who disagreed with the substitutionary atonement as taught by the Reformers. In many ways it is similar to the Moral Influence Theory but it adds that Christ, through His death, revealed the way of obedience. He is the example of obedience and His task was to inspire men to follow His example. Oh, to be sure, this answer includes the idea of payment: as a reward for Christ’s obedience unto death He could give eternal life to believers. However, it is in reality man’s obedience to the way of the Example, and not Christ’s obedience that saves. 3. A third answer to the question of what Christ really did in the atonement is given in what is called the Governmental Theory. Hugo Grotius, famous for this answer, denied that God’s justice had to be satisfied by Christ bearing punishment. Since God is Sovereign He can change His will. Exercising His mercy He can forgive sin and cancel the debt without payment. Why, then, the atonement? Rather than strictly execute the sentence against sinners, God would substitute Christ’s death to show how highly He views the law. The atonement would show God’s displeasure over sin and His determination to punish it, for He cannot show indifference toward sin. Hence, the atonement was an exhibition of justice. The atonement was designed purely to teach God‘s hatred for sin.

But is God’s.will arbitrary? Is God only a God who threatens? Surely, this answer does not satisfy, either.

4. Still another answer is offered. This is called the Mystical Theory of the atonement. Again, Boettner wrote:

Redemption is regarded as having been accomplished not by anything that Christ taught or did, but by the incarnation in which Deity was infused into or united with humanity (Studies in Theology, p. 346).

The idea behind this answer is that in the incarnation Christ assumed the fallen human nature but kept it from sinning. In fact, He purified it. As men are saved they become partakers of this purified humanity. Others believe that the depravity of sin was gradually overcome during Christ’s earthly life until at His death human nature was restored to its original glory. In this answer, Christ’s suffering and death are not essential to His redemptive work. Salvation comes not by the substitutional sacrifice of Christ for us, but rather by His work in us, that is, by the incarnation of the man Jesus Christ in the church.

While in all these views of kernel of truth may be found, none of them really reflect the Biblical teaching. It is true that God’s love plays an important, but often forgotten part in the atonement (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; I John 4:9, 10). But there is more much more. It is true that Christ is represented as an example in Scripture (John 13:15). But He is never given as an example to the unbelieving as a pattern for their lives so that they will know salvation. It is true that God will not allow sin to go unpunished. However, the purpose of the atonement is not to make us aware that God rules, but rather, to satisfy God‘s justice. It is true that believers are united with Christ and partakers of a new nature. But this union does not come through the incarnation but by the Holy Spirit applying the results of Jesus’ death.

What, then, is the significance of Christ’s death?

1. It is a propitiatory sacrifice (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; I John 2:2; 4:10; the same Greek work is used for “mercy seat” in Hebrews 9:5). A propitiation is an offering by which wrath is turned away. Unfortunately, the Revised Standard Version has used the word “expiation.” Now, to the casual reader to say this might seem like engaging in a quarrel over words. Even a quick trip to a dictionary will seem to say that we should not be bothered over these two words. However, there is a difference—a very important difference. According to The Oxford English Dictionary (considered by many scholars as the last word in word usage) “to expiate” means “to extinguish the guilt of, to pay the penalty of, to make reparation for, to extinguish by suffering to the full.” In other words, “expiation” is the act of covering unto cancellation of a sin or crime. On the other hand, “to propitiate” means “to appease, conciliate (one offended).” “To appease” is “to pacify anger.” To translate the word in these passages “expiation” is thus to say that Jesus’ death was an offering to cancel sin. Now, while that, indeed, was the result, that is not all that took place. To merely cover guilt by cancellation would not appease God’s wrath. It would simply put the offender at peace. “Propitiation” is God–ward. God is holy and full of burning opposition to our sin (Leviticus 10:6; Psalm 2:12; 94:1). His wrath must be appeased (Exodus 23:7; Romans 2:1–11). Therefore, Christ’s death had to be a propitiatory sacrifice.

2. It is a substitutionary, or vicarious sacrifice. The word “vicarious” simply means the taking of another’s place. Thus, Jesus Christ is our Vicar. He took our place; He died vicariously. In explaining this term Charles Hodge wrote:

By vicarious suffering or punishment is not meant merely sufferings endured for the benefit of others. The sufferings of martyrs, patriots, and philanthropists, although endured for the good of the Church, the country, or of mankind, are not vicarious. That word . . . includes the idea of substitution. Vicarious suffering is suffering endured by one person in the stead of another, ie., in his place. It necessarily supposes the exemption of the party in whose place the suffering is endured. . . . Christ’s sufferings were vicarious in the sense in which the death of one man is vicarious who dies in the place of another to save him from a deserved penalty . . . (Systematic Theology, II: p. 475f).

When we say that Christ was our Substitute we mean that He took to Himself the obligation to satisfy God’s justice which belonged to us. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us . . .” (Galatians 3:13; see also, Romans 5:6–8; I Corinthians 1:30; II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:28; I Peter 2:24; 3:18; etc.). How beautiful!

It was not simply the penalty of sin that Jesus bore. He bore our sins. He was not made sinful, but He was made sin and, therefore, brought into closest identification with our sins that it was possible for Him to come without thereby becoming Himself sinful. Any exposition of ours can only touch the fringe of this mystery (J. Murray, The Atonement, p. 30).

3. Further, Christ’s death is particular. By this we mean “not universal.” Traditionally, Reformed people have spoken of a “limited atonement.” What do we mean?

Christ’s death is limited in the number of people for whom it has effect. Christ died for those whom God gave Him (John 6:35–40; 10:11–18). Therefore, we can speak of Christ’s death as particular. He died for specific people. Now, of course, w hen we speak of Christ’s death here we are supposing the Biblical teaching that Jesus died to really save, not just to make salvation a possibility. And if Jesus died to save completely, then He could only have died as the Substitute for the elect. Else, some would have their sins paid for twice: once by Christ and then a second time by them eternally in hell.

However, Christ’s death is unlimited in its results. For the Arminian Christ’s death has results if men will believe. They must complete Christ’s work. But Christ’s work is not limited by men. He died unto a complete salvation (Matthew 1:21).

In other words, the atonement was not made for all men. Nevertheless, for those for whom it was made there is complete salvation.

As soon as we say that Christ did not die for all men we are speaking heresy, according to some. Are we? Let’s see what Scripture says. We read “. . . for it is he that s hall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21); “. . . the Son of man came . . . to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28); “. . . for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28); “. . . Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many . . .” (Hebrews 9:18); see also Isaiah 53:12; John 10:11; Ephesians 5:25–27; Romans 8:32–34; Revelation 5:9.

It is true, of course, that there are some so-called universalistic texts which are used to “prove” that Christ died for all men. For instance, we read that Jesus is the Savior of the “world” (John 1:9, 29; 3:16, 17; 4:42; I Corinthians 5:19; I John 2:1; 2; 4:14, among others). Also, there are verses referring to “all” men (Romans 5:18, 19; II Corinthians 5:14, 15; I Timothy 2:4–6; Hebrews 2:9, among others). When, however, we see each text in its context we can see that no universalism is meant. Besides, “all” is not always “all.” In many texts good sense will not allow that word to be used absolutely (Genesis 6:13; Mark 1:5; I Corinthians 6:12). In their helpful The Five Points of Calvinism, Defined, Defended, Documented (p. 46) Steele and Thomas answer those who emphasize the so-called universalistic texts:

Such phrases as “the world,” “all nations,” and “every creature” were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (i.e., He died for Jews and Greeks alike) but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (i.e., He did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

Since Jesus came to die and t hus satisfy God’s righteousness, and since He came to die particularly, that is, in place of those whom God had chosen unto Himself we who know this saving work can testify

Bearing shame and scoffing rude,

In my place condemned He stood ;

Sealed my pardon with His blood:

Hallelujah what a Savior!