CHAPTER III – Two Other Arguments from the Person of Christ
CHAPTER III – Two Other Arguments from the Person of Christ ARGUMENT VI. Christ died as a Surety for those he represented.
For whom Christ died, he died as a sponsor. He died in their stead, as apparent from Romans 5:6-8, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. One would scarcely die for a righteous man, though perhaps for a good man some would dare to die. But God commends his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Galatians 3:13, "He was made a curse for us." 2Corinthians 5:21,
"He has made him sin for us." All of these passages plainly indicate an exchange of persons, one being accepted in the place of the other. Now, if he died as the surety of those for whom he died, and in their stead, then these two things at least will follow:
First, He endured the penalty due others to free each from it.
He freed them from that anger, wrath, and guilt of death he underwent for them, so that they would all be reconciled in him, and be freed from the bondage they are in because of death. No other reason can be given for Christ undergoing anything in another's stead, but that the other might be freed from undergoing what he underwent for him. Justice requires that it should be so. This is intimated when our Savior is said to be enguos,
114 "a surety of a better testament," Hebrews 7:22. He does so by being our priest, by undergoing the "chastisement of our peace," and by assuming the burden of our "iniquities," Isaiah 53:5, 6. He was "made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," 2Corinthians
5:21.
But all are not freed from wrath and the guilt of death, nor are all actually reconciled to God, which is being justified through imputing righteousness, and not imputing iniquities. For until men come to Christ,
"the wrath of God abides on them," John 3:36. This intimates that his
wrath is not removed because they do not believe. It does not say that his wrath comes on them, as though by Christ's death they would be freed from the state of wrath we are all in by nature, Ephesians 2:3; Instead, it uses menei, 115 "it remains," or abides: it was never removed. To those who are not freed, the gospel is a savor of death unto death,
116 – despising the gospel brings a new death, and a painful condemnation to them. This is the same death whose guilt they lay under before.
Some have asserted that all men are redeemed, restored, justified, and made righteous in Christ by his death. But truly, this is so wretched, it perverts the Scriptures which give no support to any such assertion. It is so directly opposed to them, that I judge it fruitless, and a waste of labor, to remove such exceptions (Moore, p. 45).
Secondly, satisfaction was made for each person Christ died for.
If Christ died for all and every man, it follows that he made satisfaction for the sins of all of them. That is because the reason he underwent death for us as a surety was to satisfy God's justice for our sins, thereby redeeming us for himself. No other reason can be given for what he did.
Christ did not make satisfaction for all men.
But Christ has not satisfied the justice of God for all the sins of all and every man. This is evident for a number of reasons.
First, if he satisfied for all, then all are saved.
If Christ made satisfaction to God's justice for someone's sins, then justice is satisfied for their sins, or his satisfaction was rejected as insufficient. No other reason can be given for such a fruitless attempt; and to say it was is blasphemy in the highest degree. But God's justice is not satisfied for all the sins of all and every man. This is as obvious as the former. Some must undergo eternal punishment for their sins themselves, so that the justice of God may be satisfied. The justice of God was not satisfied by the punishment of Christ, because they are not healed by his stripes. I hope, with Christians, this does not need proving. Countless souls will undergo eternal punishment for their own sins. Now, how can the justice of God
require satisfaction for their sins, if satisfaction was made for them in Christ? The Lord will require "the last penny" of some, as Matthew 5:26 makes clear.
Secondly, he did not intend to satisfy for more than could be saved.
Christ, by undergoing death for us as our surety, satisfied for no more than he intended. Satisfaction for the sins of men is so great a thing that it could not happen accidentally, apart from his intention, will, and purpose.
This is especially so considering that sanctifying himself to be an oblation was absolutely necessary to make his death an acceptable offering. But Christ did not intend to make satisfaction for the sins of all and every man.
For countless souls were in hell, under the punishment and weight of their own sins, where there was no redemption before or after our Savior made himself an oblation for sin. Now, shall we suppose that Christ would make himself an offering for their sins when he knew they were past recovery, and that it was utterly impossible for them to have any fruit or benefit by his offering? Should we think that the blood of the covenant was wasted on those for whom our Savior intended no good at all? He could not intend good for them, without directly opposing the eternal decree of his
Father, and thus his own eternal Deity. Did God send his Son, and did Christ come, to die for Cain and Pharaoh, damned so many ages before his suffering? Is that a credible appeal?
The exception that its application was conditional has no force The exception that Christ died for them, and his death would have been available to them if they had believed and fulfilled the required condition, has no force at all, in my judgment.
First, the condition was unknown by all.
For the most part, they never heard of any such condition.
Secondly, Christ knew whoever failed the condition would be lost.
Christ at his death knew full well that they had not fulfilled the condition, and were actually cut off from any possibility of ever doing so. Any intent to do them good by his death would necessarily be in vain and frustrated.
Such a fruitless sacrifice must not be assigned to the Son of God.
Thirdly, conditional redemption is rejected.
We shall reject this assertion that redemption is applied if they will believe, shortly.
Asserting that Christ satisfied for both damned and saved is valueless.
To say that Christ might as well satisfy for those who were eternally damned as for those who were actually saved, has no more value than the other exception.
First, Christ was required to die for those who would be saved.
Those who were saved were saved on the ground that Christ would certainly suffer for them in due time. His suffering was as effectual in its purpose and promise as it was in its execution and accomplishment. In the mind of God, it was accounted to them as accomplished, the compact and covenant with Christ being surely ratified upon mutual, unchangeable promises. Our Savior had to perform it, because it was necessary for those who were actually saved. But for those who were actually damned, there was no such inducement to perform it, no ground for it, and no result to be expected from it.
Secondly, Christ's intent was to free those for whom he died.
A simile should clear up the matter. Say a man sends word to a place where captives are in prison, that he will pay the price and ransom that is required to deliver those he appoints, and that he desires these prisoners to come out in expectation of his payment. The one who detains these captives accepts his offer according to his promise. When the man comes, he finds that some have come out as proposed, while others continued
obstinate in their dungeon. Those who have come out have heard what he has done, the others have not and are now long since dead, each according to his appointment. In paying his promised ransom, does he intend it for those who died stubbornly and obstinately in the prison, or only for those who came out? Doubtless, only for those who came out.
In the same way, Christ's suffering cannot be thought to be a price paid for those who died in the prison of sin and corruption before his ransom was paid. But it might full well be the price paid for those who were delivered by virtue of his engagement and promise to pay such a ransom.
Thirdly, if Christ satisfied for all sin, the sin of unbelief was paid for.
If Christ died in the stead of all men, and made satisfaction for their sins, then either he died for all of their sins, or only for some of their sins. If he died for only some, then who can be saved? If he died for all, then why are all not saved? They say it is because of their unbelief; they will not believe, and therefore they are not saved. Is unbelief a sin, or not? If it is not, then how can it be a cause of damnation? If it is, then Christ died for it, or he did not. If he did not, then he did not die for all the sins of all men. If he did, then why is this an obstacle to their salvation? Is there any new slant to this? Is this not the same old condition, that they are not saved because they do not believe? That is, either Christ did not die for their unbelief because they would not believe, or else he did die for their unbelief but conditionally, and that condition was that they were believers.
These do not seem to me to be sober assertions.
ARGUMENT VII.
Christ died as a Mediator, a Priest for his own people.
For whom Christ died, he is a mediator. This is apparent because his oblation, shedding his blood, was one of the primary acts of his mediation.
But he is not a mediator for all and every one. This is just as apparent. As a mediator, he is the priest for those for whom he is a mediator. Now, a priest's role, as was declared before, is to sacrifice and intercede, to procure good things, and to apply them to those for whom they are procured. This is evident from Hebrews 9. Confessedly, Christ does not do this for all. The
assertion that Christ is not a mediator for every one needs no proof.
Experience proves it, besides countless passages of Scripture. I confess, it is replied by some that Christ is a mediator in respect to some acts, but not in respect to others. I judge this to be a dishonest subterfuge that has no basis in Scripture. It would make our Savior half a mediator in respect to some, which is an offensive expression. But this argument was settled before.