Chapter 2: Refuting mistaken or false claims about the purpose of His death
The purpose of Christ's death was to obtain grace and glory from the Father—not as a vague possibility, but so that they would truly be given to all those for whom He died. Some of these gifts
(like eternal life) are conditioned on faith, but even faith itself was purchased by Christ, and is given unconditionally.
So then, to everyone for whom Christ shed His blood, these things are secured:
They shall believe.
They shall be justified.
They shall be sanctified.
They shall persevere.
And they shall be glorified.
We will further confirm and expand on this point after we clear away some false ideas about the purpose of Christ's death.
Book II, Chapter 2 Removing Mistaken and False Claims About the End of Christ's Death That the death, offering, and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ was intended as a means to accomplish a specific and appointed end has already been made abundantly clear. It is also plain that this was not
a desirable means in itself, but only as it served to attain that end.
Since the end of anything must be something good (for the good and the end always go together), the intended result of Christ's death must have been either for the Father's good, Christ's own good, or our good.
I. The Death of Christ Was Not Intended for His Own Good It is plainly evident that Christ did not die for his own benefit. In his divine nature, he has eternally and essentially shared in all the fullness and glory of the Godhead. Though that glory may be revealed to us in greater or lesser ways, in itself it is perfect, infinite, and unchanging. In fact, when Christ was finishing his earthly ministry, he prayed for the same glory he had with the Father "before the world was" (John 17:5). He wasn't seeking something new—he simply longed to return to the glory he never ceased to possess in his divine person.
As for his human nature, it had been predestined from all eternity to be personally united with the divine Son from the moment of conception. There was never any foresight of sin or lack in him.
Being entirely sinless and legally righteous, he had no need to suffer or die for himself. And even as he endured the cross and despised the shame, the joy that was set before him was not primarily his own exaltation, but rather the salvation of many sons and daughters— bringing them to glory, as promised to him by the Father (Heb.
2:10).
Of course, Christ was exalted after his sufferings. He was given authority over all flesh and appointed Judge of the living and the
dead. But we deny that this exaltation was earned by his death, as if it were the goal or reward of his suffering. His dominion over all things rests not on his death, but on his eternal Sonship and divine appointment. As it is written:
"He is the heir of all things and upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:2–3), and, "He has been set over the works of God's hands, and all things have been put in subjection under his feet" (Heb. 2:7–8).
These things are drawn from Psalm 8, which the New Testament applies to Christ. But did Christ die for all the things mentioned there—for sheep, oxen, birds, and fish? Certainly not. And yet he rules over them.
Did he die for angels? Of course not. Yet he exercises authority over them. Angels, both good and fallen, are subject to him. At the final judgment, Christ will even judge the angels (1 Cor. 6:3). Still,
Scripture clearly teaches that the angelic nature was not assumed, nor was a redemption purchased for them:
"He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16).
Even the Lord's installation of Christ as King on Zion, to shatter his enemies and rule them with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:6, 9), is not presented as the result of his death for those enemies. Rather, this universal authority is grounded in the love of the Father for the Son:
"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand"
(John 3:35; cf. Matt. 11:27).
That divine love and eternal appointment, not his atoning death, is the foundation of Christ's dominion.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, we grant what cannot be proved—that Christ obtained this judging power by his death. Would that support the idea of a general atonement? Not at all. This judicial authority includes not only the right to save but also to condemn.
"The Father has committed all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22).
"He has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man" (v. 27).
At the last day, all who are in the grave will rise—some to life, and some to judgment and condemnation (John 5:29; 2 Cor. 5:10).
Now ask this: could Christ have died for someone in order to redeem them, and yet also have died so that he might condemn them? Would that not be a contradiction? If he truly intended to redeem you by his death, then condemning you could never have been one of his goals.
And if he did intend to condemn you, then redeeming you could never have been the aim of his suffering.
Therefore, the idea that Christ died merely for his own glory or exaltation is plainly false. His death was not for himself, but for others—for the salvation of those given to him by the Father.
II. Nor, secondly, was the death of Christ primarily for the Father's good.
Here we must be careful and precise. I am not speaking of the ultimate and supreme end of Christ's death here, which, of course, is
the eternal glory of God—"to the praise of his glorious grace" (Eph.
1:6). That final end stands firm. Rather, I am addressing the immediate and proper effect of Christ's death: that which it directly aimed to accomplish. In that respect, it was not to benefit God the Father by obtaining anything for him, but rather to secure all spiritual good from him to us.
Now, the Arminians and other Universalists of our day argue differently. They teach that the end of Christ's death was to make it possible for God to save sinners. They claim that by dying, Christ satisfied divine justice and thus removed the obstacle preventing
God from forgiving sin. God, according to them, had a general desire to show mercy to fallen humanity—but his justice stood in the way.
Christ's death, they say, opened the path so that God could then pardon sins if he chose to—on whatever conditions he saw fit.
As Arminius himself put it, "Integrum Deo fuit"—meaning, "It was fully within God's freedom," after Christ died, whether to save anyone at all, and if so, on what terms—faith, works, or any other requirement. In this view, Christ's death merely restored a sort of judicial possibility, or hypothetical opportunity, for salvation to be offered. He did not actually secure salvation for anyone, but simply removed legal barriers to mercy.
Now, because this idea is held up as the chief (if not the sole) end of Christ's atonement by such men, we must carefully examine and refute it. And this we can do clearly and decisively with several reasons, which we will now proceed to give.
1. This idea assumes something Scripture never teaches— namely, that God could not show mercy to sinners unless Christ died.
Now, we freely admit that given God's own decree to save sinners through a mediator, it became necessary that Christ die (since God
never changes his eternal plan, James 1:17). But to say that God, absolutely and apart from any such decree, could not forgive without satisfaction is to speak without warrant. Scripture never affirms this.
And we do better to say with Augustine: "Though God could have saved us by other means, the way he chose is best, because it is the way he took."
2. This view makes Christ's death the result of a vague general love, a kind of divine wish to do good to all people, rather than the deliberate and loving plan of the Father to redeem and save his elect. That, as we shall later show, is contrary to the entire thrust of Scripture.
3. This would mean that Christ died, not to free us from sin and death, but to give God the freedom to save sinners—that the Son came to redeem liberty for the Father, not life for the sinner.
In this view, the primary benefit of Christ's death is not directed to us, but to God himself—to give him a right he previously lacked. But Scripture never speaks that way. It says, "He came to save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21), not to save his Father from a legal restriction. It says, "God so loved the world that he gave his Son," not "God loved himself so much that he secured permission to forgive."
Even if we grant, for argument's sake, that Christ somehow gave God a right to forgive, that still wouldn't amount to salvation. It would only mean God could forgive—if he wanted to. But merit means more than that. True merit secures a right—not just that a thing may be done, but that it ought to be done. "The laborer is worthy of his wages" (Luke 10:7). Do we say, "Now his wages may be paid"? No— we say, "Now they must be paid." If Christ merited anything by his death, then those for whom he died must receive what he purchased.
Otherwise, it is not true merit at all.
4. This view makes it possible that Christ's death could be utterly fruitless. According to the Arminian scheme, Christ purchased a right for God to save everyone, yet he is not bound to save anyone. It would have been entirely consistent with this view for no one to ever be saved. He might prescribe an impossible condition. Or he might simply choose not to save at all. In that case,
Christ's death could be perfectly successful on their terms, and yet not a single soul be redeemed. But is that the Savior of Scripture—the One who came "to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10)? Could he pray, "Father, I will that those whom you have given me may be with me where I am" (John 17:24), if his death didn't actually secure their salvation?
This false view reduces Christ's work from a powerful redemption to a mere possibility of redemption. Instead of securing forgiveness, it only opens the opportunity for forgiveness. Instead of obtaining peace, it merely opens a door toward peace. That is not what
Scripture teaches. And we will offer more arguments as we go on to explain the true, proper end of Christ's death.
The Covenant, the Death of Christ, and the Misunderstanding of Conditional Application Now ask these Universalists, "What exactly does God do—what can
He now do—because Christ died?" They tell us this: that because Christ has satisfied justice, God is now free to enter into a new covenant of grace with sinners. According to them, this covenant says that if people fulfill the required condition (usually, faith), then the benefits of Christ's death will be applied to them.
But this idea cannot stand under the light of Scripture.
First, Christ himself is the great promise of the covenant, not merely the means by which it is offered. From the very beginning—
Genesis 3:15—the promise of salvation is wrapped up in the person and work of the Son. He is not just a door opened by the covenant; he is the covenant promise. So it is not correct to say that Christ's death merely procures the covenant. He is the covenant sealed in blood.
Second, this view misunderstands the nature of the covenant of grace. It treats the covenant as if God were saying, "I will give you salvation if you meet this condition," when in fact, even the condition itself is a gift promised in the covenant! The very faith and obedience that the covenant calls for are themselves secured and given to the elect by Christ. Read Jeremiah 31:33—God promises, "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." So, to treat faith as a human contribution that activates the benefits of the cross is to confuse the gift with the Giver.
No doubt, Christ's death had a proper and glorious end in respect to the Father—namely, to manifest his glory. God calls him "my servant, in whom I will be glorified" (Isaiah 49:3). And this glorification was chiefly seen in Christ's bringing many sons to glory
—so that God's electing love would shine out to the ends of the earth, and his name would be exalted in grace as much as in justice.
This is what Paul teaches in Romans 3:25–26: "God set forth Christ as a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, so that he might be just, and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." That's the key—Christ's death was never meant to give God permission to do what he already desired to do, but rather to reveal how God could gloriously