The Atonement through Christ
the prophetic office of Christ? What is a prophet? What two sides are there to the prophetic office? What are the duties of a prophet? In what different ways does Christ function as prophet? How does modern liberal theology stress the prophetic office of Christ? How was Christ as priest prefigured? What Scripture proof is there for His priestly work? What is a priest in distinction from a prophet? How did their teaching differ among Israel? What are the characteristics of a priest? What was the nature of Christ's sacrificial work? How was this prefigured in the Old Testament? What Scripture proof is there for this work? What is a paraclete? In what does the work of Christ as intercessor consist? How far does His intercession extend and why is it always effective? What is the spiritual kingship of Christ? Over what realm does it extend? What does the term
"kingdom of God" denote in the Gospels? Is the kingdom the same as the Church? How is the present kingdom related to the future kingdom? When did Christ become king? How long will His spiritual kingship last? What is the nature and purpose of Christ's kingship over the universe? How long will this kingship last?
References for Further Study:
Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, I, pp. 363–388; Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 391–400; Hodge, Systematic Theology, II. pp. 459–
479, 592–609; Stevenson, The Office of Christ.
THE ATONEMENT THROUGH CHRIST
A. The Moving Cause and Necessity of the Atonement.
1. THE MOVING CAUSE OF THE ATONEMENT. It is sometimes represented as if the moving cause of the atonement lay in the sympathetic love of Christ for sinners. In this representation the
impression is often given that God is an angry God bent on the sinner's destruction, but that the loving Christ steps in between and at the cost of His life saves the transgressor. Christ receives the glory and God is forgotten, robbed of His honour. Scripture finds the moving cause of the atonement in the good pleasure of God to save sinners by a substitutionary atonement, Isa. 53:10; Luke 2:14; Col.
1:19, 20. This good pleasure of God should not be regarded as some arbitrary choice of God. It is more in harmony with Scripture to say that the good pleasure of God to save sinners by a substitutionary atonement was founded in the love and justice of God. It was the love of God that offered sinners a way of escape, John 3:16. And it was the justice of God which required that the demands of the law should be met, "that He might be just, and the justified of him which believeth in Jesus," Rom. 3:26; cf. vss. 24, 25.
2. THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. Some, such as Duns Scotus, Socinus, and many modern liberal theologians, deny the necessity of the atonement. They do not believe that anything in God required satisfaction for sin before He could pardon the sinner. It is quite evident, however, that atonement was necessary in view of the justice of God. This was violated by man's transgression, and therefore naturally called for satisfaction. The righteousness and holiness of God, which can brook no sin, certainly cannot simply overlook open defiance to His infinite majesty. God hates sin with a divine hatred, and His whole being reacts against it, Gen. 18:25; Ex.
20:5; 23:7; Ps. 5:6, 7; Nah. 1:2; Rom. 1:18, 32. Moreover, the veracity of God required that the sentence which He had pronounced on sin should be executed, Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 6:23.
B. The Nature of the Atonement.
1. IT SERVED TO RENDER SATISFACTION TO GOD. The
atonement has frequently been represented, and is now often regarded, as something that was primarily intended to influence the sinner, to awaken repentance, and thus to bring him back to God.
But this is an entirely erroneous conception of it. If a man does wrong and renders satisfaction, this satisfaction is naturally intended to influence the person wronged, and not the offending party. In the case of the sinner the atonement served to propitiate God, and to regain His good favor by making amends for the sin committed. This means that the primary purpose of the atonement was to reconcile
God to the sinner. This does not imply, however, that we cannot, in any sense of the word, speak of the sinner's being reconciled to God.
The Bible does this in more than one place, Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20. The reconciliation of the sinner to God may be regarded as the secondary purpose of the atonement. The reconciled God justifies the sinner and so operates in his heart by the Holy Spirit that the latter also lays aside his wicked alienation from God, and thus enters into the fruits of the perfect atonement of Christ.
3. IT WAS A VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. There is a difference between personal and vicarious atonement. When man fell away from God, he became a transgressor and as such owed God satisfaction. But man could atone for his sin only by suffering the penalty of sin eternally; and this is what God might have required in strict justice, and would have required, if He had not been actuated by love and compassion for the sinner. Instead of insisting on such personal atonement, however, He appointed a vicar (substitute) in Jesus Christ to take man's place; and this vicar atoned for the sin of mankind and wrought an eternal redemption for man. In this case, therefore, the offended party himself made provision for atonement.
While a personal atonement would have excluded the element of mercy, this vicarious atonement represents the highest form of
mercy. And while a personal atonement by the sinner would have been forever in the making and could never have resulted in redemption, the vicarious atonement provided by God Himself leads to reconciliation and life everlasting. The vicarious atonement wrought by Christ was prefigured in the animal sacrifices of the Old
Testament. Scripture repeatedly says that these sacrifices atoned for sin and thus resulted in the pardoning of the transgressor, Lev. 1:4;
4:20, 31, 35; 5:10, 16; 6:7; 17:11. Several passages speak of our sins being "laid upon" Christ, and of His "bearing" sin or iniquity, Isa.
53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24. Others make mention of His dying or giving Himself for sin or for the sinner, Mark 10:45; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 1:4; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:2.
3. IT INCLUDED CHRIST'S ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. It
is customary to distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ. His active obedience consists in all that He did to observe the law in behalf of sinners, as a condition for obtaining eternal life; and His passive obedience in all that He suffered in paying the penalty of sin and thus discharging the debt of all His people. While it is necessary to discriminate between the two, it should be distinctly understood that they cannot be separated. The two accompany each other at every point in the Saviour's life. It was a part of Christ's active obedience that He subjected Himself voluntarily to suffering and death, John 10:18. On the other hand, it was also a part of Christ's passive obedience that He lived in subjection to the law and moved about in the form of a servant. In general it may be said that through His passive obedience He paid the penalty for sin and consequently removed the curse from man, Isa. 53:6; Rom. 4:25; 1
Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:2; and that through His active obedience He merited eternal life for the sinner, bringing him to the goal which Adam failed to reach, Rom. 8:4; 10:3, 4; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 4:4, 5, 7.
C. The Extent of the Atonement. It is generally admitted that the satisfaction rendered by Christ was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men, though they do not attain unto salvation. There is a difference of opinion, however, as to the question, whether Christ suffered and died for the purpose of saving all men or only the elect.
1. THE LIMITED EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. Roman
Catholics, Lutherans, and Arminians of every description, maintain that the atonement wrought by Christ is universal. This does not mean that in their estimation all men will be saved, but simply that it was the intention of the Father in sending Christ, and of Christ in the accomplishment of His redemptive work, to save them all without any exception. They all admit that, as a matter of fact, the intended effect is not achieved. In distinction from them the Reformed
Churches believe in a limited atonement. They maintain that it was the intention of both the Father and the Son to save only the elect, a purpose that is actually accomplished. The advocates of a universal atonement assert that Christ merely made salvation possible for all men, and that their actual redemption is dependent on their own free choice. The advocates of a limited atonement, on the other hand, maintain that Christ actually saves to the uttermost every one of those for whom He has laid down His life. Not one of those for whom the price is paid finally falls short of salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that the effect of the work of Christ is not merely to make atonement possible, but to reconcile men to God and to put them in actual possession of eternal salvation, Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor.
5:21; Gal. 1:4; 3:13; Eph. 1:7. Moreover, it indicates in various ways that Christ laid down His life for a certain qualified number, for His people, Matt. 1:21, for His sheep, John 10:11, 15, for the Church, Acts
20:28; Eph. 5:25–27, or for the elect, Rom. 8:32–35. Moreover, if it was really the purpose of God to save all men, then we shall have to
come to the conclusion that the divine purpose is frustrated by men, and this is an impossibility.
2. OBJECTIONS TO A LIMITED ATONEMENT. Several objections have been raised to the doctrine of a particular atonement, of which the following are the most important. a. There are passages which teach that Christ died for the world,
John 1:29; 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 4:14. The objectors proceed on the assumption that the word "world" in these passages always denotes all the individuals that constitute the world of humanity. But the word does not always have this meaning; its meaning is certainly more limited in Luke 2:1; 12:19. In the passages referred to it may simply serve to indicate that Christ died, not merely for the Jews, but for people of all the nations of the world. b. Again, there are passages in which Christ is said to have died for all men, Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:4, 6; Tit. 2:11;
Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 3:9. But the word "all" sometimes has a restricted meaning in Scripture, denoting all of a particular class, 1 Cor. 15:22;
Eph. 1:23, or all kinds of classes, Tit. 2:11. If it were always taken in the absolute sense in the passages referred to by the objectors, some of these passages would teach that all men are actually saved, something which they themselves do not believe, cf. Rom. 5:18; 1
Cor. 15:22; Heb. 2:9, cf. v. 10. c. Finally, it is said that the universal offer of salvation in the preaching of the word presupposes a universal atonement. If Christ did not die for all men, the offer of salvation cannot be extended to all in good faith. But the universal offer of salvation does not include the declaration that Christ made atonement for every individual; moreover, it is always conditioned by a faith and repentance that can only be wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. Only the elect
comply with the requirements and thus receive the blessings of salvation.
D. The Atonement in Present-Day Theology. There is a wide-spread denial of the atonement in the proper sense of the word in presentday theology. Modern liberal theology really has no place for a doctrine of the atonement in any sense of the word. It regards sin simply as a weakness or as an imperfection which man has not yet overcome but will outgrow in the process of evolution; an imperfection for which man is not responsible, which constitutes no guilt, and therefore calls for no atonement. But even many modern evangelical Churches advocate a view of the atonement which is really equivalent to a denial of it. They ignore the idea that the atoning work of Christ served the purpose of appeasing the wrath of God against sin and of gaining His favor for the sinner. According to them the atonement did not effect a change in the attitude of God to the sinner, but only a change in the attitude of the sinner to God.
What they call atonement is really reconciliation. Christ suffered and died to reveal to sinners the great love of God, and thus to awaken a responsive love in their hearts, which will induce them as lost sons to return to God in a penitent state of mind. This view of the atonement certainly does not do justice to the representations of Scripture respecting the work of Christ. It ignores the justice of God, which requires atonement, and fails to give any adequate reason for the death of Christ.
Questions for Review:
What was the moving cause of the atonement? Why was the atonement necessary? What erroneous conception do many have of the purpose of the atonement? What was the real purpose? How can this be proved from Scripture? What is the difference between personal and vicarious atonement? How was the vicarious sacrifice