Christology: Introduction 1 of 15

Christology A Class on the Person and Work of

our Lord Jesus Christ

Hosted by:

Living Hope Bible Church

“An Oasis of Hope in Christ”

6N171 Gary Avenue

Roselle, Illinois 60172

(630) 529-8489

Page 1 of 205

Christology: Introduction 1 of 15

I. Introduction

A. Definition of Christology

1. Christianity is a "monolithic religion of a teleological kind in which everything is related to Christ, the Redeemer" (Schleiermacher).

2. "Christology is the name for the theological interpretation of the meaning of belief in Christ; it is the doctrine of the person and work of Christ" (Wilhelm Pauk).

3. "In the study of the revelation concerning the Second Person of the Godhead, Christology, the greatest one theme of Theology, is in view. Because of the restricted character of Theology Proper, Christology, as a subdivision of it, is limited to the contemplation of the Person of Christ. As a Person, He is revealed as occupying seven positions-preincarnate, incarnate, dead, raised, ascended and seated, returning and reigning, and as having completed and as having surrendered His mediatorial service. Likewise, three essential facts as to the nature of His Person, with all their implications, must be investigated-the absolute and unalterable Deity of the Second Person in every position in which He is seen, and in every circumstance in which He is placed; His absolute and impeccable humanity secured through the incarnation; and the hypostatical union, or the combining of these two natures in one Theanthropic Person, in which union no aspect of Deity is surrendered and no supernatural exaltation of humanity is wrought. About these three great issues-the undiminished Deity, the unexalted humanity, and the hypostatical union-the Church, in all her generations, has borne her testimony and has waged her contentions" (Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Unabridged Systematic Theology," Bibliotheca Sacra 91:361:8-23).

4. "Since in Theology Proper only the Person of Christ is contemplated in the division devoted to the Second Person of the Godhead, it is reserved to Soteriology to set forth His saving work on the Cross. As a true preparation for this great division of Theology, Christ must be seen in all His varied positions and ministries, as Prophet, Priest, and King, in His sonships, and in His relationships.

5. "The saving work of Christ in its fullness is based on His sufferings in life, His sufferings in death, His burial, His resurrection, His ascension, His present session, and His return. According to

Page 2 of 205


the Scriptures, the great theme of Salvation is presented in three tenses: (1) past, or salvation unto eternal life and from the guilt and penalty of sin; (2) present, or salvation unto sanctification and from the reigning power of sin; and (3) future, or salvation unto eternal perfection and glory and from the presence of sin. Almost every feature of Christology is anticipated in the types, foreshadowings, and prophecies of the Old Testament; especially enriched is this portion of the Scriptures as it bears on His sufferings in life, His sufferings in death, and His resurrection. In fact, it is probable that what may be termed the central passage of the whole Bible on the sufferings and death of Christ is to be found in the first five chapters of Leviticus. The wealth of truth there revealed is not on the surface, but is disclosed only to the spiritual mind which is exercised by long and patient study. First importance must always be given to the direct, antitypical statements found in the New Testament; but these are enriched beyond estimation by the typical teachings of the Old Testament, including Abel’s lamb, Isaac, the Passover, various features of the Tabernacle, the five offerings, the two birds, the red heifer, and the day of Atonement. So, also, the student should recognize the place given in each book of the Bible to the sufferings and death of Christ. The result of such extended personal research is both imperative and priceless.

6. Salvation, as wrought by God in grace, incorporates at least twelve important subdivisions or doctrines, namely, Redemption, Reconciliation, Propitiation, Conviction, Repentance, Faith, Regeneration, Forgiveness, Justification, Sanctification, Preservation, and Glorification. The extent of this field of truth is obvious. Added to this, the student should be familiar with the multiplied details which enter into the divine objectives in the death of Christ, including the following: He became a substitute for sinners, presenting His own merit in their behalf and bearing the condemnation due them because of demerit; He became the end of the law for all those that believe; He dealt finally and perfectly with all pre-Cross sins; He became a redemption toward sin, a reconciliation toward man, and a propitiation toward God; He spoiled Principalities and Powers; He provided the ground for the cleansing and forgiving of the Christian who has sinned; and on the ground of His sacrifice God will yet take away Israel’s sins and purge both earth and heaven. A worthy knowledge of Soteriology includes the theories, both true and false, as to the extent of the value of Christ’s sufferings and death. Was it a limited, or was it a universal, redemption?" (Ibid).

B. Significance of Christology

Page 3 of 205


1. Significance to the All Theology

a) "Throughout its history the church has realized that Christology, of the study of what is to believed about the person of Jesus Christ, is of the greatest importance. Since Jesus is at the very center of our faith, and since what is believed about him is the very touchstone of our Christianity, this doctrinal endeavor is of paramount importance" (Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 9).

b) "Beware of studying doctrine, precept, or experiences apart from the Lord Jesus, who is the soul of all. Doctrine without Christ will be nothing better than his empty tomb. Doctrine with Christ is a glorious high throne, with the king sitting on it" (Spurgeon, MTP, 35:206).

c) "Christ is the beginning, middle, end… nothing is, or can be found, apart from Him" (Calvin, Commentary on Colossian, p. 146).

d) Christ is the arch of all theology. If He is taken out, all must fall into chaotic rubbish. See Luke 24:27

2. Significance to the doctrine of Theology Proper

a) "Christ is that image in which God present to our view not only his heart, but also his hands and his feet. I give the name of his heart to that secret love which he embraces us in Christ" (Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 1:64).

b) "Christology constitutes the heart of theology, since it focuses on God's work of salvation in the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth. To know the nature of God we must see his face in Jesus Christ. To know the plan of God for the world we must see this plan realized in the cross of Christ and fulfilled in his resurrection and Second Advent…. The way to know God is through knowledge of Christ, and they way to knowledge of Christ is by faith in his promises as revealed in the Bible" (Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord, 15-16).

Page 4 of 205


c) See John 1:18; 6:46; 14:1-14; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:1-3

3. Significance to the doctrine of Anthropology

a) Christ is offered as the only remedy for man's plight of depravity

b) He is the perfect man

c) He is the model of the image of God, which man essentially is.

d) "We have seen that man was created to love, serve and fellowship with God. We have also seen that man fails to fulfill this divine intention for him; in other words, all humans sin. Because God loved man, however, he chose to act through Christ to restore man to the intended condition and relationship. Thus, our understanding of the person and work of Christ grows directly out of the doctrines of man and of sin" (Erickson, Christian Theology, 661).

4. Significance to the doctrine of Salvation

a) The doctrine of Christ (Christology) therefore follows logically upon that of divine grace as the cardinal article of the Christian faith, with which the Church stands or falls. While usually this expression is applied to the doctrine of justification, and rightly so, we must not forget that without the vicarious satisfaction of Christ there could be no doctrine of justification by grace, through faith. Hence, as the redeeming work of our Lord is the foundation of the doctrine of divine grace, so it is the foundation also of the doctrine of justification" (Muller, Christian Dogmatics, 255).

b) "Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation…. It is not simply a phase of the application of redemption; it underlies every aspect of redemption" (John Murray, Redemption Applied and Accomplished, 201, 205).

c) "The whole gospel is contained in Christ" (Calvin, Romans, 15.

Page 5 of 205


d) "All the blessings of God come to us through Christ" (Calvin, Romans, 19).

e) Robert Dabney states, “It is through this union to Christ that the whole application of redemption is effectuated on the sinner’s soul” (Systematic Theology, 612).

(1) Believers have eternal life in Christ (Rom. 6:23)

(2) Believers are forgiven in Christ (Rom. 8:1)

(3) Believers have all the promises of God in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20)

(4) Believers are new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17)

(5) Believers are free in Christ (Gal. 2:4)

(6) Believers have every spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph. 1:3)

(7) Believers have been raised up and seated in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 2:6)

(8) Believers have been created unto good works in Christ (Eph. 2:10; Jn. 15:5)

(9) Believers are complete in Christ (Col. 2:10).

(10) Believers have a fellowship with all believers in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13-27)

(11) Believers have a future resurrection in Christ (1 Cor. 15:47, 49)

5. Significance to doctrine of the Church

a) “Ecclesiology,” says University of Basel professor, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “is simply Christology.” He argues that all sociological attempts to explain the church are futile because the church can only be explained by its link to the person and work of Christ. The church is the body of Christ (sw'ma Cristou', ��), and Christ is the head (kefalhv, ��) of the body (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13, 27). These metaphors stress the unity of

Page 6 of 205


Christ and His people, and the term head specifically stresses that He is leader or ruler over the church. He exercises a position of power and authority over His people. The early church witnessed to the headship of Christ by recognizing no individual man as the head of the church. Leadership was always invested in a plurality of leaders (first apostles and soon elders). This was true of the universal church and of the local church, which is a replica or a miniature of the universal church.

b) The primacy of Scripture in its teaching that Christ is the sole head (“Chief Shepherd,” 1 Pet. 5:4) of the church was denied in practice soon after the death of the apostles. A plurality of elders gave way to a monarchical bishop, and the institutional Church was ultimately ruled by the Supreme Pontiff, i.e., the Pope, in Rome. Even in the Protestant churches the pastor as an officer over the flock is a firmly entrenched tradition — a tradition that denies to Christ His place as head of the church.

6. Significance to Eschatology

a) "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10)

b) The design of prophecy is to bear testimony to Jesus. The language does not mean, of course, that this is the only design of prophecy, but that this is its great and ultimate end. The word prophecy here seems to be used in the large sense in which it is often employed in the New Testament—meaning to make known the Divine will, and the primary reference here would seem to be to the preachers and teachers of the New Testament. The sense is, that their grand business is to bear testimony to the Saviour. They are all—whether angels, apostles, or ordinary teachers—appointed for this, and therefore should regard themselves as "fellow-servants." The design of the angel in this seems to have been, to state to John what was his own specific business in the communications which he made, and then to state a universal truth applicable to all ministers of the gospel, that they were engaged in the same work, and that no one of them should claim adoration from others.

Page 7 of 205


c) "Thus understood, this passage has no direct reference to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and teaches nothing in regard to their design, though it is in fact undoubtedly true that their grand and leading object was to bear testimony to the future Messiah. But this passage will not justify the attempt so often made to "find Christ" everywhere in the prophecies of the Old Testament, or justify the many forced and unnatural interpretations by which the prophecies are often applied to him" (Albert Barnes, Notes Notes On the New Testament).

C. Source of Christology

1. Christology from Above

a) Associated with Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Emil Brunner)

b) Key elements:

(1) The key to understanding of Jesus is not in the historical Jesus, but in the preaching of the Church

(2) Focus is placed on Paul and John, rather than synoptic Gospels

(3) Faith in Christ is not based upon or supported by rational proof.

c) Key Quotes:

(1) We are bound to oppose the view that the Christian faith springs out of historical observation, out of the historical picture of Jesus of Nazareth. Christendom itself has always known otherwise. Christian faith springs only out of the witness of the Church of the preached message and the written word of Scriptures. The historical picture is indeed included in the latter…. But his picture itself is not the basis of knowledge" (Emil Brunner, The Mediator, 158).

(2) "If once the conviction is regained that the Christian faith does not arise out of the picture of the historical Jesus, but out of the testimony to Christ as such-- this includes the witness of the prophets as well as that of the Apostles-- and that it is based upon this testimony, then inevitably the preference for the Synoptic Gospels and for the actual words of Jesus, which was

Page 8 of 205


the usual position of the last generation, will disappear" (Ibid., 172).

d) Fallacies:

(1) Cannot substantiate belief

(2) Is the Christ of faith the same as the Christ of history?

(3) Too subjective

2. Christ from Below

a) Associated with Wolfhart Pannenberg

b) Key Elements:

(1) Historical inquiry is possible and desirable

(2) There is no special redemptive or sacred history

(3) This can give us a human Jesus, but it cannot substantiate a divine history, especially when it is attached to denying the supernatural events of the Bible.

c) Key Quotes:

(1) "The task of Christology is to offer rational support for belief in the divinity of Jesus, for it is this which is disputed in the world today. Christology from above is unacceptable in that it presupposes the divinity of Jesus" (Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man, 34).

(2) Strictly speaking, a Christology from above is possible only from the position of God himself, and not for us. We are limited, earthbound human beings, and we must begin and conduct our inquiry from that perspective" (Ibid., 35).

d) Fallacies

(1) Divorces the Christ of faith from the Christ of history

(2) Denies the supernatural

Page 9 of 205


3. Orthodox Christ

a) Associated with Augustine

b) Key elements

(1) Faith precedes but does not remain permanently independent of reason. Faith provides the perspective or starting point from which reason may function.

(2) The preaching of Christ is the starting point and is used to interpret and integrate the data supplied

(3) See how the Pharisees saw Jesus perform miraculous healings through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:22-32; Mark 3:20-30; Luke 11:14-23)

(4) There is a supernatural assistance that must take place (Matt. 16:15-17)

(5) There is also a considering of the facts of Jesus (Luke 7:19).

Page 10 of 205


D. Schemata of Christology

1. "The doctrine of Christ is commonly treated under three heads: A. the doctrine of the Person of Christ; B. the Doctrine of the States of Christ; C. the Doctrine of the Work of Christ (de officio Christi). Under these three heads it is possible to group all truths which Holy Scripture reveals concerning our Lord and His work and to refute whatever errors have been voiced against them" (Muller, 255).

2. Doctrine of the Person of Christ

a) Deity

b) Humanity

c) Personal Unity

3. Doctrine of the States (or Estates) of Christ

a) Humiliation (e.g., incarnation, death, burial)

b) Exaltation (e.g., resurrection, ascension, session)

4. Doctrine of the Offices of Christ

a) Office of Prophet (Teachings)

b) Office of Priest (Atonement, intercession)

c) Office of King (Second Advent, Millennium)

E. Bibliography of Christology

1. Best Surveys of Available Literature

a) *Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980.Dunn is reader in New Testament Studies at the University of Nottingham. Technically a study on the incarnation, the work has much to offer the interested student in the other areas of Christology as well. Dunn must be read cautiously and judiciously due to his views on the unity of Scripture (see his Unity and Diversity in the New Testament) and his adoption of some of the baggage that accompanies historical criticism. Recognize the

Page 11 of 205


work as a contribution in the area of biblical theology and make use of the extensive (49 pages!) bibliography and extensive (84 pages!) of footnotes.

b) Ramm, Bernard L. An Evangelical Christology. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985. Ramm is professor of Christian Theology at the American Baptist Seminary of the West in Berkeley, CA. In this Christology Ramm deals in an ecumenical fashion with the orthodox doctrines of Christology. The book has an extended bibliography which lists the major contributions to theology in the last century of scholarship. Some strengths of the volume include a critique of Bultmann’s demythologization approach to the Scriptures and critical examination of some of the more contemporary neo-orthodox approaches to Christology. The volume lacks any indices and the arrangement of doctrine according to creedal statements does not enhance the book. This is a volume which can be used profitably by the discerning student who is well versed in Christological backgrounds. When used with care, the volume will make an excellent contribution toward broadening the exposure of the pastor/student to the literature of Christology

2. Recommended volumes in Christology

a) *Baillie, Donald Macpherson. God Was In Christ. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948. An important and penetrating investigation of the historical Jesus by the Scottish theologian and former professor of systematic theology at St. Andrews University in Scotland. The message of Christ is reconstructed and interwoven in this volume into the NT teaching on the incarnation and the atonement. There is a helpful appendix on Christology and mythology.

b) Berkouwer, G. C. The Work of Christ. Translated by Cornelius van Til. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1965. Berkouwer was professor of Systematic Theology at Free University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The study is wide ranging and for this reason suffers from Berkouwer’s tendency to say too much, but it has some excellent treatments of some individual topics such as the chapter on the “Aspects of the Work of Christ.”

Page 12 of 205


c) __________. The Person of Christ. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954. Berkouwer examines the historical pronouncements of the ecumenical councils, the Christian confessions, and the nature, unity, and sinlessness of Christ from a Reformed perspective.

d) Boice, James Montgomery. Vol. 2. God the Redeemer. Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Varsity Press, 1978. This Presbyterian pastor-scholar in the evangelical tradition has provided a helpful study on the provision of God for man’s salvation in Jesus. The section on Christology is helpful and worthwhile reading for the average person in the pew.

e) Walvoord, John F. Jesus Christ Our Lord. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978. A traditional study by the Chancellor at Dallas Seminary. Outline in format, the work is not an interactive Christology (concerning modern trends). The main value of the work is in the systematization of the biblical data concerning Christ with a minor emphasis on the creedal and historical perspectives of the doctrine. The book lacks critical interaction with scolars of opposing viewpoints.

3. On the Incarnation

a) Anderson, Norman. The Mystery of the Incarnation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978. A work of some value for its assessment of the various theories on the humanity of Christ.

b) Erickson, Millard J. The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. The primary value of this work is its treatment of recent Christologies from a solidly evangelical perspective. Erickson, who is professor of theology (and dean) of Bethel Seminary, puts forth a substantial treatment of recent Christological issues related to the incarnation from existential, liberation, black, feminist, functional, process, universalist, and other Christological perspectives. Erickson finds fault with Chalcedon inasmuch as it stated what Christ was not rather than affirming substantially what He is. The book lacks a bibliography but is well-documented, cross-referenced, and indexed so that the former

Page 13 of 205


problem is not overwhelming. of special interest to this writer is the section on “Views of the Continuing Incarnation” (pp. 565ff.) It is doubtful that Norman Geisler would allow his position on the resurrected body of Jesus (and therefore of believers) to be described as “semi physical.” It seems that Erickson has misread Geisler on this point and, indeed has not thought out the consequences of his critique from a consistent logical and philosophical basis. The suggestion of a two-stage exaltation is interesting, but one is left to wonder how the 1 John passages are dealt with in Erickson’s treatment. Students of Christology will be poorer for their failure to read this exhaustive treatment.

c) *Wells, David F. The Person of Christ: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of the Incarnation. Westchester: Crossway Books, 1984. Wells has provided us with an excellent scholarly interaction with liberals on the subject of the incarnation. The book is divided into three parts: Biblical foundations, historical development, and modern interpretation. Wells considers not only what theologians have said about Jesus but why they have said it. He has substantive interaction in some 26 pages of footnotes. In the first 15 pages of the work he present some of the basic presuppositions that underlie his approach (all of them conservative and evangelical - contra redaction and form criticism). He sees the unity and diversity of the NT as complimentary rather than contradictory elements (p. 15). The advent of the kingdom in the person of Jesus is the sine qua non of a proper understanding of Christology in his view. This volume is a must for the introductory study of Christology by the Trinity professor.

4. Other Volumes in Christology

a) Buell, Jon A. and Hyder, O. Quentin. Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

b) Bultmann, Rudolph. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958.

c) Chemnitz, Martin. The Two Natures of Christ. Translated by J. A. O. Prues. St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1971.

Page 14 of 205


d) Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Revised edition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963.

e) Dabney, Robert L. Christ our Penal Substitute. Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1897.

f) Douty, Norman L. The Death of Christ. Irving, TX: Williams and Watrous, 1978.

g) Dorner, I. A. History of the Development of the Person of Jesus. 5 volumes. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, n. d.

h) Green, Michael. Editor. The Truth of God Incarnate. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

i) Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Press, 1974.

j) Gunn, James. Christ the Fullness of the Godhead. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1983.

k) Hengstenberg, Ernst W. Christology of the 0ld Testament. 4 vols. in one. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1956. See the review in OT Theologies.

l) Hick, John, editor. The Myth of God Incarnate. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977.

m) Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1970.

n) MacDonald, H. D. Jesus - Human and Divine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968.

o) Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.

p) Mackintosh, Hugh R. The Doctrine of the Person of Christ. 3rd edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914.

q) Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

Page 15 of 205


r) Owen, John. The Glory of Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1949. First published in 1696.

s) Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus: God and Man. Trans. by L. Wilkins and D. Priebe. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

t) Pittenger, Norman. Christology Reconsidered. London: SCM Press, 1970.

u) Warfield, Benjamin B. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1950.

Page 16 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 1 of 19

II. The Person of Christ

A. The Deity of Christ

1. Introduction

a) While often disputed by anti-supernaturalists both in and out of the church, the deity of Christ is a well established fact of the New Testament.

b) "Not one recognized religious leader, not Moses, Paul, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, etc., has ever claimed to be God; that is, with the exception of Jesus Christ. Christ is the only religious leader who has ever claimed to be deity and that the only individual who has convinced a great portion of the world that He is God" (Thomas Schutlz, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ with an Emphasis upon the Hypostatic Union, 209.

c) "But the reason overshadowing all othes, which led directly to the ignominious execution of the Teacher of Galilee, was His incredible claim that He, a simple carpenter's son among the shavings and sawdust of His father's workshop, was in reality God in the flesh" (Robert Anderson, The Lord from Heaven, 49).

d) "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing hat people often say about Him: 'I am ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' This is one thing we must not say. A man show was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse" (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 40, 41).

2. The Savior's claim to deity.

a) The claim of oneness in essence with the Father (John 10:30-31).

Page 17 of 205


b) The acknowledgment of the great Petrine confession (Matt. 16:16-17). In response to Jesus' question, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matt. 16:15) Peter responds, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Rather than rebuking and correcting him for speaking error or blasphemy (which the Lord did, not too long after, when Peter misspoke himself, see Matt. 16:21-23) Jesus not only accepts the assessment but identifies it as divinely revealed truth.

c) The absolute "I am" claim (John 8:58).

(1) In three occurrences of this construction ["I am," in John 8:24, 28; 13:19], the omission in the Greek of the predicate nominative "He" may be explained in light of the contexts, since there are clearly identifiable antecedents (cf. 8:12, 23 with 24; cf. 8:28a with 28b; cf. 13:13 with 13:19).

(2) The supplying of the pronoun "He" in these cases is in order, since it is inferred from the context. This is not true in John 8:58. Here there is no antecedent in the context, and the obvious contrast intended between the two main statements ("before Abraham was born" and "I AM") is heightened by the fact that neither a predicate nominative nor a predicate adjective is used.

(3) By the use of prin (before), a word with unmistakable temporal meaning; by the reference to Abraham, a historical personage of paramount importance as the physical, natural, and spiritual progenitor of Israel; and by the use of the aorist infinitive genesthai (was born), which emphasizes the historical fact of Abraham's existence, or, better, entrance into existence, one half of the great contrast is set forth.

(4) Then by a dramatic change of verb (from ginomai to eimi) and aktionsart (from punctiliar to linear) the second half is stated. While genesthai describes entrance into existence from a state of non-existence, eimi describes timeless being and essential existence (cf. John 1:1).

(5) That Jesus was consciously identifying Himself with Yahweh of the Old Testament is beyond refutation. The parallels between this passage and Exodus 3:13-15 are too exact to be set aside. When Moses asked God His name so that he could tell it to Israel, the answer was "I AM." The text then goes on, "And God, furthermore, said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, the LORD [Yahweh, which is derived from hayah , to be; since eimi is the Greek equivalent to hayah (cf. Ex. 3:14 LXX) it is apparent that in making the claim "I am" Jesus was

Page 18 of 205


claiming to be Yahweh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham . . . has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial-name to all generations.'"

(6) As John 8:59 shows Jesus' hearers recognized the relationship between Jesus' words and those of Exodus 3:13-15, and thus they reacted as it was customary to react to blasphemy: they picked up stones to stone Him (W. Robert Cook, The Theology of John, pp. 57-8).

Page 19 of 205


d) Statement at trial (Mark 14:61-64)

e) Equality with the Father (John 10:20-33; 5:17, 18)

f) Same honor due Him as the Father (John 5:22, 24)

g) Knowing Him is to know the Father (John 8:19; John 14:9)

3. NT Descriptions of Christ as Jehovah/ Yahweh

Of Yahweh Mutual Title or Act Of Jesus

Isa. 40:28 Creator John 1:3

Isa. 45:22; 43:11 Savior John 4:42

1 Sam. 2:6 Raise dead John 5:21

Joel 3:12 Judge John 5:27; Cf. Matt. 25:31 ff.

Isa. 60:19-20 Light John 8:12

Exodus 3:4 I AM John 8:58; Cf. 18:5, 6

Psalm 23:1 Shepherd John 10:11

Isa. 42:8; 48:11 Glory of God John 17:1, 5

Isa. 41:4; 44:6 First and Last Rev. 1:7; 2:8

Hosea 13:14 Redeemer Rev. 5:9

Isa. 62:5; Hosea 2:16 Bridegroom Rev. 21:2; Cf. Matt. 25:1ff.

Psa. 18:2 Rock 1 Cor. 10:4

Jer. 31:4 Forgiver of Sin Mark 2:7, 10

Psa. 148:2 Worshipped by Angels Heb. 1:6

Throughout Addressed in prayer Acts 7:59

Page 20 of 205


Psa. 148:5 Creator of Angels Col. 1:16

Isa. 45:23 Confessed as Lord Phil. 2:11

4. Important Passages on the Deity of Christ

a) John 1:1-- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

(1) The term logos, translated by the English term "word," has as its basic idea that of disclosure or revelation of God. A comparison of John 1:1 with 1:14 shows that the Word of verse one must be a reference to Christ. Of him it is said he was (en) in the beginning (cf. Gen. 1:1; John 17:5). Thus there never was a time when he was not. Whenever the beginning was he already was. This refers to the pre-existence and eternity of the Logos.

(2) Further, it is said that he was with (pros) God. "With" has the sense of "toward" or "facing" "giving the picture of two personal beings facing one another and engaging in intelligent discourse. The use of the same verb that was used in the first clause of verse 1 (en) indicates that ho logos and ho theos have always been two separate centers of consciousness or individual persons.

(3) There should be no confusion of the two" (Cook, The Theology of John, p. 49). This, then, speaks of fellowship, sharing, and exchange. It implies equality as well as association and points to personality.

(4) Not only was he "in the beginning" and "with God," but the scriptures also declare he "was God."

(5) The third clause of verse 1 speaks of the nature of the Word. He is of the very essence of deity. The words theos en ho logos have been the target of various cultic and aberrant forms of pseudo-Christian theology since John first penned them. They have been variously translated as "God was the Word," "the Word was a god," "the Word was divine," and so forth. The only grammatically and exegetically correct translation, and therefore the only theologically correct translation, however, is "the Word was God."

Page 21 of 205


(6) While Colwell has demonstrated that in such a construction as this theos does not need the article to be definite (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, L II, 20-21), nonetheless it is to be construed as a predicate nominative rather than as the subject. This is not a convertible statement with either noun capable of being construed as subject. The article could have been used with theos or it could have been omitted with logos had there been the intent to have "God" as subject of the clause. "God" is in the first position in the clause for emphasis because this is the climactic statement of a series of remarkable statements. Not only was the Word already in existence at the beginning, and not only was He a personal being in fellowship with God, but He was Himself God. Furthermore, the statement "God was the Word" is in direct contradiction with everything else John teaches about God (to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament). He has already, in the second clause, distinguished God and the Word, and he will continue to do so throughout his writing. John was trinitarian and this trans-lation would make him a unitarian. . . .

(7) The translation "the Word was a god" is openly intended to denigrate the obvious assertion of deity. This, too, does not stand the test of grammar or of the analogy of faith, and it totally ignores the development of the argument in the context. As has already been noted, theos does not need the article to be definite in such constructions as this. Furthermore, if the sense of an anarthrous construction is to be captured in English, it is rarely best accomplished by the use of the indefinite article. Such constructions rather qualify then specify; so the sense is "the Word was of such a nature as God is." As the Athanasian Creed puts it, "the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God." Also, the translation "the Word was a god" teaches polytheism, which is in direct conflict with John's teaching elsewhere (John 10:30) and with the rest of the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:4-6).

(8) When one translates the third clause of John 1:1 as "the Word was divine," it is usually with the implication that divinity is something other and less than absolute deity [see e.g., John A. T. Robinson, Honest To God, p. 71]. If John had meant "divine" as the sense of the statement, he had access to the word theios. Although theios does express a biblical truth, John was identifying person (logos) with person (theos) here, not person with attributes (Cook, op. cit., pp. 49-51).

(9) When John 1:14 is compared with 1:1 a note of particular significance is the change of verbs and the change of the tense of the verbs. In verse one the verb is "was" in the Greek imperfect tense, while in verse fourteen the verb is "became" (egeneto) in

Page 22 of 205


the Greek aorist tense. This verb and tense would have been inappropriate in verse one as well as vice versa. The aorist suggests that there was a time, namely the incarnation, when he began a mode of existence, which had not hitherto been true.

(10) Note well that it is the eternal, personal, divine Word who became flesh, that is, as Word he became flesh. In this experience there was an addition not a subtraction.

(11) Also note that he became flesh, that is, he was no mere semblance of man. The term "dwelt" in verse fourteen is better translated "tabernacled" or more literally "pitched his tent." This was done "in our midst" or "among us." He not only became a man in form but also in fellowship, in actual daily living.

(12) The glory which was beheld (etheasametha--refers to careful deliberate looking; scrutiny) was such as an only begotten from the Father's side would have. This could well be an intimation of a personalizing of the Old Testament Shekinah glory (Exod. 40:34). This one from the Father was full of grace and truth. There was nothing else than this in him for if he was full of these things there was no room for ungracious or untruthful actions, thoughts, etc.

(13) Because he is spirit (John 4:24) God is invisible and thus unknown by man who moves and understands primarily in the realm of matter, space, and time. John 1:18 declares that "God only begotten," that is the one referred to in verse fourteen as the Word become flesh, and in John 3:16 and 18 as the Son of God given for salvation, has interpreted (exegesato) or exegeted God to man in personal manifestation (see Heb. 1:2-3).

b) Romans 9:5-- "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

(1) In Romans 9:5 it is stated “Christ…is over all, God blessed forever.”

(2) While it has often been contested as to whether this passage teaches the deity of Christ the most natural way to understand the phrases of this passage is appositionally.

(3) Also, they are in keeping with other Pauline teaching regarding Christ as is seen, for example, in 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Titus 2:13; Philippians 2:6; and Colossians 2:9.

(4) After a survey of Greek manuscripts, early translations, and other grammar and structure of the passage, Bruce M. Metzger

Page 23 of 205


concludes that "if one confines one's attention to the verse itself, the balance of probabilities favors referring theos to Christ ("The Punctuation of Romans 9:5," Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, edited by Barnabas Linders and Stephan S. Smalley, p. 109).

(5) As Metzger points out Paul does not hesitate to call Christ Lord of the living and the dead (Rom. 14:9), the Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8), the one through whom all things hold together (Col. 1:17), to whom all creatures are to bow (Phil. 2:10); he is, moreover, the veritable image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15) and the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Paul represents Christ as preexistent (Gal. 4:14, 2 Cor. 8:9), as being in the form of God and having equality with God (Phil. 2:6) (Carl F. H. Henry, God Revelation and Authority, V, 197-98). (For a full discussion of this passage from an exegetical standpoint see John F. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, II, 245 ff.)

c) Titus 2:13-- "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

(1) Titus 2:13 declares, ". . . our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." That this declaration is to be understood as stating that Jesus Christ is God as well as Savior is supported by Granville Sharp's rule which states, "When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participles, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first-named person" (see H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 147).

(2) In an article that clarifies the proper use of Sharp’s rule Daniel B. Wallace also demonstrates its validity in relation to Titus 2:13 (“Granville Sharp: A Model of Evangelical Scholarship and Social Action, The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41, 4 (Dec. 1998), 604-612).

d) Colossians 2:9

(1) Also supports the deity of the second person in that it states, "in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead. . . ."

(2) Theotetos means deity or godhood and this is predicated regarding Jesus Christ.

Page 24 of 205


e) 1 John 5:20-- "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

(1) This Jesus Christ (the last-named Person) is the true God" (identifying Him thus with the Father in His attribute, "the only true God," John 17:3, primarily attributed to the Father) (Jamieson, Fauset, and Brown)

(2) "There has been much difference of opinion in regard to this important passage; whether it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the immediate antecedent, or to a more remote antecedent—referring to God, as such. The question is of importance in its bearing on the doctrine of the divinity of the Saviour; for if it refers to him, it furnishes an unequivocal declaration that he is Divine. The question is, whether John meant that it should be referred to him? Without going into an extended examination of the passage, the following considerations seem to me to make it morally certain that by the phrase "this is the true God," etc., he did refer to the Lord Jesus Christ.

(a) The grammatical construction favours it. Christ is the immediate antecedent of the pronoun this—Greek. This would be regarded as the obvious and certain construction so far as the grammar is concerned, unless there were something in the thing affirmed which led us to seek some more remote and less obvious antecedent. No doubt would have been ever entertained on this point, if it had not been for the reluctance to admit that the Lord Jesus is the true God. If the assertion had been that "this is the true Messiah;" or that "this is the Son of God;" or that "this is he who was born of the Virgin Mary," there would have been no difficulty in the construction. I admit that this argument is not absolutely decisive; for cases do occur where a pronoun refers, not to the immediate antecedent, but to one more remote; but cases of that kind depend on the ground of necessity, and can be applied only when it would be a clear violation of the sense of the author to refer it to the immediate antecedent.

(b) This construction seems to be demanded by the adjunct which John has assigned to the phrase "the true God"—" ETERNAL LIFE." This is an expression which John would he likely to apply to the Lord Jesus, considered as life, and the source of life, and not to God as such. "How familiar is this language with John, as applied to Christ! ‘In him (i.e. Christ) was Life, and the

Page 25 of 205


LIFE was the light of men—giving LIFE to the world—the bread of LIFE.—my words are spirit and LIFE —I am the way, and the truth, and the LIFE. This LIFE (Christ) was manifested, and we have seen it, and do testify to you, and declare the ETERNAL LIFE which was with the Father, and was manifested to us,’ 1Jo 1:2."—Prof. Stuart’s Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 83. There is no instance in the writings of John, in which the appellation LIFE, and eternal Life, is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as this occurs so frequently in John’s writings as applied to Christ, the laws of exegesis require that both the phrase "the true God," and "eternal life," should be applied to him.

(c) If it refers to God as such, or to the word "true"—Greek —it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be, "That we may know the true God, and we are in the true God: this is the true God, and eternal life." Can we believe that an inspired man would affirm gravely, and with so much solemnity, and as if it were a truth of so much magnitude, that the true God is the true God?

(d) This interpretation accords with what we are sure John would affirm respecting the Lord Jesus Christ. Can there be any doubt that he who said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" that he who said "all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made;" that he who recorded the declaration of the Saviour, "I and my Father are one," and the declaration of Thomas, "my Lord and my God," would apply to him the appellation the true God!

(e) If John did not mean to affirm this, he has made use of an expression which was liable to be misunderstood, and which, as facts have shown, would be misconstrued by the great portion of those who might read what he had written; and, moreover, an expression that would lead to the very sin against which he endeavours to guard in the next verse—the sin of substituting a creature in the place of God, and rendering to another the honour due to him. The language which he uses is just such as, according to its natural interpretation, would lead men to worship one as the true God who is not the true God, unless the Lord Jesus be Divine. For these reasons, it seems to me that the fair interpretation of this passage demands that it should be understood as referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. If so, it is a direct

Page 26 of 205


assertion of his divinity, for there could be no higher proof of it than to affirm that he is the true God" (Barnes Notes on the New Testament, Op. Cit.)

Page 27 of 205


5. Old Testament Witness to His Deity

a) Psalm 2, universal dominion (Acts 13:33)

b) Psalm 45, eternal throne (Heb. 1:8, 9)

c) Isa. 9:6, mighty God, everlasting Father

d) Micah 5:2, from of old

e) Malachi 3:12, his temple (Mark 1:2)

6. Divine Atttributes Ascbribed to Christ

a) Eternity (John 8:58; Rev. 1:8, 17, 18; 22:13)

b) Immutability (Heb. 13:8; 1:11, 12)

c) Omnipresence (John 3:13; Matt. 28:20)

d) Omniscience (John 5:17; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 2:23)

e) Omnipotent (John 5:17; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 11:17)

7. Divine Works Ascribed to Christ

a) Creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:6, 7)

b) Preservation (Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:16, 17; Providence: Matt. 28:18)

c) Miracles (John 5:21, 36, etc.)

d) Judgment (2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 5:31, 32)

e) Election (John 13:18)

f) Sanctification (Eph. 5:26)

g) Sending of the Holy Spirit (John 10:28)

h) Giving of Life (John 10:28)

8. Supreme Worship given to Christ

Page 28 of 205


a) Calling on His name (1 Cor. 1:2)

b) Invoked in blessing (2 Cor. 13:14)

c) Adoration and Prostration (Phil 2:10, 11; Rev. 7:10)

d) Receiving Praise (Rev. 1:5, 6).

9. Key Terms Concerning Christ

a) Only Begotten

(1) "Only begotten" (monogenes) means "one of a kind," that is, "having no peer" or "unique." Due to an unfortunate, although well intended, set of circumstances this crucial term has come to us in many of our translations in a form that suggests that the Son of God was actually begotten, that is, that he had a beginning.

(2) The [Old Latin] correctly translated [monogenes] as unicus, "only," and so did Jerome where it was not applied to Jesus. But to answer the Arian claims that Jesus was not begotten but made, Jerome translated it as unigenitus, "only begotten," in passages like this one [John 1:14] (also i 18, iii 16, 18). The influence of the Vulg. on the KJ made "only begotten" the standard English rendition (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, II, 13).

(3) In fact, monogenes is a combination of monos and genos (unicus; only of a kind, unique) rather than monos and gennao (monogennetos, unigenitus; only begotten). The point is that while God has many sons (pollous hious) in the redeemed company of believers, he has only one Son who is full of grace and truth, who is in the bosom of the Father, and who has perfectly declared him (John 1:14, 18). This sense for the word is well illustrated as it is used of Isaac in Hebrews 11:17. "He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only Son. . ."In terms of numbers Isaac was not Abraham's only son but in light of God's promise and his unusual birth he was indeed unique."

b) Firstborn

(1) The term "firstborn" (prototokos) means "prior in rank" (and possibly, on occasion, in time) and may be translated by the English word "chief." (In support of this meaning see “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn Over All Creation – Col. 1:15,” by Larry R. Helyer in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Page 29 of 205


Society, 31, 1 (Mar. 1988), 59-67.) It is a title of honor. As used of Christ it does not place him first (earliest) in the order of created things but ranks him as chief over the order of created things.

(2) The sense of the term is well illustrated throughout the Old Testament and especially in the lives of the patriarchs Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. None of them were the first son born to their respective fathers but each became designated as firstborn as they were given the place of honor and double-blessing in the family (see also 1 Chron. 26:10).

c) Son of Man

(1) The Metaphysical Sense

(a) It may be noted that the term is sometimes used in relation to his essential nature and thus as an indication of his deity. This may be seen in several ways. Some passages describe the second person from the pre-incarnate standpoint by the term "Son" (John 1:14, 18; Gal. 4:4). In the normal historical sense of the term, then, this means that he existed prior to being made flesh which strongly suggests that he must be divine.

(b) On occasion the term "only begotten" is used with the term "Son" (John 1:14, 18; 3:16). This would not be appropriate if "Son of God" were merely an official title since "only begotten" means "unique" and serves to set him apart from all other sons of God.

(c) There are other passages, which indicate that the Son is divine, such as Hebrews chapter one and especially verse eight, where the Father addresses the Son as God. On occasion Jesus addressed God as "Father" or "my Father" rather than as "our Father" (Matt. 6:9; cf. 7:21). The scriptural record also gives to us instances where the Lord used the term Son regarding himself and he was correctly understood by his auditors to be referring to deity (John 5:18; John 10:22-39, especially verse 36)

(d) (See also Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 248, and J. Oliver Buswell, Christian Theology, I, 105.)

(2) The Official or Messianic Sense

(a) Certain passages use the term "Son" to refer to the second person as God's anointed, the Messiah, or Christ

Page 30 of 205


(Matt. 26:63-66; 27:40, 42; John 1:49). This sense is related to the preceding in that it is possible because of the metaphysical sense.

(b) Of particular note here is the title “Son of Man” which is used repeatedly by Jesus to refer to himself. There is little question that the roots of this title lie in Daniel 7:13-14 or that this passage is messianic. (On the basis of Daniel 7:18 some early Jewish interpretation understood the figure to be a reference to the people of Israel yet, according to R. Steven Notley, “by the first century opinions had changed” (Dispatch From Jerusalem, 24, 1, “Jesus and the Son of Man,” p. 15). He notes that in 1 Enoch 46-48 “the Son of Man is identified as the Messiah.”) Jesus’ widespread use of the title for himself provides clear attestation to his messianic self-consciousness (see Matt. 16:13-16; cf. Matt. 26:64-65).

(c) While the majority of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospels may be understood as messianic this does not mean that Jesus is not nuanced in his use of the term. On occasion he seems to be using the term as the equivalent of “I, the Messiah” (e.g. Mark 2:10; Luke 19:10); on others he seems to be saying, “Messiah, the Judge” (e.g. Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:69); on yet others he seems to be saying, “Messiah, the suffering Servant of Yahweh” (e.g. Mark 8:31; Luke 9:44); and finally sometimes he seems to be saying, “Messiah, a man among men” (e.g. Matt. 8:20, 9:6-8; cf. Ps. 8:3-6 with Heb. 2:6-8).

(3) The Nativistic Sense

(a) On occasion the term "Son" is used in the sense that Jesus owed his human birth to God (Luke 1:31-32, 35).

(b) Thus has the meaning “offspring of”.

10. Key Heresies Concerning deity of Christ

a) The Ebionite Error

(1) Description

(a) By this name were designated one or more early Christian sects infected with Judaistic errors.

Page 31 of 205


(b) The word Ebionites, or rather, more correctly, Ebionæans (Ebionaioi), is a transliteration of an Aramean word meaning "poor men".

(c) It first occurs in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2, but without designation of meaning. Origen (C. Celsum, II, i; De Princ., IV, i, 22) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii) refer the name of these sectaries either to the poverty of their understanding, or to the poverty of the Law to which they clung, or to the poor opinions they held concerning Christ. This, however, is obviously not the historic origin of the name.

(d) Other writers, such as Tertullian (De Praescr., xxxiii; De Carne Chr., xiv, 18), Hippolytus (cfr. Pseudo-Tert., Adv. Haer., III, as reflecting Hippolytus's lost "Syntagma"), and Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx) derive the name of the sect from a certain Ebion, its supposed founder.

(2) The Basic Tenets

(a) The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.

(b) They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3).

(c) Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus.

(d) Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii).

(e) Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity.

(f) Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides

Page 32 of 205


observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection.

(g) The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all. (Origen, Hom. in Luc., xvii)

(3) Condemnation

(a) The early church fathers as seen above rejected this heresy early ̀

(b) Along with Schleiermacher, Ritschl and Walter Rauschenbusch, Bloesch categorizes Donald Baillie and contemporary liberation theology as ebionite (op. cit., p. 135).

b) The Arian and Semi-Arian error (4th century).

(1) Basic Tenets

(a) The Father Alone is God

(b) The Son is preexistent, above all other creatures

(c) The Son is a created being; "There was a time when he was not"

(2) Exegetical Arguments

(a) They argue that Proverbs 8:22 speaks of Christ; rather it is only a personification of wisdom

(b) Colossians 1:15 speaks of Christ as the firstborn. However, preeminence is a better understanding of work (see Psa. 89:26-27).

(3) Arian Propositions

(a) "And before he was begotten or created or defined or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. But we persecuted because we say, 'The Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning.' We are persecuted because we say, 'He is from nothing.' But we speak this insomuch as he is neither part of God nor forma any substratum" (Arius, Letters, in Rusch The Trinitarian Controversy, 30).

Page 33 of 205


(b) "He was created by the will of God before times and ages, and he received life, being, and glories from the Father as the Father has shared them with him….but the Son, begotten the Father, created and founded before the ages, was not before he was begotten. Rather the Son begotten timelessly before everything, alone was caused to subsist by the Father. For he is not everlasting or co-everlasting or unbegotten with the Father" (Ibid., 31).

(4) Condemned a the Council of Nicea (A. D. 325).

(a) Subject of 50 years of controversy

(b) Modern day representatives include Jehovah Witnesses, United Pentecostals, Apostolic Faith

(c) I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

(5) Semi- Arianism.

(a) This was a more conservative error, reacting both against Arianism and the Nicene position which it felt tended to modalism.

(b) It claimed that Jesus Christ was of similar substance (homoiousian) with the Father but not of the same.

Page 34 of 205


(c) Most contemporary liberal theology is ebionite or arian in its views of Christ. Some who fit this category are Wolfhart Pannenburg, John A. T. Robinson, John Cobb, John Hick, Teilhard de Chardin, David Griffin and Hans Kung.

c) The Kenotic error (19th century).

(1) This view held that the Logos laid aside some or all of his attributes at the incarnation. These in turn were redeveloped during his earthly life in some cases. The milder form claimed that the emptying of Philippians 2:7 only included the relative attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence while he maintained the so-called immanent attributes.

(2) However, to give up any attribute of deity, even momentarily, is to do what even God himself cannot do, namely, to lay aside deity; to cease being God. The scripture declares of Jesus Christ that he is immutable as to his essence (Heb. 13:8).

(3) This viewpoint is usually associated with Chemnitz and Gess but has also been set forth by P. T. Forsyth, H. R. Mackintosh, Vincent Taylor, Geddes MacGregor and Jurgen Moltmann.

(4) See handout for more detail

Page 35 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 1 of 23f

II. Person of Christ

A. His Deity

B. His Humanity

1. Introduction to Christ's Humanity

a) Most attacks on the hypostatic union, the person of Jesus Christ, have been in the area of his deity.

b) There have been from earliest time, however, those who attacked his humanity in one way or another.

c) Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 John 4:1-6 were responses to those who disparaged or denied the true humanity of our Lord.

d) John viewed this error so seriously that he designated those who promulgated it as "false prophets," "of the antichrist" and setting forth a "spirit of error" (1 John 4:1-6).

2. Importance of Christ's Humanity

a) It was necessary for his sympathy with mankind (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:14-16).

b) It was necessary to his substitution for mankind (1 Pet. 2:24; Heb. 2:9).

c) "It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace" (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 39).

d) ""If, however, Jesus was not really one of us, humanity has not been united with deity, and we cannot be saved. For the validity of the work accomplished in Christ's death, or at least its applicability to us as human beings, depends upon the reality of his

Page 36 of 205


humanity, just as the efficacy of it depends upon the genuineness of his deity" (Erickson, ST, 706).

3. Proofs of Christ's Humanity

a) The Old Testament Witness

(1) He was to come from the seed of the Woman (Gen. 3:15 (Cf. Gal. 3:16).

(2) He would be of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:8-10)

(3) He was from the tribe of David (2 Sam. 7; Psalm 89).

(4) He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)

(5) He was to suffer and die (Isa. 53).

b) The New Testament Witness

(1) The birth of Jesus was the birth of a human child (Matt. 1; Luke 2; Gal. 4:4)

(2) Jesus has human genealogies (Matt. 1-17-- Joseph; Luke 3:23f. -- Mary).

(3) As a boy he grew in "wisdom and stature" (Luke 2:52).

(4) He was subject to pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, fatigue, suffering, and death. This is evidence abundantly throughout the gospels.

(5) He had flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14) and after the resurrection, flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

(6) He had a true human soul: he increased in wisdom, thought, reasoned, felt joy and sorrow; was ignorant of the time of the day of judgment (Matt. 24:36).

Page 37 of 205


4. Implications of Christ's Humanity

a) Christ's atonement avails for us

b) Christ's intercessory work avails for us

c) Christ's life acts as an example to us

d) Christ's humanity brings God to us

e) Christ's humanity shows that human nature is essentially good

5. Statements on Christ's Humanity

a) "We believe that Jesus Christ, being the wisdom of God and his eternal Son, has put on our flesh, so as to be God and man in one person; man, like unto us, capable of suffering in body and soul, yet free from all stain of sin. And as to his humanity, he was the true seed of Abraham and of David, although he was conceived by the secret power of the Holy Spirit. In this we detest all the heresies that have of old troubled the Church, and especially the diabolical conceits of Servetus, which attribute a fantastical divinity to the Lord Jesus, calling him the idea and pattern of all things, and the personal or figurative Son of God, and, finally, attribute to him a body of three uncreated elements, thus confusing and destroying the two natures" (French Confession, Article 14)

b) "Christ Is True Man, Having Real Flesh. We also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever virgin Mary, as the evangelical history carefully explains to us (Matt., ch. 1). And Paul says: He took not on him the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham. Also the apostle John says that whoever does not believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is not of God. Therefore, the flesh of Christ was neither imaginary nor brought from heaven, as Valentinus and Marcion wrongly imagined. A Rational Soul in Christ. Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ did not have a soul bereft of sense and reason, as

Page 38 of 205


Apollinaris thought, nor flesh without a soul, as Eunomius taught, but a soul with its reason, and flesh with its senses, by which in the time of his passion he sustained real bodily pain, as he himself testified when he said: My soul is very sorrowful, even to death (Matt. 26:38). And, Now is my soul troubled (John 12:27)" (2nd Helvetic Confession, Article 11).

c) "That the eternal Son of God, who is and continues true and eternal God, took upon Himself the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Ghost; so that He might also be the true seed of David, like unto His brethren in all things, except for sin (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 35).

d) " We confess, therefore, that God has fulfilled the promise which He made to the fathers by the mouth of His holy prophets, when He sent into the world, at the time appointed by Him, His own only-begotten and eternal Son, who took upon Him the form of a servant and became like unto man, really assuming the true human nature with all its infirmities, sin excepted; being conceived in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit without the means of man; and did not only assume human nature as to the body, but also a true human soul, that He might be a real man. For since the soul was lost as well as the body, it was necessary that He should take both upon Him, to save both. Therefore we confess (in opposition to the heresy of the Anabaptists, who deny that Christ assumed human flesh of His mother) that Christ partook of the flesh and blood of the children; that He is a fruit of the loins of David after the flesh; born of the seed of David according to the flesh; a fruit of the womb of Mary; born of a woman; a branch of David; a shoot of the root of Jesse; sprung from the tribe of Judah; descended from the Jews according to the flesh; of the seed of Abraham, since (A.V.) he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted; so that in truth He is our IMMANUEL, that is to say, God with us" (Belgic Confession, Article 18).

e) "Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 22).

Page 39 of 205


6. Issues of Chirst's Humanity

a) His Virgin Birth

(1) Importance

(a) Rex Turner, Sr., said, "There are four cardinal doctrines of Christianity--the doctrine of the virgin birth, the doctrine of the vicarious death, the doctrine of the blood atonement, and the doctrine of the body resurrection of the Son of Man. On these four cardinal doctrines the system of Christianity rests, but the modernist denies all four of the doctrines....Of the four cardinal doctrines of Christianity, none draws a finer line of demarcation than the doctrine of the virgin birth."

(b) Sociologist Jeffrey Hadden conducted a poll of 7,441 Protestant preachers on various Christian issues. Concerning the virgin birth of Christ when asked if they believed in the virgin birth of Jesus: 60% of Methodist, 44% of Episcopalians, 49% of Presbyterians, 34% of Baptist, 19% of American Lutherans, and 5% of Missouri Synod Lutherans said NO!

(c) J. Oliver Buswell said, "If the Biblical doctrine of the virgin birth is not historically true, there is no room for holding the other evangelical doctrines, for the Bible must then be rejected as an authority for faith and life."

(2) Significance

(a) The veracity of Scripture

(i) The doctrine of the virgin birth is closely tied to the truthfulness and authority of Scripture.

(ii) If one denies the virgin birth, then one is denying the straightforward teaching of the Bible.

(iii) If one denies the virgin birth, then he must conclude that the Bible is not telling the truth and that it lacks authority in this area of doctrine.

(iv) Machen wisely observed that "if the Bible is regarded as being wrong in what it says about the birth of Christ, then obviously the authority of the Bible, in any high sense, is gone" (Machen, 383).

Page 40 of 205


(b) The Deity of Christ

(i) The doctrine of the virgin birth is also linked with belief in the deity of Christ.

(ii) Frame writes, "While we cannot say dogmatically that God could enter the world only through the virgin birth, surely the incarnation is a supernatural event if it is anything. To eliminate the supernatural from this event is inevitably to compromise the divine dimension of it" (EDT, 1145; see also Machen, 387-92).

(c) The Humanity of Christ

(i) Similarly, the truth of the virgin birth is connected to the doctrine of the humanity of Christ. The Apostle Paul alluded to this truth when he wrote that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4).

(ii) Ignatius, a second-century martyr, argued forcefully against the Docetists, whom he called "certain unbelievers," by stressing that Jesus truly was of the Davidic line, that He was truly nailed to the cross, that He truly suffered, and that He truly rose from the dead. Ignatius was also "fully persuaded" that Jesus Christ was "truly born of a virgin" (AF, 156-157).

(d) The Sinlessness of Christ

(i) Having been born of the virgin Mary, Jesus was human Offspring. Having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and overshadowed by the power of the Most High, Jesus was holy Offspring—the sinless Son of God.

(ii) Therefore, the doctrine of the virgin birth impacts one’s view of the sinlessness of Christ. When Mary "conceived, she passed on her human nature to the theanthropic person, but she was prevented by the Holy Spirit from transmitting a sin nature" (Gromacki, 125).

(iii) The other view that one must take into account is one's view of the transmission of sin (mediate, immediate, seminal) and the origin of the soul (traducianism and creationism).

(e) The Descent of the Messiah

Page 41 of 205


(i) The doctrine of Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah, also depends upon the virgin birth.

(ii) The Messiah was promised to come as a descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Chronicles 17:14; Psalm 89:3-4, 26-37; Isaiah 9:7; Matthew 9:27, 12:23, 20:30, 21:9, 22:41-45; Luke 1:32-33; see also Ezekiel 34:23-24). In fulfillment of these promises, Jesus was born "the son of David" (Matthew 1:1,6).

(iii) The Old Testament, however, not only portrays the Messiah as a descendant of David, but also mentions a curse against all of David’s royal seed descending through the line of one of Judah’s final kings. This king was Jehoiachin (also known as Coniah), and his wicked reign is described in 2 Kings 24:8-17 and 2 Chronicles 36:9-10. He was so wicked that God pronounced a curse against him: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22:30).

(iv) This presents a problem because, though Jesus’ lineage traces back to David and Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), according to Matthew, Jesus’ lineage comes through the cursed "Jechonias’" (Matthew 1:11).

(v) The virgin birth provides the wonderful solution to this dilemma. Matthew records Jesus’ legal genealogy through Joseph, His adopted father (Matthew 1:16), and so Matthew establishes Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David. Luke, on the other hand, records Jesus’ biological genealogy through Mary.

(vi) Mary too was a descendant of David, but not through Solomon and Jehoiachin. Instead, her line traces back to a son of David through a different son, Nathan (Luke 3:31). In the sovereign plan of God, the Messiah has the legal right to David’s throne without its accompanying curse.

(f) The Salvation of Sinners

(i) The doctrine of the virgin birth is also closely tied with our own salvation.

(ii) If Jesus had been tainted with sin, then He could not have been our sufficient Sacrifice.

Page 42 of 205


(iii) On the other hand, if Jesus had not been born of Mary, and so had not been the Man, Christ Jesus, then He could not have died, nor could He have been a suitable sacrificial substitute as a Man for men.

(iv) Christ became human in a miraculous way. The provision of salvation, therefore, is all of God and none of man.

(g) Summation

(i) It is clear, then, not only that the Bible does teach the doctrine of the virgin birth and that this doctrine differs from Catholic teachings, but it is also clear that the doctrine of the virgin birth is an integral element of orthodox theology.

(ii) The virgin birth touches upon the doctrines of Scripture, Christ, and salvation. For this reason, we reaffirm our belief in this doctrine, we teach it, and we call on others to do the same. It is a doctrine that should be proclaimed—especially during the Christmas season.

(iii) Ignatius wrote of "the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord" as "three mysteries to be cried aloud" (AF110, 141-142).

(3) Evidence

(a) Prophesied.

(i) Gen. 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

(a) The seed is generally associated with the male, but here with the female.

(b) It is also specified that the seed of woman would be a male.

(c) Additional information is given.

(i) All nations will be blessed by the seed of Abraham.

(ii) God promised the seed to be through Isaac; Gen. 21:12 "And

Page 43 of 205


God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called."

(iii) God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. But the promise had not been fulfilled.

(iv) Heb. 11:17-19 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."

(v) Abraham knew that God would be faithful to His promise.

(vi) The Messiah would be of the tribe of Judah. The Savior would be from the house of David.

(ii) Isa. 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

(a) Background.

(i) Rezin (king of Syria) and Pekah (king of Israel) had formed a pack to destroy Judah

(ii) In Ahaz's first year they had attacked and killed 100,000 men and taken 200,000 captives.

(iii) In his second year they were again marching on Judah. God is warning Ahaz not to depend on Assyria for protection, instead rely on God.

(iv) God urges Ahaz to ask for a sign as evidence of God's deliverance: Ahaz refuses.

Page 44 of 205


(v) Jehovah gives a sign to the house of David, a virgin will conceive and bear a son who will be Immanuel.

(vi) Before the child reached the age of maturity (discernment) these nations would be without power. This was positive assurance that Judah would not be destroyed for the promise was yet to be fulfilled through Judah (cf. Abraham's faith concerning Isaac).

(b) Sign.

(i) Sign indicates a miracle.

(ii) Isa. 7:11 "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."

(iii) Depth would be an earthquake, flood from the ground, water from rock, etc.

(iv) Height would be sudden storm, thunder and lightning, sun standing still or going backwards, etc.

(v) Ahaz could not have tempted the Lord by asking for a non-miraculous sign.

(vi) How could God give a non-miraculous sign and anyone know that it is a sign. A woman giving birth to a son in a natural manner would not be a sign. If we remove the miraculous element the assurance that God is giving (the promise to be fulfilled through Judah) is eliminated.

(c) Virgin.

(i) This is the Hebrew word almah and the etymological meaning is a sexually mature girl.

Page 45 of 205


(ii) The definite article is used, thus "the almah," not just any almah but a specific almah.

(iii) Every Old Testament occasion of this word refers to a virgin, and never used for anything other than a virgin.

(iv) Used 7 times in the feminine form.

(v) Used 2 times in masculine form.

(vi) Some state that if Isaiah wanted to show a virgin, he would have used the Hebrew bethulah.

(vii) If inherent in the word, why is there the need to add they had not known any man; Jud. 21:12 "And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins [bethulah], that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan."

(viii) It is used of a married woman; Joel 1:8 "Lament like a virgin [bethulah] girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth."

(ix) Matthew settles the question. Mat. 1:22-23 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

(x) Matthew used ��o (parthenos) which can only mean a virgin.

(xi) Matthew says this is what Isaiah said. It is sad that the RSV translators perverted this passage to be "young woman.

Page 46 of 205


(b) The Savior Virgin Born.

(i) No involvement of a male in the birth of Christ; Mat. 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

(ii) Before Mary and Joseph came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit; Mat. 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

(iii) Mary knew not man, but conceived when the Holy Spirit came upon her and she was overshadowed by the power of the Most High; Luke 1:34-35 "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

(iv) Joseph was not willing to make her a public example instead was going to put her away privately; Mat. 1:19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily."

(v) An angel appeared to Joseph reassuring him that that which was conceived in Mary was of the Holy Spirit; Mat. 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

(vi) The angel announced that Mary would give birth to a son, His name would be Jesus because He would save His people from their sins; Mat. 1:21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

(vii) It is stated that this was being done to fulfill what Isaiah prophesied; Mat. 1:22-23 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name

Page 47 of 205


Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

(viii) It is stated that Joseph did not know her till she had brought forth a son; Mat. 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

(ix) Elisabeth was moved by the Holy Spirit to acknowledge the divine influence upon Mary; Luke 1:41-43 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

(x) An angel announced the birth of Jesus as Savior; Luke 2:8-14 "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

(xi) Luke connected Jesus with Joseph by saying "as was supposed" son of Joseph; Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"

(xii) This makes it sufficiently clear that Jesus was virgin born.

(4) Denial

(a) Modernist theologians feel that the doctrine of the virgin birth is not important; they conclude that the doctrine of the virgin birth is a theologoumenon, i.e., a story reflecting the faith of the early church in its attempt to reinforce its Christological myths.

Page 48 of 205


(b) Most treacherous are those Modernists who claim to hold the doctrine of the virgin birth, though they actually deny it by redefining the term as a reference to the incarnation, with no affirmation of the biological virginity of Mary.

(c) Contrary to the liberals’ condescending dismissal of the doctrine, we reaffirm the importance of the doctrine and its integral position in a Biblically-based systematic theology (see EDT, 1143-45).

(d) "As the stories … of six day creation of the world and the fall of Adam and Eve after their temptation by the serpent in the Garden of Eden are not seen as profound religious myths, illuminating our human situation, so the story of the Son of God coming down from heaven and being born as a human baby will be seen as a mythological expression of the immense significance our encounter with one in whose presence we have found ourselves to be at the same time in the presence of God" (John Hick).

(e) John Spong (Episcopal Bishop) is convinced that "in time the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings."

(f) Karl Barth has identified the infancy narratives of the Gospels as saga or legend.

(g) Wolfhart Pannenberg calls the virgin birth an "aetiological legend."

b) Immaculate Conception

(1) According to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was "preserved free from all stain of original sin" (Ott, 199).

(2) Since she was subject to the necessity of original sin, she stood in need of redemption; but since she was redeemed from the moment of conception, she was thereby preserved from original sin.

(3) Her redemption, therefore, according to this dogma, was more perfect than that experienced by any other human.

Page 49 of 205


(4) The dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, and a Biblical basis for the belief is argued from texts such as Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28, 41. Reading these passages, one is left at a loss as to how such a doctrine could find Biblical support were it not for underlying Marian presuppositions.

c) The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity

(1) The Catholic tenet of the perpetual virginity of Mary holds that she was "a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ" (Ott, 203).

(2) Accordingly, Mary was not only a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus but remained so throughout her life.

(3) According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church "the deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin" (CCC, 499).

(4) Catholics officially promulgate the idea that "Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity" (Ott, 205).

(5) A few, the Schoolmen in particular, theorized that Jesus’ birth did not pain Mary, nor did it nullify her "physical virginity." For the Schoolmen, then, Jesus was born miraculously in a way analogous to His emergence from the sealed tomb or to His going through the shut doors (i.e., Jesus was born directly through Mary’s abdominal wall).

(6) The Scriptures, on the other hand, describe Mary as the one who "brought forth" her Son; they say nothing about a miraculous birthing of Jesus.

(7) Magisterial Catholic theologians propound the concept that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth.

(8) For Augustine and others, Biblical support for this comes from an inference based on Luke 1:34, where Mary’s question is taken as "a resolve of constant virginity on the ground of special Divine enlightenment" (Ott, 207). Others look to John 19:26 and infer that Mary had no other children but Jesus.

(9) However, the aggregate voice of Scripture contradicts the dogma of perpetual virginity with the repeated mention of Jesus’ siblings: Matthew 12:46, 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts

Page 50 of 205


1:14; and Galatians 1:19. In addition, Matthew 1:25 could hardly be clearer on this point: Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." The words till (see also 1:18) and firstborn (see also Luke 2:7) provide a double proof against the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is of little wonder that one Catholic catechism reads, "The perpetual virginity of Mary is not revealed truth which can be clearly demonstrated from the New Testament without the light of tradition" (Lawler, 107).

d) His Sinlessness

(1) Testimony of Scripture

(a) Hebrews 4:15-- yet without sin

(b) Hebrews 7:26-- holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sin

(c) Hebrews 9:14-- without blemish

(d) 1 Peter 2:22-- committed no sin

(e) 1 John 3:5-- in him there is no sin

(f) 2 Cor. 5:21-- knew no sin

(g) John 8:46-- who can convict him of sin?

(h) John 8:29-- always does that which is pleasing to God

(i) Others testify to his sinlessness (Matt. 27:19; Luke 23:41; Matt. 27:4).

(2) Significance of Testimony

(a) A perfect sacrifice for us

(b) A righteousness gained for us

(c) An effectual advocate for us

(3) Rejection of Sinlessness

(a) While Christ's sinlessness is repeatedly affirmed by scripture Barth, seemingly with

Page 51 of 205


Bloesch's approval, rejects this witness. Bloesch tries to mitigate the unbiblical nature of Barth's assertion as he writes, "Barth contends with some biblical support that Christ assumed fallen human nature and not simply human nature (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:14, 17, 18).

(b) The implication which he intends, however, is not that Christ became a sinner but rather that he identified himself completely with fallen human kind in its frailty and dereliction" (op. cit., p. 130). An examination of these two passages, however, will show that Christ identified with our sin in his death not his incarnation. The references in Hebrews say nothing about him assuming sinful nature but only human nature.

(4) Peccability

(a) Definition

(i) Christ could sin

(ii) Able not to sin (potuit non peccare)

(b) Argument

(i) M.R. DeHaan (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 2) admits this truth, he goes on to argue that Jesus could have sinned because "the humanity of Jesus was no different from the humanity of Adam before He fell" (p. 3) and " ... when He met Satan in the wilderness, (He) met him as the Son of MAN, and not as the Son of God" (p. 4, emphasis are his).

(ii) Real temptation admits the possibility of succumbing to the temptation.

(a) "If Christ could not have sinned, His temptation was not real." M.R. DeHaan says, "There is but little glory in not sinning when it is IMPOSSIBLE to sin" (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 13).

(b) Again DeHaan says (p. 19), "Therein lies the glory of His victory --not that He could not sin but that HE WOULD NOT SIN. Otherwise there could have been no temptation."

Page 52 of 205


(c) The answer to this objection is that there can indeed be a genuine temptation without the possibility of Christ's yielding to it. This is because temptability does not imply that the one being tempted must be able to yield to the temptation Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 147) states, "While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable."

(iii) True freedom involves the possibility of choosing to sin.

(a) Yet we know that God has free will (Ephesians 1:11) and it is impossible for Him to lie (Titus 1:2).

(b) Francis Pieper (Christian Dogmatics, II, p. 76) remarks, "The assertion that 'freedom' must always involve the possibility of sinning operates with a false conception of freedom. The saints in heaven cannot sin, and still they are not unfree, but enjoy a state of perfect freedom. "

(iv) "If Christ could not have sinned, then He cannot be our example as Hebrews 4:15 says He is."

(a) This is DeHaan's argument (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 8).

(b) The answer to this objection is that the parallel between our blessed Lord and ourselves is not that because He conquered temptation we can also. How could such a parallel exist? He had no sin nature. We do. He never sinned. We do. Our sin nature offers the tempter an inward point of temptation. This was missing in Jesus. Hebrews 4:15 does not say that Jesus was tempted so that He could be our example, but so that He could sympathize with us. He was human. He got tired. He was hungry. In this sense His temptations were real and in this sense He can understand when we, too, become weary. But this is vastly different from saying Jesus Christ could have sinned. Berkhouwer (the

Page 53 of 205


Person of Christ, p. 254-255) clearly presents this truth.

(5) Impeccability

(a) Definition

(i) Christ could not sinned

(ii) Not able to sin (non potuit peccare)

(b) Argument

(i) Jesus Christ had two natures but they were united in one person.

(a) It is clear from Scripture that Jesus Christ had a human nature as well as a divine nature (see Romans 1:3 & I Timothy 2:5). But it is also clear that Jesus was one person (see John 17:23, I John 4:2, Romans 1:3).

(b) Strong (Systematic Theology, p. 673) says, "The orthodox doctrine holds that in the one person Jesus Christ there are two natures, a human nature and a divine nature, each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby."

(c) While M.R. DeHaan (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 2) admits this truth, he goes on to argue that Jesus could have sinned because "the humanity of Jesus was no different from the humanity of Adam before He fell" (p. 3) and " ... when He met Satan in the wilderness, (He) met him as the Son of MAN, and not as the Son of God" (p. 4, emphasis are his).

(d) This is a contradiction! If Jesus Christ was one person, then it was impossible for Christ to be tempted only as a human being.

(ii) Jesus Christ had two desires (human and divine) but the human desire always obeyed the divine desire.

Page 54 of 205


(a) Our Lord Jesus was under terrific pressure in the Garden of Gethsemane and yet His will was submissive to the will of His Heavenly Father (see Matthew 26:39, 42, 44).

(iii) Jesus Christ's divine nature, and not His human nature, is the base of His person.

(a) This is crucial to our understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Let me recommend Eternal Sonship of Christ by J.C. Philpot as good reading in this area.)

(b) Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, II, p. 269-270) states: "The eternal Son, or the Word, is personal per se. He is from everlasting to everlasting conscious of himself as distinct from the Father, and from the Holy Spirit. He did not acquire personality by union with a human nature ... On the contrary, the human nature which he assumed to himself acquired personality by its union with him ... That the personality of the God-man depends primarily upon the divine nature, and not upon the human, is also evinced by the fact that this complex theanthropic (i.e., God-man) personality was not destroyed by the death of Christ" (see John 1:1, 14).

(iv) Overall Testimony of the Bible

(a) The overall testimony of the Bible does not present Jesus Christ as a man who won victory over sinful temptation, but rather it presents Him as a completely holy person (see Hebrews 7:26).

(b) Berkhouwer (The Person of Christ, p. 256) comments, "The Bible certainly speaks, not of a final victory over sinful, rebellious desire, but of a holiness which pervades his entire existence, inside and outside."

(v) The fact that Jesus Christ is unchangeable guarantees His impeccability.

Page 55 of 205


(a) Hebrews 13:8 states that. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

(b) This does not refer to any specific act (e.g. it would be improper to use this verse to teach that because Christ once created the world, that He must continue to do so).

(c) Instead, this passage teaches that Jesus Christ is unchangeable in His person. He has and always will be God and as God, (though not the Father but the Son) He shares the divine attributes.

(d) One of those attributes is holiness. Best puts it well when he says, "Holiness is far more than the absence of sin; it is positive virtue ... To say that He could have sinned is to deny positive holiness. To deny positive holiness, therefore, is to deny the holy character of God. Holiness is positive virtue which has neither room for nor interest in sin. The Lord Jesus could not sin because the days of His flesh meant only addition of experience, not variation of character" (cf. Best, The Impeccable Christ, p. 8).

(vi) The fact that Jesus Christ is omnipotent (all powerful) guarantees His impeccability.

(a) Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 151-152) carefully distinguishes between having ALL power and sufficient power. Sufficient power would enable Christ not to sin.

(b) But our Lord Jesus Christ had more than sufficient power. He had ALL power and therefore was not able to sin.

(vii) The fact that Jesus Christ is omniscient (all knowing) guarantees His impeccability.

(a) Christ knew all things.

(b) Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 152) states, "Sin frequently appeals to the ignorance of the one tempted. Thus Eve was deceived and sinned, though Adam was not deceived as to the nature

Page 56 of 205


of the transgression. In the case of Christ, the effects of sin were perfectly known, with all the contributing factors. It was impossible for Christ having omniscience to commit that which He knew could only bring eternal woe to Himself and to the race."

7. Errors relating to His humanity.

a) The Docetic error (2nd century).

(1) Docetism, a form of Gnosticism, affirmed the deity of Christ but claimed that he only "seemed" to have a body. Another form of Gnosticism, Cerinthianism, claimed that the "Christ-spirit" descended on Jesus at his baptism and departed at the crucifixion. Gnosticism saw anything relating to matter, including the human body, as evil and in this way tried to guard deity from any contamination.

(2) Proponents: Basilides, Valentinus, Patripassians, Sabellians.

(3) Denied genuine humanity

(4) While he appeared human, he would really divine.

(5) It was never officially condemned

(6) Late in the first century Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, already echos the warnings of the New Testament against those who would deny our Lord's true humanity (Ignatius to the Trallians, IX/1, The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake, p. 211).

(7) It must be kept in mind that a denial of Christ's humanity is tantamount to a denial of his historicity. He was, however, no mere phantom on the one hand nor Greek "hero" on the other but one who can identify with us in temptation, suffering and death-- see Heb. 2:14; 1 John 4:1-3

(8) This error is mirrored, although not exactly reproduced, in some contemporary neo-orthodox thinking which tends to separate the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history in its distinction between geschite and historie.

b) Appollinarians (4th Century)

(1) Appolinarius, bishop of Laodicea

Page 57 of 205


(2) Justin Martyr also seemed to follow this teaching

(3) Denied that Christ was completely human, saying that the divine logos took the place of the human mind.

(4) They built on a trichotomic model wherein the humanity of Christ consisted in a body and an animal soul while the mind (spirit) was provided by the Logos.

(5) This heresy was denounced in the council of Antioch A. D. 378/379 and council in Constantinople A. D. 381. And opposed by Basil, Theodosius, Damascus (Called a Pope), Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa.

(6) If Christ did not have a mind, he would not be truly human (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 4:1-3).

Page 58 of 205

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 1 of 17

II. The Person of Christ

A. The Deity of Christ

B. The Humanity of Christ

C. The Unipersonality of Christ

1. The Terms of the Unipersonality of Christ

a) Hypostatic:

(1) Taken from the Greek noun ��, hypostasis which refers to the union of the two natures �� (ousiai, nature) of Christ, the divine and the human.

(2) This refers to the union of the two natures in one person. "In the incarnation of the Son of God, a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man" (EDT, s.v.)

b) Incarnation:

(1) Refers to the act whereby the eternal Son of God "became flesh".

(2) It also refers to the whole experience of His human life.

(3) It also embraces the fact that Christ bears His humanity forever.

(4) The term can be traced to the Latin version of Jn.1:14. The closest Greek equivalent is � � �� ,, en sarki: in the flesh, 1Jn.4:2.

c) Kenosis

(1) Comes from the Greek verb � � �� , kenoo: to empty, Phil.2:7,

(2) Refers to the manner in which Christ chose to restrict the use of His divine attributes during His humiliation.

Page 59 of 205


d) Essence

(1) Substantia (Latin)

(a) Underlying Stuff of something

(b) Emphasis upon concrete reality

(2) Ousia (Greek)

(a) Essence

(b) Subtance

(c) "Ousia refers to nature, essence or substance. In regards to the Trinity, orthodox theologians say that Ousia 'denotes that which is common to the Father, Son, and Spirit" (Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, 1:364).

(d) In regards to the person of Christ, orthodox theologians use the term Ousia to describe each of the 'natures' of Christ, so that he is consubstantial with the Father and Spirit as to His deity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity.

(e) Thus, in the Trinity the focus is on shared nature, common substance

(f) In the Person of Christ, focus is on integrity of each nature.

e) Person and Nature

(1) Introduction

(a) "The precise distinction between nature and person. Nature or substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; person is the Ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting, and acting subject. There is no person without nature, but there may be nature without person (as in irrational beings). The Church doctrine distinguishes in the Holy Trinity three persons (though not in the ordinary human sense of the word) in one divine nature of substance which they have in common; in its Christology it teaches, conversely, two nature in one person (in the usual sense of person) which pervades both. Therefore it cannot be said: The

Page 60 of 205


Logos assumed a human person, or united himself with a definite human individual: for then the God-Man would consist of two persons; but he took upon himself the human nature, which is common to all men; and therefore he redeemed not a particular man, but all men, as partakers of the same nature of substance. The personal Logos did not become an individual anthropos, but sarx, flesh, which includes the whole of human nature, body, soul and spirit" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:751

(2) Hypostasis

(a) This term is used to denote "not that which is common to the Three in one, but that which is distinctive of and peculiar to them, the personal characteristic of the Hypothesis, or 'subsistence' in the Essence, was denoted by the Greek word ��, and if we use our English word 'individual' somewhat loosely, it will convey the idea sought to be attached to the person in distinction from the Essence" (Shedd, HCD, 1:364).

(b) It refers to the person or subsistence.

(3) Nature and Person distinguished

(a) "The term 'nature' denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term 'person' denotes a complete substance endowed with reasons, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a nature, but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 321-330).

(4) Persona does not point to three wills, three emotional beings, and/or three center of self-consciousness; therefore, the term person is used differently in theology than in current usage.

Page 61 of 205


f) Theanthropic: Refers to the person of Christ; the person was theanthropic (God/Man), not his natures.

g) Enhypostasis: This refers to the impersonality of Christ's human nature. In other words, the human nature of Christ was impersonal. (Muller, Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms, s.v. 540).

2. The Statements of the Unipersonality of Christ

a) Chalcedonian Definition: "Following then the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same (consisting) of a rational soul and a body: homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and the Same homoousios with us as to his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only accepted; begotten of the Father before ages as to his Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our Salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to his manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, made known in two natures (which exist) without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by the reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and (both) concurring into one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis - not parted or divided into two persons (prosopa), but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from ofmos old (have spoken) concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered to us" (Translation from Sellers The Council of Chalcedon (SPCK, London, 1953) p 210-11).

b) When we speak of the hypostatic union we affirm that the eternal Son of God took on himself humanity. It was not the man Jesus acquiring divinity. "The Son of God did not unite himself with a human person but a human nature" (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, p. 391).

Page 62 of 205


c) "We affirm not the transmutation of God into the man Jesus but the coinherence [mutual indwelling or mutual interpenetration] of God and man in Jesus Christ (John 14:11). This must be taken to mean not that Jesus Christ is a third being between God and man but that he is the one who is fully God and truly man. He is not God alongside of man but God in man" (Bloesch, op. cit., p. 129).

d) As Athanasius declared, "He became man and did not just come into man" (Contra Arianos, III, 30).

3. The Evidence of the Unipersonality of Christ

a) The biblical doctrine of the kenosis (Phil. 2:5-11).

(1) His pre-existence (v. 6).

(a) The first statement of verse 6 relates to the pre-existent divine nature that was his from eternity.

(b) The participle translated "existing" (huparchon) means "being by nature" while en morphe theou, "in the form of God," linked with this verb form denotes equality of being.

(c) As C. J. Ellicott notes, in this context it is in contrast with morphen doulou, "the form of a bond-servant," which is intended to refer to human nature. Therefore, he concludes, it must refer to divine nature (A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon with a Revised Translation, p. 41).

(d) Kennedy states that morphe "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." Thus it refers to ". . . the same kind of existence God possesses" ("The Epistle to the Philippians," Expositor's Greek Testament, W. Robertson Nicoll, editor, III, 436).

(e) Robert Mounce observes that morphe "denotes a permanent expression of essential attributes" while schemati, "appearance" (v. 8) "refers to outward appearance that is subject to change" ("Philippians," Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1324).

Page 63 of 205


(f) In the following statement to einai isa theo, "equality with God" means "to exist in a manner equal with God" rather than "to be equal to God" (Jacobus J. Muller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, p. 79).

(g) Thus, it is not quite the same assertion as the first statement. Harpagmos should be understood passively and translated "a thing to be grasped." Existing in the same way God does is not something to be grasped because" . . . it was not something which the Logos, Christ, still had to acquire but which was his already. It was a dignity which belonged to the pre-existent Christ, to which He was entitled, and a right which He actually possessed" (ibid.).

(2) His kenosis (v. 7).

(a) The kenosis itself, the self-emptying, is best understood in light of the following two participial phrases.

(b) He emptied himself by "taking the form of a bond- servant" and by "being made in the likeness of men."

(c) Thus the kenosis involves addition (joining) of something to the divine nature not subtraction.

(d) It is best translated "took no account of himself" or "made himself nothing" (NIV) and involves the scandal of God appearing in flesh as a servant and a man. This is the truth of John 1:14, "and the Word became flesh," viewed from its flip side.

(e) There John emphasizes the glory beheld from the human standpoint when the eternal, divine Word added to himself humanity; here Paul emphasizes the humiliation and ignominy of the incarnation from the divine standpoint.

(3) His humiliation (v. 8; cf. John 17:5; 2 Cor. 8:9).

(a) The extent of his humiliation is not fully recognized until we see that it involved obedience that led to death on a cross, a criminal's death.

Page 64 of 205


(b) It involved becoming poverty-stricken even though he was rich; it meant some veiling of glory even though it was rightly his (2 Cor. 8:9; John 17:5).

(c) But all the while he was God. The wonder is not that he surrendered any of his divine perfection's, for this he did not do, but that as God he was thus humbled.

(d) As Muller says: "By taking the form of a servant he emptied himself. Nothing is mentioned of any abandonment of any divine attributes, the divine nature or the form of God, but only a divine paradox is stated here: He emptied Himself by taking something to Himself, namely the manner of being, the nature or form of a servant or slave. At His incarnation He remained 'in the form of God' and as such He is Lord and Ruler over all, but He also accepted the nature of a servant as part of His humanity" (op. cit., p. 82).

(4) His exaltation (vv. 9-11). As a consequence of this humiliation he has been given a superior name with a view to universal worship and universal confession.

b) The doctrine of the incarnation (John 1:1-14).

(1) "While the Incarnate Person is the God-man, or manifestation of God in the flesh, the divine personality is only that of the Son, the second Person in the Trinity. As a distinct Person in the Godhead He brings the entire divine nature into humanity, and continues His eternal personality through all the processes of His development and mediatorial work forever" (Pope, Chr. Th., II, p. 113).

(2) "The full truth of the Incarnation is not contained in the notion of a union of the divine nature, simply as such, with the human nature. The subject of the Incarnation was not a mere nature, but a person — the personal Son. The divine nature is common to the persons of the Trinity: therefore any limitation of the Incarnation to the divine nature would deny to the Son any distinct or peculiar part therein. This would contradict the most open and uniform sense of Scripture. The Father and the Holy Spirit had no such part in the Incarnation as the Son. Nor could any union of the divine nature, simply as such, with the human nature give the profound truth and reality of the incarnation. It could mean nothing for the unique personality of Christ; nothing for the reality and sufficiency of the atonement" ( Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 17).

Page 65 of 205


c) Other-passages

(1) Many other New Testament passages likewise set forth the hypostatic union.

(2) In Romans 1:1-5 Paul speaks of both the humanity (v. 4) and deity (v. 5) of Jesus Christ;

(3) In Romans 9:5 he refers to "Christ according to the flesh" who is "God blessed forever."

(4) As he writes to the Galatian believers he refers to God's Son who is "born of a woman" (4:4-5).

(5) To the church in Colossae he says that the very godness of God, that which makes God to be God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in bodily fashion in Christ (Col. 2:9).

(6) Paul reminds Timothy that the one mediator between God and man is both God and man (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

(7) The writer to the Hebrew Christians states that Jesus partook of flesh and blood so as to be able to identify with human kind in temptation, suffering and death (Heb. 2:14). There is little point in saying a mere man partook of flesh and blood.

(8) The apostle John claims to be an eyewitness of the hypostatic union in 1 John 1:1-3. He affirms Jesus' deity as he speaks of him as being "from the beginning," "the eternal life," and "with the Father" while he testifies to his humanity by saying that he was "manifested," "seen," "heard" and "handled."

4. The Communication of Attributes in the Unipersonality of Christ

a) No direct real communication of attributes

(1) One of the points of divergence between Lutheran and Reformed theology is in the area of the relation between the two natures in Christ.

(2) Lutheran theology

(a) Lutheranism has held to the communication of attri-butes (communicatio idiomatum) "the mutual participation and exchange of the properties of the individual natures" (Bloesch, op. cit., p. 134).

Page 66 of 205


(b) This is set out in the Formula of Concord (ch. 8, sec. 4).

(c) It seems to grow out of the Lutheran view of the "real" presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (taking the words "this is my body" in a literal rather than figurative sense) and leads to the concept of the ubiquity (to be ubiquitous the body must partake of the divine attribute of omnipresence) of the body of Christ both in heaven and on earth in the elements.

(3) Reformed theology

(a) Reformed theology, on the other hand, has rejected this idea (see the (Second_Helvetic Confession, ch. XI, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 8) holding that "the finite is not capable of receiving the infinite" (Bloesch, ibid.).

(b) This Lutheran concept is unacceptable because it in effect divinizes the humanity of Christ which humanity must be kept essentially intact if he is to be one who dies for us (Heb. 2:14) and one who is a "merciful and faithful high priest" (Heb. 2:17).

(c) As A. A. Hodge says, "It virtually destroys the incarnation by assimilating the human nature to the divine in the co-partnership of properties, whereby it is virtually abrogated, and in effect only the divine remains" (Outlines of Theology, p. 385).

b) Communication of all attributes to the person in different ways.

(1) Some are true of the whole person (i.e., both natures)

(a) For example, those evidenced in his offices (prophet, priest, king).

(b) As he functions as redeemer these attributes are manifest by the whole person since both natures are essential to his redemptive work.

(2) Some are true of the humanity, but the whole person is in view.

Page 67 of 205


(a) In John 19:28 Jesus declares, "I am thirsty." This is a distinctively human limitation but it was true of the whole person.

(b) Luke speaks of him as "increasing in wisdom and stature" (2:52) which likewise are especially human qualities yet they are predicated of the entire person.

(c) The learning of obedience of Hebrews 5:8 may be understood in this way, as well

(d) In Matthew 24:36 (cf. Mark 13:32) there is noted a limitation to Jesus' knowledge regarding the time of his second coming.

(e) Some have seized on this to teach a view of the kenosis that calls for him to surrender his omniscience during his earthly ministry and thus account for Jesus' supposedly mistaken views about the Old Testament (e.g., Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch) as, for example, Bishop Gore of England (see J. I. Packer (Knowing God, p. 52).

(f) We have addressed the fallacy of kenotic theology previously but this particular issue needs attention here. As Packer points out, there are a number of occasions when Jesus' knowledge of both human and divine things is limited (e.g., Mark 5:30; 6:38). On other occasions, however, he clearly displays supernatural knowledge (e.g., John 1:47-51; 4:17-18; 11:11-13; Matt. 17:27). "The impression of Jesus which the gospels give is not that he was wholly bereft of divine knowledge and power, but that he drew on both intermittently, while being content for much of the time not to do so. The impression, in other words, is not so much one of deity reduced as divine capacities restrained" (Packer, op. cit., p. 54). Packer then continues by accounting for this restraint in light of "the entire submission of the Son to the Father's will" (ibid.,). See such passages as John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28-29. His conclusion is worthy of note.

(g) As in heaven, so on earth, the Son was utterly dependent upon the Father's will. . . . the God-man did not know independently, any more than He acted independently. Just as He did not do all that He could have done, because certain things were not His Father's will (see Matt. 26:53 f.), so He did not consciously know all that He might have known, but only what the Father

Page 68 of 205


willed Him to know. His knowing, like the rest of His activity, was bounded by His Father's will. Therefore the reason why He was ignorant of (for instance) the date of His return was not because He had given up the power to know all things at the incarnation, but because the Father had not willed that He should have this particular piece of knowledge while on earth, prior to His passion. Calvin was surely right to comment on Mark 13:32 as follows, 'until he had fully discharged his (mediatorial) office, that information was not, given to him which he received after his resurrection.' So Jesus's limitation of knowledge is to be explained, not in terms of the mode of the incarnation, but with reference to the will of the Father for the Son while on earth (op. cit., p. 55).

(3) Some are true of deity, but the whole person is in view

(a) "The person of Christ, constituted of two natures, is one person. He may, therefore, indifferently be designated by divine or human titles, and both divine and human attributes may be truly predicated of him. He is still God when he dies, and still man when he raises his people from their graves.

(b) "Mediatorial actions pertain to both natures. It must be remembered, however, that while the person is one, the natures are distinct, as such. What belongs to either nature is attributed to the one person to which both belong, but what is peculiar to one nature is never attributed to the other. God, i.e., the divine person who is at once God and man, gave his blood for his church, i.e., died as to his human nature (Acts xx. 28). But human attributes or actions are never asserted of Christ's divine nature, nor are divine attributes or actions ever asserted of his human nature" (A. A. Hodge, op. cit., p. 381).

5. The Errors of the Unipersonality of Christ

a) Issues

(1) One personality two persons

(2) Human nature without personality

(3) Relation of Logos to the humanity of Christ in earthly life of Christ

Page 69 of 205


(4) Relation of the humanity to the Logos during heavenly life of Christ

b) The Eutychian error (5th century).

(1) Explanation

(a) Also known as Monophysitism (mono = one; physis = nature), this teaching was espoused by Eutyches, a monk who lived in Constantinople.

(b) Eutyches taught that the Logos had two natures before the incarnation, but after the incarnation Jesus only had one nature which was clothed in human flesh. He maintained the full deity and humanity of Christ, but in explaining the unity of the two natures he denied that Jesus’ humanity was essentially the same as all others’ humanity because in the incarnation the Logos absorbed the human nature.

(c) The result was that neither nature retained its respective properties, i.e. that which makes each nature (divine and human) what it truly is metaphysically.

(d) Rather a tertium quid (third substance) resulted, which was neither purely Logos nor human, but something wholly other.

(e) In the incarnation then, both the divine nature and human nature fused into one new nature. This new nature was not "not God" because the deity of the Logos subsumed the humanity in the union of the two.

(f) Even his body was divine. This is a form of monophysite doctrine, virtually reducing the two natures to one, and was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

(g) Another form of this error taught that Christ had only one will. Monothelitism was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D.

(h) In contemporary theology there are Monophysite tendencies in both Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism.

(i) The Lutheran doctrine of the communication of attributes tends this direction and the Romanist doctrine of Mary does the same. As Bloesch suggests, "The

Page 70 of 205


notions of Mary as co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix also tend to betray a Monophysite point of view. The logic of this position is that Mary provides the human side of salvation while Christ provides the divine side. Both Schillebeeckx and Rahner see Monophysite tendencies in the co-redemptrix idea" (op. cit., p. 133).

(2) Evaluation

(a) Eutychianism came close to being the orthodox teaching of the early church. It was so close to the Biblical teaching because it affirmed two complete, authentic natures in Christ, and even confessed that there was a metaphysical union between the two, thus avoiding the soteriological problem that Nestorianism faced.

(b) Where this teaching falls into error is in claiming that the two natures blended together to form a third substance, which is neither of the original two. Such a mixture would necessarily produce a confusion of the natures, and thus the individuality of each nature is destroyed.

(c) In the end Jesus is no longer God and man, but other than God and other than man. If this were true, Jesus could not identify with the sons of Adam, nor could He identify with Deity. He would be in a class of His own, thus not fit to be a mediator between God and men (I Timothy 2:15).

(d) This teaching also ignores the many Biblical statements that portray Christ as having ministered as a man anointed by the Holy Ghost. The divine nature of Christ did not subsume or overwhelm His human nature. Jesus was metaphysically, and functionally a man. A Eutychian understanding of Christ ignores the Biblical portrayal of Christ as a genuine human being with genuine human emotions and characteristics.

c) The Nestorian error (5th century).

(1) Explained

(a) Nestorius denied any real (organic) union of the two natures. He held to two natures and two persons. This error was condemned at the Synod of Ephesus in 431 A. D.

Page 71 of 205


(b) The main proponents of this view were Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore confessed the full humanity and deity of Christ, but suggested that the union of the divine logos and the humanity of Jesus was not an essential unity, but a moral unity. The union was functional, not ontological. The full humanity of Christ obeyed the full deity of the logos, thus resulting in a behavioral unity.

(c) Nestorius also confessed the full humanity and deity of Christ. He identified each nature of Christ with the Greek prosopon (person), thus splitting Christ into two persons.. He refused to attribute to the divine nature the human acts and sufferings of the man Jesus. He did not see any communicatio idiomatum (a Latin term meaning "communication of attributes) between Christ’s two natures. The two natures of Christ were only joined by will.

(d) The error of gradual incarnation (19th century). Dorner held that the incarnation was not an act consummated at Jesus' conception but rather progressively realized. The Logos gradually joined himself to Jesus until there was full union at the resur-rection.

(2) Evaluation

(a) Nestorianism is deficient because it makes Jesus into two persons.

(b) Nestorius did maintain Christ’s full humanity. He was correct in confessing Christ’s complete dual nature, but was in error when trying to explain how His two natures functioned together.

(c) Instead of teaching a moral (behavioral) union between Jesus’ divine and human nature, the Scripture teaches that the Logos became flesh (John 1:14). The Greek word ginomai means "to become."

(d) The Logos did not merely assume a human body, but became a human being. The union is metaphysical, not moral. In such a union, whatever can be said of Christ's divine nature, or of His human nature, can be attributed to Christ's whole person.

Page 72 of 205


(e) This is known as the communicatio idiomatum. Christ's person is one unified whole, not two fragmented parts.

(f) If Jesus' two natures are only joined by the will-the human nature in Christ always submitting to the divine nature in Christ-then theoretically, the man, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of God could have existed apart from one another. But in the incarnation, God became a man. When God assumed a human existence, the deity and humanity of Christ became forever inseparable, joined in a metaphysical union in every respect. If this were not so, then Jesus did not truly become a man, but only indwelt a particular man. When one becomes something they cannot be separate from that something. If God truly became a man it would be impossible for divine nature to be separate from His humanity.

(g) If God only indwelt a particular man, then at best, Jesus' sacrifice could only have accomplished a particular salvation, i.e. His own. His death could not have saved all of humanity. It is by virtue that God became a man, identifying with the human race as a whole, that Jesus can be a mediator between God and men. What makes Jesus' death of infinite value is not merely His sinlessness, but the fact that He was God manifest in the flesh. If Jesus was not metaphysically God Himself, then His death could not save us. The infinite God became a man to die for us. This is the reason for the efficacy of Calvary. If the humanity of Christ was separate from His deity, however, this could not be true.

(h) Nestorianism's insistence on the separate natures in Christ fails to provide a satisfactory explanation as to the sense in which Jesus can be spoken of in the Scripture as one person, rather than two. Jesus always speaks of Himself, and is spoken of by others in the singular, not the plural as we would expect if there are two separate persons in one body.

(i) Neither can Nestorianism provide an adequate explanation as to how it can be said that the logos became flesh if Christ's divine nature is separate from His human nature.

(j) Finally, Nestorianism's portrait of separate natures connected only by will displaces the idea of a true incarnation of God, denegrating it to a mere possession of Jesus' human body. If there is no essential,

Page 73 of 205


metaphysical unity between Christ's deity and humanity then Christ cannot be considered God anymore than Spirit-filled believers can be considered God. The difference between the Nestorian Jesus and all other believers is limited only by the fact that Jesus is filled with the Spirit in a special way, and was conceived miraculously.

6. The Relationship of the Believer to the Unipersonality of Christ

a) Regarding our salvation

(1) It provides a sinless sinbearer (see 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22-24; 1 John 3:5). To bear our sin he must be able to die and thus be human. If the sacrifice is to be acceptable it must be sinless and thus divine. As the Heidelberg Catechism puts it--Q: "Why must He be a true and sinless being?" A. "Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which had sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but no man, being himself a sinner, could satisfy for others."

(2) It provides a faithful high priest (Heb. 2:17; 4:15). To be our high priest he must be one with us-- human. To be faithful he must be immutable-- divine.

b) Regarding our worship

(1) It reveals God as Father (John 1:18; Gal. 4:4-6).

(2) It places a glorified man in heaven (Heb. 4:14-16). This is not to be confused with the Gnostic idea of a "heavenly man descended."

(3) That calls for Christ to be man from all eternity that is contrary to the whole concept of kenosis and incarnation.

(4) What we are affirming here is that from the incarnation on Jesus Christ is man to all eternity.

(5) It assures us of a glorious future (Col. 1:27).

7. Conclusion

a) Summation: The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology sums this up saying, "In the incarnation … a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with the two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged,

Page 74 of 205


without mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man."

b) The Mystery of the doctrine

(1) The relationship is ultimately inscrutable. We may, perhaps, illustrate this truth by the relationship between the material and immaterial parts of man. Even though each part has its own properties, all that relates to each part is ascribed to the person.

(2) As Thiessen observes, ". . . Christ had an infinite intelligence and will and a finite intelligence and will; he had a divine consciousness and a human consciousness. His divine intelligence was infinite; his human intelligence increased. His divine will was omnipotent; his human will had only the power of unfallen humanity" (op. cit., p. 224).

c) If then we would hold to the orthodox or catholic faith,

(1) We must believe that the union of the two natures in Christ does not confuse or mix them in a manner to destroy their distinctive properties. The deity of Christ is as pure deity after the Incarnation as before it; and the human nature of Christ is as pure and simple human nature as that of His mother or of any other human individual — sin excluded.

(2) We must reject as unorthodox any theory that would convert one nature into the other, either an absorption of the human nature by the divine as in Eutychianism; or the reduction of the divine nature to the human, as in some of the kenotic theories.

(3) We must hold the two natures in such a union that it does not divide the person of Christ into two selves, as in Nestorianism, or such a blending of the two natures into a composite that is neither God nor man as in Apollinarianism. The resultant of the union is not two persons, but one person who unites in Himself the conditions of both the divine and human existence.

(4) We must hold to a union of the two natures that is inseparable. The union of humanity with Deity in Christ is indissoluble and eternal. It is a permanent assumption of human nature by the second Person of the Trinity.

Page 75 of 205

Christology: Estates of Christ 1 of 58

III. The Estates of Christ

A. Introduction (Berkhof, ST, 331)

1. Definition of (E)states

a) A state is one's position or status in life

b) A condition is the mode of one's existence in life

c) The states of the Mediator are generally considered as including the resulting conditions

d) Normally, the conditions stand out more than the states

2. Number of (E)states

3. A difference between many theologians

4. Strict logic requires us to speak of three: Preexistence, Humiliation and Exaltation

5. Two or Three states are assumed in John 17:5; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Gal. 4:4, 5; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 2:9.

B. His Pre-incarnate State

1. Introduction to the Preexistence of Christ [Douglas Mccready, "He Came Down From Heaven: The Preexistence of Chrsit Revisted," Journal of the Evangelical Society 40:3 (Sept. 1993), pp. 419-432.]

a) "The preexistence of Christ is not a doctrine most people give much thought to. From the early ecumenical councils until recently, its truth has been assumed. Few books or articles concentrate on the subject. Theologians who discuss the doctrine usually treat it as an appendage to some other aspect of Christology. Christ’s preexistence is not part of the readily visible superstructure of Christianity in the way his incarnation, resurrection and atoning work are. And this is not inappropriate."

Page 76 of 205


b) "The preexistence of Christ is part of the foundation of Christian faith on which these other doctrines depend. It is a necessary premise for belief in Christ’s deity, but by itself it is not sufficient. Because Christ’s preexistence is foundational, how one understands it or rejects it affects the remainder of Christology and one’s overall understanding of Christianity. This has been nowhere more evident than in the modern attempts to explain (or explain away) the doctrine. Those modern theologians who ignore or deny Christ’s preexistence do so because it is incompatible with their understanding either of his humanity or of the nature of religion."

2. Objections to the Preexistence of Christ

a) Liberal Approach:

(1) Friedrich Schleiermacher offered an adoptionist understanding of Jesus that rejected preexistence. Jesus was not the eternal Son of God become human, the Logos incarnate. For Schleiermacher, what distinguished Jesus from other humans was “the constant potency of his God-consciousness, which was a veritable existence of God in him.” (Schleirermacher, The Christian Faith, Section 97).

(2) Hick’s Jesus was “a human being extraordinarily open to God’s influence and thus living to an extraordinary extent as God’s agent on earth, ‘incarnating’ the divine purpose for human life" (John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, 12).

(3) Hick states the premise that controls his Christology at the outset: “If [Jesus] was indeed God incarnate, Christianity is the only religion founded by God in person, and must as such be uniquely superior to all other religions.” He disbelieves this and sees Jesus as simply one teacher among many. He wants to reconceive Christianity as a religion that is “centered upon the universally relevant religious experience and ethical insights of Jesus when these are freed from the mass of ecclesiastical dogmas and practices that have developed over the centuries.” This requires, says Hick, breaking free of the network of theories about incarnation, the Trinity, and atonement that he says once helped focus Christian thought.

b) Historical Approach:

(1) God cannot take on the finite

Page 77 of 205


(2) "There is no way of distinguishing Jesus’ humanity from ours which does not deny the reality of his manhood in every sense which makes the affirmation of it significant. But the idea that Jesus’ existence as a man was in some self-conscious way continuous with his earlier existence as a heavenly being—and this is surely what has usually been meant by the “pre-existence”—this idea does distinguish his humanity from ours; and there is no way, however circuitous or ingenious, of escaping that fact or its consequences… We can have the humanity without the pre-existence or we can have the pre-existence without the humanity. There is absolutely no way of having both" (Knox, Humanity, 106).

c) Ideal Approach

(1) Only in a idea

(2) "Jesus Christ pre-existed in the mind and purpose of God, and I doubt if one should look for any other kind of pre-existence” (John Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought, 57).

d) Kasper writes: “The message of the exaltation and pre-existence of the crucified Jesus was an intolerable scandal to both Jews and Greeks" (The God of Jesus Christ, 174). And as Mccready points out, " Absolute claims are anathema to postmoderns because they have rejected the very possibility of absolutes. Sincerity has replaced truth as the measure of religious legitimacy.

3. Establishment of the Preexistence of Christ

a) Established by His Relationship Within the Eternal Triune Godhead.

(1) All proofs for the triunity of God also prove the eternality of Christ (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14).

(2) If the trinity is eternal, Christ is eternal (see section on Deity of Christ).

Page 78 of 205


b) Established by His Deity

(1) In like manner, all proofs for the deity of Christ are proofs of his pre-existence or pre-incarnate state (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1- 2; 10:30; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13)

(2) See previous notes on Deity of Christ

c) Established by His Work as Creator

(1) If he is creator he must have pre-dated the creation. (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2, 10).

(2) Some groups (e.g., Gnostics; Jehovah's Witnesses) have tried to use Colossians 1:15 where Paul speaks of Christ as "the first-born of all creation," to teach that Christ was created.

(3) This, however, betrays a misunderstanding of the term prototokos which basically means "chief" and designates rank or honored place rather than a chronological relationship.

(4) As E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce note, the title means "that Christ, existing as He did before all creation, exercises the privilege of primogeniture as Lord of all creation, the divinely appointed 'heir of all things' (Heb. 1:2). He was there when creation began, and it was for Him as well as through Him that the whole work was done" (Commentary of the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, p. 194).

(5) This truth is further illustrated in a messianic passage in Psalm 89:27 where it is declared, "I also shall make Him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." To be first-born is to be highest in a given order. He is superior to all kings ("King of Kings") as the divine sovereign and superior to the creation as the divine Creator.

d) Established by His Heavenly Origin

(1) The heavenly origin of the Savior is established by his own statement (John 3:13, 17; 31; 6:33; 38, 42, 50, 51, 58, 62);

(2) By the fact that he speaks of heaven as a matter of memory (John 17:5, 24);

(3) By the statements of others (John 1:15, 18).

Page 79 of 205


e) Established by the Theophanies

(1) Theophany is a manifestation of God in visible bodily form prior to the incarnation. The primary theophanic form is the Angel of Yahweh which in all likelihood was a Christophany or pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. The basis for this identifi-cation is as follows:

(a) The Angel of Yahweh (Gen. 16:7, 11, 13, cf. 21:17, 19; 22:11- 12, 15-16, cf. 24:7, 21, 40; 31:11, 13; 48:15-16; Zech. 1:12-13).

(i) He is identified with Yahweh (Gen. 16:13).

(a) "Among the narratives relating to the angel one particular group stands out because it describes an emissary of Yahweh who is no longer clearly distinguishable from his master, but it is his appearing and speaking clothes himself with Yahweh's own appearance and speech" (Eichrodt, TOT, 2:24).

(b) Hagar addresses the Angel as Yahweh (Gen. 16:11, 13)

(c) Abraham speaks with angel (Gen. 22:11-15) who swears by Himself as Yahweh (v. 16).

(d) In Gen. 31:11, the Angel speaks in Jacob's dream; in Gen. 31:13 it is Elohim who spoke.

(e) In Gen. 48:15, 16, as Jacob blessed the twins he referred to the Angel "in parallel terms with God…who gave him protection" (Heinisch, TOT, 107).

(f) In Ex. 3:2 the Angel appeared to Moses, but in verse 4 and 6 the Angel is identified as the God of the Fathers.

(g) In Exodus 23:21 "My Name" is in the Angel; this is equivalent to the identification as Yahweh (Vos, BT, 108).

(h) In Judges 6:11 Gideon's visitor is the Angel; in 6:14, Yahweh.

Page 80 of 205


(ii) He is distinct from Yahweh (Gen. 24:7; Zech. 1:12-13)

(a) He speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen. 16:11)

(b) They are both present in the burning bush (Ex. 3:1-4)

(c) Yahweh promises to send His Angel (Ex. 23:20)

(d) Yahweh shows His Angel to Balaam (Num. 23:31)

(e) He intercedes before Yahweh and speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Zech. 1:12; 3:6; Oehler, TOT, 131).

(iii) He is the second person of the Godhead.

(a) Identification with Yahweh is an affirmation of his divine essence.

(b) The distinction from Yahweh indicates the fact that he is a separate person. Apparently, the form in which he appeared was created but the person was uncreated (as also in the incarna-tion). Lines of proof that the Angel of Yahweh is a Christophany are:

(i) The Second Person is the visible manifestation of God in the New Testament (John 1:18).

(ii) The Angel of Yahweh no longer appears following the incarnation.

(iii) Both Jesus Christ and the Angel are presented as being sent by the Father.

(c) The Angel was a "prefiguration of the incarnate Christ" (Vos, BT, 75; ISBE, 1:134).

(b) Other theophanies.

(i) In Genesis 18:1-33 the one who appeared to and talked with Abraham is referred to both as

Page 81 of 205


the LORD and man. The one with whom Jacob wrestled in Genesis 32:24-32 is called both man and God.

(ii) Other possible but less certain theophanies are found in Exodus 24:9-11; Joshua 5:13-15; Ezekiel 1:1-28 and Daniel 10:1- 21.

(iii) Although they are impersonal manifestations some would consider the pillar of fire and cloud as theophanies, that is the shekinah glory (Exod. 33:9-23; 40:34-38).

(iv) The question is whether this is merely a sign of God's presence or an actual physical manifestation of God. See H. C. Thiessen, Lectures In Systematic Theology, revised, pp. 209-10 for extended discussion.

f) Established by Certain Titles

(1) All of the following titles imply deity and were his prior to the incarnation.

(a) Immanuel (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23).

(b) Mighty God (Isa. 9:6).

(c) Father of Eternity (Isa. 9:6).

(d) Son of God (Ps. 2:7; Luke 1:32, 35; John 1:49).

(e) Logos (John 1:1, 14)

(2) The Assumption here is that God is eternal; thus, Christ being God must have existed eternally.

g) Established in Messianic Prophecy (Micah 5:2; cf. Matt. 2:6): Micah states of this one who would be born in Bethlehem that "his goings forth" were "from the days of eternity."

h) Established by the Direct Statement of Scripture

(1) John 1:1-2, 14. "He was in the beginning with God."

(2) John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I AM" (cf. Exod. 3:13- 15).

Page 82 of 205


(3) John 17:5. He links the glory about which he prays with pre- incarnate glory.

4. Excursus: Christ in Old Testament Prophecy (See Hand Out)

5. Excursus: Christ in Old Testament Types

a) Various Types: See Walvoord, pp. 62-78; and his articles in Bibliotheca Sacra 105:419 (Jul 48), pp. 286-296 & 106:421 (Oct/Dec 49), pp. 27-33.

(1) Introduction

(a) "Latent in the Scriptures of the Old Testament is a rich treasury of Christological truth in the form of Biblical types. Typology has always suffered certain disabilities and unbelief which other branches of theological instruction have been spared. For this reason and others it has been largely neglected, and that unjustly, in theological discussion."

(b) As Patrick Fairbairn states in opening his classic work on the subject, “The Typology of Scripture has been one of the most neglected departments of theological science. It has never altogether escaped from the region of doubt and uncertainty; and some still regard it as a field incapable, from its very nature, of being satisfactorily explored, or cultivated so as to yield any sure and appreciable results.”

(c) Webster puts it, a type is “a figure or representation of something to come.” It is therefore prophetic by its character, and we may expect a considerable contribution from it to the doctrine of Christ. A study of Christological typology includes about fifty important types of Christ—about one half of the recognized total in the entire field of typology.

(d) In the New Testament two Greek words are used to express the thought of a type: tuvpo" and uJpovdeigma. As Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has stated: “Tuvpo" means an imprint which may serve as a mold or pattern, and that which is typical in the Old Testament is a mold or pattern of that which is antitypical in the New Testament. The root tuvpo" is translated by five English words (‘ensample,’ 1 Cor 10:11; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:7; 2 Thess 3:9; 1 Pet 5:3; ‘example,’ 1 Tim 4:12; Heb 8:5; ‘figure,’ Acts 7:43; Rom 5:14; ‘pattern,’ Titus 2:7; ‘print of the nails,’ John 20:25). Dei'gma means a

Page 83 of 205


‘specimen’ or ‘example,’ and when combined with uJpov indicates that which is shown plainly under the eyes of men. JUpovdeigma is translated by two English words (‘example,’ John 13:15; Heb 4:11; 8:5 ; James 5:10; and ‘pattern,’ Heb 9:23).” Typology as a branch of Biblical revelation is well established in the Scriptures themselves as evidenced by the frequent use made of it in the New Testament. The problem to be considered here is not the larger discussion of typology as a whole, but its contribution to Christology.

(e) "As many writers have pointed out, typology is concerned with (1) typical persons; (2) typical events; (3) typical things; (4) typical institutions; and (5) typical ceremonies. It is manifestly impossible to gather into a brief discussion the wealth of revelation afforded in the types which concern Christ in the Old Testament, but rather than omit this important contribution, an attempt will be made to summarize the important types and their prophetic light.

(2) Typical Persons

(a) Aaron. The Scriptures, particularly Hebrews, give a firm basis for believing that Aaron is a true type of Christ. As a priest, Aaron was appointed to his sacred office (Heb 5:4) as was Christ to His priesthood (Heb 5:5–6). Aaron was appointed to minister in the earthly sphere as Christ was appointed to the heavenly (Heb 8:1–5). Aaron administered the old Mosaic covenant while Christ ministered the new covenant (Heb 8:6). Aaron was appointed to offer sacrifices daily while Christ offered Himself once for all (Heb 7:27). The Aaronic type reveals Christ in His true humanity and in His priestly work. As Aaron remained a part of Israel even as he served as mediator, so Christ remains genuinely human, on earth knowing weakness, certain limitations, suffering, and struggle, as did Aaron, and even in heaven continues in His true humanity. While Hebrews brings out the contrasts between Aaron and Christ, there is obviously a typical foreshadowing of Christ in the Aaronic priesthood in the person of Aaron. The intercession of Aaron is a picture of the intercession of Christ.

(b) Abel. In this type we have Christ presented as the true Shepherd who made an acceptable bloody sacrifice to God in obedience to the command of God. As Abel was slain by Cain, representing the world, so Christ was slain. As Abel’s offering was accepted by God, so Christ

Page 84 of 205


in His offering is accepted. The fact that Abel’s offering was accepted because offered by faith (Heb 11:4) does not take away its essential character. It was because Abel believed that revelation concerning sacrifices that he offered his lamb in contrast to Cain’s bloodless offering. He is therefore a type of Christ in life as Shepherd, in his offering, and in his death.

(c) Adam. One of the important types recognized by Scripture is that of Adam. Adam is the head of the old creation as Christ is the head of the new creation. This is plainly inferred in Romans 5:14, “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (R.S.V.). Both Adam and Christ entered the world through a special act of God. Both entered the world sinless; both acted on behalf of those whom God considered in them representatively. The sin of Adam is contrasted to the act of obedience of Christ. The Scripture discussion of the subject leaves no room for doubt on the main elements of this type (Rom 5:12–21). The very terms first Adam and last Adam and similar expressions are applied respectively to Adam and Christ (1 Cor 15:45–47). Adam as the husband of Eve is also a type as the bridegroom in relation to the church as the bride.

(d) Benjamin. In the contrast of the two names of Benjamin there was foreshadowed the two aspects of the Person of Christ—His sufferings and the glory to follow. With her dying breath, Rachel named her new-born son, Ben-oni, meaning, son of sorrow. Jacob called him, however, Benjamin, meaning, son of my right hand. As Ben-oni, Christ was the son of sorrow to his mother (Luke 2:35) and the one who knew suffering as the man of sorrows and death. As Benjamin, Christ is “the son of my right hand” to God the Father, victorious in the battle with sin as Benjamin was victorious as the warrior tribe. While the type is without express New Testament authority, it seems a clear prophetic picture of Christ.

(e) David. The historic and prophetic connection between David and Christ is commonly recognized, but the typical significance of David is often overlooked. David is a type of Christ as the one who is first shepherd, then king. David experienced the call of God, rejection by his brethren, was in constant danger of his life because he was anointed king, and during the years of his rejection took a Gentile wife, typical of the church.

Page 85 of 205


Later he ruled over Israel in complete power and sovereignty. It is not difficult to see the typical significance of these events, as well as many minor incidents in his life as foreshadowings of Christ.

(f) Isaac. In the New Testament Isaac is used as a type of the church, which is composed of the spiritual children of Abraham (Gal 4:28) and as a type of the new nature which is born of the Spirit in contrast to the old nature typified by Ishmael (Gal 4:29). It is interesting to note that Isaac is taken to be a type of two distinct things in two successive verses of the New Testament. More prominent in the person of Isaac are typical truths relating to Christ which are not mentioned in theNew Testament. Isaac was a type of Christ in many particulars. The births of Isaac and of Christ were genuinely miraculous. Both are involved in the promised deliverance first announced to Eve. Their births were anticipated and involved in the promises of God long before fulfillment. Both are the beloved of their fathers and both are declared to be only-begotten (John 3:16; Heb 11:17) although Ishmael was born before Isaac and all believers in Christ call God their Father. In Genesis twenty-two in the sacrifice of Isaac on Moriah we have a foreshadowing of the death of Christ which is too clear a picture to gainsay. In the type, Isaac is saved at the last moment and a substitute is provided. In the antitype, just as truly offered by the Father, there could be no substitute. Truly, Isaac lived because Christ died. In the beautiful story of Genesis twenty-four the securing of the bride for Isaac is again a prophetic picture, in type, of the Holy Spirit securing a bride for Christ, and complete in all its details. The entire life of Isaac affords a more complete typical picture of the Person and work of Christ than any previous character in Scripture.

(g) Joseph. While the New Testament nowhere authorizes the interpretation that Joseph is a type of Christ, the numerous factors of his life which point to this conclusion indicate in fact that Joseph is the most complete type of Christ in the Old Testament. Both Joseph and Christ were born by special intervention of God (Gen 30:22–24; Luke 1:35). Both were objects of special love by their fathers (Gen 37:3; Matt 3:17; John 3:35); both were hated by brethren (Gen 37:4; John 15:24–25); both were rejected as rulers over their brethren (Gen 37:8; Matt 21:37–39; John 15:24–25); both were robbed of their robes (Gen 37:23; Matt 27:35); both were conspired against and placed in the pit of death (Gen 37:18, 24; Matt 26:3–4; 27:35–37 );

Page 86 of 205


both were sold for silver (Gen 37:28; Matt 26:14–15); both became servants (Gen 39:4; Phil 2:7); both were condemned though innocent (Gen 39:11–20; Isa 53:9; Matt 27:19, 24). As Joseph is a type of Christ in humiliation, so is he also in exaltation. Both were raised from humiliation to glory by the power of God. Even Pharoah saw in Joseph one in whom was the Spirit of God (Gen 41:38), and Christ is manifested in resurrection power as the very Son of God. Both during the time of exaltation but continued rejection by brethren take a Gentile bride and were a blessing to Gentiles (Gen 41:1–45; Acts 15:14; Rom 11:11–12; Eph 5:25–32). After the time of Gentile blessing begins to wane, both were received finally by their brethren and recognized as a savior and deliverer (Gen 45:1–15; Rom 11:1–26). Both exalt their brethren to places of honor and safety (Gen 45:16–18; Isa 65:17–25). It is an unmistakable evidence of the providence of God that Joseph should have been guided through such unusual experiences which were not only tokens of God’s care over him but profound truths typical of the Person and work of Christ.

(h) Joshua. Attention is directed to Joshua first on account of his name, which means, Jehovah saves. It is the Old Testament equivalent of the Greek name Jesus. As a type of Christ, Joshua is significant first because he is the successor of Moses just as Christ succeeded Moses and the law (John 1:17; Rom 8:2–4; Heb 7:18–19; Gal 3:23–25). Joshua like Christ won a victory where Moses had failed (Rom 8:3–4). In the time of conflict and defeat both Joshua and Christ interceded for their own (Josh 7:5–9; Luke 22:32; 1 John 2:1). The portions of Israel were allotted by Joshua even as Christ gives gifts and rewards to His own (Josh 13ff). While not a prominent type of Christ, it adds its own truth to the whole.

(i) Kinsman-Redeemer. Throughout the Old Testament there is constant reference to the lag or kinsman-redeemer. It is evident that these instances are typical foreshadowings of Christ as our Redeemer. The general law of redemption in the Old Testament is clear. The redeemer had to be a kinsman, one related to the person or inheritance to be redeemed (Lev 25:48–49; Ruth 3:12–13; Heb 2:14–15). Christ fulfilled this by becoming man and by having the sins of the worlid imputed to Him. The Old Testament redeemer had to be able to redeem even as Christ in the New Testament (Ruth 4:4–6; John 10:11, 18; 1 Pet 1:18). The redemption is accomplished by the payment of the price (Lev 25:27;

Page 87 of 205


Rom 3:24–26; 1 Pet 1:18–19; Gal 3:13). Latent in the entire Old Testament order of redemption is the prophetic picture of Christ who would come to redeem through the sacrifice of Himself. The consummation of His redemption yet awaits the saints both in earth and in heaven.

(j) Melchizedek. The brief account given of the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis fourteen provides the background for this type of Christ. In the account Melchizedek as king of Salem brings forth bread and wine as the priest of the most high God and blesses Abram after his return from the conquest of the kings. The Scriptures record that Abram gave to Melchizedek tithes of all. Later in Psalm 110:4, it is predicted that Christ should be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. These two passages are the occasion for the discussion in Hebrews 5–7 in which Christ is declared a priest according to the prophecy of the Psalm. Combining the various elements presented in these passages, it becomes clear upon Scriptural warrant that Melchizedek is a type of Christ. His name is significant. As Dr. Isaac Brubacher has written: “The name Melchisedek is a composite word derived from two Hebrew words, ilm meaning, king; and qydx meaning, righteous. The two words combined with dwy of possession form qdx-yklm which means, my king is righteous. The narrative further tells us that he was king of Salem. The word Salem is derived from the Hebrew word <lv which means, peace.” Hence in Melchizedek we have a type of Christ as the righteous King-Priest, who is king of Salem—meaning, king of peace. As one who brings forth bread and wine some have suggested that the type refers particularly to the resurrected Christ. In the New Testament Melchizedek is interpreted as proving the eternity of the priesthood of Christ and its superiority to the Levitical priesthood, based on the argument that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham his forefather (cf. Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20 ; 7:17, 21 ).

(k) Moses. As one of the great prophets and leaders of the Old Testament, it is not surprising that Moses should also be a type of Christ. Moses predicted to the children of Israel on the basis of the revelation given to him by Jehovah that a prophet would come like unto himself to whom they should give ear (Deut 18:15–19). The typology of Moses is, however, based primarily on the evident significance of events in his life foreshadowing the coming of Christ. Like Christ, Moses as a child was

Page 88 of 205


in danger of death, being born in a period during which Israel was under oppression. By sovereign choice of God, both were chosen to be saviors and deliverers (Exod 3:7–10; Acts 7:25). Both are rejected by their brethren (Exod 2:11–15; John 1:11; Acts 7:23–28; 18:5–6 ). Both during the period of rejection minister to Gentiles and secure a Gentile bride, typical of the church (Exod 2:16; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25–32). Moses after the period of separation is concluded returned to deliver Israel even as Christ is predicted to return to deliver Israel. Both are received by Israel at their second comings (Exod 4:19–31; Rom 11:24–26; Acts 15:14–17). Like Christ Moses is prophet (Num 34:1, 2; John 12:29; Matt 13:57; 21:11 ; Acts 3:22–23); priest as advocate (Exod 32:31–35; 1 John 2:1–2) and intercessor (Exod 17:1–6; Heb 7:25); and king or ruler (Deut 33:4, 5; John 1:49). Like Christ, Moses had to die before the children of Israel could enter the land, typical of a Christian’s possessions. As in the lives of Isaac and Joseph, we find in Moses an outstanding illustration of typical truth valuable for its foreshadowing of the life and ministry of Christ.

(l) Nazarite. While Christ Himself was not a Nazarite in the strict sense of the term, He nevertheless fulfilled the spiritual significance of the Old Testament regulations governing Nazarites. A Nazarite was required, in the commandment recorded in Numbers six , to abstain from wine and unclean food, not to cut the hair or beard, and not to touch dead bodies. The underlying thought was total separation to God and holy use. Abstention from wine seems to represent abstaining from natural joys in order to have spiritual joy (Ps 97:12; Hab 3:18; Phil 3:1, 3; 4:4 ). Long hair identified the Nazarite but was to the world a token of reproach (1 Cor 11:14), and symbolizes willingness to suffer because of identification with the Lord. Abstention from unclean and dead things was necessary to be holy to the Lord. Christ beautifully fulfills this type in every spiritual sense (Heb 7:26). Taken as a whole the typology of persons in the Old Testament manifests that it is Christ-centered, having its main purpose in foreshadowing the Person and work of Christ. It is a rich field for devotional study and one that unfortunately has been greatly neglected.

(3) Typical Events

(a) The field of typical events is too inclusive to be embraced in a brief study, but as a complement to other aspects of Christological typology, illustrations can at

Page 89 of 205


least be drawn from the abundance of incidents in the Old Testament. The major typical events from the fall of Adam to the entrance of Israel into the land will be considered.

(b) Clothing of Adam and Eve. In the midst of the ruin of sin and the judgment which followed the fall of Adam and Eve, the Scriptures record a gracious thing which God did for fallen humanity. In Genesis 3:21 (A.R.V.) it is written: “And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them.” It was, of course, a supply of a physical need for clothing which God recognized, but it seems evident that the meaning is deeper than this. God was representing to them the fact that He would supply that which would cover the nakedness of sin and provide a righteous covering through the death of Christ, a thought which is given frequent utterance in Scripture (Job 29:14; Ps 132:9; Isa 61:10; 64:6 ; Rom 3:22; Rev 19:8).

(c) Preservation in the Ark. Another dramatic event in the early history of the race is the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark. The ark itself is a significant type, to be considered as a typical thing, but the event of preservation is freighted with meaning. In the midst of almost universal judgment, God singled out the righteous and preserved them. It represents in general God’s deliverance of the righteous from judgment. In particular it foreshadows the future preservation of the saints in the period of great tribulation before the second coming of Christ. It may also be applied to the true church which will be caught up to be with Christ before this final period begins and will return to the earth after the judgment is completed. The principle of deliverance of the righteous is referred to by Peter in his warnings of judgment on the wicked. God “saved Noah” while “bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly” (2 Pet 2:5). God also “delivered just Lot” from Sodom (2 Pet 2:7), though the city was destroyed. Peter concludes: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (2 Pet 2:9). Paul expresses the same confidence, even though like Peter he was facing imminent martyrdom (2 Tim 4:18). The principle is illustrated in the ark that God preserves His own through His judgments upon the wicked. While it is in the large a work of the Trinity, it is clear that it is based upon the work of Christ in His sacrifice, intercession, and second coming.

Page 90 of 205


(d) Deliverance from Egypt. The entire picture of Israel being delivered out of Egypt and brought through the wilderness experiences into the promised land is a major field of typology and one which illustrates the work of Christ in salvation. The major elements of the deliverance, the plagues, the institution of the Passover, and the salvation of Israel at the Red Sea all speak of Christ. The plagues represent the judgment upon the wicked world and in type speak of the future deliverance of Israel in the great tribulation. The Passover is an eloquent type of the death of Christ as the believer’s only place of safety from the judgment and death which overtakes the world. At the Red Sea Israel is delivered through the same waters which destroyed the Egyptians, a type of the death of Christ in its power to deliver from the world. The wilderness experiences with the manna from heaven (Exod 16:4), speaking of Christ as the bread of life, the water out of the rock (Exod 17:6), speaking of Christ smitten that we might have life, and many of the other incidents speak of the work of Christ for His own.

(e) Entrance into the Land. The crossing of the Jordan River and the subsequent conquest of Canaan has always been recognized as typical truth, though the interpretations have often been confused. Canaan is not a type of heaven, but is instead the believer’s present sphere of conflict and possession in Christ. It is obtained by crossing the Jordan with its piled up waters which speak of the death of Christ as the means for victory and enjoyment of our possessions in Christ. The Angel of Jehovah, which is Christ, went before the Israelites and it was through His power that they achieved the conquest. The experiences of Joshua have their parallel in Ephesians in the New Testament. We possess our possessions by faith in Christ, by crucifixion with Christ, and by the mighty power of God.

(4) Typical Institutions and Ceremonies

(a) Introduction

(i) In addition to the many typical persons, events, and things which foreshadow the person and work of Christ in the Old Testament, there are typical institutions and ceremonies. As Jesus Christ is the central theme of revelation, it is not strange that most types should speak expressly of Him and this is true in the types under consideration. Many of the types previously considered are also related to typical institutions

Page 91 of 205


and ceremonies. In the discussion to follow, unnecessary duplication will be avoided.

(ii) The important typical institutions and ceremonies include the Old Testament priesthoods, the sacrifices, the feasts of Jehovah, the cities of refuge, and the Sabbath. These are representative of this field, at least, and will provide another glimpse of the beauties of the person and work of Christ.

(b) The sacrifices. It is necessary only to mention here that the sacrifices previously considered under typical things are in themselves typical institutions. The sin offering, trespass offering, meal offering, peace offering, and burnt offering occupy a central place. These and other offerings are an integral part of the Levitical ritual which was revealed and required by God. All of the sacrifices point to the person and work of Christ as the New Testament makes very clear. For the devout heart seeking to know more of the love and grace of God the Old Testament sacrifices provide a rich area of meditation and study. In any case they make the essential requirement of shed blood to stand out boldly in the divine pattern of salvation for lost man and erring saints.

(c) The Old Testament priesthoods. In previous discussion both Aaron and Melchizedek were found to be types of Christ. Both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are types of the priesthood of Christ. The earliest kind of priesthood in the Old Testament followed the pattern of the patriarchs. In this system the father or head of the family was also its priest. In a general way even this priesthood anticipated Christ, but in Aaron and Melchizedek there is a full and detailed revelation. The argument in the Epistle to the Hebrews in support of the superiority of Christ to the Aaronic priesthood is based on the anticipation in Melchizedek. As to order of priesthood, Melchizedek in type brings out the fact that Christ is supreme over all other priesthoods, introducing a new order entirely; that His priesthood is eternal, i.e., had no successors, no beginning or ending; that the priesthood of Christ is untransmitted and untransmissible (Heb 7:24); and that it is based on resurrection anticipated in the elements of memorial, bread and wine. The importance of this revelation will be brought out in later consideration of the priesthood of Christ. In its detail the Aaronic priesthood provides light on the work of Christ as priest and His spiritual qualifications for the office. Aaron anticipated the

Page 92 of 205


priesthood of Christ both by similarity and contrast. As Aaron ministers in the earthly sphere, Christ ministers in the heavenly (Heb 8:1–5). Christ served realities rather than shadows (Heb 8:5), administered a new covenant rather than the Mosaic covenant (Heb 8:6). Christ in His sacrifice offered a final sacrifice for sin once for all instead of a daily sacrifice (Heb 7:27). In all these things Christ fulfilled what Aaron anticipated. There are also many similarities. Like Aaron, Christ ministered in sacred things (Heb 5:1), was made a priest by God Himself (Heb 5:4–10), was a true Mediator (1 Tim 2:5), was a part of humanity as the Second Adam as Aaron was a part of Israel, offered sacrifice to God, and on the basis of sacrifice offered intercession (Heb 7:25). There can be no question that the Aaronic priesthood not only was an ad interim dealing of God but that it was also designed to portray in type what Christ was as priest and what He did. The consecration of the priests for the most part anticipates the priesthood of believers in the present age rather than the priesthood of Christ, but in the case of Aaron the typology seems to point to Christ. The induction into the priest’s office for Aaron began with washing with water (Lev 8:6). While it may not exhaust the meaning of the baptism of Christ, it is significant that His public ministry began with water baptism. Following the washing with water, Aaron was clothed with his priestly garments, which speak of the prerogatives and office of the priesthood of Christ. He was also anointed with oil, which has its antitype in the descent of the Holy Spirit on Christ after His baptism. In the case of Aaron (contra other priests), these aspects of induction into the priestly office preceded the sacrifice, even as they preceded the sacrifice of Christ. For other priests the sacrifice came first, as for believer priests in this age.

(d) Cities of refuge. In the Mosaic law provision was made for the protection of those who innocently had taken the life of another. Six cities of refuge were established, three on either side of Jordan, and placed in the hands of the Levites (Num 35; Deut 19:1–13; Josh 20). If judged innocent of wilful murder, the party responsible could have deliverance from the avenger of blood as long as he remained in the city of refuge. It was provided that at the death of the high priest, he could return to his home, but not before. The cities of refuge are obviously a type of refuge in Christ. The sinner there finds refuge from judgment for sin and is made free by the death of the high priest. God is frequently spoken of as a refuge in the Old Testament (Ps 46:1; 142:5 ; Isa 4:6) and also in the New Testament (Rom 8:33–34; Heb

Page 93 of 205


6:18–19). While God has always been the refuge of His saints, it was not until the death of the high priest, fulfilled in Christ, that complete freedom was provided.

(e) Sabbath. As an institution in Israel, the Sabbath had a central place. It was a day of complete rest and was supplemented by other Sabbath days, and Sabbatic years. For the most part these observances were for Israel and stand in contrast rather than similarity to the Christian observance of the first day of the week. The typical significance of the Sabbath is, therefore, relatively minor. The Sabbath uniformly is a symbol of rest. This is its first meaning as found in the rest of God after creation, and this was carried out for Israel. In the New Testament it is used as a type of the rest of faith of the Christian who has ceased from his own works and is resting in the work of Christ. In Hebrews 4:1–11, the principal passage in the New Testament on this theme, the contrast is plainly made between the day of rest of the Sabbath and the rest of faith in Christ: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Heb 4:9–10). Taken as a whole, it is proper to conclude that the typical ceremonies and institutions of the Old Testament have as their main theme the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, imbedded in the religious life of saints before Christ, are found the principal elements of the New Testament revelation concerning Christ. Beautiful as are the types they are exceeded by the antitype, and devout souls can long for that future complete revelation when we shall see Him face to face.

b) Feasts (Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, 525).

(1) Passover-- Christ's substitutionary atonement (1 Corinthians 5:7)

(2) Day of Atonement -- Christ's redemptive work (Heb. 9:12)

c) Offerings (Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, 526)

(1) Burnt offering (ola)

(a) Major passage: Lev. 1; 6:8-13

(b) Distinctive: Wholly burnt on the altar (Lev. 1:19)

Page 94 of 205


(c) Symbolism:

(i) Placating the wrath of God by substitutionary death (Gen. 8:20; Lev. 1:4)

(ii) Complete consecration (Cf. 6:13, a continual offering)

(d) Typology:

(i) Christ's vicarious death for the redemption of sinners (2 Cor. 5:21)

(ii) His entire self-surrender (Psa. 40:8; Cf. Luke 2:49; Matt. 26:39)

(2) Meal Offering (Minah)


(b) Distinctive: Non-bloody parts, accompanying other bloody offerings (Lev. 2:1; Cf. 23:18)

(c) Symbolism: Consecrate one's life and substance (Lev. 2:14)

(d) Typology: Christ's righteous fulfilling of the law (Matt. 3:15).

(3) Peace Offering (Sh'lamim)


(b) Distinctive: Most parts eaten before God by one offering the sacrifice (Lev. 7:15)

(c) Symbolism:

(i) Placating God's wrath (Lev. 3:2)

(ii) A thanksgiving meal of reconciliation with God (Lev. 7:12)

(d) Typology:

(i) Vicarious redemption

Page 95 of 205


(ii) Communion in Christ, now (John 6:51) and in the future kingdom (Rev. 19:6-10)

(4) Sin Offering (Hattah)

(a) Major passage: Lev. 4-5; 6:24-30

(b) Distinctive:

(i) For a specific sin (Lev. 5:1-4)

(ii) Some victim's bodies burned outside the camp (Lev. 4:12)

(c) Symbolism:

(i) Placating the wrath of God

(ii) Confession (Lev. 5:5)

(iii) Tranference of guilt to the animal (Lev. 4:21)

(d) Typology:

(i) Christ's vicarious redemption

(ii) Christ' suffering without the camp (Heb. 13:12)

(iii) The passive bearing of the penalties of men's sins (Isa. 53:6)

(5) Trespass Offering (Asham)

(a) Major passage: Lev. 5:14-6:7; 7:1-10

(b) Distinctive: Same as Sin offering, plus payment to the wronged party (restitution)

(c) Symbolism:

(i) Placating God's wrath (5:18)

(ii) Confession with transferred guilt (7:7)

(iii) Social restitution for wrong (5:16)

(d) Typology:

Page 96 of 205


(i) Same as sin offering

(ii) His active redressing of every legal claim of God (Gal. 4:4)

Page 97 of 205


C. His Humiliation

1. Introduction

a) Areas of humiliation according to Phil. 2:6-8

(1) Taking upon Himself the form of a servant

(2) Obedience unto death

(3) Even the death of the cross

b) Definition in creedal statement

(1) Westminster Larger Catechism Q46: What was the estate of Christ's humiliation? A46: The estate of Christ's humiliation was that low condition, wherein he for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon him the form of a servant, in his conception and birth, life, death, and after his death, until his resurrection (Phil. 2:6-8; Luke 1:31; II Cor. 8:9; Acts 2:24)

(2) Westminster Larger Catechism Q47: How did Christ humble himself in his conception and birth? A47: Christ humbled himself in his conception and birth, in that, being from all eternity the Son of God, in the bosom of the Father, he was pleased in the fulness of time to become the son of man, made of a woman of low estate, and to be born of her; with divers circumstances of more than ordinary abasement (John 1:14, 18; Gal. 4:4; Luke 2:7).

c) Westminster Larger Catechism Q48: How did Christ humble himself in his life? A48: Christ humbled himself in his life, by subjecting himself to the law,[Gal. 4:4] which he perfectly fulfilled;[Matt. 5:17; Rom. 5:19] and by conflicting with the indignities of the world,[Psa. 22:6; Heb. 12:2-3] temptations of Satan,[ Matt. 4:1-12; Luke 4:13] and infirmities in his flesh, whether common to the nature of man, or particularly accompanying that his low condition.[ Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15; Isa. 52:13-14]

d) Westminster Larger Catechism Q49: How did Christ humble himself in his death? A49: Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been betrayed by Judas,[Matt. 27:4] forsaken by his disciples,[Matt. 26:56] scorned and rejected by the world,[Isa. 53:2-3] condemned by Pilate, and tormented by his persecutors;[Matt. 27:26-50; John 19:34] having also conflicted with the terrors of death, and the

Page 98 of 205


powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God's wrath,[Luke 22:44; Matt. 27:46] he laid down his life an offering for sin,[Isa. 53:10] enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross.[ Phil. 2:8; Heb. 12:2; Gal. 3:13]

e) Westminster Larger Catechism Q50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death? A50: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried,[1 Cor. 15:3-4] and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day;[ 2. Psa. 16:10; Acts 2:24-27, 31; Rom. 6:9; Matt. 12:40] which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.

2. The Incarnation of the Savior (see previous discussion in the person of Christ)

a) What is the incarnation? The pre-existent Son of God assumed human nature, taking to himself flesh and blood.

b) Who was incarnated? The second person of the triune godhead, and no other (although all were active in some way: Holy Spirit-- Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35; Father--Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Son-- John 1:14; Philippians 2:7).

c) What happened in the incarnation?

(1) This is not something that merely "happened" to him; he was actively involved. The Logos became flesh, he took the form (exact nature) of a servant and was made in the likeness of men (plural - mankind), (i.e., although he was a perfect man, he was not a mere man).

(2) John Calvin writes, "It follows that when he became man Christ did not cease to be what he was before and that nothing was changed in the eternal essence of God which assumed flesh. In short, the Son of God became man in such a way that he is still that eternal Word who had no temporal beginning" (The Gospel According to St. John, pp. 20-21)

d) How long does the incarnation last?

(1) One part of our definition of the hypostatic union is that it is "forever."

(2) Donald Baillie rightly states, "If we believe in the incarnation, we cannot possibly say that Jesus ceased to

Page 99 of 205


be human when he departed from this world" (God Was In Christ, p. 152).

(3) The bodily resurrection, bodily ascension and bodily return of our Lord as well as the presence of a glorified God-man at the Father's right hand as our high priest all testify to this truth.

(4) As Bloesch affirms, ". . . it is incumbent upon us to affirm the eternal incarnation of Jesus Christ" if we are to be orthodox in our Christian faith (Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 131).

e) What are the effects of the incarnation? Some of the effects of the coming of Jesus Christ in human flesh are

(1) The Father was interpreted and revealed to mankind (John 1:18; 14:6-9);

(2) Satan is rendered powerless and his works are destroyed (Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8);

(3) A ransom was provided to put away sin (Mark 10:45; Heb. 9:26);

(4) He became our faithful high priest (Heb. 2:10, 17-18); and e) he provided an example of a godly life (1 Pet. 2:21-23).

f) What is doctrinal significance o the Incarnation

(1) He was born of David's line to bring salvation to Israel (Acts 13:23) and to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:3).

(2) He was born of woman and under the law to redeem those under the law (Gal. 4:4-5).

(3) His birth enabled him to assume servanthood and humanity so as to die on the cross (Phil. 2:6-8).

(4) Through his birth he entered the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).

Page 100 of 205


3. The Obedience of Christ

a) Introduction

(1) There seems to be a an active and passive obedience of Christ

(2) Some deny that the active obedience of Christ saves us.

(a) "That Christ obeyed perfectly the Law and suffered greatly during His life is not denied or even disputed by dispensationalists. The crucial question, however, is, Why did He suffer in life? What was accomplished by His obedience to the Law? Scripture simply does not teach that the life sufferings of Christ were vicarious. Rather it stresses His death alone as a substitution for sin and sinners. To be sure, the Savior’s sinless life demonstrated that He was qualified to be the sinner’s Substitute, but He atoned for sin only on the cross, where He became a curse (Gal 3:13).

(b) Viewing Christ’s active obedience in His life as substitutionary is the natural result of believing that God promised Adam and his posterity eternal life if he would obey God’s command not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Since Adam did not obey God’s command or law, Christ, the last Adam came and did in His life what the first Adam failed to do—to earn righteousness for His own. In this view the death of Christ was not the only basis on which God made substitution for man’s sin. Theonomy and Reformed theology in general believe that through His active obedience the Savior carried His people beyond the point where Adam was before he fell to give them a claim to eternal life.

(c) Dispensationalists do not view the theological covenant of works as promising Adam and his posterity eternal life for obedience. God promised Adam death for disobedience, not eternal life for obedience. Furthermore did not Adam possess creaturely perfection as he came from the creative hand of God? Was not all that God made “very good” (Gen 1:31), including man? Theonomy teaches that the way of salvation before the Fall differed from the way of salvation after the Fall.

Page 101 of 205


That is a strange doctrine coming from those who falsely accuse dispensationalists of believing in more than one way of salvation" (Robert Lightner, Theological Perspectives on Theonomy," Bibliotheca Sacra 143:571 [July 1986], 233-34).

(3) Scriptural Support for the Obedience of Christ

(a) Matt. 5:18-19 is the key passage

(i) Parallel between Adam and Christ

(ii) Verse 12 states that Adam was representative of all men and brought all men into sin by his disobedience

(iii) Parallel occurs in this: Christ is also the head of his people. Christ's obedience brings salvation/justification to all those He represents.

(iv) Verse 19 underscores "the obedience of One" What obedience? Obedience of life or death? Both!

(b) Phil. 2:7-8

(i) He became a servant. Whose servant? Yahweh's servant. He agreed to come down for man.

(ii) Verse 8 adds that He "became obedient unto death." Hence, his obedience culminated in his death.

(iii) His obedience started in his willingness to come to earth, keep the laws, and then die in our place. "In short, form the time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay this price of liberation in order to redeem us" (Calvin).

(c) 2 Cor. 5:21

(i) What is this righteousness of God in Christ? He knew no sin -- active obedience

(ii) He became sin for us-- passive obedience

(4) Various Views on the Active Obedience of Christ

Page 102 of 205


(a) Vicarious Faith

(i) Some say that Christ's obedience for us included His believing for us.

(ii) This is the view of Thomas F. Torrance and his "New Reformation" school.

(iii) They state that this is the meaning of Gal. 2:16, 20,which literally read "the faith of Jesus Christ".

(iv) Thus, we are not just justified by faith in Christ, but by Christ's faith.

(v) This is a misinterpretation of the genitive case in this phrase.

(b) Vicarious Baptism

(i) Matt. 3:15-- Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

(ii) Vs. 14 implies that Christ did not have to be baptized.

(iii) R. T. Kendall and others believe in this

(iv) While there is an aspect of this. He did identify with sinners. However, one should be careful in this regard.

(c) Vicarious Repentance

(i) Developed by Antinomian Calvinist John MacLeod Campbell in 18th Century

(ii) State that Christ was baptized for us; baptism requires repentance; therefore, Christ repented for us.

(iii) Furthermore, the High Priest confesses the sins of the people

(iv) How can one repent for another? Repentance assumes the existence of sin. While our sin was imputed to Christ, it was not infused in Him.

Page 103 of 205


4. The Sufferings of the Savior

a) His sufferings in life

(1) The reasons for his sufferings in life. Jesus suffered during his earthly life because of

(a) his righteous character (John 15:18-25);

(b) his sympathy for others (Matt. 8:16-17; Luke 19:41-44; Heb. 4:15-16); and

(c) his anticipation of the cross (Luke 22: 39-44; Heb. 5:7-10).

(2) The climax of his sufferings in life. His sufferings reached a climax

(a) in Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36-46) and

(b) on Golgotha (Matt. 27:33 ff.; Mark 15:22 ff.; Luke 23:33 ff; John 19:16 ff.; Ps. 22:1-21)

(3) The purpose of his sufferings in life.

(a) How they relate to the atonement.

(i) Were His life sufferings expiatory? According to Hebrews 9:22 there is no forgiveness without shedding of blood, that is, without the giving up of life.

(ii) Is there bodily healing in the atonement?

(a) There is a segment of Christendom, usually associated with certain forms of Pentecostalism, which holds that one intended result of the death of Christ was that Christians should not experience physical sickness.

(b) McClain describes this view as follows: "When Christ died on the cross . . . He made atonement for our diseases as well as for our sins. Therefore, they conclude, no true Christian need be sick or diseased at any time. If a Christian suffers from physical disease (as all of us do sooner or later) these theorists explain the

Page 104 of 205


situation by the following alternatives: The sick Christian has either failed to "appropriate" fully the benefits of the atonement, or else he is guilty of some personal sin for which the sickness is sent as a divine judgment. In either case, they say, the whole responsibility rests upon the person. It is always the will of God to heal, according to their theory, if we truly repent of our sins and believe in the fullness of our Lord's work on the Cross. If we are sick, we are either lost or backslidden. No true Christian, they argue, can be sick if he is in complete fellowship with God ("Was Christ Punished For Our Diseases?" GraceJournal, Vol. 31A, p. 3).

(c) This kind of thinking suffers from several problems (see Alva J. McClain's article for a fuller discussion) but two will be noted.

(i) First of all, it is very clear when Isaiah 53:4, the passage on which this view is based, is compared with Matthew 8:16-17, wherein it is quoted by the divinely directed writer, that physical healing is related to our Lord's earthy ministry not to his death. In this connection, comparison should also be made between Isaiah 53:5 and 1 Peter 2:24, which quotes it, where we see that spiritual healing is in view. This is related to his death.

(ii) The second problem with this line of thought is a tendency to confuse sickness and sin. "Sickness is not sin, it is rather the result of sin. We punish men for sinning but not for getting sick" (McClain, op. cit., p. 4-5).

(iii) Carl Henry addresses the same issue as he states: "In the New Testament, as Albrecht Oepke comments, diseases and afflictions are regarded "as evils which contradict God's plan for creation" ("Iaomai," Theological_Dictionary_of_the New_Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, 3:204).

Page 105 of 205


(iv) Yet the Bible avoids the superficial view-- shared already by some of Job's friends --that sickness and suffering are in all or most cases the direct result of individual sin. While Jesus recognizes a link between sin and sickness (cf. Mark 2:5; John 5:14), he rejects any rigid explanation of sickness in terms only of individual retribution (Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-3; 11:4). The Apostle Paul reflects the same view (2 Cor. 12:7-10) (God,_Revelation_and_Authority, IV, 506).

(v) In conclusion, then, we may note that there is a connection between sin and sickness but the two must be distinguished. Christ can and does on occasion heal but only_as_he_wills_and_for his_own_glory. While the cross may provide the "moral founda-tion" (McClain, op. cit., p. 5) for the future and final dealing with sickness and disease there is no guarantee of bodily healing in the atonement. This kind of healing will only come with the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23).

(b) How they relate to the Christian life.

(i) He was thus equipped as our high priest (Heb. 5:8-10).

(ii) He thus became an example to follow (1 Pet. 2:21-23).

(iii) He thus became a source of encourgement in our suffering (1 Pet. 4:12-14, cf. Col. 1:24).

(c) His sufferings in temptation.

(i) One of the most difficult areas of consideration in Christology relates to the temptations of Jesus Christ.

(ii) Inherent to this is the discussion on the impeccability of Christ, which has been discussed earlier

Page 106 of 205


5. The Death of the Savior (This will be developed more extensively when we deal with the atonement).

a) Introduction

(1) Death is separation of the body and soul (physical); of the soul from God (spiritual); and of the sinner permanently from God's presence (eternal).

(2) For all men death was because of their sin; for Christ, because of our sin. God judicially laid on him our penalty that he voluntarily agreed to assume.

(3) His death involved both physical and eternal implications, although he bore in a moment what men must bear forever.

(a) This raises a most perplexing question in relation to our Lord's cry from the cross, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34).

(b) How could God be forsaken of God? And, if this forsaking relates to the bearing of sin for us at this point before he actually died does this mean that sin was paid for in his suffering before death?

(c) Let us remember that scripture declares that "without shedding of blood [giving up of life] there is no forgiveness" (Heb. 9:22). Redemption is "through his blood" (Eph. 1:7). Christ died only once (Heb. 10:10-14) "for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3) in that he was "delivered up because of our transgressions" (Rom. 4:25). There can be no separation of his death for sins and his death for sinners. They are one and the same thing.

(d) The efficacious and vicarious nature of our Lord's death is a complex matter. His sinless life and the resultant sufferings he experienced among sinful mankind (see e.g., Heb. 5:7-10; 7:26; 12:3) are very important in his overall purpose to accomplish redemption and must not be discounted.

(e) The scriptures repeatedly declare his sinlessness throughout his life (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:8) so the only point he could possibly have experienced the spiritual effects of sin in terms of spiritual separation from God is in his death. This alone accounts for, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?"

Page 107 of 205


(f) This still leaves the enigma of one member of the Godhead being forsaken by another.

(g) "He was subject not only to physical, but also to eternal death, though, He bore this intensively not extensively, when He agonized in the garden and when he cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In a short period of time He bore the infinite wrath against sin to the very end and came out victoriously. This was possible for Him only because of His exalted nature. At this point we should guard against misunderstanding, however. Eternal death in the case of Christ did not consist in an abrogation of the union of the Logos with the human nature, nor in the divine nature's being forsaken of God, nor in the withdrawal of the Father's divine love or good pleasure from the person of the Mediator. The Logos remained united with the human nature even when the body was in the grave; the divine nature could not possibly be forsaken of God; and the person of the Mediator was and ever and ever continued to be the object of divine favor. It revealed itself in the human consciousness of the Mediator as a feeling of God-forsakenness. This implies that the human nature for a moment missed the conscious comfort which it might derive from its union with the divine Logos, and the sense of divine love, and was painfully conscious of the fullness of the divine wrath which was bearing down upon it. Yet there was no despair, for even in the darkest hour, while He exclaims that He is forsaken, He directs His prayer to God (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 339).

(h) The only resolution of this apparent anomaly probably lies in the helpful distinctions drawn from the concept of the economical and ontological trinity, that is, in the difference between Jesus Christ as viewed in his mediatorial role and as viewed as the eternal Son of the Father who shares all the attributes of deity with the Father.

(i) Thus, in the cry, we have a functional rather than ontological truth expressed. His great sense of the sinfulness of sin was paralleled by his intense sense of God the Father's abhorrence of sin that found expression in the cry of forsakenness.

b) The death of the Savior in typical picture

(1) An introductory word about types.

Page 108 of 205


(a) Definition: A type is a divinely purposed anticipation that illustrates its antitype.

(b) It is not the purpose of a type to establish a truth of doctrine, but rather to illustrate and enhance the force of the truth as seen in the antitype.

(c) Generally speaking, an Old Testament person, event, or thing should not be considered typical unless there is New Testament warrant for it.

(2) Some examples.

(a) In the Old Testament the following may be typical of Jesus' death:

(b) Abel's lamb (Gen. 4:2-5, cf. Heb. 11:4 and 9:22; Jude 11);

(c) The offering of Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19; Heb. 11:17-19);

(d) The Passover lamb (Exod. 12:1-14; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7);

(e) The five Levitical offerings (Lev. 1:1-7:38);

(f) The Day of Atonement (Lev. 16; Heb. 9:11-12, 24-25)

(g) (see Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic_Theology, III, 116-25, for an elaboration of these items; Cf. Scofield's notes in the Scofield Reference Bible)

c) The character of his death.

(1) It was neither merely natural nor accidental in character.

(2) Rather, it was the result of the judicially imposed punishment for sin. Even its form, crucifixion, was a fulfillment of prophecy (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).

d) Who is responsible for his death?

(1) From the standpoint of eternal purpose or the divine good-pleasure Yahweh is said to be involved (Isa. 53:6, 10; Acts 2:23; 4:28).

Page 109 of 205


(2) From the historical standpoint, that is the actual putting to death, there is both Satanic (Gen. 3:15) and human responsibility (Ps. 2:1-2; Acts 2:23; 4:25-28).

6. The Burial of the Savior

a) The significance of his burial.

(1) It validates his death and gives significance to his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

(2) It empties the grave of its terror for the believer (Ps. 16:7-11; Acts 2:24-31; 13:34-35).

b) The "descent into Hades" (Ps. 16:8-10; Eph. 4:8-10; 1 Pet. 3:18-20; 4:4-6).

(1) Origin of the "Descent into Hell"

(a) This is a creedal rather than a biblical concept and is not taught in these passages.

(b) The idea was first introduced into the so-called Apostle's Creed

(c) Philip Schaff provides information of the development of the creed in his Creeds of Christendom, 2:52-55

(d) It is surprising to find that the phrase “He descended into hell” was not found in any of the early versions of the Creed (in the versions used in Rome, in the rest of Italy, in Africa) until it appeared in one of two versions from Rufinus in A.D. 390.

(e) Then it is not included again in any version of the Creed until 650.

(f) Moreover Rufinus, the only person who includes it before 650, did not think that it meant that Christ descended into hell but understood the phrase simply to mean that Christ was “buried" (See Schaff, 1:21, note 6).

(g) Thus, he took it to mean that Christ “descended into the grave.” (The Greek form has hade„s, which can mean just “grave,” not geenna, “hell, place of punishment.”

Page 110 of 205


(2) Views of the Descent into Hell (Descenus ad infernos)

(a) Calvin's View:

(i) Calvin says that “Christ’s descent into hell” refers to the fact that he not only died a bodily death but that “it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment" (Institutes 2.16.10).

(ii) Following Calvin's lead, Heidelberg Catechism, Question 44, asks:Why is it added: He descended into Hades? Answer: That in my greatest temptations I may be assured that Christ, my Lord, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, and terrors which he suffered in his soul on the cross and before, has redeemed me from the anguish and torment of hell.

(b) State of Death View

(i) The Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 50, says: "Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.

(ii) This interpretation is not an explanation of what the words first meant in this sequence but is rather an inaccurate attempt to salvage some theologically acceptable sense out of the words.

(c) True Descent into Hell View:

(i) Finally, some have argued that the phrase means just what it appears to mean on first reading: That Christ actually did descend into hell after his death on the cross. It is easy to understand the Apostles’ Creed to mean just this (indeed, that is certainly the natural sense).

Page 111 of 205


(ii) "Christ descended into hell, not for the purpose of suffering any evil form demons, John 19, 30; Luke 24, 26, but to triumph over the devils, Rev. 1, 18; Col. 2, 15, and to convince condemned men that they were justly shut up in the infernal prison, 1 Pet. 3,19. The preaching of Christ in hell was not evangelical, but legal, accusatory, terrifying, and that, too, both verbal, by which He convinced them that they had deserved eternal punishments, and real, by which He struck frightful terror into them" (Hollaz, Doctrinal Theology, 396).

(3) Alleged Support

(a) Acts 2:27.

(i) This is part of Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, where he is quoting Ps 16:10. In the KJV the verse reads: “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

(ii) Does this mean that Christ was in hell after he died? Not necessarily, because another sense is certainly possible for these verses. The word “hell” here represents a NT Greek term (��) and an OT Hebrew term (�� ), both of which can mean simply “the grave” or “death” (the state of being dead).

(iii) Thus the NIV translates Acts 2:27: “Because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” This sense is preferable because the context emphasizes the fact that Christ’s body rose from the grave as opposed to David’s body, which remained in the grave. The reasoning is: “My body also will live in hope (v. 26), because you will not abandon me to the grave” (v. 27). Peter is using David’s psalm to show that

Page 112 of 205


Christ’s body did not decay. He is therefore unlike David, who “died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day” (v. 29).

(iv) Therefore this passage about Christ’s resurrection from the grave does not give persuasive support for the idea that Christ descended into hell.

(b) Rom 10:6–7.

(i) These verses contain two rhetorical questions, again OT quotations (from Deut 30:13): “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down) or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”

(ii) But this passage hardly teaches that Christ descended into hell. The point of the passage is that Paul is telling people not to ask these questions, because Christ is not far away, he is near, and faith in him is as near as confessing with our mouth and believing in our heart (v. 9). These prohibited questions are questions of unbelief, not assertions of what Scripture teaches.

(c) Eph 4:8–9.

(i) Here Paul writes: “In saying, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?” (RSV).

(ii) Does this mean that Christ “descended” to hell? It is at first unclear what is meant by “the lower parts of the earth,” but another translation seems to give the best sense: “What does ‘he ascended’ mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions?” (NIV).

(iii) Here the NIV takes “descended” to refer to Christ’s coming to earth as a baby (the incarnation). The last four words are an acceptable understanding of the Greek text, taking the phrase “lower regions of the earth” to mean “lower regions that are the earth” (genitive

Page 113 of 205


of apposition). An English example is “the city of Chicago,” by which we mean “the city that is Chicago.”

(iv) This NIV rendering is again preferable in this context because Paul is saying that the Christ who went up to heaven (in his ascension) is the same one who earlier came down from heaven (v. 10). That “descent” from heaven occurred when Christ came to be born as a man. So the verse speaks of the incarnation, not of a descent into hell.

(v) In Ephesians 4:8-10, Paul is better understood as contrasting Christ's descent to the earth with his ascent from the earth than as speaking of a descent into the earth. In the phrase "the lower parts of the earth" the words "of the earth" are better translated as a genitive of apposition--"the lower parts [in contrast with "on high" in verse 8 which refers to heaven], that is, the earth." In the 1 Peter 3 passage the "spirits in prison" are probably angelic beings (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6) imprisoned in Tartarus (2 Pet. 2:4) who were in some way related to the sin which led to the divine judgment in the form of the Noahic flood. The proclamation of verse 19 is just that (kerusso) and not a gospel announcement (euangelizomai).

(d) I Pet 3:18–20.

(i) For many people this is the most puzzling passage on this entire subject. Peter tells us that Christ was “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark” (RSV).

(ii) Some have taken “he went and preached to the spirits in prison” to mean that Christ went into hell and preached to the spirits who were there, either proclaiming the gospel and offering a second chance to repent or just proclaiming that he had triumphed over them and that they were eternally condemned.

(iii) But these interpretations fail to explain adequately either the passage itself or its setting in this context. Peter does not say that Christ preached to spirits generally but only to those “who formerly did not obey… during the building of the ark.”

Page 114 of 205


(iv) Such a limited audience—those who disobeyed during the building of the ark—would be a strange group for Christ to travel to hell and preach to.

(a) If Christ proclaimed his triumph, why only to these sinners and not to all?

(b) And if he offered a second chance for salvation, why only to these sinners and not to all?

(c) Even more difficult for this view is the fact that Scripture elsewhere indicates that there is no chance for repentance after death (Luke 16:26; Heb 10:27).

(v) Moreover the context of I Peter 3 makes a “preaching in hell” unlikely. Peter is encouraging his readers to witness boldly to the hostile unbelievers around them. He just finished telling them to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you” (1 Pet 3:15). This evangelistic context would lose its urgency if Peter were teaching a second chance for salvation after death. And it would not fit at all with a “preaching” of condemnation.

(vi) In order to give a better explanation for these difficulties, several commentators have proposed taking “spirits in prison” to mean demonic spirits, the spirits of fallen angels, and have said that Christ proclaimed condemnation to these demons. This (it is claimed) would comfort Peter’s readers by showing them that the demonic forces oppressing them would also be defeated by Christ.

(vii) But Peter’s readers would have to go through an incredibly complicated reasoning process to draw this conclusion when Peter does not explicitly say it. They would have to reason from (1) some demons who sinned long ago were condemned, to (2) other demons are now inciting your human persecutors, to (3) those demons will likewise be condemned some day, to (4) therefore your persecutors will finally be judged as well, to (5) therefore do not fear your persecutors.

(4) Biblical Contradiction to Descent into Hell

Page 115 of 205


(a) In addition to the fact that there seems to be little if any Biblical support for a descent of Christ into hell, there are some NT texts that apparently deny the possibility of Christ’s going to hell after his death.

(b) Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), imply that after Jesus died his soul (or spirit) went immediately to the presence of the Father in heaven, even though his body remained on earth and was buried. Some people deny this by arguing that paradise is a place distinct from heaven, but in both of the other NT uses the word clearly means “heaven”: In 2 Cot 12:4 it is the place to which Paul was caught up in his revelation of heaven, and in Rev 2:7 it is the place where we find the tree of life, which is clearly heaven in 22:2, 14.

(c) In addition the cry of Jesus, “It is finished” (John 19:30), strongly suggests that Christ’s suffering was finished at that moment, and so was his alienation from the Father because of bearing our sin. This implies that he would not descend into hell but would go at once into the Father’s presence.

(d) Finally, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46) also suggests that Christ expected (correctly) the immediate end of his suffering and estrangement and the welcoming of his spirit into heaven by God the Father (note Stephen’s similar cry in Acts 7:59).

(e) These texts indicate, then, that Christ in his death experienced the same things believers in this present age experience when they die: His dead body remained on earth and was buried (as ours will be), but his spirit (or soul) passed immediately into the presence of God in heaven (as ours will). Then on the first Easter morning Christ’s spirit was reunited with his body and he was raised from the dead, just as Christians who have died will (when Christ returns) be reunited to their bodies and raised in their perfect resurrection bodies to new life.

Page 116 of 205


(f)

D. His Exaltation A. Messianic Prophecy (1 Pet. 1:10-11, NIV).

First Peter 1:10-11 provides a classic New Testament passage on the messianic character of the Old Testament. Peter begins by indicating those by whom the salvation he has been discussing (vv. 3-9) was foretold and something of their activity. They were involved in eager seeking and diligent searching.

Their research took two directions and related two yet future events. They were interested in the exact time of the events and if they could not determine the particular time they would look for the distinguishing characteristics of the period, the circumstances that would surround Messiah's comings. The predictive revelation given them by the Spirit fell into two categories of truth about Messiah each of which was further susceptible to subdivision.

He spoke of the sufferings of Christ (those events which combine to make up the passion of his first advent) and the glories that would follow them. The plural "glories" is very unusual and probably encompasses the successive stages in Christ's exaltation beginning with those events which followed upon his death and including those that relate to his second coming. His predicted "glories" may be construed as including his resurrection (Ps. 16:10; see also Ps. 22:22; 119:22-24), his ascension (Ps. 68:18), his present session (Ps. 16:11; 110:1), his return (Ps. 24) and his reign (Ps. 72; Dan. 7:13-14).

B. The Resurrection of the Savior

No truth of the Christian faith is more pivotal or vital than that of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

The resurrection of the crucified Jesus is the turning point of the New Testament narratives and at the heart of the Christian faith. The entire New Testament was written within and from the perspective of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Without faith that the crucified Christ is alive, the Christian church would never have come into being nor would we have the New Testament writings. The rise of the Christian movement can be adequately explained in only one way, that Jesus' followers personally saw the risen Lord and considered his resurrection from the tomb conclusive evidence

Page 117 of 205


that he was truly the Messiah of Old Testament promise (Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, III, 147).

Because the resurrection is so integral to the Christian faith it is most important, in turn, to understand what is meant when we say that the resurrection is an historical event. Lee McDonald has suggested that there are three primary historical approaches to Christ's resurrection within the Christian community ("Historical-Critical Inquiry and the Resurrection of Jesus," Theology_News_and_Notes, xxx/2, pp. 4-7).

He first lists "the Historical-Critical (or Positivistic) approach, adopted first by Friedrich Schleiermacher and the succeeding 19th century liberal scholars, but more recently by Rudolf Bultmann, Hans Conzelmann, Willie Marxsen, C. F. Evans, et. al.," "which views history as a closed continuum of cause and effect events" (ibid., p. 5). In other words, those who hold this view deny the intervention of the supernatural in the realm of the natural. The only "historical" dimension is that supplied by the early church wherein arose, in their own subjective "faith," the idea of his resurrection.

The second approach is called the "Salvation-Historical (Heilsgeschichte) approach" and is associated with "Karl Barth, Paul Althaus, Oscar Cullmann, Reginald Fuller, George Ladd, et. al." Those who hold to this view "have argued that the unique acts of God do occur in history but that the historian as historian is incapable of making judgment on the matter" (ibid.). While the time-space character of such events is affirmed they are only made known by God to "the eye of faith." As McDonald goes on to say, "This view emphasizes two kinds of historical reality: natural history which can be understood in terms of natural cause and effect relationships and salvation history which allows for the supernatural activity of God in human history, e.g., in the Exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc." (ibid.).

While this is a vast improvement over the first named view it, too, tends to subjectivize the resurrection. It ends up being true only for the Christian.

The third view that McDonald names is the "Universal Historical approach to history" which he associates with Wolfhart Pannenberg and some contemporary evangelicals. This approach "denies the existence of two kinds of history and argues that there is only one universal history which is open to the unique activity of God and which is also open to historical inquiry" (ibid., p. 6).

McDonald, who lines up with the second view, faults this third approach with the ". . . difficulty in showing persuasively why the historian should be open to the miraculous activity of God in history if one has not experienced it." Why should the historian "conclude more than Mary did

Page 118 of 205


at the tomb (that the body was stolen) unless he be permitted to encounter whatever it was which created Easter faith in her (an encounter with the risen Lord?)" (ibid.). He goes on to argue that the supernatural does not take place in history in general but only in the personal history of certain individuals.

McDonald's objections are weak at several points, which weaknesses further demonstrate the inadequacy of the second approach and affirm the third. In the first place, neither the historical character nor the truthfulness of a given incident are necessarily proven or disproven by experience alone. No historian has ever experienced creation or God creating (except in the results of the creative act, i.e., the physical universe) but this does not invalidate its historicity nor truthfulness. Our sole basis in this case is divine testimony or revelation.

Secondly, the historicity of an event may be established on the testimony (not the faith) of others than the historian who may witness that event. Neither Barth nor Ladd nor McDonald witnessed or experienced the American Revolution yet there is ample testimony by other historians of its historicity (which, by the way, these men would all have accepted).

Thirdly, experience may testify to things as having happened which did not indeed happen at all. There have been those who thought Mussolini was the antichrist and that Thomas Dewey was elected president but neither supposed experience was an historical fact.

The truth of the matter is that there is only one kind of history in which two kinds of events may take place--natural and supernatural. Both kinds of events may be accepted as historical on the basis of testimony and personal experience. Either kind of validation depends for its veracity upon the character of the witness and the character of the data. The resurrection of Jesus Christ took place in the realm of ordinary history, was witnessed to by ordinary people (including such a skeptic as Thomas) and by God, and left historical evidences of its factuality. While it is true that to date only those who have believed have borne witness to the resurrection (a matter which should be of no surprise to anyone) the day will come when even the unbelieving will witness to it (Phil. 2:9-11).

1. The fact of the resurrection. When we talk about the resurrection of Jesus Christ we are talking of a miracle. "Inasmuch as all miracles involve the departure from the usual operations of natural law, miracles are not to be proved by reference to such laws" (Thiessen, op. cit., p. 245). Nonetheless, there are two lines of evidence to be considered which establish factuality.

a. Objective evidence.

Page 119 of 205


1) The appearances. "Three things are necessary to

make a testimony trustworthy: The witnesses must be competent first- hand witnesses, they must be sufficient in number, and they must have a good reputation" (ibid., p. 246). In the appearances of Christ each of these qualifications is met.

a) Their number and variety. There

were five on resurrection day; six during the post-resurrection ministry up to the ascension; and six post- ascension appearances from heaven. The passages, in the order of the appearances, are as follows:

(1) John 20:11-17, cf. Mark 16:9- 11; (2) Matthew 28:9-10; (3) Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5; (4) Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-35; (5) Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John

20:19-23; (6) John 20:26-29; (7) John 21:1-23; (8) 1 Corinthians 15:6; (9) 1 Corinthians 15:7; (10) Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; (11) Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:3-9; (12) Acts 7:55-56; (13) Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-11; (14) Acts 20:24; 26:17; Galatians 1:12,

17;

Page 120 of 205


(15) Galatians 1:18; Acts 9:26-30; 22:17-21;

(16) Acts 23:11; (17) Revelation 1:20.

In each case the testimony is that of an unimpeachable eye-witness.

b) The character of the witnesses (Acts 2:32,

10:40-41). No reputable source has ever questioned the integrity of the witnesses. All were God-selected. Also, it should be noted that they themselves were reluctant to accept testimony regarding his resurrection. Even though they were told by Christ that he would rise, they did not expect it. Once the resurrec-tion was established, on the other hand, they would not deny it.

2) The empty tomb. All agree the tomb was empty; how do we explain it?

a) His body was raised from the dead. This is

the most obvious and reasonable, albeit supernatural, explanation.

b) The body was disposed of some other way.

Since the body was not there its absence must be accounted for in some way. It could have been stolen by his enemies but this is patently not the case since had it been so they would have produced the body to refute the disciples' claim.

The accusation that was made at the time was

that the disciples themselves had spirited it away. This, in effect, as Henry points out becomes a tacit admission of the resurrection.

Had it wished to do so, the Hebrew Council could have explained the empty tomb as a figment of the heightened imagination of Jesus' followers. But instead, and deliberately so, it claimed

Page 121 of 205


that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus. In short, the Council officially admitted that the tomb was empty; it attributed the violation of the tomb to illegal entry by Jesus' disciples and charged them with removing the corpse (op. cit., III, 148).

The improbability of such a claim may be seen from several standpoints. To steal the body the disciples would have had to overcome the guards, move the stone, unwrap the body and concoct all of the appearances over the next forty days. Furthermore, "if the apostles or their successors invented the empty tomb story for apologetic purposes . . . they would hardly have affirmed, as do all four Gospels, that the discovery was first made by the women, since the testimony of women was not accepted in a Jewish court of law" (ibid., p. 149).

c) He did not die and was not buried (or left on

His own). This is not a credible answer in light of the fact that his death was witnessed to and verified by both Roman soldiers and the disciples. The possibility that he left the tomb on his own if he had merely swooned is patently absurd in light of the loss of blood and the extreme physical anguish associated with crucifixion.

b. Subjective evidence.

1) Relating to the disciples. The fact that we classify this under "subjective evidence" in no way suggests that it is insubstantial or inconsequential. The fact that the disciples believed the resurrection and yet it is recorded that they misunderstood Christ's instruction to them thereon (see e.g., John 2:21-22, cf. 7:39; 20:9; Mark 9:9) is a remarkable corroboration.

It is utterly improbable that the disciples would have

invented the resurrection in order to prove their obtuseness. And in view of the significance that John attaches to the signs of Jesus, it is equally improbable that the disciples would have invented a story about their failure to comprehend a clear sign of the resurrection (Henry, op. cit., III, 155).

Page 122 of 205


As Alfred Plummer observes, "Their dullness was

providential, and it became a security to the Church for the truth of the Resurrection. The theory that they believed, because they expected that He would rise again is against all the evidence" (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 429). Given those circumstances "their conviction that the crucified Jesus was alive bodily was not arrived at uncritically" (Henry, op. cit., III, 158).

a) Personal transformation of life (e.g., Thomas,

Paul). After a careful step by step development of the movement of Saul of Tarsus from his initial disinterest in Christianity, to his position as chief inquisitor for the Sanhedrin, to his conversion and missionary activity as the Apostle Paul (op. cit., pp. 150-54)Carl Henry summarizes by stating,

The Sanhedrin must have been stunned when

Saul, its official investigator and persecutor repudiated the notion that the disciples had stolen the crucified body and became instead a worshipper and servant of the risen Jesus even, as it developed, to the death, and moreover exhorted all Jewry and the whole Gentile world to worship him" (ibid., p. 154).

b) Change in ministry, i.e., evidence of Holy Spirit's

power. Following the crucifixion the disciples were fearful and demoralized. Even after the appearances in the upper room they were yet disoriented and returned to their fishing nets. Yet, as he Following the crucifixion the disciples were fearful and demoralized. Even after the appearances in the upper room they were yet disoriented and returned to their fishing nets. Yet, as he had promised, upon his departure he sent the Holy Spirit to be their Paraclete so that less than two months later on the day of Pentecost they minister with great confidence and power.

2) Relating to the early church.

a) On the day of Pentecost Peter's declaration regarding the resurrected Christ not only was not

Page 123 of 205


refuted; it also led to the conversion of three thousand Jews.

b) Observance from the beginning of the first day

instead of the seventh. The significance of this fact lies in the makeup of the early church. It was composed, at the beginning, almost exclusively of believing Jews. As circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant the observance of the sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. It was no light thing for the Jewish believers, therefore, to begin to observe the first day rather than the seventh.

c) The very existence of the Christian church. As

noted above, the early church was predominantly made up of Jewish believers in its early years. This was so much so that it was at first viewed by Rome as a sect of Judaism and declared to be religio_licita. In light of this situation it is all the more remarkable that the church, from the beginning was viewed by all of the New Testament writers and the early believers as distinct from Israel.

c. The objections to the resurrection.

1) The character of the objections. All of the objections are, at root, a manifestation of anti-supernaturalism, i.e., refusal to accept the miraculous, the involvement of the divine with the human.

2) The forms of the objections.

a) Falsehood theory. This was the original objection (Matt. 28:11-15) and was addressed above.

b) Wrong-tomb theory. The disciples were confused

and went to the wrong tomb. This theory is shown to be untenable in light of the admission of the Sanhedrin that this tomb was empty when they charged the disciples with stealing the body.

c) Swoon theory. He really did not die but revived

and left on his own (addressed above).

d) Vision theory. The disciples hallucinated. As noted above, none of the facts support such an idea.

Page 124 of 205


The number and variety of the appearances together with the skeptical mind set of the disciples make this an impossible answer.

e) Myth theory. The resurrection concept was

borrowed from pagan mythology, perhaps from Babylon. There is no evidence outside the minds of the critics for this idea.

f) Spiritual resurrection theory. It was not bodily but

spiritual. He lives on in the minds of his followers.

While this has long been the view of liberal theology Rudolph Bultmann has given it a somewhat different expression. He claims that Jesus ". . . did not speak of his death and resurrection as redemptive acts" and that "for the truth of his word he offers no evidence whatever, neither in his miracles . . . nor in his personal qualities" (Jesus and the Word, pp. 151-52). By Hordern's analysis

Bultmann is concerned that we do not treat the Resurrection as a myth. Insofar as the New Testament does this, we must transcend the New Testament. We treat the Resurrection as a myth when we try to use it as a supernatural proof that Jesus was the Savior and that his death was a saving event for man. . . . The risen Christ comes to us in the words of preaching and calls us to faith. There is no way that history can prove the Resurrection. . . . All that historical research can prove for us is that the disciples came to believe in the Resurrection so that they went out to preach it. . . . Easter faith means the same thing for us that it did for the first disciples--the self-manifestation of the risen Lord through whom the redemptive event of the Cross is made complete (A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology, revised ed., p. 206-7).

As Henry accurately notes, ". . . neo-Protestant theology has clouded evidential and verifying supports by simply internalizing the case for Christ's resurrection" (op. cit., III, 138). Hordern concludes his comments on Bultmann's view of the resurrection with a very perceptive observation. He states,

There is an old Gospel hymn with the chorus,

Page 125 of 205


He lives, he lives, Salvation to impart. You ask me how I know he lives-- He lives within my heart.

Strangely enough, Bultmann the radical demythologizer would agree. The man who wants a more objective proof that Jesus rose from the dead is one who is afraid to take the risk to which Christian faith always calls a man (op. cit., p. 207).

Whether or not Christ lives in the heart of the believer is not in question. He does. The evangelical who declares that this is the basis of his faith in the living Christ, however, no matter how well meant his confession may be, is just as existential on this issue as Bultmann. The basis for our faith in the living Christ is the fact of his historical resurrection. The result is that he lives in our hearts and in heaven soon to return.

(For an extended presentation of evidence for the resurrection see Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, pp. 185-273 and J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, pp. 159-183).

2. The nature of the resurrection. a. It was bodily.

1) The body that died is identical with the one that was raised (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-29).

2) It was a transformed body (Luke 24:36; John 20:19; Phil.

3:21). It was not always recognized because there were changes (and there was a veiling of understanding), e.g., he could enter closed rooms, appear and disappear, etc. (see also Kenneth Boa, God I Don't Understand, chapter 6.).

b. It was distinctive.

1) It is different from all other resurrections (1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5).

2) It sets the pattern for and establishes the character of our

resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20-22, 35-49, esp. v. 45).

Page 126 of 205


3. The agent of the resurrection (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:26; 5:30; 13:30; 1 Cor.

6:14).

a. Christ himself was involved in his own resurrection (John 2:19-21; 10:17-18; 1 Thess. 4:14; cf. John 11:25).

b. God the Father was also involved (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 1:1; 1 Pet.

1:3).

c. God the Holy Spirit was involved (Rom. 8:11). This is somewhat of a problematic passage for establishing the Holy Spirit's involvement in Christ's resurrection. The line of argument must be that the one who raised Christ referred to in Romans 8:11 is the Father. At the same time we should not miss the fact that herein the Holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of the one who raised him. Thus, as a member of the godhead he is closely identified with the resurrection of Christ.

4. The theological significance of the resurrection. a. As to the person of the Savior. 1) It was a demonstration of his deity. (Acts 2:36; Rom. 1:4).

2) It was a demonstration of his messiahship (Ps. 16:10; Matt. 12:38-41; John 11:25-27; Acts 2:32-36).

3) It was a demonstration of his saviorhood (John 11:25;

Acts 10:40-42; cf. Acts 4:10-12; Rom. 4:25).

4) It was a confirmation of his veracity and prophetic ability (Matt. 16:21; 20:19; 26:32; Mark 14:28; John 2:19). Each of these passages contains a clear prediction by Christ of his own resurrection.

b. As to the work of the Savior.

1) It was essential to his past finished work (Rom. 4:25; 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:12-19).

2) It was essential to his present session.

Page 127 of 205


a) His work as sender of the Holy Spirit and power (John 16:7, cf. Acts 2:32-33; Eph. 1:18-20, cf. Acts 1:8).

b) His work as High-Priest (Ps. 110:4; Rom. 8:34;

Heb. 7:25). c) His work as Head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). d) His work as Lord of creation (Eph. 1:20-22). 3) It was essential to his future work.

a) The resurrection of mankind (1 Cor. 15:20-21; see also John 5:28-29).

b) The judgment of mankind (Acts 10:40-42; 17:31). c) The reign over Israel on David's throne (Acts

2:24-31). c. As to scripture.

1) The veracity of the writers. It substantiates their reliability as prophets, etc., (see e.g., Acts 26:22-23; Luke 24:44).

2) The trustworthiness of the record. It is a verification of the

God-breathed character of the scripture (see Ps. 16:10; Luke 24:46).

C. The Ascension of the Savior 1. The nature of his ascension. a. Introduction.

1) It is a matter of prophetic anticipation by Jesus Christ (John 6:62; 14:2, 12; 16:5, 17, 28; 20:17).

2) It is a matter of historical record (Luke 24:50-51; Acts

1:9-11).

3) t is a matter of early doctrinal confession (1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 4:14).

Page 128 of 205


b. Was it a condition or a local transition? Some argue that just as heaven (and hell) is only a state of mind and not a literal place so the ascension is only a condition and not an actual change from one place to another. The Bible, however, sets forth both heaven and hell as actual places (see later discussion in chapters 49 and 54). Likewise, scripture uses terminology that would call for an actual transition in bodily fashion from earth to heaven in the ascension.

1) The departure from earth.

a) Significant Greek verbs (Acts 1:9-11). In this passage Luke uses a series of terms indicating Jesus' movement from the earth. He speaks of his being "lifted up" which indicates an upward direction and is passive in form (v. 9); he speaks of his being "received up" which indicates the natural means (v. 9); he refers to his "departing" which views it as a journey rather than a disappearance (v. 10); and he speaks of his being "taken up" which is climactic indicating that the journey continued until he was received up into heaven (v. 11).

b) Use of spatial terminology (Deut. 30:12; Josh. 2:11;

Ps. 139:8; John 14:2-3; Rom. 10:6-7; Eph. 4:8-10).

c) Use of spatial relationships (John 14:2-3; 17:24). Jesus speaks of a "place" he has gone to prepare and of his desire that the disciples may be "with me where I am."

2) The arrival in heaven (Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; 9:3-7 and every

passage which places Jesus Christ in heaven following his earthly life).

c. Was there more than one ascension? (John 20:17; Heb. 9:6- 12).

1) The idea that there were multiple ascensions is based on the supposed typical significance of Day of Atonement (presentation of blood) (Lev. 16). This view has several problems.

a) It views Christ's work as unfinished.

b) Hebrews 9:12 states that he entered "through" not "with" his blood.

Page 129 of 205


c) It is always risky to base doctrine on a type.

d) It tends in the direction of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass, i.e., the perpetual offering of Christ's blood which also is a denial of the finished work of Christ on the cross.

2) The idea that there were multiple ascensions is based

upon the two different statements in John 20:17 ("do not hold on to me") and Matthew 28:9 ("they . . . clasped his feet"). Why did he allow his followers to touch him in one case and not in the other? Some have suggested it was because he had already ascended in between the two incidents. This, however, is very unlikely. The difference is to be accounted for, rather, in the intent of the individual involved.

In Matthew 28:9 the taking hold (ekratesan) was an act of

worship; in John 20:17 the clinging (haptou) was a possessive act. When Mary discovered that the tomb was empty her attention was then focused upon finding the body of her Lord. Being suddenly confronted with his physical presence she seeks to lay hold of the physical body of Christ thinking that the separation of death is ended and that he was now back among them to stay.

Instead, the Lord points out that the process of exaltation is

not yet complete and that from henceforth his relationship with his disciples would be a spiritual one from the Father's right hand rather than a flesh and blood relationship on earth.

How, then, are we to understand the words, "I ascend. . ."?

There are two possibilities. a) He was then beginning to ascend; or as

b) a futuristic present that "startles and arrests attention. It affirms not merely predicts. It gives a sense of certainty" (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 870).

d. Was Jesus' glorified body ubiquitous? While the human nature

of the theanthropic person of Christ was glorified, the humanity remained as distinct and genuine. There was no mingling of attributes between the divine and the human. Thus the body, per

Page 130 of 205


se, which is an aspect of his humanity is to be considered as being in one place or another while it may be said that Christ is spiritually present everywhere at all times due to the divine perfection of omnipresence. The theological importance of this relates especially to his present session as our High Priest. One very significant aspect of this work resides in the fact that we have a one who is genuinely human in glory.

2. The theological significance of the ascension. a. To Jesus Christ.

1) It led to the restoration of his pre- incarnate glory (John 17:5).

2) It involved the glorification of humanity in the exaltation of the theanthropos (cf. Phil. 2:5- 8 with 9-11).

b. To the world.

1) It became the basis for the Holy Spirit's convicting work of righteousness (John 16:10).

2) It was necessary to Jesus' universal dominion over all

things (Acts 2:33-35; Eph. 1:20-22). c. To the believer. 1) It related to his preparation of our heavenly home (John

14:2-3). 2) It related to his sending of the Spirit (Acts 2:33-35).

3) It related to the beginning of his present high-priestly ministry (Heb. 4:14-15; 9:24; 1 Pet. 3:22).

4) It related to his giving of gifts to men (Eph. 4:7- 10).

5) It assures us of our own ascension and glorification (Heb. 6:19-20, cf. John 17:24).

D. The Present Session of the Savior

1. The biblical base for the doctrine (note references to Christ at God's right hand). a) In prophecy (Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; 26:64; Luke 22:69).

Page 131 of 205


b) In fulfillment and instruction (Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20-21; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3-4; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22).

2. The importance of the doctrine. In considering the person of Christ there is a tendency to focus almost exclusively on the first and/or second advents with their attendant truths and to minimize or overlook his present ministry. Much attention is given to his past, finished work and his future, glorious manifestation as sovereign over the universe, and rightly so. This doctrine focuses upon the current, unfinished work of the Savior. His present position at the Father's right hand is a place of distinct honor and authority (see 1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 45:9; 110:1) and is undoubtedly both a fulfillment of God's eternal purposes (Ps. 110:1) and an answer to Jesus' prayer (John 17:5).

3. The character of the present session of the Savior. a. In relation to creation in general--he is Lord and King. 1) This dominion is primarily heavenly and spiritual rather

than earthly and Davidic, 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15-16; Rev. 3:21 (also, note all the references to his being at the Father's right hand in contrast to being on an earthly throne).

2) This dominion involves thoroughgoing sovereignty but it is

not yet openly manifest nor fully realized (Eph. 1:20-21; 1 Pet. 3:22; Heb. 2:5- 8). This does not mean that he has no dominion as King now, but rather that it is yet to be manifested in its fullest form in the Messianic Kingdom.

b. In relation to the individual believer--he is High Priest. (Note that

his priestly ministry emcompasses more than the "Present Session." For further discussion see chapter 32).

1) This priesthood involves compassionate enablement.

a) The enabler is Jesus Christ who was made like his brethren so as to be a merciful and faithful high priest. As such he is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted and to sympathize with our weaknesses (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15).

b) The enablement he provides includes a life hidden

with Christ in God, mercy and grace for our time of need, and the privilege of drawing near and holding fast the confidence of our hope (Col. 3:1-3; Heb. 4:16; 10:19-25).

Page 132 of 205


2) This priesthood involves intercession (Rom. 8:34; Heb.

7:25). This is preventative ministry whereby he pleads on our behalf and delivers us forever (see e.g., Luke 22:31-32).

3) This priesthood involves advocacy (1 John 2:1-2). A

remedial ministry whereby he functions as our propitiation when we sin (see e.g., Luke 23:34).

c. In relation to the church--he is Head. (This will be developed

more fully in the later section on Ecclesiology, chapter 43). 1) This headship provides loving leadership (Eph. 1:20-22;

5:23-24). 2) This headship directs the development of the Body (Eph.

4:15-16; Col. 2:19).

Page 133 of 205

Christology: The Doctrine of Atonement-part 1 1 of 13

V. The Doctrine of the Atonement

A. The Definition of the Doctrine

1. The word atonement is a theological term that is used to describe the substitutionary work of Christ.

2. The word occurs in the KJV in Romans 5:11 and has the basic meaning of reconciliation. The word often is used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew words kipper and kippurim, which mean “propitiation” or “expiation”.

3. The word atonement encompasses Christ’s work of redemption on behalf of His people.

4. The center of Christ’s work, the main event to which the whole Old Testament pointed and to which the whole New Testament expounded was Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. Christ’s death is the very heart of the Christian faith. It is the central theme of Scripture.

5. “[T]he New Testament writers ascribe the saving efficacy of Christ’s work specifically to His death, or His blood, or His cross (Rom. iii. 25; v. 9; I Cor. x. 16; Eph. i.7; ii.13; Col. i. 20; Heb. ix.12, 14; I Pet. i. 2, 19; I John i. 7; v. 6-8; Rev. i. 5)”( B. B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ p. 352).

6. “The atonement is the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 568).

B. The Cause of the Atonement

1. Distinction between Motivation and Method

a) A distinction needs to be made between necessity as it relates to God’s motive or moving cause to save sinners and necessity as it relates to God’s method or means used to achieve salvation. These topics need to be treated separately because they deal with different questions, each of which the Bible answers differently.

b) Did God because of something within His own nature or something intrinsic to man have to save sinners? Did God’s attributes of love, mercy and

Page 134 of 205


compassion force Him to act? Could God have left the whole human race to perish in their sins if He so desired?

c) The biblical answer is that God’s decision to save a people for Himself was a free choice that was not determined by any internal or external necessity.

d) This does not mean that achieving redemption was without cost for the Bible says that Christians were “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23); that Christ redeemed the church with His own precious blood (1 Pet. 1:19).

e) The free gift passages refer to the fact that God bestows salvation upon the elect freely or voluntarily. God was not obligated to save anyone but out of His own good pleasure He gave “freely”.

f) Paul says that believers are “justified freely by His grace” (Rom. 3:24); that God will “freely give us all things” (Rom. 8:32); that the Holy Spirit enables us to “know the things that have been freely given to us by God” (1 Cor. 2:12).

g) God’s freeness in giving salvation to the elect is intimately connected with the biblical concept of grace. Grace means that God gives His favor and salvation to those who deserve wrath and hell-fire to those who hate God and are His enemies.

h) Salvation is never presented in the Scriptures as bestowed because of obligation or debt. Neither a foreseen faith, nor good works, or bloodline, or nationality has anything to do with God’s free choice. “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens” (Rom. 9:18; cf. 4:1-5).

i) Although the Bible teaches that the moving cause of the atonement was God’s sovereign good pleasure, this fact does not mean that God’s decision was purely arbitrary. Yes, it was a free act but it was an act rooted in God’s nature.

2. The Motives

Page 135 of 205


a) The Good Pleasure of God

(1) “It is sometimes represented as if the moving cause of the atonement lay in the sympathetic love of Christ for sinners. He was so good and loving that the very idea that sinners would be hopelessly lost, was abhorrent to him….On this view Christ apparently receives His due, but God is robbed of His honor” (Berkhoff, 367).

(2) Paul says that God’s predestination of the elect to salvation in Christ was “according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:5).

(3) To the Galatians Paul wrote, “Jesus Christ…gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father” (1:4).

(4) In Colossians, we read that “it pleased the Father…to reconcile all things to Himself by Him” (1:19).

b) The Love and Justice of God

(1) The Bible speaks of the atonement as the provision of God’s love. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (Jn. 3:16). “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 Jn. 4:9-11). The love of God is the spring from which the atonement flows. Jesus’ death was the supreme demonstration of God’s love. “But God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Paul informs us in Romans 8:29 that God’s love preceded election. “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son”. (The word foreknew in this passage is used in the Hebraistic sense of “to love beforehand”).

(2) The fact that God the Father sent His only begotten Son to die for sinners because He loved them beforehand should spur every Christian not only to wonder and amazement but also to profound adoration, love and praise toward God.

(3) The Father didn’t have to send the Son and the Son didn’t have to humble Himself, but because of their love and mercy toward the elect Jesus came and died. “Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise. Be thankful to Him, and bless His name. For the LORD is good; His mercy is

Page 136 of 205


everlasting, and His truth endures to all generations” (Ps. 100:4-5).

(4) At the same time, the justice of God requires that God find a way that the penalty due to us for our sins would be paid for (See Romans 3:25).

(5) “Therefore, both the love and the justice of God were the ultimate cause of the atonement” (Grudem, 569).

(6) “It is necessary to avoid all one-sidedness in this respect. If we represent the atonement as founded only in the righteousness and justice of God, we fail to do justice to the love of God as the moving cause of the atonement…. If, on the other hand, we consider the atonement purely an expression of the love of God, we fail to do justice tot he righteousness and veracity of God, we reduce the sufferings and death of Christ to an unexplainable enigma” (Berkhoff, 368).

3. Distinction between Hypothetical and Absolute Necessity

a) A second distinction that needs to be made is between a hypothetical necessity and an absolute necessity. Some of the early reformers (e.g. Calvin, Luther and Zwingli) held that the atonement was necessary only in the sense that God sovereignly decreed to save sinners by Christ’s death.

b) In other words, the sacrifice of Christ had to take place because God predestined it, not because it was the only method that did not contradict God’s moral perfection.

c) If God had wanted to, He could have decreed other methods of securing the salvation of the elect. It is important to understand the difference between a hypothetical and absolute necessity because many passages that point to an absolute necessity could also be used to support a hypothetical or relative necessity viewpoint. For example: “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Mt. 26:39). “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mk. 8:31; cf. Lk. 9:22; 24:7). “But first, He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” (Lk. 17:25). “And as

Page 137 of 205


Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14; cf. Jn. 12:34; 20:9). “...[D]emonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Ac. 17:3). If God has decreed that something take place in history, then it must take place.

C. The Necessity of the Atonement

1. Introduction

a) "The necessity of Christ's satisfaction to divine justice is, as it were, the center and hinge of all doctrines of pure revelation. Other doctrines are of little importance comparatively except as they have respect to this” (Jonathan Edwards).

b) “Once God decided to save sinners, there was but one way of bringing about this purpose which would be in harmony with God's own character, the law of God, the nature of sin, and the needs of man; and this one way was the substitutionary blood atonement of the Incarnate Son of God. The unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel simply because he cannot see the real need of an atonement. He does not believe that he is a helpless depraved sinner that cannot save himself. The primary reason for this blindness and ignorance lies in the sinner's wrong view of the character of God and his holy and righteous demands revealed in his Law. As long as God is viewed as nothing but love, we will miss seeing his absolute holiness, perfect righteousness, and unflinching justice. The necessity of these attributes being satisfied by an atoning sacrifice will be ridiculed as pagan and inhumane” (John G. Reisinger, “The Doctrine of the Atonement” Sound of Grace).

c) Having considered the moving cause of the atonement and the hypothetical necessity viewpoint, let us turn our attention to the biblical evidence for the absolute necessity understanding of the atonement. Once God decided out of His own sovereign good pleasure to save a people for Himself, could He have saved them in an infinite variety of ways or was He limited by an absolute necessity to only one way: the sinless life and sacrificial death of the God-Man, Jesus Christ? The biblical evidence clearly supports the

Page 138 of 205


contention that Christ’s work of redemption was the only possible way that God could save sinners.

2. The Significance of the Necessity of the Atonement

a) For those who think a discussion of the absolute necessity of the atonement is the esoteric speculation of theologians and thus not worthy of study; a brief preview of its vital importance is in order.

b) This doctrine is vital for a number of reasons.

(1) First, it refutes the popular modern day notion that there are many different paths that lead to God and eternal life. This doctrine proves that only the sinless blood of Christ can remove the guilt of sin and consequently God’s wrath against the sinner.

(2) Second, it tells us a lot about the God who is–the God with whom we all have to deal. The God of the Bible is not promiscuous or sloppy regarding ethics. Jehovah is infinitely holy and righteous and thus cannot dwell or have fellowship with any person who has the guilt of sin.

(3) Third, it teaches us that sin is exceedingly wicked and evil. Sin (the transgression of God’s holy law) is not a light thing. It is a deadly, soul-damning, God-hating, death-loving act. The thought of committing sin against a God of infinite holiness should make us tremble with fear. Sin is the reason that the spotless, harmless, undefiled Son of God had to die to accomplish redemption. Because of sin, the only sinless, good man who ever lived was humiliated, abandoned, tortured and publicly executed as a criminal.

(4) Fourth, as noted above, it teaches us that God’s love of the elect is totally amazing. Although God was not obligated to save anyone, He out of His love, mercy and kindness decided to save a people from every nation even though this redemption could only be achieved at the ultimate cost–the suffering, sacrifice and blood of the Lord of Glory. “Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever” (Rev. 6:13)!

Page 139 of 205


3. The Reasons for the Necessity of the Atonement

a) Introduction

(1) There are four major biblical reasons why the atonement was necessary, most of which are intimately connected with God’s nature or character.

(2) Berkhoff points out five, too: clear teaching of Scripture, immutability and majesty of the law; veracity of God, nature of sin, and the sacrifice itself (Systematic Theology, 370-371).

(3) Although the God of the Bible is totally sovereign, all-powerful, all-knowing and infinite in perfections, there are certain things that God cannot do. For example, God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18) or tempt man to sin (Jas. 1:13). Jehovah can do anything except violate His own nature. In other words “He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). Therefore, when God determined to save a people from the guilt of sin, He could only choose a course of action consistent with His own character (in particular His moral character). The apostle Paul put it this way, God’s method of salvation had to demonstrate “His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). The attributes of God that directly lead to the necessity of the atonement are God’s righteousness, justness and holiness.

b) God’s Righteousness and Justice

(1) Many people who object to the biblical doctrine of the atonement do so because they do not understand who God is. They reason within themselves: “Why doesn’t God simply forgive and forget? Wouldn’t God forgive people as long as they say they are sorry and endeavor to be a better person? Isn’t the idea that only the death and shed blood of Christ can remove sin extreme and fanatical?”

(2) The reason God cannot simply let sin slide or sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist is because He is righteous and just. “The LORD is righteous, He is in her midst, He will do no unrighteousness” (Zeph. 3:5). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne” (Ps. 89:14). “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He” (Dt. 32:4). When the Bible speaks of God’s ethical perfection and justice, it does not refer to a standard or realm of ideals outside of God but to God’s very being itself. “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5). Therefore, Abraham, who knew God’s character, could ask Jehovah: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth

Page 140 of 205


do right?” (Gen. 18:25). Likewise, the apostle Paul could say, “Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!” (Rom. 9:14). God can only do what is right. Because of His nature, He can only do what is just.

(3) God’s nature demands that sin be punished. If God refused to give sin its full measure of punishment then He could not claim to be perfectly just. God’s infinite holiness, justice and righteousness of necessity demand the infliction of punishment on the sinner himself or on an appropriate substitute. The Bible contains many passages that declare that God has to punish sin. Jehovah said, “I will not justify [i.e. declare righteous] the wicked” (Ex. 23:7).

(4) “We are told repeatedly that He will by no means clear the guilty, Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18; Nah. 1:3. He hates sin with a divine hatred; His whole being reacts against it, Ps. 5:4-6; Nah. 1:2; Rom. 1:18. Paul argues in Romans 3:25-26, that it was necessary that Christ should be offered as an atoning sacrifice for sin, in order that God might be just while justifying the sinner. The important thing was that the justice of God should be maintained” (Berkhoff, 370).

(5) A common objection against the biblical teaching that God must punish sin is that it makes God less charitable than many people who are willing to forgive offenses without any sort of satisfaction. While it is true that many people can and do forgive personal offenses against them, the comparison between God and a private individual is totally illegitimate. God is the Creator, Sovereign Lord over all, Supreme Lawgiver and Judge of all men; therefore, He must maintain His veracity, law and justice. A private individual does not have to contradict his own nature, law and justice to forgive an offense. The Bible repeatedly affirms that as the Supreme Judge over the whole earth, God will only render just judgment. “But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each one according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:5-6; cf. Rev. 20:12).

c) God is Holy

(1) Another aspect of God’s character that necessitates the atonement is His holiness.

(2) “The nature of God is perfect and complete holiness. This is not an optional or arbitrary matter; it is the way God is by nature. He has always been absolutely holy. Nothing more need or can be said. It is useless to ask, Why is God this way? He simply is. Being contrary to God’s nature, sin is repulsive to Him. He is

Page 141 of 205


allergic to sin, so to speak. He cannot look upon it. He is compelled to turn away from it” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 802).

(3) God’s infinite holiness causes Him to hate sin with a perfect hatred. God is so holy that before sinful men can come into His presence and have fellowship with Him the guilt of their sin must be removed and they must be clothed with perfect righteousness.

(4) The attribute of God that is emphasized by Scripture above all other attributes (including love) is His holiness. God’s holiness refers to His absolute distinctness from all His creatures and to His glorious exalted existence above His creation in infinite majesty as well as His infinite moral purity. The God of the Bible is not like the pagan deities who fornicate, get drunk and commit lewd acts because He really exists (they do not) and He is holy. “Who is like You, O LORD among the gods? Who is like You, glorious in holiness” (Ex. 15:11). Jehovah is so holy that the mighty seraphim continually cry out before Him, “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isa. 6:3; cf. Rev. 4:8).

(5) God demands a perfect holiness in people not arbitrarily but because His own perfect holiness requires it. To the Israelite He said: “you shall be holy; for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44). Because God is holy, He hates sin and cannot dwell with sinners. “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wickedness” (Hab. 1:13). “You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity” (Ps. 5:4-5).

(6) When God created Adam and Eve, He made them in His own image (Gen. 1:27). Before they ate the forbidden fruit and fell into sin, they were holy and righteous. They were without any ethical spot or blemish. What happened to Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God’s command and sinned against Him? They were cast out of God’s presence. Why? Because a thrice holy God cannot have fellowship with people who are not holy. God is so infinitely holy that every sin that an individual commits merits death: physical, spiritual and eternal. God had warned Adam that the day that he disobeyed Him, he would certainly die (Gen. 2:17). God’s holiness of intrinsic necessity set up a separation between Jehovah and all sinners. “Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; nor His ear heavy, that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isa. 59:1-2).

Page 142 of 205


(7) Once we understand the holiness of God then we can understand the severe penalty that sin deserves. When God demands that “the soul who sins must die” (Ezek. 18:4), He is not setting forth an arbitrary penalty but is penalizing sinners exactly as His holy and righteous nature requires. Thus Paul writes: “knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32). Sin is wicked. It is a moral evil that is the very opposite of holiness. God hates all workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5) and is angry with the wicked every day (Ps. 7:11). Sin in thought, word or deed is an abomination to the Lord. God is determined because of the immutable holiness of His nature to punish all sin with death. “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). “Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1:15). “The soul who sins must die” (Ezek. 18:4).

(8) John Murray writes: “Sin is the contradiction of God and He must react against it with holy wrath. Wherever sin is, the wrath of God rests upon it (cf. Rom. 1:18). Otherwise, God would be denying Himself, particularly His holiness, justice, and truth. But wrath must be removed if we are to enjoy the favor of God which salvation implies. And the only provision for the removal of wrath is propitiation. This is surely the import of Romans 3:25, 26, that God set forth Christ a propitiation to declare His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the ungodly” (John Murray, The Atonement, p. 11).

(9) Because of who God is (He is holy, righteous and just), and because of what sinners are (they are unholy, unrighteous and guilty), people have only two choices. They can remain in their sin and unholiness and thus be forever cast away from God’s presence into hell or they can trust in Christ who as a substitute paid the penalty in full by His death and provided a perfect holiness or righteousness by His life.

d) The Sanction of God’s Law

(1) God has given unto mankind a moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. God’s moral law helps us understand God’s righteousness and holiness for His moral law reflects His character. For example, Jehovah commands us to be holy (Lev. 11:44). Why? Because He is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). God also commands us not to lie (Dt. 5:20). Why? Because Jehovah is truth itself (Jn. 14:6) and cannot lie (Heb. 6:18). Ethical absolutes are not philosophical abstractions existing in some supposed realm of ideals. They are rooted in God’s very being and thus they are as immutable and eternal as God Himself. The only reason that people have a sense of what is right and wrong is because man was created in the image of God

Page 143 of 205


(Gen. 1:26) and thus has the work of the law written upon the heart (Rom. 2:15).

(2) Why does the law of God necessitate the work of Christ? Because the law carries with it penal sanctions that also reflect God’s nature and character. Thus, these sanctions also are immutable and eternal. Remember, it is God’s holiness that causes Him to hate sin with a perfect hatred and God’s justice requires that sin receive its full penalty. And what is the penalty that God’s law threatens? It is death (Gen. 2:17; Dt. 27:36; Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 1:18,32; 6:23; Jas. 1:15; Rev. 20:14-15).

(3) “Since God is true and cannot lie, these threatenings must necessarily be executed either upon the sinner himself or upon a surety”(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic, 2: 423).

(4) The moment that you sinned against God you incurred real guilt before Him.

(5) Perhaps you think that you are a good person. That God will accept you on the basis of your good works. The Bible, however, says that: “There is none righteous, no, not one...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:9, 23). “For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin” (Eccl. 7:20).

(6) “Sin is a real criminal offense against God. We should not confuse guilt feelings with real guilt. All men are guilty before God (Rom. 3:19). Yet, most men do not know it or feel it. Modern psychology and psychiatry attempt to remove guilt feelings. But no one can remove our real guilt but God Himself” (Robert A. Morey, Studies in the Atonement, p. 21.

(7) Since you have broken many of God’s laws, you are guilty and now have God’s curse (the eternal death penalty) upon you. “For it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’” (Gal. 3:10). “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). “And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15). If you have not believed in Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures, than you are an enemy of God and His wrath abides upon you this very moment. “He who believes on the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on Him” (Jn. 3:36). Your only hope is the substitute (the Lord Jesus Christ) that God has provided.

(8) Hodge writes: “If the penalty is an essential part of the law; if the whole law is immutable; if Christ actually came to fulfill

Page 144 of 205


the law and not to relax its demands; then it follows, without doubt, that he suffered the penalty of the law as our Substitute” (A. A. Hodge, The Atonement, p. 67).

(9) Since, unbelievers in their natural depravity as well as non-Christian theists (e.g. followers of Islam and Judaism) reject the biblical doctrine of the necessity of a substitutionary sacrifice (in order to eliminate the guilt of sin, remit the penalty and thus eliminate God’s wrath against the sinner) a common heretical objection against the atonement should be considered. It is often said that all that is needed to get right with God is repentance. That is, one must tell God that he is sorry and one must stop the evil behavior that offends God and turn over a new leaf, so to speak. Then God will forgive all of that person’s sins. People who believe this will often appeal to passages which speak of God relenting on a promised punishment on the basis of repentance (e.g. Ahab, 1 Kings. 21:27-29; Nineveh, Jonah 3:10; Hezekiah, Isa. 38:1-5; etc.). the problem with this view is that it confounds God’s temporal punishments and blessings with His eternal sanctions. Obedience to God’s law can and does bring temporal blessings (Dt. 28:1-14) while disobedience brings severe curses in this life (Dt. 28:15-68). However, the Bible never, ever teaches that people can be saved or have their sins removed on the basis of obedience to God’s law. The central focus of the Old Testament ceremonial law was upon the shed blood of animals to cover over or expiate sin. The New Testament teaching on the matter could not be more explicit: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

e) The Requirement of a Perfect Righteousness

(1) Morey writes: “In order to gain the blessing of God your obedience must be: (1) personal : ‘If you listen to the commandment’ (Dt. 11:26); (2) perfect : ‘what does the LORD your God require from you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul’ (Dt. 10:12); (3) perpetual: ‘Oh, that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always’ (Dt. 5:29). The only obedience acceptable before God is one in which 100% of you keeps 100% of the Law 100% of the time. ‘For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all’ (Jas. 2:10)” (Robert A. Morey, Studies in the Atonement, p. 18

Page 145 of 205


(2) Murray writes: “Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. And justification, adequate to the situation in which lost mankind is, demands a righteousness such as belongs to no other than the incarnate Son of God, a righteousness with divine property and quality (cf. Rom. 1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:3; II Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). It is the righteousness of the obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:19). But only the Son of God incarnate, fulfilling to the full extent the commitments of the Father’s will, could have provided such a righteousness” (John Murray, The Atonement, pp. 10-11).

Page 146 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 1 of 24

V. The Atonement of Jesus Christ

A. The Definition of the Atonement

B. The Cause of the Atonement

C. The Necessity of the Atonement

D. The Theories of the Atonement

1. Introduction

a) Each theory represents an attempt to determine what was accomplished by the death of Christ.

b) They thus become assessments of the value of his death and therefore must be given serious attention.

2. Apostolic Fathers

a) The earlier fathers followed very closely the words of scripture in their references to the atonement.

b) Thus Clement of Rome, sometimes identified with the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians 4:3, says, "On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls" (Chap. xlix).

c) The doctrine of Paul is faithfully reproduced also in the Epistle of Barnabas, where it is stated that "The Lord endured to deliver his body to death, that we might be sanctified by the remission of sins which is the shedding of that blood" (Epistola, 5).

d) Ignatius (c. 116) the pupil of St. John declares that we "have peace through the flesh and blood, and passion of Jesus Christ" (Ad Ephesos, 1).

e) Polycarp (c. 168) likewise acquainted with John is more specific. "Christ is our Savior; for through grace we are righteous, not by works; for our sins, He has even taken death upon Himself, has become the servant of us all, and through

Page 147 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 2 of 24His death for us our hope, and the pledge of our righteousness. The heaviest sin is unbelief in Christ; His blood will be demanded of unbelievers; for to those to whom the death of Christ, which obtains the forgiveness of sins, does not prove a ground of justification, it proves a ground of condemnation" (Ad. Philippos, i, 8).

3. Theories Which View Christ's Death as Affecting Satan

a) The Recapitulation Theory.

(1) The view stated

(a) Christ in life and death repeated all the stages of human life including those which belong to our state as sinners.

(b) He thus replaced Adam's disobedience with his obedience. By faith this obedience becomes ours and accomplishes an ethical transformation in our lives.

(c) God conquered the devil, having given Christ as a ransom to Satan, and this serves as a basis to persuade men to return to God. Set forth by Irenaeus (c. 130-200).

(d) "What Christ did not assume he did not save."

(2) The objections

(a) It seems to make Christ a sinner which is clearly contrary to revelation (Heb. 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5).

(b) Also, scripture nowhere teaches that God gave Christ as a ransom to Satan.

(c) This Theory bases the Atonement on the Life of Christ, more than his Death. As such, it fails to give appropriate significance to the sacrificial, redemptive and propitiatory aspects of Christ’s death.

b) The Ransom-to-Satan Theory

(1) The view stated

(a) Christ's death constituted a ransom paid to Satan to purchase captives (see 2 Tim. 2:26) and to cancel the claims he had on mankind. Because he was God as well as man Christ

Page 148 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 3 of 24arose from the dead. By his resurrection he conquered sin, death and the devil thus defeating Satan who had under-estimated God in the bargain. Set forth by Origen (c. 185-254).

(b) This was the Theory of Origen, Augustine, and many others of the early Church

(c) Known as the "Classical theory"

(d) Taken up in recent years by G Aulen, CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and Seventh-Day Adventists

(e) Christ’s Death is viewed as a Grand Deception of Satan by God

(f) Christ (Aslan), the "prize" is "traded" for the "sons of man"—Lewis

(g) The "trade" brings about the release of those in bondage

(h) Satan is "baited" by Jesus’ humanity, but caught on the "hook" of his deity.

(i) Satan thought he could "keep his prey" but didn’t realize the full power of the resurrection

(j) Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, tr. Patrick Lynch, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1977 (orig. 1952 in German), pp. 186-187:

(i) Inadequate Patristic Theories of the Redemption . . . Origen (+ 254) changed the Pauline teaching of man's ransom from the dominion of the devil to an unbiblical ransom-theory. He held that the devil by Adam's sin, had acquired a formal dominion over mankind. In order to liberate mankind from this tyranny Christ gave his life to the devil as ransom price. But the devil was deceived, as he was not able to maintain for long his dominion of death over Christ. Others explained that the devil lost his dominion over mankind by unjustly trying to extend this right to Christ also. Despite the fact that this error was widespread, Patristic teaching held firmly to the biblical teaching of man's reconciliation with God through Christ's death on the Cross. The notion of a dominion of the devil over fallen mankind was energetically refuted by St. Anselm of Canterbury . . .

(ii) Reality of Christ's Vicarious Atonement

Page 149 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 4 of 24(a) Holy Writ contains the teaching of the vicarious atonement, not indeed explicitly but by implication [cites Is 53:4 ff., Mt 20:28, Jn 10:15, 2 Cor 5:21, Gal 3:13, Rom 3:25 ff., 1 Pet 2:24, 3:18] . . .

(b) From the very beginning the Fathers were familiar with the idea of Christ's vicarious atonement. The Apostles' disciple, St. Clement of Rome, comments: 'For the sake of the love which He had for us Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the will of the Father has given His blood for us, His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls' (Cor 49:6). Cf. Letter to Diognetus, 9:2.

(c) While the Fathers, in the explanation of Christ's work of sanctification, proceed more from the contemplation of the consequences of the Redemption, and therefore stress the negative side of the Redemption, namely, the ransoming from the slavery of sin and of the devil, St. Anselm proceeds from the contemplation of the guilt of sin. This, as an insult offered to God, is infinite, and therefore demands an infinite expiation. Such expiation, however, can be achieved by a Divine Person only. To be capable of thus representing mankind, this person must be, at the same time, man and God.

(iii) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity (100-325), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1970, orig. 1910, ch. 12, §153, "Redemption," pp. 584-588:

(a) The apostolic scripture, in the fulness of their inspiration, everywhere bear witness of this salvation wrought through Christ, as a living fact of experience. But it required time for the profound ideas of a Paul and a John to come up clearly to the view of the church; indeed, to this day they remain unfathomed. Here again experience anticipated theology. The church lived from the first on the atoning sacrifice of Christ. the cross ruled all Christian thought and conduct, and fed the spirit of martyrdom. But the primitive church teachers lived more in the thankful enjoyment of redemption than in logical reflection upon it. We perceive in their exhibitions of this blessed mystery the language rather of enthusiastic feeling than of careful definition and acute analysis.

Page 150 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 5 of 24(b) Moreover, this doctrine was never, like Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity, a subject of special controversy within the ancient church. The ecumenical symbols touch it only in general terms. The Apostles' Creed presents it in the article on the forgiveness of sins on the ground of the divine-human life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The Nicene Creed says, a little more definitely, that Christ became man for our salvation, and died for us, and rose again.

(c) Nevertheless, all the essential elements of the later church doctrine of redemption may be found, either expressed or implied, before the close of the second century. The negative part of the doctrine, the subjection of the devil, the prince of the kingdom of sin and death, was naturally most dwelt on in the patristic period, on account of the existing conflict of Christanity with heathenism, which was regarded as wholly ruled by Satan and demons. Even in the New Testament, particularly in Col 2:15, Heb 2:14, and 1 John 3:8, the victory over the devil is made an integral part of the work of Christ. But this view was carried out in the early church in a very peculiar and, to some extent, mythical way; and in this form continued current, until the satisfaction theory of Anselm gave a new turn to the development of the dogma . . .

(d) In Justin Martyr appear traces of the doctrine of satisfaction, though in very indefinite terms . . . "Irenæus [d. 202] is the first of all church teachers to give a careful analysis of the work of redemption, and his view is by far the deepest and soundest we find in the first three centuries . . .

(e) Origen differs from Irenæus in considering man, in consequence of sin, the lawful property of Satan, and in representing the victory over Satan as an outwitting of the enemy, who had no claim to the sinless soul of Jesus, and therefore could not keep it in death. The ransom was paid, not to God, but to Satan, who thereby lost his right to man. Here Origen touches on mythical Gnosticism . . .

(f) Athanasius, in his early youth, at the beginning of the next period, wrote the first systematic treatise on redemption and answer to the question 'Cur Deus homo?' ['why did God become man?'] But it was left for the Latin church, after the epoch-making treatise of

Page 151 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 6 of 24Anselm, to develop this important doctrine in its various aspects.

(k) Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, pp. 141-142,148:

(i) The gospel was a message of salvation; on this all Christian teachers agreed. But they did not agree about the meaning of the salvation proclaimed by this message.

(ii) Nor did that meaning become, in the strict sense, a dogma of the church . . . neither [the Nicene Creed] nor later dogmas specified in any detail just how the salvation which was the purpose of Christ's coming was related to these events in his earthly and heavenly states. While the relation of Jesus Christ to God and the relation of the human and the divine within his person became the subject for doctrinal controversy and dogmatic definition, the saving work of Christ remained undefined. Yet it was certainly a major constituent of Christian doctrine - if by doctrine we mean that the church believes, teaches, and confesses, not only in its polemics and creeds, but also in its liturgy and exegesis.

(iii) The very absence of explicit dogmatic and extensive polemical treatment of the meaning of salvation makes it necessary as well as hazardous to find some other scheme for organizing the doctrinal material on this subject . . .

(iv) . . . the organization of the material around the three themes of the life and teachings, the sufferings and death, and the resurrection and exaltation of Christ would appear to be legitimate. Such a schema for doctrines of salvation in the second, third, and fourth centuries must not be taken to imply that either the life or the death or the resurrection of Christ was ever seen as the one saving event in utter isolation from the whole of the biblical picture . . .

(v) Because of the prominence of demonology in Christian piety and theology, the Christian thinkers who dealt with the idea of ransom usually took it to be a ransom paid to the devil to set man free. Irenæus does not seem to have had this conception in mind in his exposition of the idea of the ransom, but Origen clearly did . . . Only in the fourth century, in the thought of such men as Gregory Nazianzus, did this notion of a ransom paid to the devil yield to futher theological reflection.

Page 152 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 7 of 24(l) J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper Collins, rev. ed., 1978, chapter XIV: "Christ's Saving Work," pp. 375-377,388,391-392:

(i) [With regard to] the contemporary theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation . . . controversy forced fairly exact definition on the Church, whereas the redemption did not become a battle-ground for rival schools until the twelfth century, when Anselm's Cur deus homo (c.1097) focussed attention on it . . .

(ii) First, there was the so-called 'physical' or 'mystical' theory (we have already come across it in Irenæus) which linked the redemption with the incarnation. According to this, human nature was sanctified, transformed and elevated by the very act of Christ's becoming man . . .

(iii) Secondly, there was the explanation of the redemption in terms of a ransom offered to, or a forfeit imposed on, the Devil . . . Thirdly, there was the theory, often designated 'realist', which directed attention to the Saviour's sufferings . . .

(iv) Faced with this diversity, scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying thought in the patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories, however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as complementary . . .

(v) The essential truth concealed behind the popular, often crudely expressed imagery of a deal with Satan was a wholly Scriptural one (cf. Acts 26:18) that fallen man lies in the Devil's power and salvation necessarily includes rescue from it.

(vi) There is a further point, however, which is not always accorded the attention it deserves. Running through almost all the patristic attempts to explain the redemption there is one grand theme which, we suggest, provides the clue to the fathers' understanding of the work of Christ. This is none other than the ancient idea of recapitualtion which Irenæus derived from St. Paul, and which envisages Christ as the representative of the entire race. Just as all men were somehow present in Adam, so they are, or can be, present in the second Adam, the man from heaven. Just as they were involved

Page 153 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 8 of 24in the former's sin, with all its apalling consequences, so they can participate in the latter's death and ultimate triumph over sin, the forces of evil and death itself. Because, very God as He is, He has identified Himself with the human race, Christ has been able to act on its behalf and in its stead; and the victory He has obtained is the victory of all who belong to Him.

(vii) All the fathers, of whatever school, reproduce this motif. The physical theory, it is clear, is an elaboration of it . . . The various forms of the sacrificial theory frankly presuppose it, using it to explain how Christ can act for us in the ways of substitution and reconciliation. The theory of the Devil's rights might seem to move on a rather different plane, but it too assumes that, as the representative man, Christ is a fitting exchange for mankind held in the Devil's grasp . . .

(viii) Hilary [of Poitiers; + 367] must be regarded as one of the pioneers of the theology of satisfaction . . . "[Augustine's] teaching was more in line with that of Chysostom, Hilary and Ambrosiaster, and may be summarized as follows (cf. de trin. 13,16-19): (a) The Devil owned no rights, in the strict sense, over mankind; what happened was that, when men sinned, they passed inevitably into his power, and God permitted rather than enjoined this. (b) No ransom as such was therefore due to Satan, but on the contrary, when the remission of sins was procured by Christ's sacrifice, God's favour was restored and the human race might well have been freed. (c) God preferred, however, as a course more consonant with His justice, that the Devil should not be deprived of his dominion by force, but as the penalty for abusing his position. (d) Hence Christ's passion, the primary object of which was of course quite different, placed the Son of God in Satan's hands, and when the latter overreached himself by seizing the divine prey, with the arrogance and greed which were characteristic of him, he was justly constrained, as a penalty, to deliver up mankind.

(ix) There have been scholars who have fastened upon man's release in this way from the Devil as the pivot of Augustine's soteriology. But such a thesis cannot be sustained. Augustine clearly represents our release as consequent upon and as presupposing our reconciliation; the Devil is conquered precisely because God has received satisfaction and has bestowed pardon (cf. de civ. dei 10,22; de trin. 4,17). This brings us to what is in fact his central thought, viz. that the essence of the redemption lies in the expiatory sacrifice offered for us by Christ in His passion.

(2) The objections

Page 154 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 9 of 24(a) While it is true that Christ's death was designed, among other things, to overthrow the power of the devil (e.g., Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8) it is not Satan who was sinned against nor is it he who frees the sinner.

(b) The ransom was rather paid to God who set the price in the first place (Heb. 9:22).

(c) In his discussion of Lutron F. Buchsel makes a strong case for the idea that the ransom was offered to God to satisfy the requirements of his holiness ("Lutron," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, IV, pp. 341-42).

(d) This view also tends to impugn God's character as a deceiver.

(e) Satan’s authority is overstated in the view.

(f) There is a "dualism" implied in the view that is contradicted by Scripture

(g)

c) The Dramatic Theory

(1) The view stated

(a) This is called the "dramatic" view because the terms of the atonement are dramatized as struggle, conflict and victory.

(b) "Its central theme is the idea of the atonement as a divine conflict and victory; Christ--CHRISTUS VICTOR--fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the 'tyrants' under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God reconciles the world to Himself" (G. Aulen, Christus Victor, p. 4). Set forth by Aulen (1930)

(2) The objections

(a) It is basically existential and views sin as a failure which demands victory rather than as an objective act against God, provoking his wrath and demanding propitiation.

(b) It does not do justice to the biblical data on the death of Christ.

Page 155 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 10 of 244. Theories Which View Christ's Death as Affecting Man

a) Mystical theories

(1) The view stated

(a) Christ took on himself a human, sinful nature but through the power of the Holy Spirit he did not manifest its corruption in actual sin, i.e., he triumphed over it.

(b) A knowledge of this will have a subconscious, mystical influence upon us.

(c) "In the mystical theory salvation properly speaking does not lie in the cross of Christ but in his person. His divine-human nature is communicable, and salvation lies in this being imparted to us. The purpose of the incarnation is said to be the deification or divinization of man" (Bloesch, op. cit., p. 156).

(d) These represent the type of the moral influence theory as held by Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Maurice, Irving and others.

(e) Dr. A. B. Bruce calls it "Redemption by Sample." The mysticism lies in the identification of Christ with the race in the sense that He rendered to God, the perfect devotion and obedience which we ought to render; and which in some sense mankind offered in Him. This it holds, is the only meaning of sacrifice in the Scriptures — self-sacrifice by self-consecration to God's service. These theories are sometimes known also, as ""redemption by incarnation.”

(f) Schleiermacher (1769-1834) held that the atonement is purely subjective, and denied any objective satisfaction to God by the substitutionary work of Christ. Such ideas as reparation, compensation, substitution, satisfaction and propitiation, he held to be wholly Jewish. His conception of the work of Christ consisted in this — that being one with God, Christ taught men that they could be one with God; and His consciousness of being in God and knowing God, gave Him the power to communicate it to others. For this reason, He became a Mediator and a Savior.

(g) Ritschl (1822-1889) was one of the most influential representatives of the moral influence in Germany. He did not, like Schleiermacher, set aside historical revelation, but nevertheless held inadequate views of the Redeemer. To him, Christ was a Savior in much the same sense as Buddha — achieving His lordship over it by His indifference to it. He was the Word of God only in so far as He revealed this divine

Page 156 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 11 of 24indifference to things. The sense of sin was regarded as an illusion which it was the work of Christ to dispel.

(h) Maurice (1805-1872) held that Christ was the archetype and root of humanity, and in His own body offered an acceptable sacrifice to God for the race. This was not a substitutionary offering in the commonly accepted sense of the term, but such a mystical union of the race with Christ, that it could make a perfect offering through Him. The sacrifice of Christ consisted in a complete renunciation of that human self-will which is the cause of all men's crimes and miseries. This he held, was the meaning of the ancient sacrifices — not as substitutes for the offerer, but as symbols of his devotion. These found their fulfillment in Christ, who in His life and death, offered up the one and only complete sacrifice ever offered, a perfect surrender to the divine will. Hence in Him, the archetypal man, the race offered a sacrifice acceptable to God.

(i) Dr. Strong points out, that according to this theory, the glory of Christ was not in saving others, but in saving Himself, and so demonstrating the power of man through the Holy Spirit to cast out sin from his heart and life. — Strong, Syst. Th., II, p. 746.

(j) Freer, one of Irving's followers, modified this doctrine, stating that "Unfallen humanity needed not redemption, therefore, Jesus did not take it. He took fallen humanity, but purged it in the act of taking it The nature of which He took part was sinful in the lump, but in His person most holy."

(k) The Mystical Theory, while existing in numerous forms, may be stated as follows: The reconciliation effected by Christ is brought about by a mysterious union of God and man, accomplished by His incarnation. The theory was held by the Platonizing fathers, by the followers of Scotus Erigena during the Middle Ages, by Osiander and Schwenkfeld at the Reformation, and the disciples of Schieiermacher among modern German theologians. One reason why the mystical theory seems so vague, is due to the fact that it has not been held as an exclusive theory, but differently colored by different writers.

(l) Thomas Erskine taught that "Christ came into Adam's place. This is the real substitution....We are separated from each other by being individual persons. But Jesus had no human personality. He had the human nature under the personality of the Son of God. And so His human nature was more open to the commonness of men; for the divine personality while it separated Him from sinners in point of sin, united Him to them in love. And thus the sins of other men were to Jesus what the affections and lusts of his own particular flesh are to each individual believer.

Page 157 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 12 of 24Every man was a part of Him, and He felt the sins of every man — just as the new nature in every believer feels the sins of the old nature — not in sympathy, but in sorrow and abhorrence. Erskine, "The Brazen Serpent."]

(m) Irving (1792-1834) held what is commonly known as the "Theory of Gradually Extirpated Depravity." According to Irving, Christ took upon Himself our human nature, not in its purity, but in its likeness after the Fall. Hence there was in Him, a fallen nature with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil. He held that there were two kinds of sin — guiltless sin and guilty sin. Passive depravity did not regard as guilty, but became such only when expressed in action. The passive sin Christ took, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, not only kept His human nature from manifesting itself in actual sin, but through struggle and suffering, gradually purified this passive sinful nature, until in His death, He completely extirpated it, and reunited the spirit to God. This is subjective purification, but there is no idea of a substitutionary atonement.

(n) “On Irving's theory, evil inclinations are not sinful. Sinfulness belongs only to evil acts. The loose connection between the Logos and humanity savors of Nestorianism. It is the work of the person to rid itself of something in the humanity which does not really render it sinful. If Jesus' sinfulness of nature did not render His person sinful, this must be true of us, which is a Pelagian element, revealed also in the denial that for our redemption we need Christ as an atoning sacrifice. It is not necessary to a complete incarnation for Christ to take a sinful nature, unless sin is essential to human nature. In Irving's view, the death of Christ's body works the regeneration of His sinful nature. But this is to make sin a merely physical thing, and the body the only part of man needing redemption. Penalty would thus become a reformer, and death a savior” (Dorner, Syst. Chr. Doct., III, p. 361).

(2) The objection

(a) This view makes Christ a sinner.

(b) It leaves no need for his death and it does not deal with the guilt of man's sin which must be removed.

(c) It is further objectionable in that it views salvation as a transmutation of humanity into deity rather than as justification, sanctification and glorification of human beings.

Page 158 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 13 of 24b) Psychical theories

(1) The Example Theory

(a) The view stated

(i) Man has a free will with only a tendency toward evil, but that will is not corrupt. Since sin does not corrupt man's nature God does not require that it be punished. Further, because this is true, God's justice does not restrain him from pardoning whom he will. Christ merely provided for mankind an example of faith and obedience which should inspire them to lead an obedient life. His death was the death of a martyr. This view was set forth by the Socinians (16th century).

(ii) Socinianism was the precursor of modern unitarianism.

(iii) Dr. Strong calls it ""The Example Theory of the Atonement," for it altogether denies any idea of propitiation or satisfaction. Its sole method of reconciliation is to better man's moral condition, and this can be effected only by man's own will through repentance and reformation.

(iv) The death of Christ is regarded as that of a noble martyr. His loyalty to truth and faithfulness to duty provide us with a powerful incentive to moral improvement.

(v) Socinianism like Calvinism is based upon the idea of divine sovereignty, but in a very different manner; in Calvinism, predestination applies to the destinies of men; in Socinianism, it governs the attributes of God. That is, it holds that God is free to do that which He wills, and refuses to admit of any immutable qualities in the divine nature, whether of mercy or justice. His occasional will is called out by the conduct of men. He is free to forgive sin without any satisfaction to divine justice, if He desires to do so, simply on the ground of repentance. The death of Christ is designed to remove the hardness of the sinner's heart as the obstacle to repentance.

(vi) The theory advanced by Lælius Socinus, the uncle, and Faustus Socinus, the nephew, represents the seventeenth century attack of rationalism on the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement

(vii) Dr. Alvah Hovey characterizes the moral influence theories as those "which affirm that the atonement made

Page 159 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 14 of 24by Christ benefits and saves men by its moral influence on their characters, and by that alone."

(viii) “According to the teaching of early Socinianism — as distinguished from that of modern Unitarianism — the Savior's priestly office was only figuratively on earth, and began in heaven where He uses His exalted authority to plead for mankind. "The sacerdotal office consists in this, that as He can in royal authority help us in all our necessities, so in His priestly character; and the character of His help is called by a figure His sacrifice." But it may be said that forgiveness is never represented as bestowed save through a real sacrifice: God is in Christ reconciling the world to Himself; and for Christ's sake forgives sins which only the Spirit obtained by the atonement enables us to confess and forsake” (Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 311).

(ix) “In the Socinian theory Christ is a prophet, a teacher. He saves His people as a teacher saves his pupils — by instruction, He saves them from the evils of ignorance, and blesses them with the immunities and benefits of knowledge. Christ teaches the will of God and the way to heaven, and thus saves them who heed His instructions....But man has other needs besides instruction....The Savior of mankind must be more than a teacher, more than a prophet; He must be a priest, a king; indeed He must be to man all in all. Man as a sinner is lost; so far as his own resources are concerned, irretrievably lost. He is nothing, has nothing, can do nothing, without a Savior” (Raymond, Syst. Th., II, pp. 222-224).

(b) The objections

(i) This theory makes salvation dependent upon man's effort since he only needs to repent of his sins and reform himself.

(ii) It denies the sinfulness of sin and the justice of God and assumes that man is not totally depraved. It overlooks the fact that Christ is set forth as an example to believers only in scripture (1 Pet. 2:21).

(iii) Rejected the theories of vicarious satisfaction

(iv) Builds on the Pelagian View of the human condition

(v) Selective use of Scripture (cf. I Pt 2:24)

(vi) Ignores significant terms related to holiness, justice, and other forensic concerns of the biblical doctrine

Page 160 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 15 of 24(2) The Moral Influence Theory.

(a) The view stated

(i) The suffering and death of Christ did not satisfy God's justice for it did not need to be satisfied. Instead, it manifested his love which has the effect of softening men's hearts and leading them to repentance. The cross reveals the love of God and produces faith and love in the individual--which becomes the basis of forgiveness.

(ii) This was first set forth by Abelard (d. 1142)

(a) The Death of Christ was not a substitutionary satisfaction.

(b) It was a demonstration of God’s love for errant humanity

(c) This great act of love awakens a response in the heart of the sinner toward God

(d) The sinner no longer fears God, but rather experiences great sorrow for what his sin has brought upon God

(iii) Popularized by Bushnell (1866).

(a) Miley calls it the theory of "Self-propitiation by Self-sacrifice.”

(b) It belongs to the class of mystical theories, in that it regards the race as identified with Christ, but is given separate mention because of its distinct character.

(c) Dr. Bushnell resolves Christ's priesthood into "sympathy"; that is, there are certain moral sentiments similar in God and in man, such as the repulsiveness of sin and resentment against wrong, which must not be extirpated, but mastered and allowed to remain.

(d) God, therefore, forgives just as man does. "They come to the same point where they require exactly the same preparations and conditions. So God must propitiate the cost and suffering for our good.

Page 161 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 16 of 24(e) This He did in sacrifice on the cross, that sublime act of cost, in which God has bent himself downward in loss and sorrow, over the hard face of sin, to say, and in saying to make good, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee" (Bushnell, Forgiveness and Law, p. 35).

(iv) There is here no propitiation by Christ's death, but only suffering in and with the sins of His creatures. The theory, therefore, is strictly Socinian and Unitarian, although Bushnell was himself a trinitarian.

(v) A more recent advocate of this view was Martin Luther King, Jr.

(b) The objections

(i) If it does not satisfy God's justice the death of Christ was unnecessary and unjust.

(ii) There is nothing loving about putting someone to death if it is unnecessary.

(iii) The scriptures reveal that the work of Christ was primarily to satisfy God's justice and that only in this way could his love have any meaning.

(iv) By placing the emphasis on what man would do under the moral influence of Christ, salvation is placed in man's own hands.

(v) The view eliminates the "objective" aspect of the Atonement and Emphasizes the "subjective" element.

(vi) Emphasizes God’s Love and minimizes God’s holiness, righteousness, and & justice Ignores the "penal" aspect of the atonement.

c) Existential theories

(1) Introduction

(a) Generally speaking the recent existential theologians studiously avoid any systematic statement regarding the death of Christ.

(b) While some (e.g., Brunner) do acknowledge a significant objective aspect to the atonement, even they go on to give emphasis to the faith-experience of the believer as giving it tangibility and substance.

Page 162 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 17 of 24(c) The death of Christ, and its verification or vindication in the resurrection, gain their significance through the preaching of the church rather than through their historicity. Another element common to much contemporary theology is a new form of universalism. This sees Christ as the elect of God, having actually reconciled all to God in his death.

(d) The message of the church today is simply to inform men that they are reconciled. While there is no agreement on a particular historical view of the atonement among existentialists, and while each has his own peculiar emphasis, the following is an attempt to state what may be a representative (composite) existential viewpoint.

(2) The view stated

(a) Christ is the revelation of God, and probably the supreme revelation of God's love is seen in Christ on the cross.

(b) As man contemplates him there he becomes aware of his sin, despairs, and is brought to contrition as he recognizes that he should have died rather than Christ.

(c) This shattering of the ego leads to a reaching out for God's love.

(d) This concept was first stimulated by Kierkegaard (d. 1855) and set forth by such writers as Barth, Brunner and Bultmann (20th century).

(3) The objections

(a) This calls for appropriation of God's love without imputation of Christ's righteousness to man and of man's sin to Christ.

(b) It makes of the atonement a revelatory event which receives its significance in each individual's encounter with the truth rather than seeing the atonement as a given, objective fact of history, the reality and truth of which is important and stands as fact whether existentially realized or not.

d) Quasi-objective theories

(1) Satisfaction theory of Anselm (Commercial Theory). T

(a) The view stated

Page 163 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 18 of 24(i) Sin is viewed as the withholding of honor due to God. In his death, since he was under no obligation to die, being sinless, Christ brought infinite glory to God. This brought a reward to Christ which he did not need so he passes it on to sinners if they live according to the gospel (supererogation)

(ii) When Mankind Sinned God was Dishonored Motivated by love God chose to accept a suitable sacrifice.

(iii) Since Christ kept the Law (which was required) He is a suitable sacrifice Since He Died (which was not required) his "merit" has value for others.

(iv) This "supererogation" is available for sinners

(v) . This was set forth by Anselm (d. 1109) and developed more fully (e.g., the "treasury of merit" concept) by Thomas Aquinas.

(b) The objections

(i) The view is an advance on some of the more primitive attempts to understand the atonement. It correctly roots the purpose of Christ’s death in God.

(ii) However there is an arbitrariness associated with rooting the necessity in God’s Will rather than his holiness.

(iii) The view fails to account for penalty, wrath, propitiation, etc

(iv) It moves the necessity of the atonement from the justice to the honor of God.

(v) God was not upholding his honor but acting in justice in Christ's death.

(vi) It rules out Christ's dying for the penalty of sin and instead of the sinner. The basis for receiving the benefit of Christ's death is works.

(vii) "While Anselm's interpretation permitted man to offer Christ to God, the Protestant Faith insists that it is God, not man, who reconciles fallen humanity by sacrificing His son" (George Forell, The Protestant Faith, p. 186).

(2) The Governmental Theory

Page 164 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 19 of 24(a) The view stated

(i) Christ's death was primarily designed to manifest God's high regard for law, against which man has sinned, and to uphold his moral government, against which he has rebelled.

(ii) On the basis of an arbitrary decision of will God accepts Christ's death as a substitute for the penalty of the law which man would otherwise be required to bear. His death does not provide strict satisfaction for sin but only shows God's attitude toward sin. It provides a means of deterring men from sinning and a basis for God to pardon those who repent and accept Christ as their substitute.

(iii) This was first advocated by Grotius (d. 1645) and is the view commonly held by Arminian theologians (John Miley, The Atonement in Christ and W. T. Prukiser, et al., God, Man, and Salvation, p. 403).

(iv) Charles Hodge summarizes the system in the following way:

(a) That in the forgiveness of sin God is to be regarded neither as an offended party, nor as a creditor, nor as a master, but as a moral governor. A creditor can remit the debt due him at pleasure; a master may punish or not punish as he sees fit; but a ruler must act, not according to his feelings or caprice, but with a view to the best interests of those under his authority.

(b) The end of punishment is the prevention of crime, or the preservation of order and the promotion of the best interests of the community.

(c) As a good governor cannot allow sin to be committed with immunity, God cannot pardon the sins of men without some adequate exhibition of His displeasure, and of His determination to punish it. This was the design of the sufferings and death of Christ. God punished sin in Him as an example. This example was the more impressive on account of the dignity of Christ's person, and therefore in view of His death, God can consistently with the best interests of His government remit the penalty of the law in the case of penitent believers.

Page 165 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 20 of 24(d) Punishment is defined as suffering inflicted on account of sin. It need not be imposed on account of the personal demerit of the sufferer; nor with the design of satisfying justice, in the ordinary sense of that word. It was enough that it should be on account of sin. As the sufferings of Christ were caused by our sins, inasmuch as they were designed to render their remission consistent with the interest of God's moral government, they fall within the comprehensive definition of the word punishment. Grotius, therefore, could say that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins, as His sufferings were an example of what sin deserved.

(e) The essence of the atonement, therefore, according to Grotius consisted in this, that the sufferings and death of Christ were designed as an exhibition of God's displeasure against sin. They were intended to teach that in the estimation of God, sin deserves to be punished; and that, therefore, the impenitent cannot escape the penalty due to their offenses (Hodge, Syst. Th., II, pp. 573-575).

(f) Mr. Watson states his position as follows: "The death of Christ, then, is the satisfaction accepted; and this being a satisfaction to justice, that is, a consideration which satisfied God, as a being essentially righteous, and as having strict and inflexible respect to the justice of His government; pardon through, or for the sake of that death, became, in consequence, "a declaration of the righteousness of God,' as the only appointed method of remitting the punishment of the guilty; and if so, satisfaction respects not....the honor of the law of God, but its authority, and the upholding of that righteous and holy character of the Lawgiver, and of his administration, of which that law is the visible and public expression. Nor is this to be regarded as a merely wise and fit expedient of government, a point to which even Grotius leans too much, as well as many other divines . . . . and that it is to be concluded, that no other alternative existed but that of exchanging a righteous government for one careless and relaxed, to the dishonor of the divine attributes, and the sanctioning of moral disorder; or the upholding of such a government by the personal and extreme punishment of every offender; or else the acceptance of the vicarious death of an infinitely dignified and glorious being, through

Page 166 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 21 of 24whom pardon should be offered, and in whose hands a process for the moral restoration of the lapsed should be placed" (Watson, Institutes, II, p. 139).

(b) The objections

(i) It assumes that the death of Christ was only to deter men from future offenses against the law rather than to satisfy God's justice.

(ii) It fails to recognize that salvation involves more than the manifestation of God's attitude toward sin.

(iii) It was not merely God's government but his very character which was transgressed.

(iv) It does not account for the positive side of Christ's death, i.e., the provision of righteousness.

(v) Fails to account for God’s holiness

(vi) Fails to consider the "payment"

(vii) God’s justice appears arbitrary

(viii) Rejects the concept of "propitiation.”

(3) The Vicarious Repentance Theory.

(a) The view stated

(i) It is assumed that an adequate repentance would secure atonement for sin. Man is unable to provide such a repentance so Christ acted on his behalf thus meeting the conditions for forgiveness.

(ii) By fully identifying with God's condemnatory attitude toward sin Christ thereby provides that which will stimulate man to the holiness requisite to acceptance by God. This view was set forth by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872).

(b) The objections

(i) It deals only with the subjective side in repentance and not with the objective need for satisfaction.

(ii) The New Testament represents Christ as dealing with God's wrath not man's repentance.

Page 167 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 22 of 24(iii) Also, according to this view "Christ does not suffer the very penalty for sin that men deserve to suffer through their sin, but he does suffer through his moral identification with men" (Bloesch, op. cit., p. 157).

5. The Correct Theory of the Atonement Stated

a) Introduction

(1) Called The Penal Satisfaction Theory.

(2) This is the theory held by the Reformed churches, and generally known as the Calvinistic theory.

(3) It is sometimes referred to also, as the Anselmic theory; and although related to it, the Anselmic theory underwent important changes at the hands of the Reformers.

(4) In the first place, Anseim taught that the sacrifice of Christ secured such merit as was capable of being imputed to the guilty; while the Reformers held that the satisfaction of Christ was to be considered in the sense of a penal substitution for the sinner.

(5) Thus they took over from Anselm the idea of satisfaction but gave it the meaning of substitution instead of merit. In the second place, the Reformers included Christ's active obedience as a part of the redemptive price, as well as His voluntary death, while Anselm maintained that the satisfaction which Christ offered could not have been His obedience, for this He owed to God as a man.

b) The View Stated

(1) Dr. A. A. Hodge, a Calvinist theologian of the federal type, sums up this theory in the following essential points:

(a) Sin for its own sake deserves the wrath and curse of God.

(b) God is disposed, from the very excellence of His nature, to treat His creatures as they deserve.

(c) To satisfy the righteous judgment of God, His Son assumed our nature, was made under the law, fulfilled all righteousness, and bore th epunishment of our sins.

(d) By His righteousness, those who believe are constituted righteous, His merit being so imputed to them that they are

Page 168 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 23 of 24regarded as righteous in the sight of God (A. A. Hodge, Outline of Theology, p. 303).

(2) Dr. J. p. Boyce, the eminent Baptist theologian, says that the Calvinistic theory of the atonement is, that in the sufferings and death of Christ, He incurred the penalty of the sins of those whose substitute He was, so that He made a real satisfaction to the justice of God for the law which they had broken. On this account, God now pardons all their sins, and being fully reconciled to them, His electing love flows out freely toward them. The doctrine as thus taught involves the following points:

(a) That the sufferings and death of Christ were a real atonement.

(b) That in making it Christ became the substitute of those whom He came to save.

(c) That as such He bore the penalty of their transgression.

(d) That in so doing He made ample satisfaction to the demands of the law, and to the justice of God.

(e) That thus an actual reconciliation has been made between them and God (Boyce, Abstract of Syst. Th., p. 317).

c) Implications Stated

(1) The Penal substitutionary theory leads of necessity, either to universalism on the one hand, or unconditional election on the other.

(2) Dr. Miley makes the charge that ""such an atonement, by its very nature, cancels all punitive claims against the elect, and by immediate result forever frees them from all guilt as a liability to the penalty of sin. We know that such a consequence is denied, though we shall show that it is also fully asserted” (Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 151).

(3) “If the claims of justice are satisfied they cannot again be enforced. This is the analogy between the work of Christ and the payment of a debt. The point of agreement between the two cases is not the nature of the satisfaction rendered, but one aspect of the effect produced. In both cases the persons for whom the satisfaction is made are certainly freed. Their exemption or deliverance is in both cases, and equally in both, a matter of justice” (Hodge, Syst. Th., II, p. 472).

(4) Syminton states that “the death of Christ being a legal satisfaction for sin, all for whom he died must enjoy the remission of their offenses" (Symington, Atonement and Intercession, p. 190).

Page 169 of 205

Christology: Atonement of Christ-Part 2 24 of 24(5) A. A. Hodge says that "the Arminian view, therefore, differs from the Calvinistic in two points. They maintain that Christ died, first, for the relief of all men; second, to make salvation possible. We hold, on the other hand, that Christ died, first, for His elect; second, to make their salvation certain” (Hodge, Outlines of Theology., p. 313).

(6) “If it is involved in the very nature of the atonement . . . . that all the legal responsibilities of those for whom he died were laid upon Christ; if he suffered the very penalty which divine justice exacted of them, then it follows necessarily that all those for whom he died are absolved, since justice cannot demand two perfect satisfactions, nor inflict the same penalty once upon the substitute and again upon the principal” (A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p. 313).

Page 170 of 205

1

E. The Nature of the Atonement (The True Doctrine)

1. Introduction

a) Every false religious system rests on some inadequate view of atonement. This is reflected in the various theories of the atonement; all of which imbibe in one or more common errors.

b) While there may be elements of truth here and there in these theories, with some more than others, the central issue-- the basic meaning of the death of Christ— is obscured or mis-stated. They are generally man-centered rather than God-centered; subjective rather than objective; and tend to omit any vicarious element whatsoever.

c) In faulting these various theories for being more subjective than objective we do not intend to deny any place for the subjective in this discussion. The issue is a matter of emphasis.

d) Without the objective there is no place nor need for consideration of the subjective.

e) Donald Bloesch has captured the significance of this relationship when he writes, “First it must be said that the atonement does have an objective basis in the life and death of Jesus Christ. Something happened for our salvation in the death and resurrection of Christ independent of our belief or response. . . . Yet though the work of Christ is finished for the sinner, it is not yet finished in the sinner. . . . Salvation includes not only deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin secured by the mediatorial work of Christ; it also consists in deliverance from the power and presence of sin effected by the operation of the Holy Spirit. . . . (Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 162-63).

f) The true doctrine is referred to variously as the doctrine of satisfaction or the penal, substitutionary (vicarious) doctrine of the atonement.

g) Vicarious means substitutionary, referring to the fact that Christ suffered the penalty that was justly mine. This teaches that Christ died in my place and for my benefit. He fully

Page 171 of 205

2 satisfied the demands of God's justice upon sin. His death

Page 172 of 205

3 was primarily directed toward God who is the offended party,

Page 173 of 205

4 not man the offender. It is, also, to be noted that while his death makes salvation available to all it does not guarantee all will be saved. It is sufficient for all but effective only for those who, having been appointed for eternal life, believe (Acts 13:48).

h) Since the value of the atoning work of Christ will be no greater than the value of the sacrifice it is not uncommon to discuss the matter of Christ's righteousness at this point. This is seen to include the active and passive obedience of Christ. The Reformed view ties these two concepts into the covenant idea of redemption. "Christ as mediator entered the federal relation in which Adam stood in the state of integrity, in order to merit eternal life for the sinner. This constitutes the active obedience of Christ, consisting of all that Christ did to observe the law in its federal aspect, as the condition for obtaining eternal life" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 380).

i) He goes on to say, "Christ as Mediator also entered the penal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty in our stead. His passive obedience consisted in his paying the penalty of sin by His sufferings and death, and thus discharging the debt of all His people" (ibid., p. 381).

j) They are further careful to point out that the active and passive obedience are both aspects of the same thing and thus not to be separated. As Bloesch warns, "The difficulty with this distinction is that it tends to overlook the fact that Christ was active as well as passive in both his obedience in life and suffering in death" (op. cit., p. 177, ftnt. 30).

k) His active obedience was to the Father's will and thus he proved to be an unblemished, fully qualified sacrifice (Matt. 5:17-18; John 15:10; 1 Pet. 2:22-23). Likewise, his passive obedience relates to the eternal purposes of God as a reflection of his character as he became obedient unto death (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8).

2. A substitution for sinners

a) Concept of substitution

(1) Christ’s suffering and death were done in the place of His people. Jesus stood in the place of the sinner, bore his sin and was punished in the sinner’s stead.

Page 174 of 205

5 (2) But, how was the sinner’s sin placed upon Christ on the cross? The Bible teaches that whoever believes in Jesus has his sins imputed to Him on the cross. Paul says, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). This does not mean that Christ became a sinner or a wicked person for such a teaching would contradict the many passages which teach that Christ was sinless and ethically perfect (e.g. Jn. 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Jn. 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:19; 2:22).

(3) What it means is that “the guilt of sin as liability to punishment was imputed to Christ [or reckoned to His account]; and this could be transferred, because it did not inhere in the person of the sinner, but was something objective” (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 377).Thus Peter could say, He “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24).

(4) The doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the imputation of the guilt of sin is clearly taught in the Old Testament sacrificial ritual that involved the sinner laying (or literally in Hebrew, “pressing”) his hand upon the head of the sacrificial animal immediately prior to its sacrifice. “If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the LORD. Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him” (Lev. 1:3-4; cf. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24; 16:21).

(5) Theological liberals (who always seem to be running from the truth of God’s infallible Word) argue that this ritual merely symbolizes a declaration or setting apart of the offerer’s property to God. Their theory, however, is disproved both from the analogy of Scripture and from the fact that the laying on and pressing of the hand does not occur in the bloodless cake or cereal offerings.

(6) The symbolism of the pressing of the hand on the sacrificial victim indicates both substitution (the clean animal will suffer and die in the sinner’s place) and the transfer or imputation of guilt (or liability) to the animal. This interpretation is decisively confirmed by Leviticus 16:21: “and Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.”

(7) Moorehead writes: “Most specific and definite is the language touching this remarkable scene. The high priest laid both his hands on the goat’s head. In the other sacrifices where a single individual performed this act it was his hand, one hand, that made the transfer; but here both hands were employed: the hands that had been filled with incense, that carried the blood into the Divine Presence, are now filled

Page 175 of 205

6 with the sins, iniquities and transgressions of the congregation, and these hands put them all on the head of the victim! Substitution and imputation cannot be more vividly expressed” (W. G. Moorehead, The Tabernacle: The Priesthood, Sacrifices and Feasts of Ancient Israel, pp. 188-189.

b) Qualifications of a Substitute

(1) Berkhof writes: “Since man sinned, it was necessary that the penalty should be borne by man. Moreover, the paying of the penalty involved suffering of body and soul, such as only man is capable of bearing, John 12:27; Acts 3:18; Heb. 2:14; 9:22. It was necessary that Christ should assume human nature, not only with all its essential properties, but also with all the infirmities to which it is liable after the fall, and should thus descend to the depths of degradation to which man had fallen, Heb 2:17,18)” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 319).

(2)

(3) Shedd writes: “It is Divine justice that demands satisfaction, and it is the Divine compassion that makes the satisfaction. God is the one who holds man in a righteous captivity, and He is the one who pays the ransom that frees him from it. God is the holy Judge of man who requires satisfaction for sin; and God is the merciful Father of man who provides it for him. This fact relieves the doctrine of vicarious atonement of all appearance of severity, and evidences it to be the height of mercy and compassion” (William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:392-393).

c) Key words for substitution.

(1) Anti. While it does have other legitimate meanings in the New Testament, its dominant meaning in 1st century Greek is "instead of," "in the place of," (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). (H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual of the Greek New Testament, p. 100; Cf. J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 46).

(2) Huper. It often means "on behalf of" only, but on occasion clearly has the same idea as anti, as well. Thus the concepts of benefit and substitution are sometimes expressed by huper.

(a) This is proven by Philemon 13; John 11:50, cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14; John 6:51; Romans 5:6-8; Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 3:18. (See Dana and Mantey, op. cit., pp. 111-12 and Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., p. 651).

(b) While this usage for huper is disputed by some "John 11:50-51 makes little sense if huper is not understood as

Page 176 of 205

7 referring to substitution. Caiaphas (like Balaam's ass) did not understand the full significance of his statement, but he certainly meant that it was better for Jesus to die 'for [instead of, huper] the people' than for all the nation to be slaughtered by the Roman legions. It was not merely a question of benefit; it was also a question of one instead of many (substitution)" (W. Robert Cook, The Theology of John, p. 81).

(c) There are also several non-Johannine passages in which huper either very nearly approximates anti or seems to be the exact equivalent. For example, Galatians 3:13 reads "having become a curse for us"; Colossians 1:7 has "a faithful servant of Christ for us”; and Philemon 13 has "that he might minister for you to me."

(d) The last reference is especially strong since Paul is speaking of a personal debt Philemon owed him.

d) The significance of "vicarious" atonement

(1) We must not overlook the fact that while God's love may have longed to save the sinner the immutable demands of his justice would not allow him to do so until those demands be met in a satisfactory way.

(2) On the basis of the substitutionary death of Christ, whereby the demands of justice were satisfied, God is free to act in saving the sinner. This is grace.

(3) Since the "wages of sin is death" and since Jesus Christ had no sin of his own (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:8) it is clear that he died for the sins of others. Many scriptures witness to this truth but some of them are Isaiah 53:5-6; Mark 10:45; John 10:11; Romans 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18.

e) The judicial aspects of substitution

(1) Forgiveness provided

(a) As our sinbearer Christ secured forgiveness for the sinner. There is a subtraction of the judicial effects of sin, that is, guilt is removed.

(b) Some would object to this saying "that satisfaction and for-giveness are mutually exclusive. It is held that if a substitute pays the debt we owe, God cannot collect the debt also from us but is morally bound to let us go free; that is, on this theory God does not exercise mercy in forgiving us, but merely does his duty" (Thiessen, op. cit., pp. 236-37).

Page 177 of 205

8 (c) Thiessen continues by answering,”But this objection is likewise removed by the fact that the one who pays the debt is not a third party, but the judge himself. Forgiveness, therefore, is still optional with him and may be offered upon terms agreeable to himself. The terms which God has laid down are repentance and faith. The obedience of Christ, therefore, does not make ours unnecessary, but still requires us to meet the terms before we can become the beneficiaries of his atoning death” (ibid.).

(2) Righteousness imputed

(a) At the same time, as our substitute, Christ gave us the gift of eternal life together with the imputation of the righteousness of God.

(b) There is an addition of the divine righteousness from a judicial standpoint.

f) The efficacy of the substitute

(1) The efficacy of the sacrifice, and of the sacrificial act, is directly related to the worth of the one who suffered and died. Because of His infinite worthiness the sacrifice was of infinite value.

(2) Thus it is not only the fact of the death but who it was who died that is significant. The very nature of the substitute, then, demands that the atonement be unlimited in its sufficiency while the sovereign choice of God has determined that it will be effective only for some.

3. Redemption from sin

a) The concept of a theological "Covenant of Redemption." This is said to be an agreement within the Godhead in eternity past regarding redemption to be worked out in time.

(1) The biblical base (Eph. 3:11)

(2) The concept stated.

(a) The Son agreed to become incarnate;

(b) the Father agreed to sustain the Son and accept the work of the cross;

(c) The Spirit agreed to apply the work of the Son.

Page 178 of 205

9 b) The Old Testament concept of redemption.

(1) Pictured in the Exodus (Exod. 12:1-14) as Israel is "redeemed" from bondage in Egypt by the blood of the Passover Lamb.

(2) Pictured in the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) as God's righteous demands regarding sin are met and the guilt of the people is removed.

(3) Pictured in the Kinsman-Redeemer (Book of Ruth). The goel (kinsman-redeemer) functioned to buy back a person or property which had been sold.

(a) Must be a kinsman, that is, he must be of the same family (Ruth 2:1; cf. Lev. 25:25, 47-49).

(b) Must be able to redeem, that is, he must have the resources (Ruth 2:1).

(c) Must be willing to redeem, that is, the action was not compulsory (Ruth 3:10-11).

(d) Must be free of the predicament which has befallen the one to be redeemed. A slave could not redeem a slave.

(e) Must act to redeem by paying the price (Ruth 4:9-10).

c) The New Testament doctrine of redemption.

(1) The need (Rom. 7:14; Gal. 3:13). Mankind is sold into the bondage of sin and under the curse of the law.

(2) The terminology

(a) Agoradzo, purchase (1 Cor. 6:20; Rev. 5:9). This verb means to buy in the agora (market-place), to acquire as a property, and is used of both believers and unbelievers (2 Pet. 2:1).

(b) Exagoradzo, remove from sale (Gal. 3:13; 4:5). This is an intensive form of the preceding verb and means to buy out of the market place, to release, to buy back. It is used of believer's only.

(i) These two verbs place emphasis on the act of purchase.

Page 179 of 205

10 (ii) They may be distinguished in that agoradzo views the transfer of a slave from one master to another, while exagoradzo views a transition from slavery to freedom.

(iii) The latter term shows that we do not need to be redeemed again and assures our security.

(c) Lutroo, manumit (Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18). This verb means to release; to liberate upon payment of a ransom; to set free.

(i) Here the emphasis is upon the price paid (lutron, ransom).

(ii) Also to be noted is the cognate term apolutrosis which means release or redemption.

(iii) This word gives emphasis to the freedom which is the result of the payment of ransom (see Rom. 3:24).

(3) The purchase price (Matt. 20:28; Eph. 1:7).

(a) The ransom price is the blood of Christ, i.e., his life given up.

(b) "When anybody heard the Greek work lutron, 'ransom,' in the first century, it was natural for him to think of the purchase money for manumitting slaves. Three documents from Oxyrhynchus relating to manumissions in the years 86, 100 and 91 or 107 A. D. make use of the word" (Adolph Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East, p. 327-28).

(c) While the Bible does not specifically say to whom the price is paid, Hebrews 9:22 would suggest that it is to God who set the price.

(d) "The ransom is not paid to Satan, but to God. The debt that requires canceling is due to God's attribute of justice; Satan has no legal claims against the sinner, and so does not need to be paid before the sinner can be set free" (Thiessen, op. cit., p. 240).

d) The objective nature or direction of redemption.

(1) The results of redemption

(a) Deliverance from the obligation and curse of the law (Gal. 4:5, 3:13)

Page 180 of 205

11 (b) Forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14))

(c) The basis for sanctification provided (Tit. 2:14)

(d) The basis for glorification provided (Eph. 1:14; Rom. 8:23).

e) The appropriation of redemption (Rom. 3:28). Redemption is appropriated by faith in Jesus Christ.

4. Reconciliation of Sinners

a) The need (Col. 1:21-22). Men are enemies of and aliens before God.

b) The terminology

(1) Katallasso, to change (Rom. 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:18-20).

(2) Apokatallasso, to change; reconcile completely (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20-22).

c) The basis of Reconciliation (Col. 1:20)

(1) The blood of Christ, that is, his life given up, is the basis for reconciliation.

(2) This includes life, death, burial, and resurrection.

d) The nature of reconciliation.

(1) It is objective in that it relates to the finished work of Christ. At root it is not existential although it leads to very personal results.

(2) It is God-directed in that it is solely a work of God for man. It is also God-directed in that due to sin God views us as enemies, and reconciliation makes it possible for him to view us as friends (Rom. 5:9-10; see Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp. 192 ff.). This is not to say that God changes, for both his righteousness and his love are immutable.

(3) Rather, it is to say that a barrier which had been erected by sin between God and man has been removed. “Leon Morris rightly reminds us that we can speak of God being reconciled only in a qualified sense, since God's love is ever present (Cf. The Apostolic Preaching_of_the_Cross pp. 220-21" (Bloesch, op. cit., p. 175).

Page 181 of 205

12 (4) It is directed manwardly in that he is the focus of the reconciling work. Man is the one who has been alienated, who has changed, and must be changed completely to be brought back to fellowship with God. As noted above this does not exclude God from reconciliation but it is here that the New Testament emphasis lies.

e) The results of reconciliation.

(1) The whole world is rendered savable (2 Cor. 5:19).

(2) Man's enmity and estrangement toward God is removed (Col. 1:21-22); and, this induction leads to the deduction that God's hostility toward man is removed.

(3) Those who believe are given peace with God (Eph. 2:13-18; Col. 1:20).

(4) Ground is provided for the believer's assurance (Rom. 5:10).

(5) A basis is given for the future restoration of the universe to God's favor (Col. 1:20). This refers to the removal of the curse.

f) The appropriation of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:20-21).

(1) Reconciliation is appropriated by faith in Christ.

(2) In contemporary theology reconciliation is sometimes viewed as an accomplished fact for all. This becomes the basis for neo-universalism.

(3) The New Testament viewpoint, however, is that while reconciliation is potentially available to all it must be personally appropriated by faith to be effective for anyone.

5. Propitiation of God.

a) The Old Testament concept

(1) LXX Terms

(a) Exilaskomai, "appease," is the primary term (see e.g., Gen. 32:20; "seek the favor of," Zech. 7:2).

(b) Hilasterion is used in Exodus 25:16-22 to refer to the lid on the ark of the covenant on which the blood was sprinkled. It is translated "mercy seat" (NASB; "propitiatory" in the footnote) or "atonement cover" (NIV).

Page 182 of 205

13 (2) The relationship between propitiation and wrath in the Old Testament

(a) Whenever the Greek word for propitiate is found in the LXX, you will usually find reference to wrath nearby.

(b) This suggests that in propitiation God is relating to his wrath.

b) The New Testament teaching.

(1) The need (Rom. 3:25-26)

(a) See the various references to God's wrath throughout the New Testament--e.g., Matt. 3:7; John 3:36; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:10).

(b) The necessity of propitiation lies in the character of God, viz. his righteousness and holiness, which has been outraged by sin.

(2) The terminology.

(a) Hilaskomai, to propitiate; to render agreeable, to satisfy; the turning away of wrath by an offering (Luke 18:13; Heb. 2:17).

(b) Hilasmos, propitiation, i.e., satisfaction (1 John 2:2; 4:10).

(i) There is debate among scholars as to the appropriate English translation of this term.

(ii) C. H. Dodd, for example, rejects propitiation and prefers expiation. He sees no place for personal divine wrath in God (The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 21-24).

(iii) Dale Moody denies that propitiation is a New Testament concept (The Word of Truth, pp. 114, 329-30).

(iv) Leon Morris, on the other hand, has persuasively refuted these ideas in The Cross in the New Testament (pp. 189 ff.; 348) and The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (pp. 125-185) showing that hilaskomai and its cognates does involve the turning away of God's wrath.

(c) Hilasterion, "mercy-seat," i.e., place of propitiation (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:5).

Page 183 of 205

14 (i) If we understand Romans 3:25 (translated "a propitiation" by the NASB and "a sacrifice of atonement" by the NIV) in the same way as Hebrews 9:5 (translated "mercy seat" by the NASB and "place of atonement" by the NIV) Christ is considered in his death as such a one whose sacrifice on the cross fully satisfied God.

(ii) Since he is our propitiation God is now propitious to us. Thus there is no longer any need to pray as the sinner in Luke 18:13. Deissmann holds that Romans 3:25 should be "of use for propitiation" (Bible Studies, pp. 124 ff.)

(iii) John Murray (The Epistle to the Romans, p. 117) suggests it may mean a "propitiatory offering."

(iv) In this case note that God makes provision for that which he knew would be satisfactory.

(d) The basis of Propitation (Rom. 3:25).

(i) The blood of Christ, that is his life given up in death, is the basis for propitiation.

(ii) Again, we must see this as including both the active and passive obedience of Christ.

(e) The objective nature of propitiation.

(i) Determined by its relationship to God's wrath. God's offended holiness demanded that sin be punished;

(ii) his righteousness required that it be dealt with in a just way;

(iii) his mercy contemplated man in his misery and need;

(iv) his love desired to meet that need and in his grace he acted to meet the demands of his own justice by providing a substitute for us which fully satisfies those demands.

(v) See such passages as John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 5:9; Eph. 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:10 which set forth the wrath of God.

(vi) It is not a matter of appeasement. Appeasement (related to a heathen concept) implies an unwillingness to accept men into favor.

Page 184 of 205

15 (vii) With the God of reality the problem lies in his nature--i.e., he is unable to accept us apart from propitiation. Propitiation enables God, in keeping with his holiness, to do what he was never unwilling to do

(f) The results of propitiation

(i) God is enabled to forgive sins (Rom. 3:25-26; Heb. 2:17). While forgiveness implies that the one sinned against bears the penalty there is no compromise of his righteousness in the process. He is just in justifying the one who has faith in Jesus.

(ii) God is enabled to bestow the righteousness of Christ on the ungodly (Rom. 3:25- 26). He is the justifier, the one who declares righteous.

(g) The appropriation of propitiation (Rom. 3:25). The means of appropriation of propitiation is faith in Jesus Christ.

Page 185 of 205

1

V. The Atonement

F. The Extent of the Atonement

1. Introduction

a) Historical Background

(1) Clarification—What is NOT debated here

(a) Whether the work of Christ is sufficient for all -- Most agree that it is

(b) Whether all saving benefits are applied to all-- Most agree that they are not

(2) The Critical Question

(a) What is the design of the atonement? Why did he die?

(b) What was he intending to achieve?

(3) Positions

(a) Particularists argue: "Christ died to save the elect" Kuiper

(b) Arminians argue: Christ died to "obtain salvation" for all…" Remonstrantia

(c) Amyraldians argue: Christ died to make salvation possible for all and certain for the elect. Lightner

b) Particularism Defended

(1) Scriptural Arguments

(a) Passages restricting the extent of the atonement

(i) Mt 1:21- "his people"

(ii) Jn 10:11, 15- "his sheep"

(iii) In 15:13- "his friends"

(iv) Acts 20:28; Eph 5:25– "the church"

Page 186 of 205

2 (v) Rom 8:32- "for us"

(vi) Jn 17:9- "those …given me"

(vii) But what about the universal passages (e.g. Jn 3:16; Heb 2:9; I Jn 2:2, etc)?

(2) B. Theological Arguments

(a) Does Justice to God’s Sovereignty since it posits no contingencies

(b) Does Justice to the Covenant of Redemption

(c) Necessary Corollary of Election

(d) Best Accounts for Divine Love

(e) Extended generally to all

(f) Reserved especially for the elect

(g) Clearest Expression of Salvation by Grace

(h) Exalts the Intrinsic Value of the Saving Work of Christ

(i) Secures the Ends as well as the Means in the Cross

(j) The Very Thought of Redemption Shows the Impossibility of Universalizing it

(k) Particularism Offers Genuine Security

(l) Particularism Best Reflects the Believer’s Identification with Christ

(3) Evaluation of Particularism

(a) Particularism fits within a "system" and great harm can come of attempts to retain "part" but not the "whole."

(b) Particularism is correct in its understanding of the relationship of the death of Christ to the elect

(c) Particularism is unbiblical if it is used to teach that Christ did not die for all of humanity (in some sense)

Page 187 of 205

3 c) Arminianism Defended

(1) Scriptural Arguments

(a) References to "World"

(b) Jn 1:29; 3:16, 17

(c) I Jn 4:14

(d) References to "whosoever"

(e) Jn 3:16

(f) Acts 2:21; 10:43

(g) Rom 10:13

(h) Reverences to "all" or its equivalent

(i) Lk 19:10

(j) Jn 12:32; Rom 5:6

(2) Theological Arguments

(a) Redemption is Universal—II Pt 2:1

(b) Propitiation is Universal

(c) Rom 3:25

(d) Heb 2:17

(e) I Jn 2:2

(f) I Jn 4:10

(g) Reconciliation is Universal

(h) Rom 5:10

(i) II Cor 5:18-20

(j) God is the "Savior of All Men"—I Tim 4:10

Page 188 of 205

4 (k) Universal Results Presuppose Universal Application (Thiessen)

(l) Time for Repentance

(m) Removes every obstacle except willful unbelief

(n) Procures Powerful Incentives ("moral influence")

(o) Procures Salvation for Infants and Those Who Cannot Believe

(p) Makes Possible the final restoration of creation

(3) Historical Argument

(a) The Doctrine of a Pre-temporal decree is unknown before Augustine

(b) Treated with suspicion thereafter

(c) Not Considered Seriously again until the rise of Ultra Calvinism

(d) Upon mature reflection the concept was rejected by Lutherans, Anabaptist, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Congregationalists, and others.

(4) Evaluation of Arminianism

(a) Presupposes a faulty definition of "free will"

(b) Fails to answer to the charge of Universalism

(c) Has not adequately answered the questions related to the certainty of God’s knowledge of future events and genuine human accountability

d) Amyraldianism

(1) Definition: Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible and the salvation of the elect certain

(2) Features Similar to Arminianism

(a) Hypothetical Universalism

Page 189 of 205

5

(b) Christ died equally for all in order to make a universal offer of salvation to all.

(c) In the Atonement, the Ideas of "purchase" and "obtain" are replaced with "provide"

(3) Features Unlike Arminianism

(a) Human corruption renders saving faith impossible without irresistible grace (similar to Calvinism)

(b) God does not produce faith through regeneration, but through an irresistible illumination of the intellect and gentle moral persuasion by the Holy Spirit

(c) Hence, Regeneration follows faith

(4) Scriptural Support for Amyraldianism

(a) Many Passages Suggest a Universal Saving Will of God for all

(b) Ezek 18:23; 33:11; I Tim 2:4; II Pet 3:9

(c) Some for whom Christ died, will intimately perish

(d) II Pet 2:1

(e) Many Passages Indicate a Universal Intent of the Atonement

(f) Isa 53:6; II Cor 5:14; I Tim 2:6; Tit 2:11

(g) Amyraldians will also utilize other "universal" texts much as the Arminians do

(5) Theological Arguments

(a) Hypothetical Universalism is Necessary to Maintain a Bonafide Offer of Salvation to all

(b) Hypothetical Universalism necessary to God’s Just Condemnation of Unbelievers

Page 190 of 205

6

(c) Hypothetical Universalism acknowledges that the Cross purchases many benefits including "natural benefits." Why limit the benefits to just one consideration.

(d) The Convicting work of the Holy Spirit Extends to all, rendering a hypothetical possibility for all to be saved.

(e) The Imputation of Sin and the Imputation of Righteousness are co-extensive in opposite directions offering two "possibilities" (not all will die—not all will live)

(f) The necessity of faith implies hypothetical universalism—the Cross never applies its own benefits without faith.

e) Summary and Conclusion

(1) Particularism is too restrictive of God’s love and purpose

(2) Arminianism, on the other hand, entails that God’s saving grace is experienced equally by all—a condition contrary to Scripture and experience

(3) Hypothetical Universalism offers a genuine via media between the two.

2. Excursus:

a) A simplistic definition would state that Amyraldianism is a view of the atonement that states that Jesus died for all men, yet only the elect receive the gift of faith.

b) AMYRALDIANISM . This word is derived from the Latin form of the name of Moise Amyraut (1596-1664), perhaps the most eminent and influential professor of the French Protestant Academy of Saumur. This was established in 1598 by a decision of the national synod of the French Reformed Churches. It enjoyed the special favour of Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623), governor of Saumur and one of the noblest and most influential Protestant leaders

Page 191 of 205

7 at the turn of the century. Achieving wide acclaim in France and in foreign countries for the brilliance of its faculty, it attracted a very considerable number of students until it was abolished by order of King Louis XIV at the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. (New Dictionary of Theology, article on Amyraldianism by Roger Nicole, page 16.)

c) In his "Traite de la Predestination" (1634) he claimed that God, moved by his love for mankind, had appointed all human beings to salvation provided they repent and believe. He sent his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of all mankind in order to implement this purpose. However, since human beings would not on their own initiative repent and believe, God then chose to bestow a special measure of his Spirit to some only, who are the elect. Grace thus is seen as universal in the provision for salvation but as particular in the application of it. In reviewing matters in this fashion, Amyraut thought that he could continue to adhere to the Canons of Dort and at the same time provide a picture of God’s benevolence that would be more faithful to Scripture and indeed to Calvin than the thoroughly particularistic approach in the second quarter of the 17th century. (New Dictionary of Theology, article on Amyraldianism by Roger Nicole, page 17.)

d) The Arguments for Amyraldianism (The substance of these arguments is from the work of Roger Nicole, Moyse Amyraut: A Bibliography, pages 16-21, and the work of Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism, pages 73-78.)

(1) His view of the covenants (He taught that there were 3 covenants)

(a) Covenant of Nature with Adam This covenant demanded obedience to the Law that was revealed in nature.

(b) Covenant of Law with Israel This covenant demanded obedience to the Mosaic Law.

(c) Covenant of Grace

(i) This covenant had 2 parts

Page 192 of 205

8 (ii) A conditional part This was between God and all mankind and was based on universal grace.

(iii) An unconditional part This was between God and the elect and was based on special grace.

(d) His view of universal grace

(i) He believed that Jesus Christ died equally for all in order to provide a basis for the universal part of the Covenant of Grace.

(ii) This provision was universal, but the application was particular and limited to the elect.

(iii) The saving work of Christ is intended for all Isaiah 53:6, Romans 5:18, Romans 8:32, 2 Corinthians 5:14, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:11

(iv) The saving work of Christ is for every one Hebrews 2:9

(v) The saving work of Christ is for the world John 3:16, 1 John 2:2

(e) His view of the wills of God

(i) Universal conditional will

(a) This will states that God desires the salvation of all men on the condition of faith.

(b) Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16

(c) Particular unconditional will

(d) This will states that God has decreed to actually save the elect.

(f) His view of grace

(i) ·Objective grace This grace is universal and offers salvation to all on condition of faith.

Page 193 of 205

9 (ii) Subjective grace This grace is for the elect only and results in their salvation.

(g) His view of the decrees of God

(a) The decree of universal salvation on the condition of faith This was a "conditional" decree.

(b) The decree of particular and efficacious grace. This decree was "unconditional.

(h) Order of decrees

(i) The order of decrees for Amyraut was as follows: · universal grace · universal atonement for all · particular election · particular and efficacious grace (to apply the atonement to the elect alone

(ii) Hypothetical universalism Thus, said Amyraut, the provision for salvation was universal but the application was particular. He considered this the true meaning of the old formula, "Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently only for the elect." Amyraldianism taught an ideal universalism and a real particularism. This universalism was only hypothetical, not actual. Only the elect will be saved, because election is particular and not based on foreseen faith. Amyraut also taught the doctrine of reprobation. (The History and Theology of Calvinism, by Curt Daniel, page 74.)

(iii) This material comes from the work of Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism, page 364.)

(a) #1 Reformed theologians from all sides have put forth numerous benefits of the atonement which accrue to all men. One of the more well known is Common Grace. There is a sense in which Common Grace flows freely from God by His very nature. But since Man is fallen and deserves instant and eternal wrath, there must have been something else necessary for God to provide the bounties of Providence rather than instant wrath. That something else was the death of Christ. In other words, as C.H. Spurgeon said, "Christ hath bought some good things for all men - the common mercies of life."

Page 194 of 205

10 (b) #2 This is to say that all that every man receives that is good can be traced back to the atonement. He has Christ to thank for the sunshine he sees, the food he eats, the family he has, and so on. He deserves none of these, but Christ purchased them for him.

(i) Common Grace · It is never stated in Scripture, in any place, that the death of Jesus Christ secured the benefits of common grace. Matthew 5:43-48

(ii) It is due to the fact that all men, reprobates included, are created by God and made in his image that all men receive common grace. Acts 14:16-17

(c) #3 Next, all men deserve immediate wrath and judgment. Not only do they receive some providential good, but they do not receive the wrath they deserve immediately. Christ purchased a delay of judgment for them. The very fact that all men are not yet in Hell is due to the blood of Christ. Christ purchased a "stay of execution" for them. Whether HE purchased an actual pardon is another question, but it is obvious that He purchased a stay of execution. Some live longer in this delay than others, and some even come to Christ during the interim. But all have Christ and His atonement to thank for being still alive and not in Hell. Few, however, thank Him for it.

(i) Stay of Execution · It would seem that since those who will never believe (reprobates) have a part to play in the plan of God, that he withholds his pouring out of his wrath until their death. Romans 9:22-23

(ii) · It would seem that God is free to be merciful as long as he is not unjust. The reprobates will experience his justice. Romans 6:23

(iii) · In the same way the death of Christ purchased the salvation of the elect, yet the elect do not receive it right away. For it would seem that even the unbelieving portion of the elect believer’s life has a necessary purpose in the plan of God.

Page 195 of 205

11 (iv) · There is no place in Scripture that speaks of the death of Christ as purchasing a stay of execution for all men.

(d) #4 This related to yet another universal benefit. Rom. 14:9, "For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living." By His death and Resurrection, Christ is now Lord of all men, both the elect and the reprobate. This is also brought out in Phil. 2:5-11. Because of Christ’s work, and not simply because of His person and dual nature, He is Lord of all - believer and unbeliever.

(i) Christ is Lord of All · Yes, it is true that as a result of the death of Jesus Christ, the God-man is now Lord of all. Yet, I fail to see how this is a benefit for the non-elect. The non-elect were condemned before the death of Christ as well as after the death of Christ. Romans 1:1:18-20, Romans 2:12-16

(ii) · It is not as though the Son of God was not Lord of all before his incarnation and death on the cross. He has always been the Sovereign of Heaven and earth, for he has always been fully God. It was as a result of the cross that the Son, as the God-man, became the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. John 1:1-5, Hebrews 1:5

(e) #5 Lastly, Calvinists usually ground the universal offer of the Gospel in the infinite sufficiency of the atonement. This is why the strictest views of the atonement tend to restrict or even deny the free offer, as in Hyper-Calvinism. Because there is more than enough food on the table, all are invited to partake, even though only a few do. (More will be said on this point later). Some Calvinists mention other benefits in relation to the special benefits for the elect only.

(i) Free Offer of the Gospel · The death of Christ was a perfect death which could have been for all men if the Father had decided to use it in that way.

(ii) · The problem of man being obligated to do something that he cannot do does not only apply to the offer of the gospel, it

Page 196 of 205

12 also applies to the depravity of man. If every man not only cannot come to Christ, but does not want to come to Christ, then how can any offer of the gospel be a sincere offer? The Scriptural answer is that God is not like us, God does determine all things and man is responsible for his eternal destiny. 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 9:19

�

Exurcus: The Writings of John Calvin Which Support Amyraldianism Advanced Information

EXTRACTS FROM JOHN CALVIN'S WRITINGS 1. Now Paul assumes it as an axiom which is received among all the pious....that the whole human race is obnoxious to a curse, and therefore that the holy people are blessed only through the grace of the Mediator...I therefore thus interpret the present place; that God promises to his servant Abram that blessing which shall afterwards flow down to all people. Comment on Genesis 12:3 2. Christ was vividly represented in the person of the high priest...[who] bore the people itself upon his shoulders and before his breast, in such a manner that in the person of one, all might be presented familiarly before God. Comment on Exodus 39:1 3. We have stated elsewhere why the priests were to be dressed in garments different from others, since he who is the mediator between God and men should be free from all impurity and stain...Thus then the holy fathers were reminded, that under the image of a mortal man, another Mediator was promised, who, for the reconciliation of the human race, should present Himself before God with perfect and more than angelic purity. Comment on Leviticus 16:3 4. Christ...the Lamb of God, whose offering blotted out the sins of the world...Comment on Leviticus 16:7 5. God could bear no defect in the priests; it follows, then, that a man of angelic purity was to be expected, who should reconcile God to the world. Comment on Leviticus 21:17 6. ...the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all. Institutes, II. xiii. 3 7. First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Institutes, III. i. 1 8. It is true that Saint John saith generally, that [God] loved the world. And why? For Jesus Christ offereth himself generally to all men without exception to be their redeemer...Thus we see three degrees of the love that God hath shewed us in our Lord Jesus Christ. The first is in respect of the redemption that was purchased in the person of him that gave himself to death for us, and became accursed to reconcile us to God his Father. That is the first degree of love, which extendeth to all men, inasmuch as Jesus Christ reacheth out his arms to call and allure all men both great and small, and to win them to him. But there is a special love for those to whom the gospel is preached: which is that God testifieth unto them that he will make them partakers of the benefit that was purchased for them by the death and passion of his Son. And forasmuch as we be of that number, therefore we are double bound already to our God: here are two bonds which hold us as it were strait tied unto him. Now let us come to the third bond, which dependeth upon the third love that God sheweth us: which is that he not only causeth the gospel to be preached unto us, but also maketh us to feel the power thereof, so as we know him to be our Father and Saviour, not doubting but that our sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, who bringeth us the gift of the Holy Ghost, to reform us after his own image. Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 167 9. ...our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the life and salvation of the world,... Sermons on 2 Samuel, p. 66

Page 197 of 205

13 10. For instance, let me think of myself in this way:...that God has bestowed grace upon the human race (in general) but that he has shown his grace to me (in particular), with the result that I am especially obligated to him. Sermons on 2 Samuel, p. 357 11. So, as it says in the Psalm [Ps. 51?], our Lord Jesus Christ has paid the debts of all sinners. That is what I have mentioned from Isaiah: that all the chastisements were laid upon him (Isa. 53:4). What is this chastisement, if not satisfaction for all the sins that we have committed? Sermons on 2 Samuel, p. 576 12. True it is that the effect of [Christ's] death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered his death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them. Sermons on Job, p. 548 (later interpolation deleted) 13. Let us fall down before the face of our good God...that it may please Him to grant His grace, not only to us, but also to all people and nations of the earth, bringing back all poor ignorant souls from the miserable bondage of error and darkness, to the right way of salvation... Sermons on Job, p. 751 (Calvin's usual end of sermon prayer). 14. The sinner, if he would find mercy, must look to the sacrifice of Christ, which expiated the sins of the world, glancing, at the same time, for the confirmation of his faith, to Baptism and the Lord's Supper; for it were vain to imagine that God, the Judge of the world, would receive us again into his favour in any other way than through a satisfaction made to his justice. Comment on Psalm 51:9 15. Diligent as [David] was, therefore, in the practice of sacrifice, resting his whole dependence upon the satisfaction of Christ, who atoned for the sins of the world, he could yet honestly declare that he brought nothing to God in the shape of compensation, and that he trusted entirely to a gratuitous reconciliation. Comment on Psalm 51:16 16. Hitherto he addressed the Jews alone, as if to them alone salvation belonged, but now he extends his discourse farther. He invites the whole world to the hope of salvation, and at the same time brings a charge of ingratitude against all the nations, who, being devoted to their own errors, purposely avoided, as it were, the light of life; for what could be more base than to reject deliberately their own salvation?...the Lord...invites all without exception to come to him...Now, we must 'look to him' with the eye of faith, so as to embrace the salvation which is exhibited to all through Christ; for 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish.' (John 3:16). Comment on Isaiah 45:22 17. Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all'. Comment on Isaiah 53:12 18. Yet I approve of the common reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because the guilt of the whole world was laid upon Him. It is evident from other passages...that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all'...That, then, is how our Lord Jesus bore the sins and iniquities of many. But in fact, this word 'many' is often as good as equivalent to 'all'. And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: 'God so loved the world, that He spared not His only Son.' But yet we must notice what the Evangelist adds in this passage: 'That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but obtain eternal life.' Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable. For how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith? And let us realize that if we come flocking to our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall not hinder one another and prevent Him being sufficient for each of us...Let us not fear to come to Him in great numbers, and each one of us bring his neighbours, seeing that He is sufficient to save us all. Sermons on Isaiah 53, pp. 136, 141-4 19. ...Not only were the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ sufficient for the salvation of the world, but that God will make them efficacious and that we shall see the fruit of them and even feel and experience it. Sermons on Isaiah 53, p. 116 20. For God, who is perfect righteousness, cannot love the iniquity which he sees in all. All of us, therefore, have that within which deserves the hatred of God...Our acquittal is in this - that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God [Isa. 53:12]...For, were not Christ a victim, we could have no sure conviction of his being...our substitute-ransom and propitiation. Institutes II. xvi. 3, 5, 6 21. Now we must see how God wishes all to be converted...But we must remark that God puts on a twofold character: for he here wishes to be taken at his word. As I have already said, the Prophet does not here dispute with subtlety about his incomprehensible plans, but wishes to keep our attention close to God's word. Now what are the contents of this word? The law, the prophets, and the gospel. Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised them when they repent: this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all

Page 198 of 205

14 without exception; meanwhile, this will of God which he sets forth in his word does not prevent him from decreeing before the world was created what he would do with every individual... Comment on Ezekiel 18:23 22. I contend that, as the prophet [Ezekiel] is exhorting to penitence, it is no wonder that he pronounces God willing that all be saved. But the mutual relation between threats and promises shows such forms of speech to be conditional...So again...the promises which invite all men to salvation...do not simply and positively declare what God has decreed in His secret counsel but what he is prepared to do for all who are brought to faith and repentance...Now this is not contradictory of His secret counsel, by which he determined to convert none but His elect. He cannot rightly on this account be thought variable, because as lawgiver He illuminates all with the external doctrine of life. But in the other sense, he brings to life whom He will, as Father regenerating by the Spirit only His sons. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp. 105-6 23. ...God had chosen the family of Abraham, that the world's redeemer might be born of it...although we know that from the time that God made a covenant with Abraham, the Redeemer was particularly promised to his seed, we also know that from the very fall of man He was needed by all, as indeed He was from that time destined for all the world...It would have done us no good for Christ to have been given by the Father as the author of salvation, if He had not been available to all without distinction...We should know that salvation is openly displayed to all the human race, for in all reality He is called son of Noah and son of Adam... Comment on Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3: 23-38 24. He says, For...he...shall save his people from their sins...We must determine that the whole human race was appointed to destruction, since its salvation depends on Christ...Doubtless, by Christ's people the angel intends the Jews, over whom He was set as Head and King, but as soon after the nations were to be ingrafted into the race of Abraham, this promise of salvation is extended openly to all who gather by faith into the one body of the Church. Comment on Matthew 1:21 25. When the Father calls Him the Beloved...He declares that He is the Mediator in whom He reconciles the world to Himself. Comment on Matthew 17:5 26. From this it follows that our reconciliation with God is free, for the only price paid for it is Christ's death...'Many' is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number, in that He sets Himself over against all others. And this is the meaning also in Rom. 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race. Comment on Matthew 20:28 27. Seeing that in His Word He calls all alike to salvation, and this is the object of preaching, that all should take refuge in His faith and protection, it is right to say that He wishes all to gather to Him. Now the nature of the Word shows us that here there is no description of the secret counsel of God - just His wishes. Certainly those whom He wishes effectively to gather, He draws inwardly by His Spirit, and calls them not merely by man's outward voice. If anyone objects that it is absurd to split God's will, I answer that this is exactly our belief, that His will is one and undivided: but because our minds cannot plumb the profound depths of His secret election to suit our infirmity, the will of God is set before us as double. Comment on Matthew 23:37 28. ...The Son of God went to face death of His own will, to reconcile the world to the Father...the spontaneous sacrifice by which all the world's transgressions were blotted out... Comment on Matthew 26:1-2 29. [Christ's] grave would be of sweet savour to breathe life and salvation upon all the world. Comment on Matthew 26:12 30. Christ offered Himself as a Victim for the salvation of the human race. Comment on Matthew 26:14-20 31. ...The sacrifice [of Christ] was ordained by the eternal decree of God, to expiate the sins of the world. Comment on Matthew 26:24 32. [Christ was] burdened with the sins of the whole world... Comment on Matthew 26:39 33. Christ...won acquittal for the whole human race. Comment on Matthew 27:12 34. God had ordained [Christ] to be the...(sacrificial outcast) for the expiation of the world's sins. Comment on Matthew 27:15 35. The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race: he contrasts many with one, as if to say that he would not be Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many from their accursed guilt...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that the world is redeemed by the blood of Christ, but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered. Comment on Mark 14:24 36. Happy Mary, to have embraced in her heart the promise of God, to have conceived and brought into the world for herself and for all - salvation...God offers His benefits to all without distinction, but faith opens our arms to draw them to our bosom: lack of faith lets them fall, before they reach us. Comment on Luke 1:45

Page 199 of 205

15 37. Though the angel only addresses the shepherds, he means that the message of salvation which he brings them extends farther, not for their ears alone, but for others also to hear. Understand that the joy was open to all the people, for it was offered to all without distinction. For He is not the God of this one or of that, but He had promised Christ to the whole family of Abraham. That, in great measure, the Jews have lost the joy that was theirs to hold, resulted from their failure to believe. Today also, God invites all men alike to salvation through the Gospel, but the world's ingratitude makes only a few enjoy the grace, which is set out equally for all. While the joy, then, has been confined to a small number, in respect of God, it is called universal. And though the angel is speaking only of the chosen people, yet now with the partition wall gone the same tidings are presented to the whole human race. Comment on Luke 2:10 38. Since Christ desired nothing more than to do the work appointed Him by the Father and knew that the purpose of His calling was to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He wished His coming to be the salvation of all. This was why He was moved by compassion and wept over the approaching destruction of Jerusalem. For when He considered that it had been divinely chosen as the sacred abode, in which should dwell the covenant of eternal salvation, the sanctuary from which salvation should come forth for all the world, He could not help grieving bitterly over its destruction. Comment on Luke 19:41 39. First, whence could that confidence in pardon have sprung, if [the thief] did not sense in Christ's death...a sacrifice of sweet odour, able to expiate the sins of the world? Comment on Luke 23:42 40. [Christ] must be Redeemer of the world...He was there, as it were, in the place of all cursed ones and of all transgressors, and of those who had deserved eternal death. Sermons on Christ's Passion, p. 95 41. [God] willed that [Christ] be the sacrifice to wipe out the sins of the world...Sermons on Christ's Passion, p. 123 42. ...Our Lord made effective for [the pardoned thief on the cross] His death and passion which He suffered and endured for all mankind... Sermons on Christ's Passion, pp. 151. 43. The Lord Jesus [was] found before the judgement-seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for He was there, as it were, having to sustain all our burdens)...The death and passion of our Lord Jesus...served...to wipe away the iniquities of the world... Sermons on Christ's Passion, pp. 155-6 44. And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think the Redeemer has been sent to them alone...John, therefore, by speaking of the sin of the world in general, wanted to make us feel our own misery and exhort us to seek the remedy. Now it is for us to embrace the blessing offered to all, that each may make up his mind that there is nothing to hinder him from finding reconciliation in Christ if only, led by faith, he comes to Him. Comment on John 1:29 45. Christ...was offered as our Saviour...Christ brought life because the heavenly Father does not wish the human race that He loves to perish...But we should remember...that the secret love in which our heavenly Father embraced us to Himself is, since it flows from His eternal good pleasure, precedent to all other causes; but the grace which He wants to be testified to us and by which we are stirred to the hope of salvation, begins with the reconciliation provided through Christ...Thus before we can have any feeling of His Fatherly kindness, the blood of Christ must intercede to reconcile God to us...And He has used a general term [whosoever], both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the significance of the term 'world' which He had used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God's favour, He nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life. Moreover, let us remember that although life is promised generally to all who believe in Christ, faith is not common to all. Christ is open to all and displayed to all, but God opens the eyes only of the elect that they may seek Him by faith...And whenever our sins press hard on us, whenever Satan would drive us to despair, we must hold up this shield, that God does not want us to be overwhelmed in everlasting destruction, for He has ordained His Son to be the Saviour of the world. Comment on John 3:16 46. As also it is said in John 3:16 that God so loved the world that He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him to death for our sakes. Sermons on Christ's Passion, p. 48. 47. Again, when they proclaim that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and the Christ, they have undoubtedly learned this from hearing Him...And He declared that the salvation He had brought was common to the whole world, so that they should understand more easily that it belonged to them also. Comment on John 4:42 48. It is no small consolation to godly teachers that, although the larger part of the world does not listen to Christ, He has His sheep whom He knows and by whom He is also known. They must do their utmost to bring the whole world into Christ's fold, but when they do not succeed as they would wish, they must be satisfied with the single thought that those who are sheep will be collected together by their work. Comment on John 10:27

Page 200 of 205

16 49. Christ...offers salvation to all indiscriminately and stretches out His arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent. And yet He heightens by an important detail the crime of rejecting an invitation so kind and gracious; for it is as if He had said: 'See, I have come to call all; and forgetting the role of judge, my one aim is to attract and rescue from destruction those who already seem doubly ruined.' Hence no man is condemned for despising the Gospel save he who spurns the lovely news of salvation and deliberately decides to bring destruction on himself. Comment on John 12:47 50. For [by Christ's death] we know that by the expiation of sins the world has been reconciled to God... Comment on John 17:1 51. He openly declares that He does not pray for the world, for He is solicitous only for His own flock [the disciples] which He received from the Father's hand. But this might seem absurd; for no better rule of prayer can be found than to follow Christ as our Guide and Teacher. But we are commanded to pray for all, and Christ Himself afterwards prayed for all indiscriminately, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.' I reply, the prayers which we utter for all are still limited to God's elect. We ought to pray that this and that and every man may be saved and so embrace the whole human race, because we cannot yet distinguish the elect from the reprobate...we pray for the salvation of all whom we know to have been created in God's image and who have the same nature as ourselves; and we leave to God's judgement those whom He knows to be reprobate. Comment on John 17:9 52. ...Moreover, we offer up our prayers unto Thee, O most Gracious God and most merciful Father, for all men in general, that as Thou art pleased to be acknowledged the Saviour of the whole human race by the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ Thy Son, so those who are still strangers to the knowledge of him, and immersed in darkness, and held captive by ignorance and error, may, by Thy Holy Spirit shining upon them, and by Thy gospel sounding in their ears, be brought back to the right way of salvation, which consists in knowing Thee the true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent... Forms of Prayer for the Church Tracts, Vol. 2, p. 102. 53. The draught appointed to Christ was to suffer the death of the cross for the reconciliation of the world. Comment on John 18:11 54. And surely there is nothing that ought to be more effective in spurring on pastors to devote themselves more eagerly to their duty than if they reflect that it is to themselves that the price of the blood of Christ has been entrusted. For it follows from this, that unless they are faithful in putting out their labour on the Church, not only are they made accountable for lost souls, but they are guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the sacred blood of the Son of God, and have made useless the redemption acquired by Him, as far as they are concerned. But it is a hideous and monstrous crime if, by our idleness, not only the death of Christ becomes worthless, but also the fruit of it is destroyed and perishes... Comment on Acts 20:28 55. For we ought to have a zeal to have the Church of God enlarged, and increase rather than diminish. We ought to have a care also of our brethren, and to be sorry to see them perish: for it is no small matter to have the souls perish which were bought by the blood of Christ. Sermons on Timothy & Titus, p. 817 56. Because God does not work effectually in all men, but only when the Spirit shines in our hearts as the inward teacher, he adds to every one that believeth. The Gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but its power is not universally manifest...When, therefore, the Gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly termed the doctrine of salvation. For Christ is there offered, whose proper office is to save that which had been lost, and those who refuse to be saved by Him shall find Him their Judge. Comment on Romans 1:16 57. Faith is the beginning of godliness, from which all those for whom Christ died were estranged...[God] loved us of His own good pleasure, as John tells us (John 3:16)...We have been reconciled to God by the death of Christ, Paul holds, because His was an expiatory sacrifice by which the world was reconciled to God... Comment on Romans 5: 6-10 58. Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive him. Comment on Romans 5:18 59. ...the price of the blood of Christ is wasted when a weak conscience is wounded, for the most contemptible brother has been redeemed by the blood of Christ. It is intolerable, therefore, that he should be destroyed for the gratification of the belly. Comment on Romans 14:15 60. For one can imagine nothing more despicable than this, that while Christ did not hesitate to die so that the weak might not perish, we, on the other hand, do not care a straw for the salvation of the men and women who have been redeemed at such a price. This is a memorable saying, from which we learn how precious the salvation of our brothers ought to be to us, and not only that of all, but of each individual, in view of the fact that the blood of Christ was poured out for each one...If the soul of every weak person costs the price of the blood of Christ, anyone, who, for the sake of a little bit of meat, is responsible for the rapid return to death of a brother redeemed by Christ, shows

Page 201 of 205

17 just how little the blood of Christ means to him. Contempt like that is therefore an open insult to Christ. Comment on 1 Corinthians 8:11 61. ...God was in Christ and then that by this intervention He was reconciling the world to Himself...Although Christ's coming had its source in the overflowing love of God for us, yet, until men know that God has been propitiated by a mediator, there cannot but be on their side a separation which prevents them from having access to God...[Paul] says again that a commission to offer this reconciliation to us has been given to ministers of the Gospel...He says that as He once suffered, so now every day He offers the fruit of His sufferings to us through the Gospel which He has given to the world as a sure and certain record of His completed work of reconciliation. Thus the duty of ministers is to apply to us the fruit of Christ's death. Comment on 2 Corinthians 5:19 62. ...when Christ appeared, salvation was sent to the whole world... Comment on 2 Corinthians 6:2 63. Pighius speaks...that Christ, the Redeemer of the whole world, commands the Gospel to be preached promiscuously to all does not seem congruent with special election. But the Gospel is an embassy of peace by which the world is reconciled to God, as Paul teaches (2 Cor. 5:18); and on the same authority it is announced that those who hear are saved. I answer briefly that Christ was so ordained for the salvation of the whole world that He might save those who are given to Him by the Father, that He might be their life whose head He is, and that He might receive those into participation of His benefits whom God by His gratuitous good pleasure adopted as heirs for Himself. Which of these things can be denied?...Even those opposed to me will concede that the universality of the grace of Christ is not better judged than from the preaching of the Gospel. But the solution of the difficulty lies in seeing how the doctrine of the Gospel offers salvation to all. That it is salvific for all I do not deny. But the question is whether the Lord in His counsel here destines salvation equally for all. All are equally called to penitence and faith; the same mediator is set forth for all to reconcile them to the Father - so much is evident. But it is equally evident that nothing can be perceived except by faith, that Paul's word should be fulfilled: the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to all that believe (Rom. 1:16). But what can it be for others but a savour of death to death? as he elsewhere says (2 Cor. 2:16). Further, since it is clear that out of the many whom God calls by His external voice very few believe, if I prove that the greater part remain unbelieving because God honours with illumination none but those whom He will, then I draw another conclusion. The mercy of God is offered equally to both kinds of men, so that those who are not inwardly taught are rendered only inexcusable.... Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p. 102-3 64. It is not enough to regard Christ as having died for the salvation of the world; each man must claim the effect and possession of this grace for himself personally. Comment on Galatians 2:20 65. God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world. Comment on Galatians 5:12 66. And he contenteth not himself to say, that Christ gave himself for the world in common, for that had been but a slender saying: but (sheweth that) every of us must apply to himself particularly, the virtue of the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whereas it is said that the Son of God was crucified, we must not only think that the same was done for the redemption of the world: but also every of us must on his own behalf join himself to our Lord Jesus Christ, and conclude, It is for me that he hath suffered...But when we once know that the thing was done for the redemption of the whole world, pertaineth to every of us severally: it behoveth every of us to say also on his own behalf, The Son of God hath loved me so dearly, that he hath given himself to death for me...we be very wretches if we accept not such a benefit when it is offered to us...Lo here a warrant for our salvation, so as we ought to think ourselves thoroughly assured of it. Sermons on Galatians, p. 106-7 67. Christ is in a general view the Redeemer of the world, yet his death and passion are of no advantage to any but such as receive that which St Paul shows here. And so we see that when we once know the benefits brought to us by Christ, and which he daily offers us by his gospel, we must also be joined to him by faith. Sermons on Ephesians, p. 55 68. Also we ought to have good care of those that have been redeemed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we see souls which have been so precious to God go to perdition, and we make nothing of it, that is to despise the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Sermons on Ephesians, p. 521 69. For the wretched unbelievers and the ignorant have great need to be pleaded for with God; behold them on the way to perdition. If we saw a beast at the point of perishing, we would have pity on it. And what shall we do when we see souls in peril, which are so precious before God, as he has shown in that he has ransomed them with the blood of his own Son. If we see then a poor soul going thus to perdition, ought we not to be moved with compassion and kindness, and should we not desire God to apply the remedy? So then, St. Paul's meaning in this passage is not that we should let the wretched unbelievers alone without having any care for them. We should pray generally for all men... Sermons on Ephesians, p. 684-5

Page 202 of 205

18 70. He says that this redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Comment on Colossians 1:14 71. For although it is true that we must not try to decide what is God's will by prying into His secret counsel, when He has made it plain to us by external signs, yet that does not mean that God has not determined secretly within Himself what He wishes to do with every single man. But I pass from that point which is not relevant to the present context, for the apostle's meaning here is simply that no nation of the earth and no rank of society is excluded from salvation, since God wills to offer the Gospel to all without exception...For as there is one God, the Creator and Father of all, so, he declares, there is one Mediator, through whom access to God is not given only to one nation, or to few men of a particular class, but to all, for the benefit of the sacrifice, by which He has expiated for our sins, applies to all...The universal term 'all' must always be referred to classes of men but never to individuals. It is as if he had said, 'Not only Jews, but also Greeks, not only people of humble rank but also princes have been redeemed by the death of Christ.' Since therefore He intends the benefit of His death to be common to all, those who hold a view that would exclude any from the hope of salvation do Him an injury. Comment on 1 Timothy 2:3-5 72. ...no one unless deprived of sense and judgement can believe that salvation is ordained in the secret counsel of God equally for all...Who does not see that the reference [1 Tim. 2:4] is to orders of men rather than individual men? Nor indeed does the distinction lack substantial ground: what is meant is not individuals of nations but nations of individuals. At any rate, the context makes it clear that no other will of God is intended than that which appears in the external preaching of the Gospel. Thus Paul means that God wills the salvation of all whom He mercifully invites by the preaching of Christ. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p. 109 73. So then, seeing it is God his will that all men should be partakers of that salvation which he hath sent in the person of his only begotten Son...yet we must mark that Saint Paul speaketh not here of every particular man, but of all sorts, and of all people: Therefore, when he saith, that God will have all men to be saved, we must not think that he speaketh here of Peter, or John, but his meaning is this, that whereas in times past he chose out one certain people for himself, he meaneth now to show mercy to all the world...but when Jesus Christ came to be a common Saviour for all in general, he offered the grace of God his father, to the end that all might receive it...Let us see now, whether God will draw all the world to [the Gospel] or not. No, no: for then had our Lord Jesus Christ said in vain No man can come to me, unless God my Father teach him (Jn. 6:44)... It followeth then, that before the world was made, (as Saint Paul saith in the first to the Ephesians) God chose such as it pleased him: and it pertaineth not to us to know, why this man, more than that man, we know not the reason...Saint Paul speaketh not here of every particular man, (as we shewed already) but he speaketh of all people...now God showeth himself a Saviour of all the world...Saint Paul speaketh not in this place, of the strait counsell of God, neither that he meaneth to lead us to this everlasting election & choice which was before the beginning of the world, but only sheweth us what God his will and pleasure is, so far forth as we may know it. Truth it is, that God changeth not, neither hath he two wills, neither does he use any counterfeit dealing, as though he meant one thing, but would not have it so. And yet doth the Scripture speak unto us after two sorts touching the will of God...God doeth exhort all men generally, thereby we may judge, that it is the will of God, that all men should be saved, as he saith also by the Prophet Ezekiel I will not the death of a sinner, but that he turn himself and live (Ezek. 18:23)...For Jesus Christ is not a Saviour of three or four, but he offereth himself to all...And is he not the Saviour of the whole world as well? Is Jesus Christ come to be the Mediator between two or three men only? No, no: but he is the Mediator between God and men... Sermons on Timothy and Titus, pp. 149-60 74. Repentance and faith must needs go together...God receiveth us to mercy, and daily pardoneth our faults through his free goodness: and that we be justified because Jesus Christ hath reconciled him unto us, inasmuch as he accepteth us for righteous though we be wretched sinners: in preaching this, it behoveth us to add, how it is upon condition that we return unto God: as was spoken of heretofore by the prophets. Sermons on Timothy and Titus, pp. 1181-2 75. Indeed the death of Christ was life for the whole world... Comment on Hebrews 8:2 76. He suffered death in the common way of men, but He made divine atonement for the sins of the world as a Priest. Comment on Hebrews 8:4 77. To bear the sins means to free those who have sinned from their guilt by his satisfaction. He says many meaning all, as in Rom. 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ's death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them. Comment on Hebrews 9:27 78. He brought His own blood into the heavenly sanctuary in order to atone for the sins of the world. Comment on Hebrews 13:12

Page 203 of 205

19 79. So we must beware, or souls redeemed by Christ may perish by our carelessness, for their salvation to some degree was put into our hands by God. Comment on James 5:20 80. It was not a common or a small favour that God put off the manifestation of Christ to their time, when He had ordained Him by His eternal counsel for the salvation of the world...a remedy for mankind...He ordained that Christ should be the Redeemer, who would deliver the lost race of man from ruin...[but] the manifestation of Christ does not refer to all indiscriminately, but belongs only to those whom He illumines by the Gospel. Comment on 1 Peter 1:20 81. We have the Gospel in its entirety, when we know that He who had long been promised as Redeemer came down from heaven, put on our flesh, lived in the world, experienced death and then rose again; and secondly when we see the purpose and fruits of all these things in the fact that He was God with us, that He gave us in Himself a sure pledge of our adoption, that by the grace of His Spirit He has cleansed us from the stains of our carnal iniquities and consecrated us to be temples to God, that He has raised us from the depths to heaven, that by His sacrificial death He has made atonement for the sins of the world, that He has reconciled us to the Father, and that He has been the source of righteousness and life for us. Whoever holds to these things has rightly grasped the Gospel. Comment on 2 Peter 1:16 82. Christ redeemed us to have us as a people separated from all the iniquities of the world, devoted to holiness and purity. Those who throw over the traces and plunge themselves into every kind of licence are not unjustly said to deny Christ, by whom they were redeemed. Comment on 2 Peter 2:1 83. This is His wondrous love towards the human race, that He desires all men to be saved, and is prepared to bring even the perishing to safety...It could be asked here, if God does not want any to perish, why do so many in fact perish? My reply is that no mention is made here of the secret decree of God by which the wicked are doomed to their own ruin, but only of His loving-kindness as it is made known to us in the Gospel. There God stretches out His hand to all alike, but He only grasps those (in such a way as to lead to Himself) whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world. Comment on 2 Peter 3:9 84. He put this in for amplification, that believers might be convinced that the expiation made by Christ extends to all who by faith embrace the Gospel. But here the question may be asked as to how the sins of the whole world have been expiated. I pass over the dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Although I allow the truth of this, I deny that it fits the passage. For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church. Therefore, under the word 'all' he does not include the reprobate, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth. For, as is meet, the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world. Comment on 1 John 2:2 85. Georgius thinks he argues very acutely when he says: Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and hence those who wish to exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them outside the world. For this, the common solution does not avail, that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficaciously only for the elect. By this great absurdity, this monk has sought applause in his own fraternity, but it has no weight with me. Wherever the faithful are dispersed throughout the world, John [1 Jn. 2:2] extends to them the expiation wrought by Christ's death. But this does not alter the fact that the reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn. 3:15). For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God's children who will be a partaker of Christ. The evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ as nothing else than by His death to gather the children of God into one (Jn. 11:52). Hence, we conclude that, though reconciliation is offered to all through Him, yet the benefit is peculiar to the elect, that they may be gathered into the society of life. However, while I say it is offered to all, I do not mean that this embassy, by which on Paul's testimony (2 Cor. 5:18) God reconciles the world to Himself, reaches to all, but that it is not sealed indiscriminately on the hearts of all to whom it comes so as to be effectual. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp. 148-9 86. He again shows the cause of Christ's coming and His office when he says that He was sent to be the propitiation for sins...For propitiation strictly refers to the sacrifice of His death. Hence we see that to Christ alone belongs this honour of expiating for the sins of the world and taking away the enmity between God and us. Comment on 1 John 4:10

Page 204 of 205

20 87. Certainly, in 2 Pet. 2:1, there is reference only to Christ, and He is called Master there. Denying...Christ, he says, of those who have been redeemed by His blood, and now enslave themselves again to the devil, frustrating (as best they may) that incomparable boon. Comment on Jude 4 88. [Him God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world...But though he died for all, all do not receive the benefit of his death, but those only to whom the merit of his passion is communicated... (Articles III, IV of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent)] The third and fourth heads I do not touch... Antidote to the Council of Trent, Tracts, Vol. 3, pp. 93, 109 89. ...Christ, who is the salvation of the world,... Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Tracts, Vol. 2, p. 47 90. I John Calvin, servant of the Word of God in the church of Geneva, weakened by many illnesses...thank God that he has not only shown mercy to me, his poor creature...and suffered me in all sins and weaknesses, but what is more than that, he has made me a partaker of his grace to serve him through my work...I confess to live and die in this faith which he has given me, inasmuch as I have no other hope or refuge than his predestination upon which my entire salvation is grounded. I embrace the grace which he has offered me in our Lord Jesus Christ, and accept the merits of his suffering and dying that through him all my sins are buried; and I humbly beg him to wash me and cleanse me with the blood of our great Redeemer, as it was shed for all poor sinners so that I, when I appear before his face, may bear his likeness. Calvin's Last Will (April 25, 1564) Letters of John Calvin,

Page 205 of 205

Date post:	01-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Christology: Introduction 1 of 15

Documents