I would like to express personal gratitude to brother Kent Hughes for an exceptionally candid address. I would like to say three extremely short words to discouraged pastors, and the first one is that Dr. Edmond of Wheaton College, had a statement which I think helpful in difficult times: “Don’t doubt in the dark what you have seen in the light.” Now, that’s an expression of pure common sense. Why should you doubt in the dark when you can’t see what you have seen in the light when you could see? And so that’s important in theology, but it’s also important in spiritual life. Don’t doubt in the dark what you have seen in the light.

The second thing I would like to mention is that if you have a small church, rejoice in it. You are the only ones who can handle it. Liberal people cannot handle small churches. There just isn’t enough there for them to exercise ministry, and so it has to be evangelical people in small churches. And what you do in small churches is really invest yourself in a limited number of people, in which you have a much better chance to make that investment last. So don’t despise small churches, thinking that somehow you are wasting your efforts on a pitiful number of people because God is blessing the small church. The small church, the small seminary, are I think in some way better places for an experience of the grace of God deeply into the lives of people, than and even big churches. I hope my brother Piper will not mind that too badly. I know this is a big church, but the small church is a place of blessing.

Then the third thing is a comment of my dear deceased colleague Barker. He said, “Watch out for those big eggs. There is always something rotten about them.”

Toward a Full View of the Atonement

Now, I would like to approach the subject which retains us after this morning and the subject of substitution as the key to the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Yesterday we went over a number of forms of language that Scripture has given us to cause us to understand what it is that Christ has done on the Cross. And these forms are presented, as I suggested to you in a rather homely illustration, but in a salad where you have the various things that are mixed together for a total impression upon us. And so we have attempted yesterday to classify those so that our approach is perhaps in the same proportion of function as a recipe maybe to a salad. The recipe lists the ingredients and tells you what you have to do with them.

The salad is a successful expression of what was implied in the recipe, and it is the salad that we eat, not the recipe. But you are not going to get very much salad or a very good approach to salad unless there is a proper recipe that is available, and so I was hoping to provide that for you in the discussion yesterday. Now, a theory of the atonement is an attempt to synthesize the truth that we find in these various forms of language, and the theory of the atonement, which is biblical, will be an effort at a synthesis of all these expressions where none of them appears forced or strange. Unfortunately, in the history of the church, the explanations or syntheses that have been suggested have often disregarded some portions at least of what Scripture teaches on the atonement and as a result, we have had some incomplete views.

They are incomplete rather than utterly erroneous, there ever comes from not taking account of a sufficient amount of the material that needs to be present. So the church has been faced with quite a number of different explanations intended to give us a full-orbed approach of what Christ has done but in which certain ingredients were lacking, and as a result, certain grievous faults remained with the view. Particularly, I would like to suggest to you this morning that when the element of substitution is lacking, that is the element by which Christ actually has by the appointment of God taken the place of his own people to bear instead of them the punishment due unto their sins, then you have a grievous failing in a synthesis on the atonement. And in fact, whatever truth there may be in the synthesis is losing its proper support so that the whole view collapses. It is this that I will attempt to prove to you this morning.

Four Questions to Judge Theories on the Atonement

I would suggest that you could develop a screen to judge views on the atonement by four simple questions that any theory should be willing to answer, and the first is, how does this view manifest the unity between the sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the sacrifice of Christ? If there is a strong disparity between what was intended in the Old Testament sacrificial system and what is intended in the work of Christ, then obviously the theory is undercutting one of the major lines of connection between the Old and the New Testament. And that, on that account, runs afoul of the Old Testament as a preparation for Christ and of the New Testament of its interpretation of Christ, which ties in with Old Testament sacrifices.

A second question would be, how does this view account for the fact that Old Testament believers were saved through Jesus Christ, whom they contemplated in divinely ordained prefigurement, but they were saved really in the same way as New Testament believers are saved — through Jesus Christ. If one is not able to show how the salvation extended backward to the states of the Old Testament, then a very grievous defect once again appears because it suggests that there are people who are saved without Christ or that Old Testament believers were not saved, and either one of those positions runs afoul of very significant and impressive Scriptures.

The third question is, how does this view give accounts for the sublime perfections of God that are in evidence in the atoning work of Christ, and specifically his holiness, his justice, and his love? No theory that is advanced and in which these perfections would not appear can be considered to be a biblical view because precisely, it is these words that come again and again in the biblical description of what Jesus has done.

And the fourth question is this, how does this view cope or account for passages like Isaiah 53, Matthew 10, Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, Romans 3:23–25, 2 Corinthians 5:18–21, Galatians 3:13, Titus 2:14, and 1 Peter 2:24–25. These are only some of the passengers involved, there will be many more. You really can choose any group of passages that you want.

In listing the ones that I did list, I feel I have of course a right to use all of them because they are all in Scripture beyond contest, and therefore a view that claims to be biblical might fit with the whole of Scripture, not only parts of it, therefore you are free to choose whatever passages you want. I find these passages that I mentioned to be effective in unmasking some inadequate views of the atonement, and I see the scarlet thread that I mentioned being especially evidenced in those passages.

The Example Theory

Now, let me then start to discuss some theories and attempt to show you both how they failed to respond to those tests and then particularly how, by their denial of substitution, they have failed to have the support even for that modicum of truth that they may present.

I start with the so-called “example theory” of the atonement. According to that view, the main purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ in his death was to give us an example of how we should stand by the truth against all opposition and be willing to die for the truth if need be. And so we would have, in the death of Christ, a heroic martyr of someone who was victimized because he stood for the truth against people who are not ready to accept it. When we have a position that is faulty, it is always good for us to recognize elements of truth that may be in it at the start. And so I say there is an element of truth in this view, impoverished as it may be, and that is that indeed the Lord Jesus Christ is an example for us. This is apparent in many places in the statements of Jesus himself, in Philippians 2, and in 1 Peter 2. He gave us an example that we should follow his footsteps, and then passages from Isaiah 53 come to the fore.

So indeed, no one should appear to be denying the exemplary nature of the work of Jesus Christ even at the point of his death. However, this truth is obscured here because the theory is totally unable to answer any of the four questions. And the first question was how does this view show unity between the sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the work of Christ? Nobody in his senses suggests that the animals that were sacrificed were supposed to give us an example of fortitude in the face of death. So obviously, there is at once a grievous disparity between the work of Jesus Christ and the sacrificial system. So what do these people do? Well, they say the sacrificing system was a primitive type of approach which was really not sanctioned by God and represented a faulty conception of God, so they don’t have any desire to make any connection.

But this kind of cavalier attitude then dismisses whole sections of the Bible, in particular the express statements again and again, “The Lord said unto Moses as follows . . .” The book of Leviticus particularly has that repeated more than once every chapter, and so that obviously is not a biblical outlook.

Secondly, how does this view show us how the Old Testament saints were saved through Jesus Christ? Well, when you talk about an example, you need to see it in order that it would be of any benefit to you. They may be a marvelous example of calligraphy in Dr. Piper’s office someplace, but unless I see it, I’m not going to be helped to write better, although that would be a very desirable end. An example needs to be seen if it is going to be of help.

But obviously, the Old Testament saints were not confronted with the example of Christ. They saw him in prefigurement, but in which the exemplary nature was very slight. And so if an example was to be given then this example should have been given in the Garden of Eden immediately after the scene of Adam and Eve, so there they would have an example to follow as a good model from now on. But to put it so late afterwards doesn’t make any sense, and so that question also scores very badly.

Considering the Attributes of God

In the third place, how does this view manifest the justice of God? Well, the justice of God is not in view. They feel that God will forgive anyway. It’s his business, as Hina said, and so you have a failure to understand the gravity of sin that is very apparent here. How does it relate to the holiness of God? There is no speech of the holiness of God either, only that God wants to have people who are reasonably decent that by following the example of Christ, they might perhaps achieve something that they wouldn’t otherwise. But the real holiness of God with its proper demands of, “Be holy as I’m holy,” is simply disregarded. How is the love of God represented? Well, it is very poorly represented because the one person who really did what God required is abandoned to a situation of extreme pressure and even ultimate distress. And so if that’s what happens when you do the will of God, perhaps it might be better not to move that way. So the perfections of God are not in evidence in the death of Christ. It’s a mystery and a quandary rather than an exhibition of a divine perfection of the nature of God.

Fourthly, how does this view agree with all those passages that I’ve mentioned? And it simply does not agree. The explanations that are given are contrived and far-fetched and one after the other, the passages need to be detached from their context or eliminated in order to maintain that view. Well, so really on those four questions, right away you can see this view is manifestly very defective, but you can see more than that. If example is the main issue, then surely our Lord has given us a very incomplete example for after all, he was not a married man. He was not a father. He was not an old man. He was not a woman. Some of the major lines of experience of humanity are simply not present with him, and so we would have an example that is amazingly incomplete.

Furthermore, he could very well have avoided this confrontation with the Jews in Jerusalem without being unfaithful to the truth. It would not have demanded any compromise to stay in Galilee rather than to go to Jerusalem. So we might have to say that Jesus actually made a suicidal trip to Jerusalem, knowing full well that he was expecting there to be antagonized and actually put to death, something he could easily have avoided if all that he needed to do was to give us an example. So the actual death of our Lord Jesus Christ takes a suicidal aspect to it, which then is not exemplary. And specifically, if you need to give an example in dying, there must be something that motivates you to die other than just the purpose of giving an example.

A Fool in the Flame

Now, let’s suppose that a house is burning, and a fireman is there and realizes there is a child in this burning house and at the peril of his own life, he goes into the burning house and delivers this child. Then you can say this man has made a great show of heroism. He has indeed given us a wonderful example of despising his own life and preferring to serve and to save the life of the child. But now suppose that you have a house that is aflame and there is nothing in there that is of special value. All the people have been evacuated, the most important first editions of mysteries have been removed, and the house is simply burning there, and here comes somebody who says, “My friends, I’m going to give you an example of how to die with courage,” and he walks into the flame and perishes.

Well, you are bound to say this fellow was touched. This is not at all an example, it’s an act of somebody who is of unbalanced mentality, and unfortunately, the example theory reduces Christ to that level so that on the grounds of those people who advocate the example theory, the death of Christ ceases to be exemplary. It becomes an example not to follow instead of an example to follow, and so the whole house of cards collapses. For the example theory, people cannot even maintain that the death of Jesus was an example. That very meager aspect of the truth that they still had hold on suddenly eludes their grasp and their own theory has demolished it. It is therefore a wholly inadequate position, lamentably inadequate.

Meanwhile, however, I think we need to talk as evangelicals about the example of Christ because that’s biblical, and we have the ground to show the biblical nature of the example of Christ because Christ came and submitted himself to death because there was a humanity to be redeemed. There was a child in that house and therefore, he went there not for the purpose of giving an example but for the purpose of rescuing somebody who otherwise would perish. And that is exactly what we say when we say Christ took our place, and in substitution he delivered himself unto death so that we might live. And then his death is an example, but substitution is necessary for maintaining the exemplary nature of the death of Christ, and that unfortunately is something that our example theory people often have overlooked.

The Moral Influence Theory

Now let’s go to a little better theory, but it still fits pretty well in the same category because its major nature is to influence people by a display. It’s the theory that the purpose of the work of Christ was to influence human beings by a display, and in this case the display involved in the display of the love of God. This theory is called the moral influence theory and one of its major advocates was a man of the United States of America, Horace Bushnell, whose ministry was exercised in the vicinity of Hartford, Connecticut. So in Hartford you have a monument to Horace Bushnell, and there is a Horace Bushnell memorial church, and so on.

Now, in a book entitled in a rather strange manner, Vicarious Sacrifice, he developed the view that what needed to be done by the coming of Jesus Christ was certainly not to appease the Father because as I tried to explain to you yesterday, in that kind of viewpoint, the Father does not need to be appeased. He’s full of love anytime and at all times, and it’s like the father of the parable of the prodigal son and there is no need whatsoever to reach him so that he may deal with us in a different way. The people who are in need are human beings, according to this view, and they are in need because they have a misconceived view of God, which causes them to fear him as a judge and a tyrant when they should really see him as a gracious father who is prepared to bless them.

Well, now in order to melt the hardness of hearts of human beings, God has determined to manifest his sympathy with humankind by entering into our ways, by sharing our sufferings and ultimately, by actually accepting our death under circumstances of great duress and even of shame, since he was among malefactors. All of this was meant to make a manifestation of the immense love of God, which rather than to let us go on with our own hardness of hearts has decided to accept all this suffering in order to melt the resistance of our hearts. So the atoning work of Christ is conceived as a demonstration of love on the part of God — a demonstration which must inevitably have an effect upon the hearts of men when they see it, and as a result, caused them to return to God and to accept the fellowship that he has been offering them at all times and for which it was not necessary that any special sacrifice or offering should be made. That’s Bushnell.

An Incomplete Representation of God’s Love

Now, here again we have some advantages that we may recognize at once, and the first one is that indeed, in the atoning work of Christ we have the supreme exhibition of divine love. Nowhere in all Scripture does God manifest his love so greatly as he does at the cross. And so in emphasizing divine love, indeed there is an element of truth which this theory has grasped. Paul actually says that in Romans 5:8 when he says, “God makes his love to shine to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” And again in John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever should believe in him should not perish.” So that I think is the major element of truth there.

Another element of truth is that Jesus Christ is indeed a representative of God. In the example theory, the more Jesus is human and nothing else, the more his example seems to be germane. In the moral influence theory, Jesus is actually the representative of God. And Bushnell, although he had some difficulties with the Trinity, at least was willing to recognize a certain deity for Jesus Christ, which is needed if the act of Christ is to be the supreme expression of divine love. So here, we rise to a histology that would be a little better than the one that is ordinarily associated with the example theory that has flourished among Unitarians.

Sacrifices and Moral Influence

So let us ask the questions that I mentioned to you as a test of the propriety of the moral influence view. First of all, how does this view show the relationship between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the work of Jesus Christ? Well, one could say that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were provided by God’s grace so that people who had broken fellowship with him should not forever be distanced, and that it was a mercy of God that sacrifices should be given. But basically, God was not the one who produced the animal, and in the attitude of the animal, there was nothing whatsoever that could be considered to be reflective of God’s own disposition. So the sacrifices of the animals considered in themselves are a rather weak representation of divine love.

One would have to say that they are a strong representation of divine justice so that the soul that sins, it shall die. And if you are to avoid that death, then there is another life that needs to be forfeited in order that the requirements of divine justice be satisfied. But the sacrifices really do not by themselves portray the love of God in a very effective manner. So the relationship between the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Old Testament is broken, and therefore Bushnell had to suggest that indeed those sacrifices were a primitive concept which was really not sanctioned by God. It’s a strange thing that he would call his book Vicarious Sacrifice because in those terms, really Christ’s death was not a sacrifice. It was a demonstration, but it was not a sacrifice. Very definitely, it was not offered to God.

It’s rather a sacrifice offered to humanity to cause them to turn away from their erroneous outlook on the nature of God, but God needed nothing. He needed no sacrifice, no penalty, no ransom, nothing of any kind that would secure for him the opportunity to deal with us in a gracious manner without doing despites to his own justice. And so the union between Old Testament sacrifice and the whole sacrificial system anywhere and the work of Christ is broken here. Then again, of course it was not vicarious because this was not a sacrifice which was undertaken in the place of the worshipers. And so apart from that, the title is excellent, but vicarious does not represent the matter and sacrifice doesn’t either. To me, it’s a little bit like Christian Science, which is neither Christian nor scientific, or Grape Nuts in which you have neither grapes nor nuts. Vicarious Sacrifice is a book of that type.

A Different Salvation

Now the second question, how could the Old Testament people be benefited by the work of Christ if it was a display of divine love? Well, unless they saw it, they couldn’t benefit from it. The very thing about a display is that you have to see it. I may say there’s a wonderful display of music at one point at Marquette Avenue and Fourth Street or so in a music store, but you don’t see it now and so that doesn’t help you, does it? If I ask you what piece is recorded there, you probably may not be able even to say what it was, and I am not either even though I saw it. A display needs to be seen if it is going to be helpful, and surely the Old Testament people did not see the Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh.

They had prefigurement of him, but they were far from being exhibitions of the love of God of that type, and therefore the salvation that they could achieve would be very different from the salvation that we receive because we turn away from our hardness of heart because our hearts have been mellowed by the evidence of the work of Jesus Christ, which manifests the love of God. So the unity of the church, of Old Testament saints and New Testament saints, is broken here.

Thirdly, how does this view manifest the perfections of God, his justice? We just saw it doesn’t. What about his holiness? There is nothing done here to protect holiness. What about his love? Yes, there is a great emphasis upon love, but again, what kind of love is this that delivers the Lord Jesus to death without a real necessity intrinsic in the things and just as a means of deterring people from a wrong attitude?

The love of God for his Son appears to be very faulty in allowing something like that to happen. And then how is it you cope with the passages that I’ve mentioned? They were mentioned precisely in order to show that it doesn’t cope. And so I can I think without any further ado tell you it doesn’t cope with any of them. And furthermore, I would say the moral influence theory does in fact destroy the real idea of moral influence by its denial that Christ actually came as our substitute.

A Death Lacking Any Moral Influence

And here I will again use the simile of a house that is burning, but this time I would imagine that it is the house of my neighbor that is burning. Now, there have been some hard feelings between my neighbor and myself. It started from the fact that all the dead leaves in the fall were moved by the pervading winds from my property to his, and there was an innate resentment that developed out of that. Of course, my neighbor knows that I have no control over the prevailing winds, but he feels that I should be industrious enough to gather the leaves before those prevailing winds actually push all this rubbish on his property, and therefore a deep suspicion and animosity has developed and there has been some remonstrants and there have been some mutual expression of dislike for each other, and so we have come to the point where we don’t even speak to each other.

Now, suddenly his house is burning and his child is trapped in it. And I, who always had a good feeling toward my neighbor in spite of the difficulties, arrive on the scene and I say, “My dear brother, I want to show you that I really don’t hate you. I love you,” and I go into this burning house to rescue the child. Well, supposing that I perish in the undertaking, I would think that’s the end of the family feuds because I would have manifested such understanding, compassion, and courage in rescuing the child that there would be no hatred remaining just for a few leaves that blow from one side to the other. And so indeed, this act would have a moral influence and would be a demonstration of love where perhaps something else was expected.

But now, again, supposing that his house is afire and all the people in it have been evacuated. He has actually taken his precious notes for his courses dating back 20 years ago or something like that, and there is nothing left of significant value in the house. And I say, “My dear brother, I want to show you that in spite of all the ugliness that has been between us, I still love you, and in order to show you this, I’m going to go into this house and perish in the flames.” Well, you know what my neighbor will say. He says, “I knew it. He was touched. I knew it. And now it has been plain as daylight.” This is not going to change anything. This is not going to have any moral influence. My death will be just a futile effort of an insane mind to do something that simply cannot be accomplished in this way.

In order that the death of Christ should have the moral influence that it will have and should be an exhibition of the love of God that it is, it is necessary that there should be some reason other than just to give us the display of love, some reason that is grounded in the tremendous distress and jeopardy in which humanity was, and which justifies entering humanity in this way and perishing under the blows of the enemy in Golgotha. So if we are going to have moral influence and if we are going to have indeed the death of Christ as an expression of love, then we need to recognize that it is by substituting himself to us in order to take the grievous effects of our sin upon himself for us, to spare them to us, that our Lord Jesus Christ has come. Just to make a display in the end spoils the whole picture.

The Mystical Theory

We take another view, the so-called “mystical view” of the atonement. The mystical view suggests now that humanity has been corrupted, and God cannot have continuing fellowship with a corrupt nature and with a corrupt people. The requirements of heaven are white robes, and you cannot come in there with besmirched and torn dungarees. And so if human beings are to be allowed into the presence of God, it is necessary that there should be a renewal that would be from the inside that would change their character and lives and enable them to appear not marred by their own sin, not corrupted by the distortions that have come in as a result of sin, but redressed and clothed in the robes of righteousness that God will provide.

So it is necessary, if humanity is to be saved, that there should be a stream of clean nature that would enter into humanity, to which one could be united by faith, thus removing the corruption of our nature and providing for us an entrance into the presence of God, not in terms of our own corruption, but in terms of the nature being renewed and sanctified. Now, this is precisely, it is said, what Jesus came to do. By entering into humanity, he has brought in a stream of celestial life. By taking our humanity in the virgin birth, he has brought back into the midst of the human race a humanity that is free of corruption, and those who unite with him in that mystical union with Christ then are seeing their nature changing.

They experience regeneration that changes the corruption of their own lives, and thus carried away by the grace of God and by the power of Jesus Christ, they are made capable of entering into the holy and solemn presence of God without being crushed, annihilated, or supremely punished because of their sins. And so the death of Christ is not intended so much to bear the punishment due unto sinners, but rather to remedy the corruption that is present in our hearts and to fit us once again for the presence of God in heaven. And this blessing is appropriated by faith because it is in faith union with Christ that we participate then in this renewing stream.

And it is by the work of sanctification extended perhaps sometime even beyond death that this purification occurs so that finally we are allowed to enter into the presence of God and enjoy the beatific vision. This is the so-called mystical view of the atonement. You’ll find this in a person, a contemporary of reformers, a man called Schwenckfeld, who has given rise to a small sect called the Schwenckfeldians. You’ll find this in Schleiermacher, and you find it in some other writers, even in B.F. Westcott, who otherwise wrote good commentaries but at this point I think had a myopic outlook. All right. Now let’s examine this view in terms of my four criteria.

A Modified Idea of Sacrifice

First of all, how does this view relate to the Old Testament sacrifices? Is it to be seen that the Old Testament sacrifices were meant to purify the character of the worshipers? There is no suggestion to that effect. The result is therefore that you have to modify the idea of sacrifice, and the suggestion is made that the point of sacrifice was to make a dedication of life rather than a piacular, expiatory offering that would cover up without the punishment that was due unto sin. We need to say I think that this effort is not very successful. It demands a considerable deal of exegetical twisting that can hardly be accepted.

In the second place, we ask how could the Old Testament people be included in this cleaning stream that came in in 4 B.C. when they had lived long before? Well, at this point I would say these people have an answer which I think has some reason for being satisfying to them. They assumed that the descent to Hades by our Lord was meant to provide precisely this cleansing to the Old Testament believers who were retained there away from the presence of God until Christ would have accomplished his work. So his visit to Hades was the proclamation to Old Testament saints of a deliverance, of a provisional situation in which they were not benefiting yet of the full fruition of what was to come forth through Jesus Christ. So this particular explanation, which I think I would classify as ingenious, satisfies the people who present the view, even though it may leave other people still unconvinced. But I cannot score them zero on this question. I think they may score maybe five on 10 or something like that. It’s not a very brilliant answer, but it is an answer.

A Provision for Cleansing

In the third place, how does this view relate to the perfections of God that are in evidence in the atonement? Well, his love. Well, it’s surely out of love that Christ came to provide this healing stream, and so the love of God toward humanity is manifest in the provision made by Christ so that we could be with him. And so it may not be the extreme love that we find when Christ actually substituted himself for us, but it is certainly merciful on God’s part that this cleansing should have been provided when he didn’t owe us anything. And so in respect to the love of God, we would say this view does manifest the love of God.

Secondly, how does it relate to God’s holiness? Well, God’s holiness is in evidence because God in his holiness cannot accept into his presence people who are still corrupted by the presence of evil in their heart. And there is a need of a purification that Christ brings about in order that people of the human race, fallen as they are, rebellious as they are, could be admitted into the presence of God. And so the holiness of God is stressed.

How does it relate to God’s justice? Well, it does not relate to God’s justice. The justice of God has no claims, it has no demands. There is no need to inflict a punishment. God is free to deal with sinners as he pleases, without any consideration of the interest of administering justice. So all the language of the court, which is so important in Scripture, is being eliminated. And it is not a happy thing to see what Westcott is trying to do with the concept of justification, for instance, nor his son, who wrote a full book on justification. The very fact he had to write a full book in order to prove the contrary of Scripture shows what an important enterprise this was and how difficult it is to be accomplished.

Some of those things are so difficult that you need people of extraordinary abilities in order to accomplish this work, but in the end, we ought not to be fooled by it. And so the justice of God is lamentably absent, and I would say furthermore, in any case, that this view makes the incarnation of Christ the great moment. There is no need for his death at all. The stream has come in at Bethlehem on the day when the angel announced to Mary that she would conceive, and now it’s returned to God with a mighty harvest of humanity, but what’s his need is there for Christ to die?

But the point of emphasis of Scripture is not on the birth of Christ, important as it is, it’s on the death of Christ. So this view falls afoul of the major emphasis of Scripture on the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Fortunately, by a happy inconsistency, some of the people who advocated the view have not carried through in this direction, but that surely is the implication logically of their own position. And under any circumstances, if we take account of the justice of God, what help is there of delivering people of corruption when they are still under the condemnation for their past sins? When you have somebody who is condemned to death, what’s the point of teaching him or her to use a fork and a knife with exquisite etiquette? This person is going to be put to death.

This person is a person who is rightly condemned to death for crimes that have been done. It’s too late to try to cleanse his or her character in terms of human justice. And if we disregard the justice of God, then perhaps we may entertain this view, but in disregarding the justice of God, we are failing to understand the God of the Scriptures, who is not only a holy God, but also a just God and who says, “The soul that sins, it shall die,” and, “The wages of sin is death.” And how can all the sins of people even who cling to Christ in faith union be eliminated if all that Christ is doing is to change our character?

In the final analysis, in a sense, salvation is still by works in this approach because it is on the basis of our character that our admission to heaven is made, and that’s justification by works. What we need is justification by faith, not on the basis of our performance but on the basis of Christ who has absolved our punishments and who has clothed us with the hope of righteousness of his own perfect obedience. And so here again, the view in a sense demolishes the hope of true salvation, which it sought to develop. It recognizes the deep entail of sin, but it does not recognize the demands of divine justice in the presence of sin and it does not account at all for the death of Christ as a satisfaction to those demands.

The Governmental Theory

Now I come to another view in which the principle of justice is recognized better. This is the so-called “governmental view,” which is found already in such a Middle Ages person as Duns Scotus, and which is in more modern times reproduced in the work of Hugo de Groot, generally known by a Latin name Grotius, and it is found in a number of people who found difficulty in accepting the principle of a penal substitution of Jesus Christ.

They felt it is simply not right for one person to stand in the place of another at the judgment seat and each soul will have to be punished for his or her own forfeits, and so there is no possibility that our sins be transferred to Jesus Christ. The position of the governmental view is as follows. It emphasizes that God is the supreme judge of the universe, and as judge he has an obligation to himself and then to all other rational creatures to maintain principles of justice. Grotius specifically was an international lawyer. He was a lawyer in international law, a man of consummate ability, living in the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th century.

He said, “Indeed, God as the ruler and as the judge will not flout the law, he will observe the principles of justice.” It is therefore not possible for God to forgive simply without any other action because if God simply forgave sin without demanding anything in relation to it, he would become an accomplice of sin. It’s somewhat, I’m afraid, as we feel our judges in our courts are doing when they release people who have been guilty of very serious crimes and they do not seem to be really punished in any severe manner at all in our courts. We have a case right now in Massachusetts where a man was convicted and pleaded guilty of having sexually assaulted a little girl of eight not once but several times, and yet the judge gave him a suspended sentence. So there has been furor as a result of that, and I think quite rightly so.

This is not the kind of person that should be allowed to be walking the streets. There ought to be some restraints placed upon a person like that. And also, this seems to be disproportionate to the gravity of the punishment. As one can see, this little girl will live the rest of her life with the stigma of those events, and yet this fellow walks the streets. So Grotius said, “No, God owes it to the just government of the universe to demand that sin should be punished,” and yet God desires to save the sinners. So in his desire to save the sinners, he had to find a way of forgiving their sins so that they would not be punished, and at the same time maintain the majesty of the law.

Well, in order to do that, God said, “In order to maintain the majesty of the law, I am going to make a tremendous display of what the law can properly require of people who are sinful, and I will make this display so evident and so stunning that nobody can accuse me to be an accomplice of evil.”

Now, the transfer of guilt from one person to another is still considered to be impossible, and so Christ came in order to give evidence of the interest of God in justice. And he did not come to take the place of any one particular person, but he came in order to make a manifestation of God’s own justice once for all so that now God could be free without giving a mistaken understanding of his motives, free to forgive and bypass the punishment due unto the sinners. So justice will be satisfied because Christ has died, and love would be fulfilled because repenting sinners who believe would be saved and not have to endure the punishment due to their sins. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ was a momentous expression or manifestation of justice that leaves God free to accept people on any term that he pleases without defying the principle of justice, and the terms that God has pleased to set forth are repentance and faith.

Justice Maintained

Now, let’s recognize the advantages here. I may not have given sufficient attention to the advantage of mystical view, but I won’t go back on it. I’ll discuss the advantages of the governmental view, and the first advantage is that here indeed, justice comes to the fore. In the other three previously examined, justice wasn’t even a function in the matter, and therefore a glaring hole was present where Scripture is very strong. But here, justice is an element of great importance. In a sense, it is the pivot for Grotius. In the second place, indeed we find here the gravity of sin that is recognized. People simply could not be admitted to God’s presence and could not be delivered from the consequences of their sins if it were not for some signal action of God that would give an opening for this deliverance.

Another advantage is that this view manifestly preserves the importance of human cooperation in this, for it is those who repent and believe that are now admitted by God and not humanity at large. And so the adhesion of the individual in response to the display that God has made is an indispensable ingredient for the actual effectuation of salvation. And then for Grotius, it was important this view comports with the idea of universal atonement. This is not something that is momentary, it is not definite, but it is universal. I notice, did I start at 11:00?

Critique of the Governmental Theory

I’m going to simply give you very quickly the criticism of the governmental view. First, how does it relate to Old Testament sacrifices? Old Testament sacrifices could be as an expression a temporary one of the demands of divine justice, so there is no insuperable difficulty here. Secondly, how would Old Testament saints be saved through the work of Christ? That is difficult to see because God would’ve allowed all this generation to pass by without having the display of justice that seemed to be needed, and yet he proclaimed salvation to the believers at that time. This however could be because Christ came at that time in order to make up for the patience of God in the times gone by, as Romans 3 puts it. And so there is some explanation he tied up to one particular Scripture that may be acceptable.

Then in the third place, how does this view manifest the love, the holiness and the justice of God? His love is surely manifested because it’s out of love that God provided this way of escaping the inevitable consequences of sin, and his holiness is manifested because God as a holy being does not accept people who are still besmirched, but they need to be transformed and renewed by the Holy Spirit. And how is justice manifested? And one would say, “Well, that should be easy because justice was the key issue,” and I say not at all. That’s a place where the theory completely collapses because in terms of this theory, Christ did not actually take on himself the guilt of any particular sins of any particular persons.

How could it be an expression of justice to make him fall under the most severe judgment of all when there is no sin whatsoever with which he may be charged? It would resemble a situation where a judge has 100 murderers before him and he says, “Well, I want to manifest justice and exercise justice, and yet I would like to release you from the punishment that is due to your crime, and here I see the guard and he has done nothing but I’m going to condemn him to death. And then since justice has now been satisfied, I’m releasing all of you folks. You can go.” Well, a judge like that would be replaced quickly, I should hope. He would need to be replaced. This is not justice.

This is a terrible miscarriage of justice, and in denying that there is a substitution in which the sin of the human being is passed over the Lord Jesus Christ, our mediator, the whole idea of his death being an act of justice is ruined. It’s only if Christ comes forward as our substitute, burdened properly and rightly with the penalty of our sins and with the burden of our sins, that the penalty then executed can be seen as an act of justice. And so the governmental theory, fails precisely at the place where it wanted to succeed. It destroys itself. It destroys justice by the representation it makes.

So I will conclude by reading to you an attempt to synthesize the doctrine of the atonement, and in which the key of the substitution will be also apparent. Moved by his incomprehensible love for mankind, the triune God was pleased not to abandon our rebellious and corrupt race to the misery and hell that it justly deserved, but undertook to save a great multitude of human beings who had absolutely no claim on his mercy. In order to bring this plan into execution, the second person of the Godhead, the Son, took unto himself a full human nature, becoming in all things like his brethren and sisters, sin excepted. Thus he became the second Adam, the head of a new covenant, and he lived the life of perfect obedience to the divine law.

Identifying with his own, he bore the penalty of human sin on the cross of calvary, suffering in the place of the sinner, the just for the unjust, the Holy Son of God for the guilty and corrupt children of men. By his death and resurrection, he has provided the basis for the reconciliation of God to humans and of humans to God for the propitiation of a righteous Trinity, justly angry at our sins, for the redemption of a multitude of captives of sin whose liberty was secured at the great price of his own blood. He offered himself as an expiratory sacrifice sufficient to blot out the sins of the whole world and secured the utmost triumph for the enemies of our soul: sin, death, and Satan.

Those who repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ are thus to be absolved from the guilt of all sins. They’re adorned with the perfect righteousness of Christ himself. In gratitude to him, they are to live lives of obedience and service to their Savior and are increasingly renewed into the image of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This good news of salvation by grace through faith is to be proclaimed indiscriminately to mankind — that is, to every man, woman, and child that we can possibly reach. And to him that loves us and loosed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom and priest unto God and Father, be glory in dominion forever and ever, amen.

Questions and Answers

Could you possibly carry on the picture of the fire in the house with the mystical and the governmental views?

I do not think so, but I think that the demolition is just as effective. It is perhaps not as funny.

How does all this presentation relate to the statement of John, when he says, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”?

Indeed, in order to understand the atonement, we have to have an understanding of the gravity of sin. And one of the best criticisms of all inadequate series of the atonement is that statement of Anselm, which we find in his Cur Deus Homo. He says, “You have not yet considered how grievous a thing sin is.” That really goes to the heart of the whole matter.

Could you make a copy of that statement you just read available for us?

I don’t know. Yes, I think so. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t have it. It was an attempt to use all the forms of language except habituation that is not accessible to people. I’ve used all the forms of language of the New Testament and I attempted in various ways to correlate this to the Trinity, to the incarnation, to anthropology, to the gravity of sin, and also to the proclamation. I’ve also been careful not to have a statement that will be so clear on definite atonement as to shock people who hold to universal atonement, so as to make my statement acceptable prior to a discussion of that. Tonight you will find where I stand without any question.

Without going into a lot of detail, could you name some of the other views of atonement? Just give them a name, if you would.

There is another view called the “triumphant view,” which is especially represented by Aulen. And then there is a view of the “vicarious penitence,” which was presented by John McLeod Campbell. And then you have various views which attempt to combine some, like Vincent Taylor who attempts to combine the mystical and the vicarious penitence views. These are some of the inadequate views. The same situation occurs. They undermine the very thing they want to assert.

Would you comment on a view that sometimes is put forward, that the cross of Christ demonstrates the supreme value and worth of humanity because God must have seen something supremely valuable in people to have sent his Son to die for them, and so we should derive a sense of worth and value from the fact that Christ loved us enough to die for us.

Humanity is the apex of the creation of God. We are created in the image of God, and so God was not willing to allow his whole supreme expression of creation to go to pot. And so it is in the restoration of humanity to its pristine purpose that the glory of God is manifested, and it would not glorify God to let all of humanity fall down into eternal abyss. So I agree with that. The problem is that this value is there in potential. If the salvation of God intervenes, it is not there in us as such.

The ransom theory of the atonement I don’t quite understand. Could you explain that?

It’s our ransom to Satan. I didn’t mention that, did I? Well, the ransom to Satan theory in my judgment is faulty because it represents Satan as having rights over us that God will respect, and then it represents God as deceiving Satan, which is not in keeping with the character of God. And in any case, the offering is not made to Satan at all. The offering and the sacrifice is made unto God, the sacrifice of Christ even as other sacrifices.

What truth do you see in it?

The truth is there that a terrific price was paid and that it is by God’s design that this was done.

How about the liberation from Satan?

Liberation from the power of Satan is also represented there, but that’s an insufficient advantage and it’s not an advantage over the Orthodox view.

The view that was stated that you said you agree with, that man is so supremely valuable, doesn’t that imply that there was something in man called for God’s grace?

Well, there is something by virtue of creation, and the creation is itself an act of divine benevolence, if you want. But it’s not something by virtue of our own doing, but rather by virtue of God’s original doing. But the Christian faith I think gives us a ground for respect of persons more than any other system, and therefore it ought to be against all racisms, sexisms, ageisms, classisms and other forms of pride by which we deem ourselves to be more excellent than others.

You’re probably no doubt familiar with this whole question over Lordship salvation that’s being argued today. Can that be boiled down to a question of the nature of the atonement, and that Christ died not just to provide our justification but sanctification as well? Could we say there is intent in Christ’s death to purify, not just to forgive?

This is anathema in my judgment. Nobody can really claim Christ as a Savior who is not prepared to receive him as Lord. It is true however that people, as they embrace Christ by virtue of the power of the Holy Spirit, may not realize all that his Lordship will mean. So they will need to have a continued spirit of consecration that will be effective again and again and again. But nobody, I think, can deny the Lordship of Christ and think that he has a proper hold on salvation. And so indeed, justification is never separate from regeneration and sanctification. They are distinct and they need to be distinguished. Confusing them is a terrible mistake in theology, but separating them is another terrible mistake.

Several times, you made it look utterly unacceptable to punish an innocent person before the judge for the sake of another. Could you state what the distinguishing conditions are that make it just for God to do this to our Lord?

The answer is that there is covenant unity established by God himself in the case of Adam and all his descendants by natural generation, which involves a unity such that there is actually a representative principle even in sin, which leads people to have either the guilt or the benefits of the merit of the person involved. In the case of Adam, he failed and therefore all humanity was plunged into corruption and also into guilt. Now, Jesus Christ is the second Adam, and he has a relationship that is parallel to those whom he redeems, and therefore the sin of those whom he redeems can be transferred to him so that he can bear the punishment due unto them. And the righteousness of Jesus Christ can be transferred unto us who believe in him because we are also found in Christ.

But it’s the one place only in which you have a substitutionary possibility in terms of guilt, and people who deny that there is any place where this can happen really ignore both the entail of Adamic sin and the propriety of redemption. And well, you have therefore a very, very close connection between the doctrine of original sin and the doctrine of the atonement. They are just as closely united as can be because both of them are exhibitions of the same principle, which is nowhere found in the same way in the whole universe. And that is one of the reasons why it was necessary that Christ should be one of our race in order to be the second Adam, not simply to give us an example that will be commensurate with human life, but in order to be really one with us in that unity of a covenant headship. So you see, at that point I’m a Baptist, but I’m also a believer in the covenant principle, although I’m not covenant intoxicated.