Chapter 51

THE MEANING OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST

Although it is true that the full meaning of the death of Christ cannot be captured in one or two slogan-like statements, it is also true that its central meaning can and must be focused on several very basic ideas. There are four such basic doctrines: Christ’s death was a substitution for sinners, a redemption in relation to sin, a reconciliation in relation to man, and a propitiation in relation to God. Not to emphasize these four or not to insist on their basic importance to a proper understanding of the meaning of the death of Christ is to beggar or even pervert the biblical concept. For example, it is proper and biblical to view the death of Christ as a great display of the love of God or to see it as an example for us to be self-sacrificing (these are biblical truths, John 15:13; Rom. 5:8), but if these comprised the only meaning of the death of Christ, there would be no eternal value in it. It must provide a substitution and a payment for sin, or the example means relatively little. So we must understand these basic facts first, for they form the saving and eternal meaning of the death of our Lord.

I. A SUBSTITUTION FOR SINNERS

A. The Concept of Substitutionary Atonement

1. The meaning of substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary or vicarious atonement simply means that Christ suffered as a substitute for us, that is, instead of us, resulting in the advantage to us of paying for our sins.

Man could atone for his sins personally only if he could suffer eternally the penalty that sin incurred. Man, of course, could never do this, so in His love and compassion, God stepped into a hopeless situation and provided a Vicar in Jesus Christ who did provide an eternal satisfaction for sin.

PERSONAL ATONEMENT

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT

Provided by the offending party

Provided by the offended party

A matter of strict justice

A combination of justice and love

Never finished

A completed sacrifice

2. Objections to substitutionary atonement. Certain objections have been raised against this concept.

a. The idea of substitutionary atonement makes God unjust since He condemned His Son to bear the sins of mankind. This might be a valid objection except for the fact that the Triune God was involved in planning redemption, and the Son voluntarily took upon Himself the work of substitution. In other words, although this might be a valid objection on a finite level, it cannot be on the infinite level, since at that level there are not three separate parties involved.

b. Vicarious atonement makes the innocent Christ suffer for the wicked. This is absolutely true, and is essential to atonement. It is also plainly scriptural (1 Pet. 3:18). Therefore, to raise this as an objection is to question the plan and purpose of God.

c. A moral agent cannot be responsible for sin unless he commits it personally. This simply is not so in human government; so it need not be so in divine government. Guilt can come on members of a board of directors for the wrongdoings of their executives. Negligence on the part of school employees opens its officials to lawsuits.

B. The Evidence for Substitutionary Atonement

Clearly the Bible teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was not a matter of sympathy but of substitution.

1. In the Old Testament. The arrangements of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament included the necessity of the offerer laying his hands on the animal being offered as a sacrifice.

This meant transmission and delegation, and implied representation; so that it really pointed to the substitution of the sacrifice for the sacrificer.… If the sacrifice was brought by more than one, each had to lay on his hands. It is not quite a settled point whether one or both hands were laid on; but all are agreed that it was to be done “with one’s whole force”—as it were, to lay one’s whole weight upon the substitute.1

The animal’s death took the place of the death due the one offering that animal. The system clearly taught substitution.

2. In the use of the preposition anti. The root meaning of this preposition, which occurs twenty-two times in the New Testament, is face-to-face, opposite, as two objects placed over against each other and one being taken instead of the other as in an exchange. Critics of substitutionary atonement label this “crude transactionalism.” Nevertheless, the preposition anti does support substitution.

a. In classical Greek. Anti uniformly means “in the place of,” and it has no broader meaning as, for instance, “for the sake of.”2

b. In Greek of the New Testament Period. Moulton and Milligan give no examples of anti meaning “on behalf of” or “for the sake of.” The common meaning is “instead of.” The same and only meaning is found in Polybius (ca. 200–ca. 118 B.C.), Philo, and Josephus.

c. In the Septuagint. Among the 318 occurrences of anti there is no example of the broader meaning “on behalf of.” Uniformly it means “in place of” and translates tachath (Gen. 44:33).

d. In the New Testament. Examples of the clear meaning “instead or in place of” are found in Matthew 2:22 and Luke 11:11. Instances where the idea of exchange is prominent occur in John 1:16; Romans 12:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; Hebrews 12:16; and 1 Peter 3:9. Matthew 17:27 (the incident concerning paying the temple tax) seems to bear a clear substitutionary sense. The tax was redemption money (Exod. 30:11–16). The idea of equivalence appears in Matthew 5:38 and 1 Corinthians 11:15, though some understand the use of anti in the latter reference to mean that a woman’s hair serves in place of a covering. However, this would seem to contradict Paul’s teaching in the preceding verses, so likely it has the idea of equivalence. That is, hair in the natural realm is equivalent to what the covering stands for in the spiritual realm.3 Clearly none of these verses support the meaning “on behalf of” or “for the benefit of.”

The crucial verse is Mark 10:45 (KJV): “For even the Son of man came … to give his life a ransom for many” (see also Matt. 20:28). Anti demands the interpretation that our Lord came to die in our place and as our substitute. It cannot be understood otherwise, and this, of course, was Christ’s own interpretation of the meaning of His sacrifice. Anti also appears as the prefix on the compound word antilutron in 1 Timothy 2:6. Christ was our substitution ransom.

3. In the use of the preposition huper. The original meaning of this preposition was over, upper, and for one’s benefit. The idea included standing over someone to protect him and to receive the blows on his behalf and in his place. Thus the basic ideas in the word include both benefit and substitution, simply because to act on behalf of or for the benefit of someone often includes acting in his place. Both these ideas occur in the New Testament usage, as we shall see.

a. In classical Greek. Both ideas of benefit and substitution occur in classical writings.4

b. In the Greek of the New Testament period. Again both ideas are found. Often huper is used of someone writing a letter for someone else who was illiterate. Clearly this is a substitutionary idea.

c. In the Septuagint. Again both ideas are found, but it is especially important to soteriology to note that the substitutionary meaning is clearly the meaning in such verses as Deuteronomy 24:16 and Isaiah 43:3–4.

d. In the New Testament. No one debates that huper means “for the benefit of.” The debate centers on whether or not it can mean “in the place of.” Those who deny substitutionary atonement naturally want to eliminate the latter meaning and insist that Christ’s death was not in any sense a substitutionary payment but only a benefit to mankind. Those who affirm substitutionary atonement can rest their case on the meaning of anti, but they can also point to the substitutionary meaning in huper. The case is further strengthened by the fact that huper clearly has a substitutionary meaning in passages that are not concerned with the Atonement. There are three clear ones.

(1) In Romans 9:3 Paul wishes he could be accursed in the place of his fellow Jews. He wanted to take their place under God’s curse.

(2) First Corinthians 15:29 most likely refers to those who by being baptized showed that they had joined the Christian ranks to take the place of those who had died, and therefore could be said to have been baptized for (in the place of) those who had died. This understanding of the verse requires a substitutionary meaning of huper.

(3) Even if there were any question about the two preceding examples, there certainly can be no question about the substitutionary meaning of huper in Philemon 13. Onesimus, the converted slave, was in Rome with Paul, and he was about to return to his master Philemon in Colossae. In this wonderful letter of intercession on Onesimus’s behalf, Paul told Philemon that he would like to keep Onesimus with him in Rome to help him on Philemon’s behalf (huper sou). That can only mean that someone had to be in Rome with Paul—either Philemon himself or his slave Onesimus as his substitute. Of course, the idea of benefit is present as well, but the only way there could have been any benefit to Paul was to have Philemon’s substitute, Onesimus, with him in Rome. If huper has both ideas, benefit and substitution in nonatonement passages, then it may also carry both meanings in atonement passages, and indeed it does. Some important examples where the substitutionary idea is present are John 11:50–51; Romans 5:6–8; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; Titus 2:14; and 1 Peter 3:18.

To summarize: anti always has the idea of equivalence, exchange, or substitution. It never has the broader idea of “for the sake of” or “on behalf of.” Huper has both ideas, including the idea of substitution in atonement passages in the New Testament.

C. The Denial of Substitutionary Atonement

Attempts to deny the force of this evidence are usually made in one of two ways. Some claim that even though substitution may be in the picture, it must not be made the controlling meaning of Christ’s death. Thus substitution is submerged in and among the other meanings of His death until it becomes such a minor part of the concept that it has disappeared for all practical purposes. Here is an example: “The death of Jesus is bigger than any definition, deeper and more profound than any rationale.… By a rich variety of terms and analogies it is set forth, but it is never completely captured in any verbal net.… Even though no final rationale of the cross is to be achieved, we must seek its meaning again and again.”5

Others simply attempt to reinterpret substitution as always meaning “for the sake of.” Here is an example:

The fact is that he [Paul] intends what we may call a “representative” view of Christ’s death. When Paul writes that Christ died “for” me, he usually means not “instead of me” but “for my benefit.” … Thus it cannot be a matter of substitution or of a scapegoat. In another context, it is true, the analogy of the ransom of a captive or (very rarely) that of a sacrificial offering is brought in play by Paul and suggests substitution. But this motif … is dominated by the ruling conception of our participation with Christ in His death to sin and the Law.6

This writer fails to examine any of the evidence of the prepositions or verses I have cited.

Clearly, according to His own teaching and that of the rest of the New Testament, Christ’s death was a substitution for sinners.

PERSONAL ATONEMENT

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT

Provided by the offending party

Provided by the offended party

A matter of strict justice

A combination of justice and love

Never finished

A completed sacrifice