Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.11UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.07UNLIKELY
Fear
0.09UNLIKELY
Joy
0.57LIKELY
Sadness
0.52LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.83LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.54LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.97LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.37UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.19UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.15UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.61LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
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.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9