Ritch Boerckel
[email protected]
309-692-1755 (w)
Systematic Theology I
Week 10 Session 1
The Gospel Institute
Soteriology — Lesson 1: The Atonement of Jesus the Messiah
I. Introduction to Soteriology
A. Definition: the study of the Bible’s teaching concerning the past, the present and the
ultimate deliverance of man from the just consequences and condemnation of his sin.
“Soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, must be the grandest theme in the Scriptures. It
embraces all of time as well as eternity past and future. It relates in one way or another
to all of mankind, without exception. It even has ramifications in the sphere of the
angels. It is the theme of both the Old and New Testaments. It is personal, national, and
cosmic. And it centers on the greatest Person, our Lord Jesus Christ.” – J. Hampton
Keathley
B. The Practical implications
1. For fruitful personal evangelism
2. For counseling others in life’s problems
3. For defense against false doctrine and false hope
4. For spiritual discernment in life
5. For enjoying God fully
C. Correlation to others studies in systematic theology
1. Anthropology: The object of God’s affection
2. Hamartiology: The need for God’s intervention
3. Christology: The basis of God’s free offer
4. Pneumatology: The agent of transformation
5. Ecclesiology: The result of God’s salvation
Ralph Wood, professor of theology and literature at Baylor University, once asked a group of
seminary students to compare two individuals: the modern, astute collegian who insists that sin
and the fall of humanity are fallacies invented by the superstitious, and a primitive young man
in a remote village whom you find in the woods sacrificing a chicken on a makeshift altar.
“Which man is farther from the truth?” he asked. The students hemmed and hawed but
hesitantly agreed that the pagan boy, however crudely, understood something the other did
not. There is a need in our lives for atonement. There is a need for blood.
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
2
II. The Atonement of Jesus the Messiah
“The Law of God cannot be lowered or eliminated to accommodate man’s weakness for to
diminish or abrogate God’s Law is to tarnish God’s essential nature. The Law must be met to
the last letter. Furthermore, mercy cannot infringe on justice else there would be disharmony
among the attributes of God’s being. So what is to be done? What can be done? How are souls
to be saved? There is an urgent necessity for a cleansing Atonement that expresses justice and
mercy alike while maintaining the harmony of the Divine nature.” – Stanford Murell
A. Definition: The atonement is the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our
salvation. The word “atonement” has commonly been defined as “at-one-ment” which
correctly points to the aspect of atonement in reconciling enemies and making them
become friends.
B. The Cause of the Atonement:
1. The love of God.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever
believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
1 John 3:16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to
lay down our lives for the brothers.
2. The justice of God.
Romans 3:25-26 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received
by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he
had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time,
so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Question: Which is more evident in the cross … God’s love or God’s justice? Why?
“Christ became a curse for us to reveal God’s justice and righteousness. You say, but
Ian, didn’t you say that the Cross is the great revelation of God’s love? Indeed it is but no less, no less, no less is it the revelation of His righteousness and His justice.” –
Ian Hamilton
C. The Necessity of the Atonement
J.I. Packer: The Necessity of the Atonement (pdf essay)
1. God did not HAVE to save anyone. God is sovereign.
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
3
2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell
and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment
2. Once God chose to save some of mankind from their sin, the atonement became the
“consequent absolute necessity.”
Matthew 26:39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as
you will.”
Luke 24:25-26 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all
that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer
these things and enter into his glory?”
3. God’s justice requires the atonement.
Comment: Premise is that all men are sinners and God’s character demands that He
punish sin.
Romans 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might
be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Numbers 14:18 ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving
iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’
Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that
he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make
propitiation for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 10:3-4 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is
impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Comment: The denial of the absolute necessity of the atonement involves an
ultimate denial of the punitive justice of God as one of His divine perfections.
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 the
wicked” (Ex 23:7). “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
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
4
reacts against it, Psa 5:4-6; Nah 1:2; Rom 1:18. Paul argues in Rom 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.” – Brian Schwertley, The Atonement of Jesus
Christ
D. The Nature of the Atonement
John Murray: The Nature of the Atonement
In this section we consider two aspects of the atoning work of Jesus: a) Christ’s active
obedience for us, and b) Christ’s sufferings for us upon the cross.
Justin Taylor: What Is the Difference between the “Active” and the “Passive” Obedience
of Christ?
1. The Active Obedience of Jesus: We rely on Jesus’ record of obedience to qualify us for
a right standing with God.
Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that
comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness
from God that depends on faith
Romans 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so
by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
Romans 10:1-4 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they
may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not
according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and
seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
2. The Sufferings of Jesus for us on the cross.
a. Physical pain and death
b. The pain of bearing our sin
“In the same way in which Adam’s sins were imputed to us, so God imputed our
sins to Christ; that is, he thought of them as belonging to Christ, and, since God is
the ultimate judge and definer of what really is in the universe, when God
thought of our sins as belonging to Christ then in fact they actually id belong to
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
5
Christ … the guilt for our sins (that is, the liability to punishment) was thought of
by God as belonging to Christ rather than to us.” Grudem, 574
Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our
iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his
wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—
every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in
him we might become the righteousness of God.
1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to
sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
Question: Is it fair for God the Father to transfer the guilt of sin from a guilty
person to an innocent one?
“All those who advocate a subjective theory of the atonement raise a formidable
objection to the idea of vicarious atonement. They consider it unthinkable that a
just God should transfer His wrath against moral offenders to a perfectly
innocent party, and should treat the innocent judicially as if he were guilty. … To
be legal this must be expressly permitted and authorized by the lawgiver. In
reference to the law this is called relaxation, and in relation to the sinner it is
known as remission. The judge need not, but can permit this; yet he can permit it
only under certain conditions, as (1) that the guilty party himself is not in a
position to bear the penalty through to the end, so that a righteous relation
results; (2) that the transfer does not encroach upon the rights and privileges of
innocent third parties, nor cause them to suffer hardships and privations; (3) that
the person enduring the penalty is not himself already indebted to justice, and
does not owe all his services’ to the government; and (4) that the guilty party
retains the consciousness of his guilt and of the fact that the substitute is
suffering for him. In view of all this it will be understood that the transfer of
penal debt is well-nigh, if not entirely, impossible among men. But in the case of
Christ, which is altogether unique, because in it a situation obtained which has
no parallel, all the conditions named were met. There was no injustice of any
kind.” – Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (free pdf)
c. The Abandonment at the cross
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice,
saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1)
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
6
d. The Bearing of God’s wrath at the cross
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the
sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
(cf. Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17 for the term “propitiation”)
Propitiation: “A sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God — and thereby makes
God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” Grudem, 575
“It is finished!”
Bob Burridge: The Meaning of Propitiation
3. Further Understanding of the Death of Jesus Christ
a. The Penalty was inflicted by God the Father
Isaiah 53:10a Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief
Colossians 1:19-20 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and
through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven,
making peace by the blood of his cross.
Comment: This was no arbitrary decision by God, but rooted in the pleasure of
His wise will. Furthermore, this is not “divine child abuse” as some assert as the
Son is not the Son in the sense of being immature. The Father and the Son
counseled together and the Son willingly offered Himself.
b. The penalty completely satisfied the just requirements of God’s eternal justice in
finite time
Hebrews 9:25-26 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters
the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to
suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared
once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
“When it comes to interpreting Christ’s saving work, everything turns on our
view of God’s character and the seriousness of sin. God’s law is not merely a
reflection of his will but of his moral nature. God cannot relax his holy will or
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
7
righteous demands. Death is not merely an example of his displeasure or an
arbitrary punishment. Rather, it is the legal sentence for violating his covenant
(Ezek 18:4, Rom 6:23).” – Michael Horton
c. The Meaning of the Blood of Jesus
“Scripture speaks so much about the blood of Christ because its shedding was
very clear evidence that his life was being given in judicial execution. …
Scripture’s emphasis on the blood of Christ also shows the clear connection
between Christ’s death and the many sacrifices in the Old Testament that
involved the pouring out of the life blood of the sacrificial animal.” Grudem, 579
1 Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited
from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with
the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
d. The atonement is substitutionary
Simon Gathercole: The Cross and Substitutionary Atonement
Jesus suffered in the place of and in the stead of others. He acted as our
substitute so He suffered in our place what we rightly should have suffered for
our own sins.
In the Old Testament priest laid hands on a sacrifice and then killed it as a
substitute for the people (cf. Leviticus 1:4).
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you
on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes
atonement by the life.
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse
for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”
(Deuteronomy 21:23)
“The theory of penal substitution is the heart and soul of an evangelical view of
the atonement. I am not claiming that it is the only truth about the atonement
taught in the scriptures. Nor am I claiming that penal substitution is emphasized
in every piece of literature, or that every author articulates clearly penal
substitution. I am claiming that penal substitution functions as the anchor and
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
8
foundation for all other dimensions of the atonement when the scriptures are
considered as a canonical whole. I define penal substitution as follows: The
Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself
willingly and gladly) to satisfy his justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners.
The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us,
so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested. The riches of
what God has accomplished in Christ for his people are not exhausted by penal
substitution. The multifaceted character of the atonement must be recognized
to do justice the canonical witness. God’s people are impoverished if Christ’s
triumph over evil powers at the cross is slighted, or Christ’s exemplary love is
shoved to the side, or the healing bestowed on believers by Christ’s cross and
resurrection is downplayed. While not denying the wide-ranging character of
Christ’s atonement, I am arguing that penal substitution is foundational and the
heart of the atonement.” – Thomas Schreiner
Emergents … Yes the atonement is more than penal substitution (which I have
yet seen anyone to deny) but it certainly is not less
E. False Understandings of the Atonement
1. The Ransom to Satan Theory
a. Main Idea: This theory “argues that humanity’s main problem is that we are
trapped and oppressed by spiritual forces beyond our control. Christ’s death,
then, is seen as a ransom that frees us from captivity. His death and resurrection
defeats the evil spiritual forces. These theories are generally summarized under
the heading of ransom theory or Christus Victor (Christ the Victor).” – Mark
Dever
b. Weaknesses: Man’s main problem is his own sin. The cross was a judgment on
Satan, not a payment to him. Satan had no just claim on man.
“This theory found favor with several of the early Church Fathers, though they did
not always state it in exactly the same form. It proved to be rather tenacious, for the
echo of it was still heard in the days of Anselm. Yet it was found to be so
incongruous that it gradually disappeared for lack of intelligent support. Mackintosh
speaks of this theory as the exoteric theory of the early Church.” – Louis Berkhof,
Systematic Theology (free pdf)
2. The Moral Influence Theory
a. Main Idea: This emphasizes the subjective need of all people to know God’s love
for us. This theory emphasizes that Christ’s death on the Cross demonstrates
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
9
God’s love so dramatically that we are convinced of his love and are now able to
share it with others. Jesus’ death softens sinners hearts to bring repentance.
Jesus death is meant to show that there is no obstacle on the part of God which
would prevent Him from pardoning their sins. The death of Jesus should not be
viewed as a propitiation or expiation for sin.
b. Weaknesses: God’s holiness and justice not satisfied. Diminishes God’s hatred of
sin and cheapens His grace. It rejects the objective accomplishment of the death
of Jesus.
“The assumption is that there is no such attribute in God as justice; ie, no perfection
which renders it necessary, or morally obligatory, that sin should be punished. If this
be so, there is no need of expiation in order to forgiveness. All that is necessary for
the restoration of sinners to the favour of God is that they should cease to be
sinners God’s relation to his rational creatures is determined by their character. If
they are morally corrupt they are repelled from his presence; if restored to holiness,
they become the objects of his love and the recipients of his favours. All that Christ
as the Saviour of men, therefore, came to accomplish was this moral reformation in
the character of men.” – Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (free pdf)
3. The Example Theory
a. Main Idea: There is no retributive justice in God which requires that sin be
punished. Therefore, Jesus’ death served as an example of sacrifice and
obedience and is meant to inspire us to similar acts.
b. Weaknesses: Suggests man’s sin problem can be overcome by “inspiring
examples.” Suggests man is not truly guilty before God.
“While it is perfectly true that Christ is also represented as an example in Scripture,
He is nowhere represented as an example after which unbelieving sinners must
pattern, and which will save them if they do; and yet this is the necessary
assumption of the theory under consideration. The example of Christ is one which
only His people can follow, and to which even they can make but a slight approach.
He is our Redeemer before He can be our example.” – Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology (free pdf)
4. The Governmental Theory
a. Main Idea: Christ upheld God’s standards in the Law by making a token payment
for sin through his death. An equivalent payment for sin is not required by God.
Because of Christ’s payment, God set aside the requirement of the law and was
able to forgive offenders of his law because His government had been upheld.
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
10
b. Weaknesses: God forgives without full justice.
“Like the moral influence and the example theories, it also fails to explain how the
Old Testament saints were saved. If the punishment inflicted on Christ was merely
for the purpose of deterring men from sin, it had no retroactive significance. How
then were people saved under the old dispensation; and how was the moral
government of God maintained at that time?” – Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology
(free pdf)
5. The Accident Theory
a. Main Idea: Jesus’ death was a mistake. There is no value in the death of Jesus.
b. Weaknesses: Rejects God sovereign plan of salvation altogether. The prophecies
of the Old Testament and of Jesus Himself testify against this theory.
Question: Did Jesus die only for the elect or for everyone? (1 John 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:5-6)
John Samson: Understanding 1 John 2:2, Understanding 1 Tim 2:1-6
John MacArthur: The Atonement: Real or Potential?
“Memory looks back upon past sins, with deep sorrow for the sin, but yet with no dread of any
penalty to come; for Christ has paid the debt of his people to the last jot and tittle, and received
the divine receipt; and unless God can be so unjust as to demand double payment for one debt,
no soul for whom Jesus died as a substitute can ever be cast into hell.” – Charles Spurgeon
Justin Taylor: What Is the Difference between the “Active” and the “Passive” Obedience of
Christ?
A common mistake is to gloss Jesus’ “active obedience” as his “sinless life,” and his “passive
obedience” as his “atoning death.” In other words, Jesus was active in his living and suffered in
his dying.
But that’s not historically what the terms mean — though some popular defenders of the
Reformed view occasionally make this mistake, whether through ignorance or
oversimplification.
Historically, the Reformed understanding is that Christ’s “passive obedience” and his “active
obedience” both refer to the whole of Christ’s work. The distinction highlights different aspects,
not periods, of Christ’s work in paying the penalty for sin (“passive obedience”) and fulfilling the
precepts of the law (“active obedience”).
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
11
Louis Berkhof puts it in his standard Systematic Theology (free pdf):
The two accompany each other at every point in the Saviour’s life. There is a constant
interpretation of the two …
Christ’s active and passive obedience should be regarded as complementary parts of an
organic whole. (pp. 379, 380)
John Murray, in Redemption Accomplished and Applied, expresses it quite clearly and goes into
more detail:
[We cannot] allocate certain phases or acts of our Lord’s life on earth to the active
obedience and certain other phases and acts to the passive obedience. The distinction
between the active and passive obedience is not a distinction of periods. It is our Lord’s
whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and
passive, and we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to
the obedience of his life and the passive obedience to the obedience of his final
sufferings and death.
The real use and purpose of the formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our
Lord’s vicarious obedience. The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law
of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands. It demands not only the full
discharge of its precepts but also the infliction of penalty for all infractions and
shortcomings. It is this twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account
when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ as the vicar of his
people came under the curse and condemnation due to sin and he also fulfilled the law
of God in all its positive requirements. In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin
and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal
and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the
former and the active obedience to the latter. (pp. 20-22)
Put another way, Jesus’ so-called “passive” and “active” obedience were lifelong endeavors as
he fulfilled the demands and suffered the penalties of God’s law, and both culminated in the
cross. I would argue that the New Testament clearly teaches the lifelong passive obedience of
Christ (his penalty-bearing work) and the lifelong active obedience of Christ (his will-of-Godobeying work), culminating in the cross. We then receive the benefit of this through the
imputation of the obedience of Christ (the reckoning of Christ’s complete work to our account
when we trust in him for salvation and are united to him).
But it’s not uncommon to hear some people say, “Scripture only teaches the imputation of
Christ’s passive obedience, not his active obedience.” Another complaint goes like this: “Such
fine distinctions are owing more to systematic theology than to the authorial intent we’re after
in exegetical theology.”
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
12
But here’s the irony in it all. By arguing that it is only Christ’s passive obedience that is imputed
to our account, they are the ones making a distinction that can’t be found in the biblical text.
The Reformed folks argue for both-and, not either-or. In the NT Christ’s righteous work is of
one cloth: it’s always “obedience unto death.” In other words, one cannot separate Christ’s
fulfillment of God’s precepts from Christ’s payment of the penalty for failing to obey God’s
precepts.
What God has joined together, let no man separate!
Recommended Resources:
Richard Mayhue: The Paradox of Christ’s Atonement (pages 20-27)
Tim Challies: Visual Theology – Atonement (graphic)
Systematic Theology I
Ritch Boerckel
Fall 2014
13