DOCTRINES OF GRACE: CHAPTER 7: LIMITED ATONEMENT
IN THE MIDDLE FOR A REASON
The T.U.L.I.P acrostic is a mnemonic device that summarizes the central tenets of the Reformed faith. Standing right in the middle of this acrostic is the letter ‘L’ which stands for Limited Atonement. This letter commands the most important place in this scheme for it represents the meaning behind the central event of the Christian faith, the cross of Jesus Christ. Its importance cannot be underestimated. It reveals the sacred mystery of the cross which is the center of the Christian religion, an event to which all other Christian truths move. For that reason the powers of darkness have perverted this doctrine by obscuring its beauty and meaning. If Unconditional Election is the most hotly debated doctrine, then Limited Atonement is the least understood. This should not surprise us. For if this doctrine is the glue that holds the other four doctrines together (and it is) and if it is true that everything in Christianity revolves around the cross (and it does) then the most effective way to eviscerate the Christian religion of its truth and power is to confuse what really happened on that cross outside the city walls of Jerusalem.
It would be prudent at this point to review these great doctrines and to note how Limited Atonement stands proudly in the center of them all. The doctrines may be summarized by one word beginning with the letter ‘S.’
T = Total Depravity. Speaks of man’s desperate condition and need of salvation. SIN.
U = Unconditional Election. Speaks of God’s sovereign power to do as He wishes to save whom He will. SOVEREIGNTY.
L = Limited Atonement. Speaks of the vehicle through which salvation occurs, the cross, and explains its meaning. SATISFACTION.
I = Irresistible Grace. Speaks of the relentless power of God to bring His people to Himself in time. SALVATION.
P = Perseverance of the Saints. Speaks of the ongoing power of God to keep His children throughout the entirely of their Christian lives. SANCTIFICATION.
Notice that the doctrine of Limited Atonement is summarized by the word Satisfaction. The very essence of the atonement is the satisfaction for sin. The Lamb of God died on that tree in order to pay the price for the sins of His people and to satisfy the wrath of God on their behalf. What Limited Atonement says, therefore, is that Christ’s sacrifice for His people was sufficient to satisfy every roadblock that existed between God and man and to supply the necessary merits to bring God and man forever together. In no way does the term ‘limited’ mean that Christ’s sacrifice was in any way deficient. The term limited can in this sense be misleading. For this reason it is more accurate to call this doctrine Particular Redemption. This points to the fact that the death of Christ accomplished redemption for those it was particularly intended. If Christ died for a sinner then that sinner must assuredly come to Christ and be saved (the next doctrine deals with this). Thinking of Limited Atonement in this way makes it not a doctrine of fear or debate but one of comfort. If any man has trusted Christ as His Savior, that man can be sure that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to save him fully without limitation or lack,
A DOCTRINE THAT HOLDS THE SALVATION PROCESS TOGETHER.
The sacrifice of Christ for His people is the consummation of all that God planned in eternity past and the springboard for all divine actions that take place in the believer’s life going forward. In the Fall, God ordained that all men would die in Adam and that spiritual death would be realized in every aspect of their being. Yet, from eternity past, God had chosen to save a people for Himself for the purpose of bringing glory to His name. The events in the Garden of Eden and the eternal choice of God converge in one grand event that happened one Friday outside the walls of Jerusalem. There the consequences of human sin and God’s desire to save the elect clashed as God’s Son suffered like no man has ever suffered on a Roman cross. This death on the cross, or atonement, is the divine guarantee that all God’s people have had their sins paid for in full, who in time will be united to the Savior by grace, and who will persevere in that grace forever and forever. In other words the atonement is the center-point that holds the entire salvation of sinners together, beginning in eternity past and flowing onward infinitely in the future. To say it another way, it is the event to which all God’s eternal purposes in eternity past point and guarantees that all God purposes in the future will be fulfilled in the life of every saint.[1]
The following diagram visualizes how the doctrine of Limited Atonement is what holds all the other doctrines together.
TOTAL –------- UNCONDITIONAL -- LIMITED– IRRESISTIBLE-- PERSEVERANCE
DEPRAVITY – ELECTION –--------- ATONEMENT –- GRACE --------- OF THE SAINTS
<——| | ———>
(eternity past) ---------------------——— central link --------------------———-- (forward in future).
THE WORDS.
When discussing a doctrine it is always good to begin by discussing the words used to describe it. We begin by looking at the word ‘atonement.’ This word was most likely formulated in the 16th century as the contraction of the phrase ‘at-one-ment.’[2] The idea is that things at enmity are made to be at peace or brought together as one. But it is not the word itself but the concept that is important. To garner the full meaning of atonement one must go back to all the priestly offerings in the Old Testament and there we will receive a fuller meaning of this concept. When we look at the articles of the Most Holy place in the tabernacle, we find that laying on the ark of God (the box housing the tablets of His Holy Law) was a gold plate. This ‘covering’ (kapporeth, Heb = כַּפֹּרֶת), also called the mercy seat, gives us a picture of the meaning of atonement. This gold plate protected the High Priest from coming face to face with the presence of God in the ark which would have meant instant death. When the priest sprinkled blood on the mercy seat, that was the closest any human being could come to God (see Leviticus 16:14-16). Even sprinkled with blood the mercy seat must be enveloped in smoke lest the priest gaze upon the naked glory of God (Leviticus 16:2,13). The covering, therefore demonstrated, allowed the priest to get close enough to God to make the needed sacrifice. In other words, the mercy seat allowed mankind to draw near to God without dying, demonstrating that God is full mercy (see Exodus 25:17). Atonement is therefore the sacred meeting of God and man which must always include the sacrifice of an animal over a mercy seat. Sinful man and a holy God cannot meet apart from this shed blood (see Hebrews 9:22). This explains why the Old Testament is suffused with many bloody sacrifices for only through the death of an animal, through blood, could God dwell among His people. Yet in the Old Testament the distance between God and man was still great… and risky.
The concept of atonement litters the pages of the Bible and is clearly seen at the very dawn of history. When Adam and Eve sinned, their kneejerk reaction was to hide from God. They tried to make atonement for themselves but God quickly intervened and covered them with the skin of a slain animal (Gen 3:21). The slain animal was accepted by God in lieu of Adam’s death. Thus the principle of substitution was established and pointed forward to a sacrifice that would truly atone for guilty sinners. The principle of sacrifice through blood is further proven by the rejection of Cain’s bloodless offering and the acceptance of Abel’s blood sacrifice (Gen 4:3-5). These events in Genesis are just the beginning of a long pattern of God’s atoning work. As the Bible proceeds, the sacrifice of atonement remains its central theme. In Genesis 15 God invites Abraham into a covenant relationship with the surprising detail that God walks through the slain animals by Himself, showing the Patriarch that God alone ratified the covenant and He alone would supply the atonement (vss. 9-12). When we get to Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, we find that blood sacrifices lie at the center of Israel’s relationship with God.[3] To be sure, atonement is the central theme of the Old Testament. One faithful witness says this:
“The Bible's central message is atonement, that is, that God has provided a way for humankind to come back into harmonious relation with him, and is everywhere apparent in Scripture. From the first stories in Genesis to the last visions of Revelation, God seeks to reconcile his people to himself.” [4]
The word ‘limited’ is much trickier to explain. We normally use the word ‘limited’ to convey the idea that something is lacking in ability or power. For example we might say that a person has ‘limited mental capacity’ or a project manager has ‘limited resources.’ Certainly this is not the sense that we are using the phrase here. God is not limited in anything He does. His will is always executed fully and perfectly. If God’s atonement was limited, if could not achieve its divine purpose, then He would no longer be God.
So what did the reformed church mean when it used the word limited in connection with the atonement? The answer is found in another way we use the word limited. If we are trying to market a new recipe of fried chicken we might say ‘the advertising strategy is limited to a few key markets.’ How is the word being used in this sense? Are we saying that the advertising is in any way deficient? No, of course not. We are saying that the advertising is aimed at a certain target audience; it has a definite object; it is not intended to reach every consumer. This is precisely the way the word is used here. Limited atonement means that the death of Christ had a specific goal in in view, that its benefits accrued to specific objects. The atonement was not a general blessing given to mankind in hopes that some would receive it, but a specific gift given to a predetermined group.[5] Thus the word limited has nothing to do with power or ability, but of scope or intent. The limitation in the atonement is imposed by God Himself. If the doctrine of election be true then the scope of the atonement must be limited to those who are predestined. Nevertheless, because of the language, many Christians who hear the phrase Limited Atonement reject it as being unworthy of an all-powerful God. To avoid this confusion, Reformed theologians have come up with alternative ways to describe this concept such as definite atonement, effectual atonement and particular redemption. Whatever phrase you choose, each one emphasizes the intended end of the cross, the salvation of the elect.
LIMITED ATONEMENT IS A LOGICAL OUTGROWTH OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND ELECTION.
Nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that God only died for His elect. As with many biblical truths, Limited Atonement is implicitly taught from Genesis to Revelation. The doctrine has the weight of Biblical support but one must dig deeply to find it. Our goal in this section is to look at the inferential arguments and then the scriptural.
As for inferential arguments, none could be greater than Limited Atonement’s association with the doctrines that preceded it, Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. If the Bible teaches that man is wholly dead to anything good and cannot in any wise save himself, then for anyone to be saved must presuppose a divine initiative. That begins with the doctrine of election. And if election be true then one must grant that those whom God elects will be saved. [6] Now the grounds by which God saves a sinner is that He has paid the price for the sinners eternal debt which is the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Peter says, “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold… but with the precious blood of Christ as a lamb without blemish and without spot.” [7] Peter, of course, is writing to believers. Like Gomer on the slave auction block, God chose people in eternity past and then paid the price of freedom in time. [8] That is, God paid the atonement price for His elect alone and none other. The doctrines of Total Depravity and Unconditional Elect necessarily prove the doctrine of Limited Atonement, or, better said, Particular Redemption.
A second inferential proof is to imagine what it would be the implications if God said that He paid the price of redemption for all mankind but saved only some. Here we will use the logical principle of reductio ad absurdum. We will grant the argument that God paid the price for redemption for all men and see where that leads.
First, it would make God disingenuous. If God claims He paid the price for freedom to all mankind yet actually saves only a few it would put God on par with a two-faced salesman who sells a product by misrepresentation. To return to the Hosea illustration, it would be like paying the price for Gomer’s freedom and leaving her on the slave block. To believe this undermines the very trustworthiness of God’s word.
Second, it would make God a tragic figure who has vowed to redeem His beloved but is powerless to accomplish that redemption due to their obstinacy. In other words if God pays the price for universal redemption but in the end not all are redeemed than only one of two things could be true; either God promised one thing but did another, which impugns His word, or He promised something but could not bring it to pass, which impugns His power. Neither one of these options honor the character of God. Particular redemption says that God redeemed everyone He said He would redeem.
Generally speaking the view that God’s redemption was intended to save all people is called Arminianism. Traditional Lutheranism also holds to the universal view of the atonement but their view is a bit different than the Arminian view and will not be discussed at this point. The Arminian view, which at this point challenges the doctrine of Particular Redemption, says that God provided atonement for all men but that Christ’s atoning death is only efficacious for some, for those who believe. Arminianism traditionally believes that the sufficient cause of salvation is not the elective love of God but the faith of the receiving sinner. This view cannot be easily shrugged off as it ‘appears’ to have many biblical texts for its support. In the next chapter we shall discuss this view at length. It will be our goal at the present to show that Limited Atonement as defined by reformed theology is everywhere supported by the Biblical record.
VERSES THAT PROVE LIMITED ATONEMENT
It would be a massive undertaking to list every verse that teaches that Jesus died in a saving way for His elect. Throughout the Scripture there is this underlying theme that the Messiah would come to save a certain group, variously designated by the terms Israel, people, sheep, wheat, church, and saints. Had we only these 39 ancient books of the Old Testament we would still believe that God secures atonement for His elect only. The Old Testament is one long commentary on God’s special care for His people Israel. He reveals Himself to Israel alone, provides the manner of worship and sacrifice and forgiveness of sins to Israel alone, provides the means of intercession for Israel alone and sets His covenant love upon that nation alone. So Malachi 1:2-3 says,
“I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”
God’s electing love was upon Israel alone. He did everything for them, while allowing the other nations to go their own way. He gave them the entire system of worship allowed Israel to meet with Him and to know His will. The priesthood and the sacrifice of animals were the centerpiece of Jewish cultic life. And all of it screamed loudly from heaven that God was covering the sins of the Jews alone. The book of Leviticus drips with rivers of blood not to upset squeamish stomachs but to demonstrate that the bathing in blood was proof that God loved them. Many texts echo this theme, as does this one:
“He shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is in the tent of meeting before the LORD, and the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And all its fat he shall take from it and burn on the altar. Thus shall he do with the bull. As he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this. And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven. And he shall carry the bull outside the camp and burn it up as he burned the first bull; it is the sin offering for the assembly” (Lev 4:18-21; emphasis mine).
A sin offering for the assembly and no one else. In our democratized way of thinking we often miss the fact that God’s atonement was for the Jews only and excluded the nations around. It says in Ezekiel 44:9,
“Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.”
In addition only the Jews could celebrate the Passover, the feast commemorating the Jew’s deliverance.
“And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it’” (Ex 12:43).
The figure of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement further hints at the limited nature of the atonement. In Leviticus 16:20-22, we find one of the great pictures of salvation in the Old Testament. On that most holy day the priest would lay his hands over the head of the designated scapegoat and "confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel” (16:21). The goat would then be loosed into the wilderness where it would carry away whose sins?- ‘the sins of the Israel.’ There were no Amorite sins laid upon the goat, no Moabite sins, no Egyptian sins. The animal carried into oblivion only the sins for the chosen nation. So it is with Christ, who is the church’s Scapegoat. Thinking about this very thing, the prophet Isaiah declares, "He bore our sins and carried our sorrows.” Truly Christ carried away the sins of His people into the wilderness of oblivion never to be seen again. To the Lord the sins of His people are covered by a thick cloud that even the divine eye chooses not to see (Is 44:22).
One can also argue for a limited atonement from the doctrine of Christ's intercessory work as the High Priest. The great Reformed theologians of the past have argued that God's great work of salvation has as its object from beginning to end the same group of people. That is, the same people that the Father chose in eternity past are the same ones Christ redeemed on a Roman cross are the same ones the Spirit calls and sanctifies in time. In the Old Covenant this is pictured by the ministry of the High Priest. He offered up sacrifices for Israel and represented that same group by his intercessory work. While performing this intercessory the High Priest would wear a breastplate adorned by twelve stones. And what did these stones represent? It says in Exodus 28:21. “There shall be twelve stones with their names according to the names of the sons of Israel. They shall be like signets, each engraved with its name, for the twelve tribes.” Later on those signets are identified as “the names of the sons of Israel on the breastplate of judgment over his heart” (28:29). Thus as the High Priest stood before the Lord, he was not representing all men but only the twelve tribes of Israel.
When we come to the New Covenant we find that this High Priestly office is fulfilled in Christ Jesus. In His priestly prayer in John chapter 17 He speaks as the High Priest of His people, "I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me" (vs 9). Here Christ views Himself as having already won the victory for His people and is now continuing His ministry to them as the exalted High Priest. He assures the depressed disciples that He will intercede for them in the heavenly temple continually as they pursue His kingdom on earth. Paul picks up on the theme of Christ as the High Priest in Romans 8:34. "It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us." Now who is the "us"? It is those "who love God" (vs 28). The same ones for whom Christ died and rose again. Paul is clear that all the redemptive works of Jesus are aimed at the same group of people. Those He foreknew, He predestined. Those He predestined, He called. Those He called, He justified. Those He justified, He glorified. And the guarantee of their eventual glorification is His work of intercession on their behalf. And who are these people? They are the "us" of verse 31, the believers to whom Paul writes. This is all to say that the saint is absolutely secure in his salvation for his Savior works for him at every level including His continual intercession.
The book that speaks both of the atonement and High Priesthood of Christ more than any other is the Epistle to the Hebrews. And what is the message there? The same as what we find throughout the rest of the Holy Writ. Christ has set Himself apart for the good of His people. Notice how the author put it.
“For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers” (2:11; ESV).
Truly the Messiah is so closely linked with His people that He calls them brothers. The author then links this brotherhood to Christ’s High Priesthood. He continues in verse 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.”
Those whom Christ calls brothers are those for whom He intercedes. What could be clearer than this?
The prophets of the Old Covenant also express the idea that Messiah would come to die for His people. Isaiah speaks of the objects of Messiah’s atoning work in these words,
“By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of My people he was punished” (Isaiah 53:8; NIV).
Later on in the same prophecy the seer says,
“By His knowledge MY righteous servant shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities” (vs 11).
The Messiah would suffer complete separation from the land of the living and bear the sins of ‘the many,’ His people, and they alone. Amos 3:2 says it more succinctly,
“You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
Hosea 13:5 says basically the same thing, noting that Israel alone was saved out of Egypt and known by God.
‘It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought.”
Many other texts could be marshalled to show that in the Old Testament God showered His grace upon the Jews alone. He would die for them, save them, live for them and intercede for them.
The Old Covenant pictures what would be more clearly taught in the New. God’s New Covenant people, the church, is always shown to be single object of God’s mercy. Throughout these 27 books God deals in a saving way to His people whom He variously describes as His people, children, nation, temple, body, sheep, wheat, and saints (see 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:19-22; 4:16; 1 Cor 1:2; Jn 10:27; 1 John 3:1). This focus begins very early in the gospel narratives. When Joseph is visited by the angel he is told to name the baby in Mary's womb Jesus for “He shall save His people from their sins” (Mt 1:21, emphasis mine). Note, the angel did not say He will save "all people,” or "humankind” but “His people.” In John chapter 10, this theme continues under a different imagery. Jesus speaks about "the sheep" which He later calls "My sheep" (Jn 10:11, 27-28). He compares this group with the hardened Jews about whom He specifically says, “You are not of My sheep” (vs 26). What could be clearer than this? Jesus came as the Shepherd for His sheep, His own flock. And it is to this flock alone that He gives eternal life.
Perhaps the most common word used for God’s New Covenant people is ‘church.’ The word simply means ‘called out one.’ That is, the church is a people called out from the world to serve God, much as the Levites were called out of the 12 tribes to serve God in the sanctuary. In Ephesians 5:25 Jesus is said to have "loved His church and gave Himself for her.” The text does not say Jesus gave His life for all men, but for His church. In speaking to the Ephesian elders, Paul urges those men to be shepherds "to the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Christ did not shed His blood for all men, but for “the church of God.” We also read that the saved ones are called the "set apart ones" or "sanctified ones." For example Hebrews 10:14 states, "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." The same group is the topic of Paul's discussion in Titus 2:14 where he says that Christ, "Gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed.” Who are the "us”? Read on. He will "purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works." Christ will redeem and sanctify His own people and no one else.
Peter too speaks of this group. In 1 Pet 2:19, he speaks to those believers who suffer with a good conscience towards God. Then in verse 24 he describes that same group as those for whom He "bore our sins in His own body on the tree..... by whose stripes you were healed." How much clearer can it be? Christ bore in His body the sins for His people and them alone. Christ's cross-work had a definite goal. He trod that Calvary road bearing the names of a certain group of people on His heart. This thought alone helped Him to set His face like flint toward Jerusalem (Lk 9:51). All of these titles for God’s people strewn throughout the New Testament writings show that Christ in His saving work represented a specific people and not the entire human race.
But how did this group called ‘God’s people’ come into existence?
This leads us to what is perhaps the greatest argument for Limited Atonement, the Covenant of Redemption. This covenant asserts that the Father gave a people to the Son in eternity past and the Son, by a voluntary act, agreed to take on the debts and obligations of those people so that they might be restored to favor with the Father. From eternity past this group was specific. Christ knew all His people by name. They are the people which the Father gave Him as a wedding gift. This arrangement is concisely expressed in Jn. 6:38-39 where Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but raise it up at the last day” (emphasis mine). As the heavenly husband it was not the purpose of Jesus to come and take every woman for His wife. It was His purpose to pay the debt for His betrothed bride, those who were given Him by His Father. Or to change metaphors, He came not as a pioneer to blaze a trail for the salvation of as many as possible, but as a servant coming to bring back to the Father's house His wayward children. And Jesus, being the perfect servant, both finished the task and kept within its ordained boundaries. He redeemed all those given to Him but not a soul more. This concept is poignantly expressed in John 17 and verse 2, "As you have given Him (the Son) authority over all flesh that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.” Later on in verse 6 we hear an echo of the same truth, "They were Yours. You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.” In verse 11 He prays to the Father to "keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are one." So that the point is not missed Christ goes on to say that He did not execute His saving office for the non-elect. In verse 9 he adds, “I pray for them (elect) I do not pray for the world (the non-elect) but for those whom You have given Me for they are Yours.” Christ came to earth to secure salvation for those whom the Father had given Him in the covenant of redemption.
Even as Jesus faced the cross and was celebrating that final Passover foremost on His mind were His people. The apostle notes;
“Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end” (John 13:1).
It was His love for His own that kept Jesus on the path of suffering.
So in conclusion we say that from Genesis to Revelation, God has made it abundantly clear that He sent forth His Son into the world to die for ‘a peculiar people.’ Christ did not come with a foggy mission of a general atonement for an unspecified number, but He went forth with a specific group in mind. Knowing that He was saving His people, His beloved bride, was the very truth that kept Him faithfully on the path of devotion, much as Jacob when he labored many years for the hand of Rachel. Tell a man that his efforts may produce nothing and that man is a candidate to quit. Tell him, however, that his efforts will be rewarded with the hand of a beloved bride He has loved from eternity and that man will walk through walls to finish the task. Jesus walked steadfastly toward the cross with great determination to do the will of Him who sent Him because He knew who He was dying for. And buttressed by this knowledge nothing could stop Him from saving His people to the uttermost (Heb 7:25).
SALVATION WORDS PROVE LIMITED ATONEMENT.
Redemption/Ransom
As we said, the word atonement has many nuances. One aspect of atonement is the payment of a ransom or what is called a redemption price.
The idea of paying a ransom comes out of the Old Testament. In the temple system a every Jewish male over 20 during a census must pay a ransom price of half a shekel (Ex 30:11-16). This was an admission by all Jewish males that they lived in a perpetual debt to Yahweh and this ransom was one of several that reminded the Jews of their indebtedness to God. This payment was not optional. It ‘atoned for their very lives.’ A man could not pay the ransom price for someone else. Too, every man, whether rich or poor, must pay equally.
This ransom idea also existed in Old Testament Israel at the tribal level. The entire tribe of Levi was given to the Lord as a ransom price for all the tribes of Israel (Num 3:12). Instead of conscripting every firstborn male for Himself, God chose one whole tribe to serve Him on a fulltime basis. Since God spared the firstborn at the Exodus He laid claim to the lives of every firstborn Jew. The entire tribe of Levi served Him instead (Numbers 18:15-19). And it was a precise one-for-one substitution. When the census was taken and the firstborn of the nation exceeded the eligible Levites a monetary payment had to be made. (see Numbers 3:46). Jesus picked up on this Old Testament image when He said, "For the Son of man came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). He was the payment for all His people who had incurred a great debt to God. What a comfort for the believer to know that if God has once paid for his sin through the death of Christ, he need never have to pay it himself.
The concept of redemption is, therefore, a monetary one. In the Old Testament it speaks of the one who can buy out someone who has landed himself in an unpayable debt. When one steps forward to make the payment he is called a redeemer. The Hebrew word for the redeemer is go-el (גָּאַל). In the prominent theme in the Book of Ruth, a story of redemption, we are introduced to a widowed Jewess, Naomi, who returns penniless and landless to her home town along with her Moabitess daughter-in-law, Ruth. Naomi is not only destitute financially but she has no land, no progeny, no inheritance. Then, through a series of providential events, Ruth comes in contact with the Christ-like figure Boaz who 'redeems’ Naomi by marrying her daughter-in-law and assuming all the responsibility for her penury. The book ends with the birth of a son, the fulfillment of all that Naomi lacks.
In the New Testament culture, however, the idea of a ransom was most prevalent from the economics of slavery. In the Roman Empire slavery was a dominant institution that was taken for granted. Slaves usually accepted their lot in life. Nevertheless there was provision for the release of a slave, especially one that was enslaved due to an unpaid debt. If such a slave was to be released from his bondage he must pay his way out, a sum that was called the price of redemption. The slave of course did not set the price of redemption. This was set by the owner. But once the money was raised, regardless of where it came from, the slave was set free. In the New Testament we read often about Christ paying the redemption price for His people. The ‘redemption’ word group (λυτρόω = lutroō, ἀπολύτρωσις = apolutrōsis) is quite common in the New Testament. When the word is used in a salvation context, it always refers to Christ’s atoning work. For example Romans 3:24,
“(we) are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”
In Ephesians 1:6 we find out what the redemption price is.
‘In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.’
The currency that releases one from the bondage of sin is the blood of Christ, and nothing else.
Now the redemption price in both Jewish or Greek contexts, only set free the one for whom the price was paid. So too, in redemption of humanity from sin, the redemption price always has specific objects in view. Jesus said in John 10:14-15,
“I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.”
Christ’s blood was intended for the sheep and the sheep only. He did not say He laid down his life to save everyone, nor did he make a general payment that redeemed anyone who accessed it. He laid down His life for the sheep. The payment was for them alone.
Peter adds to the argument by writing to scattered believers and assuring them that the price of their redemption is sure. He says,
“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” (1 Peter 1:18).
Jesus’ shed blood was the full and sure payment for His sheep. When he bled on the cross that sublime day, He knew whose salvation he was procuring, and it was a salvation that was absolutely certain.
Another word found in the New Testament is also translated ‘redeem’ and it means to buy back something from the market place (ἐξαγοράζω = exagorazó). Slaves were normally sold at outdoor markets or ‘agoras’ the same as any commodity. The picture is instructive. Men are those who belong to the market place of the world. We have sold ourselves to the ministers of evil due to our enslavement to sin. This puts us under the curse of the law wherein God, by His own word, must condemn us. To make matters worse we are also in bondage under the firm clutches of forces of evil and we willingly “walk according to the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:3). We are condemned under the curse of the law and have no amount of power or goodness in us to escape its clutches. (see Gal 3:10). Then along comes Jesus who beholds us, loves us and buys us out of that wretched place by offering up to His father the payment of his own righteousness and placing Himself under the condemned state we were under. We see that angle on redemption referenced in Gal 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.’”
Thus, on the cross Christ stood in our place as the one who paid the debt for our violation of the law. At the same time He offered up His life of perfect compliance to God’s law and gave that beautiful life to His sheep as a love gift. This great transaction further changed the sinner’s status from that of an indebted slave to sons and daughters of a loving Father, from one bound to the filthy market place of sin, to a freeman in the warm and pure confines of the Father’s house.
In all these passages, the very concept of redemption screams efficacy and particularity. It is the price that frees the slave and when the price is paid the slave is freed. When Hosea came to free Gomer he paid the necessary redemption price for her freedom (Hosea 3:2). In the same way, Christ came to earth to buy back His people from the thralldom of sin and death and in this He could not be denied. His payment on the cross was the perfect offering to a perfect and holy Father. Christ has paid the full price of the infinite debt owed by those for whom He died. Hallelujah.
Propitiation
‘If (God’s) wrath is regarded as a very real factor so that the sinner is exposed to its severity, then the removal of the wrath will be an important part of our understanding of salvation.” [9]
This statement by biblical scholar Leon Morris sets the stage for this next aspect of the atonement of Christ. If God is truly angry against sin, then a true atonement must deal with the reality of God’s wrath.
While redemption deals with the great debt man owes to God, propitiation deals with relational breakdown between God and man. The Bible teaches that God is angry against sin. In a soft culture, that truth that is often questioned today. Wrath, say some, is unworthy of God. Truly if God’s anger was like ours that statement would be correct. But God’s wrath is very different than man’s. God’s anger is not impetuous, explosive, vindictive, or capricious. God was sorely vexed by the sin of the world in the ancient days yet the punishment was slow in execution due to the “divine long-suffering in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:20). God is angry against sin; make no mistake about it. As God told Jeremiah, “Take this wine cup of fury from My hand and cause all the nations to whom I send you to drink it.” Verses like this could be multiplied. There are references in almost every book of the Bible to prove that God displays severe anger against sin.[10] God is the eternal Judge and judge the world He must when in His infinite wisdom He deems the day of wrath has come. Nevertheless God’s anger is completely tempered by His grace, mercy and love. This attribute of longsuffering should never cause us to doubt the reality of God’s anger. When one first realizes that man is an incurable sinner and that God stands opposed to all sin, you realize that there is a roadblock between God and man ever finding peace. If there is to be a full atonement, this issue must be dealt with. Christ’s work of propitiation is the only thing that alleviates the great enmity God has against the sinner.
To propitiate means to placate or appease. Romans 1:18 clearly states that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness. God is perfectly holy. He cannot look upon sin without feeling exceeding anger (Hab 1:13). And because God is just, and He must punish perpetrators of evil, God must execute His wrath against sin. There is no way around it. Wrath must come. Thus, for a sinner not to endure God’s wrath something must stand between the angry God and the guilty sinner. That ‘something’ is Jesus Christ who propitiated sin by bearing God’s wrath for His people.[11]
This very possibility that another could bear the wrath for another is woven into the very fabric of God’s justice system. Throughout the Bible, God demonstrates the principle of representative headship. That is, God accepts the work of a representative on behalf of those whom he represents and applies what happens to the representative as if performed by the those represented. We know from Romans chapter 5 this is exactly what happened in the garden. Adam failure to comply to God’s command was passed on to all whom he represented. In a more positive example, in the Old Testament sacrificial system, the lamb of goat received the death sentence on behalf of the sinner who brought the lamb or goat to the priest. So when Christ came to earth He voluntarily accepted the role of being the representative of His people. Galatians teaches that Christ was born as a man under the law and thus freely submitted Himself to all law’s demand on behalf of His people (4:4). And because man failed Christ must die, for the penalty for sin is death (Ezek. 18:3). Peter notes that Christ, “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). Let us be perfectly clear. God punished Jesus Christ not because he was personally guilty – to the contrary He was perfect – but because he was suffering the penalty incurred by His people. Christ as the representative of His people assumed their guilt and therefore must suffer the wrath of God for it.[12] To say it another way, God saw the sins of Christ’s people on that cross and in wrath He consumed them in the body of Jesus. That is propitiation. And the fact that the Father poured out His wrath on the Son was clearly seen in Christ’s incomprehensible cry on the cross, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” (Mt 27:46)?
The question we propose to answer is ‘did Christ bear the wrath of God for a select group or for all men’? Again the answer to this is self-evident if one thinks about it. If God is righteous and displays a righteous anger against the sin of each person individually, “For the soul that sins it must die” (Ezek. 18:3), then the wrath of God must be placated for each sinner individually. There cannot be a general placation of God’s wrath for all because that would infer that all men would escape the wrath of God and on that basis God must save them. No, the placation of God’s wrath must be specific. A terrorist begins to shoot bullets into a crowd and a man jumps in front of his wife and takes the bullet for her. Can the man stop the bullets for hitting all? No, only for the person he determines to save. Jesus stepped in front of the bullet of God’s eternal wrath for a specific group. John 10:11 says, “The shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” Once the bullet strikes Jesus and absorbs God’s wrath, then mercy can now be granted. This is why translators actually render the propitiation word group (ἱλασμός – hilasmos) as merciful in Hebrews 8:12. The tax collector who beat his chest did not ask for a general relief of God’s wrath toward humanity, but rather cried out “be propitious, be merciful to me (ἱλάσθητί - passive voice) a sinner” (Lk 18:13). John declares to his audience that “God...loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). Who is John’s audience? Some have gone back to 1 John 2:2 where John says God propitiates the sins of the whole world. This difficult verse will be discussed in the next chapter. But here in 4:10 it is clear that the recipients of God’s appeasement are the believers to whom John is speaking. Now we must think this through slowly. Propitiation proves again that God’s atonement is for a certain group. If God had sent Jesus to propitiate the sins of everyone and then sent some to hell, what would this say? That God spends His wrath upon Jesus and then punishes the sinner as well? If I have an argument with my neighbor, and then one day I present a gift to him along with an apology and he hugs me, I believe that all is fine between us. But what if the next day I find him trying to dig up my tulips and exercising revenge on me all over again? I would say the man has lied to me about his forgiveness. I would also say he is unjust. In the ‘universalist’ [13] scheme, and in some respects, the Arminian [14] scheme, the wrath of God is propitiated for all men, yet God still sends some to hell anyway. How can that be? If God is no longer angry with mankind in general how can He punish anyone? And think of this, if God can punish an innocent man this is a more frightening thought than hell itself, for if that be true then who is safe?
As previously discussed, It is important to know that the Bible teaches that a substitute can take the punishment for another’s sin. We see this in the case of Moses. In Exodus 32:30-32 Moses approaches God to make atonement for the people who have sinned by worshipping the golden calf. Moses offers to have himself punished (blotted out of God’s book) if God will forgive them. God does not take Moses up on the offer but the principle is established. One man may take the punishment for another. Another instance of this is when Christ is being arrested in the garden. The troops come armed to the hilt. They are ready to arrest Jesus and all with Him. And what does Jesus do. He offers to surrender himself without incident if his disciples can go free. He says,
“I have told you, I am He, therefore if you seek Me let these go their way” (John 18:8).
In other words, let your anger fall on me so that it will not touch these others. In both of these instances we have an example of propitiation. [15] And in both cases those who are shielded from God’s wrath by Christ are a specific group. And in both examples, the benefactors have nothing to say about it. Christ bore the wrath of God for His people and He never asked for permission to do so. Thanks be to God! Simply put, if Christ has suffered the wrath of God for anyone, God’s wrath cannot fall upon that person. That would be to punish the same crime twice. We call it double jeopardy which is an act of pure injustice. Christ is the propitiation for our sins, the sins of His people. Let us rejoice in this great truth.
Reconciliation
Reconciliation may simply be another aspect of Christ’s propitiatory work. Since, however the concept is mentioned in the Bible it is fitting for us to deal with it here. While propitiation aims to placate God’s anger at sinners, reconciliation focuses more on tearing down of enmity that exists between two parties. People who are at enmity with one another and come together in true friendship are considered to be reconciled. A very good example of reconciliation is found in Ephesians 2:14-16 where Paul argues that the gospel has broken down the wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles. Paul says God did this “that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity” (2:16). The word for reconcile (καταλλάσσω = katallassō) is an intense form of the verb ‘to change.’ The idea is that those who are reconciled to God have had their relationship to Him changed from enemy to friend. Usually this is accomplished through the means of a person who stands between both parties or a mediator. In the New Covenant this function is assumed by God’s eternal and faithful High Priest, Jesus Christ. Not only does He placate the Father’s wrath so relationship is possible, but He serves as the one brings the two parties together in order to enjoy that newly revived relationship. Christ is therefore the Reconciler between God and man (1 Tim 2:5).
Once again we ask the question, who are the ones who experience reconciliation? Is every sinner reconciled to God? Or are the benefits of reconciliation only for some? The clearest verse on reconciliation is found in Romans 5:10 where the word is used twice. It says,
“For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”
This verse is part of Paul’s gospel treatise. Having proved that men are justified by faith alone (Romans 4) Paul is out to prove that the justifying act must lead to reconciliation between the Judge and the justified sinner. He notes that this work of reconciliation is solely the work of Christ. He supplies not only the basis for this reconciliation in His death on a cross, but the ongoing maintenance of that relationship which He provides by the power of His Spirit. This means that the sinner’s reconciliation to God does is not complete in with the death of Christ, but the work of reconciliation is a constant work of Christ, who saves us ‘by His (ongoing) life.’ But the question still is, “Are all men reconciled to God or only those for whom Christ acts as the go-between?” Again, if all men are the objects of reconciliation but some go to hell anyway, then the very concept of reconciliation is rendered meaningless. If a man graciously receives a person who has injured him and then publicly tries to harm him every chance he gets then that reconciliation was a sham. This text tells us plainly that Christ’s work as our reconciliation gives us the status of one accepted by God. So if God has reconciled the entire world to himself and yet casts some of those reconciled people into hell, then God is shown to be a liar. Or to say it another way, if God actually reconciled Himself to someone and then continued to treat them as HIs enemy this too would impugn His integrity. The fact is that reconciliation is the status afforded to all of Christ’s people, who have, in faith, accepted the gracious offer of reconciliation.
Some will look at 2 Cor 5:19 and assert that Paul says that the entire world has been reconciled to God. The verse says, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” We will tackle this verse in the next chapter. The quick answer is to understand this verse as Paul’s way of asserting that God’s gospel is a reconciling gospel without making any statement as to its extent. This fact alone should make all reconciled sinners rejoice that the Judge of the universe desires to be on good terms with sinners and has slain His only Son to accomplish it.
Substitution.
Charles Spurgeon often called the doctrine of substitution as the ‘heart of the gospel.’ He further said,
“I have always considered, with Luther and Calvin, that the sum and substance of the gospel lies in that word ‘substitution’ — Christ standing in the stead of man. If I understand the gospel, it is this: I deserve to be lost forever; the only reason why I should not be damned is that Christ was punished in my stead, and there is no need to execute a sentence twice for sin.” [16]
Who could argue with that assertion? The doctrine is so clear in the Bible that is hardly needs defending. In the Old Testament on the Day of Atonement the priest would lay his hands upon the head of the goat while confessing over it the sins of the Jews. What does this symbolize? God is showing us that in order for there to be forgiveness of sins, the sins must be transferred to and punished in another. Now we know that the blood of bulls and goats cannot accomplish this (Heb 10:4). A dumb animal cannot take the place of a human. The Old Testament sacrifices were a picture of the ultimate truth. The true Lamb of God was Christ who took the place of a sinful people. This is why John can point to Jesus and exclaim, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). Indeed everything about the life and death of Christ was done on behalf of His people. Indeed, He lived that perfect life of obedience and that righteousness He gave to His people. Not only that, but He took the place of the condemned sinner at His death and gave Himself up as a sweet smelling offering to God. In every sense, Christ forced Himself into the narrative of the guilty sinner by dying when the sinner should have died and by giving to that sinner His perfect life. This is why Jesus must come to earth as a man, as the one who can take the place of another. Paul says He was a man born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4). And in Romans 8:3 Paul says that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh so that He could condemn sin (our sin) in His flesh. This idea of substitution is most clearly seen in Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 5:21,
“He who knew no sin became sin for us that we might be the righteousness of God in Him.”
Did Christ then substitute Himself for those who will eventually be punished for all eternity? This cannot be. The very concept of substitution must be particularistic. In common life we see this. People in sports or in the classroom substitute for someone specifically. To say that one substitutes for an unspecified object is to deny the very meaning of the word. The fact is that Christ’s entire mission on this earth was both to live and to die in the stead of His people. That’s what the Holy Word says. “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Truly, everything Jesus did was for His people. The idea that Christ lived and died on ‘behalf of His elect’ is the clear teaching of the New Testament. Christ gave Himself on our behalf to die for our sins (Gal 1:4). Later on He was made a curse on our behalf (3:13). He gave Himself as an offering for His people (Eph. 5:2). He gave Himself up for us (Titus 2:14). And who is the ‘us’? “His own special people zealous for good works.” The verses could be multiplied. The point is that Christ took the place of the elect. He took upon Himself their debts, took upon Himself their sin and went to the place of execution in their place. In every sense Christ was the substitute for His people. This should bring great comfort to those who truly trust in Christ. As His child you shall never endure the shame of God’s wrath; if Christ died for you, substituted Himself on that cross for you, then you can live your life in holy confidence knowing Christ has paid for all your sins.
CONCLUSION
Limited or definite or particular atonement is a precious truth for all who name the name of Christ. It says that everything we needed for our salvation was accomplished by Christ for us at the cross. And the knowledge of this comforts us in our deepest seasons of doubt. It turns our eyes away from our own failures and turns them back to the One who lived and died for us and did all that was necessary for our salvation. Jesus redeemed His people and did not fail. He propitiated the wrath of God for His people and did not fail. He reconciled His people to God and did not fail. And He became their substitute so that their deficits became His and His eternal assets became theirs. In every way Christ atoned for the sins of His people. So when the angel is telling a bewildered Joseph what to name Mary’s babe he says, “You will call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). And did He accomplished that for us? How could He fail? He could not fail - and as He was dying on that cross He gave us the final world on the completion of His mission. He said, ”It is finished” (Jn. 19:30). What is finished? The mission that the Father had given Him to die for His people and save them from their sins.
NOTES:
[1] See C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life, Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2002.
[2] See Bromley, Geoffrey . Article on ‘Atone/Atonement’. ISBE. Vol 1, pg 352 Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI. 1979
[3] See Leviticus chapters 1-7 for the many different kinds of blood offerings.
[4] Taken from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. 1996, Grand Rapids Michigan. Andrew H. Trotter. Accessed on July 17, 2024, https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/bed/a/atonement.html
[5] That is not to say the atonement does not have some non-salvific benefits. This shall be discussed later.
[6] Chapters 4 & 5 argue in detail for the truthfulness of God’s election.
[7] 1 Peter 1:18-19 (NKJV)
[8] See Hosea 3:1-3. This Minor Prophet was asked to redeem his wayward wife, this being a picture of how God redeemed a wayward Israel.
[9] Morris, Leon, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids MI. 1994
[10] See Ex 4:14; Nu 11:10; 32:14; Deut 6:15; Josh 7:26; Jud 2:20; 2 Kings 13:3; Ezra 10:14; Ps 30:5; 78:31; Isa 5:25; Jer 12:13…. and on and on it goes.
[11] Other passages could be quoted like Mt 20:28 and Mark 10:45 which limit the work of redemption not to all but to many.
[12] We call this the Penal-Substitutionary view of the atonement. Christ was actually punished for our sins. This idea has been considered by many to be savage and unworthy of God. Some like Steve Chalke have called is ‘cosmic child abuse.’
[13] Universalism. Comes under many faces but ultimately holds that all human beings will be saved at the end.
[14] Basically the Arminian belief is that propitiation is conditional for all and activated by one’s exercise of the will.
[15] The story of Abigail propitiating the wrath of David in 1 Samuel 25 is another good scriptural example of this principle.
[16] Autobiography of Spurgeon, Banner of Truth, Vol 1, pg 94