Download - Does Christ save us Vicariously?
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
1/30
By the beginning of the fourth century the early Church felt the need to state in doctrinal
form the plan of salvation and how that was expressed in the inter-relationship of the
Father and the Son, so that she might be unified in her approach to combating the heresies
which were flooding the Church at this time. The First Ecumenical council, which first
formulated the doctrine of the Trinity and is more commonly known as the First Council of
Nicea, stated in doctrinal form the relationship of the Son to the Father. It was
commissioned by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D; and was finalised at the
Council of Consantinople in 381 A.D, at which the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the
Father and Son came to be stated in doctrinal form. It was not until over one hundred years
later, in 451 A.D. that the Chalcedonian Creed was ratified; which states the orthodox view
of the manner in which the incarnate Christ was made manifest to humanity. This creed was
based upon the confessions of Athanasius, who also formulated the Nicene Creed. He was
recognized as a `Doctor of the Church' in 1568 by Pope St. Pius V; which is a title given by
the Catholic Church to individuals whom they regard as having contributed to the dogma of
the Catholic Church. It is from the writings of Athanasius and in particular `On the
Incarnation' that the doctrine known as vicarious substitution is derived. This doctrineteaches that Christ became our substitute for the punishment which is metered out to us for
our sins, by vicariously suffering on the cross for us and is regarded as orthodox by Catholics
and the majority of the Protestant Churches. The three most commonly held positions of
this doctrine are known as the ransom theoryof the atonement, the satisfaction view of the
atonement, andpenal substitution, which is a variation of the satisfaction view of the
atonement.
The Ransom Theory of the Atonement
The ransom theory of the atonement is believed to be the first major theory of theatonement and was held by the majority of the early Church Fathers until about the twelfth
century. For this reason it is also known as `The Patristic Theory. It can be principally found
in the works of Origen (c 185 254); one of the early Church fathers and is primarily based
upon two sets of Scripture, 1 Timothy 2: 5-6, "For there is one God and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men
the testimony given in its proper time", and Mark 10:45, which reads "For even the Son of
Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many".
Origen believed that as a result of sin, Christ gave His soul to the Devil as a ransom which
was paid to him, in lieu of the human soul being claimed by him.
"But to whom did He [Jesus] give His soul as a ransom for many? Surely not to God. Could it,
then, be to the Evil One? For he had us in his power, until the ransom for us should be given
to him, even the life (or soul) of Jesus, since he (the Evil One) had been deceived, and led to
suppose that he was capable of mastering that soul, and he did not see that to hold Him
involved a trial of strength greater than he was equal to. Therefore also death, though he
thought he had prevailed against Him, no longer lords over Him, He (Christ) having become
free among the dead and stronger than the power of death, and so much stronger than
death that all who will amongst those who are mastered by death may also follow Him
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
2/30
death no longer prevailing against them. For every one who is with Jesus is unassailable by
death." (`Commentary on Matthew XVI, 8; Aulen,op. cit., p. 49. In footnote 13, Aulen
says, "Translation from Rashdall, p. 259. where the Greek is printed in full.")
According to this theory, although Satan was deceived by Christ, justice was still satisfied
and we were freed from the clutches of the Devil. Although the ransom theory of the
atonement still remains the official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it receives little
support from Christian Churches in general.
St. Anselm and the Satisfaction view of the Atonement
Not all Church Fathers supported the Ransom Theory of the atonement. One of the most
notable exceptions was Athanasius, who was largely responsible for formulating the Nicene
and Chalcedonian Creeds. Although it is primarily from Athanasius recorded writings on the
incarnation of Christ that the Church eventually formulated the doctrine of `vicarioussubstitution, the Ransom Theory of the Atonement was generally regarded as the orthodox
view until the eleventh century, when St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033 1109)
asked:
`And as to what you say of His coming to fight the devil, with what sense dare you bring this
forward? Does not Gods omnipotence reign everywhere? How then, for the conquest of
the devil, must God needs come down from heaven? (`Cur Deus Homos; or Why God was
made man, St. Anselm, this translation printed by John Henry and James Parker, London,
1865; p. 10.)
Anselm figured that as the Devil caused the fall in the first place by tempting Adam and Eve
to sin, then why should a ransom be paid to the Devil at all, particularly when the Devil
would not seek justice, but would instead to seek to torment the sinner?
`But the devil never merited any right to punish him [Adam], nay, he would do this with the
greater degree of injustice in that he was not drawn to it by any love of justice, but was
impelled by the spirit of malice. . . . In fact, as in a good angel there is no unrighteousness
whatsoever, so in an evil angel there is no righteousness at all. There was therefore in the
devil no righteous cause why God should not for the deliverance of man put forth Hisstrength against him. (Anselm, pp. 12, 14.)
Anselm instead developed the idea that we are in debt to God because in sinning against
God we have robbed Him of honour which is due to Him and He should therefore be
recompensed:
`Nothing is less tolerable in the order of things, than that a creature should rob the Creator
of the honour which is due to Him and not repay Him that which is due to Him. (`Anselm, p.
32.)
He believed that if the honour were not `repaid, then punishment should follow:
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
3/30
`It is necessary, then, either that the honour taken from Him should be repaid, or that
punishment should follow; otherwise God would either not be just to Himself, or else would
be impotent to exact either demand; which is too horrible to imagine. (Anselm, p. 33.)
But as we are unable to satisfy this debt, satisfaction was made by Christ in our stead. In
substituting His death for our own, He repays the debt we have incurred with merit `which
excels all the sins of men.
`If, then, to give life is to accept death; as the giving of this life excels all the sins of men, so
also does the accepting death *of Christ+. (Anselm, p. 86.)
He also believed that although Christs death is more than sufficient to provide merit for all
the sins of men; this does not fully recompense the offended honour of God, as it is we, not
Christ, who have sinned. Therefore it is our duty to provide satisfaction to Him, by the
means of making restitution to Him, by restoring to Him more than that of which we have
robbed Him:
`Moreover, as long as he [the sinner]does not pay that of which he robbed Him, he
continues in his fault; and it is not enough to only restore to God only what he has taken
away, but he ought also, to make amends for the insult done to God, to restore more thanhe took away. . . . . .So, therefore is everyone who sins bound to pay back the honour of
which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner is bound to make to
God. (Anselm, pp. 27, 28.)
Thus, when theologians speak of making satisfaction to God, they do not imply that Christs
death on the cross in some way pleases or gratifies the Father; but instead declare that
justice can only be provided by the process of making restitution for that which has been
offended, or broken. So it is in this framework that Anselm believed that it is fitting that the
Devil should be allowed to punish man for his sins if satisfaction is not made to God:
`Man, indeed, deserved to be punished, and by none more fitly than by him at whose
persuasion he had consented to sin . . . . . For man either of his own free will exhibits that
subjection to God which is due to Him, whether by not sinning, or making amends for hissin; or else God subjects him to himself by tormenting him against his will, and by this
means shows Himself to be his Lord, which the same man refuses of his own will to
acknowledge. (Anselm, pp. 12, 33, 34.)
Anselm believed that in order for honour be restored to God when we sin, `it is necessary
that every sin must be followed either by satisfaction or punishment. (Anselm, p. 36.) But
for those who did not willingly make sufficient restitution for the insult done to the honour
of God, then this punishment would be an eternalpunishment:
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
4/30
`For those who know nothing of the punishment of sin, and they who behold continually its
eternal punishment, cannot be equally worthy of praise by standing in the truth . . . . Hold it
therefore, as a most certain truth, that without satisfaction, i.e., without a willing payment
of the debt, God cannot let the sinner go unpunished; nor can the sinner attain to
blessedness, even such as he had before he sinned; for if it were so, man would be restoredeven such as he was before his sin. (Anselm, pp. 38, 42.)
Anselm believed that unless satisfaction was made to God - i.e the sinner willingly made
restitution to the debt owed to honour God, then the sinner would be punished eternally,
for `God cannot let the sinner go unpunished' and be restored to a state in which it was if he
had never sinned.
St. Thomas Aquinas and the Satisfaction view of the Atonement
St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 - 1274) refined Anselms theology in `Summa Theologica, whichformed the basis of the Catholic perception of the atonement and was affirmed during the
Council of Trent in the 16th
century. Aquinas differed from Anselm by believing that instead
of a debt ofhonourthat is owed to God when we sin, it is instead a debt ofmoral injustice;
thus concluding that a moral response to sin is to punish the sinner. Instead of allowing the
Devil to become the instrument of Gods wrath, `Satisfactory Punishment draws upon
Christs merit through the sacraments of the Church and pays the moral debt that is owed
to God as `a remedy for the avoidance of sin.
`Satisfactory punishment has a twofold purpose, viz. to pay the debt, and avoidance of sin.
(Gal. 3:28). (The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Art. 2. Supp. Q. 13 a. 1.
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Second and Revised
Edition, 1920.)
The remedy for the avoidance of sin is through payingpenance:
`But satisfaction is commanded (Luke 3:8) "Bring forth . . . fruits worthy of penance."
Therefore it is possible to make satisfaction to God. Further, God is more merciful than any
man. But it is possible to make satisfaction to a man. Therefore it is possible to make
satisfaction to God. Further, there is due satisfaction when the punishment balances thefault, since "justice is the same as counterpassion," as the Pythagoreans said. [Aristotle,
Ethic. v, 5; Cf. II-II, 61, 4+. (Aquinas, Art. 1. Supp. Q. 13 a. 5.)
While Ansell had developed the idea that `. . . the giving of this life [of Christ] excels all the
sins of men'(Anselm, p. 86), Aquinas further refined this idea by postulating that this merit
which `excels all sins of men' is stored in a `Treasury of Merit; from which the sinner might
purchase `indulgences; which are a form of pre-paid `insurance which is credited to our
`account in case we commit `venial, or non-mortal sins. Aquinas also believed that self-
inflicted punishment, such as self-flagellation merited grace in this `Treasury of Merit, aslong as it equalled, or excelled the pleasure contained in the committed sin.
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
5/30
`Now punishment may equal the pleasure contained in a sin committed. Therefore
satisfaction can be made to God. (`Summa Theologica, Art. 1. Supp. Q. 13 a. 5.)
Of course, if the self-inflicted punishment excelledthe pleasure contained in the sin
committed, this merit could be accredited to ones `Treasury of Merit and thereby avoid
future sins in the form ofindulgences.
Penal Substitution
This idea of justlypunishing men for their sins led to Jean (John) Calvin (1509 1564), the
French reformist theologian to rebel against the concept of salvation through the
sacraments of the Church, by forming the doctrine ofpenal substitution. He believed that
the individual may approach Christ by faith, Who substitutes for the punishment which is
due to us; thus appeasing the wrath of God so that mercy and the grace of Jesus can then
accredited to the sinner. But as Christ already knows who are His, then only the `elect arepredestinedto be saved and it is impossible for them to fall out of salvation. It typically
presents God the Father as the wrathful God of the Old Testament, and Christ as the God of Love
and peace in the New Testament, and is prone to lending itself to antinomianism, which is the belief
that it matters not what you do, for you will still be saved - a doctrine which is largely responsible for
the worldly behaviour which is prevalent in Protestant Churches today.
The Reformed theology of Calvin teaches that it is God who has initiated salvation in the form of the
atonement; thus irresistibly drawing the sinner to Him; rather than the Son appeasing the Father
through His `superabundant merit, as Aquinas taught. However, where Reformed theology,
or Calvinism did not depart from Aquinas' theology, is upon Aquinas' conception of the `nature' of
man, which he termed `original sin', and is derived from Romans 5: 12, which states:
`Just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all
men, because all have sinned.' (Rom. 5:12.)
Calvinism teaches that as a result of the fall, the `nature' of man is totally depraved, thus meaning
that doctrines which teach that man has free will deny the atonement of Christ and are therefore
regarded as heresy. According to the doctrine of `original sin', no man has a measure of `preventing
(or prevenient) grace' which has been conferred to him by the Holy Spirit and is thus sufficient for
salvation; as Jacob Arminius (1560 - 1609) declared in his `Five articles of the Remonstrants' against
Calvinism (1610) , for no man has some good in him which has been untouched by Adam's fall from
grace and thus guides them in making a good' decision to follow God. According to Aquinas'
doctrine of `original sin', this is impossible, as the nature of man is totally depraved, thus resulting in
man being unable of his own accord to choose right instead of wrong; which thus necessitates that it
is only by the influence of the Holy Spirit that man can do right, for if one is to rely upon the `free
will' of man to do right, he is completely incapable of doing anything but evil. Therefore if one is to
say that man has free will in choosing Christ, then therefore his works are accounted as having merit
in his salvation, for man has initiated the first move in his salvation, and thus denies the work of
grace in his salvation; which is thus a denial of the saving power of Christ. Furthermore, if one is to
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
6/30
say that the prevenient grace of God is given to all men, then this is universalism, which teaches that
ultimately all men will be saved. Clearly, the Scriptures indicate that this is a fallacy.
While reformed theology eventually formed the basis of Protestant Churches which hold to
the Westminster Confession as the basis of their belief - to say that all Protestant Churches believe
that only the elect can be saved is a misnomer. Unfortunately, none of these positions adequately
reflect the `agape', or love of Christ, for all of these positions are ultimately derived from St.
Augustine's doctrine of `original sin', which was heavily influenced by the Greek Platonic conception
of God, which is to say that He is both ineffable and unknowable, and thus completely transcends
human affairs. Therefore we must go in search of Him so that we might find Him, and purify our
souls so that they might return to the One from which they originated in the first place. As Platonic
philosophy is also dualistic in nature, one component of Platonic philosophy which heavily
influenced the inception of the early Church and ne-Platonists such as Augustine, was the belief that
the material plane of existence is basically evil and corrupt, and is a hindrance to the soul which
yearns to break free from it:
` Like Jerome for his part, Augustine vigorously attacked the idea, inherited from Neoplatonism . . . .
that the body is a jail assigned to punish it for a sin prior to incorporation. Adam's sin had not
resulted in the human soul falling in the body, but in debilitating the body, rendering it mortal and
passing this weakness and mortality on to his descendants.' (`Saint Augustine', S. Lancei, 2002, p.
410.)
Yet Augustine did not break free completely from the Neo-Platonism of his youth, as this is apparent
in the manner in which he framed the doctrine of `original sin'.
St. Augustine and original sin'
St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430), first developed the doctrine of `original sin' in a logical and
comprehensive format, and was eventually rewarded with the honorific `Doctor Gratiae' (Doctor of
Grace) in 1298 A.D. Augustine was heavily influenced by Manicheanism and neo-Platonism, which
declares that everything which is of this material plane of existence is so far removed from the One-
in-all pantheistic god, that all things which are tethered to this plane of existence have lost all
knowledge (gnosis)of their True, or Realistic (divine) Self. As the body is believed to be essentially
evil, it therefore weighs down the soul, which yearns to break free from the confines of the body
which corrupts it with its material essence.
Augustine's neo-Platonism compelled him to believe that the fall so hopelessly corrupted the souls
of men, that man is incapable of making the `good' decision of choosing God. Therefore:
`Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it by
generation that he transmits sin . . . (`Online Catholic Encyclopedia', art. `Original Sin in Scripture' &
`The Nature of Original Sin' http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm.)
In other words, Adam's sin is transmitted to us by genetic inheritance, thus making it impossible for
us to ever overcome sin, for sin is the very essence of our mortal being. It eventually led to the idea
of paying penance in the form of indulgences to the `Treasury of Merit', so that we can avoid sinning
in the future, paying penance for the souls that are suffering in purgatory, so the agony the endure
in the flames of hell might be lessened, the belief that the sacrifice of Christ, plus the doing of good
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
7/30
works are meritorious in one's salvation, for Christ is too impotent to save us, and we must do good
works to make up the difference. Augustine's doctrine of `original sin' is derived from a rather
narrow interpretation of Romans 5: 12, which states that:
`Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for all that all have sinned. . .
The following passage further explains this doctrine:
`(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of
one man (i.e., all men) were made sinners (Romans 5: 19) . . .'
(3) Moreover, the Apostle did not affirm that all men, in imitation of Adam, are mortal on account of
their actual sins; since children who die before coming to the use of reason have never committed
such sins; but he expressly affirms the contrary in the fourteenth verse: "But death reigned", not
only over those who imitated Adam, but "even over them also have not sinned after the similitude
of the transgression of Adam." Adam's sin, therefore, is the sole cause of death for the entire human
race . . . We know that several of the Latin Fathers understood the words "in whom all have sinned",
to mean, all have sinned in Adam . . . one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the
death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul.
Therefore . . . original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.' (ibid.)
The studious reader will note that the `a priori' belief of the `natural immortality of the
soul' necessitates that the `death' spoken of here refers solely to the death which we suffer when
we reach the end of this mortal coil, for "the death of the soul" can only refer to the soul being cut
off from any hope of salvation forever, while nevertheless burning in endless torment in the fires of
hell, for reason that it is impossible for the soul to die.
Unfortunately, Augustine's bent toward Manicheanism and neo-Platonism compelled him to ignore
the rest of the text, which is summarised in verses 18 and 19, and is in fact completely opposed to
the doctrine of `original sin' which Augustine formulated, for this is how the text reads when the
summary is included:
`Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned . . .Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men
to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience
of one many shall be made righteous.' (Romans 5: 12, 18, 19.)
Notice carefully that the apostle Paul quite clearly tells us that by the `offence of one - that is Adam;
judgment was passed upon all men and all men were condemned by the law. Now, if that were all
that he were telling us, then this would be ample justification for the doctrine of `original sin', and
instead of the Gospel being good news, it instead becomes bad news, for according to Augustine's
doctrine of `original sin', we would be condemned with little hope of salvation, for in Augustine's
view of salvation, if Christ were to take upon Himself `flesh' which is in fact regarded by Catholic
theology as sin, then Christ would be a sinner by default, for Greek logic determines that the flesh of
fallen man is hopelessly corrupt by genetic inheritance, which thus necessitates that therefore Christ
must vicariously assume sinless flesh; which effectively quarantines His divinity from being tempted
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
8/30
to sin - for temptation is in itself is accorded to be sin! Therefore Christ is declared to have assumed
what is known in theological terms as the pre-lapsarian, or sinless flesh which Adam had before the
fall. Thus Christ is made to be entirely unlike us, and is placed so far beyond our human experience,
that we need the assistance of a Priest so that we may find Him.
Moreover, that most famous Scripture which was uttered by the `beloved disciple clearly teaches
that `God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to us! If Christ was truly given to
us, then He has come all the way down from the lofty heights of heaven so that He might meet us
where we need Him; that is in `flesh that was tempted to sin - for the doctrines of `original
sin' and `vicarious atonement' go hand in hand - if one is to believe in one doctrine, one invariably
believes in the other as well, simply because Augustine's Platonism determined that he must believe
that Adam's sin is transmitted to us, and Christ must be quarantined from having this sin transmitted
to Him by taking upon Himself the `sinless flesh' of Adam before the fall - which is flesh which cannot
be corrupted by the material plane of existence in which we dwell; for the Greek philosophers
viewed matter as inherently evil and therefore corrupt. This in turn led to a host of other doctrines,
such as the doctrine of the `Immaculate Conception', which teaches that when Mary, the mother of
Jesus was conceived, at the moment of her conception, `original sin' was not transmitted to her:
`The ancient writer of De Nativate Christi, found in St. Cyrprian's works, says: Because (Mary) being
"very different from the rest of mankind human nature, but not sin, communicated itself to her.'
(`The Glories of the Catholic Church: The Catholic Christian Vol. 1, Challoner, Brann & Shea, 1895, p.
172.)
Obviously, as this `human nature' of Mary was totally unlike ours, it must have been `like' the
human nature of Adam before He fell - and that same `human' nature was then passed on
genetically from Mary to Christ.
`We affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word of God . . . . by being born of the
virgin, thus taking to himself from her maternal womb a human nature of the same substance as
hers. As far as the sublime mystery of the incarnation can be reflected in the natural order, the
blessed Virgin, under the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by communicating to the Second Person
of the adorable Trinity, as mothers do, a true human nature of the same substance with her own, is
thereby really and truly his mother.' (`Faith of our Fathers', Cardinal Gibbons, 1917, p. 137.)
Thus we find that this `true human nature' which was transmitted from Mary to Christ is
so unlike ours, that it has no real bearing on our humanity at all, for we are not sinless, like Adamwas when he communed with God in the Garden of Eden. For Christ was no actor merely wailing his
lines, as the doctrine of vicarious substitution teaches - for although law permits men to be
pardoned from their crimes, no law on earth will allow an innocent man to substitute his life for
another, for reason that his innocence of the crime merits no punishment - which is at odds with
what is taught by the doctrine of `vicarius substitution', which would be regarded as unlawful in any
court of Law. So it is with Christ. If Christ were to merely assume the flesh of Adam before he sinned,
then this flesh would not be subject to condemnation and it would be unlawful for Christ to
substitute His `sinless' flesh for our fallen flesh. But if in being tempted to sin, He yet remained
sinless, while at the very same time defeating sin `in the flesh', for `in all things it behoved him to be
made like unto his brethren' (Hebrews 2: 17), then that `flesh' of which He is `made' of is our flesh,
and as our flesh is subject to the condemnation of the law, then He was `made' to be that which the
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
9/30
very law condemns - which is then lawful, for that kind of flesh is subject to the condemnation of the
law - and it is that kind of flesh, which is my flesh and your flesh which He crucified on the cross.
`For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.' (Romans 8: 3.)
Thus, being made in the `likeness' of sinful flesh, Christ voluntarily brought Himself under the
condemnation of the law, so that at Calvary, He did not make a mockery of the law by
merely substituting His perfect life for our sinful lives, but on the cross literally became the sin of the
entire world. But here we must exercise a word of caution, for Christ was `made' in the likeness of
`sinful flesh'; which does not imply that he was born with a sinful mind, as Augustine would have
thought that these passages of Scripture infer. For the second chapter of Ephesians emphasizes that
the first man (Adam) at first had the mind of God, but when he first sinned, he forsook it and took
upon himself the mind of Satan. Thus, when Satan first sinned, he began to exhibit a mind of
selfishness, which is contrasted with Christ; whose mind is complete selflessness. The first exhibits
the mind of `Eros'; which is the word which the Greek philosophers used to describe the character of
God, while the second exhibits the mind of `Agape'; which was a little known Greek word which the
disciples of Christ infused with new meaning, and used it to describe the love of Christ. They refused
to say that `God is Eros', and instead declared that `God is Agape'; for Plato's God of Eros was so
entirely divorced from the affairs of fallen man, that therefore we must go in search of him to find
him; and only the clever are lucky enough to find him in the place where he might be found. Thus,
the Greek philosophers based their conception of how society should be modelled upon their
conception of God, and accordingly believed that only those who have alreadyproven that they are
good, are worth saving. Thus salvation became an arduous process, in which few ever realized their
True (or realistic) Self - and thus achieved salvation by their own efforts. Yet the conception of
`Agape' which Christ taught to the disciples was so breath-takingly differently to that which was
believed in the Greco-Roman world, that the disciples taught that while the Greeks believed that the
greatest form of love is demonstrated by a man laying down his life for his friends, the Christian God
(Jesus) taught by His own actions - that one Man lay down His life at Calvary, for those who are
enemies to Him, for God loves the unlovable:
`For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a
righteous man will one die: yet possibly for a good man some would even dare to die. But God
commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then,
being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall
be saved by his life. (Romans 5:6-10)
Indeed, when we consider how the incarnate Christ demonstrated the `agape' of God to the world,
John the Revelator , the `beloved disciple of Christ' begins his Gospel with an emphasis that differs
from the other three writers of the Gospel, for he specifically focuses upon Christ Himself
tabernacling among us in a `tent' of human flesh:
`The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth' (John 1: 14.)
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
10/30
However, the translation which reads `and dwelt among us' is not really an accurate translation, as it
should read:
`And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us in a tent . . . '
John wrote the Book of Revelation under divine inspiration, in which we find the rich symbology ofthe Sanctuary service of the Old Testament is relegated to the Sanctuary service in the New
Testament, in which Christ is depicted as ministering to fallen humanity in the Heavenly Sanctuary,
and intimately connects the `flesh' which Christ assumed, with this ministration to us - for Scripture
teaches that Christ is near to us, even at the door of our hearts, instead of so far away that we must
enlist the aid of a Priest so that we might find Him. Unfortunately though, most Christians believe
that anything which pertains to the Old Testament solely pertains to the `Old Covenant of
works' which was made between God and Moses and therefore no longer applies, because we are
now in the `New Covenant of Grace' - which thus means that this intimate connection between the
Sanctuary service depicted in the Old Testament, and the ministration of Christ which is depicted to
us specifically in the Book of Hebrews and the Book of Revelation is broken, and has also been lost to
humanity. For if it is true that the `Old Covenant' of works relates specifically to the Old Testament
and the Jewish people of today, then why does John refer directly to the Hebraical Sanctuary of the
Old Testament when he speaks of beholding `the glory of Christ as the only begotten of the
Father',in a `tent' of flesh? For John is suggesting that just as it was in the Tent of the Tabernacle in
which the pre-incarnate Christ revealed His glory to the Israelites as the Shekinah Presence, or Spirit
of God in the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle, it was in a tent of human `flesh' that Christ revealed
His glory to all humanity.
Other writers, such as Paul the apostle reveal that the way by which the glory of Christ is revealed to
fallen man, is by saving fallen man in a `tent' of flesh which is very much like our own:
`Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part
of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he
took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all
things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful
high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that
he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help them that are tempted.' (Hebrews 2: 14-
18)
Paul is emphatic that this is the only way by which Christ couldsave fallen man, so that He is able to
save to the uttermost all who call upon His Name, for reason that whatever is not assumed cannot
be saved. According to Scripture, Christ did not take upon Himself the lofty `nature' of unfallen
angels who have never experienced the temptation to sin, or the `nature' of the unfallen Adam,
who stood in the Garden of Eden and communed daily with God, but was instead born into this
world four thousand years later, at which time He took upon Himself a human body which had been
subject to the cumulative effects of four thousand years of the degradation of sin weakening the
resolve of fallen man to live in harmony with the will of God. For if Christ had taken upon Himself the
`nature' of unfallen angels, or His temptation was limited to innocent infirmities such as hunger and
thirst, it would have been impossible for Him to give fallen man help where we need it most - which
is in `the likeness of sinful flesh'.
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
11/30
Therefore if Christ were to identify with His brethren, it was essential that He be made `like unto His
brethren', so that we might be sure our Elder Brother has been tempted by the same temptations
which we are tempted with, yet victoriously overcame them by constantly being connected with His
Father by the Holy Spirit of the Father. Therefore, while the `flesh' which He assumed was assailed
by the `accuser of the brethren' (the Devil) and was tempted to sin, His Divine Mind which He shared
with the Father by the Holy Spirit of the Father was a bulwark of righteousness which was more than
able to overcome the temptations of the devil. For this reason, in Philippians 2: 5 we are exhorted to
simply let this same mind that was in Christ Jesus be in us, for that same mind is our bulwark against
the sins that so easily beset us. But we cannot force His mind into our mind; to try to do so is
legalism, for our selfish mind must instead die to self and instead be filled with the selflessness
which is in Christ. We are to instead behold the cross and the life-changing event that transpired
there, so that we might develop a heart-felt appreciation of the self-less `agape' love which the
Father and Son have for us, so that our selfish mind (or `old man of sin' of sin, as Paul calls it) which
is our `natural' inheritance as a result of the fall, will die to sin and is thus be crucified with Christ on
the cross. Thus, as we draw closer to Christ, we no longer want to do the sins that formerlyentrapped us, as Christ imparts the same `agape' love into our hearts that impelled Him to die on the
cross for our sins, for by some mysterious process of alchemy that changes the desire of our
hearts, `by beholding, we are changed'(2 Corinthians 3: 18) .
In the original Greek, the word which John uses to describe the flesh is the Greek word `sarx'. John
uses this word when He tells us that the `the word became flesh (sarx) and dwelt among us in a
tent', and again when he says that:
`Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God' (1 John 4: 2).
It is also precisely the same word which the apostle Paul uses when he says:
`Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part
of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage' (Hebrews 2:
14).
Therefore the `flesh' which Paul speaks of is the same `flesh' which John speaks of, for if it were not
so, he would have informed us by using an entirely different word! But he does not - he employs the
word `sarx', and it was in the `sarx' that Christ was made like unto His brethren, and it was in
the `sarx', that He crucified sin! John is emphatic when he stresses that anyone who teaches thatChrist did not come in the `sarx' is not of God, and this is the spirit of antichrist:
`And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God: and this is
that spirit of antichrist, whereof all of you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it
in the world.' (1 John 4: 3.)
During the second and third centuries Apologists such as Justyn Martyr assiduously fought against a
gnostic sect called the Docetists who believed that Christ was a mere phantom who seemed to
manifest Himself in flesh (original Greek; `dokeo'- to seem ; but this was merely an illusion, for they
believed that it was impossible for God to manifest Himself in `flesh', without corrupting His divine
nature. Ironically, men such as Justin believed that the `flesh' which Christ manifested Himself could
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
12/30
not be tempted to sin, and it is this belief which John regarded as antichrist. And why? Because if
Christ had assumed `flesh' which had not been tempted to sin (which is the flesh of Adam before the
fall), then this flesh of the sinless Adam which is mysteriously substituted for ours in the form of
`vicarious substitution' cannot save us, for in order to provide a complete atonement for sin, that
which is saved must first be assumed - and if Christ came in the `flesh' of Adam before the fall, then
this is the only flesh which He can save, for our `flesh' is entirely different to that of a sinless Adam
before he `fell' into sin!
The classic perception which adherents to the doctrine of `vicarious substitution' have is
that the `flesh' which Christ substitutes equates to the `flesh' which Adam had by natural
right before he fell into sin. This `sinless flesh' - or the `pre-lapsarian' nature of Christ (as
theologians call it ), is the human nature which they believe Christ assumed. They believe
that although the `nature' which He took upon Himself was subject to `innocent infirmities'
such as thirst and hunger, He could not assume `flesh' which is like ours; that is `flesh' which
is subject to being tempted to sin, as they believe that this would in itself constitute the
corruption of the divinity of Christ by sin. Logically, Christ would, in essence become a
sinner. They therefore formulated doctrines which ensured that His divinity was
quarantinedfrom sin by taking upon Himself `sinless flesh' which cannot be tempted by the
sins of which we are all tempted of. Unfortunately, one of the problems associated with this
position is that in partaking of `sinless flesh', Christ is so far removed from the trials and
tribulations of humanity, Christ is unable to give fallen humanity `help' where we need it
most - that is in `flesh' which is tempted to sin. Instead of being like us, He is unlike us -
separated from us by a vast chasm which insulates Him from experiencing our trials and
tribulations, We are forced to go in search of Him, in order that we might find Him, and the
Greek god of `Eros' who is entirely remote from fallen humanity is perpetuated in
Christianity.
Vicarius substitution presents fallen humanity with an incomplete atonement, for in
presenting us with a Christ who has partaken of `sinless flesh', we are of necessity
presented with a Christ whose humanitywas assailed at Calvary and not His divinity, for if
His divine nature were tempted to sin by avoiding the cross and leaving us to our fate, for
Augustine believed that this temptation to sin would constitute sin in itself. In this position,
Christ never really overcame and defeated sin at the Cross, simply because He never
experienced the temptation to sin which is presented to fallen, and therefore mortal man.
So although the Chalcedonian Creed teaches that Christ had two natures in His human
incarnation, in reality because Christ took upon Himself `flesh' which cannot be tempted to
sin, then therefore His human nature is so closely aligned to His divine nature, that it is
virtually indistinguishable from it; thus leaving us with a Christ who was never tempted by
sin at all and therefore only died on the cross in His humanity. But although divinity cannot
die, the moral imperative of the broken law demands that Christ experiences the equivalent
of a divine sacrifice; which is eternal separation from the Father, in what the Bible describes
as the `second death'. (Rev. 20:12-15)
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
13/30
As `vicarious substitution' in its various forms teaches that Christ's divinity was quarantined
from corruption, by assuming that the incarnate Christ manifested Himself in the pre-
lapsarian nature of Adam, then in reality this theology infers that a human sacrifice was
accorded to fallen man at Calvary. However, as only a divine sacrifice can satisfy the judicial
equity of the law, then this doctrine cannot possibly present the crucifixion of Christ as anadequate ransom for the penalty of the broken law. For if a human offering, or sacrifice
couldsatisfy the demands of the broken law, then my works would have merit in my
salvation. The Catholic view of the atonement reflects this, in the belief that faith, plus
works equate to salvation - for of itself, the blood of Christ is of insufficient merit to redeem
us from our sins. Therefore we are saved by the sacraments of the Church, as well as good
works, to make up the deficit. However, in the very first story in the Bible which points
forward to the Redeemer at Calvary, the story of the offerings which Cain and Able provided
as a sin offering to the Lord teaches us that in no way can one's `works' contribute to one's
salvation.
The two brothers were tested to see if they would believe the word of God, just as Adam,
their father, had been tested before them. Adam had presented to them Christ as the Lamb,
slain from the foundation of the world', and that provision had been made for the
forgiveness of sins by the shed blood of the Lamb.
Abel erected an alter of sacrifice to the Lord, just as the Lord directed him, and `brought of
the firstlings of his flock [of sheep] and of the fat thereof', thus looking forward in time to
Calvary and recognizing the promised Saviour to come as his sin offering. Fire came down
from heaven and consumed the offering, and the Lord `had respect unto Abel and his
offering' (Genesis 4: 4).
But the spirit of Cain manifested itself differently; it was the same spirit of pride, self-
reliance, self-exultation and ultimately rebellion which was manifest when Lucifer, who was
the mightiest of the angels, first sinned against the Creator.
`How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how are you cut down to the
ground, which did weaken the nations! For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north' (Isaiah 14: 12,13.)
He was originally created as a beautiful creature and sang praises to God. He walked `upon
the Holy Mountain of God' and stood in the very presence of the Father, holy and undefiled.
Second only to Christ, he was originally the first of the two `covering cherubs' which are
pictured in the Most Holy Place as overseeing the Law of God:
`You have been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the ruby,
topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and
the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of your timbrels and of your pipes was prepared
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
14/30
in you in the day that you were created. You are the anointed cherub that covers; and I have
set you so: you were upon the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the
midst of the stones of fire.' (Ezekiel 28: 13-14)
But Lucifer, who had been created by Christ Himself, for some mysterious reason which is
known only to him, found himself desiring to be equal with Christ. The Bible states that he
was created perfectly and there was no flaw in him until `iniquity', or lawlessness was found
in him:
`You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in
you.' (Ezekiel 28: 15)
He thought it unfair that Christ should be exalted above him, and desired to receive the
same favour from the Father which Christ received as His natural rightas the only-begotten
Son of God. After indulging in a spirit of self-exultation and anarchy for a season, hepetitioned the Father to give to him also the favour with which Christ was endowed and
elevate him to the same status. The Father tenderly informed him that although his exalted
position set him first and foremost above all of the other angels, this was impossible, for he
himself was created by Christ. The Scripture states that over time, his great pride in himself
led him to exalt himself:
`Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you have corrupted your wisdom by reason
of your brightness.' (Ezekiel 28:17)
Over time, as he began to exalt Himself as being equal with Christ, so also did he harbour a
spirit of resentment and injustice in his heart and determined that:
` I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.' (Isaiah 14:14)
He spread rumours among the other angels that the Law of God was arbitrary and unfair
and was so designed so that He might be able to unfairly manipulate all of creation. He
eventually persuaded many of the angels to join him. Eventually this discontent became
manifest in open rebellion which escalated to war against the Most High. Lucifer and the
angels which openly sided against him were cast down to earth.
`And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the
dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in
heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan,
which deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out
with him.' (Rev. 12: 7-9)
Although Cain erected an altar as did his brother, it was not in the spirit of gladly recognizing
that sometime in the future there would come a Redeemer who would wash away his sins,
so that they might be as white as snow. he instead chose the course of self-dependenceand made an offering of fruit to the Lord, which was the product of his own hands.
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
15/30
`But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very angry, and his
countenance fell' (Genesis 4:5).
Cain was grudging in his obedience to the Lord - although he built the altar as instructed, he
did not bring a slain lamb and the offering of its blood, but instead only rendered a partial
obedience by producing the fruit of his own hands. Nor did he present himself before the
Lord as a penitent sinner - instead of depending upon the merits of the promised Redeemer
to come and recognizing that only He could atone for his sins, he instead depended upon
self.
"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." (Hebrews 11:4)
While Abel chose to recognize Christ as his Saviour, and by faith rendered obedience to God,
Cain chose unbelief, rebellion and reliance upon self. The lesson of Cain and Able teaches us
that to indulge in `works' is to indulge in self, with rebellion against God and His Law as theultimate outcome. Thus the reliance upon `self' instead of God became came to be
demonstrated in all religions which do not perceive that only a divine atonement, and not
the `works' of one's hands, can satisfy the judicial equity of the broken law, and thus repair
the breach between man and God, which has been created because of sin. Yet it is God
Himself, not man who initiates the first move in the salvation of man, for:
`All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us
the ministry of reconciliation.' (2 Cor. 5:18)
As the Father knows that it is impossible of ourselves to rise any higher than Adam's fallen
estate, for when Adam first sinned he received the mind of selfishness from the Devil, and
as we are the children of Adam, in our natural estate that mind of selfishness estranges us
from God; then the Father has reconciled Himself to us by providing His dear Son as the
means of reconciling fallen man back to God. The various positions which are taken by the
doctrine of `vicarious substitution' fail to recognize this fact, and instead provide us with an
atonement which is ego-centric, and subtly reflects the faith of the god of Eros of the
Greeks, by declaring `What's in it for me?; and then inferring that we have bought into a
good bargain, for it is we who have initiated the first move in salvation. Thus, none of these
positions on soteriology - which is the study ofhowChrist saves us adequately reflect the
position taken by the disciples of Christ, for they miss one very important point - and that is
the relationship which the High Priest had with his people - for Christ is not only our divine
Saviour; but He is our High Priest as well!
The `Solidarity' view of the Atonement
The New Testament Scriptures and in particular the book of Hebrews - reflect the manner in
which the Hebrew people thought which was totally unlike the manner in which the western mind
thinks. Whereas we tend to think in terms of individuality, they tended to think in terms of eachindividual comprising one part of a corporate whole, which comprised the summary affection of
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
16/30
Gods grace. . For instance, the following text reveals that Christ viewed His people as a Father views
a Son:
`When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' (Hosea 11: 1.)
The apostle Paul affirms that each individual member is a part of the corporate body the Church;and when the individual suffers, then the relationship of the entire corporate body of the Church
suffers as well:
`That there should be no division in the body; but that the members should have the whereas same
care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one
member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now all of you are the body of Christ, and
members in particular.' (1 Cor. 12: 25 - 27.)
This thought permeates the New Testament and supports the idea that Christ is the Husband, the
Church His bride, and He and His Church are to be one, just as He and His Father are one, and the
apostle Paul tells us that each individual member is a part of the corporate body the Church; and
when the individual suffers, then the relationship of the entire corporate body of the Church suffers
as well. (verse 25 27.) This thought permeates the New Testament and supports the idea that
Christ is the Husband, the Church His bride, and He and His Church are to be one, just as He and His
Father are one:
`Holy Father, keep through thine own name those thou has given me, that they may be one, as we
are one . . . . . Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through
their word; that they may be one: as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one
in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me. (John 17:11, 20 21.)
Just as Christ is in the Father, and desires that we be in Him, so also in the Old Testament the High
Priest was a type of Christ, and the people were also reckoned to be in Him, for in His human
incarnation Christ became the second representative man; the second Adam, and all men are
reckoned as either being in Adam, the first representative man of the entire race who sinned, or
Christ, who was the second representative Man of the entire race who didn't sin:
`Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the
similitude of Adams transgression, who is the figure of him *Christ+ that was to come (Rom: 5:14).
Thus, the `Agape' love of the Father is the Channel of Blessing of unrequited grace that flows like ariver independent of the Father, from the Father to the Son, and thence to us; for just as Christ is in
the Father, and desires that we be in Him, so also in the Old Testament the High Priest was a
representation of a type of Christ, and all Israel were reckoned to be in Him, as this following study
on the High Priest of Israel demonstrates:
`THE HIGH PRIEST AS A SYMBOL
The High Priest in his official capacity was not simply a man. He was an institution; he was a
symbol; he was the embodiment of Israel. He bore the names of Israel in the two onyx
stones upon his two shoulders for a memorial; he carried them in the twelve preciousstones in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart; he borethe judgment of the
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
17/30
children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually. (Ex. 28:12, 29, 30.) He thus
carried Israel both on his shoulders and on his heart. On his shoulders he carried the
burdens of Israel; in the breastplate, on his heart, the seat of affection and love the mercy
seat he carried Israel. In the Urim and the Thummimthat is, the Lights of Perfections
(verse 30, A.R.V., margin)he bore the judgment of the children or Israel upon his heart;in the golden crown upon the miter inscribed with HOLINESS TO THE LORD, he bore the
iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts,
and that they may be accepted before the Lord (verses 36 38).
The High Priest was to act for men in things pertaining to God, `to make propitiation for the
sins of the people (Heb. 2:17). He was the mediator who ministered for the guilty. `The High
Priest represented the whole people. All Israelites were reckoned as being in him. The
prerogative held by him belonged to the whole of them (Ex. 19:6 Vitringa). That the High
Priest did represent the whole congregation appears, first from his bearing the tribal nameson his shoulders in the onyx stones, and second, in the tribal names engraved in the twelve
gems of the breastplate. The divine explanation of this double representation of Israel in the
dress of the High Priest is, he `shall bear their names before Jeh upon his shoulders for a
memorial (Ex. 28: 12,29). Moreover, his committing heinous sin involved the people in his
guilt: `If the anointed priest shall sin so as to make the people sin. The anointed Priest, of
course, is the High Priest. When he sinned, the people sinned. His official action was
reckoned as their action. The whole nation shared in the trespass of the representative. The
converse appears just as true. What he did in his official capacity, as prescribed by the
Lord,was reckoned by the whole congregation: Every High Priest . . . . is appointed for men(Heb. 5: 1). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, p. 2439, art. Priest.
The representative character of the high priest should be stressed. Adam was the
representative man. When he sinned, the world sinned, and death passed upon all men.
(Rom. 5:12) "By one man's offence death reigned; . . . by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners." Verses 17-19.
So likewise Christ, being the second man and the last Adam, was the representative
man. "It is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a
quickening spirit . . . . The first man is of earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from
heaven." 1 Cor. 15:45-47. "As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men tocondemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to
justification of life." Rom. 5:18. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous." Verse 19. "For as in Adam all
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. 15:22. The high priest, being in a special
sense a figure of Christ, was also the representative man. He stood for all Israel. He carried
their burdens and sins. He bore the iniquity of all the holy things. When he sinned, Israel
sinned. When he made atonement for himself, Israel was accepted.' (`The Sanctuary and its
Service, M.L Andreason, 1947, pp. 53-55.)
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
18/30
One of the problems associated with the belief that Christ manifested Himself to humanity
in `flesh' that cannot be tempted to sin (as outlined in the various positions which teach
`vicarious substitution), is that these positions present us with a Saviour who is not
sufficiently close enough to humanity to be able to save humanity `to the uttermost'. Yet, as
we have already seen, the High Priest in the Sanctuary service of old prefigured Christ inevery detail in the manner of which Christ saves us. As demonstrated so succinctly in the
above text, the Sanctuary service teaches us that the High Priest so closely identified himself
with his people, that `his official action was regarded as their action' - we have a Saviour
Who identifies with us so closelythat He is near to us, even at the door to our hearts. (Rev.
3:20) More so, if the High Priest sinned, then the entire nation of Israel was involved in his
guilt. This is reflected by Christ's victorious sinless life, and His subsequent crucifixion at
Calvary, for if the Devil had indeed tempted Christ to sin, we would all be `dead in our sins';
lost and without hope of a resurrection.
Although these positions teach that he was afflicted by `innocent infirmities' such hunger or
thirst, He cannot be tempted by sins of a carnal nature; which of course means that He
could not be `made in the `likeness of sinful flesh; thus leaving us with a dilemma. It fails
to accurately portray the character of God! Scripture tells us in that most famous quotation
from the `beloved disciple that `God so loved the world that He gaveHis only begotten Son
to us (John 3:16). If Christ was truly given to us, then He has come all the way down from
the lofty heights of heaven, so that He might meet us where we need Him; that is in `flesh
that was tempted to sin. But although law permits men to be pardoned from their crimes,
no law on earth will allow an innocent man to substitute his life for a murderer who issubject to the death penalty, so that the condemned man might be freed. So it is with
Christ. In consenting to be `made in the `likeness of sinful flesh, He brought Himself under
the condemnation of the law, so that at Calvary, He might truly representative the entire
race when He died on the cross and condemned sin in the flesh, so that the entire race
might be pardoned. Just as surely that as `in Adam the entire race has been condemned; so
also has `in Christ the entire race has been pardoned. This is surely good news!
`Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so
by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall
many be made righteous. (Romans 5: 18, 19)
Notice carefully that Paul quite clearly tells us that by the `offence of one (that is Adam),
judgment was passed upon all men and all men were condemned by the law. Now, if that
were all that he were telling us, then this would be ample justification for the doctrine of
`original sin, which teaches that:
`Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin . . . . Moreover, the Apostle
did not affirm that all men, in imitation of Adam, are mortal on account of their actual sins;
since children who die before coming to the use of reason have never committed such sins;
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
19/30
but he expressly affirms the contrary in the fourteenth verse: "But death reigned", not only
over those who imitated Adam, but "even over them also who have not sinned after the
similitude of the transgression of Adam."Adams sin, therefore, is the sole cause of death for
the entire human race . . . . We know that several of the Latin Fathers understood the words
"in whom all have sinned", to mean, all have sinned in Adam.(Catholic Encyclopedia, art.
`Original Sin In Scripture.)
Now, if this were allthat Paul were telling us, then instead of the Gospel being good news, it
most surely would be bad news, instead! We would be condemned, with little hope of
salvation! But note next what he says, which the entire Christian world, both Catholic and
Protestant has either failed to understand, or has totally ignored:
` Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace
did much more abound: For as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5: 20, 21.)
Where `sin abounded, grace much more did abound!. Just as `in Adam sin abounded and
the entire race was condemned in him, because his sin determined that the entire race was
now weakened to the point that all willsin; `in Christ grace, which is the unmerited
forgiveness of sin `did much more abound!'The gospel is a message of much more
abounding grace! But in order to benefit from the `free gift of eternal life, we must first
receive it for the free gift of eternal life can be refused. This is the unpardonable sin
refusing life from the Giver of Life Himself!
`Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace
did much more abound. (Rom. 5: 20.)
When truly comprehended, Christianity becomes a living faith. When we first come to
Christ, we merely say `Thank you, Lord, as there is nothing we can do which can add to, or
subtract from our salvation that has already been wrought for us `in' Christ! We are to
instead let our heart-felt appreciation of His act of mercy allow Him to transform our
impenitent hearts. Christ not only saves believers, but transforms them as well by a `faith
that works by love (Gal. 5: 6); so that over time, those that believe in Him become more like
Him in character and `naturally perform works that are acceptable to the Lord. Against
such, there is no law of condemnation.
`For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the
Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them
a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour,
and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least to
the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities
will I remember no more. (Hebrews 8: 10-12.)
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
20/30
Christ satisfied the positive demands of the law by not merely substituting vicariouslyfor
our sins, but in actuality `becoming the entire race, just as Adam did; thus reversing the
sentence of condemnation that the entire race was subject to because of Adams sin. Sadly,
thoughthere are many who refuse the `free gift of salvation and will not see eternal life,
for they refuse to know God and simply letHim save them! But if the law didpermit Christto substitute His sinless nature for ours, then He could not condemn sin in `in the flesh and
there would be no salvation from sin. Most Churches which take this position believe that
although He was tempted by hunger and thirst, His `sinless flesh made it impossible for Him
to be tempted by sin of a carnal nature. Therefore instead of being `like us, He becomes
`unlike us and the very idea of defeating sin on the cross by `condemning sin in the flesh
becomes meaningless. Christ is instead transformed into an actor merely wailing His lines in
a divine tragedy, Who never truly experiences or identifies with the character (that is, the
human race) whose role he is performing. Thus, if Christ were merely a `vicarious
substitute, then a human, and not a Divine sacrifice was provided for fallen man at Calvary,
and a human sacrifice cannot satisfy the demands of the broken law! If God so loved the
world that He gave His only begotten Son to us, then He has consented to give Him to us
completely; that is to say that Christ has come all of the way down from heaven, to give us
`help where we need it most; in my flesh and your flesh, so that He might save us from sin.
This doctrine of `vicarious substitution is (in its various forms) regarded as orthodox
theology in almost every mainstream Christian Church which is currently in existence. The
tragedy of this, is that the character of God is occluded. We dont truly understand what
really took place on the cross and as a result misapprehend the love which God has for us.Meditate upon the following verse:
`Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took
upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in
fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of
the cross. (Phillipians 2: 5-8)
These three verses of Phillipians may be considered as the foundation upon which all other
Scripture rests, for within them lies a principle which was completely unknown to the Greek
philosophers of old, and is still largely unknown today; for in our fallen estate (which is the
`mind' which we have received from Adam because of his sin), we would never have
perceived it unless God had revealed it to us first, as it is so completely foreign to the
naturalestate of all of mankind; a truth which we would otherwise fail to grasp.
The central thought of this text is ofunselfish love. While most people have heard of
unselfish, or unconditionallove, there are few who clearly understand what it really means,
as they posit theirconception of unselfish love as equating with God's reality of this. As a
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
21/30
result, the entire Christian world has a blurred view of this unselfish and unconditional love,
which equates to the true character of God.
The central thought of this text is that Christ did not think it `robbery' to be equal with God.
Most Christians believe that this means that because Christ has existed from eternity, then
therefore He did not think His equality to God as being `robbery' from Him. But the test has
a much deeper meaning than this, for it enjoins the principle ofunselfish love - that it is this
form of love which demonstrates to us the characterof God necessitated that Christ did not
consider the desire of the Throne of God as something to be seized upon, or grasped at. The
"Emphatic Diaglott" remarks that the original Greek word is:
`"harpagmon" - being a word of very rare occurence, a great variety of translations have
been given", and cites as examples: "Did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired".
(Adam Clarke)
Other translations render it in this way:
"Did not earnestly grasp." - Kneeland. "Did not think of eagerly retaining" - Wakefied. "Did
not violently strive" - Dickinson. "Thought it not a thing to be seized" - Sharpe.
Perhaps the most accurate is "Did not meditate a usurpation"- Trumbull. Lucifer, or the
Devil and Satan as he became known after the fall, didconsider it a `usurpation' to try and
violently seize upon the throne of God and call it his own, as the mind of Christ is the same
mind that He shares with the Father, and this mind cannot be seized upon in a violent
usurpation:
`I and my Father are one (John 10:30).
It is a mind which is completely self-less and is in direct contrast to the mind of Lucifer (or
the Devil), which first manifest itself in pride of self, and is so entirely selfish, that it is
completely corrupted by self-exultation! While the minds of men work to enhance their
reputation, Christ emptied Himselfof`self, and was found in the fashion of men; becoming
a lowly servant for all mankind. This is the mind which Scripture exhorts us to `Let this mind
be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus'. (Phillipians 2:5) The mind of Christ is a mind which
is completely self-less. In speaking of the attributes of this `mind of Christ', Thayers Lexicon
reads thus:
`Who, although He bore the form of God, yet did not think that this equality with God was
to be eagerly clung to or retained, but emptied himself of it so as to assume the form of a
servant, in that he became like unto men and was found in fashion as a man.
We eagerly cling to our own reputation and seek to further enhance it. It is a part of the
altogether human condition for us to be self seeking and opportunistic. While the Senator
seeks to be President and the Minister seeks to be Prime Minister, how many Presidents doyou know of who actively leave theirexalted position and become garbage collectors
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
22/30
instead? Yet that is what Christ did, when He left His exalted position in heaven and came to
us; seeking out the refuse of mankind. Rarely does anyone everseek a position which is
lower than that which they already have and humble themselves in front of the crowd. We
cling to what we have and are forever seeking to better our `selves. Nervous is the head
which wears the crown of a king.
Yet Christ was completely self-less and thought not that His equality with God in heaven was
a position which should be eagerly clung to and retained; so He chose to make Himself `a
little lower than the angels; making Himself of no reputation and abasing Himself for all,
`tasting death on the cross for fallen mankind.
`But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,
crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every
man. (Heb. 2: 9)
He could have been `madein the `nature of angels, but He could not do this, He instead
took upon Himself `the seed of Abraham.
`For verily [most assuredly] he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the
seed of Abraham. (Heb. 2:16)
Unfallen angels are sinless. That is their `nature. Their `nature is not unlike Adam as he was
created; a perfect, sinless human being. But this is not the `nature which Christ took upon
Himself. Scripture informs us that the `nature that He took upon Himself was that `of the
seed of Abraham; which is to say He took upon Himself the `nature of the children of
Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel.
Four thousand years after sin had so deteriorated and ravaged fallen humanity that man
had now become a pitiful caricature of the exalted state in which Adam was first created;
Christ came to save the wretched. Where the text reads that he `in all things it behoved him
to be made like unto His brethren' (Heb. 2:17), the original Greek reads `ophelio', and means
`that He was obligated out of necessity to be made like those whom He calls His brothers.
What an amazing thought! As there was no other way by which we might be saved, Christ
was obligated out of necessity to be `made' in all points as we are, yet without sin, so thatthrough the sufferings by which He was tempted, He is able to identify with those who call
upon His righteous name, and give help to those who are tempted:
`Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become
a merciful and faithful Kohen Gadol [High Priest] in things pertaining to God, to make
atonement for the sins of the people. For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is
able to help those who are tempted. (Heb. 2: 17,18, Hebrew Names Version)
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
23/30
He identifies with us by becoming one ofus - `tempted in allpoints as we are, yet without
sin; so that He is able to `save to the uttermost those who boldly come before Him, in time
of need.
`Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son
of God, let us hold fast our profession [of faith]. For we have not an high priest which cannot
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like we are, yet
without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and
find grace to help in time of need. . . . Wherefore he is able also to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them.
(Hebrews 4: 14,15; 7:25.)
He is the second Adam; for what was done in Adam when He first sinned, was by extension
done in allof mankind, for all of mankind was, figuratively speaking, in the loins of Adam
when He first sinned. At Calvary, Christ reversed that which was done `in' Adam in thegarden of Eden. This concept of corporate humanity being `in Adam and `in Christ as the
first and second representative men is not a fanciful idea. We see this in Levi `meeting
Melchisedek, while he was `yet in the loins of his father, Abraham. Obviously, Levi had not
yet been born when he `met Melchisedek.
`And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in
the loins of his father, when Melchisedec, met him. (Heb. 7: 9, 10.)
Just as in the Hebraical Sanctuary of old the ministration of the High Priest pointed forward
to Christ, as our High Priest andthe second representative man of the race at Calvary, soalso was:
`. . . .Jesus made an High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. For this Melchisedec,
king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter
of the kings, and blessed him. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by
interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of
peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days,
nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abides a priest continually. (Hebrews 6: 20
- 7: 3.)
Cursed is he who is hung on a tree . . .
Scripture teaches that Christ became the Second Representative Man of the entire race.
Essentially, what Adam did in the garden of Eden, which was bring the sentence of
condemnation upon the entire race, Christ has undone at the Cross at Calvary.
Unfortunately, there are many who have misunderstood the plain sense of Scripture and
view this as universalism, when in fact this is a misunderstanding of what Scripture teaches
in a quite literal sense. For although verse 18 states that ` Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation'; thus meaning that all men were subject to
condemnation because of Adam's sin, the last half of this same verse then informs us
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
24/30
that ` even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification
of life'. Note that the verse says `all men', and not `some men', or those who are lucky
enough or clever enough to find an elusive God Who is forever playing hide and seek with
us. No. The verse clearly says all men! However, the text just as clearly infers that not all will
be saved, for just as justification is a free gift, in order to benefit from it, we must firstreceive it, and there are many who refuse the righteousness of Christ and the salvation
which He lovingly wishes to give to those who will not refuse Him. Thus, at Calvary, He who
knew no sin became sin for us, for on the cross Christ became a `curse' for us, for `cursed is
he who is hung on a tree':
`For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, "Cursed is
every one that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do
them" . . . . Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for
it is written, "Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree": that the blessing of Abraham mightcome on the Gentiles [non-Jews] through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of
the Spirit through faith.' (Galatians 3: 10, 13, 14.)
In the Hebraical economy, if you were `hung on a tree' outside the camp, your were
accursed of God, for the heavens would be as brass - He would not hear your prayers for
forgiveness, and you were consigned to die; which is to say you were consigned to die the
`second death', which is the eternal death which all who are subject to condemnation will
suffer:
`He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches; He that overcomesshall not be hurt of the second death . . . . And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death . . . . Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on
such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall
reign with him a thousand years.' (Revelation 2: 11, 20: 14, 20: 6.)
This is the death which Christ died on behalf of you and me. As He bore the sins of the
world, the unity which Christ had with the Father became broken, for the Father cannot
behold sin. As Christ became the sin of the world, so also was the Fathers divine Presence
withdrawn from Him, for the sins of the world literally crushed the life out of Him. DuringHis entire ministry as the divine Son of God, He had laid aside His divinity and was tempted
as we are, yet without sin. So it was on the cross. He could have come down from the cross
and have left us dead in our sins, but this would have been sin for Him, and in laying aside
His divinity for our benefit and suffering as a man, thus provided a divine atonement which
was more than sufficient to atone for sin.
`So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He
gave up His spirit.' (John 19: 30 NKJV.)
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
25/30
Did Christ truly die the `second death'for us on the cross? In order for Christ to provide a
complete atonement for sin, the answer must be yes, for although divinity cannot die,
it can be laid aside, for the only instances in which Christ used His divinity, was when He
used it to benefit others, such as when He raised Lazarus from the dead, worked miracles,
and forgave sin. He never used it to benefit Himself, but instead overcame sin by the Spiritof the Father, for if He were to use his divinity to benefit Himself in overcoming sin, this
would have given Him an unfair advantage over fallen man, and this would have constituted
sin for Him. All the gospel writers testify that He `gave up His Spirit', which indicates that His
Holy Spirit returned to the Father from whence it first came, at which on the third day, the
Father resurrected His lifeless body, at which this same spirit resurrected Him from the pit,
for being sinless, the bonds of the grave could not hold Him:
`But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up
Christ from the dead shall also restore life in your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells inyou.' (Rom. 8:11)
Thus, in His dying breath Christ commended His Spirit to the Father, and lay truly dead in
the grave, having suffered the second death for us, and on the third day, was given back His
Spirit of life, and was resurrected:
`And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into your hands I commend my
spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the spirit.' (Luke 23:46)
On the cross, Christ became the sin of the entire world and crucified it `in the sarx' (or flesh)
at Calvary, so that the condemnation of the `second death' which was pronounced upon the
entire race `in Adam has been reversed, so that the entire race has been pardoned and put
on probation `in Christ'. It is then up to each individual to choose whether they receive
Christ into their heart, as prompted by His Holy Spirit, or not - and thus choose to remain in
the condemnation that is `in Adam'. This is surely good news, for this testifies that we do
not need to go in search of our Saviour, for He is the `good shepherd' who constantly
pursues the lost sheep of His flock and has already found us! The fact that you are reading
this right now testifies to this! The apostle Paul then concludes that:
`Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace
did much more abound: that as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.' (Romans 5: 20, 21.)
Thus the `good news' of the Gospel, is better than we think, for our Lord has given us a
gospel of much more abounding grace! How much? Much more! For at Calvary, Christ
became a `curse for us, and reversed the curse of death which was handed to every man,
woman and child that would ever exist, simply because they are the children of Adam, and
are accounted as being in the loins of Adam when he first sinned. We are not accursed
because of Adams sin, but we are accursed because of the weakened human `nature which
-
7/29/2019 Does Christ save us Vicariously?
26/30
we have inherited from him. It dictates that we will sin; and as the penalty of sin is death, it
then follows that the law condemns us to death:
` Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. (Romans 5:12)
It is for this reason that Scripture states that all of humanity `have sinned when they were
`in the loins of `one man (Adam) when sin entered the world. The degenerate `nature
which we have `inherited from Adam determines that it is inevitable that all will sin, as the
nature which we have `inherited from the fallen Adam has left us with a natural proclivity
towards sinning, of which we are helpless to overcome without Christ. As soon as we are
able to think independently for ourselves, we `naturally commit our first sin and become
what the Bible speaks of as `carnally minded, which is a mind which is `enmity (at war) with
God, and cannot be brought under subjection to the law of God. It must instead die, as the
`carnal mind is the sinful mind and is subject to the penalty of the law, which is death.
`In order to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither
indeed can be. (Romans 8: 6,7)
It can eith