REFORMED WITNESS
Volume XIII, September 2005, Number 9
The Nature of the Atonement:
Limited or General?By Prof. H. C. Hoeksema
An Editorial series from the February 15 through April 1, 1966 issues of The Standard Bearer
SCRIPTURE AND SATISFACTION
We may now turn directly to Scripture for proof of this satisfaction idea, which is so strongly emphasized in our confessions.
Turning to the Old Testament first of all, we may note that the typical sacrifices of the old dispensation, such as the sin offering and the trespass offering, were expiatory. In other words, satisfaction for sin and for sin's guilt characterized these sacrifices. Such sacrifices are said to bear the sins of the offender, to make expiation for sin, to be a propitiation, to cover the sins of the people in the sight of God. Moreover, all such sacrifices involved the shedding of blood, in order that they might typically represent the shedding of Christ's blood. The result, or fruit, of these sacrifices was the forgiveness of sins. The Hebrew term that occurs so often in connection with these sacrifices is translated frequently in our English Bible by the word "atone" or "atonement." The term itself (kaphar) actually means as a noun "a covering" and as a verb "to cover." The idea of this "covering" is not that it covers up and hides sin and guilt from the sight of God - something which would of course be impossible. The idea is rather that of "coverage," much in the sense in which we speak of coverage for damages and costs in a potential accident in connection with automobile insurance. The idea of satisfaction; therefore, of penal satisfaction (satisfaction of justice) is on the foreground in these sacrifices. This was also graphically symbolized not only by the fact that the sinner himself was supposed to bring the sacrificial victim to the altar as an acknowledgment of the fact that he had offended and was therefore justly exposed to the wrath of God, but also by the fact that the offender laid his hands on the head of the sacrificial victim to express the idea of transfer of guilt and responsibility to the animal to be sacrificed. It is also in this connection that we can understand the fact that this blood was sprinkled upon the altar in the holy place by the priest, as well as the fact that on the great day of atonement this expiatory blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the holy of holies. Because this blood was the blood of atonement, because it implied that satisfaction of God's justice had been accomplished, the person who offered was acceptable in the sight of God.
Approximately the same idea of a propitiation or covering, is expressed in the New Testament by such Greek terms as hilaskomai, and hilasmos, and hilasteerion. The term occurs in Hebrews 2:17, where it is translated by "to make reconciliation." There we read, "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." In I John 2:2 the term is translated "propitiation." There we read the well-known words so often given the misinterpretation of a general atonement. "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." We may note, in parentheses, that if "the whole world" means "all men, head for head," this simply means that as an objective fact the sins of all men have been covered by the atoning blood of Christ; and then these sins can never be held against them again. For propitiation means that the damages of sin, the debt, are completely covered by the blood of Christ. The satisfaction-idea is obviously on the foreground.
Next, I call your attention to the term that is rendered by "ransom." This term (lutron in the Greek) is found, for example, in Matthew 20:28: "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." It is also found in I Timothy 2:5 and 6 (where the Greek is antilutron): "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." This term denotes the notion of a ransom, the payment of a price in conformity with a certain demand in order to purchase one free. In every day life we are all familiar with the ransom demanded by a kidnapper or by one who holds a hostage. In that case, of course, there is not justice but injustice. Nevertheless, the illustration serves to clarify this idea of a ransom. It implies a demand. Unless that demand is met and the price demanded is paid, the hostage or kidnap victim will not be set free. If the price is paid, the victim is supposed to be freed. Thus also, when the price demanded by a slave-holder is met, a slave may be ransomed out of his bondage. Basic to the idea of Christ's death as a ransom; therefore, is this idea of the satisfaction of the demand of God's justice. Only thus is the slave of sin and death purchased free out of the power of the devil. Again we may note in passing what devastating results are obtained when for example, in the passage from I Timothy 2, the "all" is interpreted as every human being. That can only mean rank universalism. For if satisfaction has been made for every human being, then the justice of God requires that every human being shall be accounted righteous and innocent in the day of judgment, and shall; therefore, be saved.
A related term (Greek: apolutrooseoos) occurs in Romans 3:24, where it is rendered "redemption." Thus we read: "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." It is striking that the term here occurs in connection with the idea of judgment and justification. Evidently the same idea of satisfaction is basic. This "redemption" denotes deliverance through the death of Christ from the retributive wrath of God and from the merited penalty of sin. It is used in the same sense in Hebrews 9:15: "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." The verb 'to redeem' (lutrooseetai) occurs in Titus 2:14, where we read: "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."
In all these passages and terms; therefore, the confessional dogma of satisfaction is clearly on the foreground.
There are still more terms which Scripture uses in connection with the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ which very plainly include the idea of satisfaction.
Scripture speaks of the atoning work of Christ as an act of buying, purchasing, paying a price, and as an act of redeeming, even as a slave is purchased and becomes the property of the purchaser, or as a slave's liberty is purchased through the payment of a price. The Greek terms (agorazein and exagorazein) are related to the Greek term for "market" (agora), and these terms are often used in relation to commercial life even in the New Testament. There are several passages where these terms occur with regard to the work of redemption. II Peter 2:1 speaks of those who "deny the Lord that bought them," or, as is also possible, "deny that the Lord bought them." In Revelation 5:9 we read of the 'new song' of the four beasts and the four and twenty elders at the occasion when the Lamb standing as it had been slain took the book with its seven seals out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." The Lamb; therefore, has redeemed us, purchased us, to God; and the purchase price was His blood. We may note here, by the way, that this text also makes a distinction which very definitely points to the fact that this redemption by the blood of the Lamb, or atonement, was limited, particular: "for He has redeemed us out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." I Corinthians 6:20 employs the same language: "For ye are bought with a price: "therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." In I Corinthians 7:23 that same fact of purchase - redemption, is mentioned: "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." The second and related term (Greek: exagorazein) is also rendered "redeem" in our King James Version. This term means essentially the same as the former term, except that it views us as slaves, purchased out of bondage and unto liberty. This term; therefore, also includes the idea of the payment of a price, and therefore the idea of satisfaction. Thus it is used in Galatians 3:13 and Galatians 4:4 and 5. In the former passage we read: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." and in the latter passage the Word of God tells us: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." The following remarks from the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament," Vol. 1, page 126, are pertinent: "In Paul, of course, the divine Purchaser does not pay only in appearance as in sacral redemption, but in the most bitter reality, so that the parallel breaks down at the decisive point and there is thus a great difference. In respect of the seriousness of the purchase, Christ is to be compared to the one who actually pays... And everything depends on this. In this liberation from the curse of the Law, the essential point is that it confers both and actual and also a legally established freedom ensuring against any renewal of slavery. The claim of the Law is satisfied."
Finally, I call your attention to the terms reconcile and reconciliation, terms which occur rather often in Scripture in connection with the atoning and redeeming work of Christ. Significant in this connection is the well-known passage of II Corinthians 5:18-21: "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." This same idea of reconciliation occurs elsewhere, as in Romans 5:10 and Colossians 1:19-21. The idea of reconciliation as set forth in II Corinthians 5 may be briefly explained in the following remarks: 1) It is evident that the apostle refers here to a very specific historical event. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself: that was nineteen hundred years ago, at the cross. There our reconciliation was accomplished. This is also confirmed by verse 21. 2) Reconciliation is a covenant idea. It presupposes a relation of friendship and love between those that are to be reconciled. Even among men one cannot speak of the reconciliation of complete strangers; there must be a previously existing relationship in order to speak of reconciliation, and in divine reconciliation that previously existent relationship is that of God's eternal covenant. 3) Reconciliation implies that this relationship has been violated, so that it cannot function. There is something in the way. Estrangement and alienation have been caused. The cause of that alienation is our sin and guilt. 4) Reconciliation requires that the cause of that alienation is removed, so that the alienation itself is removed, and so that the bond of friendship and love can properly function. In divine reconciliation this can only be accomplished by the actual removal of the cause of estrangement, namely sin and guilt. In other words, God's justice with respect to sin must be satisfied and the state of His people must be changed from one of guilt to one of righteousness. This change God Himself accomplishes through the atoning death of our Lord Jesus Christ. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. How? "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
With this I conclude the discussion of the first essential element in the nature of the atonement. Let us remember that our main interest in this discussion is this question: is the nature of the atonement of Christ such that it is limited or not? Dr. Daane maintains that it is unlimited, that is, general, that is, for all men. He now faces the question, in the light of Scripture and the Reformed confessions: how, if the nature of the atonement is actual satisfaction of divine justice with respect to sin, - how can the atonement be general, unless salvation itself is also general, so that all men are saved? To escape this consequence, the consequence which he has so vehemently denied, it seems to me that he must deny that the nature of the atonement is that of satisfaction. But to do the latter is to deny the atonement itself, and this is certainly neither Reformed nor Scriptural.
THE ATONEMENT IS VICARIOUS
The above statement sets forth the second main element in the Reformed doctrine of the nature of the atonement.
Let me remind the reader that we are answering this question: is the atonement of Christ in its very nature limited/particular? We are considering this question, remember, in connection with Dr. James Daane's lengthy and at times rather ill-defined review and defense of Prof. Harold Dekker's position on the general love of God and the universal atonement of Christ. Dr. Daane denies that the atonement is in its very nature limited; and he maintains on the contrary that the atonement is in its very nature unlimited. Indeed, as far as the atonement is concerned, the entire discussion boils down to this crucial question. Hence, in this series of articles we are examining and setting forth the Reformed and Scriptural view of the nature of the atonement -- something which Dr. Daane neglected to do in any systematic way, at least in as far as I have been able to discern in his articles in the Reformed Journal. Indeed, it seems to me to be of absolute necessity in discussing this question to discuss that nature of the atonement first of all and to determine what belongs to that nature.
Thus far I have maintained - and supported from Scripture and the Reformed Confessions - that the key element in the nature of the atonement of Christ is satisfaction.
Now we are ready to prove and to discuss the second element, namely, that the atonement is vicarious, or substitutionary. This is the element that is better known and may even be said to have been popularized in the expression "vicarious atonement." Usually this vicarious aspect is the first to be mentioned and thought of when the doctrine of the atonement is mentioned. One usually hears the expression "vicarious atonement" more often, say, than the expression "satisfactory atonement." To be sure, this is a very precious element in the truth of the atonement. Our Lord Jesus Christ is our Vicar, our Substitute! While the element of satisfaction is the key to the whole concept of the atonement, it is also true that the element of substitution is an indispensable link in the chain. Without it satisfaction would be abstract, would have no real significance. For the truth is that we ourselves, as the confessions repeatedly emphasize, could not make the satisfaction of God's justice which constitutes the key element of atonement. Substitution; therefore, is absolutely necessary. It belongs to the very essence of the atonement.
The method of treatment followed for this subject will be the same as above. We shall turn first to the confessions as the adopted and established expression of the Reformed faith concerning the atonement in order to note what they have to say on this element of substitution. Therefore, we shall turn to Scripture itself in order to observe the harmony of our confessions with the inspired Word. This we must do, not because the substitutionary character of the atonement has been directly called in question in the "Dekker Case" or by Dr. Daane, but because it must be demonstrated to be an integral part of the doctrine of the atonement, an element that is inevitably involved as soon as the atonement comes under consideration and as soon as the atonement comes under attack.
From a practical point of view, we should constantly keep that last remark in mind in this entire discussion. The doctrine of the atonement is ultimately one and indivisible. Attack it at any one point and essentially you attack the whole precious doctrine of the atonement. Ultimately the entire truth of the atonement is at stake. Our fathers discerned this clearly in the Arminian controversy, and we should imitate them in this. From that point of view, there has been far too much of a leisurely approach in the case at hand and far too little alarm, both at the official ecclesiastical level and among the people in general.
It is to be hoped that the committee that has been studying this case for almost two years not only furnishes the Christian Reformed Synod thorough work and sound leadership, but also has the courage to sound the alarm. For the issue is more than academic!
Now let us turn to the confessions.
THE CONFESSIONS ON SUBSTITUTION
It is not surprising that the same passages of the confessions which speak of satisfaction also speak of the vicarious, or substitutionary, character of the atonement. For these two elements are intimately related, as I have already suggested in my introductory remarks.
We first of all find this to be the case in the Heidelberg Catechism. Already in the lengthy discussion of the necessity for satisfaction and the requirements of the Mediator, beginning with Lord's Day V, these two elements (satisfaction and substitution) are interwoven. In Question and Answer 12, when the Catechism insists on the divine necessity for the satisfaction of justice, it introduces at least the alternative of a substitute when it says: "and therefore we must make this full satisfaction, either by ourselves, or by another." (emphasis mine, H.C.H.) Then, after ruling out the possibility of satisfaction by ourselves in Question and Answer 13, the Catechism turns to this possibility of a substitute, not to teach directly the idea of substitution, but in order to bring out what kind of mediator-substitute we need. But for our discussion at present we merely want to note the fact that throughout this discussion the idea of a substitute is current. Thus, in Question 14 the question is whether there can be found any mere creature "able to satisfy for us." (emphasis mine) Moreover, the answer to this question, though it makes no direct mention of a substitute, must nevertheless be understood as referring to such satisfaction by substitution when it speaks of a mediator being such that he can "sustain the burden of God's eternal wrath against sin, so as to deliver others from it." (emphasis mine) This "to deliver others from it" is by satisfying God's justice for them, i.e., as a substitute.
(Note: In the last issue I began to discuss the second main element in the nature of the atonement, namely, that it is vicarious. At present the aim is to show that this element of substitution is the current teaching of our confessions.)
In Lord's Day VI the Heidelberg Catechism continues to discuss the requirements of the mediator-substitute, and while it does not directly concern itself with the truth of substitution, yet it should be noted that also here the Catechism proceeds on the assumption that the necessity of such a substitute has been established (Lord's Day V). Hence, in Question and Answer 16 in treating the question why the mediator must be very man and also perfectly righteous, the Catechism lays down the principle that only man can substitute for man and speaks of the inability of one who is himself a sinner satisfying "for others." The same idea is indirectly taught in the seventeenth answer in the expression "and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life."
There are many such references in the Heidelberg Catechism in a similar vein, which either directly teach or presuppose the doctrine of substitution as established in Lord's Day V. True faith, according to Question and Answer 21, has as one of its elements an assured confidence "that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given of God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits." Lord's Day XII speaks of Christ as "our only High Priest, who by the one sacrifice of his body, has redeemed us...." In speaking of the profit of Christ's holy conception and nativity, the Catechism emphasizes that as our Mediator, He "with His innocence and perfect holiness, covers in the sight of God, my sins..." (Question and Answer 36). In explaining the confession "He suffered" the Catechism instructs us that Christ "sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind;" and in this same connection speaks of "the only propitiatory sacrifice" whereby He redeemed our body and soul from everlasting damnation and obtained for us the favor of God, righteousness and eternal life. (Lord's Day XV) Again, in Question and Answer 39 in discussing the meaning of the crucifixion, the Catechism instructs us "that he took on him the curse which lay upon me; for the death of the cross was accursed of God." Question and Answer 40 speaks not only of satisfaction, but of satisfaction "for our sins" through the death of the Son of God. Question and Answer 42 also proceeds from this truth of substitution: "Since then Christ died for us, why must we also die?" In answer it is very plain that this death of Christ was so fully substitutionary that "Our death is not a satisfaction for our sins...." This could never be, except on the basis that Christ satisfied in our stead vicariously. The hope of Christ's return to judge the quick and the dead is of this comfort: "That I look for the very same person, who before offered himself for my sake, to the tribunal of God, and has removed all curse from me, to come as judge from heaven" (Question and Answer 52). The faith of the forgiveness of sins is "That God, for the sake of Christ's satisfaction, will no more remember my sins but will graciously impute to me the righteousness of Christ" (Question and Answer 56).
In the chapter on justification by faith (Lord's Day XXIII) the truth of substitution and of complete satisfaction through substitution is very plainly spelled out in the following language: "God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me...." Christ; therefore, is so completely our substitute that it is just as if we had ourselves accomplished what He accomplished in our stead. This is the plain teaching of Question and Answer 60. This same truth of substitution is the basis for the following expression in Question and Answer 61: "....but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God...." And mark well, this does not become true by faith, but it is received and applied "to myself" by faith. This must always be remembered. Christ is in the objective sense of the word the substitute before God for those for whom He died. This fact as such has nothing to do with our faith. Subjectively of course it is received and applied by faith; but the very possibility of this personal appropriation and application lies in the objective fact of Christ's being our substitute. He is not our substitute because we acknowledge Him and accept Him as such, but we can and do acknowledge Him and receive His benefits by faith only because He was our substitute nineteen hundred years ago at the cross.
As might be expected, this truth finds repeated expression in the Catechism's exposition of the sacraments.
In discussing the meaning and significance of the sacraments in general, the Catechism already maintains the truth of the vicarious character of Christ's atonement twice. In Question and Answer 66 this truth is taught indirectly when we are instructed that through the sacraments God more fully declares and seals to us the promise of the gospel, namely, "that he grants us freely the remission of sin and life eternal for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross." But this truth is directly taught in Question and Answer 67, which reads as follows:
Q. 67. Are both word and sacraments, then ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation?
A. Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.
Let me remind you again that this "for us" can never be understood in any other way than in the sense of objective substitution. It indeed means "for our benefit," but it can mean this only because it means "in our stead" or "as our substitute." This must be maintained in the light of Lord's Day V, where we are first taught that we must make satisfaction either by ourselves or by another, and second, taught that we cannot make satisfaction by ourselves and therefore need another, the Mediator-substitute.
In harmony with the above, the Catechism in its explanation of the sacrament of baptism speaks of "the remission of sins freely for the sake of Christ's blood, which he shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross." (Question and Answer 70). Likewise, in the Catechism's discussion of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper we find similar expressions which point to this truth of substitution. One of the promises connected with the Lord's Supper is: "that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me" (Question and Answer 75). In the seventy-ninth answer we find this expression: "and that all his sufferings and obedience are as certainly ours, as if we had in our own persons suffered and made satisfaction for our sins to God."
Finally, we may point to the fact that, according to the Catechism, this truth of substitution lies at the basis of the prayer for forgiveness in the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer (cf. Question and Answer 126): "...be pleased for the sake of Christ's blood, not to impute to us poor sinners, our transgressions, nor that depravity, which always cleaves to us." This is plainly an appeal to the vicarious atonement of Christ.
Therefore, when we turn to the Belgic Confession, we find the same truth expressed. This is true of Article XX, which speaks of the fact that God "sent his Son to assume that nature, in which the disobedience was committed, to make satisfaction in the same, and to bear the punishment of sin by his most bitter passion and death," and then speaks of the fact that God manifested His justice against His Son, "when he laid our iniquities upon him." Article XXI, which speaks of Christ's satisfaction as our only High Priest, is full of references to the fact that this satisfaction was made by way of substitution.
We believe that Jesus Christ is ordained with an oath to be an everlasting High Priest after the order of Melchisedec; and that he hath presented himself in our behalf before the Father to appease his wrath by his full satisfaction by offering himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out his precious blood to purge away our sins, as the prophets had foretold. For it is written: He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and numbered with the transgressors ...and suffered, the just for the unjust, as well in his body as in his soul, feeling the terrible punishment which our sins had merited; insomuch that his sweat became like unto drops of blood falling on the ground. He called out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and hath suffered all this for the remission of our sins...
The Canons of Dordrecht very explicitly teach this vicarious nature of the atonement in Article 2:
Since therefore we are unable to make that satisfaction in our own persons, or to deliver ourselves from the wrath of God, he hath been pleased in his infinite mercy to give his only begotten Son, for our surety, who was made sin, and became a curse for us and in our stead, that he might make satisfaction to divine justice on our behalf.
One could not very well be more explicit than this. Notice that the Canons are not satisfied with the phrase "for us" and the phrase "on our behalf." They emphasize that "for us" means "in our stead" and that "on our behalf" can only be possible on the basis of his "in our stead." This explicitness of the Canons was necessitated by the deviousness of the Arminians. They had to be "pinned down" so to speak to a doctrine of the atonement which included very plainly the elements of satisfaction and substitution, so that it might become plain that they really denied the Scriptural doctrine of atonement and so that it might be clear that they had no place in the Reformed communion. Here; therefore, we have one of the most precise expressions of the element of substitution to be found in our Reformed confessions.
Finally, I must call your attention to the repeated expressions in the Form for the Administration of the Lord's Supper which point to this same element of the vicariousness of the atonement. Already in the first part of self-examination the Form speaks as follows: "considering that the wrath of God against sin is so great, that (rather than it should go unpunished) he hath punished the same in his beloved Son Jesus Christ, with the bitter and shameful death of the cross." Do not forget that this clearly implies substitution, for the clear implication here is that God, so to speak, had the choice instead of punishing sin in us, either to let it go unpunished, or to punish it in His beloved Son. The former (letting it go unpunished) was impossible for His justice' sake; the latter (punishing it in His Son) means that Jesus Christ took our place under the wrath of God.
This same truth is implied in the second part of true self-examination, which speaks of the believer's faith "that all his sins are forgiven him only for the sake of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, and that the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed and freely given him as his own, yea, so perfectly, as if he had satisfied in his own person for all his sins, and fulfilled all righteousness." We must certainly not imagine that this is just an empty expression used to emphasize very strongly the perfectness of the imputation of righteousness. Then it could only constitute preposterous injustice. This imputation that is so perfect that it is as if I had satisfied in my own person for all my sins takes place in full harmony with the strict justice of God, which means that Christ took my place under the wrath of God.
Thirdly, this element of vicariousness is directly taught in the first paragraph concerning the meaning of the Lord's Supper:
"First. That we are confidently persuaded in our hearts, that our Lord Jesus Christ (according to the promises made to our forefathers in the Old Testament) was sent of the Father into the world; that he assumed our flesh and blood; that he bore for us the wrath of God (under which we should have perished everlastingly) from the beginning of his incarnation, to the end of his life upon earth; that he hath fulfilled, for us, all obedience to the divine law, and righteousness; especially, when the weight of our sins and the wrath of God pressed out of him the bloody sweat in the garden, where he was bound that we might be freed from our sins; that he afterwards suffered innumerable reproaches, that we might never be confounded; that he was innocently condemned to death, that we might be acquitted at the judgment-seat of God; yea, that he suffered his blessed body to be nailed on the cross - that he might fix thereon the handwriting of our sins; and hath also taken upon himself the curse due to us. . " (italics mine, H.C.H.)
The truth of substitution is clearly taught in all of the italicized expressions above
Hence, the conclusion, as far as our confessions are concerned, is this, that the truth of substitution like that of satisfaction is the current teaching of all our Reformed confessions. In fact, it is inseparable from the doctrine of satisfaction.
| Back to top | Back to main Reformed Witness page |
The Reformed Witness newsletter is published monthly under the auspices of the Evangelism Committee of the Hope Protestant Reformed Church of Redlands. This newsletter is available to anyone who is interested in the Reformed Faith. If you would like your name added to our mailing list, please write to:The Reformed Witness
Hope Protestant Reformed Church
1307 E. Brockton Ave.
Redlands, CA 92374-3802
or email us: