by Garrett Glende

Last week we studied the doctrine and application of the person of Jesus Christ, so it seems appropriate to now turn to the work that Christ accomplished while here on earth. The question that will be answered is “what did Jesus do through His life and death?” Ultimately, the answer to this question lies at the heart of the gospel itself and is contained in the doctrine of the atonement. The technical term often used to describe Christ’s work is “penal substitutionary atonement” – penal because there was a penalty that was paid, substitutionary because Christ died in our place, and atonement because satisfactory payment for sin was made. Grudem defines the term as “the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation.” As we examine this tremendous doctrine and its implications for us as believers, we will see why many have deemed it “the heart of the gospel.”

Before it can be properly understood, it must be asked if an atonement was really necessary after all. Indeed, God is not forced to save sinners outside of His will, yet He is a loving and just God. His love compels Him to save sinful men, but His justice demands their punishment. In order to satisfy both of these characteristics Jesus became man, lived a perfect life, died in our place, bore the wrath of God against sin, and rose again from the dead. There was no other way possible, for if there was, the Father would have responded to the Son’s pleas in the garden: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39). There was nothing but silence from the Father, who knew that the only way for sinners to be reconciled to Him was through the pouring out of His wrath on His only Son.

The nature of the atonement can be looked at from many different angles, and there simply isn’t enough room to explore them all to their fullest extent, so we will only cover the essentials. Many theologians have looked at the orthodox belief regarding this topic and taken offense to the punishment inflicted on the Son by the Father, calling it “cosmic child abuse.” How could an infinitely loving God commit such a despicable act? In an attempt to curtail the violence of Christ’s work on the cross, these people have chosen to explain the atonement by other means. One theory sees His work as simply an example for all other believers to follow, saying that we should follow God to the point of death. However, they fail to acknowledge the various passages in Scripture that point to Christ suffering under the wrath of the Father. Another theory explains the atonement as a means to describe just how much God loves us. While the cross does demonstrate God’s love for sinners (Romans 5:8), this theory only sees Christ’s death as a means by which He identified with man’s sufferings. The correct understanding of the atonement is what we have defined above as “penal substitutionary.” We cannot fully understand Christ’s work for us unless we see both the wrath of God against sin and Christ as a representative in our place.

I appreciated a section in Grudem’s chapter that explains the atonement through four different New Testament themes:

1. “We deserve to die as a penalty for sin.” This need was met in Christ’s sacrifice for sin. The Old Testament sacrificial system clearly displayed the need for the shedding of blood in order to pay for sin. Christ is a perfect picture of the Passover lamb, whose blood allowed sinners to escape the wrath of God.
2. “We deserve to bear God’s wrath against sin.” In His justice, God must punish all sin, yet Christ has appeased the Father so that His wrath was not poured out on us. This propitiation was made because God loved us (1 John 4:10). Romans 3:25-26 illustrates this point perfectly, stating that Christ was “put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
3. “We are separated from God by our sins.” Thus, reconciliation has been made through the cross of Christ. Colossians 1:20 says that the fullness of deity was in Christ so that He might “reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”
4. “We are in bondage to sin and to the kingdom of Satan.” The work of Christ on the cross freed us from our captivity as slaves to sin, providing redemption unto righteousness. We were formerly slaves to sin, but Jesus has redeemed us, making us now slaves to righteousness (Romans 6).

These four aspects (sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, redemption) have been taught by many theologians over the centuries as four of the significant themes regarding the atonement (for more reading see chapter 2 of John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied).

Much controversy and debate has arisen among evangelicals in regards to the extent of the atonement. The question at hand is “for whom did Christ die?” or “what did Jesus’ death on the cross actually accomplish?” Generally, the two sides come from either Reformed or Arminian traditions, the Calvinists supporting the view of a limited atonement and the Arminians supporting that of a general atonement. The specific term “limited atonement” is somewhat misleading (perhaps it has only kept this name because it allows us to use flowers when describing our theological system) and many have preferred the usage of “particular redemption” in order to prevent any false impressions about the sufficiency of Christ’s work. This position believes that in dying on the cross, Jesus secured the salvation of those whom the Father had chosen. Jesus himself says, “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:14-15). We see elsewhere that Jesus’ work on the cross was specifically applied to those who would turn to Him in faith. Paul writes in Ephesians 5:25 that “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

His death did not only make the church’s salvation possible, but truly secured it. The suffering that Jesus endured was not merely theoretical, pending the final decision of the sinner, but it actually accomplished atonement for sins at that moment. When He cried “it is finished,” (John 19:30) He spoke of His mission to come and win salvation for God’s chosen people. This is the main problem that I see in the theology of those who support a general atonement. If we are to accept that Christ truly died for the sins of the whole world in a salvific way, then it seems that we would be led to universalism. While not widely believed by most Arminians, the universalist position is still one to be guarded against, as Scripture clearly teaches that not all men will be saved. The more common argument of the non-reformed tradition is to say that the atonement made salvation possible for all men, but not completely securing it. Thus, the application of Christ’s death only comes by the free will of man to accept His sacrifice. The way I see it, limited atonement is the most biblical stance and ultimately brings the most glory to God. It is a sacrifice that truly accomplishes its purpose. When God put forward His Son as a propitiation, He did not merely make it possible for men to be saved – He actually saved them.

There are numerous applications that can be drawn from this great truth, but I want to draw your attention to a perhaps more obscure thought. I would venture to guess that most of the people reading this blog happen to believe in a particular redemption. If you are a Christian, what you’re saying is that you believe that you are one of the very few that Jesus died for. How many others have been so privileged to be bought by the blood of Christ? Surely there are many, but there are many more that have died in their sin and not known the grace of God in Christ. Shouldn’t this ignite a passion in us to live lives fully pleasing to Him? It truly is a high calling that we have been called to and we must live in a manner worthy of it (Eph. 4:1). This means that our lives are to look different from the rest of the world. It’s good and God-glorifying for Christians to toil and strive with all their energy for the sake of making His name known. In a sense, the pressure is off. We have been set free from the condemnation of sin which weighed us down and we are now able to live in light of grace, seeking to please God by walking in a worthy manner. Paul goes on to describe this high calling in the rest of Ephesians 4, exhorting believers to exhibit humility, gentleness, patience, forbearance, love, maturity of doctrine, and wholesome speech. Are these qualities consistently true of our lives? If not, then we must pause to reconsider our understanding of the implications of Christ’s death for us. He truly has paid the price in full and we are now honored to live to worship and serve Him as our Lord.