SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
THE GOSPEL AND
ITS MINISTRY
Chapter Seven - SUBSTITUTION.
IN the days so lately passed away, when debt was treated
as a crime, we can imagine how a dishonest and vindictive creditor may have
received satisfaction of his claim without his debtor's knowledge, and have
kept him still in prison for the debt. If in some strange combination of
circumstances such an event occurred, great must have been the indignation of
all good men against him who traded upon his debtor's ignorance to hold him
still liable for a debt which was in fact discharged.
And thousands
there are of earnest people in. whose minds the story of redemption seems to
put God in the place of the dishonest creditor, If that death on Calvary be
indeed the payment of His people's debt, how can forgiveness now be preached as
being of grace ? Is it not a matter of the strictest justice, that they whose
discharge was nailed to the cross of Christ nineteen centuries ago, should, at
the earliest moment possible, be set free ? How can it be honest, or true, or
right, to urge men to flee from the wrath to come, seeing that for some all
wrath has been already borne, and the infliction of it now would be an outrage
upon justice, and that for the rest there is no refuge open? Is not the
proclamation of the gospel like holding forth to the sinner the account of
God's outstanding claims against him, with the assurance that the hand of the
great Creditor is ready to sign his discharge for ever, the moment he repents?
And does not every principle of truth and right forbid that the elect should be
scared into repentance by concealment of the fact that the ink upon their
discharge was dry long centuries ago, and that others should be tantalised with
deceptive promises of blessings they can never know, enforced by threats of
judgment from which, for them, there is no escape?
For those who either
ignore the great truth of divine righteousness in connection with our
salvation, or fritter away the revelation of divine love to a lost world, such
questions as these will only provoke a supercilious smile. But with such as
have in any measure grasped the great twin truths which characterise
Christianity, a juster estimate will be formed of these perplexities, and a
worthier value set upon any honest effort toward the solution of them. It will
therefore be here my aim to show that all such difficulties spring, not from
the gospel itself, nor from the teaching of Holy Writ, but solely from forms of
expression, and modes of thought, about the death of Christ, which are
unwarranted by Scripture. And this end will perhaps be best attained by
offering first a positive statement of the truth upon this subject, as it is
unfolded in the types of the Old Testament and in the doctrinal teaching of the
New.
Redemption is presented to us in the Scriptures in a twofold
aspect, as connected both with power and with blood. Israel was redeemed out of
Egypt - redeemed "with an outstretched arm." In another sense Israel was
redeemed in Egypt by the blood of the paschal Lamb. But it is essential to
remember that the redemption of the people was complete ere ever they commenced
their wilderness journey. It depended, therefore, not upon the offerings of the
law, but upon the passover in Egypt. The rites enjoined in Leviticus were for a
redeemed and holy people ; it was by the sacrifices recorded in Exodus that
Israel attained that privileged position. It is specially to Exodus, therefore,
that we must turn to learn the truth of the death of Christ in its aspect
toward the unsaved.
I say this without wishing in the least to pander
to the tendency that prevails to map out the Scriptures by hard-and-fast lines
like the squares of a chess-board. The Word of God is a two-edged sword, with a
side both for saved and unsaved; but the secret of attaining clear and
scriptural thoughts is to seek first the primary application of every truth or
text, and then, without danger of error or confusion, we can apply it in the
widest sense. Israel's title to the benefits of the sin offerings depended on
the passover. Let us then mark the difference between the two. In the case of
the sin-offerings, the offerer came to the door of the tabernacle to give his
life as the penalty for his sin, and there, having identified the victim with
himself by laying his hand upon its head, the death of the sacrifice was
accepted instead of his own. And this is what we understand by substitution;
the sinner laid his sin upon the animal, and the victim died instead of him.
And here the death was everything. Whatever ceremonial followed was the care of
the priest, and not of the offerer; that is, of God, and not of the sinner.
But, as we have seen, this was a provision for a people already redeemed.
Israel's right to the services of the priest depended on redemption
accomplished.
But with the great redemption sacrifice of the passover
it was wholly different. The dread death-sentence had gone out against all the
land of Egypt. None were excepted from it. It embraced alike king and captive,
Hebrew and Egyptian. But for Israel that sentence was fulfilled in the blood of
the paschal lamb. But how? There was no laying of the hand upon the head of the
victim, as with the sin-offerings. The death of the lamb, though doubtless the
foundation of every blessing, would in itself have brought no deliverance.
Beyond the threshold of the blood-stained door, the Israelite would have shared
in Egypt's doom; beneath the shelter of that blood, the Egyptian would have
shared in Israel's redemption. The death upon which their deliverance depended
was accomplished; but their participation in the benefits of that death
depended entirely upon the sprinkling of the victim's blood. There was no
question of substitution, in the sense of the sin-offering. The benefits of the
sin-offering were secured to him whose hand had rested on the victim's head,
and they could neither be extended nor transferred. And so. also with the great
day of atonement; it was only for Israel.
It was the same great
sacrifice, doubtless, which all these types prefigured for Israel and
illustrate for us, but in different aspects of it. And the way to follow aright
the teaching of the types is to regard their historical sequence as marking
their moral order. We thus learn the different aspects of the death of Christ,
and the divine order of the truth concerning it. I have contrasted the types of
Exodus with the offerings of the law ; but there is one rite of Leviticus which
presents all this truth at a single view, marking the moral order above
distinguished. I allude to the cleansing of the leper. The leper's birds are
the correlative of no offering of the law, but of the Exodus sacrifices. Then
followed the trespass-offering, the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering with
its meat-offering. I will here speak only of the birds and the sin-offering.
According to the analogy of the great day of atonement, the twofold aspect of
the same offering is presented by two victims, the one being killed, the other
sent out of sight. But mark here the same distinction as that already noticed
between the sin-offering and the passover. The leper's identification with the
victim's death depended on his being sprinkled with its blood; but when he came
to offer his sin-offering he identified the victim with himself beforehand. In
respect of both, the death accomplished was for the leper, but in senses wholly
different. The one blood-shedding was, as with the passover, a means by which
deliverance might be gained, but until that blood was sprinkled the sinner had
no part in it. The other was a substitutional sacrifice, and the result to the
offerer depended immediately, and only, upon the victim's death. In both cases
the death was for the unclean person; but in the latter it was instead of
him.
These different aspects of the death of Christ, though carefully
distinguished in Scripture, are hopelessly confounded in theology; and that
confusion has given rise to the difficulties now under consideration, and
others of a kindred nature. "Bearing sin !this is a figurative expression, and
the figure is derived from the sin-offering; substitution is essentially
characteristic of it. But Scripture never speaks of the death of Christ in its
relation to the unbeliever - the unsaved - in language borrowed from the
sin-offering. Contrast the words of i Peter ii. 24 with Paul's sermons to the
idolaters of Athens, and to the Jews of Pisidian Antioch, and my meaning will
be plainly seen.
The sermons were addressed to the unsaved; the
Epistle is for those who "have returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of their
souls." Just as. with the leper's sparrow the death of the victim - was
typically the righteous ground on which God could pronounce him clean, but that
death was nothing to him until he had been sprinkled with the blood, and then,
and not till then, he was entitled to bring the sin-offering; so the death of
Christ is the righteous ground on. which God can clean the guiltiest and
vilest, and proclaim forgiveness far and near, but until the gospel is received
- for faith answers to the blood sprinkling of the type - that death, though
none the less precious to God, brings no pardon to the sinner. When thus
identified with the sacrifice of Calvary, but only then, the sinner may adop
language, of the. sin-offering, and say "He self bare my sins in His own body
on the tree" As the utterance of faith, such words as these are absolutely and
unequivocally true but as doctrinal assertion upon the lips of the unconverted,
they are utterly false, and the falsehood is all the more, dangerous because of
the perverted truth it seems to embrace. The work of Christ has a great and
real aspect to the world, but this assert this truth of substitution of the
unconverted is to pander to the false peace which is ensnaring tens of
thousands around us, and at the same time to sap the foundations of the
Christian's faith If the 53rd chapter of Isaiah be true of one who may yet be
lost, the ground of the believer's confidence is gone; what seemed a rock
beneath his feet is no better than shifting sand.
But some, perhaps,
will struggle to escape from this inevitable conclusion by the strange and
subtle subterfuge that, though the gospel is to be proclaimed to all, it is
true only for the believer. This error is not more wicked than it is silly. If
it be true only for the believer, it is false for all the rest; and does a good
and righteous God hold men guilty for refusing what is false? The thought is
sheer blasphemy. "The gospel of the glory of the blessed God" is wholly and
absolutely true to all, and for all, whether they believe it or reject it - a
proclamation and an appeal from sovereign grace, now free in virtue of Calvary
to bless without distinction or restriction, and leaving, if unheeded or
despised, the certainty of judgment. The word comes forth from an open heaven,
and if, even as he turns away from Christ, the sinner could look right up to
the very throne and heart of God, he would see a throne of grace, and the heart
that gave the Only-begotten Son. When Jerusalem rejected the glad tidings, they
who were behind the scenes could testify that there was neither reserve nor
artifice in the proclamation; and if that guilty people could have witnessed
what these were privileged to behold, they would have seen a mighty Saviour
pouring forth His heart in tears because their unbelief had paralysed the hand
stretched forth for their deliverance.
But, it will be urged, if Christ
did not die as our substitute, salvation is impossible; and if He did so die
for us, this fact must date from Calvary, and not from our conversion. This
assumes that the death of Christ was instead of some, in such a sense as to
make their salvation forensically a necessity, and that the salvation of any
besides is a moral impossibility. Such difficulties only prove the danger of
departing from the strict accuracy of scriptural expressions in dealing with
these truths. To speak of Christ's dying instead of us, or as our substitute,
is to adopt the language of theology, not of Scripture, and we must take care
lest we use the words in a sense or a connection inconsistent with the truth.
The teaching of Scripture is that He died for sinners (there is no emphasis on
the preposition), and that, on believing, they become identified with Him in
that death.
The language of ancient Greece is far richer than our own in
prepositions, and "instead of" has its unequiwcal correhitive; but this word,
though freely used by the LXX. and found in the New Testament (Matt. 11. 22),
is never employed in such passages as Rom. v. 6, 7, 8. The statement of Matt.
xx. 28, repeated in Mark x. 45, will not be considered an exception to this by
any one who marks the form and purpose of the text. The word no doubt may bave
the same force, just as "for" in English. But in either case such a meaning is
exceptional and forced; and in our own language we should in that case
pronounce the word with emphasis, and print it in italics. A full and careful
consideration of every passage where the word occurs will satisfy the student
that it is never so used in the New Testament. The only text in which our
translators have thus rendered it (2 Cor. v. 20) is a signal proof of this. An
ambassador speaks on behal/ of, not in the stead of, the court which accredits
him. I need not say that substitution is an extra-scriptural
expression.
Let the reader turn, for example, to Peter's sermon to the
household of Cornelius, and mark the character of the testimony given, ending
with these words:-"To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name
whosoever believeth in Him. shall receive remission of sins." Christ was
presented, not in identification with the sinner, but objectively to faith; and
the word was added, "Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of
sins." The hearers believed the testimony, and then and there they were
baptized with the Holy Ghost. Then and not till then, the doctrine of the 6th
chapter of Romans became true of them:-"We who died to sin, how shall we any
longer live therein?" If Christ died as our substitute, then we ourselves are
deemed to have died to sin. Of whom is this true? The next verse gives the
answer in unmistakable terms: "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized
into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" And so on. through the
passage, which claims careful study throughout, ending thus at the ioth and
iith verses :-" For the death which He died He died unto sin once for all, but
the life which He liveth He liveth unto God. Thus do ye also account yourselves
dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus." Words could not be
plainer; all that Christ accomplished for us we, as believers, are to reckon
actually true of ourselves. In the face of this chapter, to maintain that
substitution is a truth for the unsaved is either playing upon words or
trifling with truth.
But it will be asked, are not the closing
verses of 2 Cor .v. addressed to the unconverted, and do not they teach
substitution? To this question I give an emphatic negative. In common with all
the rest of the Epistle, these verses were written to "the Church of God at
Corinth with all the saints in all Achaia." In the last two verses of chapter
v. and the 1st verse of chapter vi. the apostle states the character and
purpose of his ministry. But the "Received Text," by interpolating "for" at the
beginning of verse 5, and separating it from what follows, destroys the
connection ot the passage; and the English version, by introducing pronouns and
altering the emphasis of the words, has utterly disguised its purpose. "On
Christ's behalf, then, we are ambassadors: though God were exhorting by us, we
beseech on Christ's behalf, Be reconciled to God. Him who knew not sin He made
to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
And as fellow-workers (with God) we also exhort that you receive not the grace
of God to no purpose." Our entreaty to the world is, 'Be reconciled'; to you
who have received this grace our exhortation is, 'Receive it not in vain.' In
our ministry to the world we are ambassadors; in our ministry to you we are His
fellow-workers." The 20th verse is in immediate connection with the 18th and
19th verses, and the last verse is introductory to the opening words of the 6th
chapter, all being bracketed together as descriptive of the apostle's ministry.
And the prominent thought in the passage is not the identification of the
sinner with Christ, but the purpose of God to usward in making Him to be sin:
it was "in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." It is
not that He took this place instead of us (which, indeed, would have no
meaning), and that we thereby stood free, but that He became what we were in
order that we might become what He is.
Here then is the key to the
difficulties stated in the opening paragraphs of the chapter. Theology with its
subtleties has given rise to questions from which the simplicity of Scripture
is entirely free. When the sinner believes in Christ he becomes so thoroughly
identified with Him in all His vicarious work, that he can speak of Calvary as
though the crucifixion were but yesterday, and he had there and then been
justified thereby. But to speak of the death of Christ as having this
substitutional relationship to the sinner, apart from the change which takes
place on his believing; and thus to make his pardon appear to be an act of
justice in such a sense that it ceases to be an act of grace, is wholly
unwarranted and false. If there be those on earth whose case is beyond the
scope of the work of Christ, it is not in the power of God to save them; and
thus redemption has failed of its first and highest aim, which is not the
saving of the sinner, merely, but the restoring to God His sovereignty
compromised by sin. But if the death of Christ be substitutionally instead of
the unbeliever, his conversion may alter his condition spiritually and morally,
but it can in no wise affect his judicial state: he is saved in fact and of
right, whether he believes or not. In either case, grace is in chains, and not
enthroned.
Any who will, dismissing prejudice, compare the language of
Scripture with words and phrases popular among us, will be surprised to find
how much there is which is unwarranted, even in what God seems to sanction by
His blessing. We must not forget, however, that grace marks all His dealings
with us, and we ought therefore to be the more careful and earnest to test our
words and thoughts about Christ by Holy Writ. To make apparent success the test
of what is right is just as immoral in the things of God as in the affairs of
men. 'If any should oppose what is here urged by argument or inference, it
would be an easy task to silence them with their own weapons. The imputation of
sin and righteousness as taught in Scripture is reasonable in the highest
sense; but the doctrine here objected to might easily be shown to be not only
false but absurd. This, however, is not the place to enter on a discussion of
such a character.
There is absolutely no limit to the value of the
death of Christ to Godward; and there is not between the poles a single child
of Adam who may not know its power, and receive the reconciliation which it
wrought. And on the ground of this accomplished reconciliation, forgiveness is
proclaimed to all without reserve or equivocation. But it is only the "all that
believe" who are justified; and if it be demanded, why, beneath the supremacy
of boundless love and almighty power, the few, and not the many should be
saved, we can but fall back upon divine sovereignty, and exclaim, "0 the depth
of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His
judgments and His ways past finding out!"
The distinctions here
noticed between the different aspects of the work of Christ are clearly marked
in the ritual of the Great Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.)
There were two
methods by which the Israelite became identified with his sacrifice, viz.,
either by laying his hand upon the victim's head before it was killed, as in
the case of the ordinary sin-offerings (see pp. 89-op ante); or else by having
the blood sprinkled upon him after the victim had been offered, as in the case
of various special sacrifices. But in the ritual of the Day of Atonement there
was no such identification with the goat "upon which the Lord's lot fell." The
ceremonial was entirely to Godward. The blood was carried, not without, to
where the people stood, but within, to the presence of God. And the efficacy of
that blood to Godward was morally the foundation of the cerethonial respecting
the scape-goat, which followed. Aaron, as the appointed representative of the
people, laid his hands upon the head of the victim, and "confessed over it all
the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all
their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat," which,- as the typical
sin-bearer, was then led away" to a land not inhabited." The efficacy to
Godward of the atonement made through the blood of the first goat was absolute
and complete, apart from aught that followed it; but its practical efficacy to
the people depended on their becoming identified with the scape-goat.
And
so it is with the antitype. The perfectness of the work of Christ in no way
depends upon the benefits which accrue therefrom to the sinner. Whether men
receive it or reject it, reconciliation is accomplished, peace is made. But
when the sinner believes in Christ, he enters into peace, he "receives the
reconciliation" (Roms. v. 1, xi). Thus becoming identified with Christ, that
identification reaches back to His death for sin on Calvary.
Substitution, then, is merely a theological statement of one aspect of this
scriptural truth of the believer's oneness with Christ, and if it be taught
apart from that truth, it may degenerate into error. The gospel, instead of
being a divine revelation, may become a mere problem in metaphysics. Instead of
the heart being reached by the stupendous fact that "Christ died for the
ungodly," the intellect may seize upon the inference which obviously follows if
a forced emphasis be put upon the "for." (See Note, p. 95 ante.) That the
danger is real, witness how many there are in our day who seem to receive the
Gospel without any exercise of either heart or conscience.
Chapter Eight - RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Literature | Photos | Links | Home