To teach the truth of Christ is the great commission (Mat.28:19-20). Yet for many, the greatest truth of all - that ‘Jesus died for our sins’ – remains the greatest mystery. How can His blood provide forgiveness for sins? As the Passover Lamb of God, on the eve of His death, after eating a meal with His disciples, Jesus took wine and poured it out for them, saying: ‘This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’ (Mat.26:28, NKJ). Somehow, His shed blood would allow many to be forgiven. He undertook to die for this reason, that through the sacrifice of His life, many would escape the condemnation of God for their sins. Commenting on the phrase: ‘life is in the blood’ (Lev.17:11), Leon Morris remarked that ‘life yielded up in death’ was the sacrificial meaning of ‘blood’ (The Cross in the New Testament, p.219). The blood, therefore, signifies the life that was given up for our sakes. We should also note that it was His ‘blood’ that His disciples were instructed to imbibe – meaning, of course, His life. The apostles would have understood the wine as having this significance, yet it was a sacrificial life. The drinking of this wine also signified ‘the Lord’s death’ (1 Cor.11:26, NKJ).
Still, the question remains: ‘How can the blood of Christ – poured out when He gave up His life in crucifixion – be the means of our forgiveness?’ How can it be understood that He died for our sins?
Clearly, the Bible teaches that forgiveness is necessary if we are to be saved. If there is no forgiveness, then sin remains – and with it the condemnation of the Law. It is forgiveness that takes away condemnation for sins. If we are unforgiven, then no matter how sincerely sorry we are for past transgressions, the just requirements of the Law for our sins remain to condemn us. Past sins need to be forgiven. They need to be cancelled, as far as the Law is concerned – as though they never occured. The forgiveness of God is of this kind: ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool’ (Isa.1:18, NKJ). ‘I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins’ (Isa.43:25, NKJ).
Forgiveness is an act of grace on the part of God – an undeserved pardon. We need forgiveness – for we cannot of ourselves cancel the condemnation that our sins incur. By ourselves, we can never truly be righteous, nor escape our sinful condition. We cannot ’save ourselves’, but we can act to ‘be saved‘ (Acts 2:40, NKJ). As God reaches out to us, therefore, so we must respond. We need to repent, but we also need to believe. We need to believe that the Lord will complete and bring to reality His righteousness in us as we seek to follow His Son. We need to look to Christ in repentance and faith. It is then the Lord delivers us from our sins and grants us newness of life, of His Spirit (Acts 2:38).
‘For God so loved the world,’ John wrote, ‘that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16, NKJ).
We need to believe in the Word of God – that He suffered and died for our sins, as indicated by the references to His blood shed for us. The blood speaks of man’s sin against man and God. As ‘God with us’ (Mat.1:23), He truly became able to forgive as both Man and God through all that He suffered on Earth unto His death by crucifixion. All sins against mankind thus became sins against Him, as the Head of mankind. By suffering our sins, He became able to forgive us our sins – no matter how small or great. The cross permitted such a sufficiency of suffering as would provide an equivalence for all the suffering caused by sin and so allow Him to forgive all sin. Nevertheless, forgiveness alone cannot take away sin. We need also to be helped and saved from our sinfulness if we are to be holy like Christ. To be saved, therefore, we need both the forgiveness of God and the transforming gift of the Holy Spirit, through whom is new life in Christ. The metaphor of His blood poured out for us to drink speaks of His life renewing our own by the outpouring of His Spirit into our hearts (Rom.5:5), as prophesied (Joel 2:29).
Jesus came to ’bear witness to the truth’ (John 18:37). This witness we find in the writings of the New Testament, especially in the Gospels. Jesus fulfilled all that was spoken of Him in the Law and the Prophets (Luke 24:27). He prophesied that He would be put to death and would rise again. He confirmed God’s word through many miraculous acts of power and healing. He appeared to His disciples in bodily form after He had risen from the dead. Jesus came as ‘the Truth’ of God (John 14:6) – personified in word and deed. Today, we are called to proclaim His truth to as many as will hear.
His sacrifice was the acceptable offering to God for our sakes. Through Him, we have forgiveness and new life. In Him, the Lord judges us not as we are, but as we shall be, according to our faith in Christ. The righteousness of the Son is thus imputed to all who are His disciples. We are accepted together with Him, accorded His righteousness through faith and forgiven all our sins.
This book endeavours to assert this truth. Contrary teachings are examined and my prayer is that the reader will come to a better understanding of the greatest truth of all: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Amen.
Norman McIlwain
Penal Substitution and Justice (extract from Chapter 10, ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’)
Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent- the Lord detests them both. (Prov.17:15)
To see why penal substitution is not a travesty of justice of exactly this kind, we need to recall the doctrine of union with Christ we discussed in chapter 5. The believer is not separate from Christ, an unrelated third party. He is in us, and we are in him, indwelt by his Spirit. …
The doctrine of penal substitution thus does not propose a transfer of guilt between unrelated persons. It asserts that guilt is transferred to Christ from those who are united to him. In fact, ‘transfer’ may not even be the best term, since it could imply a separation between distinct persons. Instead, it may be better to say our sins were ‘imputed’ (i.e. ‘reckoned’, or ‘credited’, to use the vocabulary of Rom.4 and Gal.3) to Christ, while his righteousness was imputed to us. That Christ bore our sins willingly merely furthers the point: he was not forced or coerced into this union with us, but entered into it voluntarily. Luther uses the analogy of a marriage between two people, one of them a debtor. The other knows that legal union will bring debt upon himself, but in love nonetheless willingly enters into the marriage. …
Union with Christ explains how the innocent could be justly punished – he is judged for others’ sins, which by virtue of their union with him, become his. Conversely, it explains how the guilty can be acquitted – believers are one with the innocent Lord Jesus Christ, and so his life of perfect righteousness is rightly imputed to us. …
We are now in a position to answer the objection that penal substitution entails unjustly punishing an innocent person. This rests on the claim that our guilt cannot be imputed to Christ, which is in turn grounded on the assumption that we are entirely separate and distinct from him. But the reality is that believers are united to Christ by his Spirit. The imputation of our guilt to Christ does not violate justice, because he willingly consents to a real, spiritual identification with his people. In short, this objection to penal substitution arises from a failure to understand the significance of union with Christ.
(Pierced for our Transgressions, ch.10, pp.242-245; Jeffery, S., Ovey, M., Sach, A.; IVP, UK, 2007)
So, ignorance of the spiritual union between Christ and the Church is a reason why penal substitution is not understood. There is a spiritual ‘marriage’ that Jesus enters into willingly, knowing that in doing so, he will incur our guilt and our debts. These debts he gladly pays on our behalf, suffering the punishment that is owing to us, because of our sins. We, in return, receive his righteousness. Our guilt is imputed to Christ as a result of his union with us. It is because of our oneness with Christ that sins are imputed – it is not like transfering guilt upon another distinct person. That, it is said, is the understanding that opponents of penal substitution have failed to appreciate.
Well, firstly, I am thankful to the authors for having written what many regard as a definitive explanation. That is to their credit. It is a robust contribution to the debate. The flurry of recommendations from well-known figures, allow us to focus on the main arguments as representative of the many who uphold this view, although there have been critics, even amongst supporters. As iron sharpens iron, such a debate is helpful. Advocates tend not to be so critical of each others efforts, but rather tend to reinforce accepted views, without too much depth of critical evaluation. That is often left to others, who see our Lord’s atonement from a different perspective. A lack of appreciation, however, might not be due to a lack of understanding.
Let us first consider the analogy of marriage. A husband takes on the wife’s financial debt and pays it off. In marriage, wealth and financial burdens can be shared, but acts of sin on the part of one committed without complicity on the part of the partner cannot implicate the partner in the guilt or cause the other to justly suffer for the offence. Husbands and wives are not made guilty for the sins of their partners. It matters not that the partner might be willing to suffer for the crime of the other. Although there can be a marriage of wills to share certain responsibilities and burdens, there can be no marriage of wills where there is no complicity in the committing of a crime. We are each held responsible for our own sins.
So it is with Jesus. In marriage with the Church, there is no marriage of His will with the will of man regarding acts of sin – no complicity. Therefore there can be no imputation of guilt or sin. Rather, we read that He ‘offered Himself without spot to God’ (Heb.9:14, NKJ) and ‘gave Himself’ for the church, that he might present to Himself ‘… a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish’ (Eph.5:25-27, NKJ). It is written, ‘He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin‘ (John 3:5, NKJ). That is very plain. In Him is no sin – not any – not ours, not anyone’s. Yet, He was a sin-offering. He was certainly looked upon as ’sin’ by those who maltreated Him at the cross. But, He was not this to God the Father.
However, with respect to the marriage of the Lamb. To whom is the world in debt, because of sin? Against whom have all sinned? – As both Man and God, the Word made flesh is the One against whom all have sinned. Mankind is in debt to Christ. He is our creditor – the One to whom we owe not just a debt of apology, but our lives – in complete and full repentance, if we are to be saved from the ultimate penalty of our sins. So, why should the Groom suffer punishment for the unpaid debt of the bride, when He Himself is the bride’s creditor? Only if we refuse to repent and submit our lives to the Lord, does our condemnation for sin remain. Those who yield their lives in faith to Him, He simply forgives.
Regarding the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the Church: He does not let go of righteousness Himself, He covers us with His own. As members of His body, we consent to do what is righteous and God is pleased to judge us righteous in Him.
The idea that man’s sins can somehow be imputed to Christ does not work. Jesus does not consent to sin. The idea presented above suggests that by imputing our sins to Christ, we somehow are set free. Yet, Jesus retains His righteousness, though His righteousness is imputed to His followers. By the same token, we should retain our guilt and sin, though these be imputed to Christ. It simply does not make sense, nor can it be just. Those who consent to do what is righteous are righteous in Christ. That is how we, if we are His, are judged:
‘If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him’ (1 John 2:29, NKJ).
‘Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous’ (1 John 3:7, NKJ).
The Holy Spirit does indeed unite us in fellowship with God. Jesus prayed:
‘I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me’ (John 17:20-21, NKJ).
However, if our oneness in Christ means that our guilt for sins becomes His, as supporters of penal substitution claim, by this reasoning, our guilt for sin should be imputed also to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, with whom the Church is united. Advocates attempt a way around this obvious difficulty by claiming also that at the time of the crucifixion, Jesus was abandoned, by God the Father and the Holy Spirit, to suffer alone. (See here: ch.1, ‘When He cried to Him, He heard’ .) The reason why this cannot be a solution to the problem should also be obvious. The reason that Jesus can be imputed with our sins and guilt is said to be that it is because we are united with Him spiritually, through the Holy Spirit. Yet, at the time our sins are said to have been imputed to Him, the Holy Spirit is said to have left Him. Moreover, if our union with Him and the imputation of our sins are seen as outside of history, then this must be inclusive of our union with the Holy Spirit and the Father. If Jesus was alone at the cross, then He was not united with us through the Holy Spirit. If He was united with us through our union with the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit and the Father would also share our guilt for sins. This line of reasoning simply does not make sense.
What the authors advocate as an explanation that is ‘not a travesty of justice of exactly this kind’ (Prov.17:15, see above), is still a travesty of justice – perhaps even more so, when we consider the unintended implications.
Feb
22
‘Heal My soul’? Eusebius of Caesarea – A Commentary on the Atonement
Filed Under Uncategorized
‘Demonstration of the Gospel’; Psalm 41
Eusebius (c.260-339), Bishop of Caesarea from 313, is most remembered for his invaluable ‘Ecclesiastical History’, completed and revised from 303-324. However, Eusebius was a prolific author and penned many other works, including commentaries, orations, apologies and dogmatic writings. At Caesarea, he also built up an extensive library of Christian manuscripts, including those of Origen, whose writings he admired, and many works of philosophy. Regarding his theology, although he is known to have given support to Arianism, this may have been due to a misconception on his part regarding certain expressions Arians used – especially terms describing the nature of the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. They held that Jesus was a created being, that He was not true God, and that there was a time when He did not exist. At the Council of Nicaea (325), Eusebius sought to clarify his position and gave his signature to the orthodox views of the Nicene Creed: that Jesus is indeed : ‘true God from true God …eternally begotten of the Father …begotten, not made, of one being with the Father .’
Only the first ten books of his apologetic work: ‘The Demonstration of the Gospel’ have come down to us; the final ten books are missing. Nevertheless, views he expressed in the books remaining are worthy of careful consideration, especially those that relate to his explanation of our Lord’s atonement. For drawing attention to this work, I am grateful to the authors of the book: ‘Pierced for our Transgressions‘. A passage from ‘The Demonstration’ (otherwise known as ‘The Proof of the Gospel‘) is presented in their book to suggest historical evidence for the doctrine of penal substitution. For this reason also, it is quoted in the work: ‘The Doctrine of Justification by Faith’, by the British theologian of the 17th century, John Owen.
Here is the quotation:
‘And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?” And by the rule that “if one member suffer all the members suffer with it,” so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the law of love. And the Lamb of God … was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us.’
(The Proof of the Gospel, Bk. 10, Ch. 1 (467); ed. and trans. by Ferrar, J.W; reprint: Baker, 1981)
Clear from the context is the idea that Jesus empathizes with the sufferings of the members of His body as a result of their sins. Nevertheless, Eusebius, went further, making reference to Psalm 41 to suggest that the Lord, by ‘uniting Himself to us‘, could say of Himself that He had ’sinned’:
‘With regard first to the words which are apparently said in the person of our Saviour: “Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee,” …And He speaks thus because He shares our sins.’ (466)
‘…uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, “I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee,”…’ (467/8)
(The Proof of the Gospel, Bk. 10, Ch. 1; ed. and trans. by Ferrar, J.W; reprint: Baker, 1981)
Let us be clear, Eusebius held the belief that Jesus sinned (though not personally), by reason of His union with the members of His body, the Church; and that, as such, He ‘suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins’. He received punishment and death that were owing to us (‘due to us’). This was his understanding. But, he added:
‘…the words, ‘I have sinned against thee,’ are not to be taken literally, …’ (ibid, 470)
These were ‘our sins’, Eusebius remarked. In Himself, Jesus was innocent and of ‘absolute integrity‘:
‘…the words, “Thou hast protected me for my innocence,” exhibit the absolute integrity of His nature …’ (ibid, 470, cf. Psalm 41)
In the theology of Eusebius, the reason for the atonement expressed above was but one of several, which he listed in Book 4:
‘…firstly, the Word teaches by His death that He is Lord both of the dead and of the living; secondly, that He will wash away our sins, being slain, and becoming a curse for us; thirdly that a victim of God and a great sacrifice for the whole world might be offered to Almighty God; fourthly, that thus He might work out the destruction of the evil powers of the demons by unspeakable words; and fifthly also, that shewing the hope of life with God after death to His friends and disciples not by words only but by deeds as well …He might make them of good courage and more eager to preach both to Greeks and Barbarians …’ (167)
(The Proof of the Gospel, Bk. 4, Ch. 12; ed. and trans. by Ferrar, J.W; reprint: Baker, 1981)
So, what are we to make of his view?
Ferrar accomplished his excellent work of translating based upon the Greek compilation of Gifford. In the above quotation, however, readers may wonder as to the exact meaning of the phrase ‘due to us’ ; does this mean, ‘because of us’? In short, no, it does not. The expression derives its meaning from the Greek ‘opheilo’ and refers to the state of ‘owing’ – of being ‘in debt’. Our sins have caused us to be in debt both to man and God, according to the moral and just Law of God. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, ‘And forgive us our debts, as also we forgive our debtors‘ (Mat.6v12, KJV), the same root is found in the text: for debts is written ‘opheilema’ and for debtors, ‘opheiletes’. In the forms of opheilo and opheile the word also appears twice in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Mat.18), translated ‘debt’. Sins, therefore, cause one to be in debt to both man and God, under the Law.
In the Bible, true justice is explained according to the simple principle of equivalence: ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth …’ (Lev.24:17-20). Jesus experienced the mental and physical suffering of man’s sins, for which mankind is in debt. According to this rule of justice, as we do to others, so we are due to have done to us – to an equal degree. In the view of Eusebius, therefore, what Jesus endured was truly representative of suffering caused by and owing to mankind, as a result of sin. The question is, was this the punishment of God?
If only for the fact that it is inconceivable that God should punish either with a Roman scourging or with ‘insults’, the answer surely is, ‘No.’ The sufferings of Jesus spoke of the sin of humanity for which cause He came and from the consequences of which He came to save. At the cross, Jesus bore upon Himself ‘the sin of the world’ – in His human body and against His divine person. Those who killed Jesus, in the words of Stephen, were murderers (Acts 7: 52). He was taken unlawfully and punished without true justice (Acts 2:23; 8:33). Jesus suffered this for us – but why?
In what way did Eusebius understand the penalty that Jesus suffered, but ‘did not owe‘? We can infer from the context that this penalty was perceived as our debt, because of sin. From the principle of equivalence under the Law, the penalty can be viewed as the retribution demanded by the Law to counterbalance the offence and so satisfy justice. Therefore, by the Law, the suffering caused by our sins should equal, in degree, the suffering owing to us as a penal debt. So, all the suffering that Jesus bore as a result of man’s sins can be seen as also the degree of suffering for which mankind is indebted to pay as the penalty for those sins. However, we need to ask, by suffering the equivalence of ‘the penalty’ as understood by this reasoning, did Jesus also pay the penalty? By suffering the same degree of suffering due to us as a debt because of sins, must we assume that Jesus also paid the debt?
Firstly, let us distinguish between sin and the suffering caused by sin. The suffering is not the sin. The suffering is the consequence of the sin. Punishment is suffering caused to an offender by an act deemed to either satisfy justice or be corrective, or both. So punishment brought to bear upon an offender as a penalty can be equal to and of the same kind as the suffering caused by the offence. However, although this may be true, how can the suffering caused by our sin against Christ also be our penalty? How can the suffering caused by the unlawful taking of another’s life be also the punishment for the crime? The suffering caused by sin can equal the suffering of the penalty, but can never be the penalty. One does not pay for one’s crimes with the suffering caused by one’s sins. Man’s act of sin against God’s Son cannot also be our punishment.
Can the suffering caused to a victim of crime ever be the offender’s penalty? One loses an eye as a victim of crime, can that loss ever be the offender’s punishment? – Can that loss ever pay the penalty for the crime? – No! Neither can the affliction and death caused to God’s Son by the sins of man ever pay the penalty for that sin.
Clear is the fact that Eusebius viewed the suffering of Jesus as the means to our forgiveness. He wrote: ‘…and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins,‘ (see the passage above). The Greek word translated ‘the cause’ is ‘aitios’. We find this substantive word in the New Testament, rendered ‘the author’:
‘He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,’ (Heb.5:9, NKJ).
By the cross, Jesus became the cause and author of the forgiveness of our sins. Mankind is accounted to have sinned against Him and it is through Him that our sins as members of His body are now forgiven. The suffering of the cross unto death enabled God’s Son as both Man and God to cancel the debts of all who truly repent. Through faith in the Son of God, there is no sin so great that cannot be forgiven. He has earned the right to cancel the debt of all who come to Him with a repentant heart, for it is against Him, who is both Man and God, that all have sinned. (See also: Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!)
Eusebius did not say that Jesus transferred to Himself our debt to pay the penalty in our place, although it may be thought that this is what he implied. After all, if one transfers someone else’s debt to one’s own account, one might assume that this must be the same as cancelling one’s debt. – Right? No. It is not the same at all. A debt transferred from one bank to another does not free one of debt, it merely transfers the debt owing from one creditor to another. But the new bank may offer conditions for cancellation. – Remember, this is about forgiveness. If one pays the debt for another, the debt has not been forgiven. It has been paid. If the demand for payment is met by someone else, there is no cancellation. The debt of sin owing to man was transferred to the Head of man, Jesus Christ. Eusebius said that Jesus, through the cross, became the author of our forgiveness - and in this he was right.
Penal substitution is not about forgiveness, it is about paying what is due. At the cross, Jesus – as it were – bought up all our debt with His life. This, as Eusebius remarked, was ‘the price of our souls’ (ibid, Book 10, Ch.1, 467). Now, through the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Son, man’s debts for sin against man and owing to man, have become debts owing to Him through whom our forgiveness is made possible. Man is in debt to the risen Lord and Head of all humanity. He is both God and Man, and it is through Him that we can now be forgiven all debts. Eusebius wrote: ‘…and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins.‘
All that Jesus endured was for the sake of all who turn to God. Without the forgiveness of God through Jesus, condemnation for sin remains. Without the incarnation of the divine Word of God, there would have been no Man to forgive man’s debt.
‘…the words which are apparently said in the person of our Saviour: “Heal my soul, for I have sinned …“‘
(Eusebius: The Proof of the Gospel, Bk. 10, Ch. 1, (466); ed. and trans. by Ferrar, J.W; reprint: Baker, 1981)
We need to recognize that much of what Eusebius wrote was according to his own speculative theology and not according to Church tradition. In the above quotation, the words ‘apparently said‘ are indicative of the author’s own admission to a degree of uncertainty about the interpretation that he was placing upon the verse in question, from Psalm 41. This was his own view, not Church doctrine. Nevertheless, was Eusebius right to suggest that Jesus, as head of His body – the Church, could say, as in the Psalm, ‘Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee’ ?
There is an analogy expressed in the New Testament that uses the human body as an example to illustrate the relationship of Christians as Church members to Christ, as Head of the Church: ‘And He is the head of the body, the church …’ (Col.1:18, NKJ); ‘Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually …’ (1 Cor.12:27, NKJ); ‘…there are many members, yet one body’ (1 Cor.12:20, NKJ); ‘…if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it’ (1 Cor.12:26, NKJ); ‘… no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body …’ (Eph.5:29-30, NKJ).
No analogy works in all respects. There are similarities, but also incongruities. We can sympathize with a brother or sister going through a trial, for example – as one member suffers, we can suffer also. However, we do not experience the full suffering of the other member. There is a degree to which we can empathize with all that others endure. Likewise, we can bear the burden of sin that other members are suffering, even as the apostle said we should do (‘Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ,’ Gal.6:2, NKJ). But, when one member falls into sin, that does not mean that we do also. We are not made sinners by the sins of others, nor are we responsible (unless we have colluded in some way, of course). We are responsible for our own sins. We are not made guilty by association – simply because others with whom we are related choose to sin. So it is with Christ: ‘He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin‘ (John 3:5, NKJ).
As a person enters into a relationship with Jesus as personal Saviour and Lord, all sins are forgiven and the robe of Christ’s righteousness becomes one’s ‘garment of salvation’ (Isa.61:10). As Christians, we are covered by His life and imbued with the Holy Spirit, as children of God. Jesus does not ask the Father to forgive Him for our sins. As God Himself, how can He? As the One who takes away our sins, how can He? As THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, how can He? The Father has nothing to forgive His Son. The Son is not implicated in any sin or wrongdoing. Always He does that which is pleasing to the Father – and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One. In this matter, Eusebius overstretched the analogy and was wrong.
Jesus was indeed made a sin-offering, and was made to be sin in the judgment of those who crucified Him – but this was not the righteous judgment of God. The Lord’s sacrifice was accepted as a ’sweetsmelling aroma‘ (Eph.5:2, NKJ), without corruption. He bore our sins as the One against whom all have sinned. He also bore our sins in His heart; but as Saviour, takes them away through the forgiveness He now offers to all who truly repent.
It is perhaps easy to see why Eusebius of Caesarea – expressing such views as that Jesus could regard Himself to have sinned, as Head of the body - was suspected by some of his contemporaries of holding to an Arian opinion of Christ. At the Council of Antioch, held early in 325 AD and presided over by Bishop Ossius, Eusebius was one of only three out of fifty-nine bishops who refused to sign the distinctly anti-Arian ‘Statement of Faith‘ (ref. ‘The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy 318-381‘, pp.146-151: Hanson, R.P.C; Baker Academic, 1988; T&T Clark, London & N.Y., 2005). The three bishops were given a suspended excommunication to allow them time to reconsider their positions. This explains why Eusebius was at pains to confirm his orthodoxy of belief at the general ecumenical council that convened at Nicaea later that year – and his efforts resulted in his condemnation being cancelled. Perhaps Eusebius felt compelled to revise his position on the nature of Christ and his view of the atonement as a result. After all, as observed above, it is certain that his expressed views of the atonement included his own mere speculations and were not presented to suggest widely held Christian beliefs, received by apostolic tradition.
Unfortunately, antiquity of belief in a doctrinal position is often considered reason of itself for acceptance – when really one should seek to discover if a teaching is in agreement with the Scriptures, and especially those of the New Testament. Nevertheless, although historicity is important, it is apparent that nothing like ‘penal substitution‘ is known to have been taught earlier than that supposed in Eusebius* – and this from a work written at a time when he was known to have supported the Arianist faction of the Church. (*See: Reflections from writings of early Church fathers – the views of Justin Martyr)
To the divine soul and nature of the Word – when He became incarnate – was added the human nature of man.
Jesus had both divine and human nature: human – because he had all the physical senses and attributes of humanity; divine – because He was Immanuel, and as such would not act contrary to His own divine will and Spirit, though affected and limited by the human nature He assumed. He was always at one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Can we say that the will of Jesus was ever contrary to the will of the Father? I suppose we can speak of the pull of the flesh as being the will of the flesh, often opposed to the pull or will of the Spirit. What does the statement, ‘Not My will, but Yours be done,’ signify? It means, I believe, that He chose not to allow the divine will to be overcome by the ‘will’ of His flesh, naturally wanting to defend the body against torment and pain – the influence of His human body. Jesus always subjected the will of His flesh to the divine will of the Father – the will of the Spirit. Wanting to escape pain and torment is not a sin, but Jesus never allowed temptations or His desire to escape suffering to compromise His integrity. Therefore, we can see in Jesus a second Adam, without sin. In Jesus, the pulls of the flesh were always made subject to the will of the Spirit. The body exerts pressure and influence, but it does not take decisions. The seat of moral rationality is the soul – and the soul of Jesus, though influenced by His flesh, always acted in agreement with the divine will.
I am reminded of what Athanasius wrote: ‘…the Body [of the Word] … is not the Word Himself, but a distinct entity (Athanasius, Letter LIX.— To Epictetus, 9, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891). The will of the Word’s body – its pulls and defences, acting according to nature – belonged to the incarnate Word, but was subordinate to the divine will – emanating from His own divine Soul and Spirit. At the cross, Jesus acted against His bodily desire and so could say, speaking out of His humanity: ‘Not My will, but yours …’
Moral decisions come from the soul – and the soul of Jesus is eternal in integrity. In spite of human nature often pulling against the Spirit, the incarnate Word always chose to do what was right and according to His divine Spirit.
Jesus as the second Adam
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. …And the Word was made 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 1:1-14, NKJ)
Paul wrote that the Word, ‘Christ Jesus’, divested Himself of heavenly glory in order to come in our likeness:
‘… who being in the form of God … made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men.’
(Philip.2:5-7, NKJ)
On being born of woman, Jesus possessed the same divine soul of steadfast integrity and righteousness as He had throughout all eternity. By contrast, the soul of Adam was newly formed at his creation. The soul of the incarnate Jesus was without such origin, being eternal. For these reasons, the integrity of Jesus could not have been anything other than perfect and complete from the very beginning of His incarnation. Moreover, because of this, although possessing human nature and tempted as all men, when able to exercise moral decisions in His humanity, He acted according to the integrity of His eternal divinity in perfect righteousness.
In Hebrews, we read of Him:
‘For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.’
(Heb.4:15, NKJ)
Although, when still an infant, Jesus was immature in His bodily growth and naturally limited in His humanity from taking moral decisions, when Immanuel (‘God-with-us’) began to exercise His freewill, He naturally acted according to the dictates of His immortal soul, in full concord with His eternal integrity.
God chooses to do what is right and good and He gives to man that same freewill to choose right from wrong, according to what is truly godly. The soul of Adam was immature in its integrity from the very beginning. The soul of the incarnate Jesus was not.
Read the whole book online!
(Click on the image to begin.)
First published by Oak Wood Publishing House and printed by Antony Rowe Ltd in 2006, ISBN 0-9551029-0-1. All rights reserved.
If this is your first time to visit, take a few moments to browse through the contents of this book – then make time to read it. Your efforts will be rewarded. Thank you for coming.
“Our view of God, as Christians, is coloured by our understanding of the crucifixion. It matters profoundly to us personally and corporately that we come to a better understanding.”
“Jesus was the sacrifice of righteousness, of whom we are the beneficiaries as His followers. We are justly declared righteous – not because of ourselves, but because of the One who gave His life for us – to whom we look in faith.”
“The Lord Jesus suffered unjustly at the hands of man and was condemned by sinners, not God (Acts 8:33; Acts 5:30). His death fulfilled not the penalty of God for sin, but the completion of all righteousness, whereby He offered up the perfect sacrifice for all who trust in Him through faith.”
“Although man is allowed to die in consequence of sin, the first death is not God’s punishment for sin, for we read: ‘…it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment’ (Heb.9:27, NKJ). Jesus was indeed offered ‘to bear the sins of many’ (v28), but in what manner and for what purpose did He choose to bear our sins?”
To God be the glory.
Norman McIlwain
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ';' in /home/normanna/public_html/wp-content/themes/surprising-sunset-10/footer.php on line 216