Saved From What?

PDF

Tonight, we continue our study together of the great doctrines of the Bible. And I'm excited about the fact that we begin to look at the great doctrine of salvation. Tonight, I want us to begin with really a crucial question: When we talk about salvation, really, it's a word that simply means rescue, to be rescued, to be delivered. And the key question immediately is, "From what? Saved from what?" 

Several years ago, Aaron Ralston wrote a book entitled Between a Rock and a Hard Place. This is from the book's jacket: 

It started out as a simple hike in the Utah canyon on a warm Saturday afternoon. It was 2:41 p.m., 8 miles from his truck, in a deep and narrow slot canyon. Aaron was climbing down off a wedged boulder when the rock suddenly and terrifyingly came loose. Before he could get out of the way, the falling stone pinned his right hand and wrist against the canyon wall. And so began six days of hell for Aaron Ralston. With scant water and little food, no jacket for the painfully cold nights, and the terrible knowledge that he told no one where he was headed, he found himself facing a lingering death, trapped by an 800-pound boulder, 100 feet down the bottom of a canyon.

As he eliminated his escape options, one by one, through the daze, Aaron faced the full horror of his predicament. By the time any possible search and rescue effort would begin, he'd most probably have died of dehydration if a flash flood didn't drown him before that. Using the video camera from his pack, Aaron began recording his grateful goodbyes to his family and friends all over the country, thinking back over a life filled with adventure, and documenting a last will and testament with the hope that someone would find it.

The picture you see on the screen is one he took in those desperate days. The knowledge of his family's love kept Aaron Ralston alive until a divine inspiration, as he called it, on Thursday morning, solved the riddle of the boulder, how to get loose from an 800-pound boulder. Aaron then committed the most extreme act imaginable, to save himself. He amputated his own arm. 

As we learned recently in our study of the doctrine of man, all of us, without exception, find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. But the difference is that Aaron could save himself. There was an option that he could take by which he could deliver himself from death. For us and what we have found about our condition before God, helping ourselves is an absolute impossibility. If we are to be rescued, our only hope is in God. He must act, or we are lost forever. 

Tonight, we begin the study of the doctrine of salvation. Theologians refer to it as the doctrine of soteriology, simply from two Greek words, one meaning to save and the other meaning to study. It's the study of salvation. Salvation is the comprehensive term for that deliverance, that complete, comprehensive deliverance that was accomplished through the person and work of Jesus Christ, applied by the Holy Spirit and received as a gift of God's grace by faith and faith alone.

Now, as we begin our study of this profound and absolutely crucial study to the life of a Christian, I want to give you a road map, but let me just put a plug in here before I move to the next screen. I think sometimes, as Christians, we believe that studying the doctrine of salvation is really unimportant. After all, we're already believers. After all, we've already come to a place of salvation. And that's something I think some Christians think of as in the past. That's tragic, really. It's tragic to think of the doctrine of salvation that way. Paul certainly didn't. Paul wrote the Roman Christians, people who had already come to embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, and he wrote an entire book detailing that gospel to them. It was crucial for them to hear it. 

As we studied Philippians together, we came to Philippians chapter 3, and Paul reminded the Philippians that this truth about justification, the great salvation that was theirs in Christ, is something he had reminded them about time and time again. And he said, "But it's good. In fact, it's necessary for me to remind you yet again." You and I should never get beyond being overwhelmed by, finding our delight in, enjoying the study and contemplation of the great salvation that is ours in Jesus Christ. I have already found my own soul deeply refreshed in just this first week as I've studied these truths. And my prayer is that by the time we're done with the study, not a single person will have been unaffected by this study together. It is transforming.

Now, let me give you a road map of where we're heading. These are the messages and topics I want us to cover together. We're going to start tonight with the nature of the atonement. That is, why did Christ have to die? What are we saved from? Then, I want us to look at the process that salvation takes. Some theologians call it the ordo salutis. We'll sort of walk our way through that, and that study will tell us why we're going to do the next studies in the order I have them here. First of all, we'll study, then, election; we'll talk about regeneration; effectual calling, which is something some of you have heard of, some of you may have not, but it's crucial in the doctrine of salvation; repentance; faith; we'll move on then to justification; to adoption; sanctification; perseverance; glorification. 

And then we're going to look at a couple of hot potatoes: I want us to look at Arminianism versus Calvinism, just so you understand what those terms mean. Often there is, frankly, an absolute ignorance of what they mean and just emotion about a response to them. And we want to look together at, really, what those two schools of thought teach and how the Bible walks through them. And then, finally, I want us to step back at the end of our study together and look at what were the great solas of the Reformation: Sola gratia, that is, by grace alone; sola fide, by faith alone; and solo Christo," by Christ alone. And so, we're going to look at those great overarching linchpins, if you will, of the Reformation, hinges on which the Reformation turned, at the end of our study together. As you can see, we have a few weeks before us in this great doctrine of salvation. Every one of these is absolutely crucial from a biblical perspective. And it's crucial for you, and for me< to understand exactly what it is that the Bible has to say about these issues. 

The question I want us to begin with tonight is: Saved from what? Why exactly do we need to be rescued? And what exactly do we need to be rescued from? Why is it that Christ died? Really, this is the question of the nature of the atonement. I want us to begin — this is one of my favorite things to do. I learned this from a mentor of mine, a man I've never met, but whose life has influenced me more than I can say to you. And I look forward to greeting him in heaven and telling him what a profound influence his life and ministry has had on me. And that's Martin Lloyd-Jones. He always began by saying — I listened to a series of his that he did on Friday nights, I believe, at Westminster Chapel, on the great doctrines of the Bible, a multiset series of audio tapes. I still remember one on regeneration. And, of course, in that wonderful British accent, he says, "First we must talk about what regeneration is not." And he went on to explain why that's so important: Because you and I accumulate pieces of information as we walk through our Christian life and experience, some of them from informed, accurate sources, and other pieces of that information come from uninformed but well-meaning sources, and it sort of sidetracks us on what these truths are. And so, it's important, before we build a house, that we tear down the one that's there. So, let's begin by talking about why Christ didn't die, or more accurately, those things that were a part — well, no. I shouldn't say that. Let me stop there. Some of these were a genuine part of the atonement, not the first one I'll talk about. But none of them are the thrust of the atonement. None of them are the key defining issue of the atonement. And we'll get there later tonight. But let's begin with what the atonement was not. 

Christ did not die for these reasons. These are wrong theories of the atonement. First of all, there's the ransom to Satan theory. This was originally taught by Origen, in the second century of the church. There are no known current proponents of this view, but there is a lot of popular misunderstanding about this. If you ask, if you were to go out with a survey sheet and ask a group of average Christians why Christ had to die, you would [often] get the answer, "As a ransom payment to Satan." They wouldn't put it maybe in those words, but in the end, that's where they would come. So, it is very popular. The definition of this position is this: Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan to purchase people from Satan because of His rightful claim to them. After all, we're enslaved to Satan. And so, as the theory goes, therefore, we're enslaved to Satan and sin, so payment has to be made to Satan to sort of get us back from Satan. There are a number of texts they use; you can see them here on the screen. The problem with this view is that Christ's death, according to Scripture, was a judgment on Satan, not a payment to him. In fact, if you were to read Colossians chapter 2, you would discover that Jesus, in His death at the cross, led captive Satan and all of his hosts. He absolutely decimated Satan. It was no payment. Instead, it was a victory over Satan. 

Another false theory of the atonement — and I'm just going to touch on these because it's important, again, that you sort of be inoculated against these false views that are out there — the recapitulation theory. Again, this has ancient roots, goes back to one of the early church fathers, Irenaeus, [in] the second century. There are no current proponents of this view. It teaches that Christ, in His life, recapitulated, or experienced, all of human life, including sin and death, thereby reversing the course that Adam set. The proof texts they use [are] in Romans 5 and Hebrews 2. The problem with this view is it undermines the sinlessness of Christ. It has Christ actually experiencing sin. It misunderstands some of the texts that talk about His being made sin on our behalf, and pretty soon you have Him experiencing everything we experience to get us back on the right track. That's not the reason Christ died. 

A third false view of the atonement is the satisfaction, or commercial theory taught by Anselm. Now, we've moved ahead a thousand years, the eleven hundreds, the thousands AD. There are no current proponents of this view either. But it teaches that sin robbed God of His honor, and that's true; that Christ's death brought infinite honor to God, which is also true; but here's where it breaks down: God rewarded the death of Christ by viewing His death as a work of supererogation. That is, He earned merit that He didn't need. And then God then passes on Christ's stored-up merits to those who respond to Christ in faith. You can see tiny little elements of the truth there when we talk about the righteousness of Christ being imputed to believers. But he misses the point of the atonement, of the death of Christ. Primarily, he used John 10:18. The problem with this view is that it elevates God's honor above the other attributes. And most importantly, it denies substitutionary atonement, that Christ died as our substitute. 

Moving on to the next theory of the atonement that's incorrect: The moral influence theory. Abelard was the original proponent, born in 1079. There are some people who now embrace this. Now, a couple of those are theologians that you will never see, many of you. But notice, the emerging church movement that we talked about last Sunday night is embracing this theory. Let me give you a definition of it, here's why Christ died: Christ's death was not necessary to atone for sin. Instead, it served as a profound demonstration of God's love, which softens our hearts and moves us to repent. Listen to Brian McLaren in one of his books, the leader of the emerging church movement. He puts these words in the mouth of a fictitious character, after what we believe about Christ's death has been taught, and that is, He died as a substitute: "That sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse." In other words, for God to allow His son to die, as a substitute, must have been like divine child abuse.

Another writer from the emerging church movement, or who's embraced by the emerging church movement, Steve Chalke, wrote a controversial book called The Lost Message of Jesus. This guy is well known in Britain, and he and [Alan] Mann, his collaborator, these two guys, wrote this book, and they wrote it against what they call the myth of redemptive violence. Listen to what they write: 

The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse, a vengeful Father punishing His Son for an offense He has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious, and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement that "God is love." 

"If the cross is a personal act of violence," notice the pejorative language this guy uses, "if the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind, but borne by His Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to reply evil with evil." They go on to say that the cross simply serves as a profound demonstration of the love of God. On the cross, 

Christ absorbed all the pain, all the suffering caused by the breakdown in our relationship with God, and in doing so, demonstrated the links to which a God who is love will go to restore it. The cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father, and Jesus as His Son, are prepared to go to prove their love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.

That's the view the emerging church is taking. The problem with this view is it requires no atonement. The basis of Christ's death is solely in God's love. 

A fifth false view of the atonement is the example theory. This was originated by a heretic, Socinus, in 1539, when his life and ministry were taking place. Current proponents of this view are the unitarians and openness of God theologians. We haven't talked much about the openness of God. These are people who believe that God doesn't know the future, and that God just reacts to what you and I do. Unfortunately, this aberration is, too, becoming popular, but they hold to this view. The definition is [that] Christ's death did not atone for sin. Instead, it provided an example of faith and obedience that inspires man to repent and live a similar life. The problem with this view is that [it claims] Christ was "only a Man" and no atonement was necessary.

One final false theory: It's called the governmental theory. Grotius was the originator of this view. Current proponents are guys you probably won't recognize. The definition is [that] God's government demanded Christ's death so that God could demonstrate His high regard for His law and His hatred of sin. Christ did not suffer the penalty required by the law, but God accepted Christ's death as a token payment for sin and as a substitute for that penalty. In other words, it was just to justify God's government, His rule of law. Somebody had to uphold His law. But the payment for the true penalty of breaking that law wasn't paid by Christ. The problem with this view is that God sets His law aside and forgives without the law's penalty being met. 

Now, those are the false views. Perhaps you've seen a little hint of maybe something you've clung to in terms of why Christ died. I want us to look in the time we have remaining at the biblical doctrine. What exactly does the Bible teach regarding the nature of the atonement, or why Christ died?

The reformers were the first to really clarify what the Bible teaches on this issue. There were others who had hints of it before in church history, but they were forced to really deal with it in a way that it hadn't been forced to be dealt with before. Calvin was the leading one [of] the definition of this view. Let me give you a couple of different men. I love these definitions. Christ's death was a vicarious, or that is, substitutionary — those words mean the same thing — sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God's justice upon sin, paying the penalty of man's sin, bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness, and reconciling man to God. That is the biblical doctrine of why Christ died. Or as Alan Cairns puts it in his excellent dictionary of theology, it is "the satisfaction of divine justice by the Lord Jesus Christ, in His active and passive obedience," that is, His life and death, "which procures for His people a perfect salvation."

This is what the Scriptures teach. This is what I want us to look at, in closer examination, in the time that we have remaining. Let's look first at the biblical words. You start with the Old Testament, of course. Kaphar is the Hebrew word, it's often translated in our New American Standard as to make atonement. Literally, the word means to cover. In the Septuagint, in the New Testament, it's translated with the word hilaskomai, which means to propitiate. We're going to talk about propitiation in a minute. If you don't know what that word means, stand by, we'll get there. This is the Hebrew word. There's another Hebrew word that's often used, salach; it's translated as to forgive. It has the meaning of lightness, lifting up or to be sent away. In the Septuagint, in the New Testament, this Hebrew word is translated by the Greek word aphiemi. It means to let go of or to forgive.

So, the concept of atonement, characterized in these two Hebrew words, and in the Greek words that were used in the Septuagint, that is, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and in the New Testament, occurs in both testaments. Atonement is not something just sort of stuck back in the sacrificial system in the Old Testament. No, it breathes through both testaments. W.G.T Shedd writes, "The connection of ideas, then, in the Hebrew text appears to be this," he's going to pull these words together, listen to this definition: "The suffering of the substitute bullock or ram has the effect," the suffering of that animal, "has the effect to cover over the guilt of the real criminal and to make it invisible to the eyes of God. When this is done, the transgressor is at rest." To cover, to make it invisible, as it were, to the eyes of God. Shedd continues: "By the suffering of the sinner's atoning substitute, the divine wrath on sin is propitiated," or satisfied, "and as a consequence of this satisfaction, the punishment due to sin is released and not inflicted upon the transgressor. This release, or this non-infliction of the penalty is forgiveness, as the Bible represents it." 

So, there is a covering, making it invisible to the eyes of God, satisfying His anger against sin, His wrath against sin, which enables Him, then, not to inflict the penalty you and I deserve, and that's what the Bible calls forgiveness. This is biblical atonement. 

Now, there are a couple of key words, English words, that summarize the meaning of the cross, the meaning of Christ's death. The first one, and you need to know it well, is penal. It means relating to punishment for breaking the law. We describe the penal code, which is the law code, the code that expresses itself in laws that must be kept, and if you break those laws, then you have violated that code and you are due punishment — a sentence. Christ died, and His death had to do [with], it related to, punishment for the breaking of the law. It has to do with God's law. The atonement, Christ's death, corrects our standing before the law of God. 

First of all, let me just tell you how man stands. Because we've broken the law, there's a code, it's summarized as, or outlined, I should say, by the Ten Commandments. At some point, we'll go through the Ten Commandments. Those are profound, profound words; actually, ten Hebrew words. And in each of those ten words, or Ten Commandments, there is summarized an entire area of life. For example, when God says, "You shall not commit adultery," that doesn't mean that's the only sexual sin. But in a culture that was primarily verbal, when those commands were given, they didn't get their own written copies. God gave them ten words that summarized everything else: "If you can remember these ten words, then you can remember all of My requirements, or all of the areas of life in which My requirements fall." You shall not commit adultery. Was that the only sexual sin? No, there's a whole list of them. But that was to remind the Israelites when they learned that commandment that God was Lord over that area of life, and He had established parameters for the proper use of that gift to humankind. So, there's the law outlined in the Ten Commandments, summarized by Christ as loving God perfectly every minute of your life, and loving your neighbor perfectly as yourself every minute of your life.

That's what it means to keep God's law. You and I have broken it. We've broken it in the last five minutes. We haven't loved God perfectly. Not a single person here has loved God perfectly for a single moment of his life. So, we break it. We break it every moment. And because we have broken that law, we are deserving of immediate punishment. In other words, the moment you sin the first time, the moment I sin the first time, we deserve for our life to be snuffed out and for us to find ourselves in eternal hell forever. That's what the breaking of the code of God's law deserved. 

We've taught our children the catechism, and one of the questions — or we are teaching them, I should say — one of the questions that they have learned, and learned well, is, "What does every sin deserve?" I think I've told you the story before: One of my daughters found herself in trouble with her mom. And in the exchange that happened, my wife told her — she was begging for something in the grocery store line — and my wife told her that she didn't deserve that, and her response was, "I know, mommy. All I deserve is the wrath and curse of God." That's right. That's good theology. Of course, the people on the line probably wondered, "What are they teaching this girl?"

That's exactly what every sin deserves: The wrath and curse of God. If there had only been one sin in your life, if there had only been one moment of time that you had failed to love God perfectly, or I had failed to love God perfectly, James tells us we would have violated the entire law because it requires perfect love, and therefore we would deserve immediate punishment, and we would be undeserving of any of God's goodness, including continued life, temporal blessings, hearing the gospel, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Because we've broken God's law, it means we're also a slave to sin, and we're under the curse of the law. In addition, it means we're at war with God. There is what the Bible calls enmity. There is hatred, if you will. There is an enmity, a war. God has declared himself to be at war with the sinner, just as the sinner has declared himself to be at war with God. We stand under God's wrath, and finally, we are without personal righteousness. All of those things are true because we have broken God's law. So, in comes Christ to die, and His death has to do with this law code, and His death satisfies every one of these problems. Let me just show you.

Because we are deserving of immediate punishment, and undeserving of any of God's goodness, [for] every sinner, Christ dies. And part of the reason for His death is to secure what theologians call common grace. Why is it, or how is it, that God can do good to, and allow to live, a rebel? Why is it that atheists who flaunt their fists in the face of God enjoy the joys of family life? They enjoy good food and all the temporal blessings of life, when what they deserve is for their life to be snuffed out and for them to find themselves in eternal hell. The reason God can do that is because He secured a way to show them kindness and not undermine His justice. Part of the reason Christ died was to secure what theologians call common grace. We're going to look at that, Lord willing, next week together, maybe the following week, depending on how far we get tonight. But common grace is a great and rich reality. You and I benefit from that every day, because we were slaves to sin, and under the curse of the law, Christ died, and He bought us back: Redemption. Redemption is a word you hear in the Scripture, and you hear often in discussions about salvation. It means to be released, or set free from the bondage of sin and the curse of the law.

Again, you see how Christ's death has to do with the law. We're at war with God. And so, what does God do? Because we've broken His law, we're at war with Him, what does He do? He gives us reconciliation. I love this definition. What is reconciliation? And we'll look more at this at some later date: The removal of the enmity between God and the sinner and the establishment of a new relationship of peace and friendship between them. That's what Christ's death did. You're no longer at war. As Romans 5:1 says, "We have peace with God." That's not talking about some subjective feeling of peace. That's talking about an objective reality. There's not war anymore. We're at peace with God. Second Corinthians 5 talks about that reconciliation. The enmity is gone, the war is over, and there's a new relationship of peace and friendship between us and God. Christ's death purchased that. We were under God's wrath because we'd violated God's law. And so God, in the death of Christ, accomplished propitiation. This is the appeasement or satisfaction of God's just wrath against sinners by means of an atoning sacrifice. God satisfied His just wrath against our sins. Remember, what does every sin deserve? The wrath and curse of God. On the cross, God satisfied His wrath by having Jesus endure it. For six hours, the wrath of God was poured out on Him, as if an inverted pyramid was on the head of Christ. He endured God's wrath, not just physical suffering, although that was certainly part of it. 

Because of God's law, and breaking God's law, we were without personal righteousness, and so how does God respond in the death of Christ? He secures our justification. Our justification, the establishment of a sinner in a righteous standing before God. He says, "You need to keep the law, but you've absolutely violated the law." And so, what does He do? Christ dies to secure our justification, and in justification, He gives us Christ's righteousness in our account. The death of Christ was penal. That is, it had to do with the law of God. You say, "Well, I've seen the definitions, but what does the Bible say?" Let's look at a couple of passages.

First of all, John 11, you remember the high priest speaks when they're talking about what to do with the Jesus problem, how to solve this problem of the people being attracted to this self-made prophet. And he says [verse 50] is it expedient for you that one man die for the nation? And for the whole nation, not perish? Now, he did not say this on his own initiative — this is fascinating — but being high priest that year, he prophesied. Here's an evil man. God puts His words in his mouth. I guess if God can put His words in the mouth of Balaam's donkey, he can do it to an unbelieving, unregenerate high priest. He prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation. Romans 5:8, "[But] God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," and that death secured our justification, our salvation, from the wrath of God through that death. Here's the propitiation. Titus 2:14: Christ "gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed." There it is: To buy us back from the curse that we've gotten ourselves under with the law because of our lawless deeds [having] to do with the law. First Peter 3:18: "[For] Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God," or reconcile us to Himself. 

Now, when you understand that, this aspect of the atonement, [you] understand that suffering was absolutely essential. Christ couldn't have pricked His finger. There had to be suffering. I'm not sure I understand all the whys of this, but it's something the Scripture is clear about. Matthew 16:21: "From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things." Luke 9:22: "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and raised [up] on the third day." Luke 24:26: "Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" First Peter 2:24: "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you [were] healed." He had to secure wounds. He had to suffer for our spiritual healing.

Now, how can God accomplish all of those things relating to His law through the death of Christ? Well, that brings us to another key aspect of the nature of the atonement. It explains how God does it. His death had to do with the law, and our breaking of that law, and all that we deserved as a result. But how could God, then, make Christ's death benefit us? Well, that brings us to the second key word, not only penal, but substitutionary or vicarious. Those are wonderful and absolutely essential words. The word substitution simply is the act of taking the place of another. The word vicarious means endured by one person substituting for another. So essentially, the words mean the same thing. Charles Hodge writes, 

According to this doctrine, the work of Christ is a real satisfaction of inherent merit to the vindicatory justice of God, so that He saves His people by doing for them, and in their stead, what they were unable to do for themselves, satisfying the demands of the law on their behalf, and bearing its penalty in their stead, whereby they are reconciled to God, receive the Holy Spirit, and are made partakers of the life of Christ, to their present sanctification and eternal salvation, in our place, as our substitute.

A couple of years ago, you probably read the story, as I did, of a man who was late to catch his flight. Not much of a story, really. It happens every day. It's happened to all of us. And he stood sadly there at the ticket counter, realizing that the plane had just pulled away from the gate. And that meant there was going to be a delay before he saw his family. There was going to be a delay before he made it home. It was just a few minutes later, less than a half hour later, that plane attempted to take off, and on takeoff it crashed, killing everyone on board. Someone had taken his seat. Someone had died in his place, as his substitute. I saw him interviewed on television, and he was visibly shaken by the reality that he missed death by just a few seconds. That's what we're talking about: Substitution. Somebody sitting in your seat, taking what you deserve. That's what Christ accomplished. This is the essence of why Christ died, as a substitute. Now, is this what the Bible teaches? Let me give you a brief defense, and I need to do this because this is under attack today.

I shared with you the emerging church movement is undermining and attacking this, saying it's divine child abuse. But this is what the Bible teaches. First of all, the first argument I would present to you is that the nature of the Old Testament sacrificial system pictured the work of Christ as substitutionary. Remember, all of those sacrifices offered in the Old Testament were intended to be a picture of a coming reality. They merely pointed to the reality. And so, when you see what happens with those animals, you find out the nature of the death of Christ, because it's identical to the nature of the death of those animals in the sense of what it's intended to accomplish. Listen to Leviticus 1:4. Leviticus, of course, is a book that lays down that sacrificial system and teaches us, taught the people of Israel, how they were to carry out the sacrifices. Leviticus 1:4: The worshiper "shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf." You see the picture? It was so vivid. I love the pictures of the Old Testament. The worshipper brought his sacrifice, but before it was offered, he came up and he placed his hands on that animal. And by placing his hands on that animal, he was saying, "This animal is my representative. This animal is going to endure what I deserve to endure." And then the animal is killed. The life is poured out. There's no question but what that animal died in the place of, the one offering the sacrifice. 

Leviticus 16:20, on the day of atonement, 

When he finishes off atoning for the holy place and the tent of the meeting and the altar, he," that is, the high priest, "shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land, and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. 

Here is this goat, sent away, as you and I deserve to be sent away, from the dwelling place of God, from the presence of God, which was symbolized, of course, by the tabernacle, and later by the temple. Sent away from the people of God. Sent away from God himself, [as a] substitute.

But probably most clearly, in Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." Geerhardis Vos, in his excellent theology, writes this of this passage. He says, "The sacrificial animal in its death takes the place of the death due to the offerer. It is forfeit for forfeit." Listen, you understood, if you were an Old Testament saint and you brought that lamb, you understood that when that lamb was killed, it died in your place. And that that was the reality of something that would later, or excuse me, that was a picture of the reality that would someday come. So, there's the sacrificial system. 

There's a second part of the defense of understanding the atonement that way, and that is, there are many passages in the Scripture that describe the transfer of human guilt to Christ for our violation of God's law. They're familiar to you, but let me just remind you of them. They talk about this transfer of guilt, that our guilt goes on to Christ and that He's punished for that guilt. Isaiah 53:6: "All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity," the moral perverseness, "of us all to fall on Him." Isaiah 53:12: "[Yet] He himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors." The idea of substitution is crystal clear in these passages. To deny it is to deny the Scripture itself. John 1:29: "'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'" Second Corinthians 5:21: God made Christ "who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Galatians 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us." Hebrews 9:28: "Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time." In 1 Peter 2:24, "He himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; [for] by His wounds you were healed." [These are] just a few of the verses that speak of this transfer that took place. Theologians call it imputation. The Bible refers to it in the same terms, the imputing, or the reckoning, to Christ's account, our sins. There is without question the truth that on the cross God treated — if you're a believer — on the cross, God treated Jesus as if He lived your sinful life. He was your substitute, enduring the wrath and curse of God that your sin deserved. That's what these passages teach. 

One more defense: The use of the Greek prepositions huper and anti, in connection with the work of Christ. Stay with me, you'll get it, even though you might not right now. There's a Greek word, huper, that's used. The word means either for the benefit of or instead of. In many passages, for the benefit of makes no sense. For example, here's one, 1 Corinthians 15:3, "[For] I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for" the benefit of "our sins." It makes no sense. So, what does this have to mean? The other definition: He died in the place of us, for our sins; instead of us, for our sins. In some places it must mean instead of or in the place of. For example, we already talked about 2 Corinthians 5. There are a number of other passages where this [applies]. Let's turn to 2 Corinthians 5:20. "Therefore," Paul says, "we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf," sin instead of us, for us, "so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 

The word huper can mean either, but there's another word, anti, which only means instead of or in the place of. It's used in a couple of key references relating to the death of Christ. But first, let me show you this word in a couple of other contexts, just so you get the picture of this word. Matthew 2:22, when Joseph "heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there." You see that? In place of his father Herod? Instead of his father Herod? In his place? That's this word, anti: In place of. That's what it means. Matthew 5:38: "You have heard that it was said an eye for," in place of, "an eye, and a tooth for," in place of, "a tooth." So, you get the context in which this word is used. 

Now watch this, Matthew 20:28: "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom," in the place of, instead of, "many." This is crucial stuff. Mark 10:45: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom," in the place of, instead of, "many." Jesus' death, folks, without question, was as a substitute. And the enemies of the gospel can fight that and hate that all they want. They can speak of it however they want to speak of it. They can call it divine child abuse. But this is the truth of the gospel, and this is where we find our hope, because Christ is our Substitute. 

You ever stopped to really contemplate that reality? Imagine for a moment that today were the day, this evening were the evening, that God decides it's your time to stand in His presence. Fast forward to the great judgment. You stand before God. What exactly can you claim? [What claim] can you make? What can you offer to satisfy the reality that you, as I have, have violated the law of God? You have never loved God perfectly. You have never loved your neighbor as yourself, and you stand guilty before God with even one sin deserving His wrath and curse. You and I have only one hope. But it's a great hope. My claim and yours is only one. It's He [who] came to give His life as a ransom in place of mine, instead of mine. That's your only hope. Don't ever give up the wonderful doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

Let's pray together. Father, we are overwhelmed by Your grace. Lord, we deserve everything that hell could deliver, and yet You have shown us grace. Lord, we can't even really begin to get our arms around this reality that You sent Your holy, spotless, righteous, eternal Son. He willingly volunteered to be our Substitute, to endure the wrath and curse that every sin we've ever committed deserves. And for six hours one Friday, He suffered in our place. Father, help us who know You through Him to be overwhelmed with gratitude, to live our lives with joy. No matter what happens here, Lord, help us to rejoice, as Christ said, with those, because our names are written in the Lamb's book of life. And Lord, I pray for those here tonight who can't really say that's a reality with them. I pray that tonight would be the night they could come to benefit from the sacrifice of Christ by repenting of their sins and embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ, following Christ as Lord and Savior. Lord, may tonight be the night that somebody stops deluding themselves, himself or herself, and turns to the truth. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.