The Great Exchange: His Life for Mine!

PDF

Well, last Sunday night, we looked at Mark chapter 10, verses 35 through 45 and the story of James and John and their mother coming and asking for them to have the highest positions in Jesus' kingdom. We really covered that passage, but I just touched on the last verse, verse 45. And tonight I want to come back to that verse because it's more important than simply the end of that story. It bears greater weight in Mark's gospel than that, and so it's important for us to come back and really center in on this one statement of our Lord's. It in many ways is the great theme of Mark's Gospel. Mark chapter 10, and look at verse 45, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many."

It's probably Friday or Saturday, before the Triumphal Entry, just a couple of days before He enters the city of Jerusalem. Jesus and His disciples had spent the night before in the home of one of His followers who lived there in Perea. The next morning they try to continue their journey on to Jerusalem for the Passover. But before they got very far, you'll remember they were interrupted a couple of times, once by a group of parents wanting Jesus to bless their children, and then by a rich, young ruler of the local synagogue. Finally, after those encounters, they were able to get on the road again. Jesus walked out in front, the twelve, His other followers, and a large crowd of Passover pilgrims, on their way to celebrate the occasion, are behind Him, and Jesus is in the front, heading with His face set toward Jerusalem.

As they walked along, Jesus called the twelve up to Him and He told them on that occasion as they walked along, about His upcoming death and resurrection. It was the third such prophecy. The first had been about twelve months before, the second about six months before, and now this third one comes about a week before the events that He's prophesying actually occur. The disciples, blinded by their views of a political messiah don't get it, they don't understand. So Jesus then, after giving them that prophecy again, pulls out in front, He's heading the crowd, walking eagerly, passionately, determinedly toward Jerusalem; the others followed.

It wasn't too long then, before James and John along with their mother, who was probably Jesus' aunt as we discovered last week, approached Jesus and asked Jesus if James and John could have the highest positions of honor in Jesus' kingdom. Do you remember those twelve thrones He had told them about? Well, they didn't lose any time deciding that they should have the two that were closest to Jesus. In response of course, came the anger and jealously of the other ten. Jesus used that occasion to teach His disciples a lesson, a lesson in true greatness, and at the end of that discussion, as we saw last week, Jesus wanted to illustrate that true greatness in His kingdom is found by serving others, by giving of yourself as the slave of others.

How do you illustrate, if you're Jesus, how do you illustrate on a human level, that kind of spirit? Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Son of God is really the only way to illustrate it, and so He uses Himself. Here is another one of those pesky proofs that keep coming up in Mark's Gospel of who Jesus really was. He used Himself as the supreme example of self-giving love. And guess what? It doesn't bother us. And it didn't even bother His enemies.

Imagine if I was teaching you how to be the greatest in God's eyes, the greatest in the kingdom, and I used myself as the supreme example. Hopefully, you wouldn't like that, you might even sort of usher me off thinking that something had happened, I'd slipped a gear, and my cheese had slipped off the cracker, or something had happened. But because of the sublime character of Jesus, we aren't even bothered when He says things like that. So, in context, Mark 10:45 is just an example, it's just an illustration of a point Jesus was making about true greatness in His kingdom. But verse 45 is also far more than that. In fact, it looms very large in Mark's Gospel. In a very real sense, Mark has been leading us up to this statement. It rises like the great Everest in his Gospel.

Three times Jesus has now predicted that He is about to die, and in one of those passages, He said His death was necessary. Why? We haven't heard yet. Why does the Messiah, the Son of God, the servant of God from the book of Isaiah, why does He have to die? That's the question that Mark has to this point left unanswered. And now it's just one week before His death. Either, as I said, Friday or Saturday before the Triumphal Entry, probably. And finally Mark tells us why, and he does so in the words of Jesus Himself. It is one of the most loved, the most memorized statements Jesus ever made. And tonight, I want us to try to unpack some of the richness that's in this text.

I really think it's God's providence that we come to this text, just a couple of weeks away from our celebration of the death and resurrection of Christ, because that really is the heart of what this is about. The theme of verse 45 is the reason for the Messiah's mission, the great purpose behind the Incarnation, behind His entire life, and behind His approaching death. And that great mission is wrapped up in three great affirmations and I want you to see them tonight. In this verse, you find these three great affirmations.

The first great affirmation that this text makes is: who He was. Within this one brief statement, lying just beneath the surface is the truth of who Jesus really was. Notice He refers to Himself as 'The Son of Man.' Now that is really a strange expression. As Leon Morris says, it's as strange in Greek and in the first century, as it is in English and in the twenty-first century. But it was the name that Jesus used for Himself. He used it of Himself more than eighty times in the gospel record. But except for one time, and that's Stephen in his sermon in Acts 7, no one else ever uses this title for Jesus. Even more curious, is that this expression was not an accepted Jewish title for the coming Messiah. There's no record that the Jews ever thought 'the Son of Man' would be a title for the Messiah; so for most of His ministry when He used it, the Jewish leaders did not think that He was claiming to be Israel's Messiah. Yet clearly in the mind of Jesus, this expression 'Son of Man' captured the essence of who He was. So, where did it come from?

Some have taken it simply to be a title of His humanity. He is human; Son of Man. Ezekiel the prophet is referred to repeatedly in his prophecy as a 'son of man.' But Jesus meant more, as will become clear. If we want to catch a glimpse of what is in this name Jesus takes for Himself, we need to see how He Himself uses it. Let me just show you a few references; we're not going to look at all of these, but let's just look at a couple. Look back at Mark chapter 2 and verse 10. You remember this in the story of the paralytic, the friends bring this man who's paralyzed, Jesus heals him. But He does more than heal him, He forgives his sins. And of course, the Pharisees are sitting around, they're thinking, verse 6, they're sitting there reasoning in their hearts, "'why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?'" Jesus was aware of that. And then He says this in verse 10, "But so that you may know that (here it is) the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" - He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." So the Son of Man is someone who has been granted the authority on earth to forgive sins.

Turn over to chapter 8 and you begin to see this term take on a little more life. Mark chapter 8, verse 38, the end of one of Jesus' sermons to the crowds along with His disciples, He says this, "whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with His holy angels." Hmm. Now we are getting a little more glimpse what this name might be alluding to. It's not strictly a human name. But turn over lastly to the fourteenth, let's go to the thirteenth chapter, we'll look at two more. Mark 13, here Jesus is giving the great Olivet Discourse and verse 24: "in those days, after that tribulation, THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, (He's talking about the end times) AND THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken," and then watch this, verse 26, "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN CLOUDS with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven." Here He's prophesying that one called the Son of Man will come with great power and glory at the end of the world.

One last text, look over at chapter 14 and verse 60. This is in one of the Jewish trials, verse 60 says: "The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, 'Do You not answer? (to the accusations that have been made) What is it that these men are testifying against You?' But Jesus kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, 'Are You the Christ?" Remember Christ is not a name for Jesus, it's a title. It is Christos, in the Hebrew its HaMashiach, the Messiah. "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" And Jesus said, 'I am;" and then He says this "and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.' Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, 'What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?' And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death." What happens there? Well, notice in this text, as well as in the last one in chapter 13, Jesus' words are in all capitals. Now, in our New American Standard Bible when the translators want us to know that something in the New Testament is being quoted from the Old Testament, they put it in all caps like that. Jesus is quoting an Old Testament passage.

Let's turn back and look at that Old Testament passage, it's from Daniel chapter 7. This will explain why the response of the high priest, why the condemnation. Daniel chapter 7, Daniel sees the Ancient of Days, verse 9, taking His seat. It's a description of God the Father. There's this magnificent description of God and His throne. Verse 13, "I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming," you recognize those words? Jesus quoted the Septuagint version of those to the High Priest. One like a Son of Man was coming, "and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed." Suddenly, it comes very clear to the high priest and to the rest of the Jewish leaders what Jesus is claiming to be. Not only does He claim to be the Messiah, not only does He claim to be the Son of the Blessed One, but He here takes the words of this magnificent character in Daniel 7 to Himself and says, some day you will see Me coming in the clouds of heaven. And they take it as blasphemy because they understand this to be a reference to deity. Clearly, Jesus then, when He referred to Himself as the Son of Man, intended to claim that He was a being, as Morris writes, of heavenly origin who will bring in God's kingdom, a kingdom that will never pass away. That's what He was claiming. Staggering.

By the way, there's another hint along the lines of His deity here. Notice back in Mark 10, verse 45, it says: "The Son of Man did not come" or we could paraphrase it, 'the Son of Man came.' If you referred to your life that way people would be a bit concerned. We say, I was born for a particular reason, we don't say I came for a particular reason. Because came implies pre-existence, which is exactly what the Old Testament tells us in Micah chapter 5, verse 2, it tells us that the Messiah who will be born in Bethlehem, will be one whose "goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity." So Jesus then, doesn't say I was born for this reason, He says I came into the world for this reason.

But there's more here in this verse about who He was. Not only was He the Son of Man, which really refers to His deity, but He was also a man. He is the Son of Man. This idea becomes clearer though, because of what He says. Notice He says, I came to give my life. Life is psuche, the normal Greek word for soul, the seed and center of inner human life, the immaterial part of man. But it's also used of just ordinary, earthly life. Even animals are said to have a psuche in this sense. Jesus possessed ordinary, earthly life, in this case, human life. And He came to give up that life in death. So, clearly, then the Son of Man was God, you see that from the first part of the passage and from His claims in His trial. But He did not come into the world solely as God; He also took on Himself full humanity. He was at the same time both God and man, fully God and fully man. Theologians call that the hypostatic union, that is, two natures into one person.

How can that be? What's the relation of these two natures? How can He be both God and man? Well, this was worked out at the Council of Chalcedon, by minds far greater than ours in A.D. 451. The relation of these two natures, the human and the divine, was described in four simple expressions. But it began like this, "We then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead (or deity) and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man...(at the same time)." And then it goes on to say that Christ's human and divine natures are united in Him without confusion, that is, they remain distinct. So during the Incarnation, Christ's human nature was confined to the geographical confines of first century Palestine, but His divine nature never stopped being omnipresent. They weren't confused, the natures weren't. He was continually both fully God and fully man. Also, they were combined without change; there wasn't some mixing of the two natures to create some entirely new kind of nature. The human nature was and always will be human; the divine nature always has been and always will be divine, without change. And without division; the two natures do not constitute two different people, but one person. And Chalcedon added, without separation. The second Person of the Trinity will forever be both fully God and fully man. That's what the Bible teaches. What He became was truly human so that He will forever be the God-Man, as He's often referred to. Now, that's what this verse affirms about who Jesus is, He is both the Son of Man, a term of deity, and yet at the same time One who became Man, who came into the world and who gained normal human life.

That brings us to the second affirmation Jesus makes in this wonderful verse. Not only who He was, but why He came. First of all, He states it negatively. Look at the verse. He says: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served." Now that is a really staggering thought if you remember what I just read from Daniel 7:14. Did you notice this line? The Son of Man is going to be given what? "dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might" what? "Serve Him." And yet here Jesus says I didn't come to be served. Someday, Daniel 7:14 will happen, but Jesus said that's not why I came in the first century.

Really, here you have implied two comings of Jesus. The first one, here, He came for some reason other than described in Daniel 7:14. He did not come to be served. The second time He comes, He will come to be served. And He quotes that passage from Daniel 7, you remember? Someday, He tells the religious leaders at His trial, you will see the Son of Man coming again. So He says that's not why I came this time. Then I will come and then I will fulfill what is described by Daniel. I will be served by all nations, but not now. I did not come this time to be served.

Then He states it positively. In verse 45, Jesus goes on to describe two reasons that the Son of Man did come into human history in the first century. First of all, He says, He "came to serve." Now, this is an interesting expression. The Greek word is the same word He just urged His disciples to embrace. It's the verb form of deacon. Jesus came to live out the role of a deacon, to perform menial acts of service for others. Remember the word deacon, it's most common usage in the New Testament, apart from the office of deacon; is someone who serves tables. Jesus says I came to serve you. That's why He's using Himself as an illustration here. I came to serve. This word serve also, Jesus connects the prophecy about Him in Daniel 7 as the Son of Man, with the prophecy about Him in Isaiah, about the servant of Yahweh, the servant of God. He says that I am the Son of Man and I'm also the servant of Yahweh in Isaiah, I came to serve.

Now, notice the second reason He gives. He says, I came, the Son of Man came "to give His life," to give His 'psuche,' to give His earthly life. In First Timothy 2:6 it says "He gave Himself as a ransom." Jesus took on full humanity for one primary purpose, to die. Now we say that all the time as believers, but I want you to let that sink into your mind. Jesus did everything He did, He came to earth, He went through all of the early years of His life, the conception, the being carried in Mary's womb, being born, growing up, all those years in the carpenter's shop, working and serving until He was 30, all the three and half years of His ministry, all were about, ultimately, one thing; He came to give His life. So the three predictions of His death that He's already made don't point to some great cosmic accident, but His death was the very reason He came. The very purpose the Son of Man entered human history and became fully human was to give His life, that's why He came.

Now that brings us to the third great affirmation Jesus makes in this passage. We've seen who He was, why He came, but here's the most important of all, and that is, why He died. Why He died. Notice verse 45 ends with these words; He came "to give His life a ransom for many." Just a few words in English and in Greek, but in those words we have the reason Jesus died, they define what theologians call the atonement, the offering of Jesus of Himself, the nature of His death. This statement, by the way, absolutely reeks with the smell of Isaiah 53, as we'll see as we work our way through it. As one author put it, it's as if Jesus said the Son of Man came to fulfill the task of the servant of Yahweh in Isaiah. It's as if He said just that. And specifically the task outlined in Isaiah 53.

Now, as we look at why He died, I want to capture it with several descriptions. Why He died. First of all we can say, it was necessary. It was necessary. Notice He says He came for this purpose: to give His life. Back in chapter 8, verse 31, He said in one the first of those predictions, He said the Son of Man must suffer. It is necessary. Literally the Greek text says, 'it is necessary for the Son of Man many things to suffer.' This was the only way. He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. I'm staggered by this thought think about this for a moment. Do you understand that your sin, my sin, was so bad that in the depths of the endless wisdom of the eternal mind of God there was only one way to accomplish our redemption? This was it. This was the only way in the infinite wisdom of God to buy us back, to reconcile His justice and His wrath that we deserved with His grace that He so much wanted to lavish upon us. This was it, it was necessary. He had to come to do this or there was no hope.

A second word that describes why He died is voluntary. The Son of Man came, notice what He says, to give His life, to give His life. He made this point in even more stark terms over in John chapter 10. Turn to John 10 and look at verse 11, "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down" voluntarily lays down "his life" in defense of the sheep or "for the" sake of the "sheep." Look down in verse 17, "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again." And then He, just to make it clear, says, "No one has taken it away from Me." When you watch the events of the Passion Week unfold, don't you for a moment imagine that Jesus is a hapless victim. He says no one has taken it away from Me, I lay it down on My own initiative. "I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." It was absolutely voluntary. Can I say this respectfully? It's not like in the ancient councils of the Trinity, the Trinity drew straws to see who got this terrible assignment and Jesus ended up with the short straw. He gladly, eagerly, willingly volunteered for you, for me.

Another description of His death is that it was sacrificial. To give His life, what does that mean? It means to die. It means to die. The picture is from the Old Testament sacrificial system. I'm reminded of First Timothy 2:6 where it says He "gave Himself as a ransom," or of John 1:29 where John the Baptist saw Jesus coming and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Read Hebrews chapter 9 where we're told that Jesus offered Himself as the one time, once for all, ultimate sacrifice. That's the picture here behind giving His life in death. It's sacrificial.

So, Jesus' death is defined in this way, why did He have to die? It was necessary. And how would you describe His death? It was voluntary, it was sacrificial. Fourthly, it was redemptive. Notice the next word, to give His life a ransom. That is a powerful word with rich pictures in it. The Greek word for ransom in secular Greek always refers to the price paid to gain the release of someone. Sometimes it's of soldiers who are captured in battle, basically taken back to another land and when the people who have captured them want to earn some extra money from the nation from whom they captured them, they offer them for a ransom to be bought back. The purchase price is called the ransom. It's used as well of slaves. You went into the slave market and you redeemed that slave, you bought him out of the slave market with a ransom. It's also used of what you pay to redeem a life that was legally forfeit. Now, in the Septuagint, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, this last idea was very common. It was the bail price paid to redeem a life that had been forfeited in the eyes of the law. Let me show you just one example. Go back to Exodus. Look at Exodus 21, verse 28. Watch how this works, "If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall not go unpunished." Probably a fine, some other assessment on the fact that his animal took the life of someone else. But, verse 29, "If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death." So, here is a man who has been warned that he has an animal that's going to kill somebody if he doesn't do something about it. He absolutely blows that off; he continues to live his life the way he wants and his animal ends up in fact killing someone. In Old Testament law, he was guilty of that person's death. And so his life was forfeit, he deserved the death penalty.

But now watch what happens in verse 30, "If a ransom" there's our word "is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him." In other words, there was a caveat in the law that said in this particular situation, probably the family of the person whose relative had been killed, the family says, look we don't want him to die. Instead we want him to pay the ransom price. They could set the price and whatever they demanded, that man and his family had to come up with and that money was the ransom. It was given in exchange for the forfeiture of his life, he legally deserved the death penalty, but a ransom could be offered to redeem him from the death penalty he deserved. That really is the picture behind Mark 10:45. Jesus was the ransom. He was the price paid to redeem our lives that were legally forfeit. We deserved, in God's court, the death penalty, but Jesus offered His life as the price to allow us to escape the death penalty that we had earned. And instead He offered Himself, His own death, His life, as the ransom.

Now before I leave this, let me just ask and answer the question, to whom was this ransom paid? Unfortunately, in the third century one of the church fathers, Origen, began teaching that this ransom was paid to Satan. He said, we're slaves of sin and Jesus buys us out of the slave market of sin, so he took the analogy one step further and said, so to whom does Jesus pay the ransom? Well, who owns us in the slave market of sin? It's Satan, and so that's what he taught. You will never find the Bible teaching that Satan was involved in the transaction at Calvary whatsoever. Jesus' death had nothing to do with Satan, but to defeat him and destroy him. Instead, Jesus' death was offered as a payment to God. It was a ransom, paid not to the devil, but to God. Listen to Isaiah 53, verse 10: "the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself" that is if the Messiah, the servant of Yahweh would render Himself, watch this, "as a guilt offering." It's the offering, the sacrifice offered when you were guilty of sin. The concept is of Jesus giving His life as a sacrifice to remove the legal guilt of others and the guilt offering wasn't made to Satan, the guilt offering was made to God because we were guilty before Him and His court and His law. And by the way, that's the same point Romans 3 makes. I won't take you there, but in Romans 3, very clearly it's established that God was the one who Jesus' death satisfied, it was the wrath of God that was satisfied. It was redemptive.

There's another word that's important to use about Jesus' death and it's here in this text, it was substitutionary. "To give His life a ransom for many." The Greek word that's translated for, f-o-r, if you don't recognize my accent there, originally meant two equivalents that can be exchanged. It came to mean, on behalf of, or in the place of, or in exchange for. And this is all it ever means, this word doesn't mean anything else, it's not like our generic word for that can mean all kinds of things. This Greek word only means this, on behalf of, in the place of, in exchange for. That's it. It's anti, a-n-t-i in the Greek text.

Let me show you a couple of other places it's used, where you get this idea. Matthew 2:22, when Joseph, Jesus' father, heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of, there it is, his father Herod. That's the word. He was reigning in place of his father, Herod. You see it in Matthew 5:38 when Jesus quotes the Septuagint in the Old Testament. "You have heard that it was said, AN EYE" in place of, "AN EYE, AND A TOOTH" in place of, "A TOOTH." Talking about the lex talionis, the law of retaliation, but really it's a law of a just punishment.

So you see then, this word means, in the place of, in exchange for. Here, Jesus is saying that the ransom He is paying is His own life and that His life is offered to God, here it is, in exchange for us. It is the great exchange. Imagine that. God the Father demands the forfeiture of our life because of our rebellion against Him, Jesus steps forward, freely offers Himself in the place of, in exchange for. My life, He says, for his. My life, for hers. Life for life. He forfeits His life for our lives. It was substitutionary.

There's one more word that describes Jesus' death. It was definite. Let me explain what I mean. Notice He says, "to give His life a ransom for many." This also recalls Isaiah 53, three times this same Greek word occurs in the Septuagint translation, many. It describes those who will benefit from Jesus' sacrifice, from the great exchange. Now, obviously we are dealing here with the design of the atonement, or the troublesome question over which Christians have debated for many years, for whom did Christ die? There are good men who come down on both sides of this issue. In fact, there are elders in our church who have differing views on this question. But we've all agreed that the position we take on this issue is not going to become a source of division in our church. We are also agreed that when we as teachers come to a passage that must be explained, we each will teach our own conscience, and that's what I intend to do tonight.

Now, first of all, let me make it clear that the views really there are three options I'm going to give you. One of them isn't really an option, it's really heresy. But I need to say it because it is an option. The two legitimate options both agree first of all, that not everyone will be saved. We all agree with that. Nobody here disagrees with that. Secondly, we all agree that a free offer of the gospel can be made to every person who has ever lived. If you will repent and believe, whosoever will, let him come. In addition, we agree that Christ's substitutionary death is sufficient to save all men, whoever will inhabit this globe, and frankly if there were a million other earths scattered around the universe, the death of Christ would be sufficient to save every single person who ever existed. So we absolutely agree on those things.

Now with that background, let's look at what Jesus could have meant. When Jesus says that He came to give His life in exchange for many, what did He mean? There are three options. Number one and this is the one that you can't accept. He died in the place of every sinner to provide an actual salvation for every person. This is universalism. This is the belief that every single human being, whoever has or ever will live, will be in heaven. This is the position, or at least I think it's the position, if you can ever get a post-modern to be clear enough to understand, the position of Rob Bell, the neo-liberal that's in the Emergent church movement. This is a clear contradiction to a huge body of scripture, including our Lord's own teaching about hell. And it contradicts what Jesus teaches about the narrow gate, you remember? And the narrow way, which lead to life, and few find it. Whereas wide is the gate, broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are on it. So clearly, this first view cannot be true.

So, let's look at the ones that can be, two other possibilities. Number two, Jesus could mean that He died or was going to die in the place of every sinner and that He provided a potential salvation for every person. This view teaches that Jesus offered Himself as a payment to God in exchange for the lives of every human being that will ever live. And then that potential salvation becomes personally applied when a person believes. The best argument in favor of this view is there are a number of passages in the New Testament that say something about Jesus dying for the world. For example 1 John 2:2, "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." That's a problem that has to be explained, that's a text that has to be interpreted. But frankly, it's a problem either way. Because what does the word propitiation mean? It means the satisfaction of God's wrath. So you really can't say, nobody except Universalists are saying that the wrath of God was fully satisfied for everyone in the world. So you've still got a problem. But those passages are there and they are challenging. I think they can be explained, but that's the issue. There's several reasons I no longer embrace this view, I once did. But I'll deal with those under the next point.

The third view, the third possibility of this text, is that Jesus when He said that He was going to offer His life for the many, He was saying that He would offer His life as a ransom to the Father in exchange for the lives of a specific group of people here simply called the many. This is the view that I hold. Now, let me tell you that I believe there are unlimited aspects to the death of Christ. Obviously, His common grace was purchased at the cross. The fact that God can offer good things to sinners was purchased at the cross. In fact, in Romans chapter 3, verses 24 and 25, Paul argues that God vindicated His justice at the cross for letting wicked sinners live a moment longer than they sinned. The fact that God let you live a moment longer than your first sin was purchased at the cross. God vindicated His justice in that. So there are definitely unlimited aspects from the cross.

Another example would be the universal law for the gospel. I believe that was purchased at the cross. The gospel can be freely offered to everyone, whosoever will let him come. This is how Revelation ends, right? The Bible ends with a universal invitation, "Come!" But the real question is; for whom did Christ die in the mind of God? What was the divine design of the atonement? Or, put it a different way; for whom did Jesus substitute, and give His life in exchange to pay their death penalty?

Let me give you three reasons I believe that Jesus died as a substitute and satisfied the wrath of God for the elect. First of all, there are a number of passages like this one that speak of Jesus offering Himself for a specific group. When Jesus' birth was announced the angel said to Joseph, call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins. John 6:39, "This is the will of Him who sent Me," Jesus said "that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 10, we read earlier, verse 11, "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life" for whom? "For the sheep." And He defines the sheep later in that passage as those who believe in Him as a part of Israel, and those outside the fold of Israel, Gentiles who will eventually believe. He says the same thing in verse 15 of that same chapter. John 17 verse 9, in His High Priestly prayer, He says: "I ask on behalf" of my followers "I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours." As R.C. Sproul says, would Jesus die for those for whom He would not pray? Ephesians 5:25: "Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." Acts 20:28, we're told to shepherd, the elders are, "shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Second Corinthians 5:19 to 21, I won't take you there, but that was the passage, and I was there when it happened, when my mentor and dear friend John MacArthur became convinced of this position, when he was preaching through that text in 2 Corinthians 5. If you have a MacArthur Study Bible, you can look at the notes there and see what he writes. But it was that text that brought him to the same position, those kinds of passages.

There's a second reason I believe this, a definite atonement is consistent with divine election. If the Bible teaches that in eternity past God chose some for eternal life, then it is logical that in the mind of God, Jesus substituted for them in His death. I just mentioned John 17, He clearly has those whom the Father gave Him in eternity past in His mind. And thirdly, this view, I think, is more consistent with the biblical concept of substitution. This is the real issue. When I say that Jesus' atonement is definite, I'm talking not about the fact that there are universal aspects to the atonement, that there are unlimited aspects to the atonement. I'm talking about the key issue behind the death of Christ, which is captured in the word substitution. For whom did Jesus die as a substitute and satisfy the eternal wrath of God? That's the question. Did He die as a substitute in the place of every unbeliever, even those who will end up being eternally condemned? Did He pay for their sins fully upon the cross, forever satisfying the wrath of God against their sins? That's the question. What was the purpose in the mind of God? Because if Christ did that, then it seems to me that there should be no wrath left for the sinner. Why does the sinner get God's wrath if Jesus was the propitiation, the full satisfaction as a substitute?

Turn with me to Isaiah 53, one last text on this point. And again, please understand there are others who, even on our elder board, who would hold a different position on this issue. I just have to teach you my conscience, and you need to be like the Bereans, and you need to study this out on your own. Isaiah 53, look at verse 10, "But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand." Now watch verse 11, "As a result of the anguish of His soul, He" that is now Jesus, the servant of Yahweh "will see it and be satisfied." He's going to be satisfied with His work. Now watch the end of verse 11, "By His knowledge" in other words, by knowing Him, by having a true knowledge of Him, a saving knowledge of Him, "the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many," He will declare to be righteous, with His righteousness, the many, and then he adds, "As" or for this reason, because "He will bear their iniquities." It seems to me there is a direct correlation here between those whom He will justify and those whose iniquities He will bear.

Again, don't miss hear what I'm saying. There is sufficient grace in the death of Christ for 10,000 worlds. There is a genuine offer of the gospel to every person, whoever will let him come. We're talking about what was the design in the mind of God? For whom, in the mind of God, did Jesus satisfy God's eternal wrath? And when I answer that question, I have to answer for those whom He chose in eternity past, for those whom the Father gave Him.

So what do we do with this text? Well, first of all, remember the context. In the context, Jesus serves as an example we ought to follow. He's saying, listen I came to serve; I came to give my life literally in service to others. That's what you should do. Instead of seeking status and position and places of honor, you ought to be content to do exactly what I'm doing, and that is give your life to serve other people. That's the application of this verse's rich theology in its historical context and don't forget that.

Secondly, truths of this verse should serve as a profound source of joy, and comfort, and assurance to us who are already in Christ. Listen, Jesus voluntarily came into the world, became fully human, and offered His life in exchange for yours. And He did so knowing who that would be, those whom the Father gave Me. As Jesus was on the road to Jerusalem, as He was walking out ahead of the crowd, contemplating what the next week would hold, I think there's no question He had in mind those for whom He would lay down His life. The Bible makes it clear that God's plan involves those whom God loved and chose in eternity past. They were His and He gave them to Christ, to ensure that He would accomplish their rescue. Be encouraged as you celebrate this next couple of weeks; understand Christ did this for you, while we were still sinners.

Number three, understand, this is Jesus' mission. A T France writes, "His many acts of mercy, healing, teaching, challenging the norms of society, all the other elements of Mark's story, must be seen in light of this one purpose: to give His life as a ransom for many. Mark does not give a lot of salvation discussion, but what he does give is simple, clear and far-reaching. Here is his answer to the puzzle of why Jesus had to die." Listen, the rest of the Gospel of Mark is going here, to the death of Jesus Christ, and here it's defined for us. Here's what He was doing, here's why He was marching ahead of the crowd to Jerusalem. Starting in the next chapter, through the rest of Mark's Gospel we're going to be focusing on His Passion and this is why.

Number four, what Jesus says here is a genuine offer to you this evening of forgiveness of your sins, and of reconciliation with God. You say how do I know I'm one of the many? That isn't the question you need to ask. Jesus said whoever comes to me I will in no wise turn away. The question is, are you willing to turn from your sin, and come to Christ? If you will, He's made amazing promises to you that He will respond with forgiveness, He will make you His own, He will give you a new heart, He'll give you a new start, He'll give a relationship with God, He'll give you the certainty of eternal life, and He will give you the gift of His own righteousness. He will declare you to be as right in your life as He was. And someday you'll stand in His presence, perfect. Whosoever will let him come. Let's pray together.

Father, how can we begin to respond to such an amazing gift? We're overwhelmed Father, we're overwhelmed to think that our sin was so bad that in Your own endless, eternal wisdom this was the only way. But Father, we're also overwhelmed by Your mercy, and Your grace, and Your goodness to us, that You would have been willing to follow through with this plan. That you would have been willing to do this for us who were Your enemies, and that our Lord would have volunteered eagerly for such a role, to give His live for mine. Father, thank you. Help us to live in light of such an amazing gift. Not to pay you back, but simply out of the overflow of our gratitude and our love and our adoration for such amazing grace. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.