UP

The Substitutionary Death of Christ

January 24, 2014
Copyright © 1996, 2000 Ronald W. Leigh
Bible quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.

————————————— Contents ————————————— A. Importance of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ B. Historicity of Christ's Life and Death C. Need for Special Revelation in Understanding Christ's Death D. Views of Christ's Death    1. Merely Unconscious    2. Self-induced Hypnotic State    3. Martyr    4. Example    5. Ransom    6. Substitute E. Requirements of Substitution F. Christ' Qualifications as Our Substitute    1. Basic Similarity (Humanity)    2. Key Difference (Sinlessness)    3. Exchange (Separation from the Father) G. Substitution: Both Just and Logical H. Conclusion    Endnote    Appendix ———————————————————————————————

A. Importance of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ

The Bible's teachings about Jesus Christ are often organized under two main headings:

 I. The person of Christ (who Christ is, mainly his combined deity and humanity)
II. The work of Christ (what Christ did, mainly his sinless life and substitutionary death)

The person and work of Christ were so important to the apostle Paul that he limited his teaching to these two subjects while he was with the Corinthians.

I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ [person] and him crucified [work].  (1 Corinthians 2:2).

This should not be a surprise, since the work of Christ is at the heart of the gospel and was preached by Paul “as of first importance”.

I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you . . . For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . . (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

This paper deals with a question that is related to the work of Christ.  The question is:  What is the nature of Christ's death?

Before we look at various views of the death of Christ we should discuss a few preliminaries, such as whether or not Jesus Christ actually lived and died as a real historical person, and our need for special revelation in understanding the purpose and effect of Christ's death.

B. Historicity of Christ's Life and Death

The New Testament is full of references to Jesus Christ.  But there are some people who discount the New Testament and claim that Jesus Christ never existed.  (One person who made this claim was Madalyn Murray O'Hare, the outspoken atheist.)  However, it is not only the New Testament that refers to Christ; non-biblical documents also refer to him.

First, Tacitus, the great Roman historian, writing at the beginning of the second century, mentions Christ's death under Pilate as he describes Nero's attempt to blame the burning of Rome on the Christians:

But all the endeavours of men, all the emperor's largesse and the propitiations of the gods, did not suffice to allay the scandal or banish the belief that the fire had been ordered.  And so, to get rid of this rumour, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians.  Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.  Checked for the moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome.  (Tacitus, Annals, XV, 44)

In the above quotation the name of Christ appears as Christus.  As is typical with names, it is transliterated (rather than translated) from the Latin, which in turn is derived from the Greek Christos.  All three words (Christos, Christus, and Christ) mean anointed one, and are thus equivalent to the word Messiah which comes from the Hebrew mashicha.

Second, Suetonius (another Roman historian and contemporary of Tacitus) mentions that Christ stirred up trouble among the Jews:

Since the Jews were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.  (Suetonius, Vita Claudii, XXV, 4, Compare Acts 18:2)

In the above quotation, the name of Christ appears as Chrestus, which was a variant spelling of Christus in Gentile circles.

Third, Pliny (the Younger), a governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote to Emperor Trajan in AD 112 telling him how he had dealt with Christians.  Again, Christ is named:

All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, to your image which I had ordered to be brought forward for this purpose, together with the statues of the deities; and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which, it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do.
. . . on an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the commission of any crime but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery and breach of faith, and not to deny a deposit when it was claimed.  (Pliny, Epistles, X, xcvi)

Fourth, Lucian, a severe critic of Christianity, wrote a satire of Christians and their faith around AD 170.  In it he “described Christ as the one 'who was crucified in Palestine' because he began 'this new cult.'  He wrote that Christ had taught the Christians to believe that they were brothers and should observe his laws.  He also ridiculed them for 'worshipping that crucified sophist' [philosopher/deceiver].”  (Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus, 1,11,13; quoted in Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, Zondervan, 1954, p. 50) 

Fifth, Josephus, the famous Jewish historian and contemporary of the apostles, although not a friend of Christianity, makes several references to Christ:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.  (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XX, ix, 1; see also chapter XVIII)

For an excellent discussion of the above references to Christ, as well as a number of others, see F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Revised Edition, Inter-Varsity Press, 1960, chapters IX & X.

In addition, remember that the New Testament gospels and epistles are valid historical documents of the highest order.  In fact, they have the following advantages over the above documents:

(1) they include extended references to Christ
(2) they were written by eye witnesses, and
(3) they have been very well preserved for us (many ancient and many complete manuscripts).

The fact that the gospels and epistles are included in the Bible does not lessen their significance as historical documents.  Some people assume that everything in the Bible is devotional or mythical in nature, and therefore not historical.  But anyone familiar with the true nature of these documents would not make such a faulty assumption.

There are probably any number of people who think Jesus is a mythical or fictional character.  They might even place Jesus in the same class as Zeus, Robin Hood, Don Quixote, Paul Bunyan, or Captain Kirk.  But Jesus is not the product of folklore or imagination.  All the historical documents cited above present Jesus Christ as a real human being, not a mythical or fictional character.  Of course, liberal theologians admit the historical facts of Jesus' birth, life, and death, but claim that his miracles and teachings are embellishments on the facts made by his zealous followers.  Remember that such a view is dependent on a presumptuous denial of anything supernatural (including miracles and resurrection).

A discussion of the liberal theologian's frame of mind is well beyond the scope of this paper.  Nevertheless, a few things can be stated here.  First, the line of reasoning is quite faulty which suggests that reality is limited to things that can be detected with the senses.  Such reasoning is completely illogical and provincial.  Second, the denial of the supernatural is probably an emotional decision, stemming from a desire to avoid the supernatural and its implications.  This liberal mind-set, being illogical, provincial, and emotional, is far from scientific.

One more point of information seems appropriate at this point.  Islam recognizes that Jesus Christ lived as a real historical person, but denies his death.  According to Islam, all true prophets are saved from distress and thus vindicated.  Therefore, Jesus, a true prophet, must have been rescued from death by Allah.  In other words, Jesus never died on a cross.

C.  Need for Special Revelation in Understanding Christ's Death

We are very limited when we try to analyze someone else's actions.  While a deed can be observed, the reason for the deed must be explained by the person performing the deed.  While we might have complete certainty of the fact of an observed event, we cannot directly observe the purpose (the underlying reason, intent, or desired effect).  We depend on the person performing the act to explain its purpose.

It is no different with the death of Christ.  The death of Christ was an historical event that was witnessed by many and recorded by both believers and nonbelievers.  However, when it comes to the purpose of Christ's death, we are limited.  We cannot directly observe why Christ died.  This means that we are utterly dependent on God's explanation of the purpose of Christ's death.  While we can speculate without the aid of divine revelation (as many philosophers have done), all such speculation is beside the point when we have God's own explanation in the inspired scriptures.  Our task is not to concoct our own explanation, but to understand the explanation God has already given.

D. Views of Christ's Death

There are many views of what actually took place when Christ died.  Some of these views are contrary to the Bible's teachings and make our personal salvation either irrelevant or impossible.  Other views build on only a small part of the Bible's teachings and ignore the rest.  We will look briefly at several of these false views of Christ's death, then look in greater detail at the Bible's teaching that Christ's death was substitutionary.  Certain features of these views can be compared in a chart as follows:

1.  Merely Unconscious

Some have claimed that Jesus did not die on the cross.  Instead, he merely fainted, or swooned.  He was unconscious and appeared dead, was buried, but later revived.  They reason that the extreme physical stress of the crucifixion placed Christ in a comatose state, which lowered his pulse and breathing rates until his disciples stole his body from the tomb and he revived (of course, only to die sometime later).

The Christ of this view is merely human.  He is to be thanked for some interesting teachings, but pitied for his unfortunate run-in with the authorities, and for his trauma.  Of course, there is no real resurrection in this view.

There is absolutely no evidence for this view.  It is merely a speculation based on certain assumptions which include a denial of the supernatural and of anything close to a biblical concept of sin or divine wrath.

2.  Self-induced Hypnotic State

The overall assumptions and scenario in this view are similar to those in the previous view.  However, this view is a little more sinister.  Christ is seen as planning his own hypnotic state to deceive his followers.  The claim is that Christ used a drug, perhaps a particular type of mushroom.

Again, Christ is merely human.  He is the ultimate escape artist.  Those who tend to admire such performers might look up to Christ for his ability to pull off such a master deception.  But it is the deception itself that would cause others to look down on Christ.  Of course, there is no real resurrection.

Again, this is pure speculation, and because of its implications about the character of Christ, is even farther from the biblical view than the previous view.

3. Martyr

In this view, Jesus is seen as a martyr for some cause.  Different people will identify different causes.  Unlike the two previous views, in this view Christ actually died on the cross.

Again, Christ is merely human.  His primary personal trait is his determination and loyalty to the cause.  Of course, this view does not include a resurrection.  According to this view his followers deified him after his death, building a whole system of folklore including his miracles and resurrection.

The same assumptions hold for this view as for the previous two views, so this view is also far from the biblical view.

4.  Example and Moral Influence

In this view Christ's death is seen primarily as an example.  There have been various opinions regarding exactly what was exemplified.  Some point to Christ's commitment to an ideal.  Others point to his willing submission and obedience.  Others point to his willingness to suffer injustice and his lack of revenge.  In general, however, the idea is that he did not do anything radically new in his death that he had not already done in his life.  The example that he set throughout his life was simply carried forward to the end.

Christ's life and death, which clearly demonstrate God's love for mankind, are supposed to awaken in man a feeling of gratitude and a desire to please God.  The moral influence of this long and consistent example is supposed to help man in his struggles in life.  But this view limits Christ's saving power to the wisdom of his teachings and the influence of his example.  It also assumes the heresy of Pelagius, that man is capable on his own of following such an example, which, in turn, is a continuation of the mistake of the Jews who thought that righteousness could be gained through the law (Romans 9:31-32).

This is probably one of the more widely accepted views today.  It places Christ on a par with Plato, Socrates, Mohammed, Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, Mother Theresa or any other great leader or thinker.  Among those who hold naturalistic assumptions, it is one of the easier views to adopt since it can avoid the supernatural yet maintain a fairly high (although still human) view of Christ.  Some who are open to the supernatural and accept the deity of Christ also hold that Christ's death was primarily an example.

Of course, there is a sense in which the death of Christ is an example for us.  In Philippians 2:5-8 Christ's humble, servant attitude, which he showed in his incarnation and his death, is offered as an example of how believers should serve each other (see also Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45).  And in 1 Peter 2:21 believers are told to follow Christ's example of suffering for good without revenge.

While it is clear that Christ, both in his life and his death, serves as an example for us, we have to ask if that is all there is to it.  We will see, in the section on substitution, that this view is very shallow.  One area where it comes up short is the fact that it does not relate at all to God's justice.  Even if the example of Christ's life and death were admitted to have great moral influence, how are God's holiness and justice satisfied?  According to Romans 3:25-26, the death of Christ is part of God's demonstration of his justice.

If your view of Christ's death is that it is primarily an example, then you not only miss the biblical teaching regarding the satisfaction of God's justice by virtue of the substitutionary nature of Christ's death, you also leave yourself vulnerable to a variety of excesses.  For example, here are the comments of a Roman Catholic priest who emphasizes that Christ's death is an example, and mistakenly believes that we can follow that example and become "gods."

To aspire to divinity is the noblest of human yearnings.  It is implanted in us by God Himself to keep us on the road back to Him.  That is why we should reflect very carefully on the words we pray each day at Mass: " ... may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity."
We need to look to the example of Jesus the Perfect Man, the Second Adam, who brought us the possibility of becoming gods – the right way – by submission to the will of the Father, by service of one's fellows, by forgetfulness of self.  Yes, we can become gods with a small "g," for perfect humanity leads to divinity.  Christ is our example, our promise, and our assurance.  (Rev. Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Bible and the Mass: Understanding the Scriptural Basis of the Liturgy, Servant Publications, 1989)

Of course, there is a passage in which believers are said to "participate in the divine nature"  (2 Peter 1:4).  But the immediate contest is all about the believer's behavior, that is, his need to live a godly life.  Notice that verse 3 is talking about the believer being fully equipped for "life and godliness," and the remainder of verse 4 equates participating in the divine nature with escaping the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.  In the Greek, "and escape" is actually a participle ("having escaped") which sheds light on the intent of the verb "participate," indicating that participating in the divine nature is done by escaping the corruption in the world, that is, by holy living.  (Similar Greek constructions are found, for example, in Matthew 28:19-20 where the participles "going," "baptizing," and "teaching" shed light on "make disciples" and in Ephesians 5:18-20 where the participles "speaking," "singing," "psalming," and "giving thanks" shed light on "be filled.")  Certainly this whole section (2 Peter 1:3-9) is an exhortation for believers, not to take on God's nature and become gods, but to take on God's character and live a pure life.  It is simply another way of making the same point Peter made earlier, "be holy"  (1 Peter 1:15-16).

5.  Ransom

When we get to this view we finally start building on a better set of assumptions.  The supernatural and miracles are accepted, and Christ is seen as divine.  According to this view, Christ did actually die, and he rose again.  The unique aspect of this view is that it claims that his death is best understood as a ransom paid to redeem mankind.  Although there are four New Testament passages which use the word ransom in describing Christ's death (which we will consider later), here we are concerned with what has been called the ransom theory, which goes far beyond the mere use of the word ransom.

The ransom theory has a long history with many variations.  It was propounded by Irenaeus (AD 130-200), Origen (AD 185-254), Bernard of Clairvaux (AD 1090-1153, who wrote the words of the hymn “O Sacred Head Now Wounded”), and many other historic theologians.  Irenaeus taught that the ransom was paid to God the Father.  Origen taught that the ransom was paid to the devil.  The ransom theory was very widely accepted over a period of about a thousand years, although some, notably Gregory of Nazianzus (AD 329-389), strongly opposed the view.

The basic idea of a ransom is quite simple.  It is a payment made to free a person from captivity.  When the ransom is seen in its proper context, it involves both the payment and the act of freeing the captive.  These two ideas together constitute the concept of redemption.  Certainly this simple concept applies accurately to what Christ has done for mankind.

But ransom theories go far beyond this basic idea of a ransom and fill in many additional details.  A full ransom scenario would involve many aspects including the act of capture, the identity of the captor (presumably the same as the one to whom the ransom is paid), the captor's motive, the identity of the captives, the identity of the one paying the ransom, the motive for making the payment, the amount of the payment, the means of payment, the terms of release, and perhaps many other details.  If we look closely at the four New Testament passages in which the word ransom is used, we find that they stay very close to the basic idea of ransom and do not fill in many additional details.

For example, in Matthew 20:25-28 and Mark 10:42-45 Jesus is teaching his disciples that true greatness does not come from having others serve you, but from serving others.  He then supports this teaching with his own example by stating that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  This passage refers only to the one who paid (served by giving his life), the payment (his life), and the captives.  Also, 1 Timothy 2:6, describes Christ as the one “who gave himself as the ransom for all men.”  Here again, the passage stays within the basic concept of ransom, identifying only the one who paid, the payment, and the captives.  Also, Hebrews 9:15 describes Christ as the one who “died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”  Again, this passage stays within the basic concept of ransom, identifying Christ as the one who paid and referring to the captives.  The only additional thought in this passage is that they are captive to their own sins.

It is significant that none of these passages goes on to develop the other aspects of a full ransom scenario.  These passages were never intended to teach that the ransom model is the model around which you should develop your entire view of salvation.  Horne reminds us:

We sometimes speak of the price which a mother pays when she brings a child into the world, but it would be absurd to ask to whom she pays the price.  Likewise, it is meaningless to ask to whom the ransom is paid that effects our redemption.  (Charles M. Horne, Salvation, Moody Press, 1971, p. 25)

The ransom passages are similar to parables in that they use a story (or event) and then borrow language from that story.  In a parable, the story is told explicitly.  Then, in the explanation of the parable, various terms from the story are used to teach analogous spiritual truths.  Similarly, the ransom passages (actually, any passages built on an analogy) use terms from the analogous event without previously telling the story since the event is a common and relatively standard occurrence in the culture.  When it comes to interpreting a parable, most people know that you cannot press every detail of the story.  In other words, you cannot find a parallel spiritual truth to fit every aspect of the story.  Sound interpretation of a parable involves drawing a parallel to the most basic and obvious feature of the story rather than trying to make every detail teach something.  Additional details may have significance, but we need to depend on the teacher's own explanation (as when Christ explained several details of certain of his parables in Matthew 13).  The same is true for analogical passages, such as the ransom passages.  We should look for the central ideas and not try to develop a full blown analogy.

All our illustrations are no more than means of enabling us to see a little better some small fraction of this great event.  (Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1965, p. 412)

So the problem is not that the basic idea of a ransom is foreign to scripture.  Rather, the problem is that some have gone far beyond the central ideas of a ransom and have used the ransom idea to build up their entire doctrine of salvation.  As would be expected, any approach which goes beyond the scriptures leads to false views in related areas of theology.  For example, if God the Father is the one demanding the ransom payment, does this mean that he is the one who captured mankind?  Or, suppose the devil is the one demanding the ransom payment.  In this case we can easily view the devil as having captured mankind.  However, it is difficult to imagine a devil so powerful (or a God so weak) that God must actually meet the devil's demands.  This would entirely destroy the concept of God's sovereignty — a God which is under no obligations to anyone outside himself.  (The only thing that puts demands on a sovereign God is his own nature.)  On the contrary, if we limit our understanding of ransom to its basics and to what is said about Christ's ransom in scripture, we find no conflict with other doctrines.

Can a person become saved if he understands Christ's death as a ransom?  Certainly, as long as he accepts the fact of his own sin and its consequences, Christ's death for him, and exercises repentance and faith in Christ.

6. Substitute

The death of Christ, according to many Bible passages, is best understood as a substitution.  Christ, the sinless God-man, stood in our place and took the punishment for sin which we deserve.  Some theologians refer to this as the vicarious death of Christ.  Here are some of the New Testament passages which present this truth.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures . . .  (1 Corinthians 15:3)

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.  (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."  (Galatians 3:13)

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.  (1 Peter 2:24)

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.  (1 Peter 3:18)

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.  (1 John 2:2)

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.  (1 John 4:10)

Leon Morris, after analyzing the New Testament's teaching regarding the cross, summarizes as follows:

One thing I am concerned to contend for is that, while the many-sidedness of the atonement must be borne in mind, substitution is at the heart of it.  (Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1965, p. 404)

In addition to the above New Testament passages, Isaiah 53:5-12 contains 9 statements of substitution (quotations below are from the NASB).

pierced through for our transgressions (verse 5)
crushed for our iniquities (verse 5)
chastening for our well-being fell upon Him (verse 5)
by His scourging we are healed (verse 5)
iniquity of us all to fall on Him (verse 6)
cut off . . . for the transgression of my people (verse 8)
Although . . . no violence nor was there any deceit . . . guilt offering (verses 9-10)
bear their iniquities (verse 11)
bore the sins of many (verse 12)

In contrast to the view of Christ's death as an example, this view relates well to God's justice.  Sin must be punished, or God is not just.  In this view Christ takes that punishment as our substitute, and thus God's justice is maintained  (Romans 3:25-26).

It is interesting to note that the church's most historic creed, the Apostles' Creed, fails to state that the death of Christ was substitutionary.  The creed does refer to the physical death of Christ as an historical event under Pontius Pilate, as well as to the resurrection, but says nothing about the purpose of Christ's death.  This is rather surprising in view of Paul's statement that the gospel, the fact that Christ died for our sins, is of "first importance"  (1 Corinthians 15:3).  No doubt, it was one of the first things he told the Corinthians.

However, the substitutionary death of Christ is the subject of many of the old hymns of the church.  See the appendix for a few examples.

Note Spurgeon's strong endorsement of the concept of substitution:

Substitution is the very marrow of the whole Bible, the soul of salvation, the essence of the gospel; we ought to saturate all our sermons with it, for it is the lifeblood of a gospel ministry. (Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 17.544, cited in Talbert, "Spurgeon's Christological Homiletics," 48)

E. Requirements of Substitution

What are the basic requirements of any substitute?  In other words, when one item (the original) needs another item (the substitute) to stand in its place, what characteristics must the substitute have in order to make a valid substitution?  To help us think through these requirements, we will use several common examples of substitution:  a new light bulb, a substitute teacher, and a spare tire.

1.  Similarity

First, the substitute must be similar to the original.  When the filament in a light bulb burns out and you need to find a substitute for the bulb, you don't look for a book or a flower.  They are not similar enough.  It must be made of glass and have a thread on the end that can be turned into the light socket.  Not even an empty ketchup bottle will do, even though it is glass and has a thread on the end.  To be a valid substitute it must be another light bulb.  This requirement of similarity applies to every substitute.  If the regular fourth grade teacher is sick and a substitute teacher is needed, you will not try to substitute with a bird or a doughnut.  The substitute must be a person, preferably a person who knows the subjects and knows how to teach fourth graders.  Or, if you have punctured a tire and it has gone flat, you will not attempt to use a chair or a blanket.  The substitute must be another tire.  In every case, a valid substitution requires that the substitute be very similar to the original.  But it cannot be exactly the same as the original, as we will see next.

2.  Difference

Second, the substitute must have a key difference from the original.  The substitute cannot be identical to the original.  It would never do to use a burned out light bulb to replace the original.  Nor would it work to find another fourth grade teacher who is also sick, or another tire that is also punctured.  The very problem which calls for the substitution in the first place (the burned out filament, the sick teacher, the hole in the tire) is the point at which the substitute must be different from the original.  The best substitute is one which is the same as the original in all aspects except for this key difference.

3.  Exchange

Third, there must be an exchange.  Meeting the first two requirements is not enough to accomplish a substitution.  The substitute must actually be put in the place of the original.  The new light bulb does no good sitting on the shelf.  The teacher must come to the school.  And the spare tire must be taken out of the trunk and fastened to the wheel hub.  Each one, if it meets the first two requirements, is a potential substitute, but a valid substitution takes place only when the substitute stands in the place of the original.

F.  Christ's Qualifications as Our Substitute

Did Christ meet the requirements for a substitute?

1.  Basic Similarity (Humanity)

In order to fulfill the requirement of similarity, Jesus must be human.  He became human through the process called the incarnation, while never ceasing to be God.  (The term "incarnate" comes from the Latin incarnare which means "in flesh.")  The incarnation includes the virgin conception of Jesus within Mary as well as his birth as a human baby.  As a result of the incarnation Jesus has both fully deity and fully humanity.

An objection could be raised, namely, that Jesus must have a sin nature since all humans are born with a sin nature.  However, when we consider the fact that Adam and Eve were fully human before the fall, we realize that it is possible to be fully human without a sin nature.

The humanity of Jesus Christ is taught clearly in a number of passages.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:14)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.(1 John 1:1-2)

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.  (1 John 4:2-3)

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!  (Philippians 2:6-8)

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil …  (Hebrews 2:14)

And Hebrews 10:3-12 makes a very strong point that the blood of animals is not enough (obviously because a human sacrifice is needed).

Also consider the fact that Jesus' most frequent expression for himself was "Son of Man."  This title certainly draws attention to Jesus as a future glorious returning king in many eschatological passages (such as Matthew 26:64, compare Daniel 7:13-14).  However, in all passages where this title is used it highlights the humanity of the person so described (see, for example, its many uses in reference to Ezekiel).

By the way, theologians disagree on just what Jesus added to his nature during the incarnation.  Some claim that Jesus added only a physical body.  Others maintain that Jesus added everything that comprises a human being, namely, both body and soul/spirit.  (This aspect of the incarnation is referred to as the hypostatic union and is beyond the scope of this paper.  See the endnote.)

2.  Key Difference (Sinlessness)

Christ, unlike every other human being, is completely without sin.  Sin is the problem that calls for a substitute in the first place, and it is precisely at this point that Christ differs from the rest of humanity.

Referring to Christ, the writer of Hebrews states that

We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin.  (Hebrews 4:15)

Peter says

He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:22)

Christ is repeatedly called “holy” (Acts 2:27; 3:14; 4:27; etc.).

And, of course, the doctrine of the deity of Christ has the obvious corollary of the sinlessness of Christ.

3.  Exchange (Separation from the Father)

The actual exchange took place shortly before the physical death of Christ.  Jesus himself, while hanging on the cross, said something to the Father which he could only have said if he were standing in place of sinners.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?  (Matthew 27:46)

At this point, Jesus was experiencing spiritual separation from the Father which is the punishment, not for his sins, but for our sins.  This was the actual act of substitution.

It is important to realize that it was not Christ's physical death wherein he substituted for us.  If that were the case, believers would not have to die physically.  Remember that the punishment for sin is primarily spiritual death, that is, separation from God.  This separation has nothing to do with physical (spatial) separation, but has everything to do with interpersonal separation, that is, alienation.  Adam was told that the day he sinned he would die.  While he died spiritually as soon as he sinned (his alienation from God was shown by his being kicked out of the garden), physically he lived for many years (Genesis 2:15-17; 5:4).

Going back to our examples of substitution, we observe that in some situations the problems are permanent, so the substitutes remain in place.  This is the case in the example of the burned out light bulb.  In other situations, the problems are temporary, so the originals are returned to their places.  This is the case in the examples of the sick teacher and the flat tire.  Certainly in the case of sinners needing salvation, the problem is far from intermittent or temporary.  But Christ does not remain separated from the Father throughout eternity.  Because of his infinite nature, his experience of separation from the Father for a short time is sufficient to fully satisfy God's justice.  (This is one point at which the substitution analogy breaks down.)

Even though substitution is at the heart of a biblical view of Christ's death, we should not think of it as the whole story when we look at the larger issue of our salvation.  Leon Morris reminds us that substitution is only one of several concepts that help us understand salvation.

Salvation is an exceedingly complex process with many facets, and, while substitution is a very helpful concept for bringing out some of the truth, it must be supplemented where other aspects are in question.  Thus, if it is true that salvation may helpfully be described in terms of Christ’s bearing my penalty, it is also true that it is to be described further in terms of new birth (Jn. 3:3,5,7), in terms of my dying with Christ and rising with Him (Rom. 6:8; Col. 3:1-3), in terms of my becoming partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and in other ways.  (Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1965, p. 415)

One more question:  What was Christ's relationship to the Holy Spirit during his substitutionary death?  Even though there are no scripture passages which explicitly answer this question, it seems logical to conclude that, during the "exchange" that was his spiritual death, Jesus was separated both from the Father and from the Holy Spirit.  Not every theologian would agree with this view.  For example, Kuyper states that the Holy Spirit "continued with Him [Jesus] through His death (Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, Funk & Wagnalls, 1900, p. 110, italics in original).  Kuyper also claims that

Jesus Himself considered His death and resurrection an awful process of suffering through which He must enter into glory, but without being for a single moment separated from the Holy Spirit.  (op. cit. p. 111, italics added)

But Jesus' cry, "why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) seems to require that He was utterly alone when he suffered in our place.  Kuyper's view raises difficult questions about the nature of Christ's death, and about the role of the Holy Spirit.  For example, if Jesus was separated from the Father but not from the Holy Spirit, in what sense was Jesus forsaken?  If the Holy Spirit was with Jesus, was the Holy Spirit also separated from the Father?  In other words, did the Holy Spirit also die for our sins (without an incarnation)?  It seems much more straight forward and much more consistent with other biblical teachings to maintain that Jesus was separated both from the Father and from the Holy Spirit.

G.  Substitution: Both Just and Logical

Some have objected, claiming that it is morally unthinkable and a great injustice for God to inflict punishment on the innocent Christ while he lets guilty sinners go unpunished.  But this line of reasoning only holds up if you make the common liberal mistake of thinking of Christ as merely human, making him a third party.  (This third party idea is a popular one, and is encouraged by certain illustrations of substitution.  One common illustration is the story of the debtor who stands before the judge only to have his friend tell the judge that he will pay the debt.)  But we must remember that Jesus, although he became man, never ceased being God.  In reality there are only two parties – God and man – and God is the one serving as the substitute and taking the punishment.  God is not inflicting punishment on a third party, but willingly taking the punishment on himself.  Thus both the deity of Christ and the unity of the trinity must be maintained for the substitutionary death of Christ to be just.

Also, the idea of substitution rests logically upon the doctrine of multiple persons in the trinity.  Once we realize that spiritual death is interpersonal separation, and that this is exactly what Christ suffered in our place, we realize that the doctrine of the trinity is absolutely essential.  Without a plurality of persons in the Godhead, there could be no separation of one divine person from another.  If God were only one person appearing in three different modes, as some have taught, then that one person would never have been able to be our substitute and salvation would be impossible.  Christ, as one of his qualifications for being our substitute, is one of three distinct divine persons in the trinity, and this fact is absolutely foundational in any system of theology that calls itself biblical.  See the paper The Trinity.

Indeed, the whole doctrine of soteriology fits together logically and fits with other biblical doctrines logically.  Some of those logical relationships are presented in the following diagram (borrowed from Appendix B1 of the book Direct Bible Discovery).

As you think through these relationships, it becomes apparent that Jesus' death for our sins and his resurrection form the logical core of the gospel.  If we maintain that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, then logically we must also maintain that we have sinned (else how could he die for them?), that Jesus is divine (being declared the Son of God by the resurrection, Romans 1:4), and that Jesus lived a sinless life (as necessitated by his divine nature).  In other words, maintaining the essential core of the gospel logically necessitates much of the rest of the chart.

H.  Conclusion

All that remains is for each individual to admit his need (that he is a sinner, separated from God), and turn and trust in the sinless Christ and in his death in our place.

At first God and man stood face to face with each other.  In sinning, Adam turned his back upon God.  Then God turned his back upon Adam.  Christ's death has satisfied the demands of God and now God has again turned His face toward man.  It remains for man to turn round about and face God.  Since God has been reconciled by the death of His Son, man is now entreated to be reconciled to God.  (Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1949, p 327-328)

We want to end this discussion of the death of Christ by emphasizing that

our salvation is not contingent upon our theoretical understanding, but upon our genuine acceptance of what Christ has accomplished for us. . . .  The story is told of a simple-minded man who presented himself before the elders of a great city church and asked to be admitted as a communicant member.  He was unable to memorize the statements found in the catechism, and he was unable to state the doctrines with any degree of clarity.  The elders were about to dismiss him when one of them asked, “Why did you come to apply for membership if you cannot explain your faith?”  At this tears came to the eyes of the simple-minded man and, with genuine earnestness, he said, “I'm a poor sinner and nothing at all, but Jesus my Saviour is all in all.”  He was accepted and went on to live a simple but radiant Christian life.  (James Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Zondervan, 1962, p 72-73)

---

See the sequel to this paper, The Two Deaths of Christ, which discusses Christ's physical and spiritual deaths, including the timing of his spiritual death in relation to his physical death.

---

Endnote

[From the end of section F.1.]

A few things can be summarized about Jesus as the God-man and particularly about what was added to his divine nature to complete his human nature.

Those who favor the view that everything essential to humanity was added (both body and soul/spirit) tend to make more of a separation between deity and humanity than the Bible indicates.  They reason that, since God is so different from man, Jesus must have added everything that is essential to humanity in order to be considered human.  However, the Bible teaches clearly that man was created like God (Genesis 1:26-27), and since God is spirit (John 4:4) and thus invisible (Colossians 1:15;  1 Timothy 1:17;  Hebrews 11:27), it must be the non-material part of man that is like God.  The term non-material refers to that part of man usually called his spirit or soul, which has self-awareness, intellect, emotions, and volition.  This is the doctrine of the image of God in man.  This means that the Son (the second person of the trinity), with the mere addition of a human body, has all the essential characteristics of humanity.  This view fits well with Christ's statement regarding his incarnation, "a body you prepared for me" (Hebrews 10:5, italics added).  It also fits well with the statement that "since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity" and was "made like his brothers"  (Hebrews 2:14-17, italics added).  It also fits well with Paul's statement that "He appeared in a body" (1 Timothy 3:16).

It is only because of the image of God in man that one person could possess all the characteristics of both deity and humanity simultaneously.  If the Son (the second person of the trinity) were totally different from man to begin with, it would be impossible for him to become man and retain his deity without being two distinct persons.  Thus, many theologians who hold this view speak of two natures in one individual (an ill-considered idea when you recognize the basic meanings of the words nature and individual).  In fact, this is how some theologians describe Jesus, claiming that some actions come from his humanity, others from his deity.  (This is one of the explanations given for the fact that Jesus did not know the time of his own return according to Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32.  It is claimed that, in his deity he knew it, but in his humanity was ignorant of it.)  But this is a degrading view of Jesus, making him a split person.  It also makes the doctrine of the image of God in man unnecessary.

For further discussion see the papers The Imago Dei and Jesus: the One-natured God-man.

---

Appendix

The songwriters of the past have expressed the truth of the substitutionary death of Christ in many of their hymns.  Here are some examples.

Ah, Holy Jesus, How Hast Thou Offended? (Johann Heermann)

Stanza 2
Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee!
'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied Thee; I crucified Thee.

At the Cross (Isaac Watts)

Stanza 1
Alas! and did my Savior bleed? And did my Sov'reign die?
Would he devote that sacred head For such a worm as I?
Stanza 2
Was it for crimes that I have done He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown! And love beyond degree!
Stanza 3
Well might the sun in darkness hide And shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker, died For man the creature's sin.

Before the Throne of God Above (Charitie L Bancroft, 1863)

Because a sinless Savior died,
My sinful soul is counted free;
For God, the Just, is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me
To look on Him and pardon me

Beneath the Cross of Jesus (Elizabeth C. Clephane)

Stanza 2
Upon that cross of Jesus Mine eye at times can see
The very dying form of One Who suffered there for me
And from my smitten heart with tears Two wonders I confess –
The wonders of redeeming love And my unworthiness.

Cross of Jesus, Cross of Sorrow (William J. Sparrow-Simpson)

Stanza 1
Cross of Jesus, cross of sorrow, Where the blood of Christ was shed,
Perfect man on thee did suffer, Perfect God on thee has bled!
Stanza 2
Here the King of all the ages, Throned in light ere worlds could be,
Robed in mortal flesh is dying, Crucified by sin for me.
Stanza 3
O mysterious condescending! O abandonment sublime!
Very God Himself is bearing All the sufferings of time!
Stanza 4
Evermore for human failure By His passion we can plead;
God has borne all mortal anguish, Surely He will know our need.

Face to Face (Carrie E. Breck)

Stanza 1
Face to face with Christ my Savior, Face to face – what will it be –
When with rapture I behold Him, Jesus Christ who died for me?

Hail, Thou Once-Despised Jesus! (John Bakewell)

Stanza 1
Hail! Thou once-despised Jesus! Hail, Thou Galilean King!
Thou didst suffer to release us; Thou didst free salvation bring.
Hail, Thou agonizing Savior, Bearer of our sin and shame!
By Thy merits we find favor; Life is given through Thy name.
Stanza 2
Paschal Lamb, by God appointed, All our sins on Thee were laid;
By almighty love anointed, Thou has full atonement made.
All Thy people are forgiven, Through the virtue of Thy blood;
Opened is the gate of heaven, Peace is made 'twixt man and God.

Hallelujah, What a Savior! (Philip P. Bliss)

Stanza 2
Bearing shame and scoffing rude, In my place condemned He stood –
Sealed my pardon with his blood: Hallelujah, what a Savior!
Stanza 3
Guilty, vile and helpless we, Spotless Lamb of God was He;
Full atonement! can it be? Hallelujah, what a Savior!

He Was Wounded for Our Transgressions (Thomas O. Chisholm)

Stanza 1
He was wounded for our transgressions,
He bore our sins in His body on the tree;
For our guilt He gave us peace, From our bondage gave release,
And with His stripes, and with His stripes,
And with His stripes our souls are healed.
Stanza 2
He was numbered among transgressors,
We did esteem Him forsaken by His God;
As our sacrifice He died, That the law be satisfied,
And all our sin, and all our sin,
And all our sin was laid on Him.

How Deep the Father's Love for Us (Stuart Townend)

Stanza 2
Behold the Man upon a cross, My sin upon His shoulders.
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice, Call out among the scoffers.
It was my sin that held Him there, Until it was accomplished.
His dying breath has brought me life, I know that it is finished.

How Great Thou Art (Carl Boberg)

Stanza 3
And when I think that God, His Son not sparing,
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in,
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

In My Heart (There's a Melody of Gladness, John W. Peterson)

Stanza 2
I remember how my longing heart was searching everywhere
To discover what would take my guilt away;
Then I heard that Christ the Savior all my sins Himself did bear,
And the Spirit drew me to him that glad day.

I Saw One Hanging on a Tree (John Newton)

Stanza 4
My conscience felt and owned the guilt, And plunged me in despair;
I saw my sins His blood had spilt And helped to nail Him there.
Refrain
O, can it be, upon a tree The Savior died for me?
My soul is thrilled, my heart is filled, To think He died for me!

It Is Well with My Soul (Horatio G. Spafford)

Stanza 2
Though Satan should buffet, tho' trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
Stanza 3
My sin – O, the bliss of this glorious thought,
My sin – not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

Living for Jesus (Thomas O. Chisholm)

Stanza 2
Living for Jesus who died in my place,
Bearing on Calv'ry my sin and disgrace;
Such love constrains me to answer His call,
Follow His leading and give Him my all.

Majestic Sweetness Sits Enthroned (Samuel Stennett)

Stanza 3
He saw me plunged in deep distress, And flew to my relief;
For me he bore the shameful cross And carried all my grief, And carried all my grief.

More About Jesus (Eliza E. Hewitt)

Refrain
More, more about Jesus, More, more about Jesus;
More of His saving fullness see, More of His love who died for me!

My Faith Has Found a Resting Place (Lidie H. Edmunds)

Stanza 1 and refrain
My faith has found a resting place – Not in device or creed:
I trust the Ever-living One – His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument, I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me.

My Hope is in the Lord (Norman J. Clayton)

Stanza 1 and refrain
My hope is in the Lord Who gave Himself for me,
And paid the price of all my sin at Calvary.
For me He died, For me he lives,
And everlasting life and light He freely gives.

My Savior's Love (I Stand Amazed, Charles H. Gabriel)

Stanza 3
In pity angels beheld Him, And came from the world of light
To comfort Him in the sorrows He bore for my soul that night.
Stanza 4
He took my sins and my sorrows, He made them His very own;
He bore the burden to Calv'ry And suffered and died alone.

O Sacred Head, Now Wounded (based on a poem ascribed to Bernard of Clairvaux)

Stanza 2
What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered Was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression, But Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior; 'Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor, Assist me with Thy grace.

Praise Him! Praise Him! (Fanny J. Crosby)

Stanza 2
Praise Him! praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer!
For our sins He suffered, and bled and died;
He our Rock, our hope of eternal salvation,
Hail Him! hail him! Jesus the Crucified.
Sound His praises! Jesus who bore our sorrows;
Love unbounded, wonderful, deep and strong:
Praise Him! praise Him! tell of His excellent greatness;
Praise Him! praise Him! ever in joyful song!

The Old Rugged Cross (George Bennard)

Stanza 1
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
The emblem of suff'ring and shame;
And I love that old cross where the dearest and best
For a world of lost sinners was slain.

There Is a Green Hill Far Away (Cecil F. Alexander)

Stanza 2
We may not know, we cannot tell What pains he had to bear;
But we believe it was for us He hung and suffered there.

What a Friend We Have in Jesus

Stanza 1
What a friend we have in Jesus, All our sins and griefs to bear! …

What Child Is This? (Wiliam C. Dix)

Stanza 2
Why lies He in such mean estate Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christian, fear; for sinners here The silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce him thru, The cross be borne for me, for you:
Hail, hail the Word made flesh – The babe, the son of Mary!

What Wondrous Love is This (American folk hymn)

Stanza 1
. . .
What wondrous love is this That caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul,
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul.