The Passion of Christ: In Scripture and History

Chapter 4
THE CROSS OF CHRIST

Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, has sparked fresh interest for the Cross of Christ. Since the release of the movie, thousands of articles and books on the meaning of Christ’s sufferings and death, have been published or posted on websites. Both professional Bible scholars and lay Bible students have been inspired by the movie to take a fresh look at the meaning of the Cross of Christ for twenty-first century Christians. Irrespective of how one may feels about the movie, Gibson must be credited for causing many people to reconsider the fundamental question: Why was it necessary for Christ to suffer and die for our salvation?
This question is especially relevant today when the presence of sin and the need of a Savior are largely dismissed as outmoded concepts. No psychology text book ever mentions “sin” or “divine grace” as factors influencing human behavior. Our humanistic society has reached the point when social customs have displaced the law of God, social mores have replaced biblical morals, moral relativism has substituted biblical moral absolutes, and belief in human progress has taken the place of faith in divine redemption.
Throughout its history the Christian church has taught that our fundamental human problem is sin and the Cross of Christ provides the only hope to solve the sin problem. Today, however, the concept of “sin” is regarded by many as an outmoded holdover from the days of simplistic religious beliefs.
Sin implies some form of disobedience against an absolute moral law that governs the relationship between human beings and God. But, many people today question the existence of such relationship. By accepting Darwinistic teachings regarding the accidental and materialistic human nature, many no longer see the need for believing in an absolute moral law that governs our relationship with God and fellow-beings.
The problem with the materialistic evolutionary view of human nature, is that it has not succeeded in eliminating the awareness that there is something transcendent about our human nature, something that transcends our physical bodies. We recognize that there is within ourselves a moral nature that expresses itself through our conscience. We know when we say or do something which is wrong or when others do wrong things.
Despite the contemporary dismissal of the reality of sin, guilt remains a constant reality in the human psyche. Psychologist Karl Menninger writes: “I believe there is a general sentiment that sin is still with us, by us, and in us—somewhere. We are made vaguely uneasy by this consciousness, this persistent sense of guilt, and we try to relieve it in various ways. We project the blame on others, we ascribe the responsibility to a group, we offer up scapegoat sacrifices, we perform or partake in dumb-show rituals of penitence and atonement. There is rarely a peccavi [a confession: I have sinned], but there is a feeling.”1
This is a phenomenon of our times. Many live under the burden of guilt, fully aware that they acted against the moral directives of their conscience, yet they dismiss the notion of sin and of the existence of a moral law that stands outside them and above them. They try all sorts of ways to rid themselves of guilt feelings, only to recognize that human remedies do not work. The reason we cannot clear our consciences of guilt feelings is because as Paul explains, the principles of God’s law are written in the human heart (Rom 2:15).
The message of the Scripture is that the solution to the human problem of guilt and sin is to be found not in human devices, but in God’s initiative to enter into human time and flesh to liberate us from the bondage of sin through the sacrificial death of His Son. The message of the Cross is that God has been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice of dying on the Cross in the Person of His Son to pay the penalty of our sins and restore our broken relationship.

Objectives of this Chapter. This chapter investigates the reasons for Christ’s death, its achievements, and its benefits for our life today. Trying to understand these vital aspects of Christ’s death, is not easy. The reason is that the Bible does not give us a systematic explanation of the meaning of Christ’s death. Trying to piece together the scattered references to Christ’s death into one meaningful explanation, is like attempting to assemble a puzzle without the picture of the puzzle on the cover of the box. This chapter attempts to develop an accurate picture of the scope of Christ’s death by taking in consideration the relevant biblical references.
For the sake of clarity this chapter is divided into the following three major parts:
1. The Centrality of the Cross
2. The Necessity of the Cross
3. The Achievements of the Cross
THE CENTRALITY OF THE CROSS
Religious and political movements usually have a visual symbol to represent their history or beliefs. Modern Judaism has adopted the so-called Star of David, that represent God covenant with David about the perpetual duration of his throne and the coming of the Messiah out of his descendants. Islam is symbolized by a Crescent, which depicts a phase of the moon. It is a symbol of the expansion and sovereignty of the Moslem conquest.
The Lotus Flower is associated with Buddhism. Sometimes Buddha is depicted as enthroned in a fully open lotus flower. Its wheel shape is supposed to represent the emergence of beauty and harmony out of muddy water and chaos. In 1917 the Soviet government adopted a crossed hammer and sickle to represent the union of factory and field workers. The Swastica was adopted early in the twentieth century by a German group as the symbol of the Aryan race. Hitler took it over and made it the symbol of Nazi racial bigotry.
The Cross is the Symbol of Christianity
Christianity is no exception in having a visual symbol. The Cross in time became the universally emblem of the Christian belief in salvation through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. At first Christians avoided using the Cross as the visual symbol of their faith, though they boldly spoke about the Cross (1 Cor 1:23; Gal 6:14). Being the object of wild accusations and persecutions, the avoided associating their faith in Christ with the Cross, because it was the shameful symbol of execution of common criminals. Thus, on the walls and ceilings of the catacombs, the earliest Christians used such noncommittal paintings as the peacock (symbol of immortality), the dove (symbol of the Holy Spirit), a palm branch (symbol of victory), and especially the fish. Only Christians knew that the Greek word for fish, ichthus, was an acronym for Iesus Christos Theou Huios Soter, that is, “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.”
During the second century Christians began painting such biblical themes as Noah’s ark, the Jonah cycle, the Good Shepherd, the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace, and the rising of Lazarus. All of these pictures were intended to represents aspects of Christ’s redemptive mission. Eventually, Christians chose the Cross as the best pictorial symbol of their Christian faith in redemption through Christ’s sacrificial death.
There were a wide range of emblems suitable to express the Christian faith. They could have chosen the manger as symbol of the incarnation, the empty tomb as symbol of the resurrection, the dove as symbol of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the throne as symbol of Christ’s sovereignty. Instead, they chose a simple Cross, because it effectively represented the core of the Christian belief in redemption through Christ’s sacrificial death. The crucifix with Christ’s contorted body attached to it, “does not appear to have been used before the sixth century.”2
The Christians’ choice of a Cross to represent their faith, is most surprising when we remember that the cross was the most cruel method of execution, reserved for slaves and foreigners, who had been convicted as murderers or insurrectionists. The crucifixion was so shameful that Romans citizens were exempted from it. The early enemies of Christianity capitalized on the shame of the crucifixion to ridicule the Christian claim that Christ saved mankind by dying on the Cross.
A fitting example is a graffito from the second century, discovered on Palatine Hill in Rome. It is a crude caricature of Christ’s crucifixion. It depicts a man stretched on a cross with the head of a donkey. On the left stands another man with one arm raised in worship. Underneath are scribbled these uneven words: ALEXAMENOS CEBETE THEON—”Alexamenos worships God.” The accusation that Christians worshipped a donkey, reveals the Romans’ contempt for the Christian worship of a crucified Savior.
The fact that the Cross became the symbol of the Christian faith, in spite of its shame and ridicule, shows that the early Christian understood that the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross, was the foundation and core of their faith. They were not prepared to exchange it for something less offensive. They firmly clung to it, because it was the symbol of their loyalty to their Savior and acceptance of His sacrificial death for their redemption.
Christ’s Death is the Central Theme of the Scripture
Christ’s death is the central theme of the Scripture. Walking on the way to Emmaus with two of His disciples on the evening of His Resurrection, Jesus gave them what must have been one of the most exciting Bible study of all time. “Beginning with Moses and the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:26). Jesus explained to them how the prophets wrote about His death, without knowing who He was and when He would come.
The whole sacrificial system of the Old Testament was a symbolic portrayal of the sacrificial death of Jesus for mankind’s sins. Similarly, the Passover lamb sacrificed by each believing Jewish family, celebrated not only the deliverance from the Egyptian bondage, but also the future Messianic redemption from the bondage of sin. As Paul puts it: “Christ, our paschal lamb has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7).
Christ was the fulfillment of the promise of redemption typified by the Passover lamb and the sacrificial animals offered at the Temple on behalf of penitent sinners. John the Baptist understood the Messianic typology of the sacrificial system. When he saw Jesus coming toward him at the Jordan river, John the Baptist said: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” (John 1:29).
Those who in faith offered animal sacrifices in the Old Testament looked forward to the coming of the Messiah who would redeem them with His own blood. In the same way, we today look back by faith to Christ’s sacrificial death. The blood of animal sacrifices did not save, but faith in what the shed blood symbolized did. In the same way we are saved, not through the bread and wine, the symbols of Christ’s broken body and shed blood, but through the sacrificial death of Jesus represented by these symbols.
Christ’s Perception of His Mission
Already at the age of 12 when Jesus was left behind at the Temple by mistake, He appears to be conscious of His mission. He told His anxious parents: “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49). By speaking of God as “my Father,” and by expressing His inner compulsion to occupy Himself with His Father’s affairs, Jesus revealed to be conscious of His mission at an early age. His Father had sent Him into the world for a special purpose.
At His baptism and temptation, Jesus revealed His commitment to fulfill His mission, rather than the Devil’s plan. He was prepared to go the way of suffering and death, rather than the way of comfort and acclamation. Later in His ministry three times Christ attempted to explain to His disciples the so-called “Messianic secret” regarding His death. The first time is when Jesus and His disciples were travelling through the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way Jesus “. . . began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, an be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly” (Mark 8:31-32).
Jesus revealed gradually to His disciples His sacrificial death, because the Jews expected the Messiah to be a revolutionary political leader. The second unambiguous reference to His death occurred when Jesus was passing secretly through Galilee. He said to the Twelve: “The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise” (Mark 9:31). The disciples did not understand what Jesus meant and “they were greatly distressed” (Matt 17:22). Probably this was the time when Jesus “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51). He was determined to fulfill His mission.
Christ made the third and most explicit prediction of His death on the way to Jerusalem with His disciples. “And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, ‘Behold, we are going to go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise” (Mark 10:32-34; cf. Matt 20:17). Luke adds that “everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished” (Luke 18:31-34).
The most impressive aspect of these three predictions is Christ’s determination to fulfill His mission. He must suffer, be rejected, and die, so that everything written in the Scripture must be fulfilled. It is evident that Christ understood that the purpose of His coming in this world was to accomplish the redemption of mankind through His death, as predicted by the prophets.
John omits the three precise predictions about Christ’s death, yet he bears witness to the same event, by his seven references to Jesus’ “hour” (John 2:4; 7:8; 7:25; 8:12; 12:20-28; 13:1; 17:1). He says that “Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father” (John 13:1), and lifting up His eyes to heaven, Jesus said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee” (John 17:1). In these statements Christ speaks of His death as the moment of His glorification by His Father. This vision of the Cross differs radically from Gibson’s movie where Christ’s brutal suffering and death serves to meet the demands of a punitive God. In the Bible, as we shall see, God is not a spectator, but a participant in the death and glorification of His Son.
The evidence supplied by the Gospel writers indicate that Jesus knew that He would die a violent but purposeful death. He knew that he would die because of what the prophets had predicted about His death and resurrection. There was no fatalism or a martyr complex in Jesus’ mind. He was determined to fulfill the revealed purpose of His coming, however painful that may be. He had come “to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10) and “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:44). He set His face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem, not allowing anything to deter him. He freely embraced the eternal purpose of His Father for the salvation of sinners through His own sacrificial death.
Despite the great important of Christ teaching, miracles, and perfect life, none of these were the fundamental reason for His coming into this world. As John Stott put is, “What dominated his mind was not the living but the giving of his life. This final self-sacrifice was the ‘hour,’ for which he had come into this world. And the four evangelists, who bear witness to him in the Gospels, show that they understand this by the disproportionate amount of space they give to the story of the last few days on earth, his death and resurrection. It occupies between a third and a quarter of the three Synoptic Gospels, while John’s Gospel has justly been described as having two parts, ‘the Book of the Signs’ and ‘the Book of the Passion,’ since John spends an almost equal amount of time on each.”3
The Apostles’ Understanding of the Cross
The centrality of the Cross is evident in the preaching and writing of the Apostles. They frequently emphasize that Christ died and resurrected according to the Scripture. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul summarizes the Gospel, saying: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3).
Paul defines his Gospel as “the message of the Cross” (1 Cor 1:18), his ministry as “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:22), baptism as initiation “into his death” (Rom 6:3), and the Lord’s Supper as a proclamation of “the Lord’s death till he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). So convinced was Paul of the centrality of the Cross, that he decided “to know nothing . . . except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2).
The testimony of Peter is equally clear. He introduces his first letter by reminding the readers that they have been sprinkled with Christ’s blood (1 Pet 1:2). Few verses later he tells his readers: “you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such a silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Jesus, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet 1:18-19). Later in his epistle Peter explains how Christ’s suffering and death enable believers to die to sin and live righteously. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Pet 2:24).
Hebrews explains to Jewish Christians tempted to relapse into Judaism, that there is no need to offer the same sacrifices continuously, because Christ “has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26). Like Peter, Hebrews mentions the sanctifying power of Christ’s sacrificial death: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all times those who are sanctified” (Heb 10:14).
In the Book of Revelation 28 times Jesus is referred to as “the Lamb,” not so much because of the meekness of His character, but rather because He was slained as a sacrificial victim and by His blood he has set His people free. In chapter 5, one heavenly choir after another praise the Lamb. The four living creatures and the twenty four elders, who most likely represent the whole church of both the Old and New Testaments, sang a new song, saying: “Worthy are thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation . . .”(Rev 5:9).
In Revelation, Christ as the Lamb, occupies center stage, not only in worship but also in salvation history. At the end the unbelievers will try to escape from the wrath of the Lamb while the redeemed are invited to celebrate the marriage of the Lamb. The lost will call upon the mountains and rocks, saying: “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev 6:16). By contrast, the great multitude of the redeemed, will shout for joy, saying: “Let us rejoice and exult and give him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come” (Rev 19:7).
Christ as the Lamb is presented at the side of God, mediating God’s salvation. He is worthy to serve as our mediator, because he was slain and by His sacrificial death, He secured our salvation. By presenting Christ as “the Lamb that was slain” since the foundation of the world, John is telling us that from eternity past to eternity future, the center stage belongs to the Lamb of God who was slained for our salvation.
Conclusion
The centrality of Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross, is the foundation and center of the Christian faith. We have found that Christ understood His saving mission, not in terms of living to teach moral principles, but in terms of dying to save people from their sins. The apostles clearly understood the centrality of the Cross. In their preaching and teaching they proclaimed the message of the Cross, that is, salvation, not through human devising, but through “the precious blood of Jesus, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet 1:18-19).
The recognition of the centrality of the Cross, led Christians to adopt the emblem of the Cross as the symbol of their faith, because it effectively represented their belief in salvation through the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross. Note, however, that the early Christians adopted a plain cross, not a crucifix with the bleeding and contorted body of Jesus attached to it. Why? Simply because they believed that Christ saved us, not through the intensity of His suffering, as portrayed in Gibson’s movie, but through His voluntary sacrificial death.
In his book The Cruciality of the Cross, P.T. Forsyth, aptly observes: “Christ is to us just what the Cross is. All that Christ was in heaven or on earth, was put on what he did there on the Cross. . . . Christ, I repeat, is to us just what the Cross is. You do not understand Christ till you understand His Cross”4 The Cross is the prism through which we understand Christ, because it reveals the ultimate purpose of Jesus’ incarnation, perfect life, and atoning death.
THE NECESSITY OF THE CROSS
The biblical emphasis on the centrality of the Cross as the only ground on which God forgives sinners, bewilders many people. Some argue that if God does not pardon sin without requiring the death of Christ, He must not be an all-powerful God or else He must be a punitive God, concerned more about enforcing His law than expressing His love. The latter is the picture of God portrayed in Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, where Christ is brutalized beyond recognition to meet the demands of justice of a punitive God.
Does God need to submit His Son to brutal torture to meet the demands of His justice? Is redemption in the Bible achieved by the intensity of Christ’s suffering, as portrayed in Gibson’s movie, or by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross? Can God forgive sin out of His pure mercy without the necessity of the Cross? Since God expects us to forgive those who sin against us, why doesn’t He practice what He preaches?
God Deals with Sin in Accordance to His Holiness and Justice
These are legitimate questions that need to be addressed. We shall attempt to answer them in the light of God’s holiness and the gravity of sin. The analogy between our forgiveness and God’s forgiveness, ignores the fact that God is not a private, sinful being. It is true that Christ taught us to pray: “forgive our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.” But the point of Christ’s teaching is that we cannot expect to be forgiven by God if we are unforgiving toward fellow beings. To argue that God should forgive us unconditionally, as we are expected to forgive wrong-doers, means to ignore the elementary fact that we are not God.
John Stott rightly explains: “We are private individuals, and other people’s misdemeanors are personal injuries. God is not a private individual, however, nor is sin just a personal injury. On the contrary, God is himself the maker of the laws we break, and sin is a rebellion against him.”5
To appreciate the problem of God’s forgiveness, we need to keep in mind the contrast between God’s perfection and our human rebellion. The problem God faces in forgiving sin, is reconciling His loving mercy with His perfect justice. For, although “God is love,” we need to remember that His love is “holy” and “just;” it is a love that yearns to forgive sinners, without compromising His justice and holiness.
At the Cross, God’s mercy and justice are equally revealed and reconciled. His mercy is revealed in offering His Son to pay the full penalty of our transgressions, and His justice is manifested in taking upon Himself the punishment that we deserve, in order to offer us the forgiveness that we do not deserve. In the Cross of Christ “Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other” (Ps 85:10).
At the Cross, as A. H. Strong puts it, “Mercy is shown not by trampling upon the claims of justice, but by vicariously satisfying them.”6 It is important to realize that God exercises all His attributes in harmony with each other. In His holiness God demands atonement for sin, while in His mercy He provides it. God’s attributes are not antagonistic to each other, but work together in full and complete harmony.
Those who object to the necessity of Christ’s death on the Cross to atone for our sins, fail to understand that God is merciful and just at the same time. This is the problem with those who say: “Why doesn’t God forgive and forget? Shouldn’t God forgive people who are sorry for their wrong doings and endeavor to become better persons? Isn’t unreasonable to claim that only the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross can remove sin?”

God’s Holiness Requires the Punishment of Sin
These questions ignore that God cannot overlook sin, pretending that it does not exists, because He is righteous and just. “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne” (Ps 89:14). “His work is perfect; for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he” (Deut 32:4). God’s ethical absolutes are not philosophical abstractions existing in ideal realms. They are rooted in God’s very being and thus they are immutable as God Himself. ”God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). God can only do what is right because His nature is altogether just. The reason human beings have a sense of right and wrong, is because they have been created in God’s image (Gen 1:26) and, thus, have the principles of God’s law written in their hearts (Rom 2:15).
The just, holy, and righteous nature of God is incompatible with sin. God’s “eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong” (Hab 1:13; NIV). Consequently our sins effectively separate us from God. “Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear’ (Is 59:2).
The Meaning of God’s Wrath
The reaction of God’s holiness to sin, is frequently described as the “wrath of God.” “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth” (Rom 1:18; cf. John 3:36; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; Rev 14:10). The wrath of God in the Bible is not an irrational, capricious, emotional outburst of anger, an outburst of “seeing red.” Rather, it is His consistent and necessary reaction to the objective reality of moral evil. In the words of Leon Morris, God’s wrath is His “personal divine revulsion to evil,” and “his personal vigorous opposition to it.”7
Contrary to human wrath, which is usually arbitrary and uninhibited, divine wrath is principled and controlled. It is free from personal animosity or vindictiveness. It is always accompanied by undiminished love for the sinner. God’s wrath in the Bible is always judicial in the sense that it is the wrath of the judge who administers justice (Eph 5:6). It is His intense displeasure and condemnation of sin. It issues not from passion, but from God’s holiness and righteousness which is the basis of the administration of the universe.
John Stott rightly observes that “What is common to the biblical concepts of the holiness and the wrath of God, is the truth that they cannot coexist with sin. God’s holiness exposes sin; his wrath opposes it. So sin cannot approach God and God cannot tolerate sin.”8 This Biblical understanding of God’s nature is unpopular today. Most people prefer an easygoing God, tolerant of their offenses. They want God to be gentle, accommodating, without any violent reaction. They want to bring God down to their level and raise themselves up to His, so that ultimately there is no need for the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross on their behalf.
To counteract this misconception of God, it is imperative to recover the Biblical revelation of God who hates evil, is angered by it, and refuses to compromise with it. It is essential to understand that God’s holiness requires that sin be punished. If God failed to punish sin, then He could not claim to be perfectly just. His infinite justice demands the punishment of the sinner or of an appropriate substitute. Frequently the Bible reminds us that God cannot excuse or overlook sin. “I will not acquit the wicked” (Ex 23:7). “I will by no means clear the guilty” (Ex 34:7; cf. Num 14:18).
The Gravity of Sin
To appreciate the necessity of the Cross, it is essential to understand not only God’s holiness, but also the gravity of sin. The biblical notion of sin has been largely rejected by our secularized society. Wrongdoers are no longer called “sinners,” but persons with behavioral disorders to be treated as sickness rather than sin.
In the Bible, however, sin is not a regrettable lapse from accepted social standards, but an active rebellion against God. The New Testament uses five Greek words for sin, which help us to understand its various aspects. The most common is hamartia, which signifies “missing the mark.” Adikia signifies “unrighteousness” or “iniquity.” Poneria means a vicious or degenerate kind of evil. Parabasis means “transgression,” the stepping over a boundary. Anomia is “lawlessness,” “the violation of a known law.” Each of these terms imply the violation of an objective standard of conduct.
In the Scripture the objective standard of conduct is God’s law which expresses His own righteous character. It is the law of God’s own being, as well as the law that He has implanted in the human heart (Rom 2:15). Thus, there is a vital correspondence between the moral principles of God’s character and the moral principles that should govern our relationship with God and fellow beings.
The emphasis of Scripture is on the godless self-centeredness of sin which results in active violation of God’s law. “Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness: sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Every sin that we commit reflects a spirit of rebellion against God. David acknowledges this fact in his confession: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight, so that thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment” (Ps 51:4). Emil Brunner sums it up well, saying: “Sin is defiance, arrogance, the desire to be equal with God, . . . the assertion of human independence over against God, . . . the constitution of the autonomous reason, morality, and culture.”9
Forgiveness through Christ’s Sacrifice
The fact that sin is an act of defiance against God, poses a question: “Could sinners be forgiven by others means than Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross?” In theory, God could have saved mankind by other means than the Cross. But, in practice any other method would not have been consonant with the exigencies arising from the perfections of His character which are reflected in His law.
God’s law necessitated the sacrificial death of Christ, because law carries with it the penal sanction of death for the transgressors. These sanctions are immutable and eternal because they reflect God’s nature and character. God’s holiness causes Him to condemn sin and His justice requires Him punish sin. And the penalty for sin prescribed by God’s law is death.” In the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen 2:17). “The soul that sins shall die” (Ez 18:20). “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). “Sin when is full-grown brings forth death” (James 1:12). “Since God is true and cannot lie, these threatenings must necessarily be executed either upon the sinner himself or upon a surety.”10
The Good News is that God in His mercy has offered His own Son as the “surety” for our salvation. The New Testament explains the necessity of Christ’s death in terms of the sacrificial shedding of blood for the remission of sin. For example, Hebrews affirms: “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin” (Heb 9:22). If the method of salvation depended solely upon God’s arbitrary decision, then He could have devised a bloodless redemptive plan. But, God’s decisions are not arbitrary. They are consonant to His inner Being.
Hebrews explains that not only is the shedding of blood necessary for the remission of sin, but also that only the blood of Jesus can accomplish this purpose. “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Heb 10:4). “And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God . . . For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Heb 10:11-12, 14).
Only Christ’s Death Meets the Demands of Divine Justice
If God could have forgiven sin by a mere act of volition, without first demanding the satisfaction of the penalty of sin, then the whole biblical teaching of remission of sin through Christ’s sacrificial death, would be totally untrue. Furthermore, the Cross of Christ would hardly be the supreme demonstration of God’s love (Rom 5:8; 1 John 4:9,10), if the redemption secured by it, could have been achieved without it.
If it had been possible for the cup of Christ’s suffering and death to pass from Him, then surely the Father would have answered His Son prayer in Gethsemane. The fact that it was not possible, shows that only the sacrificial death of Jesus could fulfill the exigencies of divine justice. The ordeal of Calvary reveals the depth of God’s love for lost sinners. When the Cross is viewed in this light, then the love of God manifested at Calvary, takes on new meaning, and fills us with adoring amazement.
Although God is almighty and omniscient, there are certain things that He cannot do. For example, God cannot lie (Tit 1:2; Heb 6:8); He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13); He cannot tempt people to sin (Jam 1:13). He cannot violate the moral principles that govern His own nature. This means that when God determined to save human beings from the consequences of sin, He could only design a plan consistent with His moral law that envisions death as the punishment for sin.
God’s plan for the salvation of lost sinners, could only be carried out through the incarnation and sacrificial death of His Son. This is indicated by the fact that Christ is presented as “The Lamb that was slained from the creation of the world” (Rev 13:8). Through this plan of salvation, as Paul puts it, God is able to demonstrate that “ He himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:26).
God is Just in Justifying Penitent Sinners
In Romans 3:21-26 Paul explains that by offering His Son as an expiation for our sins, God was able “to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous” in justifying those “who have faith in Jesus.” The reason is that God acts in harmony with His whole character. On the one hand He shows His complete abhorrence of sin by punishing it, while on the other hand He reveals His mercy by offering to pay its penalty.
The notion of God offering His Son to die for our sins, as an innocent victim for guilty sinners, is regarded by some as immoral and unjust. In a human court an innocent person cannot assume the guilt and punishment of a wrongdoer. This reasoning, however, ignores two important considerations. First, Christ was not an unwilling victim. The glory of the Cross is to be seen in the voluntary nature of Christ’s incarnation, life of suffering, and sacrificial death. “Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but . . . humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on the Cross” (Phil 2:7-8). Christ’s sacrifice was voluntary act, not an imposition.
Second, God is just in justifying penitent sinners (Rom 3:26, because through Christ’s atoning death, He not only acquits sinners, but He also empowers them to become righteous. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19; emphasis supplied). This is something a human judge cannot do. A judge’s declaration of guilt or innocence does not change the behavior of the dependent. But the Good News of the Gospel is that “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
We could say that from a biblical perspectives, justification through Christ’s death, entails not only a declaration of acquittal, but also a transformation into newness of life. “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). The new life in Christ, made possible by accepting His atoning death, prove that God’s plan of salvation is both just and effective. It accomplishes both the reconciliation and the transformation of the penitent sinner, or to use more technical words, the justification and sanctification of believers.
Conclusion

The necessity of the Cross stems from the holiness of God and the gravity of sin. God’s holiness requires the punishment of the sinner or of an appropriate substitute. Christ’s sinless life and sacrificial death were the only way for sinners to be saved. Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:7). The Cross serves as a constant reminder that “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CROSS
The heart of the Cross is God in Christ substituting Himself for the salvation of sinners. We noted that the necessity of the Cross stems from the holiness of God and the gravity of sin. We need now to move from the necessity of the Cross to the achievements of the Cross. Why did God take our place and bear our sins? The New Testament offers two major answers to this question, which may be summed up as revelation and salvation. Revelation is the subjective aspect of Christ’s death, namely, how Christ’s atoning death reveals God’s love in a way that it can rekindle a loving response in the heart of sinners. Salvation is the objective aspect of Christ’s death, namely, how Christ’s atoning death satisfied divine justice by dealing with the objective reality of sin. For the sake of clarity we examine the achievements of the Cross under these two main categories:
1. The Revelation of God
2. The Salvation of Sinners
1. THE REVELATION OF GOD
God has revealed Himself in various ways, but as Hebrews 1:1-3 points out, through His own Son He has spoken to us in a special way. This means that Christ’s life, suffering and death offer to us a unique revelation of God’s love, character, and nature. Being the culmination of Christ’s life, the Cross is also the supreme revelation of God’s love. This truth is emphatically stated in the New Testament.
The Cross is a Supreme Revelation of God’s Love
Twice John affirms that Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross is the supreme manifestation of true love. “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). For John the true definition of love is to be found at Calvary, not in a dictionary.
John’s second verse is still more precise. “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God’s love is true love because it was manifested in sending His only Son to die the death that we deserve “so that we might live through him.”
Paul also writes about the love of God twice in the first part of Romans 5. “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom 5:5). “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). These two texts point to the subjective and objective aspects of God’s love. Paul says that we know God’s love objectively because He has proven His love through the death of His Son, and subjectively because He continuously pours His love into our hearts through the indwelling of His Spirit.
The Cross is a supreme revelation of God’s love, first because it tells us that He sent His own Son, not a third party. Second, because God sent His Son, not merely to teach us or to serve us, but to die for us—for undeserving sinners like us. The value of a love-gift is determined by what it costs to the giver and how deserving is the recipient. In the gift of His Son God gave everything for those who deserved nothing from Him.
Calvary must be seen as a revelation of the love of both the Father and the Son, because God initiated and participate in the self-giving of His Son. As Paul puts it: “All is from God who through Christ reconciles us to Himself . . . God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:18-19). At Golgotha, the Father was not a spectator, but a participant in the anguish and suffering of His Son. Consequently, Christ’s experience of the limitations, sufferings, agony, and death of human flesh is a supreme revelation of both the Son and the Father’s love.

The Cross Kindles a Loving Response. The revelation of divine love through the life, suffering, and death of Christ, is designed to kindle a loving response in the heart of sinners. The human heart responds to a genuine manifestation of sacrificial love. Jesus said: “Greater love has no man than this, that a many lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). The sinner who hears the Good News of the Savior who died to rescue him from the penalty and power of sin, is moved to respond by repenting of his sin and accepting divine forgiveness and salvation.
Paul emphasizes the compelling power of Christ’s love revealed at the Cross, saying: “For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all” (2 Cor 2:14). Similarly John writes: “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 John 3:16). Passages such as these clearly emphasize the moral influence exercised on the human heart by God’s love exhibited at the Cross.

The “Moral Influence” Theory
The unique demonstration of God’s love at the Cross, has led several theologians during the history of the Christian church, to find atoning value in the moral influence of the Cross. To them the efficacy of the Cross lies not in any objective satisfaction of divine justice through Christ’s death, but in its subjective inspiration of the Cross to respond to God’s love by changing our attitudes and actions.
The most famous promoter of the “moral influence” view of the Cross, was the French theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142). He was a popular lecturer who attracted large audiences at Notre Dame, Paris. He strongly disagreed with his contemporary, Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109), on the reason for Christ’s death. In his epoch-making book Cur Deus Homo?, that is, Why God Became Man, Anselm explains that Christ had to suffer in His mind and body the exact equivalent of the punishment due for all of mankind’s sins, in order to satisfy the demands of divine justice.
Abelard rejected Anselm’s satisfaction view of Christ’s death, proposing instead what is known as “the moral influence” view of the atonement. He wrote: “How cruel and wicked it seems, that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should in any way please him that an innocent man should be slain—still less that God should consider the death of His Son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world.”11
Instead, Abelard explained the function of Christ’s death in exclusively subjective terms, namely, as a revelation of divine love designed to move human hearts to repent and turn to God. He wrote: “Redemption is the greatest love kindled in us by Christ’s passion, a love which not only delivers us from the bondage of sin, but also acquires for us the true freedom of children, where love instead of fear becomes the ruling affection.”12
A favorite text that Abelard quoted to support his view, is Luke 7:47, where Jesus, referring to the adulterous woman who anointed His feet, says: “I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Abelard misunderstood this text. He made love the ground of forgiveness, rather than its result. For him Christ’s death offers forgiveness by evoking a loving response. When we love Christ we are forgiven. As Robert Franks put it, “Abelard reduced the whole process of redemption to one single clear principle, namely, the manifestation of God’s love to us in Christ, which awakens an answering love in us.”13

Supporters of the Moral Influence Theory. The moral influence view of Christ’s death has enjoyed considerable support throughout the centuries. Peter Lombard, who became Bishop of Paris in 1159, defended the view in his famous Book of Sentences. Other proponents of this view were Socinus, a sixteenth century theologian who also denied the Trinity, and Friedrich Schleiermacher, regarded as the father of nineteenth century liberal theology. At present, the moral influence view has been reproposed by evangelical theologians who find the substitutionary view of Christ’s death no longer acceptable today. In their view the notion of substitution reflects the ancient Roman court setting, rather than that of a family love relationships.
The new model that is being promoted is that of a family relationship, where God deals with sinners like parents deal with disobedient children. In an article in Christianity Today, entitled “Evangelical Megashift: Why You May not Have Heard About Wrath, Sin, and Hell Recently,” Robert Brow, a prominent Canadian theologian, explains that “One of the most obvious features of new-model evangelicalism is an emphasis on recalling the warmth of a family relationship when thinking about God. It prefers to picture God as three persons held together in a relationship of love. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it argues, made humans in their image with a view to bringing many children to glory. So instead of being dragged trembling into a law court, we are to breathe in the atmosphere of a loving family.”14
According to this new model, as Robert Brow explains, the Cross is no longer God satisfying the demands of His justice by being willing to bear through His Son the punishment of our sins, but “the inevitable cost of loving. God is love, and love always gets hurt. We can hold back from getting hurt, or we can go through Gethsemane to accept the sacrifice that is involved in loving.”15 Allegedly sins are forgiven out of the bounty of God’s loving tolerance, which elicits a loving response from the sinners’ heart. No substitutionary sacrifice for sinners is necessary.
The Limitations of the “Moral Influence” View of the Cross. The moral influence theory is correct in affirming that the love of Christ shines through the Cross and elicits our loving response. But it is faulty in denying the substitutionary function of Christ’s death. We know that Christ gave Himself for us, because he loved us. His love awakens ours. In John’s words, “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). But the question is: How does the Cross demonstrate Christ’s Love? Did Christ suffer and die merely to show His love toward us? If that were true, it is hard to understand why would Christ choose to show love in such a cruel way.
If a person dashes into a burning building to rescue someone, that rescue is seen as a demonstration of love, because it was designed to save a life. But if a person jumps into the burning building because he wants to be burned to death, that would be a demonstration of folly, not of love. In the same way Christ’s death on the Cross can be a demonstration of love, only if he gave His life in order to rescue us. The Cross can be seen as a proof of God’s love only when it is a proof of His justice.
Christ death on the Cross must have an objective purpose before it can have a subjective response. Paul makes this point when he says: “Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died” (2 Cor 5:14; NIV). The compelling manifestation of Christ’s love rests on the costliness of the Cross. When we recognize that He died that we might live, then His love grips our hearts, compelling us to live for Him.
The drawing power and moral influence of the Cross, is one important function of Christ’s death, which is only valid and valuable if it is understood as the effect rather than the primary cause of Christ’s death. The Scripture emphatically states that the purpose of Christ’s death was to deal directly with the objectively reality of sin: “He died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). “His blood cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
Summing up, the divine revelation of love at the Cross and our human response to such a revelation is determined by the recognition that Christ died not merely to show love, but to pay the penalty of our disobedience. If Christ had sacrificed His life merely to demonstrate His love toward us, it is hard to understand why such cruel demonstration was necessary. Love is best demonstrated, not by dying for someone, but rather by living for and serving that person. The Cross must be seen as a revelation of both divine love and divine justice.
To limit the value and the function of Christ’s death to its moral influence upon the human heart, is to attribute to the natural person the capacity to save oneself merely by responding to God’s love. Such a view ignores both the depravity of human nature (Rom 3:23) and the need of salvation from sin (Rom 6:23). Salvation is through divine expiation of human sin and not merely through a divine revelation of love.
2. THE SALVATION OF SINNERS
Scripture teaches that the sufferings and death of Jesus were not merely the revelation of His sacrificial love to elicit our loving response, but also the salvation of sinners through Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice. When we examine how Christ accomplished the salvation of sinful people, we find that the Scripture presents multifaceted images, each designed to help us understand an important aspect of Christ’s redemptive accomplishments. No single image could exhaust the many aspects of the Cross.
For the sake of clarity we will consider five major word-pictures of salvation which are used in Scripture to illustrate the achievements of the Cross. The first is propitiation which derives from the sacrifices offered in the Temple court. The second is redemption which is taken from the market place. The third is justification which comes the lawcourt. The fourth is reconciliation which is inspired by family relationships. The fifth is intercession which comes from Christ’s heavenly ministry.
The foundation of all these word-pictures is the substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrifice. As John Stott rightly points out: “If God in Christ did not die in our place, there could be neither propitiation, not redemption, not justification, nor reconciliation. In addition, all the images begin their life in the Old Testament, but are elaborated and enriched in the New, particularly by being directly related to Christ and His Cross.”16
Christ’s Death as Propitiation
The central part of Christ’s sacrificial death is removal of the guilt of our sins, known as expiation or propitiation. Paul affirms that the central purpose of Christ’s shedding of blood is to make “expiation” for our sins: “Whom God put forward as an expiation [propitiation–KJV] by his blood, to be received by faith” (Rom 3:25). Similarly, John declares that Christ is “the expiation [propitiation–KJV] for our sins” (1 John 2:2).
The English term “expiation” used in the RSV or “propitiation” used in the KJV, are a translation of the Greek verb hilaskomai (Heb 2:17), the noun hilasmos (1 John 2:2; 4:10), and the adjective hilasterion (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:5). The meaning of these word-pictures derives from the lid of the ark which is called haphar in Hebrew (Lev 16:20) and hilasterion in Greek (Heb 9:5). The sin was “covered,” that is, was expiated in the Old Testament through the sprinkling of the blood upon the mercy seat, which symbolized forgiveness, atonement, through the satisfaction of divine justice.
In the New Testament antitype, sin is covered through the sacrifice of Christ who satisfies divine justice. Perhaps the most important text in this regard is Romans 3:25 (KJV), where Paul says that God has set forth Christ as the “hilasterion—mercy seat” for sinners, designed to propitiate the divine (wrath) displeasure against sin. By means of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice the guilty person is covered in the eyes of God and the guilt is removed. The sin is dealt so effectively that it is no longer the object of God’s condemnation.
The RSV translates the hilasterion word-group as “expiation,” because the translator were uncomfortable with the notion that Christ’s death “propitiated,” that is, appeased or pacified God’s wrath. But the New Testament use of hilasterion has nothing to do with the pagan notion of “placating an angry God” or “appeasing a vindictive, arbitrary, and capricious God.”17 The text of Romans 3:25 tells us that “God in His merciful will presented Christ as the propitiation to His holy wrath on human guilt because He accepted Christ as man’s representative and divine Substitute to receive His judgment on sin.”18
God’s wrath, as noted earlier, is not an irrational, capricious, emotional outburst of anger, an outburst of “seeing red.” Rather, it is His consistent and uncompromising reaction to the objective reality of moral evil. God’s antagonism against sin is satisfied by Christ’s “propitiatory sacrifice,” which reconciles to God those who accept by faith His sacrifice. Expiation and propitiation are linked together, because expiation deals with sin by clearing the guilt in such a way that propitiation is effected toward God and the forgiven sinner is restored to fellowship with God.

Sacrificial Offerings. To understand the propitiatory function of Christ’s sacrifice, we need to consider the Old Testament sacrificial system, which typified the redemptive work of Christ (Col 2:17; Heb 9:23-24; 10:1). The animal sin-offerings were designed to teach the need of vicarious atonement to expiate sin. The sin of the penitent Israelite by means of confession (Lev 1:4) was transferred to a sacrificial animal that died in the place of the sinner. Through this process the sin was expiated as punishment was met and God was propitiated as His displeasure was terminated.
The vicarious meaning of the animal-sacrifice was highlighted especially through the ritual of the blood which symbolized the atonement through a substitutionary life: “The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Lev 17:11).
This text makes three important affirmation about blood. First, blood is the symbol of life. For this reason God forbade to eat meat which had its “lifeblood” still in it (Gen 9:4; Deut 12:23). The emphasis is not on the bloody torture of the sacrificial victim, like in Gibson’s movie where the bloody body of Christ is reduced into a pulp. Instead, the focus is on the blood shed by the sacrificial victim for the penitent sinner. Simply stated, in Scripture blood stands for salvation through sacrificial death, not through the intensity of suffering, like in The Passion. The animal-offering was not tortured before being sacrificed, because atonement for sin was accomplished by the sacrifice of the innocent victim.
Second, blood makes atonement because the life represented by the blood is sacrificed in the place of sinner. Thomas Crawford expresses this truth well: “The text, then, according to its plain and obvious import, teaches the vicarious nature of the rite of sacrifice. Life was given for life, the life of the victim for the life of the offerer, indeed, the life of the innocent victim for the life of the sinful offerer.”19
Third, blood was provided by God to make atonement. God says: “I have given it to you.” This means that the sacrificial system was God-given, not man-made. It was not a human device to placate God, but a divine provision to save penitent sinners. The sacrifices were recognized as divine provisions, not human meritorious works. They were not intended to make God gracious, because God Himself provided them in order to be merciful toward His sinful people, while at the same time meeting the demands of His justice. Salvation has always been a divine gift of grace, not a human achievement.
Atonement Through Christ’s Blood. The meaning and function of blood in the sacrificial system, helps us to understand two crucial text in Hebrews. The first says: “Under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22). The second text says: “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Heb 10:4).
These two texts highlight two important truths. The first text tells us that there is no forgiveness without blood, because the penalty of sin has to be met by a substitutionary sacrifice. There had to be life for life. The second text explains that the blood of animal sacrifices could not atone for human beings, because, as Jesus Himself said, a human being has “much more value . . . than a sheep” (Matt 12:12). Only the “precious blood of Christ” was valuable enough to atone for the sins of mankind. Old Testament believers were taught through the shed blood of animal sacrifices to look forward in faith to “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29).
Peter reminds believers that they “were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from the fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Jesus, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet 1:18-19). Hebrews explains more explicitly than any other New Testament book, that Christ’s perfect sacrifice for sin on the Cross, represents the fulfillment of the Old Testament substitutionary sacrifices. Christ “has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26; cf. 10:12, 14).
The Bearing of Our Sins. The substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrifice is also taught by those Scriptural passages which speak of our sins being “laid upon” Christ (Is 53:6; cf. 2 Cor 5:21) and of His “bearing” our sins (Is 53:12; Heb 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24). According to Scripture, our sins were imputed to Christ. This does not mean that Christ bore our sins by becoming morally guilty, affected by sin. He “knew no sin” (2 Cor 2:21). Christ bore our sins by assuming the legal obligation of our punishment. What can be transferred is not subjective moral sinfulness-guiltiness, but the objective punishment of sin. It is the latter that was imputed to Christ.
To appreciate this point it is important to recognize that sin may be considered in terms of its nature, which is transgression (culpa–guilt) of the law (1 John 3:4), and in terms of its legal consequences (poena–punishment), which is punishment (Rom 6:23). It is only in the latter sense that Christ bore our sins vicariously by assuming our liability to punishment. This can be transferred because punishment is an objective reality which is not inherent in the person of the sinner. Christ then bore our sin by accepting their condemnation which is death (Rom 6:23); by being willing to die “the righteous for the unrighteous that he might bring us to God” (1 Pet 3:18).
The Prepositions Huper and Anti. The substitutionary meaning of Christ’s sacrifice is also expressed in those passages which use the Greek prepositions huper and anti to describe Christ’s work for sinners. The preposition huper can mean both “in place of” and “for the benefit of.” The latter meaning is probably found in passages such as John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for (huper) his friends” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb 2:9).
In other passages, however, the preposition huper clearly means “instead of.” For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:14, Paul says: “The love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for (huper) all. Therefore all have died.” Obviously, Christ’s death here is substitutionary because it would be nonsense to say that because “one has died for the benefit of all, therefore all died.” (See also Gal 3:3; John 11:50; Mark 10:45; 1 Pet. 3:18; 2:22; Heb 4:15). It is only on the assumption that Christ’s death was substitutionary that Paul could have drawn the immediate inference “therefore all have died.”
The meaning of substitution is conveyed unequivocally by those passages which use the preposition anti which clearly means “instead of” or “in place of.” For example, Christ said: “The son of man came to give his life a ransom for (anti—in the place of) many” (Mark 10:45; emphasis supplied; Matt 2:22; 5:38; 20:28). 1 Timothy 2:6 provides an interesting example where both anti and huper are used in the same text: “Christ Jesus . . . gave himself as a ransom (antilutron) for (huper) all.” Here the use of anti together with huper suggests that Christ’s death is a substitute ransom for the benefit of all. Thus, the Scripture clearly teaches that Christ endured suffering and death not only for the benefit of, but also in the place of sinners.
The substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrifice helps us understand Paul’s description of Christ’s death as “a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph 5:2; cf. Gen 8:21; Lev 1:9). “Christ’s self-sacrifice is pleasing to God because this sacrificial offering took away the barrier between God and sinful man in that Christ fully bore God’s wrath on man’s sin. Through Christ, God’s wrath is not turned into love but is turned away from man and borne by Himself.”20
The Innocent Cannot Suffer for the Wicked. Some argue that it is illegal to make an innocent suffer for the guilty. Consequently, Christ’s death cannot justly be a substitutionary sacrifice of “the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Pet 3:18). This objection fails to recognize that it is not God imposing a vicarious punishment upon a third party, His Son, but it is God Himself willing to suffer in and through the person of His Son for sinners: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Cor 5:19). The Father did not impose on the Son an ordeal He was reluctant to bear, nor did the Son extract from the Father a forgiveness He was reluctant to give. “There was no unwillingness in either. On the contrary, their wills coincided in the perfect self-sacrifice of love.”21
It is not unjust for a judge to choose to pay himself vicariously the penalty of someone else’s disobedience. The transference of penalty from a guilty to an innocent person is unjust in a human court because there is no human judge who can remove the causes of disobedience by paying its penalty. However, Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice not only pays the penalty of sin, but also breaks the power of sin. (1 John 1:9); it not only declares the penitent sinner just (justification) but it also enables the sinner to become just (sanctification).
The Need for Repentance Excludes Substitution. Others object to the substitutionary view of Christ’s death because God still expects us to confess and to repent of our sins. If Christ’s sacrifice vicariously paid the penalty of our sins, then God should release us altogether from punishment without any preconditions.
This objection ignores that the substitutionary payment is made, not by a third party, but by God Himself. Christ is both the vicarious sacrifice and the judge (Rom 14:10). Consequently, God has the right to determine upon what basis forgiveness is to be granted. Christ’s obedience does not make ours unnecessary, but possible. Thus, Christ has the right to require repentance and faith as conditions for forgiveness and salvation.
The Father Would Be Unjust in Sacrificing the Son for the Sins of Mankind. Another objection to the doctrine of vicarious atonement is that it makes God guilty of injustice because He would have sacrificed the Son to meet the demands of His own justice. This objection, like the previous one, ignores that the plan of redemption was conceived by the triune God and was not an imposition of the Father upon the Son. Christ voluntarily undertook to pay the human penalty for sin and to satisfy the demands of the divine justice: “I lay down my life for the sheep... for this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” (John 10:15,17,18).
The objection fails to recognize also that in the drama of the Cross, the Father is not the Judge punishing His Son, the innocent victim. Instead, both of Them are mysteriously united in carrying out our redemption. “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (John 3:16). God “did not spare his own Son” (Rom 8:32). “We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom 5:10). In giving His Son, God gave Himself. God is the Judge who in the person of His Son bore the penalty which He Himself inflicted. As Robert Dale puts it, “The mysterious unity of the Father and the Son rendered possible for God at once to endure and to inflict penal suffering.”22
In order to save us in a way consonant to His justice, God substituted Himself through Christ for our salvation. The self-sacrifice of God on the Cross reveals the simultaneous blending of justice and mercy. There is nothing unjust in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, because the substitute for the lawbreaker is none other that the divine Lawgiver Himself.
Moreover, Christ’s sacrifice must be viewed not only in terms of pain and suffering, but also in terms of gain and glory. It has resulted in a countless multitude of redeemed praising Him with a loud voice saying: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain” (Rev 5:12). Finally, if Christ’s death was not a substitutionary sacrifice, His bitter suffering and shameful death would truly be an unjust, irrational, and cruel exhibition.
Conclusion. Our discussion of the propitiatory function of Christ’s sacrifice has shown that Christ did not die to placate God’s anger and persuade Him to forgive sinners. The initiative was taken by God Himself who put forth His own Son to be a propitiatory sacrifice. God did not offer an animal or an object, but Himself in the person of His Son. Thus, God himself in His loving mercy took the initiative to appease His righteous anger by bearing it Himself in the person of His own Son who took our place and died for us. The sacrificial system clearly show that Christ’s substitutionary death paid the penalty of sin, and averted God’s wrath “so that God can look on man without displeasure and man can look on God without fear. Sin is expiated and God is propitiated.”23 God is both the provider and the recipient of the propitiation.
Christ’s Death as Redemption
In seeking to understand the achievements of the Cross, we now move from the word-picture of propitiation associated with the sacrifices in the Temple, to that of redemption that comes to us from the market place. The term “redemption” translates the Greek apolutrosis, which derives from lutron, which was the “ransom” or “price of release” paid in the market place for the purchase or manumission of a slave.
While propitiation views the Cross from the perspective of divine wrath or displeasure satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice, redemption sees the Cross as the release from the bondage to which sin has consigned us. It views the work of Christ not simply as deliverance from the bondage of sin but also in terms of the ransom price paid for our deliverance.
The meaning of redemption is clarified by Christ’s words: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his love as a ransom (lutron) for many” (Matt 20:28; cf. Mark 10:45). In this declaration Christ explains that His mission was one of ransom—lutron, which is also translated “redemption.” The ransom price was His life, and the payment of the ransom price was substitutionary in nature. The same idea is expressed in numerous other passages that deal with redemption.24 Leon Morris warns against reducing the biblical concept of redemption to cheap deliverance. “The language of redemption is that of securing release by the payment of a price, and it is this concept that is applied expressly to the laying down of Jesus’ life and the shedding of His blood. Jesus shed His blood in order to pay the price of our ransom. Redemption cannot be reduced to lower term.”25
In the Old Testament property, animals, persons, and the nation could be “redeemed” by the payment of a price. The right to redeem belonged to a “kinsman redeemer.” An impoverished Israelite compelled to sell himself into slavery could later redeem himself or be redeemed by a relative (Ex 30:12-16; 13:13; Num 3:40-51; Lev 25:47-55). In either cases the “redemption” was a costly intervention. Somebody paid the price necessary to free the person from slavery.
Israel as a nation were redeemed from slavery in Egypt (Ex 6:6; Deut 7:8; 15:15) and from exile in Babylon (Is 43:1-14; 48:20; Jer 31:11). Redemption always involved the payment of a price and Israel’s redemption was no an exception. “I am the Lord, and I will bring you from under the burden of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment” (Ex 6:6; cf. Deut 9:26; Neh 1:10).
In the New Testament the meaning of redemption is expanded to include two new concepts. First, the plight of those needing redemption is moral, not material. It is a deliverance, not from physical or political oppression, but from the spiritual bondage of sin. Second, the price paid for our redemption is not monetary, but the precious blood of Jesus. “You were ransom from your futile ways . . . not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet 1:18).
The Scope of Redemption. The scope of Christ’s redemption through His sacrificial death, includes three areas, all of which are related to our bondage to sin. First, there is deliverance from the penalty of sin. Paul explain that Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds” (Tit 2:14).
In this text Paul describes redemption both as deliverance and purification. Deliverance from all iniquities is defined by Paul elsewhere as “the forgiveness of our trespasses” (Eph 1:7). In other words, Christ’s death secures our legal acquittal and penal release from our transgressions of God’s law. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). The curse of the law is the condemnation it pronounces upon transgressors (Gal 3:10).
Second, Christ’s redemption delivers believers from the power of sin. Through His substitutionary death, Jesus not only pays the penalty of our sins, but also enables us through His Spirit to break the grip of sin in our lives. Christ gave Himself “to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds” (Tit 2:14). Redemption and purification go together. “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with his word” (Eph 5:25-26).
Thomas Taylor writes: “Redemption and sanctification are inseparable companions; none is redeemed who is not purged. The blood of Christ has this double effect in whomever it is effectual to salvation; for he is made to us righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor 1:30).”26
Third, Christ’s redemption reassures us of the final consummation to be realized at Christ’s glorious coming. That is the “day of redemption” (Eph 4:30) when we will be made perfect. This includes “the redemption of our bodies” (Rom 8:23) from sin, sickness, and death. Only then Christ will complete the redemption of the human and subhuman creation from sin, sorrow, and death. This show how closely related is the present redemption accomplished by Jesus on the Cross to the final consummation of redemption that will take place at the glorious day of His Coming.
Christ’s Death as Justification
Thus far we have considered the achievements of the Cross as portrayed by the two word-pictures of propitiation and redemption. These two word-pictures have led us from the sacrifices in the Temple’s court (propitiation) to the price paid for the manumission of the slaves in the market place (redemption). The third word-picture used to describe the achievements of the Cross is “justification.” This picture takes us from the market place to a lawcourt, because the word was used to describe the verdict of a judge who pronounced an accused person “not guilty.”
The term “justification” is a translation of the Greek dikaioma, which means “righteous requirement,” “judicial sentence,” and “act of righteousness.” It also translates dikaiosis which signifies “justification,” “vindication,” “acquittal.” The related verb dikaio, means “to be pronounced and treated as righteous,” “to be acquitted,” “to be set free, made pure.”27 The basic meaning of justification is the act of God that declares a penitent sinner righteous or regards him as righteous. Justification is the opposite of condemnation (Rom 5:16).
There is a logical progression in the order we are reviewing the great achievements of the Cross. Propitiation comes first, because God’s displeasure and condemnation of sin (wrath) must be appeased by the sacrificial death of Jesus, before salvation can be extended to human beings. Once the demands of divine justice have been met, the redemption, that is, the rescue of penitent sinners takes place at the high price of Christ’s blood. The next picture justification expands on the divine deliverance by depicting God as Judge who imputes the righteousness of Christ to a believer and declares that person to be forgiven of all sins, thus pronouncing the person righteous in his sight (Acts 13:38-39; Rom 4:5, 24).
Justification is best understood in the context of a judicial court of law (Rom 8:33-34). Being sinners we deserve the death punishment (Rom 6:23). Justification is the act of God as the universal judge who acquits penitent sinners of their guilt and declares them as righteous (Rom 5:8). Justification is the opposite of condemnation. By means of Christ’s righteousness, God justifies penitent sinners by forgiving their sins and reconciling them to Himself. In an attempt to better understand Paul’s teachings on the divine justification of sinners, we will consider four of his key phrases which relate to the source, ground, means, and effects of justification.

The Source of Our Justification. The source of justification is indicated by the phrase justified freely by his grace: “We are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24; NIV; emphasis supplied). Justification is an undeserved favor because “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:10). Self-justification is utterly impossible because nobody can declare himself righteous before God (Rom 3:20; Ps 143:2). It is only “God who justifies” (Rom 8:33), and He does it not because of good works done by penitent sinners, but because of His grace.

The Ground of our Justification. The ground or the righteous basis of our justification is expressed by the phrase justified by his blood: “Since we have been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him” (Rom 5:9; emphasis supplied). Justification is not an arbitrary act of God declaring bad people good, or saying that they are not sinners after all. Rather, as John Stott aptly observes: “God is pronouncing them legally righteous, free from any liability to the broken law, because he himself has borne the penalty of their law-breaking.”28
The basis of justification is not our obedience, but Christ’s, for “through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life . . . By one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:18, 19; KJV). Through Christ’s obedience, believers are “justified freely by His grace” (Rom 3:24; KJV).

The Means of Our Justification. The means of our justification is indicated by Paul’s favorite expression justified by faith. “We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (Rom 3:28; emphasis supplied; cf. Rom 5:1; Gal 2:9). The reason Paul speaks of faith as the sole means of justification, is because, as mentioned in the previous verse, he wants to exclude human boasting. “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith” (Rom 3:27).
Paul’s statement on justification by faith, has been the object of endless controversies between Catholic and Protestant theologians, since the sixteenth century Reformation. What is at stake is the definition of the nature of faith and of the dynamics of the process of justification. Before discussing how Catholic and Protestant theologians have defined their positions, let us mention the effects of justification.
The Effects of our Justification. The effects of our justification are described as a restored relationship with Christ. This is suggested by Paul’s expressions that we are justified in Christ (Gal 2:16-17; Rom 8:1; 2 Cor 5:21). “We have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ . . . But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not!” (Rom 2:16-17; emphasis supplied).
Being justified in Christ points to a personal relationship with the Savior that believers can enjoy now. This fact shows that justification is not purely an external judicial declaration of acquittal, but an internal union with Christ that brings assurance of the believer’s acceptance. No matter how sinful one’s past life may have been, God pardons all our sins and we are no longer under the condemnation of the law. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).
The realization that our Savior’s sacrifice forgives our sinful past, brings healing to our body and mind. It enable us to forget the dark chapters of our past life, because His forgiving grace has taken care of them (Phil 3:13-14). It motivates us to “walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4).
The reassuring message of justification by faith appears to be a simple and clear biblical teaching, yet it has been intensity debated since the Reformation. It is a teaching that has deeply divided the Catholic from Protestant churches. The limited nature of this study allows for only a summary statement of the respective Catholic and Protestant understanding of justification by faith.
The distinction between the Catholic and Protestant understanding of justification by faith, revolves around four major questions, aptly summarized by Avery Dulles: “1) Is justification the action of God alone, or do we who receive it cooperate by our response to God’s offer of grace? 2) Does God, when He justifies us, simply impute to us the merits of Christ, or does He transform us and make us intrinsically righteous? 3) Do we receive justification by faith alone, or only by a faith enlivened by love and fruitful in good works? 4) Is the reward of heavenly life a free gift of God to believers, or do they merit it by their faithfulness and good works?”29
The Reformers’ Understanding of Justification by Faith. The sixteenth-century Reformers were convinced of the central importance of justification by faith. Luther called it “the principal article of all Christian doctrine, which maketh true Christians indeed.”30 Martin Luther developed his answer to the above questions on the basis of his study of Paul and of his personal monastic experience. As an Augustinian monk, he sought in vain to find reassurance of salvation by submitting himself to a rigorous regiment of fasting and prayer. But in spite of his rigorous spiritual exercises, he still felt as a condemned sinner in God’s sight.
His quest for a gracious God, not a stern judge, led him to discover in Paul’s writing that justification is by faith, without the works of the law. To ensure that his German people would understand the exclusive role of faith, he added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28: “We hold that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law.” This interpretation made him feel like a new born person, entering Paradise. Out of pastoral concern for the terrified conscience of people buying indulgences to avoid the temporal punishment of their sins, Luther developed the slogan “By grace alone, by faith alone.”
Luther concluded that justification is a divine act, by which he imputes Christ’s righteousness to a believer, irrespectively of his cooperation. God declares a person to be forgiven of all sins, thus pronouncing that person righteous in His sight (Acts 13:38-39; Rom 4:5, 24). According to Luther we are justified by God’s grace that freely imputes to us the merits of Christ, apart from our inner renewal. We receive justification by faith alone, that is, by a passive faith that accepts God’s provision of salvation, not by an active faith manifested in obedience to God’s commandments. The problem with Luther’s interpretation, as we shall see shortly, is that faith is never alone—it is never passive, because it involves the mind and the will.
In summation, Luther understood justification by faith as a declarative and judicial act of God, based on Christ’s righteousness. It changes the legal standing of a believer from condemnation to justification (acquittal), but is not dependent upon a change in the person behavior. This means that a person can be simultaneously saint and sinner—simul justus et peccatoris. The problems with the Lutheran (Protestant) understanding of justification by faith, will be discussed shortly after describing the Catholic understanding of justification by faith.
The Catholic Understanding of Justification by Faith. The Catholic view of justification by faith was formulated by the Council of Trent in 1546 A. D. , largely as a response to the teachings of Luther and Calvin. Since Trent, the official Catholic views have not substantially changed. The recent study (1986 to 1993) on Church and Justification produced by the Lutheran-Roman Catholic International Commission, as well as the joint Catholic-Lutheran declaration, show that fundamental differences still do exist.
Simply stated, for the Roman Catholic church justification by grace is not a declarative judicial act of God that imputes Christ’s righteousness to the believer, but an infusion of grace that enables believers to produce good works. The latter is a process that begins at baptism and continues through the whole life as believers partake of the sacraments and produce good works.
Avery Dulles succinctly summarizes the teachings of Trent, saying: “The Council taught that although justification is an unmerited gift, it needs to be freely accepted, so that human cooperation is involved. Secondly, it taught that justification consists in an inner renewal brought about by divine grace; thirdly, that justification does not take place by faith without hope, charity, and good works; and finally, that the justified, by performing good works, merit the reward of eternal life.”31
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates the teachings of the Council of Trent, by affirming that justification is an infusion of grace bestowed at baptism that enables believers to conform to God’s righteousness. “Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.”32
By linking justification to a person moral condition, the Catholic church believes that the righteousness received in justification can be increased or decreased. If lost, justification can be recovered by good works such a Penance. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states that those who “since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace . . . to them the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification.”33 Such a view goes against the popular Protestant belief that once saved, always saved. Once believers are imputed with Christ’s righteousness and are declared righteous, allegedly they cannot loose the legal standing as a forgiven children of God. Unfortunately both positions misinterpret the biblical view of justification.
Evaluation of the Protestant and Catholic Understanding of Justification by Faith. A comparison between the Catholic and Protestant formulations of the doctrine of justification by faith, reveals the extreme definitions formulated in the crossfire of controversy by the respective churches. Protestants tend to reduce God’s justification to an external legal declaration of acquittal which is not condition by interior renewal. By contrast, Catholics make justification by faith into a process of moral transformation that continues throughout one’s life, and if necessary in Purgatory.
For Protestants Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, while for Catholics it is infused by means of baptism and the other sacraments. For Protestants justification is received by faith alone, while for Catholics is achieved by faith together with works of obedience. For Protestant, believers put on righteousness like a cloak, leaving their character and conduct unchanged, while for Catholics believers are infused with righteousness which enable them to become righteous by means of sacraments and good works.
These series of extreme contrasts between the Protestant and Catholic positions, serve to highlight how both positions misrepresent the biblical truth expressed through the word-picture of justification by faith. For example, the Reformers’ teaching that every justified Christian is simul justus et peccator, that is, a saint and a sinner at the same time, makes justification a phoney external transaction which leaves people internally unchanged. Such an understanding of “justification by faith alone” can become a thinly disguised license to go on sinning.
In their zeal to emphasize the free gift of salvation in opposition to the Catholic emphasis on good works, Protestants have often given the impression that obedience to God’s law is not important, because after all justification is a judicial declaration of acquittal, not a moral transformation. The separation between these divine saving activities can only occur in the mind of speculative theologians, not in the practical experience of believers. Believers who are justified are also sanctified at the same time. Note how Paul lumps together regeneration, sanctification, and justification: “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).
The fact that Paul mentions the cleansing, the sanctification, and the justification as saving activities experienced by believers at the same time, tells us that at the moment of justification, believers are also sanctified. The reason why “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1), is not merely because penitent sinners have been declared “not guilty” before God’s court, but because “God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin . . . in order that the just requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:3-4).
Both the legal declaration of justification and the moral transformation of sanctification, are gifts of divine grace received by believers at the same time. “The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted. The first is out title to heaven, the second is our fitness for heaven.”34 Both the imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ are offered at the same time to those who accept God’s provision of salvation.
Catholic are right in affirming that justification by faith is not merely a legal declaration but also a moral transformation. But they are wrong in claiming that such transformation is triggered by an infusion of grace that begins at baptism and continues through life by means of the sacraments and good works. To the Catholics, justification is ultimately, not a divine gift of grace, but a human accomplishment by believers who co-joining their works with faith. This understanding of salvation is reflected in Passion Plays, like Gibson’s movie. We have seen in chapters 1 and 2 how the Passion Plays have inspired Christians to imitate Christ’s suffering as a way to earn their own salvation. Salvation is achieved through penitential suffering, rather than being received as a divine gift of grace.
Luther’s Understanding of Faith. “Faith” lies at the heart of Paul’s doctrine of salvation, being often presented as an indispensable requirement for salvation. The definition of “faith” lies also at the root of the difference between the Catholic and Protestant on their understanding of salvation. Trying to capture the exact Catholic and Protestant understanding of faith is a most difficult task, because their respective literature hardly offer clear, unambiguous definitions of faith.
Justification by faith alone was Martin Luther’s great spiritual and theological breakthrough. To find peace with God he tried everything from sleeping on hard floors, confessions, prayers, and fasting to climbing the “Holy Staircase” in Rome while kneeling in prayer. All these good works proved fruitless.
Finally, Luther found peace when he discovered in the study of Paul’s writings that justification is by faith, not by the works of penance he had been performing. The phrase “justification by faith alone” became for Luther the key to unlocked the Bible.
What was Luther’s understanding of the justifying faith? The answer seems to be complete trust in Christ’s forgiving grace. He wrote: “Justifying faith is a sure trust, by which one believes that his sins are remitted for Christ’s sake; and they that are justified are to believe certainly that their sins are remitted.”35 He further explains: “No previous disposition is necessary to justification; neither does faith justify because it disposes us, but because it is a means or instrument by which the promise and grace of God are laid hold on and received.”36
In his “Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” Luther wrote: “Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures.”37

Faith and Works. These statements suggests that for Luther “faith” was absolute trust in Christ’s forgiving grace. It involves the mind rather than the will, that is, mental acceptance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, rather than willingness to obey God’s commandments. He reached this conclusion because all his works of penance, never gave him the assurance of salvation. What Luther failed to realize is that the doctrine of justification by faith, does not mean that we are saved by faith without works, but that we are saved by God’s grace without human merits.
“Works” for Paul are the works of the law, that is, acts of obedience motivated by the desire to gain righteousness. Such works obviously negate faith, that is, the acceptance of salvation as a divine gift of grace. For James, however, “works” are not a means of salvation, but an outward manifestation of genuine faith. A professing faith is a practicing faith (James 2:14-26). With these connotations, the terms “faith” and “works” are fully compatible.
The two apostles address two different concerns. Paul addresses the question of the basis of salvation: Is it a human achievement or a divine gift? James discusses the effect of salvation: It is a profession or a practice? Both apostles are concerned about the misuse of the law. Paul addresses the problem of legalism: using the law as a means of salvation. James discusses the problem of antinomianism: disregarding the law as irrelevant to salvation. Understood in their proper contexts, there is no conflict between Paul and James on the question of faith and works.
For Paul faith is not purely an intellectual acceptance of the provision of salvation, but a complete commitment to God, manifested through obedience. Three times Paul states: “neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision,” and each time he concludes this statement with a different phrase: “but keeping the commandments of God . . . but faith working through love . . . but a new creation” (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15). The parallelism suggests that a believer that has been saved by faith, is not released from the observance of God’s commandments, but empowered to observe them.
The Catholic View of “Faith” The Catholic understanding of the saving “faith,” differs substantially from the Protestant one. In Catholic thought faith occupies a subordinate place. The Council of Trent admits that faith does play a role during the life process of justification, but final justification only occurs when a person receives the infused grace at their water baptism. While in Protestant teachings faith is the instrumental cause of justification is faith, in Catholic beliefs baptism operates as the instrument of justification.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him.”38 Since Baptism is viewed by the Catholic church as a sacrament administered by the church, it is through the church that the believer receives the faith. As stated in the new Catechism, “It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism.”39 This means that for the Catholic church faith is a dispensation of the church, rather than a disposition of the believer.
The fact that Baptism is administered at birth, when the new born baby is unable to mentally accept Christ’s forgiving grace, shows that for Catholics the saving faith is an external infusion of grace, rather than an internal, intelligent decision.
The initial infusion of grace at baptism is instantaneous but from that point on grace is a process that works with the believer for the rest of one’s life to earn salvation.

Faith as Infusion of Grace. The Roman Catholic church sees grace everywhere. For example, believers by God’s grace must suffer to pay the penalty of their sins throughout the present life, and if necessary in Purgatory. The sufferings of Christ portrayed in Passion Plays like Gibson’s movie, serve as a model for believers to imitate Christ’s sufferings to atone for their sins.
The Council of Trent is most explicit on this matter: “If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.” 40
God’s grace can shorten the stay in Purgatory! God’s grace can generate more grace through the eating of Christ’s actual body and drinking of His actual blood at the Catholic eucharist! God’s grace enables believers to secure more grace through indulgences, or by paying for perpetual Masses on behalf of departed relatives and by praying directly to Mary to ask special favors of the Son!
It is evident that for the Roman Catholic Church salvation or eternal life can be attained through a combination of grace, faith, and good works. It is a works-oriented method of salvation that challenges believers throughout their lives to do “good works” and to receive the sanctifying grace of the Sacraments, in order to reach the level of righteousness needed for entry into heaven.
The Catholic combination of grace and good works as the method of salvation, negates the biblical teaching that salvation is entirely the free gift of God. By grace God makes available to us through Christ His provision for our salvation, which we accept by faith, that is, by trusting in Him, not through our own good works. To use Paul’s words: “For by grace you have been saved through faith: and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8; cf. Rom 5:1).
Christ’s Death as Reconciliation
The fourth word-picture of salvation that illustrates the achievements of the Cross is “reconciliation.” This is probably the most popular of the four word-pictures, because it portrays the restoration of relationships with family members and friends. Through the previous word-pictures we have travelled through the Temple court to understand propitiation, the slave-market to clarify the origin of redemption, and to the lawcourt to grasp the meaning of justification. Now we are going home to renew our relationship with family and friends.
Reconciliation expresses the ultimate purpose of the Cross is to reconcile us to God and fellow beings. The verb katallasso (“to reconcile”) occurs six times in the New Testament (Rom 5:10; 1 Cor 7:11; 2 Cor 5:18-20) and the noun katallage (“reconciliation”) four times (Rom 5:11; 11:15; 2 Cor 5:18f). The central idea in all these occurrences is the termination of the estrangement between God and man by the death of Christ: “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son” (Rom 5:10).
The message of reconciliation is most relevant today when many people feel alienated and estranged from their homes, churches, workplace, and society. To them the message of reconciliation is Good News. To appreciate the full import of this divine act of reconciliation, it is important to consider both the divine and human dimension of this reconciliation.
Divine Dimension. The act of reconciliation is in the first place a divine and not a human initiative. It is accomplished by God through Jesus Christ’s atoning death which removes divine judgment against the sinner: “All things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ . . . God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor 5:18-19). In Colossians Paul reminds the believers that it pleased the Father “through him [Christ] to reconcile to himself all things . . . making peace by the blood of His cross. And you . . . He has reconciled in His body of flesh by his death” (Col 1:19-22). Note that reconciliation is the work of God, initiated by Him and accomplished through the Cross.
Reconciliation is accomplished not by a change in human attitude toward God but by the objective historical reality of Christ’s death. Christ is the agent of reconciliation. This is crystal clear in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, where Paul says: “God . . . through Christ reconciled us to himself . . . in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.” Both statements tell us that God took the initiative to reconcile and He accomplished it through Christ. The beneficiaries of reconciliations are both “us” and “the world.” This show the universal scope of reconciliation.
The cosmic scope of reconciliation is expressed more fully in Colossians 1:19-20, where the supremacy of Christ is linked to His work of reconciliation: “For in him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of the cross.” The ultimate reconciliation will take place at the end when all the natural order will be liberated “from its bondage to decay” (Rom 8:21).
God reconciled us to Himself by the death of His Son “while we were enemies” (Rom 5:10). What this means is that the believers does not cause but accepts the reconciliation already effected on the cross. Through the Cross, God reconciled the world unto Himself by “not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor 5:19) because He has dealt with them in Jesus Christ. Reconciliation is then a work outside us, initiated by God who through Christ removes the barrier of sin that separates us from Him.
Human Dimension. Our response to God’s initiative involves first of all the acceptance of the reconciliation provided by God: “We rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation” (Rom 5:11). The acceptance of God’s act of reconciliation gives joy to the believer (“we rejoice”), knowing that he has been restored to the Fathers’s house. We experience “peace,” Paul says, because we “are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph 2:12-19).
Accepting God’s provision for our reconciliation means also to accept the mandate to become the ambassadors of the reconciliation. Paul explains that not only has God in Christ reconciled us to Himself, but He has also “entrusted to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:19-20).
God finished the work of reconciliation at the Cross, yet it is still necessary to appeal to people to be reconciled to God. It is significant to note that God has entrusted to us a message and a mission. The message is the Good News that God in Christ has reconciled the world to Himself. The mission is to appeal to people to come to Christ. John Stott perceptively points out that “it is not enough to expand a thorough orthodox doctrine of reconciliation, if we never beg people to come to Christ. Nor is it right for a sermon to consist of an interminable appeal, which has not been preceded by an exposition of the gospel. The rule should be ‘no appeal without a proclamation, and no proclamation without appeal.”41
It is a remarkable truth that the same God who achieved the reconciliation through Christ, now is working through us to announce the message of reconciliation to others. By sharing the good news of reconciliation, we experience its blessings and express our gratitude to God for His gracious provision.
Christ’s Death as Intercession
The fifth word-picture of salvation that illustrates the achievements of the Cross is “intercession.” This word-picture describes Christ’s heavenly ministry at the right hand to make available to us the benefits of His redemptive mission. In the previous four word-pictures we have looked the achievements of the Cross through Christ’s sacrificial death on earth. Now our eyes are directed heavenward to catch a glimpse of the benefits of the Cross extended to us on earth through Christ’s heavenly ministry.
The Inauguration of Christ’s Heavenly Ministry. Christ’s intercessory ministry in the heavenly sanctuary began at the time of His ascension to heaven and exaltation to the right hand of God. Jesus had prophesied at His trial that “from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69). Peter at Pentecost announced the fulfillment of the exaltation of Jesus, saying: “This Jesus God raised up . . . being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you se and hear” (Acts 2:33).
It is noteworthy that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost—the most significant even of the Apostolic Church—is connected with the exaltation of Christ and His installation at t