The Substitutionary Death Of Christ

I have seen at least four articles in the last several years by our brethren (in internet periodicals) claiming the concept of the Substitutionary Death of Jesus is a Calvinistic invention. Just what does God’s word have to say about the idea? Did Jesus take the punishment for our sins or not?

Should We Reject Scriptural Truth In Order To Help Fight False Doctrine?

First let’s remember it is never proper to reject a doctrine simply because some false church believes it, or because it would help us refute a related false doctrine. The consistent use of this tactic would surely cause us to reject many scriptural truths. For example, should we reject John 3:16’s teaching that we have to believe in Jesus in order to be saved, just because many of the denominations also believe that? To the contrary, we should be honest enough to accept whatever the Bible verses actually say on any topic, and let the chips fall where they may.

Some use the human reasoning that if Jesus took all our sins upon himself, then there would be no way we could be lost for our own sins since Jesus already took care of those sins. Not surprisingly, this is the exact argument that Calvinists make when they say that if Jesus died for everybody (not just the elect), then that means all will be saved, because how could someone be lost for whom Jesus died?, why would a sin have to be paid for twice? One reply we make in debate on this point is that a man can be punished in this life for his sin (Hebrews 12:5-11), but that doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t also be punished eternally for those same sins. See the admitted double punishment? In a similar vein, consider also God’s punishment of Assyria and Babylon for their wickedness (Isaiah 10:12, Jeremiah 50:18). This temporal punishment wouldn’t necessarily preclude their ensuing eternal punishment (if they didn’t repent), would it? The argument isn’t sound in either case. All non-Calvinists know that just because Jesus died to take care our sins (whether substitutionary or not), that doesn’t rule out the fact we will be punished for our sins eternally if we are unwilling to repent of them.

The correct way to decide if our sins were laid upon Jesus should be based upon what the Bible actually says on the topic, not imaginary false consequences. With that in mind, why wouldn’t the words of Isaiah 53:6b (“the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”) settle this question once and for all? Is there a verse elsewhere in the Bible that contradicts what Isaiah 53:6b seems to be saying at first glance, so that we must look for an interpretation other than the obvious? Or is it that we can’t accept Isaiah 53 at face value simply because Calvinists also teach it that way?

Type And Anti-Type?

While we’re discussing Isaiah 53, consider Leviticus 16:21-22 and how the sins of the people were placed on the scapegoat before it was sent out into the wilderness. Sounds a lot like Isaiah 53:6b and the sacrifice of Jesus, doesn’t it? I am thinking this gives us insight into how Jesus was “offered to bear the sins of many” (Hebrews 9:28).

Jesus Took Our Punishment

Some wonder how it could be that Jesus took our punishment, and they supply different avenues of human reasoning to argue that couldn’t be so. But let’s look again at Isaiah 53, this time at verse 5. Notice the following phrases which most definitely teach Jesus accepted punishment for our sins:

· he was wounded for our transgressions

· he was bruised for our iniquities

· the chastisement of our peace was upon him

· with his stripes we are healed (spiritually, I Peter 2:24)

Indeed, we should be very appreciative of Jesus leaving His lofty position in heaven (John 3:13) and lowering himself to become a man in order to die for us (Philippians 2:6-8). Christ became our substitute … as II Corinthians 5:21a puts it – “For he hath made him to be sin for us.” He took the punishment we all deserve. Galatians 3:13 confirms this idea when it says “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Look back again at one of those phrases in Isaiah 53:5 – “the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” Think about what that is saying. Chastisement means “punishment.” The Father put chastisement (punishment) upon Christ so we could have (spiritual) peace with God. Jesus took the punishment for our sins so we wouldn’t have to. If God had wanted to teach the “substitutionary death of Christ,” is there is any way He could have said it that would make it any clearer than how Isaiah 53 puts it? This concept from Isaiah 53 is not an “attack on the gospel” (as one writer put it); instead, it is the gospel (Matthew 26:28).

My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?

What was the punishment Jesus received in our place? Well, isn’t separation from God the punishment for sin (Isaiah 59:2)? Is that possibly what happened to Christ on the cross? Remember his words in Matthew 27:46 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” I have read a couple of brotherhood articles recently saying Jesus was not forsaken by God on the cross, but I have yet to completely understand how they reach that conclusion, much less agree with it. How could one deny the Father forsook Jesus when Jesus is plainly asking why the Father did just that? I cannot conceive of any possible way that if a person 1 asks person 2 “why did you forsake me” – how that could ever mean that person number 1 was not forsaken by person 2, unless person 1 was lying or mistaken, can you? If we can’t trust Jesus to mean what he says, then who can we trust? What Jesus said in Matthew 27:46 is true, right? One preacher wrote “Now if the Father did actually forsake Jesus on the cross, then this means that it is possible for God to forsake one who has done everything asked of him.” But that rational ignores the very point we all agree on – what happened at the cross was not done because of something Jesus did, but because of what we did. It is not that Jesus sinned; it is that God had to treat Jesus like a sinner (in our place).

Conclusion

The statement was made in one article that believing in the substitutionary death of Christ “leads us directly into other errors.” This is a false claim and might betray the real reason some Christians reject this vital Bible truth about Christ’s death. Which brings us to an essential Bible study principle that we all must learn: we should never accept or reject a particular doctrine based solely upon such perceived consequences. We should always evaluate each position based upon the merits of the case, based upon what God actually reveals relative to the issue at question, i.e., what do the texts say? That is the only honest way of going about our search for truth (Matthew 7:7).

You might say Jesus took our place on that cruel cross. Don’t forget Isaiah 53:6b states the iniquities of us all were placed upon him. Far from encouraging Calvinism, that directly contradicts perhaps Calvinism’s most critical tenet – that Jesus died for only the elect. On the cross Jesus literally received the punishment for our sins that we deserved. He gave us the gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23). It is only up to us to accept that gift through humble obedience to his word. On the cross Jesus “became the author (source) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Hebrews 5:9). We have so much to be thankful for in the death of Christ. He did it for us!

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 62 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com