The Vicarious Atonement

The word “vicar” is Latin for “substitute,” so when we say “the vicarious atonement” of Christ, we are talking about the substitutionary death of Christ. I have always thought of the sacrificial death of Christ (he died for our benefit) and the substitutionary death of Christ (he died in our place) as the same thing. I had never really thought of the ideas separately until recently some brethren have started teaching Jesus’ death was only sacrificial, and not substitutionary (vicarious). I think that calls for us to re-examine the Biblical texts to see if they really do teach our brotherhood’s long held belief that in his death – Jesus was a substitute for us. Just what does God have to say about the idea? Did Jesus receive our punishment for sin or not?

Christ Was Made A Curse For Us

Galatians 3:13a reads “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” According to this verse we should have been cursed (due to our sin, verse 10), but Jesus was cursed instead of us. Isn’t that substitutionary? Shouldn’t that settle this issue?

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

One recent article stated that believing in the substitutionary death of Christ “leads us directly into other errors.” First, this is a false claim – how can believing the truth lead to error? Second, it betrays the real reason some gospel preachers have begun rejecting this vital Bible truth about Christ’s death. Which brings us to a very important point: We should never accept or reject a particular doctrine based upon such perceived consequences. Instead, we should always evaluate each position based upon – what do the Biblical texts actually say? That is the only honest, godly way of searching for truth.

Evidently the Bible’s teaching that our sins are transferred to Jesus (vicariously) reminds some of the false Calvinistic idea of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (Christ’s righteousness transferred to us), but the fact is – they are not the same. And the most important difference between the two is that the Bible teaches the former, but not the latter.

Letting The Bible Texts Decide This Question

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

Should We Reject Scriptural Truth Because The Denominations Agree With It?

It ought to be obvious that we should never reject a doctrine simply because some false church believes it. Should we reject John 3:16’s requirement to believe in Jesus in order to be saved, just because most denominations also teach that? John 1:1 – reads “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Should we reject John 1:1’s teaching that there is more than one person in the Godhead simply because the Catholics hold the same view? Should we discard the scriptural Deity of Christ position taught by this verse merely because other churches agree with us on that? Mark 16:16a declares “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Should we reject this truth about baptism because the Oneness Pentecostals believe the same thing? Just the opposite, we should be honest enough to accept whatever Bible verses actually say on any topic regardless of who believes what.

Parallel: Suppose pretty much the whole brotherhood including yourself believed in the second coming of Christ. But then two very prominent gospel preachers started saying anybody who believed in the second coming of Christ was a Premillennialist (those two had made the mistake of accepting the Premillennialist idea that believing in the second coming of Christ would mean Jesus is coming to reign on the earth physically for 1000 years). Suppose the whole brotherhood for the most part started changing their belief in the direction of this “no second coming” position (due to peer pressure? – no way to know why), leaving you and anybody else that still believed what the Bible actually says about the second coming of Christ on an island; we are all branded Premillennialists. Don’t you think you might try to educate Christians that the second coming of Christ is really taught by the Bible (Heb 9:28); it is just that some of the details taught about that second coming are false?

Jesus Took Our Punishment

Some wonder how it could be fair that Jesus took our punishment. But let’s look again at Isaiah 53, this time verse 5. Notice the following phrases which definitively teach Jesus accepted punishment for our sins, fair or not:

· 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)

In one sense it is not “fair” for one man to be put to death for another man’s crimes, but that would be true even if you are talking about only a sacrificial death. Hiram Hutto once explained to me that Jesus’ death was fair because God volunteered himself (not another) to die for us.

Punished Twice For The Same Sins?

Some reason that if Jesus was punished for our sins there would be no way we could be lost for our own sins – else sin would be punished twice. This is essentially the same “Limited Atonement” argument that Calvinists make when they say if Jesus died for all (not just the elect), then that would mean all will be saved (universalism), because how could someone be lost for whom Jesus died?, that is, how could sin be punished twice?

One reply we make against this argument is – Calvinists agree a man can be “chastened” (Hebrews 12:5-11) in this life for his sin, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t also be punished eternally for the same sin. In the same vein, consider also God’s judgment of nations like Assyria and Babylon for their wickedness (Isaiah 10:12, Jeremiah 50:18). This temporal punishment wouldn’t necessarily preclude their possible eventual eternal punishment, would it?

In any event, this argument isn’t sound. It is very possible even in a human legal system for an innocent man to accept/endure punishment for a criminal, but then later for that criminal to refuse to accept the substitution and get the punishment he deserved in the first place. Just because Jesus died to take care of our sins (whether substitutionary or not), that doesn’t rule out the fact that we will be punished for our sins eternally if we are unwilling to accept Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf.

Our Chastisement Was Put Upon Him

Look back at one of those phrases in Isaiah 53:5 – “the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” Think about what that is saying. Chastisement is a synonym for “punishment.” So God the Father placed our chastisement (punishment) upon Christ so we could have (spiritual) peace with God. In other words, Jesus took the punishment for our sins so we wouldn’t have to. Isn’t that substitution (vicarious)?

Type And Antitype – The Scapegoat

While we are discussing Isaiah 53, consider how the sins of the Israelites were placed on the scapegoat before it was sent out into the wilderness. Leviticus 16:21-22 states “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.” That passage sounds just like Isaiah 53 and the sacrifice of Jesus, doesn’t it? Compare the appropriate parts of Leviticus 16:21-22 to Isaiah 53:6c “and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” and 11c “for he shall bear their iniquities.” The wording is almost identical, isn’t it? In both the scapegoat type and the corresponding reality of Jesus, the people’s sins are placed on the one that then takes away their sin.

What Does The Bible Mean When It Says Jesus “Bore” Our Sins?

I Peter 2:24 says “Who … bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” Similarly, Hebrews 9:28 states “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” There has been some debate about what it means that Jesus “bore” our sins. Thankfully Isaiah 53 clears the matter up for us. Verse 12c (“he bare the sin of many”) and 11c (“he shall bear their iniquities”) is defined by 6c as “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” So Jesus bore our sins in the sense our sins were laid on him. Just like when a heavy load is laid on a pack mule, the mule bears or carries the pack. Except as regarding sin, we mean spiritually and not physically. The scapegoat of Leviticus 16 affords the same definition for “bearing sin.” Verse 22 states that “the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities” while verse 21 supplies the specifics of that – “all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat.” The goat bearing the sin simply meant the sins were placed on the goat, right? The same is true with Jesus bearing our sin. The scapegoat is in type; Jesus in reality.

Type And Antitype – Offering Isaac

Genesis 22 relates the story of Abraham offering Isaac. In verse 7 Isaac said to Abraham “Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham replied in verse 8 “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” Isn’t that such an amazingly wonderful statement because it also describes how God himself would eventually provide the ultimate and effectual sacrifice for us? This fits what Louis Berkhof wrote about the vicarious atonement “God might have demanded a personal atonement of the sinner, but the latter would not have been able to render it.” (Summary Of Christian Doctrine, p.90).

At the end of the story, the angel of God stays Abraham’s hand and a ram caught in a thicket is offered up instead. Verse 13 puts it this way – “Abraham … offered him up (the ram, ptd) for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.” Now doesn’t “in the stead of” mean “substituting for”? Believers have always taught the story of the almost sacrifice of Isaac is a type pointing to Jesus’ sacrifice. Are we going to backtrack now?

For He Hath Made Him To Be Sin For Us

II Corinthians 5:21a says Jesus was “made … to be sin,” that is, treated as a sinner by God: not in the sense he was a sinner (not in any shape, form, or fashion), but in the sense that Jesus was punished for our sins (Isaiah 53:5) so that we wouldn’t have to be. That’s substitutionary, correct? Now whose sin did he take the punishment for, his own or ours? Again, that’s vicarious. Jesus was made to be sin “for us,” that is, in our place – a substitution.

Some say this Greek word (Strong’s #266) should be translated “sin offering” here, but BibleStudyTools.com says “hamartia” is in the KJV of the New Testament 174 times and is translated “sin” 172 times, “sinful” 1 time, and “offense” 1 time. Out of 174 uses, it is never translated “sin offering.” It is certainly true Jesus was a “sin offering,” but that’s not the point of this verse; II Corinthians 5:21 is saying Jesus was made to be sin.

Caiaphas’ Prophecy

An interesting argument for Jesus’ death being substitutionary can be made from Caiaphas’ prophecy in John 11:47-52. You will remember from that text Caiaphas advised that Jesus should die for the Jewish nation. Not just for their benefit, but instead of them, in place of them. He was thinking if Jesus caused too much of an uproar, the Romans would come down hard on the Jewish nation and there would be much bloodshed. Caiaphas reasoned it is better that one man die instead of the whole nation. Now Caiaphas meant Jesus should die for the physical salvation of the Jews, but the text shows God was prophesying through him and meant the Jews’ spiritual salvation. Jesus was to die instead of, in the place of the Jewish nation (and the Gentiles according to verse 52) – their spiritual salvation resulting.

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

Matthew 27:46 says Jesus was forsaken by God the Father, and it was because our sins were laid on Jesus (Isaiah 53:6c). Recently some brethren have been saying Jesus wasn’t forsaken by God on the cross. It seems they are saying Jesus was only calling attention to the fact that he was fulfilling Psalms 22. But if Jesus was really fulfilling “My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?,” then he was forsaken, right?

One gospel 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 (our commission of sins).

How could one deny the Father forsook Jesus when Jesus is plainly asking the Father why he did just that? If a man Jack asks a friend John “why did you forsake me?” doesn’t that always means one of three things?: either Jack is being purposely deceptive, or Jack is mistaken, or Jack was in fact forsaken. Which was it for Jesus? Yes, what Jesus said in Matthew 27:46 is a quote from Psalms 22:1a, but that doesn’t change the fact that Matthew 27:46 is still true, does it?

Propitiation

I John 2:2 says about Jesus “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Similarly, I John 4:10 reads “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary the word “propitiation” means “that by which God is rendered propitious, that is, by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not … make God loving; it only renders it consistent for him to exercise his love towards sinners.”

Romans 3:24-26 confirms the idea of that definition by saying “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Jesus dying on the cross allows God to forgive us for our sins while at the same time being consistent with his righteous and just character; meaning he isn’t just “letting us off the hook.” True justice demands a penalty. God provided his Son to take the penalty we deserve, just like God provided the ram in place of Isaac. You might say Jesus took our spanking for us.

Conclusion

We should have been the ones on that cruel Jerusalem cross, but Jesus took our place. Again, as Isaiah 53:6c states, “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all.” On the cross Jesus received the punishment that we deserve for our sins (verse 5). He “tasted death for every man” (Hebrews 2:9b). Far from encouraging Calvinism, that directly contradicts Calvinism’s most critical tenet – that Jesus died for the elect only.

I don’t plan on giving up any of the great Christological truths, even if many do:

· virgin birth of Christ

· deity of Christ

· miracles of Christ

· temptation of Christ

· vicarious atonement of Christ

· resurrection of Christ

Jesus provided the gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23). It is up to us to accept that gift through trust and humble obedience to his word (II Thess 1:8). 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; he suffered what we deserve to suffer; he died in our place!

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 59 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com