The definition of a scapegoat is one who is made to take on the blame for the actions of others; actions that they were not responsible for. History has shown that this has been applied to both individuals and groups. One prominent example in history is that of the Jews.
But the greatest scapegoat in history is our Lord Jesus Christ. While the term scapegoat is a term not directly used In reference to Him in Scripture, the male goat that was used in the Old Testament sacrificial system is actually a picture of the ultimate sacrifice for sins that Jesus made through His death. [1]
Leviticus describes the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. In chapter 16, verses 6-10, two goats were cast lots over. One was chosen as a sin offering and the second was to be presented live before the Lord to make atonement, so that it would be sent into the wilderness as the scapegoat.
7"He shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 8"Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9"Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the LORD fell, and make it a sin offering. 10"But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat. (Leviticus 16:7-10, NASB)
The first goat was killed and its blood was sprinkled over and before the mercy seat in the Holy Place. The Holy Place was where God manifest His presence, and this sacrifice was a picture of the propitiatory sacrifice Jesus made on the cross (the propitiation was discussed in a previous post).
But the second was used to symbolically take the sins of the people and carry them away, once and for all. The priest would lay hands on the head of the goat, confessing the sins of the people. The goat was then released where it would carry on itself the sins of the people to a solitary place, where it would never be seen again. This goat was referred to as the scapegoat, because it bore all the guilt and sins of the people, taking it away into the desert. [2]
20"And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. 21And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22, ESV)
Because the goats represented the work of Christ on our behalf, we say that Christ became our scapegoat, who bore all the guilt of our sins, removing them from the presence of God the Father. Our sins were placed on the Lord Jesus Christ and were carried away, literally, to be remembered no more. One of the verses of Scripture that beautifully expresses this reality is Psalm 103:12.
12as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
(Psalm 103:12, ESV)
This expression signifies a distance as far reaching as we can express through our human vocabulary. This is an infinite distance that describes what God did with our sin. All our sin was removed from God’s presence forever. Jesus literally accomplished what the goat could only do symbolically. Now that our sins are removed, we can enter into the presence of God boldly (Hebrews 10:19, KJV). [3]
But there is more from Scripture that describes what God has done in terms of taking away our sin, taking it out of sight.
Isaiah 38:17
Isaiah 43:25
Hebrews 8:12
Hebrews 10:17-18
This great truth should comfort and inspire us. We should find comfort in the fact that we are completely forgiven in Christ. We, who were previously stained with the guilt of sin through Adam, are now cleansed and completely forgiven. Our sin inherited through Adam, has been taken out of God’s sight to be remembered no more. As a result of the removal of those sins, we should be motivated to deal with those that we commit in our daily lives. In the Old Testament, the sins were carried away only symbolically, but through Jesus Christ, it has become a reality for us.
It is imperative that we believe the testimony of God given to us through Scripture in order for us to live out the implications of the gospel in our lives. We receive such incredible benefit in our lives as a result of the work of Christ on our behalf. One profound benefit is with our conscience. Our conscience was given t us by God to serve as a moral compass. This conscience bears witness of God’s Law. However, as a result of our sin, our conscience has a tendency to become hardened, resulting in insensitivity to our violation of God’s Laws. But as we commit to grow in Christ, our conscience becomes more sensitive to sin as we become more convicted of our violation of God’s Law. As we face the reality of our sinfulness, we need to cling to the fact that Jesus has already removed our sin and carried it away forever, permanently taken away from the presence of God, and is no longer remembered by Him. Our guilt has been removed! [4]
Hebrews 9:14 expresses this cleansing of our conscience from the guilt of sin.
14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
(Hebrews 9:14, ESV)
But to subjectively experience this cleansing, we must first acknowledge what our conscience tells us concerning our sin, respond with an attitude of repentance, and by faith trust in the cleansing blood of Christ. Romans 4:8 tells us that our sin will never be counted against us. We have been freed from a guilty conscience, enabling us to engage our lives in service to God.[5]
At this point it is profitable to discuss another theological term called expiation that you may not hear very often. This term may sometimes be confused with propitiation; however it has a different meaning. Propitiation, if you recall, refers to the work of Christ in absorbing God’s wrath as our substitute. Expiation, on the other hand, refers to the removal or putting away of our sin through Christ. Both of these acts accompany each other in the work of Christ, as symbolized through the two goats on the Day of Atonement. The first goat being killed and its blood sprinkled on the mercy seat represents the propitiation through Christ’s work. The second goat, through symbolically removing our sin, represented the work of expiation through Christ.[6]Both propitiation and expiation are terms that are vital in our understanding of Christ’s sacrificial work.
It is particularly important to reflect on the work of Christ and understand the concept of expiation, realizing that our sins have been completely removed, understanding we have been freed from guilt, allowing us to effectively serve God. The work of Christ was final, everything was accomplished on our behalf and we need to build a deep appreciation for it in our everyday lives. That we would exclaim as Charles Spurgeon did in his sermon “Expiation”.
"May we put our hand upon the head of Christ Jesus; as we see him offered up upon the cross for guilty men, may we know that our sins are transferred to him, and may we be able to cry, in the ecstasy of faith, "Great God, I am clean; through Jesus' blood I am clean.""[7]
[1] Jerry Bridges, “The Gospel for Real Life” [NavPress, 2003], pg. 57-58.
[2] Ibid., 58
[3] Jerry Bridges, “The Gospel for Real Life” [NavPress, 2003], pg. 59.
[4] Ibid., 65-66
[5] Ibid., 66
[6] Ibid., 67
[7] Charles Spurgeon, “Expiation” [The Spurgeon Archive; www.spurgeon.org]
Showing posts with label Atonement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atonement. Show all posts
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Atonement
Excerpt from “The Atonement” by John Murray
I. The Source. Any doctrine of the atonement is misdirected from the outset if it does not take account of the fact that the atonement is the provision of God's love. 'God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son' (John 3:16). 'Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins' (I John 4:10; cf. Rom. 5:8; 8:32; Eph. 2:4, 5; I John 4:9). The title 'God' in these texts refers specifically to God the Father. So it is to the initiative of the Father's love that our attention is drawn when we think of the fountain from which the atonement emanates. And all that has been achieved by Christ's vicarious undertaking must always be subordinated to the design and purpose of the Father's love. This is the orientation which the classic exponents of Reformed doctrine have always recognized, and it is a caricature of their position to suppose that they represented the love and compassion of the Father as constrained by the sacrifice of Christ.
In this fact that the love of God is the spring from which the atonement flows we encounter an ultimate of revelation and of human thought. It is the marvel that evokes wonder, adoration, and praise. It is a love that arises from the unsearchable riches of God's goodness. But though an ultimate of revelation, the Scripture not only permits but requires further characterization of this love. The love of God is differentiating in respect of its objects. It is the love of God the Father that Paul has in view when he speaks of Him who 'spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all' (Rom. 8:32). But it is within the orbit defined by Romans 8:29 that this love must be understood, and the latter text speaks of distinguishing love that predestinates to a determinate end — conformity to the image of his Son. Ephesians 1:4, 5 is to the same effect. God chose a people in Christ and in love predestinated them unto adoption through Jesus Christ. It would annul the witness of Scripture if we ignored the differentiation which the love of God institutes and failed to construe the atonement as the provision of this distinguishing love and as that which secures the design of God's electing grace.
II. The Necessity. The love of God is the cause of the atonement. But why did the love of God take this way of realizing its end? This is the question of the reason as distinguished from the cause. Notable theologians in the history of the church have taken the position that there was no absolute reason, that God could have saved men by other means than by the blood-shedding of His own Son, that, since God is omnipotent and sovereign, other ways of forgiving sin were available to Him. But God was pleased to adopt this method because the greatest number of advantages and blessings accrued from it. God could have redeemed men without the shedding of blood, but He freely chose not to and thereby He magnifies the glory of His grace and enhances the precise character of the salvation bestowed (e.g., Augustine, Aquinas, Thomas Goodwin, John Ball, Thomas Blake).
It might appear that this view does honor to the omnipotence, sovereignty, and grace of God and, also, that to posit more would be presumptuous on our part and beyond the warrant of Scripture. Is it not the limit of our thought to say that 'without the shedding of blood' (Heb. 9:22) there is actually no remission and be satisfied with that datum? There are, however, certain things God cannot do. 'He cannot deny himself' (II Tim. 2:13) and it is 'impossible for God to lie' (Heb. 6:18). The only question is: are there exigencies arising from the character and perfections of God which make it intrinsically necessary that redemption should be accomplished by the sacrifice of the Son of God? It should be understood that it was not necessary for God to redeem men. The purpose to redeem is of the free and sovereign exercise of His love. But having purposed to redeem, was the only alternative the blood-shedding of His own Son as the way of securing that redemption? There appear to be good reasons for an affirmative answer.
1. Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. And justification, adequate to the situation in which lost mankind is, demands a righteousness such as belongs to no other than the incarnate Son of God, a righteousness undefiled and undefilable, a righteousness with divine property and quality (cf. Rom. 1:17; 3:21; 22; 10:3; II Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). It is the righteousness of the obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:19). But only the Son of God. incarnate, fulfilling to the full extent the commitments of the Father's will, could have provided such a righteousness. A concept of salvation bereft of the justification which this righteousness imparts is an abstraction of which Scripture knows nothing.
2. Sin is the contradiction of God and he must react against it with holy wrath. Wherever sin is, the wrath of God rests upon it (cf. Rom. 1:18). Otherwise God would be denying Himself, particularly His holiness, justice, and truth. But wrath must be removed if we are to enjoy the favor of God which salvation implies. And the only provision for the removal of wrath is propitiation. This is surely the import of Romans 3:25, 26, that God set forth Christ a propitiation to declare His righteousness, that He might he just and the justifier of the ungodly.
3. The cross of Christ is the supreme demonstration of the love of God (cf. Rom. 5:8; I John 4:9, 10). But would it be a supreme demonstration of love if the end secured by it could have been achieved without it? Would it be love to secure the end by such expenditure as the agony of Gethsemane and the abandonment of Calvary for God's own well-beloved and only-begotten Son if the result could have been attained by less costly means? In that event would it not have been love without wisdom? In this we cannot suppress the significance of our Lord's prayer in Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39). If it had been possible for the cup to pass from him, his prayer would surely have been answered. It is when the indispensable exigencies fulfilled by Jesus' suffering unto death are properly assessed that we can see the marvel of God's love in the ordeal of Calvary. So great was the Father's love to lost men that He decreed their redemption even though the cost was nought less than the accursed tree. When Calvary is viewed in this light. then the love manifested not only takes on meaning but fills us with adoring amazement. Truly this is love.
Those who think that in pursuance of God's saving purpose the cross was not intrinsically necessary are, in reality, not dealing with the hypothetical necessity of the atonement but with a hypothetical salvation. For, on their own admission, they are not saying that the actual salvation designed and bestowed could have been enjoyed without Christ but only salvation of lesser character and glory. But of such salvation the Scripture knows nothing and no good purpose can be served by an imaginary hypothesis.
[The remainder of this article can be view at Grace Online Library.]
I. The Source. Any doctrine of the atonement is misdirected from the outset if it does not take account of the fact that the atonement is the provision of God's love. 'God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son' (John 3:16). 'Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins' (I John 4:10; cf. Rom. 5:8; 8:32; Eph. 2:4, 5; I John 4:9). The title 'God' in these texts refers specifically to God the Father. So it is to the initiative of the Father's love that our attention is drawn when we think of the fountain from which the atonement emanates. And all that has been achieved by Christ's vicarious undertaking must always be subordinated to the design and purpose of the Father's love. This is the orientation which the classic exponents of Reformed doctrine have always recognized, and it is a caricature of their position to suppose that they represented the love and compassion of the Father as constrained by the sacrifice of Christ.
In this fact that the love of God is the spring from which the atonement flows we encounter an ultimate of revelation and of human thought. It is the marvel that evokes wonder, adoration, and praise. It is a love that arises from the unsearchable riches of God's goodness. But though an ultimate of revelation, the Scripture not only permits but requires further characterization of this love. The love of God is differentiating in respect of its objects. It is the love of God the Father that Paul has in view when he speaks of Him who 'spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all' (Rom. 8:32). But it is within the orbit defined by Romans 8:29 that this love must be understood, and the latter text speaks of distinguishing love that predestinates to a determinate end — conformity to the image of his Son. Ephesians 1:4, 5 is to the same effect. God chose a people in Christ and in love predestinated them unto adoption through Jesus Christ. It would annul the witness of Scripture if we ignored the differentiation which the love of God institutes and failed to construe the atonement as the provision of this distinguishing love and as that which secures the design of God's electing grace.
II. The Necessity. The love of God is the cause of the atonement. But why did the love of God take this way of realizing its end? This is the question of the reason as distinguished from the cause. Notable theologians in the history of the church have taken the position that there was no absolute reason, that God could have saved men by other means than by the blood-shedding of His own Son, that, since God is omnipotent and sovereign, other ways of forgiving sin were available to Him. But God was pleased to adopt this method because the greatest number of advantages and blessings accrued from it. God could have redeemed men without the shedding of blood, but He freely chose not to and thereby He magnifies the glory of His grace and enhances the precise character of the salvation bestowed (e.g., Augustine, Aquinas, Thomas Goodwin, John Ball, Thomas Blake).
It might appear that this view does honor to the omnipotence, sovereignty, and grace of God and, also, that to posit more would be presumptuous on our part and beyond the warrant of Scripture. Is it not the limit of our thought to say that 'without the shedding of blood' (Heb. 9:22) there is actually no remission and be satisfied with that datum? There are, however, certain things God cannot do. 'He cannot deny himself' (II Tim. 2:13) and it is 'impossible for God to lie' (Heb. 6:18). The only question is: are there exigencies arising from the character and perfections of God which make it intrinsically necessary that redemption should be accomplished by the sacrifice of the Son of God? It should be understood that it was not necessary for God to redeem men. The purpose to redeem is of the free and sovereign exercise of His love. But having purposed to redeem, was the only alternative the blood-shedding of His own Son as the way of securing that redemption? There appear to be good reasons for an affirmative answer.
1. Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. And justification, adequate to the situation in which lost mankind is, demands a righteousness such as belongs to no other than the incarnate Son of God, a righteousness undefiled and undefilable, a righteousness with divine property and quality (cf. Rom. 1:17; 3:21; 22; 10:3; II Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). It is the righteousness of the obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:19). But only the Son of God. incarnate, fulfilling to the full extent the commitments of the Father's will, could have provided such a righteousness. A concept of salvation bereft of the justification which this righteousness imparts is an abstraction of which Scripture knows nothing.
2. Sin is the contradiction of God and he must react against it with holy wrath. Wherever sin is, the wrath of God rests upon it (cf. Rom. 1:18). Otherwise God would be denying Himself, particularly His holiness, justice, and truth. But wrath must be removed if we are to enjoy the favor of God which salvation implies. And the only provision for the removal of wrath is propitiation. This is surely the import of Romans 3:25, 26, that God set forth Christ a propitiation to declare His righteousness, that He might he just and the justifier of the ungodly.
3. The cross of Christ is the supreme demonstration of the love of God (cf. Rom. 5:8; I John 4:9, 10). But would it be a supreme demonstration of love if the end secured by it could have been achieved without it? Would it be love to secure the end by such expenditure as the agony of Gethsemane and the abandonment of Calvary for God's own well-beloved and only-begotten Son if the result could have been attained by less costly means? In that event would it not have been love without wisdom? In this we cannot suppress the significance of our Lord's prayer in Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39). If it had been possible for the cup to pass from him, his prayer would surely have been answered. It is when the indispensable exigencies fulfilled by Jesus' suffering unto death are properly assessed that we can see the marvel of God's love in the ordeal of Calvary. So great was the Father's love to lost men that He decreed their redemption even though the cost was nought less than the accursed tree. When Calvary is viewed in this light. then the love manifested not only takes on meaning but fills us with adoring amazement. Truly this is love.
Those who think that in pursuance of God's saving purpose the cross was not intrinsically necessary are, in reality, not dealing with the hypothetical necessity of the atonement but with a hypothetical salvation. For, on their own admission, they are not saying that the actual salvation designed and bestowed could have been enjoyed without Christ but only salvation of lesser character and glory. But of such salvation the Scripture knows nothing and no good purpose can be served by an imaginary hypothesis.
[The remainder of this article can be view at Grace Online Library.]
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Battle Over Justification By Faith
“Justification and the Diminishing Work of Christ”
By John Piper
For about ten years now, the biblical reality of justification of by faith has captured more of my time than any other doctrine. There are at least five reasons for this. One is that eight of those years I was preaching through the book of Romans, and justification is at the heart of Romans. A second reason is that I have been surrounded by apprentices that read widely and ask tough questions, and I don’t have the luxury of indefinitely equivocating.
The Embattled Truth of Justification
The third reason is that in those ten years the truth of justification has become increasingly embattled, so that the truth as I see in the New Testament is increasingly confused and reduced and contradicted.
- The lines between evangelical faith and Roman Catholic teaching have been blurred.
- The doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s obedience has been denied.
- The New Perspective on Paul, especially N. T. Wright, has redrawn the map of New Testament theology in such a way that confusion is widespread as to just what justification is and how it relates to the gospel and conversion and judgment.
- Others have so merged faith and its fruits that the term “by faith alone” has ceased to provide a foundation for holiness but is now virtually identical with it.
- And some have so changed the ordinary meaning of the word “righteousness” that in the act of justification, it no longer refers to anyone’s right attitude or right action but only to a courtroom verdict of acquittal.
In other words, year after year, as I try to win people to faith in Christ and help my people enjoy the fullness of assurance so they can live radical, risk-taking lives of love, I keep bumping into ever new permutations—John Owen in his day called them “innumerable subterfuges”—of the denial of the New Testament teaching on the imputation of Christ’s obedience to believers.
Click here to read the rest of the article at Desiring God.
John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
