It has just been shown that man needs to be redeemed because he is a sinner against God, and, therefore, guilty, and justly under the condemnation of eternal death. Now, if Christ is to save him, how is he to do it? It is certain that man could not save himself. Man cannot atone for his own sins. Even eternal punishment would not change the fact of his guilt. Penitence or good works likewise are no satisfaction for sins.
Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill thy law's demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and thou alone.
Now, man cannot be saved so long as he is guilty. In order, then, for Christ to save him, he must make it possible for this guilt to be removed. But man is guilty before God; for all sin is against God. Hence, the work of Christ in saving man must relate to both God and man.
Notwithstanding God was the offended one, the one against whom all sin had been committed, he takes the initiative in the redemption of man. Indeed, he must; for man could not start. Here are mysteries too deep for man: Man was guilty in God's sight because of sin. Sin is inherently repulsive to God. But sin and the sinner cannot be divorced. If God hates sin, he cannot approve the sinner. Even his wrath is upon the sinner, and justly so. Nevertheless, God loved the sinner supremely. Somehow, God's wrath against and his love for the sinner are not incompatible. In one verse Paul tells of God's matchless love, and in the next he represents the sinner as being delivered from his wrath.
But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8.)
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. (Rom. 5:9.)
But God's wrath against the sinner is not a human impulse. It is a natural, as it is a just, reaction against sin based upon the character of God. God's wrath against man does not preclude his love. God's hatred of sin is as reasonable as his love of righteousness. And his disapproval of the sinner is founded upon the same principle as his approval of the righteous. And though God cannot approve the guilty sinner, his love can still reach out for him.
Hence, the saving work of Christ must not only be a manifestation of divine love, but it must be sufficient to remove God's wrath against the believer in Christ. And thus do the Scriptures represent the death of Christ. By it God commends his love toward us, and by it we are "saved from the wrath of God." Christ's death as it is described in its relation to God is called a "propitiation,"
Thayer defines the verb thus: "To render propitious to one's self, to appease, conciliate to one's self." Again he says: "In biblical Greek used passively, to become propitious, be placated or appeased." The word is translated "merciful" in Luke 18:13: "Be thou merciful to me a sinner." "Propitiation" in Rom. 3:25 means, according to Thayer, "an expiatory sacrifice." Such is also its meaning in Heb. 2:17 and 1 John 2:2. This definition of "propitiation" is true to facts. As has been observed, sin is committed against God. Sin offends God and justly calls forth wrath against the sinner. Sin deserves punishment. Now, Christ died for the sinner--that is, he made satisfaction for sin. The death of Christ was, in the estimation of God, a sufficient cause for the withdrawing of his sentence against the believer. As is true of all sacrifices, the "expiatory sacrifice" of Christ was made for man unto God. It was made for man because man was the sinner. It was made unto God because sin is committed against him. The above statements are proved by the following Scriptures:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. (Isa. 53:5, 6, 10, 11.)
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. (1 Cor. 5:3.)
Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf. (2 Cor. 5:21.)
And walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell. (Eph. 5:2.)
Notice how the offering of Christ was "for us" and "to God." Note also how this offering satisfied God's sentence against sin. It was "an odor of a sweet smell."
The "expiatory sacrifice" of Christ enabled God to forgive sins and at the same time be just. Sin, as we have said, deserves punishment, for it naturally has demerit. Sin has demerit because it is naturally antagonistic to God himself. Now, if God were to ignore the demerit of sin and permit the sinner to pass without punishment, or fail to provide a sin offering for him, he would violate the divine principle of justice. If God could ignore sin, he could ignore righteousness. And if he could do both, then the ungodly could be saved and the godly damned.
But there was a time when God temporarily passed sins by without finally forgiving them and without making an effective offering for them. This he did in view of the atonement Christ would make for these sins. When Christ died, God's justice was vindicated in thus dealing with sin.
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God. (Rom. 3:24, 26.)
The "sins done aforetime" were not the past sins of individuals, but sins committed in ages previous to the death of Christ. Moffatt in his translation has it: "Sins previously committed during the time of God's forbearance." This point is definitely settled by the phrase "at this present season" in verse 26--that is, God's conduct before Christ and after Christ is here spoken of by the apostle.
But the forgiveness of sins "at this present season" is also shown to be a just thing by the death of Christ for our sins. Here once more let us remember the demerit of sin and its deserving punishment. Now, if God forgives the sinner, guilty and deserving of death, and treats him as though he had never sinned, he most certainly has a just reason for so doing. This reason, Paul tells us, is the death of Christ.
For the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:26.)
Some vainly imagine this meaning of the atonement to be a reflection upon the character of God, and that God has always stood ready to pardon man. But not so. It is rather a defense of God's character. Paul said the atonement of Christ vindicated God's righteousness in passing over sins before the cross and in justifying the ungodly since the cross. If God was always ready to forgive man, why the death of Christ? Even human governments operate upon the principle of the demerit of sin, and it is universally conceded that it is a just thing for criminals to be punished. It is as certain that to permit criminals to go unpunished is unjust. Indeed, what do the Scriptures mean when they say Christ died for us? There was certainly a need for this death, and this need must be found in some one. And this one must be him against whom sins are committed. Furthermore, this one against whom sins are committed must hold something against the sinner that would be unjust to remit without a proper satisfaction. It is a reasonable conclusion that the death of Christ for man would be a reflection upon the character of God if this were not so. Paul has asserted that the death of Christ as an "expiatory sacrifice" is a vindication of God's righteousness. And if we are unable to see that it is so, let us at least believe God's apostle.
Here, then, is the gospel--not simply that Christ died, but that he died "for our sins." His death atones for sins, so that God can now have mercy upon us. This consideration from God is wholly undeserving on our part. This is the grace of God that brings salvation.
Now, since the blood of Christ is a complete satisfaction for sin on God's part, just how may one have the benefits of this blood? What is the condition on man's part?
That there must be a condition on man's part is as reasonable as it is Scriptural. If salvation were unconditional, it would be possessed by those who do not want it and who are wholly unfit for it. Here let us remember that salvation from sin is not mere forgiveness of sin. It would do no good whatsoever for God to forgive the sins of the impenitent. Indeed, it would do him personal harm. He would then do evil that good may come. He would "continue in sin that grace may abound." Mere forgiveness does not liberate one from the bondage of sin. The Bible, therefore, does not contemplate mere forgiveness. Salvation is as much salvation from the love and the practice of sin as it is from the guilt of sin. And one must be saved from the love of sin before he can enjoy the forgiveness of sins. Hence, repentance is necessary. Yea, there is a double necessity for repentance. It is necessary that man may enjoy the blessings of a spiritual kingdom which consists of "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." If he that loves sin cannot be happy in the presence of those who hate it in this world, how could heaven be heaven to him after this life? It could not be. Repentance is necessary, in the next place, so that God can appropriately bestow pardon. Mercy and impenitence are naturally inapposite.
Faith or trust in the blood is also a natural requirement of forgiveness. Faith, reliance, is the proper response of a soul toward a meritorious atonement. Only two attitudes toward the atonement are possible namely, faith, or trust, and unbelief. Hence, Jesus said "he that believeth" and "he that believeth not." These two classes include all who hear the gospel. Indifference means unbelief. There is no third attitude. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for God to forgive the unbeliever. Salvation must, then, be conditional. Hence, the Scriptures everywhere name a condition or conditions. John 3:16, a Scripture every one can quote, makes salvation conditional.
But if salvation is conditional, what is the condition, or what are the conditions? In our reasoning above repentance was shown to be a requirement of forgiveness. The Scriptures are plain on this point. When asked about salvation on Pentecost, Peter's first words were: "Repent ye." To the Gentiles repentance was indispensable, for it was "unto life." (See Acts 11:18.) Since this point is almost universally conceded, and since the Scriptures are so plain upon it, we think it unnecessary to say more here.
It was also seen above that faith is a natural requirement, because it is the only proper response that can be made toward the blood of Christ. As has been observed, one who hears the gospel must either believe or disbelieve. But just what is it to have faith in Christ crucified? Here is a very important question. Here the road divides theologically. Let us, then, be careful.
The object of faith determines to a great extent its exact meaning. Faith in God, for example, means a belief that he exists and that he will fulfill his word. Faith comprehends this much at least. If man is the object of faith, it means confidence in his character and his integrity. If facts are the objects of faith, faith means mere belief of testimony. But what does faith in Christ signify? Let no one think that it is here implied that faith in Christ signifies less or something contrary to faith in God. If there is any difference at all, it is because of the peculiar relation Christ sustains to the world. Now, Christ, and Christ alone, is the atonement for sins. In this sense he is our only Savior.
And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. (Acts 4:12.)
It follows, therefore, that faith in Christ has a peculiar significance--not that the nature of faith changes, but that it takes on a new aspect, answering to the peculiar office of Christ as an expiatory sacrifice. Then, what is the nature of the atonement of Christ? It is the God-ordained means of counteracting the demerit of sin. It is the remedy for the disease of sin. It is the sole cause of man's salvation--that is, the blood of Christ is the only consideration because of which God can justify the sinner. But this atonement is to be received by faith. (Rom. 3:25.) What, then, does faith here signify? It means reliance upon the blood to do what God intends. But God intends that the blood shall save. When, therefore, man relies upon the blood of Christ to save him, he has believed in Christ. Merely to grant that the blood can save is not to believe in Christ. A personal reception of its benefits is essential to the faith that saves. Furthermore, merely to accept as true statements about Christ is not to believe in him. In this case there is no acceptance, no personal reliance. Again, to believe that Christ has the right to tell man what to do to save himself is not to believe in him. This idea of faith takes the merit from the blood and gives it to what one does. What Christ did saves, not what man does. What he does but expresses his reliance for salvation upon what Christ did for him.
Hence, the doctrine that faith is only a means to an end, and that end the doing of certain things that save, not only robs faith of its Scriptural meaning, but robs the object of faith, the blood of Christ, of its saving efficacy, and gives it to acts of obedience. Let another state this doctrine: "Thus, when in Scripture men are said to be justified by faith, or to receive any blessing through faith, it is because faith is the principle of action, and, as such, the cause of those acts [my emphasis--K. G. M.] by which such blessings are enjoyed. But the principle without those acts is nothing; and it is only by the acts which it induces to perform that it becomes the instrument of any blessings to man." Hence, acts produced by faith, and not faith, are the chief consideration. This interpretation of faith makes void the grace of God. "Grace" and "faith" are correlative terms--that is, the faith of man takes care of the grace of God. Man's faith receives God's grace. "By grace through faith" is heaven's formula of salvation. Now, if (not faith, but) acts produced by faith save, it follows of necessity that faith as a condition of salvation is of secondary importance only, being only a means to an end. And if faith is a condition of secondary importance, then its object, grace, is likewise a provision of secondary importance. If this is so, men are not actually saved by grace, the blood of Christ.
Some seem not to have a correct understanding of faith. The above doctrine just referred to is based on a misconception of its meaning. Faith, to some, means nothing more than the belief of facts. Faith in Christ, then, would mean no more than the belief of facts about him, such as his divinity, his burial and resurrection, etc. Now, faith includes belief of facts, but it goes further than this. It as truly means trust or reliance. Thayer so defines it.
Salvation by faith demands that it have the significance of trust or reliance. The nature of the atonement is the basis of this demand; for what can be done with the atonement except to trust in it for salvation or to reject it? Christ died to save, not simply to have the right to prescribe certain acts of obedience which save. He does have the right to name the conditions of salvation, but he certainly is able to know what meaning these conditions may have and not make void his death. He would not shed his blood to save man and then transfer the efficacy to save to acts of obedience. This would change the divine formula of salvation "by grace through faith," to "by law through works." Acts of obedience, including faith, must mean trust in the blood of Christ for salvation. But if faith is nothing more than a principle of action, and such acts become the instruments of salvation, then "faith is made void" and the blood of Christ loses its efficacy.
It is thought by some that since salvation is conditional, it is, therefore, by works. Even granting that the conditions of salvation are many, still it does not follow that it is by works. In order for this matter to be settled, one must understand just what is meant by works. And just as faith is sometimes misunderstood, so is "works."
A reference to the law of Moses will help us here. Under the law, man was shut up to the principle of works. He had no sacrifice that could take away sins. For good reasons God placed man upon his own responsibility. It was do or be damned. And the doing was the thing that counted. His works did not refer to a present Savior, for as yet the Savior had not come. If God blessed man, it was not for his faith in a Redeemer, but because man had simply done something. In other words,
The law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them. (Gal. 3:12.)
The law was not of faith because it provided no Savior. Christianity is of faith because it provides a Savior. Law is everywhere associated with works, as grace is with faith. Not only are works not associated with grace, they are expressly ruled out.
For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. (Eph. 2:8, 9.)
Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness, (Rom, 4:4, 5.)
But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. (Rom. 11:6.)
Notice the words "not of works" in the first passage, as well as the universal principle in the second that work excludes grace. And in the third it is found that grace excludes works. This is so because the principle of grace and the principle of works are not compatible. While grace points to what God does for man, works point to what man does for himself. These two principles are everywhere represented as exact opposites.
Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith. (Rom. 3:27.)
According to Moffatt's translation, we have:
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is ruled out absolutely. On what principle? On the principle of doing deeds? No, on the principle of faith.
For "law" Moffatt has "principle." It is the principle of doing deeds that is ruled out, and not simply some individual requirement of the law of Moses. The principle of works gives man the glory, for man is then the chief figure. The principle of faith gives God the glory because Christ is Savior. Hence, Paul's statement, "Not of works, that no man should glory."
"Works" might be defined as an effort on man's part to save himself. They naturally exclude a Savior. Faith is naturally directed toward a Savior, and implies grace. We shall try by some illustrations to show the difference between the principle of works and the principle of faith.
A is offered a thousand dollars to build a house. He builds the house and receives the money upon the principle of works, not of faith.
Salvation is offered the believer in Christ. One believes, and receives salvation upon the principle of faith, "not of works."
Now, why the difference in principle when the two examples appear so similar? In the first case the offer of the money is based upon nothing but A's work. And the value of A's work depends necessarily upon the work itself, and nothing else. We have, then, A's work and the payment of a just debt.
Note now the elements entering into the second illustration. First, we have Christ crucified as a sin offering. Second, God's offer of mercy based upon the sacrifice of Christ. Third, the acceptance of this offer by faith. Fourth, the actual bestowing of mercy based upon the merit of the object of faith. Now, the value of faith in this illustration and of the work in the first illustration must be determined differently. The value of the work is to be found in the work itself. The work was not a reference to something else of value that became the consideration of the reward. The money was meant to be a payment for the work, and nothing else. Not so with faith. One is not saved for his faith, but because of the merit of the object of faith--that is, faith is not the consideration that moves God to bestow his mercy. "His only begotten Son," "whom he set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood," is the consideration that moves God to pardon. So the act of believing is not to be considered in itself, but with reference to its object. Faith looks to the blood of Christ, a thing of merit. Work looks to nothing.
When, then, a reward is bestowed as a consideration for an act itself, it is "reckoned . . . as of debt," and is "not reckoned as of grace." But, on the other hand, when a blessing is conditioned upon an act, which act derives its value, not from the act itself, but from an object to which it refers, the blessing is "reckoned as of grace," and not as of debt. Such a blessing is given upon the law or principle of faith.
Now, such is the principle of justification under Christ. The value of faith or baptism, for example, is not derived from these acts per se, but from the object, Christ Jesus. Faith is in Christ, and baptism is "in the name of Christ." The principle of works would ignore the merit of the cross and look to man for merit. Hence, Paul writes again and again: "Not of works," and "not by works of righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us." What man is called upon to do is not in competition with the cross, but expressive of faith in it.
That salvation is of grace and faith and not of law and works is also proved by the kind of person God saves. Let Paul describe him:
For we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. (Tit. 3:3.)
And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (Eph. 2:1-3.)
This is the kind of person God saves "by grace, through faith, . . . not of works." If he is to be saved at all, he must be saved this way, for this is the way the Lord finds him. It is the lost that Jesus seeks to save. He came to call the unrighteous to repentance, not the righteous.
Another point about the principle of works needs to be mentioned. Some think the reward is still of grace, though conditioned upon works, if the reward exceeds in value the work done. It is forgotten that grace and works are naturally opposed, however weakened works may be. But the matter of equivalents does not determine the principle. In the illustration given above, if A had been paid a million instead of a thousand dollars for his work, the money would have yet been bestowed upon the principle of works; for the only consideration on A's part would have been his work. Not the reward, but the meaning of man's part, determines the principle of action. If man's acts are to be considered in themselves, they are upon the principle of works, and not upon the principle of faith. Even under the law of Moses, when the principle of works certainly prevailed, God evidently did more for man than man did for God. The principle of works is an if-you-do-this-I'll-do-that proposition, regardless of the relative worth of the work and the reward. In this case, as has been explained, the "do" is the only consideration of the reward. But is not salvation offered upon the same kind of proposition? For example, does not Jesus say to the sinner, "If you believe, I will save you"? The form is the same, but not the meaning. The faith of the sinner is not the consideration of the reward, as is the work, in the above case. Faith is of value because it points to the blood of Christ. Here is a vital difference.
Again, it is suggested that every blessing that man receives from God comes by his grace; that even our "daily bread" is a gift of his grace. Now, this may be true in a broad sense of the word "grace," but not strictly true, or "else grace is no more grace." Remember, God recognizes a radical difference between grace and works--so much so that he refuses him that seeks justification by works and accepts him that seeks salvation by faith. He thus rejected even the Jew and accepted the Gentile.
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith: but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. (Rom, 9:30-32.)
Let us not annihilate grace by making it identical with debt, and faith by making it equal to works. This is to make void the blood of Christ. If bread that comes by the sweat of our face comes by grace, then God did man a favor when he drove him from the garden of Eden. God considered that he was pronouncing a curse upon man for his sins, and not a blessing for his righteousness.
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Gen. 3:17-19.)
A pronouncement of grace does not speak on this wise, thank God. Yes, grace is grace, not debt; faith is faith, not works; blessings are blessings, not curses; and Christ's death is not in vain.
So, on God's part, salvation is by grace that is, God saves man by having mercy upon him or, in other words, God saves man by saving him.
For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all. (Rom. 11:32.)
Note the words "disobedience" and "mercy." The former is the need of the latter. If man were obedient instead of disobedient, he would not need God's mercy. Salvation would then be of debt and not of grace. God's mercy, of course, is man's heritage, because Christ's death was for him.
On man's part salvation is by faith. Grace calls for faith. Faith here means trust, and trust, too, in the blood of Christ. The wonderful doctrine of salvation "by grace, through faith," means simply this: God will take care of man's spiritual needs provided man will consent for God to do it in his own way. God's method is through Jesus Christ and him crucified. This is grace. Man's consent is trust in Jesus Christ and him crucified. This is faith.
For by grace have ye been saved through faith. (Eph. 2:8.)