As I've intimated, I'm working
on a series of lectures dealing with the whole subject of scripture,
and we'll be using the Westminster Confession of Faith, the first
chapter, as our guideline, and I'm trying to give a day, a study
day, a week, to the preparation of the series of lectures, and
they're a few weeks away yet from being in the kind of form
where I feel some degree of satisfaction, or will feel, that I'm doing
justice to the great doctrine of scripture which is fundamental
to all else, and as I sought to know how best to fill these
Saturday mornings with a series that would be helpful in the
area of theological studies in some aspect of systematic theology,
I was drawn to believe that perhaps dealing with the subject of the
atoning work of Christ and in a more definitive sense the biblical
teaching concerning the extent of the atonement would be helpful. Some of you will remember back
some months ago I brought a lecture on definite atonement particular
redemption in the Sunday school class in which you got just the
distilled essence of a lot of biblical and theological truth
and I ran through it at breakneck speed and probably very little
was absorbed. Well I'm going back over that
lecture and breaking it down and expanding and simplifying
and illustrating and so for the next few weeks the subject matter
before us for this second hour will be the matter of the atonement
of Christ considered particularly with reference to its extent. Now the terms definite atonement,
particular redemption, or the less accurate term limited atonement
are used synonymously and will be in the course of this lecture.
Now no one who believes and understands the biblical teaching relative
to the salvation of sinners would debate or question the following
statement. Central to the salvation of guilty
sinners is the work of atonement wrought by Jesus Christ in dying
upon the accursed tree. So strategic is the work associated
with Christ's death upon that tree that the proclamation of
the facts of that death are synonymous with the gospel. Remember what
Paul does in Romans 1.16 and in 1 Corinthians 1.18. In Romans 1.16 we read, I am
not ashamed of the gospel, or as some of the manuscripts have
it, the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation
to everyone that believe it. So the gospel is the power of
God to salvation. In 1 Corinthians 1.18 Paul says,
the word of the cross to us who are saved is the power of God.
So you have gospel and the word or the message of the cross used
as synonyms. So we go back then to my opening
statement which I said no one who believes the Bible to be
the word of God and has any understanding of its message would debate.
Central to the salvation of guilty sinners is the work of atonement
wrought by Jesus Christ in dying upon the accursed tree. Now if
this truth is at the heart of the gospel, any fundamental misconceptions
relative to its nature or to its efficacy cannot but produce
unholy fruits all the way out to the farthest limits of Christian
thought and practice. Now that sentence has been worked
out carefully. I want to give it to you again.
You don't need to take it verbatim, but I hope you catch the force
of it. If this truth, the truth of Christ crucified, is at the
heart of the gospel, any fundamental misconceptions relative to its
nature and efficacy cannot but produce unholy fruits all the
way out to the farthest limits of Christian thought and practice. In other words, if your foundation
is out of plumb, everything you build upon it right up to the
capstone on your chimney is going to be out of plumb. And if the
gospel is foundational, the gospel synonymous with the word of the
cross, There is misconception relative to its nature and efficacy. Unholy fruits from that misconception
will dog our steps to the farthest limits of Christian thought and
practice. It is a proven fact of theological
discussion and thought that few issues, if any, are more crucial
in bringing into the sharpest focus one's real sentiments with
reference to the atonement of Christ than does the question
For whom did Christ die? In other words, if you want to
go right to the nerve centers of one's understanding of what
transpired upon the cross, the quickest way to do so is to approach
the whole doctrine of the cross with the question, for whom was
the work of that cross intended? For whom did Christ die? Now then, as we approach this
subject, what I want to do this morning, and this is probably
all I'll have time to do, is to give a general introduction
composed of two sub-headings. Number one, under general introduction,
I want to state clearly the issue before us, and then secondly,
I wish to articulate the proper approach to the subject. First
of all then, I want to state clearly the issue. When discussing the issue, limited
atonement, definite atonement, particular redemption, what are
we discussing? If we were to use the Latin phrase,
what is the status questionus? What is the real issue? What
is the matter that is before our minds when we discuss the
question, for whom did Christ die? Well, let me answer that
question negatively and then positively. We are not discussing,
one, whether the work of Christ was sufficient to save all humanity
or only some of humanity. That is not the question before
us. Most theologians who believe the Bible do not question that
the death of a divine human personage was, of itself, of infinite worth. There are very few responsible
theologians, and certainly very few responsible Reformed theologians,
who would in any way question the intrinsic worth of the death
of Christ as being infinite. So we're not discussing whether
the work of Christ was sufficient to save all humanity. Secondly, we are not discussing
whether the benefits of the death of Christ are actually applied
to all men or not. Now there are some real universalists,
more and more of them, and I'm disturbed to say there's even
more and more universalism of a sort creeping into certain
evangelical camps. But we're not concerned with
those who believe that all men will ultimately be saved. We're
discussing an issue debated by evangelicals who believe these
two fundamental principles. The death of Christ was a substitution
for sinners and secondly, its benefits are applied only to
some. So we're discussing now, not whether the benefits of Christ
are actually applied to all men or not. We're discussing an issue
peculiar to those who believe Christ's death was substitutionary,
but only some men reap the benefits of that death. Now thirdly, negative,
we're not discussing whether a true or a bona fide offer of
salvation is made to all men or not. Though there are some
pranks who deny this, the mainstream of biblical and obviously of
Reformed thought is that Christ can and ought to be proclaimed
to all and freely offered to all. So we're not discussing whether
or not we have a gospel for some men or only for a certain class
of men. And fourthly, we are not discussing
whether there are any fruits of the atonement which accrue
to those who ultimately perish. There seem to be some clear indications
in scripture that there are fruits of the atoning work of Christ
that come to all men some of which are short of the actual
forgiveness of sin and the inheritance of eternal life. Well, if those
are not the things we're discussing, what then are we discussing in
a positive way? Well, we're discussing this question.
Did the Father, in sending Christ into the world, send him to make
an atonement for all men indiscriminately and distributively? now those
are key words when the father sent the son to die did he send
him to die for all men indiscriminately with no particular regard to
the individual men and all men distributively or did he send
him to make an atonement for his elect particularly, that
is specific people, and exclusively for them and for no others. Now
there's the question. Did the Father in sending Christ
into the world send him to make an atonement for all men indiscriminately
and distributively or did he send him to make an atonement
for his elect particularly and exclusively? To state it more
simply, the question is, for whom did Christ die, putting
into the word die all the richness of biblical significance? For
whom did Christ become a penal satisfaction for sin? On whose
behalf did he taste the wrath of God? Did he die as much for
Judas as for John? That's the question. Did he die
as much for Jacob as for Esau? That's the question. Did he die
as much for souls in hell as spirits made perfect in heaven?
That's the question. And though people don't like
to have it stated in that language, that is precisely the question.
If he died for all men, in the language that we used earlier
indiscriminately and distributively that he died as much for Jacob
as for Esau as much for Judas as for John Professor Murray in his classic
work on soteriology which if you don't have do anything to
get it short of stealing redemption accomplished and applied In addressing
himself to the question, I quote, Professor Murray says, the question
is, on whose behalf did Christ offer himself a sacrifice? On
whose behalf did he propitiate the wrath of God? Whom did he
reconcile to God in the body of his flesh through death? Whom
did he redeem from the curse of the law and from the guilt
and power of sin and from the enthralling power and bondage
of Satan? In whose stead and on whose behalf
was he obedient unto death, even the death of the cross? These
are precisely the questions that have to be asked and frankly
faced if the matter of the extent of the atonement is to be placed
in proper focus. The very nature of Christ's mission
and accomplishment is involved in this question. Did Christ
come to make the salvation of all men possible? to remove obstacles
that stood in the way of salvation, or merely to make provision for
salvation? Did he come to save his people,
or did he come to put all men in a salvable state? Did he come
to secure the salvation of those who are redeemed to eternal life,
or did he come to make men redeemable? The doctrine of the atonement
must be radically revised if, as atonement, it applies to those
who finally perish as well. as to those who are the heirs
of everlasting life. This, then, is the question before
us. I hope you have it. I have tried to approach it from
a number of angles. This is precisely the issue that
we shall be discussing in the next few weeks. Second part of
introduction is how shall we approach such a subject. Having
stated what the issue is, how shall we approach the subject?
I have two major sub-points. The attitudinal approach, or
what should our attitude be as we approach the subject? And
then secondly, the methodological approach, what should our method
be? So use the shorter words, attitude and method. If you want to feel real learned
as you look at your notes, you put attitudinal and methodological,
all right? Now, what should our attitude
be in approaching this subject? Dabney, the great Southern Presbyterian
theologian of Civil War days, in taking up this question in
his lectures on systematic theology, said the following, The question
of the extent of the atonement, as it has been awkwardly called,
is one of the most difficult in the whole range of Calvinistic
theology. The man who should profess to
see no force in the objections to our views, would only betray
the shallowness of his mind and knowledge. universalism that goes back for
its initial articulation to a French theologian, Amiral, and this
is called Amaraldianism. Some have called it Baxterianism
because it was one of the points that Richard Baxter held. Another
point that Dabney is making that I want to pick up is this. Dabney
is saying that the only proper attitude in approaching this
subject is one of caution, humility, and honesty in dealing with those
of contrary opinion. The person who would profess
to see no force in the objections to our views would only betray
the shallowness of his mind and of his knowledge. Some of us
feel when approaching this subject like we felt when we first began
to consider the remote possibility that maybe Owen and Edwards and
Baxter and Westminster Divines were wrong on baptism. Some of
us can remember we had tremendous emotional and psychological and
spiritual trauma. We just could not bring ourselves
to feel could these mighty giants be wrong? Especially when they
were right on so much. and were the instrument to lead
us into the knowledge of so much that had been obscured for so
long. Well, in the very real sense, when we come to articulate
what we feel is the biblical answer to this question, for
whom did Christ die? Was it a death, all men indiscriminately
and distributively, or was it a death exclusively and particularly
for his sheep? There's that tremendous sense
of drawing back because we realize on the other side of the question
are good and godly and learned, astute men of God. And therefore
it becomes us to approach the subject with caution, with humility
and honesty in dealing with those of contrary opinion. In a wonderful
old book of divinity, I just wish it would be reprinted, Hill's
Lectures on Divinity. He was a Church of Scotland man
back in the 1800s. When Hill comes to discuss the
subject of the extent of the atonement, he also gives a cautionary
word that I think is very appropriate for our purposes. He's first of all laid out the
best of the universal redemptionist arguments, and he says, any person
who examines with candor the arguments now stated will acknowledge
that they have considerable weight I mention this because I do not
know any lesson more becoming students of divinity than this,
not to despise the reasonings of those with whose opinion they
do not entirely agree. The longer they study theology
or theological controversy with that sobriety and fairness of
mind which is essential to the character of every inquirer after
truth, they will perceive the more clearly how little acquainted
with the weakness of the human understanding and with the intricacy
of many of the points that have divided the Christian world are
those who state their opinions in the petulant dogmatical manner
often assumed by smatterers in knowledge as if they were not
a shadow of reason but upon their own side." He's saying essentially
what Dabney does. when anyone in a cavalier way
simply quotes a few verses and seeks to dismiss the whole issue.
Now more frequently this is done on the other side. I've had people
who don't have, in comparison to an Owen, they don't have that
much theological learning. If Owen's whole body was full
of it, they don't have a pinky full. say well I'm not going
to read Owen's death of death and the rest as long as my Bible
says he's a propitiation for the whole world that's all it
says in essence Owen didn't know 1 John 2 was in the Bible in
a cavalier way they sweep the whole issue aside by quoting
four texts Now that's very, very disruptive to one who has a sense
of respect for the masters in Israel. But you see, the reverse
can be true of us. For remember, just as much as
John Owen stood on the side where we align ourselves as we seek
to search the scriptures, so a man like Baxter stood on the
other side. Now, he was no little ditty theologian. Baxter had his head screwed on
right. Baxter was proficient in the languages. Baxter could
read all the church fathers in the Latin. He could quote them. Massive mind. So you see it becomes
a spirit of humility, a spirit of sanctified diffidence, and
yet at the same time a spirit of determination in the language
of our Lord to call no man master. but to go wherever the hand of
scripture leads us. So I trust then in my handling
of this subject there will be nothing of the cavalier and cocky
attitude which would only reflect ignorance and a lack of grace
and I trust if God is pleased to use our study to convince
and firmly to ground you in this truth that it will never become
the occasion of fuel to dishonor Christ by being used in an un-Christlike
manner in discussion or in debate. So the attitude then is not to
be one of arrogance, but one of caution, humility and honesty. Now then, in the second
place, under this matter of our approach, not only attitude but
now method, and again I have a negative and a positive under
method negatively we are not going to start in by exegeting
specific text of scripture one of the surest ways to end up
at a dead end street when discussing this subject is to start setting
one proof text against another and when you bring up the text
He died for his sheep, some will say yes, but it says he gave
himself for all. When you bring up the text, I
lay down my life for my own, they will say yes, but he's propitiation
for the whole world. You see, it's like trying to
discuss with a Jehovah's Witness the verses that point some to
his deity and some to his divine nature and some to his human
nature. And every time you bring up John 10, where it says, I
and my father are one, he'll just go a few verses further
and say, yes, but he says the father's greater than I. And
when you show him Matthew 11, where Jesus said, no man knows
the father, but the son, obvious statement of divine omniscience,
he will turn you to Matthew 24 to Mark 13 and say, yes, but
the son doesn't know of the day of his return. Only the father
knows. And where do you get? Nowhere.
Because you see those statements come to us in a larger biblical
and theological context. The context being the reality
of the incarnation which constituted the person of Christ, one person
in two distinct natures. And until the poor benighted
Russellite knows something of what was articulated at Chalcedon
in terms of the one person in the two natures, he'll never
be able to make sense out of his Bible and you'll never be
able to convince him of anything. Well, likewise, when we come
to the subject of the atonement and start taking specific texts
which have, in some cases, an apparently definitive reference
to the extent of the atonement, others perhaps not, if we start
just pitting one text against another, we end up nowhere. And
this is wrong to do because, and now here's the positive statement,
how should we approach the subject as to method, we are not going
to come in the atomistic approach where we start looking at the
fine details but we want to come with the holistic approach in
which we seek to understand the doctrine of the atonement in
its broader biblical categories. Now everyone who believes the
Bible believes that in some way or another the cross of Jesus
Christ or his death upon that cross was not an isolated event
I've never met an evangelical who couldn't quote John 3.16
or who didn't believe what it said. Now what does John 3.16
do? Well, it immediately ties together
the work of Christ as sent with the purpose of the Father as
sender. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son. So immediately we see that simple
text that is the byword of every evangelical indicates that the
sent one and the mission of the sent one is inextricably bound
up with something of the Father's purpose as sender. Of course what is obvious in
that text is obvious in so many other texts, the whole of John
17, much of John chapter 6, But you see, these portions of the
Word of God as it were, form the pointer, the index, as to
how we ought to approach this subject. We ought not to approach
the subject of the cross of Christ, and in particular, the intent
of God with reference to that death, for whom did Christ die,
without setting it in these broader circles of concern, namely the
Father's purpose and design, etc. Now, Hugh Martin, who was
one of the most perceptive and spiritual and I use that term
in its highest proper sense of the Scottish divines of a bygone
day in opening up the subject of the atonement says in his
opening paragraphs the following it is surely now surely it is
extremely injudicious and impolitic as just a synonym for injudicious,
unwise for defenders of the faith to discuss any scriptural doctrine
and particularly to profess to do so fully and exhaustively
outside of any greater category to which the doctrine properly
and natively belongs. You got that? It is injudicious
and impolitic to take any doctrine and discuss it out of the greater
category to which the doctrine properly belongs, for by doing
so they place it, that is the doctrine they discuss, in a position
of unnecessary danger and assign to themselves a greater difficulty
in defending it than scripture assigns to them. They rob it
of the illustration, they rob it of the protection, which the
higher category affords. They deprive it of the benefit
of scriptural considerations in the light of which their defense
might be comparably easy and would be found indeed presented
to their hand, and by the isolated position to which they consigned
it, they give advantage to the enemy, which the abler and more
acute of their number are not slow to seize." You see what
he's saying? All of the truths of God that
come to us in a scriptural relationship to other truths, not a relationship
we impose upon them to protect them, but they come to us in
their own armor of protection. He said it's unwise for us to
take that truth out from under its armor and then to look at
it and to examine it and try to defend it. And so our approach
for this study, taking a clue from what has been given to us
by Hugh Martin, is going to be the holistic approach as opposed
to the atomistic approach that is going to make an effort at
viewing the doctrine of the atonement and in particular the extent
of the atonement, the question for whom did Christ die, we're
going to view it in its biblical relationships or in the heart
of its biblical setting. So that this matter of the target
with the cross at the center will be a teaching device all
the way through our study. Now let me illustrate how this
works. Suppose a rational creature,
an angel, who for some reason had never been exposed to a human
being suddenly came to a part on earth sent by God where there
was a dismembered finger of a human being. That's all there was. Now, he can pick up that finger
And remember, when angels appear, they seem to be given temporary
physical form and substance. They can eat and the rest, as
we see in the Old Testament. This is a weird illustration,
but it's the only one I could come up with very, very early this
morning, so I'll have to use it until I get a better one.
So he wants to understand what the finger is. So he begins to
dissect it, and he knows that a finger is some kind of an appendage. He's been told it was a finger
of a human being. He's never seen a human being,
doesn't know what a human form is, but this is an appendage.
So he can, by dissecting it, discover that it has two main
joints, that it has so many main sinews, it has a nail, and all
the rest. And in a sense, he understands something of what
a finger is. Now, if he's never seen a finger in relationship
to four other, or three others in the thumb, on a human hand,
does he really know what a finger is? Well, yes and no. To the extent that he understands
what a finger is, isolated from the rest of the hand and the
body, he understands what a finger is. But you see, a finger is
not a finger in the intention of God until it's seen in relationship
to a hand. Which in turn is not a human
hand unless it's seen in relationship to a forearm and an upper arm.
Which in turn is really not seen until it's seen in its relationship
to the trunk and you see the integrated whole. You follow
me? So now if someone is out to describe
what a finger is, he may begin with describing all the details
down here. But a better way is to describe
it, first of all, in general terms, in its relationship to
the whole integrated human body as one functioning organic whole. Now, basically, as I said, that's
a crude illustration, but I hope it will stick. And some of the
crudest ones I've used are the ones that come back to me years
later, so sometimes one must descend to being the fool for
the sake of truth. And the Apostle said, I speak
as a fool, I speak as a man, but I'm speaking in terms that
I trust will be helpful. the doctrine, the biblical teaching
concerning the extent of the toning work of Jesus Christ comes
to us like a finger that is tied to the organic whole of the whole
biblical doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice which does not come
to us in isolation it comes to us as part and parcel of other
major categories of biblical truth and therefore simply to
lop it off and to take the text which say Christ died for this
one or Christ died for that one without viewing it in its other
organic relationships for these are not logical intellectual
relationships they are living organic relationships we will
never really understand what the atonement is and therefore
we will not have an accurate assessment of the specific details
of the biblical doctrine of atonement All right, so much then for our
introduction. The attitude, not one of pompous,
proud, and ignorant indifference to the weight of evidence on
the other side of the question, but one of, I trust, genuine
humility and dependence upon God through the Spirit to teach
us. And then, as far as our approach,
we're not going to come with the atomistic approach, but with
the holistic approach. I think I have enough time this
morning to give a broad outline of what we propose to do. Major
Roman numeral number two, the biblical evidence for the definite
design of the atonement of Jesus Christ, or the biblical evidence
for definite atonement, the biblical evidence for particular redemption,
and I hope those two terms will supplant the term limited atonement
which is shot through with all kinds of things that get people
upset and what I would suggest is that
we must approach the subject in keeping with what I've said
is our method under the figure of this target now you'll notice
at the center of the target is a cross that has reference to
what Jesus Christ did when dying upon a Roman gibbet in space
and time two thousand years ago. Now, following the clue of Professor
Murray's book, that work which he did is called in the New Testament
a work of sacrifice. That's number one in that inner
circle. Number two, it is called the
work of reconciliation. I'm sorry, propitiation. Propitiation number two. Thirdly,
a work of reconciliation. I'm sure many of you can think
of verses coming to your mind that may have mentioned this.
And fourthly, a work of redemption. So when we draw to the center
of that which was accomplished upon the cross, we are viewing
Jesus Christ effecting expiation by sacrifice. We behold our Lord
becoming propitiation for sin, we behold him effecting reconciliation,
we behold him accomplishing redemption. Those are the four predominant
vigorous terms used to describe what Jesus Christ did when he
died upon the cross. However, the same scriptures
which teach us those truths teach us that the work that he accomplished
upon the cross was but one phase of a larger work and namely it
was the work of priests now I'm not establishing these things
exegetically yet we'll come to that I'm giving you the broad
outline so you know where we're going and how we hope to get
there and then we'll get into the exegesis of specific passages
If you want just generally to put this down, of course, you
just put Hebrews. Whole sections of the book of
Hebrews are given over to demonstrating that Jesus Christ accomplished
salvation for men in fulfillment of his specific functions as
a priest. Therefore we must never disassociate
what was done upon the cross in making expiation, in becoming
propitiation, in effecting reconciliation, in the accomplishment of redemption,
we must never, never wrench it loose from the work of Jesus
Christ as the great priest of his people. Now furthermore,
as we study our Bibles, we notice that what Christ accomplished
as a priest on behalf of his people was also accomplished
in the framework of a unique relationship to those he came
to save. Now you can fill it in. You can
put relationship to the objects of salvation. That would be an
easier way to do it. when we begin to ask the question
why is it that what Jesus Christ did at a certain point in time
approximately AD 33 why is it that what he did at a certain
point in time has efficacy that goes all the way back to the
Garden of Eden and reaches all the way out into eternity And
the answer of the scripture to that question is that he sustained
a peculiar relationship to the objects of his salvation. And
apart from an understanding of that relationship, we can never
answer this question. You can't sort out the biblical
data. I mean, isn't it ridiculous to say, even just 20 years, no,
it was written maybe 60, 25 years after Christ died, Paul can write
to the Ephesians and say, you have he made alive with him?
To write to the Romans and say as he does in Romans 6, you died
with him? And then, to complicate matters,
we read the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world?
What's all this language? You see, Lamb slain, His cross
before the foundation of the world. There's some kind of relationship
that secures the salvation of His people and we must never
view the cross apart from that relationship. Christ never did.
His language is filled with it. Filled with it. I lay down my
life for the sheep, the good shepherd gives his life for the
sheep. The announcement of his birth.
Thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people.
He already has a people he has not even conceived in the womb.
There is a relationship chosen in him. all of this biblical
language that tells us that the work of Christ upon the cross
was a work accomplished in the framework of a previously established
relationship to the objects of that salvation that he is effecting
upon the cross. And then the largest circle on
the target is what we are calling in this class and in previous
studies the covenant of redemption. When we examine the biblical
materials with reference to Christ's relationship to the objects of
salvation, we come across language that can only be collated and
articulated in terms of something that comes out this way. There
was a covenant of redemption. There was some kind of an inter-trinitarian
arrangement, is the language Mr. Fisher is using in this class,
in which the Lord Jesus was very conscious of people and responsibility
committed to His charge to save them. He was conscious that the
Father had made specific commitments to Him, made certain promises
to Him. and all that he does, he does
in fulfillment of that inter-trinitarian arrangement. He would not divorce
his work upon the cross from the framework of that covenant
of redemption. Again, I'm just outlining this. We're not giving the exegetical
basis this morning. That's not the purpose. Now,
what I want you to see, and those of you that are off to the side
and can't see the blackboard, we'll leave this on here so you
can copy it off. is that we ought to have an arrow
going from here into the center and from the center all the way
out. Now what do the arrows tell us?
They tell us that what happened here partakes of the relationships
established in the outer so that the covenant of redemption, Christ's
peculiar relationship to the objects of salvation, his work
as a priest, all impinge upon the nature and efficacy and fruits
of that which he accomplished when he actually died. We are
to learn from the arrow going in and out, and going all the
way out, that everything that was accomplished here is in perfect
consonance with the purposes and terms of the other So as
they bear down upon the nature of his work on the cross, so
that which was accomplished upon the cross reflects outward and
brings into beautiful accomplishment, beautiful illustration and support
all of the truths that are set before us in the other doctrines. So then, if we discover, as I
trust we shall, that bound up in the very nature of the work
of Christ upon the cross is its definite design, and that that
definite design alone is consistent with his work as a priest, consistent
with the nature of his relationship to the objects of salvation,
consistent with the terms of the covenant of redemption, then
you see, it's not a matter of being shaken from our position
because of the appearance of an indiscriminate intent in the
death of Christ. One cannot dispose of the definite
design in the death of Christ until he has either disposed
or so altered beyond recognition that there really is something
else, everything taught about him as priest, the nature of
his relationship to his people, and the terms of the covenant
of redemption. And I've learned the hard way that I will not
discuss the question for whom did Christ die with anyone who
is unwilling to discuss with me the context in which it comes
to us in Holy Scripture. I refuse to discuss it because
it's just as foolish to discuss what a finger is when it's just
a cut-off appendage sitting there on a piece of elm. You're really
not discussing a human finger. unless you're discussing it and
analyzing it in relationship to the immediate context of the
hand, the larger context of an arm, and the larger context yet
of a whole functioning living organism called the human body.
And so, this will be our approach to the subject, and God willing,
in our next lecture, we'll take up these matters and go through
them. I would imagine I'd probably
take us three or four lectures, and then, when we come to the
end, will actually grapple with some of the peculiar problems
of about the four or five texts. Usually there are just four or
five texts that are often held up as apparently the last guard
of the universalistic approach and we want to be honest and
seek to see if there are exegetical alternatives that are true and
valid linguistically and contextually and that fit the general and
obviously overwhelming teaching of the word of God concerning
the question for whom did Christ die.