Truth Magazine

By Bob Hutto

Though we are to address Jesus’ agony in the Garden the night before his death, the fact is, we cannot appreciate his agony in the Garden until we know something about crucifixion. Jesus knew all about it. He likely had seen people crucified, and so was well acquainted with the horrors of the cross. By all accounts “crucifixion was a punishment in which the caprice and sadism of the executioners were given full rein” (Hengel 25). Furthermore, he knew that he was the suffering servant Isaiah had described centuries earlier. He knew that he had come to the earth to die on the cross as part of the divine plan of redemption and had even spoken of his death from the beginning of his public ministry (John 3:14; Mark 8:31; Matt. 20:18-19). So, when Jesus comes to the Garden, the strong emotions that would naturally accompany the prospect of crucifixion begin to come to the surface (Matt. 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46).

The Gospels tell us that the night before Jesus was betrayed he left the upper room with his disciples, crossed the Kidron Valley (cf. the flight of David from Absalom, 2 Sam. 15), and resorted to the Mount of Olives. A garden called Gethsemane was there, perhaps a grove of olive trees, where Jesus often went to pray. In this Garden, Jesus faced enormous pressure as he prepared for the next day’s events. The scene can be divided into three sections: (1) Jesus going to pray; (2) the prayer of Jesus; (3) Jesus returning from prayer when “the hour” had come.

Jesus Goes To Pray

The first portion of the episode emphasizes the aloneness of Christ. The further Jesus went into the Garden, the more isolated he became. He had left the crowded city and come to a remote area outside its walls. Eight of his disciples stayed at the entrance of the Garden while Jesus took Peter, James, and John with him further. Finally, even these three were left behind, about a stone’s throw distance, and Jesus was alone. He had asked the disciples to watch with him, but they slept. He was cut off from everyone who might have given him support. Truly, there was “no friend with words to comfort, nor hand to help was there.”

Four words are used to describe Jesus’ state of mind in the Garden — lupeo, ademoneo, ekthambeo, and perilupos. The first is found in the LXX in Lamentations 1:22 where it expresses the grief of Jeremiah over the fall of Jerusalem. It is also found in Psalm 55:2 (LXX: Ps. 54) where David describes his own emotional state under the “pressure of the wicked” (vv. 4-8; see also Ps. 42:5-6; 43:5. Of course, the statements of these psalms find their fullest expression in the Son of David, Jesus Christ.) The fourth word (perilupos), used by Jesus himself (Mark 14:34), can be understood as an intensive form lupeo. According to Lightfoot, ademoneo describes “the . . . restless, half-distracted state, which is produced by . . . mental distress” (l23). Ekthambeo “is to be understood as an intensive form [of thambeo] in the sense of ‘strong amazement or fear’” (Bertram 4). In addition to these four words, Luke says that Jesus was “in agony” as he prayed. One gets the feeling that no English translation does full justice to the idea conveyed by these words. In fact, the impact of these words is not adequately felt by looking at them separately, but by taking them all together as they are piled one upon another to describe Jesus’ anguish in Gethsemane.

Two other items are worthy of note. First, as France points out, this is the only time it is said that Jesus “fell on his face,” another expression of extreme (373). Then there is Luke’s description of Jesus’ sweat (Luke 22:44). Some maintain that this is an example of hematidrosis, an “intense dilation of subcutaneous capillaries that burst into the sweat glands. The blood then clots and is carried to the surface of the skin by the sweat” (Brown 185). However, it seems more likely that Luke is simply saying that Jesus sweated profusely under the intense pressure of the Garden (notice that the sweat became as great drops of blood, not that he actually sweated blood).

Most of us can only imagine the distress Jesus felt in the Garden. Perhaps those who have gone into battle facing the prospect of death have experienced something like this, but often these have at least the hope of survival. Jesus knew that he would die. Add to this the nature of Jesus’ death, his being alienated from all who might offer encouragement, and the weight of sin which he carried to the cross and the wonder is not that Jesus was distressed, but that he did not collapse altogether. His words, “My soul is deeply grieved to the point of death,” surely are no hyperbole. It comes as no surprise that an angel was sent to strengthen him (Luke 22:43).

Jesus Prays

Mark summarizes the prayer of Jesus before he relates it in detail. Jesus prayed that “the hour” might pass from him. Some suggest that the hour refers not to the cross itself, but either to the distress in the Garden or the tortures leading up to the cross, and that Jesus was praying that he be given strength so that he not die before his crucifixion. This, however, seems to be an attempt to avoid the problem of Jesus expressing a desire not to go to the cross which was the Father’s plan and the very reason Jesus came to the earth (cf. Heb. 10:1-10). Notice that Jesus said, “the hour is at hand” after his prayer (Matt. 26:45). The hour must refer to the time when the full force of Satan would be unleashed upon the Son of God in the ultimate clash between evil and good at the cross and the events surrounding it.

Jesus prays. He addresses God, “Abba, Father” (Mark 14:36). Though “Abba” expresses the intimate relationship Jesus had with the Father, it is not the same as our “Daddy” (Barr). Nor does it necessarily imply a unique relationship inasmuch as all Christians may “cry out, ‘Abba, Father!’” (Rom. 8:15). Perhaps the important thing here is that Jesus continues to appeal to God as Father even in this hour of trial. Just as he had prayed that the hour might pass from him, Jesus prays that “this cup” might pass from him. He had previously asked the two sons of Zebedee if they were able to drink the same cup he was to drink (Matt. 20:22-23). They said that they were, but as Jesus prayed in the Garden, James and John slept. The word “cup” is sometimes used figuratively in the Bible to refer to a person’s destiny or portion in life, whether good or ill (Pss. 23:5; 11:6). It often represents God’s wrath (Isa. 51:17; Rev. 14:10; Pss. 11:6; 75:8). In our passage, the cup may simply refer to the cross and its concomitant events as Jesus’ destiny. But since Christ is the propitiation for our sins (that is, the one who appeases God’s wrath against sin in our stead), it is hard not to think that “this cup” includes Christ’s bearing God’s wrath. Jesus concludes the prayer by stating what was always primary for him, “Yet not my will, but Yours be done.” Though Jesus did not delight in the idea of crucifixion, he was willing to go if the Father so willed.

Jesus Returns From Prayer

Matthew tells us that Jesus prayed this prayer three times. After the first and second prayers he came to his disciples and found them sleeping. He had told them to “keep watch with me” and “pray.” That is, they were to accompany Jesus in this ordeal and give him support. Anyone who has been in the hospital with serious illness knows how comforting it is to have others there watching and praying. But in their weakness and ignorance of the circumstances the disciples slept, leaving Jesus to suffer alone. Once the episode in the Garden was over, Jesus went without resistance into the hands of his enemies and eventually to the cross. He knew what must be done, so he “arose” (anastas) and with quiet determination proceeded to do it. As he himself said, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished” (Luke 12:50).

Observations and Conclusion

There are interesting issues raised by the events in the Garden. For example, how could the Son of God be so troubled about his impending death? The description of Jesus in the Garden is important if we are to have an accurate understanding of his nature. Only an insane person would go to the cross without concern and cavalierly. Of course, Jesus was not insane. He was, however, fully human, and as a human he dreaded the cross. As for deity experiencing the distress that Jesus experienced we would say that when the two natures were united in the person of Jesus, things that may not have been possible for either nature separate from the other became possible in Christ. (For example, it is not possible for the Divine to get thirsty, but since the divine nature was united with human nature, Jesus thirsted. Similarly, it is not possible for humans to forgive sin in the same way that the Divine can, but since the human nature was united with the divine nature, Jesus pronounced forgiveness). So, though it may not seem that Deity would experience this kind of distress, it becomes possible when the divine nature is united with human nature in the person of Jesus.

The Gethsemane episode shares a number of corresponding features with the Transfiguration and the two should be considered as complements, each emphasizing one of the two natures of Christ. Both episodes take place on a mountain; Peter, James, and John are present at both; the disciples sleep at both. At the Transfiguration we see the full deity of Jesus as his glory (a characteristic of deity, 1 Tim. 6:16) shines through (Luke 9:32). In the Garden we see his full humanity with all its frailty. In fact, the ancient writers used this passage as proof of the genuine humanity of Jesus against the Docetists. It is just this dual nature that enables Jesus to be a sympathetic high priest (Heb. 4:14-16; 2:18).

A second question has to do with the apparent conflict between Jesus’ will and his Father’s. Jesus prayed that the cup pass from him, but it was the Father’s will that he drink it. If the Father and Son are one (John 10:30), how can there be disagreement between them? The conflict is only apparent. As Jesus had taught his disciples, so he prayed (Matt. 6:10). The heart of the prayer is, “Thy will be done.” In fact, this idea is repeated as Jesus prays. Notice Luke’s account, “Father if You are willing . . . Yet not my will, but Yours be done.” Jesus’ will is to do the Father’s will, and there is certainly no conflict between them on the deepest and most significant level. In the Garden, Jesus, the man, is searching for possibilities within, not contrary to, the Father’s will. 

Perhaps the practical value of this episode is that Jesus provides a model for his disciples to follow. Jesus teaches us what to do when distressed — pray and obey. Jesus prayed for a particular thing and then with quiet resolve did the Father’s will, becoming obedient to the point of death on the cross (cf. Heb. 5:7-9). In our prayers we should “let (our) requests be made known to God,” yet with the understanding that the Father’s will is to control all of them, then with quiet resolve do his will. It may not be the Father’s will to remove the trial from us, but he will not abandon us and we will be “able to do all things through him who strengthens us.” Remember in both good times and hard, do what Jesus did — pray and obey.

No one who is serious about being a Christian can remain unmoved as they think of Jesus’ agony in the Garden. But why did he “drink the bitter cup”? Because he loved us so. It was our sin, indeed it was my sin (!) that took him there. Let us think deeply of his distress, his grief and sorrow, and fashion our lives accordingly.

Works Cited

Barr, James. “Abba Isn’t Daddy.” Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 28-47. Bertram, Georg. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds. Translated by G. Bromiley. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Brown, Raymond. The Death of the Messiah. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1994. France, R.T. The Gospel According to Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Lightfoot, J.B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. 1868. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953.

041 Thompson Rd., Alabaster, Alabama 35007

By Marc W. Gibson

While riding in his chariot along the deserted road from Jerusalem to Gaza, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading the scripture in Isaiah now commonly referred to as the Suffering Servant passage (Acts 8:26ff). We are told the exact place where he was reading when Philip ran to him — Isaiah 53:7-8. The eunuch no doubt had just read those moving words about the suffering of someone yet unknown to him: “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by his stripes we are healed” (vv. 4-5). His first question to Philip was concerning the identity of this person. “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him” (Acts 8:35).

Jesus — The Suffering Servant of God

Suffering was an integral part of the work of Jesus in coming to this earth. His talk of impending suffering and death confused his own disciples who, like so many in that day, had pictured the Messiah as a powerful and triumphant earthly king who would bring back the glory days of physical Israel (Matt. 16:21-23; 17:22-23; John 6:15). Jesus, after his death and resurrection, rebuked the despondency of Cleopas and his companion, saying, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” (Luke 24:25-26). To the apostles Jesus said, “‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day” (Luke 24:44-46). It was through suffering that Jesus “learned obedience,” and “having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Heb. 5:7-9). His suffering and death was necessary for his perfection and for the accomplishment of our salvation from sin. We would be consumed with unending sorrow over his suffering for our sins if it were not for the rejoicing that we have knowing that the same suffering provided the forgiveness of our sins. His suffering made possible our return to glory (Heb. 2:9-11).

His Example in Suffering

The epistle of 1 Peter was written to Christians who were suffering. This suffering was not due to an accident, poverty, or a lack of education. They were enduring persecution and trials for simply being Christians and living godly (2:20; 3:14; 4:4, 12-19; 5:9-10). Peter develops a theme of suffering and glory to strengthen these brethren. Early in the letter, he mentioned the “suffering of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1:11). The Christian’s suffering and glory are directly linked to Jesus’ suffering and glory. We can know that this is true because Peter points directly to Jesus’ sufferings as an example for us: “But when you do good and suffer for it, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: ‘Who committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth’; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (2:20b-23).

Three major points stand out in this passage as lessons for us: (1) We were called to suffer patiently. The sufferings of the Christian are not to be considered strange, but a blessing (4:12; 3:14). Jesus warned his disciples that the worlthat all who desire to live godly would suffer persecution (2 Tim. 3:12). (2) Jesus left us an example of how to react to suffering. Jesus did not revile, threaten, nor sin in any way. Likewise, we are not to be “returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this” (3:9). It was Jesus who taught us to “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). Jesus lived what he preached. (3) We must commit ourselves to God. Total commitment to a faithful God is the foundation of a Christian’s endurance through trial. “Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator” (4:19). In view of the supreme example of Jesus, it is no wonder that Peter tells the suffering Christian to “rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings” and to “not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter” (4:13, 16). 

Our Hope of Glory

The trials and sufferings of this life help us develop patience (Jas. 1:2-4), confidence in God’s promises (Heb. 10:32-35), and steadfastness in the faith (1 Pet. 5:9). The hope of future glory gives us renewed strength. With Paul, we look to God’s promises and “consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). Jesus is the originator and perfecter of such faith, “who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2). This joy was not received until Jesus completed the road of suffering. We must follow the example of him who was rejected of men, betrayed, abused, persecuted, and killed. “For consider Him who endured such hostility against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls” (Heb. 12:3). He suffered for us — shall we not willingly partake of his sufferings and, afterward, receive the reward of eternal glory to come?

6708 O’Doniel Loop W., Lakeland, Florida 33809

By Daniel H. King

The idea of atonement in the Bible has to do with the relationship between God and men. It assumes that a breach has occurred, i.e., sin has been committed, and something must be done to bring about a reconciliation. The word “atonement” itself signifies that which brings about a harmonious relationship between the two parties. Atonement is what makes the Creator and his creature able to get along once more, in spite of past acts of rebellion.

Terminology in the Original Languages

In the Hebrew Bible “atonement” is described by several terms. The word kaphar, which is used frequently in contexts having to do with this theological process, means “to cover,” “to wipe away,” “to expiate,” or “to placate.” It is used in general to describe the effect of the various sacrifices offered in the Old Testament (cf. Exod. 29:36; Lev. 4:20; 8:14; Num. 5:8; Ezek. 43:20). Sometimes translated “to make reconciliation” or “to reconcile,” the term is often closely allied with the word hata, which designates doing that by which an atonement is accomplished.

Likewise, in the Greek New Testament, several words describe this process. The various forms of hilaskomai, “to appease,” “to make reconciliation,” and “to atone for” provide one side of the formulation. Another term, katallasso, which means “to change, exchange,” “to restore to favor,” or “to reconcile,” provides the other. The former series of words sets forward the notion of appeasement, while the second emphasizes the idea of reconciliation.

Sacrifice as the Central Concept

The sacrifices of the Old Testament, of course, lay the groundwork for the New Testament concept of atonement. These offerings put before the mind of the reader several important truths: (1) That there exists a rupture in the relationship between man and his God; (2) That the divine judgment upon man as sinner is just; and, (3) That the sacrifices themselves constitute a provision for man’s forgiveness and reconciliation to God. In the New Testament these ideas are all assumed, and they are assumed to be correct. 

The New Testament, however, adds the thought that the Old Testament sacrifices, given the nature of the sacrifices themselves (bulls and goats, etc.), did not possess the intrinsic value which made them capable of finally cleansing the human conscience from the defilement of sin and appeasing an offended deity. Therefore, according to New Testament thought, all the Old Testament sacrifices have their ultimate fulfillment in the death of Jesus Christ, who is the true Lamb of God (John 1:36) whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood (Rom. 3:23-26). It is his sacrifice which has obtained eternal redemption for the human race when he offered it to God as an atonement for human transgression (cf. Heb. 9:11).

Old Testament Atonement

No doubt the central event of the OT sacrificial system was the Day of Atonement. This grand occasion is described in several passages in the Law and one in the Prophets (cf. Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16; 23:26-32; 25:9; Num. 18; 29:7-11; and Ezek. 45:18). Leviticus 16, though, is the most important of the accounts that are given, since it includes detailed instructions which the Lord provided to Moses concerning the preparations and ceremonies of that important day. The Day of Atonement represented the highest exercise of the high priest’s mediatorial duties, and this is aptly illustrated by the description found in this account of the events of the day.

The high priest on that special day discarded his usual beautiful garments of office, and having bathed himself carefully, he donned an attire that was destitute of all its customary ornament. Instead, he put on a simple white garment symbolizing purity and becoming to one who was himself a sinner and fitting for a suppliant suing for forgiveness. He then performed three important high priestly acts, namely, the sacrifice and sprinkling of the blood of a single bullock, the killing of the goat of the sin offering and sprinkling of its blood, and the sending off of the scapegoat. These highly meaningful ceremonies were intended to cleanse the nation, the priesthood, and the sanctuary from sin. It is fair to conclude from the very fact of the Day of Atonement itself within the sacrificial ritual that in spite of all the daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices of Israel’s religious year, sin was not fully atoned for. Further, the offerings for sin throughout the year could not provide for or cover unknown (“secret”) sins. Yet by such transgressions the sanctuary, the land, and the people were all rendered unclean. Thus, the Day of Atonement was instituted for the annual accomplishment of a complete atonement for all sin (Lev. 16:33).

New Testament Atonement

The OT sacrifices in general and the Day of Atonement in particular provide the backdrop of the doctrine of atonement in the New Testament. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews draws heavily upon the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement for his interpretation of the death of Christ. To this author there is no possibility of forgiveness for sinful man without the shedding of the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:22). The entire OT sacrificial system is summed up in the work performed by Jesus as the high priest of the new covenant era (cf. Matt. 26:28; Heb. 12:28). The major distinction, however, between the OT and the New in terms of this atoning sacrifice, is the efficacy of the sacrifice itself. Several points are set forth in Hebrews chapters 7-10 which show how superior the sacrifice of Jesus is to those proffered under the old system. To begin with, the ritual of the Day of Atonement had to be carried out each year, whereas Christ entered once and for all into the true sanctuary to make intercession for humankind with his own blood. The new high priest has opened a new and living way to God, a way by which all whose hearts are purged from the guilt of sin may at all times have free access to the Father. Access to God is no longer granted to the high priest alone, who was himself a sinner, ever limited as to time and place and circumstance. Christ, on the other hand, having provided an atonement for sins by entering into heaven with his own blood, has reconciled man to God and provided for him an open door to God.

Although not so heavily dependent upon OT allusions to the Day of Atonement and the sacrificial system generally, the rest of the New Testament agrees perfectly with the Hebrew writer’s view of the atonement. Jesus said he came to give his life a “ransom” for many (Matt. 20:28). Paul says that Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to God by the cross (Eph. 2:16), and that he has made peace by the blood of his cross, reconciling man to God in the body of his flesh through death (Col. 1:20-22). He tells us that we are justified by the blood of Christ, for God has set forth Christ to be a propitiation (or expiation) through faith in his blood (Rom. 5:9; 3:25). Peter explains that Christ suffered for all, bearing our sins in his own body on the tree, and that by his stripes we are healed (1 Pet. 2:24). John says that he is worthy of praise who “loves us and loosed us from our sins by his blood” (Rev. 1:5, 6).

Theological Issues Related To Atonement

One of the important theological questions which arises when we consider the biblical doctrine of atonement is the reason for it. What is the rationale for an atonement? What is the justification for its having been necessary in the first place, and why was it carried through in precisely the way that was chosen? The answers to these questions are found in Scripture and are given in a rather straightforward fashion, but the contemporary philosophical and cultural climate has led to difficulty in what are clearly rather simple theological matters. 

From beginning to end, in both Old Testament and New, the origin and source of the notion of atonement lies with God. In both the legal and prophetic literature of the OT it is God who reveals the need and method of the sacrificial system. It is God who through Moses appointed the various rites and explained the benefits which they secured for the worshiper. Leviticus 16, the chapter which details the events of the Day of Atonement in the OT, begins with the words, “And the Lord spake unto Moses . . .” (v. 1), and continues with, “And the Lord said unto Moses . . .” (v. 2). At the end of the chapter, the author concludes thus: “And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses” (v. 34). The New Testament likewise puts God at the helm in the process of atonement. As Paul says, “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18, 19).

The Bible is also clear in its explanation of the provision of an atonement for his fallen children. The prophet Jeremiah best expresses the OT rationale: “The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee” (Jer. 31:3). In the NT John states it most profoundly: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). The basis of the doctrine of atonement in the Bible is found in God’s inexplicable love for his people, in spite of their sinful ways: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:9, 10). The love of God is not to be explained by any justification other than the fact that it is his nature to love (cf. 1 John 4:7, 8). As Paul Jewett wrote: “The Lord says that he set his love upon his people, not because they were greater in number than any other — for they were the fewest — but because he loved them (Deut. 7:6-7). That is, he loved them because he loved them; the reason for his love is hidden in himself . . .” So, nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:38, 39).

Now, as to why God’s love should have taken the particular direction that it did, namely, sending Jesus to the cross to die a cruel death and then rise again, is a question which is more easily asked than answered. This issue has been resolved in the minds of Bible students through the years by the contemplation of several aspects of the scriptural revelation regarding the atonement, with different students placing emphasis upon particular texts and the special contribution which they offer for our understanding. Each theory which has arisen has therefore had something to commend it, even though if taken by itself it offers an incomplete view of the whole.

The Ransom Theory takes its inspiration from Matthew 20:28, where Jesus says: “The Son of man also came . . . to give his life a ransom for many.”  To ransom someone involves his redemption by purchasing his release through payment of a price. Some have theorized from this statement that Christ gave his life as payment to the devil to reclaim the human race. But it must be remembered that the text does not say that he gave his life a ransom to the devil, and that no other passage in the New Testament says anything of the kind. It is more likely that Jesus intends us to understand that the payment is to God, for man owes him perfect obedience, a debt which sinful man has never been capable of paying. The Bible intends us to appreciate the death of Christ as having paid that debt with his blood, while at the same time having destroyed the work of the devil (Heb. 2:14; Col. 2:15).

The Theory of Substitutionary Satisfaction, made popular by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th-12th century, sees the atonement as the method whereby God satisfies his own sense of divine justice through a substitutionary satisfaction. Since God is holy (Hab. 1:13) and demands satisfaction from his enemies (Nah. 1:2) for all their transgressions (Rom. 1:18), the death of Christ was the way he provided in keeping with his own just nature to forgive those who have faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:24-26). Modern theologians have attacked the two basic premises of this theory: the idea of satisfaction, saying it is inimical to the fundamental insight that God is love, and the idea of vicarious suffering, arguing that it is unethical that one should die for the wrongs of another. In both cases, however, they find themselves at odds with Scripture. Both concepts are taught very plainly in the Bible, and their denial is tantamount to a denial of God’s own Word about the atonement!

The Moral Influence Theory was first introduced by Abelard in the 11th-12th century also. According to this view the death of Christ provides man with a beautiful picture of God’s love for the human family, leading him to repent of his sins and love God in return. As the Lord himself said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:14-17), and again, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32). The drawing power of God’s love demonstrated at Calvary attracts men to God and stirs up in them the desire to love God in return and turn away from sin.

This latter view has become the only aspect of the idea of atonement which modern liberal theologians are willing to entertain. According to Schleiermacher the “moral uplift” brought about by this sort of “atonement” should create in the convert a new attitude toward life. It must be remembered, though, that liberal thought rejects outright the ideas of ransom and substitutionary suffering on the part of Christ. And, while we recognize the validity of those passages which clearly bring out moral influence in the redemptive process, still it is clear that there is equal legitimacy to those texts which teach the ransom doctrine as well as the vicarious substitution doctrine. In our view all three are genuine characteristics of the process and no one of them should be minimized as we talk about the atonement. However, if it might be said that precedence belongs to any one of them it would surely not be the moral influence aspect, and assuredly not to the neglect of the others as is the case in the approach taken by liberal theorists.

Conclusion

In sum, the Bible teaches that God sought to bring his erring children back into relationship with him through a process called “atonement.” He set the stage in the OT for the ultimate deliverance of his people by means of a system of sacrifices which was punctuated by the annual Israelite observance of the Day of Atonement which focused specifically upon the problem of sin and its solution. In the NT God sent his Son to be the chosen Lamb, the perfect sin-offering which accomplished three spiritual goals. First, he provided a ransom or redemption price, paying the debt that man could not afford. Second, he became the substitute victim who suffered vicariously on man’s behalf. He died that we might live. Third, he willingly and lovingly died in such a cruel and heart-rending fashion that he motivates the tender heart to repent and turn to God, loving him in return.

P.O. Box 148335, Nashville, Tennessee 37214-8335

By Frank Jamerson

Elsewhere in this issue Jonathan Perz has reviewed the short article that I wrote in the October 21, 1999 issue. First, let me thank him for the kind spirit he manifested in his review. (I suggest that you read my first article and his review before proceeding.) He thinks that I have misled people by not teaching a specific law on how long, high, and tight clothing must be in order to be modest, so I will make some further comments in response to his criticism of the article.

First, he agreed that “we cannot bind the law of Moses today,” “we are under the law that Christ’s blood binds upon us,” and “we cannot derive exactly what is modest,” but he still thinks that it is dangerous to teach this. If we do not know exactly where to draw the line, “can we ever know what God has declared ostentatious or skimpy?” According to his reasoning, if we cannot know exactly what is modest, we can never say anything is immodest.

I did not criticize anyone for using the Old Testament to help people understand New Testament teachings on modesty or giving. In fact I commended such, but there is a difference between learning and law. God gave specific instructions about tithing and those who did not give a tenth were robbing God (Mal. 3:8). We can learn something from this, but should we bring over this “principle,” so people will not rob God today? How can we bring over the principle of tithing without bringing over the law that taught the principle? Is it dangerous to teach that we are to give as prospered without teaching a specific percentage? Is it dangerous to teach that we should dress modestly without teaching an exact length, height, tightness, and cost of a garment? Must we know exactly how much to give, which bite became gluttonous, how capable a man must be in teaching (to qualify for an elder), and the exact measurements of modesty in order to know that some things are not in compliance with these principles?

Second, Paul (1 Tim. 2) and Peter’s (1 Pet. 3) teaching on modesty is directed more to ostentation (showy display) than to skimpiness. Yes, skimpy attire is immodest, but so is ostentation. If there is a specific limit for one, why not the other? How much gold can a woman wear before she is immodest? How much time can she spend braiding her hair, or how much may she spend on her apparel? The “not . . . but” idiom (cp. John 6:27; 7:16; 1 Cor. 1:17) does not forbid the things after the “not,” but places them in proper perspective. This is not specifically directed to skimpy apparel, too little gold or not enough braiding of the hair. Those would be included in “modest, propriety, and moderation,” but both passages are talking about too much emphasis on the hair, gold, and apparel. Now, if we do not know exactly what is ostentatious, can we say anything violates the principle? Should we wear no gold “just to be safe”? How would that apply to wearing apparel or braiding the hair?

Third, brother Perz asked, “Was Peter guilty of the sin of being a Pharisee when he directed brethren back to the examples of holy women?” No, but did you notice that Peter did not give a specific length, height, tightness, or cost of the apparel? A good Pharisee could have done that! Peter simply said, “not . . . arranging the hair, wearing gold or putting on fine apparel; but let it be the hidden person of the heart . . .” Now, did he specify exactly how much time to spend on the hair, how much gold, or how much to spend on the apparel? Or, did he say how long, high, and tight the apparel must be? The Pharisees not only violated God’s word (Mark 7:9-13), they also built fences so everyone would know the “safe course.” The law forbad work on the Sabbath, but they let everyone know exactly what actions were work, because if you do not know exactly when an action is “work,” you cannot say anything is work! Do you see a parallel? God said “modest apparel,” and I believe and teach that, but does that demand that I build a specific fence on length, height, tightness, and cost? To do so is to speak where God was silent.

Fourth, and maybe this should have been first, because this whole contention that God has given specific instructions on modesty is based upon the assumption that we know the exact boundaries of the Hebrew words translated coats and loins (Gen. 3:21; Exod. 28:42). Being ignorant of the Hebrew language, I have asked two students of the language and both of them said that the words themselves do not give specific limits. Scholars describe garments based on evidence they have from different periods of time, but no one knows exactly what God made for Adam and Eve. Some say coats meant a “tunic descending to the ankles, enveloping the body and with long sleeves” (Josephus, Antiquities III, vii. 2). Should we “follow the safe course” and teach that apparel must reach the ankles and have long sleeves to be modest? There was a time when such was the standard and godly women respected that. Should they have said that the knee is God’s standard and refused to be regulated by human customs? (I did not say that custom is the only thing to be considered.) Some scholars define loins as “the mid-portion of the back (Exod. 28:42) around which a belt could be fastened…it also symbolized the functions or organs of generation, and was used in this manner of a man’s offspring as ‘those who come out of his loins’ (cf. Gen. 35:11)” (Zondervan’s Pictorial Encyclopedia, 958).

If some of the ladies read this and conclude that their mini-skirts cover this area, what are you going to say? Why should they accept your definition of loins instead of someone else’s?

The fact is that neither the Old Testament nor the New gives a specific standard of modesty. Am I concerned that women who want to excuse immodest dress will abuse the principle taught in Scripture? Yes, but I am equally concerned when brethren build specific fences and bind them as though they are taught in God’s word.

2304 Rogers Rd., Lakeland, Florida 33813