Hebrews 2:16-17 PSA.

[Van]

Nice passage to consider!

Who are "the seed of Abraham?" Believers, no matter the blood line.

How was Christ made like his brothers? He was born of a women, 100% human.

"To make propitiation for" means to provide the means of appeasement for the consequence of sin, i.e. the means to turn aside the stored up wrath.

"For the people" refers to believers, as opposed to Jews.

Some commentaries claim "hilaskomai" (G2433) includes the meaning to expiate. This is bogus. To expiate means to redeem, and that is not the meaning of G2433.

Is the false doctrine of PSA anywhere to be found? Nope

 

[SavedByGrace]

He took upon Him the seed of Abraham...the word wrongly translated reconciliat9ion...is actually propitiation That's not only teachers PSA but it also teaches particular redemption he did not take upon him the seed of Adam he took upon him the seed of Abraham because the children were flesh and blood he likewise took part of the same that he might destroy him with the power of death that is the devil.
on the other treads you were correct on PSA.....now be consistent with the objects of it.

I am aware of what the Greek ἱλάσκομαι means. It is used also in Luke 18:13, where it is rightly translated as "merciful", and has nothing to do with "appeasing", or "propitiate", it is in connection with seeking forgiveness, and being "reconciled" with God!

 

[Iconoclast]

"Van,
[Nice passage to consider!
Is the false doctrine of PSA anywhere to be found? Nope]

No...but the true doctrine of PSA is easily seen if you work through these links and those I will add tommorow.

 

[Iconoclast]

Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Christ and His People: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Hebrews 2: 5- 18,” Vox Evangelica 6 (1969): 54-71.

The author has had much to say about the supremacy of Christ over angels. Thus far there has been no suggestion that any of these angelic beings are evil, but the devil was, of course, regarded as such a being,63 and so the thought here is congruous with the doctrine of the subjection of angels to Christ. Moreover, the idyllic state pictured in Psalm 8 calls to mind Genesis 1-3, which sets forth the entry of sin and death through the serpent,64 and the consequent tendency of nature, once completely subservient to man, to bring difficulty and discomfort into man’s life (Gen. 3. 16-19). It is quite in accord with the biblical doctrine of the divine sovereignty that the same phenomenon (death) should be viewed either as a divine punishment (Gen. 2. 17) or as the result of the action of an inferior, evil being (Heb. 2. 14). If the sinfully motivated acts of Assyria do not detract from but rather serve the sovereign purpose of God (Isa. 10. 5-19) the same principle may apply to an evil supernatural power, especially when, as with Assyria, God eventually demonstrates His sovereignty by His punishment of the evil power concerned.

The new Exodus theme, already introduced in verse 10, is to be seen again here in the deliverance of men from lifelong bondage to fear of death. Such certainly did not appear to be the ‘lords of creation’ of which Psalm 8 spoke, but the one [p.63] Who fulfilled that psalm in Himself made its realisation in them possible by a death which delivered them from bondage, and so, to put it differently, His act brings many sons to glory.

Christ’s concern is with descendants of Abraham and not with angels. Angels neither die nor fear death but descendants of Abraham do, and so He died to deliver them from this fear.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2;
What does the expression ‘he is concerned... with the descendants of Abraham’ (spšrmatoj 'Abra¦m œpilamb£netai) signify? If the ancient rendering of the verb as ‘assume’ or ‘take the nature of is open to criticism, so is the modern rendering ‘help.’66 E. K. Simpson has argued cogently that it should be understood as meaning ‘to take hold’67. This is its consistent meaning elsewhere in the New Testament, including its only other occurrence in this epistle (8. 9, in a quotation from the LXX). This latter is itself very significant for it concerns the exodus from Egypt through the power of God, and such a reference would be completely natural after v. 15. Hence Christ answers not only to Moses and to Joshua but also to God in the Old Testament story of the removal of Israel from Egyptian bondage to the promised land. There is a possible allusion to Isaiah 41. 8-10, which may have led to the reference to ‘the seed of Abraham’.68 Those who were taken out of Egypt were the natural children of Abraham, but the author’s insistence on the necessity for faith, and his reference to Abraham himself as a great example of faith make it probable that he would understand this expression to have reference to Jews who were not simply his natural offspring but who also shared Abraham’s faith and spiritual outlook. We are not suggesting that he would have felt the phrase to be inappropriate even in reference to believing Gentiles, but these are not, of course, in view here, unless we accept the theory that this epistle had a Gentile rather than a Jewish group as its first readers.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt3;
d. Jesus as the Merciful and Faithful High Priest (2. 17-18). Verse 17 opens with the particle Óen. Does this look backwards or forwards? As Michel points out, the word is quite common in Hebrews and is due to the logical tendency of the author. It probably looks backward here, although this is by no means certain.

The author’s thought seems to be that, given the purpose of God to save the seed of Abraham, it was necessary, for the attainment of that end, and that the Christ should become altogether like these His brethren, for only thus could He become a true high priest with an effective ministry, and only thus could He secure their salvation. So, in terms of the exodus typology, He is not only like Moses and Joshua but also like Aaron. Later, he will show that Christ’s high-priestly office is not after the order of Aaron but rather that of Melchizedek, but for the moment he is not concerned with details, even of such importance, but with broad generalities. Until the middle of chapter 5, there is nothing to show that he is not thinking in terms of that high-priesthood with which his readers had been most familiar hitherto. He had to be made like His brethren kat¦ p£nta. In the context this will apply most particularly, of course, to His sufferings and death (cf. 5. 7-10), but it need not be restricted to these. Everything which marked His humanity as true helped
to fit Him for that priestly work which required not only faithfulness to God but compassion towards men.

The proper translation of ƒl£skesqai has been the subject of dispute. Leon Morris points out that ‘to make propitiation’ is to be preferred rather than ‘to make expiation’ because this is the normal sense of this verb and its cognates. Moreover, t¦ prÕj tÕn qeÒn leads us to think of the Godward rather than the manward aspect of atonement, and the accusative of sin after ƒl£skomai or ™zil£skomai, in the few places where it occurs, seems generally to imply propitiation. The question is very important and merits a lengthy treatment, which cannot be attempted in this article. The reader is referred to Leon Morris’s work for a full and balanced treatment of the matter.76

 

[Iconoclast]

pt4;
The catena of quotations from the Old Testament in vv. 12, 13 ties in with the particularist emphasis of our passage.
The ‘brethren’ of the psalmist are the Old Testament ‘church’, the congregation of the faithful, ‘you who fear Yahweh’ (Ps. 22. 23). They are those who trust in the Lord, they are the spiritual remnant, concerning whom Isaiah had so much to say, and who were represented in his day by himself, his family and his disciples. Montefiore has pointed out that there are many points of theological resemblance between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John.

We might notice that Hebrews 2. 5-18 appears especially to have links with John 17. Christ sanctifies Himself that they also may be sanctified in truth (Jn. 17. 19) and those for whom He prays are described as those whom God has given Him and are clearly distinguished from the world (Jn. 17. 2, 6, 9-19). Moreover this Johannine passage moves on to the thought of the oneness of the disciples with each other, with Christ and with God. These points of contact with the Johannine tradition of the teaching of our Lord are of
interest as they occur in a passage of the epistle which leads up to the first clear statement of the high-priesthood of Jesus. Perhaps this doctrine, so distinctively his in the literature of the New Testament period was more widespread in the thought of the early Church than has sometimes been supposed. He may have been led to his own exposition [p.66] of it from a consideration of the sort of teaching we find in John 17.

Those of whom Christ takes hold have a spiritual character (faith), and they find their spiritual ancestor in one who answered a personal call (Abraham).’80 A high priest acts for a particular religious community, and not for all men without discrimination and those for whom Christ acts as High Priest are referred to as ‘the people’ (toà laoà). In the LXX this is practically a technical term for the nation of Israel as chosen by God and separated to Him from other nations (e.g. Deut. 7. 6-8; 14. 2; 21. 8; 2 Sam. 14. 13; Isa. 52. 4). We conclude then, that the writer’s conception of the solidarity of Christ with His people in this passage is predominantly, and in all probability consistently, particularist. There is nothing elsewhere in the epistle which would overturn this conclusion. Indeed, the constant repetition of the high-priestly motif serves only to underline it.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt.5
This humiliation found its fullest expression, of course, in His sufferings and death,90 and it is upon this aspect of His human experience that the writer concentrates his attention. Indeed, in verse 17, his purpose in employing the phrase ‘in every respect’ (kat¦ p¦nta) is probably to bring this out. Not only in a general way, but in every respect, and so in suffering and death, He had to be made like His brethren, for only so could He become a merciful and faithful high priest, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

This would seem to be what he is saying.
In fact His propitiatory work is nothing if it is not sacrificial, and His sacrifice consisted in the laying down of His life in death. This same concentration upon death is found in verses 14 and 15, where His assumption of human nature is related to His victory over the devil through death. He does not view Incarnation as an end in itself, but rather as the appropriate and necessary means to atonement for sin.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt.6;
Now the imagery changes, and the Exodus theme makes its appearance. He Who was viewed as a kind of last Adam―although the writer does not use the term-leading the many sons to glory, that is, to the ultimate realisation of the creative purpose of God,

may also be viewed as a new Moses-Joshua leading them into the promised land. The divine end is pictured by him in a great number of ways in this epistle.

Now it is viewed as ‘the world to come’ (2. 5),

now as the city of God (11. 10, 16; 13. 14),

now as ‘the unshakeable kingdom’ (12. 28).

He can pass easily and with no sense of contradiction, for they are really one, from the thought of the ‘new creation’ to that of the spiritual ‘promised land’. Of course, he employs neither term but the idea is there in each case. Just as death stands in the way of the realisation of the new creation, so the devil is the ‘Pharoah’ who holds the people in his grasp. In dealing with the one Christ dealt also with the other, for the devil has the power of death. Thus He shows His power to the seed of Abraham. The imagery changes again. In fact, this change has already been anticipated in the language of verse 11. Christ is now virtually a new Aaron, however inadequate that term will appear later as a description of His high-priesthood. The Law, given to the people after their rescue from bondage in Egypt, had much in it that concerned sin and the Divine provisions for dealing with it. We now feel ourselves to be outside the tabernacle in the wilderness. The people watch the high priest, their brother Israelite (cf. 5. 1; Ex. 28. 1).95 He enters the holy of holies in a representative capacity with the atoning blood and on His emergence blesses the people (cf. 9. 23-28).

 

[Iconoclast]

Berkof Systematic Theology;

4. SIN INCLUDES BOTH GUILT AND POLLUTION. Guilt is the state of deserving condemnation or of being liable to punishment for the violation of a law or a moral requirement. It expresses the relation which sin bears to justice or to the penalty of the law. But even so the word has a twofold meaning. It may denote an inherent quality of the sinner, namely, his demerit, ill-desert, or guiltiness, which renders him worthy of punishment. Dabney speaks of this as “potential guilt.” It is inseparable from sin, is never found in one who is not personally a sinner, and is permanent, so that once established, it cannot be removed by pardon. But it may also denote the obligation to satisfy justice, to pay the penalty of sin, “actual guilt,” as Dabney calls it. 124 It is not inherent in man, but is the penal enactment of the lawgiver, who fixes the penalty of the guilt. It may be removed by the satisfaction of the just demands of the law personally or vicariously. While many deny that sin includes guilt, this does not comport with the fact that sin was threatened and is indeed visited with punishment, and clearly contradicts the plain statements of Scripture, Matt. 6:12; Rom. 3:19; 5:18; Eph. 2:3. By pollution we understand the inherent corruption to which every sinner is subject. This is a reality in the life of every individual. It is not conceivable without guilt, though guilt as included in a penal relationship, is conceivable without immediate pollution. Yet it is always followed by pollution. Every one who is guilty in Adam is, as a result, also born with a corrupt nature. The pollution of sin is clearly taught in such passages as Job 14:4; Jer. 17:9; Matt. 7:15-20; Rom. 8:5-8; Eph. 4:17-19.

 

[Iconoclast]

2. TO REFORM THE SINNER. The idea is very much in the foreground at the present time that there is no punitive justice in God which inexorably calls for the punishment of the sinner, and that God is not angry with the sinner but loves him, and only inflicts hardships upon him, in order to reclaim him and to bring him back to his Father’s home. This is an un-Scriptural view, which obliterates the distinction between punishment and chastisement. The penalty of sin does not proceed from the love and mercy of the Lawgiver, but from His justice.

If reformation follows the infliction of punishment, this is not due to the penalty as such, but is the fruit of some gracious operation of God by which He turns that which is in itself an evil for the sinner into something that is beneficial. The distinction between chastisement and punishment must be maintained. The Bible teaches us on the one hand that God loves and chastens His people, Job 5:17; Ps. 6:1; Ps. 94:12; 118:18; Prov. 3:11; Isa. 26:16; Heb. 12:5-8; Rev. 3:19; and on the other hand, that He hates and punishes evil-doers, Ps. 5:5; 7:11; Nah. 1:2; Rom. 1:18; 2:5,6; 11 Thess. 1:6; Heb. 10:26,27. Moreover, a punishment must be recognized as just, that is, as according to justice, in order to be reformatory. According to this theory a sinner who has already reformed could no more be punished; nor could one beyond the possibility of reformation, so that there could be no punishment for Satan; the death penalty would have to be abolished, and eternal punishment would have no reason for existence.

 

[Iconoclast]

3. CHRIST’S WORK IN THE COVENANT LIMITED BY THE DECREE OF ELECTION. Some have identified the covenant of redemption and election; but this is clearly a mistake. Election has reference to the selection of the persons destined to be the heirs of everlasting glory in Christ. The counsel of redemption, on the other hand, refers to the way in which and the means by which grace and glory are prepared for sinners.

Election, indeed, also has reference to Christ and reckons with Christ, for believers are said to be elected in Him. Christ Himself is, in a sense, the object of election, but in the counsel of redemption He is one of the contracting parties. The Father deals with Christ as the Surety of His people. Logically, election precedes the counsel of redemption, because the suretyship of Christ, like His atonement, is particular.

If there were no preceding election, it would necessarily be universal. Moreover, to turn this around would be equivalent to making the suretyship of Christ the ground of election, while Scripture bases election entirely on the good pleasure of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

1. REQUIREMENTS.

The Father required of the Son, who appeared in this covenant as the Surety and Head of His people, and as the last Adam, that He should make amends for the sin of Adam and of those whom the Father had given Him, and should do what Adam failed to do by keeping the law and thus securing eternal life for all His spiritual progeny. This requirement included the following particulars:

a. That He should assume human nature by being born of a woman, and thus enter into temporal relations; and that He should assume this nature with its present infirmities, though without sin, Gal. 4:4,5; Heb. 2:10,11,14,15; 4:15. It was absolutely essential that He should become one of the human race.

b. That He, who as the Son of God was superior to the law, should place Himself under the law; that He should enter, not merely into the natural, but also into the penal and federal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty for sin and to merit everlasting life for the elect, Ps. 40:8; Matt. 5:17,18; John 8:28,29; Gal. 4:4,5; Phil. 2:6-8

c. That He, after having merited forgiveness of sins and eternal life for His own, should apply to them the fruits of His merits: complete pardon, and the renewal of their lives through the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. By doing this He would render it absolutely certain that believers would consecrate their lives to God, John 10:16; John 16:14,15; 17:12,19-22; Heb. 2: 10-13; 7:25.

 

[Iconoclast]

2. PROMISES. The promises of the Father were in keeping with His requirements. He promised the Son all that was required for the performance of His great and comprehensive task, thereby excluding all uncertainty in the operation of this covenant. These promises included the following:

a. That He would prepare the Son a body, which would be a fit tabernacle for him; a body in part prepared by the immediate agency of God and uncontaminated by sin, Luke 1:35; Heb. 10:5.

b. That He would endow Him with the necessary gifts and graces for the performance of His task, and particularly would anoint Him for the Messianic offices by giving Him the Spirit without measure, a promise that was fulfilled especially at the time of His baptism, Isa. 42:1,2; 61:1; John 3:31.

c. That He would support Him in the performance of His work, would deliver Him from the power of death, and would thus enable Him to destroy the dominion of Satan and to establish the Kingdom of God, Isa. 42:1-7; 49:8; Ps. 16:8-11; Acts 2:25-28.

d. That He would enable Him, as a reward for His accomplished work, to send out the Holy Spirit for the formation of His spiritual body, and for the instruction, guidance, and protection of the Church, John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13, 14; Acts 2:33.

e. That He would give unto Him a numerous seed in reward for His accomplished work, a seed so numerous that it would be a multitude which no man could number, so that ultimately the Kingdom of the Messiah would embrace the people of all nations and tongues, Ps. 22:27; 72:17.

f. That He would commit to Him all power in heaven and on earth for the government of the world and of His Church, Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 2:5-9; and would finally reward Him as Mediator with the glory which He as the Son of God had with the Father before the world was, John 17:5.

 

[Iconoclast]

d. His sufferings were unique. We sometimes speak of the “ordinary” sufferings of Christ, when we think of those sufferings that resulted from the ordinary causes of misery in the world. But we should remember that these causes were far more numerous for the Saviour than they are for us.
Moreover, even these common sufferings had an extraordinary character in His case, and were therefore unique. His capacity for suffering was commensurate with the ideal character of His humanity, with His ethical perfection, and with His sense of righteousness and holiness and veracity. No one could feel the poignancy of pain and grief and moral evil as Jesus could. But besides these more common sufferings there were also the sufferings caused by the fact that God caused our iniquities to come upon Him like a flood.

The sufferings of the Saviour were not purely natural, but also the result of a positive deed of God, Isa. 53:6,10.

To the more special sufferings of the Saviour may also be reckoned the temptations in the desert, and the agonies of Gethsemane and Golgotha. e. His sufferings in temptations. The temptations of Christ formed an integral part of His sufferings. They are temptations that are encountered in the pathway of suffering, Matt. 4:1-11 (and parallels); Luke 22:28; John 12:27; Heb. 4:15; 5:7,8. His public ministry began with a period of temptation, and even after that time temptations were repeated at intervals right on into dark Gethsemane. It was only by entering into the very trials of men, into their temptations, that Jesus could become a truly sympathetic High Priest and attain to the heights of a proved and triumphant perfection, Heb. 4:15; 5:7-9.

 

[Iconoclast]

Death is separation from God, but this separation can be viewed in two different ways. Man separates himself from God by sin, and death is the natural result, so that it can even be said that sin is death.

But it was not in that way that Jesus became subject to death, since He had no personal sin. In this connection it should be borne in mind that death is not merely the natural consequence of sin, but above all the judicially imposed and inflicted punishment of sin. It is God’s withdrawing Himself with the blessings of life and happiness from man and visiting man in wrath. It is from this judicial point of view that the death of Christ must be considered. God imposed the punishment of death upon the Mediator judicially, since the latter undertook voluntarily to pay the penalty for the sin of the human race. Since Christ assumed human nature with all its weaknesses, as it exists after the fall, and thus became like us in all things, sin only excepted, it follows that death worked in Him from the very beginning and manifested itself in many of the sufferings to which He was subject. He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. The Heidelberg Catechism correctly says that “all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.” 163 These sufferings were followed by His death on the cross. But this was not all; He was subject not only to physical, but also to eternal death, though He bore this intensively and not extensively, when He agonized in the garden and when He cried out on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In a short period of time He bore the infinite wrath against sin to the very end and came out victoriously. This was possible for Him only because of His exalted nature. At this point we should guard against misunderstanding, however. Eternal death in the case of Christ did not consist in an abrogation of the union of the Logos with the human nature, nor in the divine nature’s being forsaken of God, nor in the withdrawal of the Father’s divine love or good pleasure from the person of the Mediator. The Logos remained united with the human nature even when the body was in the grave; the divine nature could not possibly be forsaken of God; and the person of the Mediator was and ever continued to be the object of divine favor. It revealed itself in the human consciousness of the Mediator as a feeling of Godforsakenness.

This implies that the human nature for a moment missed the conscious comfort which it might derive from its union with the divine Logos, and the sense of divine love, and was painfully conscious of the fulness of the divine wrath which was bearing down upon it. Yet there was no despair, for even in the darkest hour, while He exclaims that He is forsaken, He directs His prayer to God.

 

[Iconoclast]

b. The judicial character of His death. It was quite essential that Christ should die neither a natural nor an accidental death; and that He should not die by the hand of an assassin, but under a judicial sentence. He had to be counted with the transgressors, had to be condemned as a criminal. Moreover, it was providentially arranged by God that He should be tried and sentenced by a Roman judge. The Romans had a genius for law and justice, and represented the highest judicial power in the world. It might be expected that a trial before a Roman judge would serve to bring out clearly the innocence of Jesus, which it did, so that it became perfectly clear that He was not condemned for any crime which He had committed. It was a testimony to the fact that, as the Lord says, “He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due.” And when the Roman judge nevertheless condemned the innocent, he, it is true, also condemned himself and human justice as he applied it, but at the same time imposed sentence on Jesus as the representative of the highest judicial power in the world, functioning by the grace of God and dispensing justice in God’s name. The sentence of Pilate was also the sentence of God, though on entirely different grounds. It was significant too that Christ was not beheaded or stoned to death. Crucifixion was not a Jewish but a Roman form of punishment. It was accounted so infamous and ignominious that it might not be applied to Roman citizens, but only to the scum of mankind, to the meanest criminals and slaves. By dying that death, Jesus met the extreme demands of the law. At the same time He died an accursed death, and thus gave evidence of the fact that He became a curse for us, Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13.

 

[Iconoclast]

a. Their expiatory and vicarious nature. Various interpretations have been given of the Old Testament sacrifices: (1) that they were gifts to please God, to express gratitude to Him, or to placate His wrath; (2) that they were essentially sacrificial meals symbolizing communion of man with God; (3) that they were divinely appointed means of confessing the heinousness of sin; or (4) that, in so far as they embodied the idea of substitution, they were merely symbolic expressions of the fact that God accepts the sinner, in lieu of actual obedience, in the sacrifice which expresses his desire to obey and his longing for salvation. However, Scripture testifies to the fact that all the animal sacrifices among Israel were piacular, though this feature was not equally prominent in all of them. It was most prominent in the sin- and trespass-offerings, less prominent in the burnt-offering, and least in evidence in the peace-offerings. The presence of that element in those sacrifices appears

(1) from the clear statements in Lev. 1:4; 4:29,31,35; 5:10; 16:7; 17:11;

(2) from the laying on of hands which, in spite of Cave’s assertion to the contrary, certainly served to symbolize the transfer of sin and guilt, Lev. 1:4; 16:21,22;

(3) from the sprinkling of the blood on the altar and on the mercy-seat as a covering for sin, Lev. 16:27; and

(4) from the repeatedly recorded effect of the sacrifices, namely the pardoning of the sins of the offerer, Lev. 4:26,31,35. New Testament proofs could easily be added, but these will suffice.

 

[Iconoclast]

3. SCRIPTURAL PROOF FOR THE SACRIFICIAL WORK OF CHRIST. The striking thing in the Scriptural representations of the priestly work of Christ, is that Christ appears in them as both priest and sacrifice. This is in perfect harmony with the reality as we see it in Christ. In the Old Testament the two were necessarily separate, and in so far these types were imperfect.

The priestly work of Christ is most clearly represented in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Mediator is described as our only real, eternal, and perfect High Priest, appointed by God, who takes our place vicariously, and by His self-sacrifice obtains a real and perfect redemption, Heb. 5:1-10; 7:1-28; 9:11-15, 24-28; 10:11-14, 19-22; 12:24, and particularly the following verses, 5:5; 7:26; 9:14.

This Epistle is the only one in which Christ is called priest, but His priestly work is also clearly represented in the Epistles of Paul, Rom. 3:24,25; 5:6-8; I Cor. 5:7; 15:3; Eph. 5:2.

The same representation is found in the writings of John, John 1:29; 3:14, 15; I John 2:2; 4:10.

The symbol of the brazen serpent is significant. As the brazen serpent was not itself poisonous, but yet represented the embodiment of sin, so Christ, the sinless One, was made sin for us. As the lifting up of the serpent signified the removal of the plague, so the lifting up of Christ on the cross effected the removal of sin. And as a believing look at the serpent brought healing, so faith in Christ heals to the saving of the soul. The representation of Peter, I Pet. 2:24; 3:18, and of Christ Himself, Mark 10:45, corresponds with the preceding.
The Lord plainly tells us that His sufferings were vicarious.

 

[Iconoclast]

Louis Berkof supplied some of the framework to explain the texts in Hebrews2, but now he zeros in on wrong ideas.;

A. THE MOVING CAUSE OF THE ATONEMENT. This lies:

1. IN THE GOOD PLEASURE OF GOD. It is sometimes represented as if the moving cause of the atonement lay in the sympathetic love of Christ for sinners. He was so good and loving that the very idea that sinners would be hopelessly lost, was abhorrent to Him. Therefore He offered Himself as a victim in their stead, paid the penalty by laying down His life for transgressors, and thus pacified an angry God. In some cases this view prompts men to laud Christ for His supreme selfsacrifice, but at the same time, to blame God for demanding and accepting such a price. In others it simply causes men to overlook God, and to sing the praises of Christ in unqualified terms.
Such a representation is certainly all wrong, and often gives the opponents of the penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement occasion to say that this doctrine presupposes a schism in the trinitarian life of God.


On this view Christ apparently receives His due, but God is robbed of His honour.
According to Scripture the moving cause of the atonement is found in the good pleasure of God to save sinners by a substitutionary atonement. Christ Himself is the fruit of this good pleasure of God.