Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
There are a couple of questions which arise
in consequence of this substitution on the part of Christ.
First, the question as to the qualifications
essential to it which he possessed.
The first question may be answered thus:
1. That the possession of a human nature, such as ours, is represented in Scripture as essential to his position as substitute.
2. The possession of a divine nature,
in consequence of which he was a divine person,
was also requisite to give an infinite value to his work.
3. It seems also essential
that he should not have been two persons,
a divine person, and a human person;
else could not the value of the acts performed
in his human nature have been greater
than those of any other innocent man.
It was, therefore, not the human nature of Christ
that was substituted for us, but Christ Himself;
yet it was not Christ in his divine nature that suffered,
but value was given to the suffering
from its being the suffering of one
who also essentially possessed the divine nature.
The doctrine of the Trinity lies, therefore,
at the basis of that of the atonement,
and hence the denial of the latter by all those who reject the former.
4. A holy nature; a lamb without spot or blemish.
5. As consequent upon the possession
of such a union of natures in himself
Christ could make a voluntary offering of himself,
by which merit could be procured and penalty endured for others.
6. That he should be designated by the Father to this position,
that he might be the legal representative of his people
and their covenant head.
And second, whether Christ, being thus substituted,
became personally a sinner.
As to the second point it may be said that Christ
is not represented in Scripture
as made personally a sinner by substitution;
neither were the sacrifices of old
regarded as personally obnoxious to God.
But they were so officially; that is,
in their positions as substitutes;
and Christ became so, being made a curse for us.
But this official substitution did not make him a sinner,
but only caused him to be treated as such.
in consequence of this substitution on the part of Christ.
First, the question as to the qualifications
essential to it which he possessed.
The first question may be answered thus:
1. That the possession of a human nature, such as ours, is represented in Scripture as essential to his position as substitute.
2. The possession of a divine nature,
in consequence of which he was a divine person,
was also requisite to give an infinite value to his work.
3. It seems also essential
that he should not have been two persons,
a divine person, and a human person;
else could not the value of the acts performed
in his human nature have been greater
than those of any other innocent man.
It was, therefore, not the human nature of Christ
that was substituted for us, but Christ Himself;
yet it was not Christ in his divine nature that suffered,
but value was given to the suffering
from its being the suffering of one
who also essentially possessed the divine nature.
The doctrine of the Trinity lies, therefore,
at the basis of that of the atonement,
and hence the denial of the latter by all those who reject the former.
4. A holy nature; a lamb without spot or blemish.
5. As consequent upon the possession
of such a union of natures in himself
Christ could make a voluntary offering of himself,
by which merit could be procured and penalty endured for others.
6. That he should be designated by the Father to this position,
that he might be the legal representative of his people
and their covenant head.
And second, whether Christ, being thus substituted,
became personally a sinner.
As to the second point it may be said that Christ
is not represented in Scripture
as made personally a sinner by substitution;
neither were the sacrifices of old
regarded as personally obnoxious to God.
But they were so officially; that is,
in their positions as substitutes;
and Christ became so, being made a curse for us.
But this official substitution did not make him a sinner,
but only caused him to be treated as such.