Chapter 3

For whom Christ died, he died as a surety in their stead, as is apparent from Romans 5:6-8: 'For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly; for scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet perhaps for a good man some would even dare to die; but God commended his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' Galatians 3:13: 'He was made a curse for us.' 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He has made him to be sin for us.' All these passages plainly signify an exchange of persons, one being accepted in the place of another. Now if he died as the surety of those for whom he died, standing in their stead, then at least two things follow. First, that he freed them from that wrath and guilt of death which he underwent for them — so that in and for him they should all be reconciled and freed from the bondage of death. For no other reason can be assigned why Christ should undergo anything in another's place except that the other might be freed from what he endured for him. All justice requires this, as is also indicated when our Savior is said to be the surety of a better testament (Hebrews 7:22), undergoing the chastisement of our peace and the burden of our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5-7): 'He was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him' (2 Corinthians 5:21). But now not all are freed from wrath and actually reconciled to God. For until people come to Christ, the wrath of God abides on them (John 3:36) — it was never removed. And to them the gospel is a savor of death, bringing condemnation through its being despised, added to the guilt they already lay under. Some have affirmed that all are redeemed, justified, and made righteous in Christ by his death — but truly this is so direct a contradiction to scripture that I judge it fruitless to go about removing such objections. Second, it follows that Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all and every person, if he died for them — for the reason he underwent death as a surety was to make satisfaction to God's justice for our sins. But Christ has not satisfied the justice of God for all the sins of all and every person, as may be demonstrated by several reasons.

For first, for whose sins he made satisfaction to the justice of God, for their sins justice is satisfied — or else his satisfaction was rejected as insufficient, which to affirm would be blasphemy in the highest degree. But now the justice of God is not satisfied for all the sins of all and every person. For those who must themselves undergo eternal punishment for their sins in order that the justice of God may be satisfied — for their sins, justice was not satisfied without their own punishment, by the punishment of Christ; they are not healed by his stripes. That innumerable souls shall throughout eternity undergo the punishment due to their own sins needs, I hope, no proving among Christians. Now how can the justice of God require satisfaction from them for their sins, if it had already been satisfied for those sins in Christ? To be satisfied and to require satisfaction in order to be satisfied are contradictory and cannot be affirmed of the same thing in respect of the same. But that the Lord will require from some the uttermost farthing is most clear (Matthew 5:26).

Second, Christ by undergoing death for us as our surety satisfied for no more than he intended to satisfy for — so great a thing as satisfaction for the sins of men could not accidentally happen beyond his intention, will, and purpose, especially since his intention and willingness in sanctifying himself as an offering was absolutely necessary to make his death an acceptable sacrifice. But Christ did not intend to satisfy for the sins of all and every person, for innumerable souls were already in hell under the punishment of their own sins — from which there is no redemption — even at the very moment our Savior made himself an offering for sin. Are we to suppose that Christ would make himself an offering for those whom he knew to be past recovery, for whom it was utterly impossible that they would ever have any fruit or benefit from his offering? Are we to think that the blood of the covenant was cast away on those for whom our Savior intended no good at all? To intend good to them he could not without direct opposition to the eternal decree of his Father and therein of his own eternal deity. Did God send his Son? did Christ come to die for Cain and Pharaoh, damned so many ages before his suffering? The exception that Christ died for them and his death would have been available to them if they had believed and fulfilled the condition required is, in my judgment, of no force at all. First, for the most part they never heard of any such condition. Second, Christ at his death knew full well that they had not fulfilled the condition and were actually cut off from any possibility of ever doing so, so that any intention to benefit them by his death must be vain and futile — which cannot be assigned to the Son of God. Third, this conditional redemption — 'if they believe' — will be rejected shortly. Nor is that other exception of any more value — that Christ might as well satisfy for those eternally damned at the time of his suffering (for whom it could not be useful) as for those then already saved (for whom it was not needful). For those who were saved were saved on this ground: that Christ should certainly suffer for them in due time, which suffering was as effectual in the purpose and promise as in the execution and accomplishment — being reckoned for them in the mind of God as accomplished, the covenant with Christ about it being firmly ratified on mutually unchangeable promises, so that it was needful for them. But for those actually damned, there was no such inducement, ground, or expected issue. To illustrate: if a man were to send word to a prison that he would pay the ransom due for the captives' release, and desire the prisoners to come out, since the one who detains them accepts his word and engagement; when he comes to make payment, if he finds some have gone forth as proposed and others remained stubbornly in their dungeon — some hearing of what he had done, others not, and all according to his own appointment, and long since dead — does he in paying his promised ransom intend it for those who died stubbornly and obstinately in the prison? Or only for those who went forth? Doubtless only for the latter. No more can the passion of Christ be supposed to be a price paid for those who died in the prison of sin and corruption before the payment of his ransom — though it could very well be for those delivered by virtue of his engagement to pay such a ransom. Third, if Christ died in the place of all people and made satisfaction for their sins, then he did so either for all of their sins or for only some of their sins. If for only some, then who can be saved? If for all, then why are not all saved? They say it is because of unbelief — they will not believe, and therefore are not saved. But is that unbelief a sin or is it not? If it is not a sin, how can it be a cause of damnation? If it is a sin, then Christ either died for it or he did not. If he did not die for it, then he did not die for all the sins of all people. If he did, then why is it an obstacle to their salvation? The only answers available are: either Christ did not die for their unbelief, or he did not by his death remove their unbelief because they would not believe, or he died for their unbelief conditionally — that is, on condition that they were not unbelievers. These do not appear to be sober assertions.

For whomever Christ died, for them he is a Mediator — which is apparent, since the offering of Christ, which he made of himself to God in the shedding of his blood, was one of the chief acts of his mediation. But he is not a Mediator for all and every person, which is no less evident, because as Mediator he is the priest for those for whom he is a Mediator; and to a priest it belongs, as was declared, to sacrifice and intercede, to procure good things and to apply them to those for whom they are procured, as Hebrews 9 makes clear and as was proved at length before — none of which Christ does indiscriminately for all. That Christ is not a Mediator for every person needs no proof: experience sufficiently demonstrates it, besides innumerable passages of Scripture. It is replied by some that Christ is a Mediator for some in respect of certain acts and not others — but this, if I can judge at all, is a dishonest subterfuge with no ground in Scripture, and would make our Savior a half-mediator in respect of some, which is an unsavory expression. But this argument was vindicated before.

For those for whom Christ died, He died as their surety in their place, as Romans 5:6-8 makes plain: 'For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' Galatians 3:13: 'He became a curse for us.' 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf.' All these passages plainly signify an exchange of persons — one being accepted in the place of another. Now if He died as the surety of those for whom He died, standing in their place, then at least two things follow. First, He freed them from the wrath and guilt of death He underwent for them — so that in and through Him they would all be reconciled and freed from the bondage of death. No other reason can be given for why Christ should undergo anything in another's place except that the other might be freed from what He endured for him. All justice requires this, as is also shown when our Savior is called the guarantor of a better covenant (Hebrews 7:22), bearing the punishment that brought us peace and the weight of our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5-7): 'He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21). But not all people are freed from wrath and actually reconciled to God. Until people come to Christ, the wrath of God remains on them (John 3:36) — it was never removed. For them, the gospel is a fragrance of death, bringing condemnation through their rejection of it, added to the guilt they already carried. Some have claimed that all people are redeemed, justified, and made righteous in Christ by His death — but this is so directly contradicted by Scripture that I consider it pointless to bother answering such objections. Second, it follows that if Christ died for all and every person, He made satisfaction for all their sins — since the reason He underwent death as a surety was to satisfy God's justice for sin. But Christ has not satisfied God's justice for all the sins of all and every person, as can be shown by several reasons.

First, for those whose sins He satisfied God's justice, that justice is satisfied — or else His satisfaction was rejected as insufficient, which would be the highest possible blasphemy to claim. But God's justice is not satisfied for all the sins of all and every person. Those who must themselves undergo eternal punishment for their sins in order for God's justice to be satisfied — for their sins, justice was not satisfied by Christ's punishment without their own punishment as well; they are not healed by His wounds. That countless souls will throughout eternity bear the punishment due for their own sins needs no proof among Christians, I hope. How can God's justice demand satisfaction from them for their sins, if it had already been satisfied for those very sins in Christ? Being satisfied and requiring satisfaction in order to be satisfied are contradictory — they cannot both be true of the same thing in the same respect. That the Lord will require from some the very last cent is entirely clear (Matthew 5:26).

Second, Christ by undergoing death as our surety satisfied for no more than He intended to satisfy for — something as significant as satisfaction for human sin could not accidentally extend beyond His intention, will, and purpose, especially since His intention and willingness in sanctifying Himself as an offering was absolutely necessary to make His death an acceptable sacrifice. But Christ did not intend to satisfy for the sins of all and every person, for countless souls were already in hell under the punishment of their own sins — from which there is no redemption — at the very moment our Savior offered Himself for sin. Are we to suppose that Christ would offer Himself for those He knew to be beyond recovery, for whom it was utterly impossible that they would ever receive any benefit from His offering? Are we to think that the blood of the covenant was spent on those for whom our Savior intended no good at all? He could not intend good to them without directly opposing the eternal decree of His Father, and thereby of His own eternal deity. Did God send His Son? Did Christ come to die for Cain and Pharaoh, who had been damned ages before His suffering? The claim that Christ died for them and His death would have been available to them if they had believed and fulfilled the required condition is, in my judgment, entirely without force. First, for the most part they never heard of any such condition. Second, Christ at His death knew full well that they had not fulfilled the condition and were completely cut off from any possibility of ever doing so — meaning any intention to benefit them by His death would be vain and futile, which cannot be attributed to the Son of God. Third, this conditional redemption — 'if they believe' — will be refuted shortly. Nor does the other objection carry any more weight — that Christ might just as well satisfy for those eternally damned at the time of His suffering (for whom it could not be useful) as for those already saved at that time (for whom it was not yet needed). For those who were saved were saved on this basis: that Christ would certainly suffer for them in due time, which suffering was as effectual in purpose and promise as in its actual execution — being counted in the mind of God as accomplished, with the covenant between God and Christ firmly ratified on mutually binding promises, so that it was indeed needed for them. But for those who were actually damned, there was no such basis, purpose, or expected outcome. To illustrate: suppose a man sends word to a prison that he will pay the ransom for the captives' release and invites the prisoners to come out, and the one who holds them accepts his word and pledge. When he comes to make payment, suppose he finds that some left as proposed while others remained stubbornly in their cells — some having heard what he had done, others not, all by his own arrangement, and long since dead. Does he, in paying his promised ransom, intend it for those who died stubbornly in the prison? Or only for those who came out? Doubtless only for the latter. No more can the passion of Christ be supposed to be a price paid for those who died in the prison of sin and corruption before His ransom was paid — though it very well could be for those delivered by virtue of His commitment to pay such a ransom. Third, if Christ died in the place of all people and made satisfaction for their sins, He did so either for all of their sins or only for some. If for only some, then who can be saved? If for all, then why are not all saved? They say it is because of unbelief — people will not believe, and therefore are not saved. But is that unbelief a sin or not? If it is not a sin, how can it be a cause of damnation? If it is a sin, then Christ either died for it or He did not. If He did not die for it, then He did not die for all the sins of all people. If He did, then why does it still stand as an obstacle to their salvation? The only available answers are: either Christ did not die for their unbelief, or He did not remove their unbelief by His death because they would not believe, or He died for their unbelief conditionally — that is, on condition that they were not unbelievers. None of these appear to be reasonable positions.

For everyone Christ died for, He is their Mediator — this is clear since the offering Christ made of Himself to God in shedding His blood was one of the chief acts of His mediation. But He is not a Mediator for all and every person, which is equally evident: as Mediator He is priest for those He mediates for, and it belongs to a priest — as was shown — to sacrifice and intercede, to obtain good things and to apply them to those for whom they are obtained, as Hebrews 9 makes clear and as was proved at length earlier — none of which Christ does indiscriminately for all. That Christ is not a Mediator for every single person needs no proof; experience demonstrates it abundantly, along with countless Scripture passages. Some reply that Christ is a Mediator for certain people with respect to some acts but not others — but this, if I can judge at all, is a dishonest escape with no basis in Scripture, and would make our Savior a partial mediator for some, which is an unsatisfying notion. But this argument was addressed earlier.