Chapter 9

If Christ so took our sins and had them by God so laid and imposed on him that he underwent the punishment due to them in our stead, then he made satisfaction to the justice of God for them so that the sinners might go free. But Christ so took and bore our sins and had them so laid upon him that he underwent the punishment due to them, and that in our stead. Therefore he made satisfaction to the justice of God for them. The consequent of the proposition is apparent and was proved before. Of the assumption there are three parts to be separately confirmed: first, that Christ took and bore our sins, God laying them on him; second, that he so took them as to undergo the punishment due to them; third, that he did this in our stead.

For the first, that he took and bore our sins: 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (John 1:29); 'Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24); Isaiah 53:11: 'Their iniquities he shall bear,' and verse 12: 'He bore the sin of many.' That God also laid or imposed our sins on him is no less apparent. Isaiah 53:6: 'The Lord made to meet on him the iniquity of us all.' 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He made him to be sin for us.'

The second branch is that in doing so, our Savior underwent the punishment due to the sins he bore and that were laid upon him. Death and the curse of the law contain the whole of the punishment due to sin. Genesis 3: 'Dying you shall die' — that was the threat; death was what entered by sin (Romans 5:12), which word in those places is comprehensive of all misery due to our transgression, as also expressed in the curse of the law (Deuteronomy 27:26): 'Cursed is he who does not confirm all the words of this law to do them' — that all punishments whatsoever are comprised in these is unquestionably evident. Now Jesus Christ, in bearing our sins, underwent both: 'By the grace of God he tasted of death' (Hebrews 2:9), delivering from death by death (verse 14); 'He was not spared, but given up to death for us all' (Romans 8:32). So also the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13): 'He was made a curse for us' — made accursed. And this by way of undergoing the punishment that was in death and the curse: 'It pleased the Lord to bruise him and put him to grief' (Isaiah 53:10), 'he spared him not' (Romans 8:32), but 'condemned sin in his flesh' (Romans 8:3). It remains only to show that he did this in our stead, and the whole argument is confirmed.

Now this also our Savior himself makes apparent. Matthew 20:28: 'He came to give himself a ransom for many' — the word always supposes a substitution and exchange of one person or thing in the place of another (so Matthew 2:22). So 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Peter 3:18: 'He died for us, the just for the unjust.' And Psalm 69:4: 'I restored what I did not take' — namely, our debt — so fully that thereby we are discharged (Romans 8:34), where it is asserted on this very ground that he died in our stead. So the several parts of this first argument are confirmed.

If Jesus Christ paid into his Father's hands a valuable price and ransom for our sins as our surety — thereby discharging the debt we lay under so that we might go free — then he bore the punishment due to our sins and made satisfaction to the justice of God for them. For to pay such a ransom is to make such satisfaction. But Jesus Christ paid such a price and ransom as our surety into his Father's hands. Therefore he made satisfaction.

There are four things to be proved in the assumption or second proposition: first, that Christ paid such a price and ransom; second, that he paid it into the hands of his Father; third, that he did it as our surety; fourth, that we might go free. All of which will be proved in order.

First, for the first: our Savior himself affirms it. Matthew 20:28: 'He came to give his life a ransom for many' (Mark 10:45), which the apostle terms 'a ransom to be accepted in the stead of others' (1 Timothy 2:6). Hence we are said to have deliverance through the ransom-paying of Christ (Romans 3:24). 'He bought us with a price' (1 Corinthians 6:20), which price was his own blood (Acts 20:28), compared to and exalted above silver and gold in this work of redemption (1 Peter 1:18). So this first part is most clear and evident.

Second, he paid this price into the hands of his Father. A price in the case of deliverance from captivity must be paid to the judge or jailer — that is, to God or the devil; to say the latter would be the height of blasphemy, for Satan was to be conquered, not satisfied. For the former, scripture is clear: it was God's wrath that was upon us (John 3:36); it was he who had shut us all up under sin (Romans 3); he is the great King to whom the debt is owed (Matthew 18:23-24); he is the only lawgiver who can kill and make alive (James 4:12). Indeed, the ways in which this ransom-paying is expressed in scripture abundantly confirm that payment was made into the hands of the Father. For his death and blood-shedding is called an oblation and sacrifice (Ephesians 5:2), and his soul a sacrifice or offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). Now certainly offerings and sacrifices are to be directed to God alone.

Third, that he did this as surety we are assured in Hebrews 7:22 — he was made a surety of a better covenant — and in performance of the duty that lay upon him as such, 'he paid what he never took' (Psalm 69:4). All of which could not possibly have any other end than that we might go free.

To make atonement for sin and to reconcile God to sinners is in effect to make satisfaction to the justice of God for sin and all that we understand by that. But Jesus Christ by his death and offering did make atonement for sin and reconcile God to sinners — therefore this cannot be denied.

The first proposition is self-evident; the minor is confirmed by Romans 3:24-25: 'We are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation' — an atonement, a mercy seat, a covering of iniquity — 'for the manifestation of his justice, declared in the going forth and accomplishment thereof.' Similarly, Hebrews 2:17 says he is a merciful high priest to make reconciliation for the sins of the people — to reconcile God who was offended by the sins of his people — which reconciliation we are said to receive (Romans 5:11). And all this is said to be accomplished by 'one righteous act' or satisfaction of Christ (the words will not bear the sense in which they are usually rendered, 'by the righteousness of one,' for then it must have been expressed differently in the original). Hereby we were delivered from that from which it was impossible to be otherwise delivered (Romans 8:3).

The exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ while he was on earth, consisting in bearing the punishment due to our sins, making atonement with God by undergoing his wrath, and reconciling him to sinners upon the satisfaction made to his justice — cannot be rejected or denied without damnable error. That this was the exercise of Christ's priestly office is most apparent: first, from all the types and sacrifices by which it was prefigured, their chief end being propitiation and atonement; second, from the very nature of the priestly office appointed for sacrificing, Christ having nothing to offer but his own blood through the eternal Spirit; and third, from various and indeed innumerable scriptures affirming the same. One or two passages will serve: Hebrews 9:13-14 — 'If the blood of bulls and goats... how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God?' — where the death of Christ is compared to, exalted above, and in the antitype answers the sacrifices of expiation made by the blood of bulls and goats, and so must spiritually effect what they carnally accomplished and typically prefigured — namely, deliverance from the guilt of sin by expiation and atonement. For as in them the life and blood of the sacrifice was accepted in the place of the offerer who was to die for the breach of the law, so in this the blood of Christ was accepted as atonement and propitiation for us, himself being priest, altar, and sacrifice. Hebrews 10:10, 12 expressly states that he offered up his own body a sacrifice for sins — in the place of all the old insufficient carnal sacrifices which could not make perfect those who approached them — for the remission and pardon of sins through that offering of himself (verse 19).

We also affirm that in performing this, our Savior underwent the wrath of God which was due to us. Since some question this, I will briefly confirm it with the following reasons.

First, the punishment due to sin is the wrath of God (Romans 1:18; 2:5; Ephesians 2:3; John 3:36). Jesus Christ underwent the punishment due to sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24). Therefore he underwent the wrath of God.

Second, the curse of the law is the wrath of God received passively (Deuteronomy 29:20-21). But Jesus Christ underwent the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13) — made a curse for us, the same curse that falls on those who are out of Christ and under the works of the law (verse 10). Therefore he underwent the wrath of God.

That doctrine cannot be true nor agreeable to the Gospel which strikes at the root of Gospel faith and pulls away the foundation of all that strong consolation God is so abundantly willing we should receive. But such is the doctrine of denying the satisfaction made by Christ and his enduring of the wrath of his Father. It makes the poor soul like Noah's dove in its distress, not knowing where to rest the sole of her feet. When a soul is turned out of its self-righteousness and begins to look abroad at heaven and earth for a resting place, perceiving a flood and inundation of wrath covering all the world — the wrath of God revealing itself from heaven against all ungodliness — so that it can find no rest, unable to reach heaven by its own flight and unwilling to fall to hell: if the Lord Jesus Christ does not appear as an ark in the midst of the waters, upon whom the floods have fallen and yet who has risen above them all, as a refuge, what shall that soul do? When the flood fell, there were many mountains glorious in the eye, far higher than the ark — yet those mountains were all drowned while the ark kept on the top of the waters. Many appearing hills and mountains of self-righteousness and general mercy at first view seem to the soul much higher than Jesus Christ; but when the flood of wrath comes and spreads itself, all those mountains are quickly covered. Only the ark — the Lord Jesus Christ — though the flood falls on him also, gets above it entirely and gives safety to those who rest upon him. Let me now ask any of those poor souls who have ever been wandering and tossed with fear of the wrath to come: whether they ever found a resting place until they came to this — that God spared not his only Son but gave him up to death for us all; that he made him to be sin for us; that he put all the sins of all the elect into that cup which he was to drink; that the wrath and flood they feared did fall upon Jesus Christ (though now as the ark he is above it, so that if they could get into him they would be safe) — the storm having been his and the safety theirs; as all the waters that would have fallen upon those in the ark fell upon the ark, they being dry and safe, so all the wrath that should have fallen on them fell on Christ, which alone causes their souls to dwell in safety? Has not this been your foundation, your resting place? If not — for the substance of it — I fear you have but rotten foundations. Now what would you say if a man should come and pull this ark from under you and give you an old rotten post to swim upon in the flood of wrath? It is too late to tell you no wrath is due to you — the Word of truth and your own consciences have given you other information: you know the wages of sin is death in whomsoever it be; he must die on whomsoever it is found. So the soul may well say: deprive me of the satisfaction of Christ and I am bereaved. If he did not fulfill justice, I must; if he did not endure wrath, I must, to eternity. O do not rob me of my only pearl. Denying the satisfaction of Christ destroys the foundation of faith and comfort.

Another argument we may take from some few particular passages of Scripture. First, 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.' He made him to be sin for us — how could that be? Are not the very next words 'he knew no sin'? Was he not a lamb without spot and blemish? Certainly he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. What then is this — God made him to be sin? It cannot be that God made him sinful or a sinner by inherent sin; that will not stand with the justice of God nor with the holiness of the person of our Redeemer. What is it then — he was made to be sin who knew no sin? Clearly: by divine appointment and consent God laid to his charge what he was not guilty of. He charged upon him and imputed to him all the sins of all the elect, and proceeded against him accordingly. He stood as our surety, really charged with the whole debt, and was to pay the uttermost farthing, as a surety must if it is required of him — though he borrowed not the money nor has a penny of what is in the obligation, yet if he is sued to execution he must pay all. The Lord Christ, if I may so say, was sued by his Father's justice to execution; in answer to which he underwent all that was due to sin — which we proved before to be death, wrath, and curse. If it is objected that God was always well pleased with his Son, testifying so again and again from heaven, how then could he lay his wrath on him?

In answer: it is true he was always well pleased with him, yet it pleased him to bruise him and put him to grief. He was always well pleased with the holiness of his person, the excellence and perfectness of his righteousness, and the sweetness of his obedience — but he was displeased with the sins that were charged on him, and therefore it pleased him to bruise and put to grief the one with whom he was always well pleased. Nor is the other exception of any more value — that Christ underwent no more than the elect lay under, and they lay not under wrath and the punishment due to sin.

In answer: the proposition is most false, nor is there any truth in the assumption. First, Christ underwent not only the wrath (taken passively) that the elect lay under, but also the wrath they should have undergone had he not borne it for them — he delivered them from the wrath to come. Second, the elect in their several generations do lie under all the wrath of God in respect of merit and procurement, though not in respect of actual endurance — in respect of guilt, not present punishment. So notwithstanding these exceptions it stands firm: he was made sin for us who knew no sin.

Isaiah 53:5: 'He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.' Something was said before on this passage; some small enlargements will be added that help discover the meaning of the words. 'The chastisement of our peace was upon him' — that is, he was chastised or punished that we might have peace, that we might go free. Our sins being the cause of his wounding, and our iniquities of his being bruised, all our sins meeting upon him as verse 6 states. That is, he bore our sins — in Peter's interpretation: 'he bore our sins' (1 Peter 2:24). He bore our sins not, as some think, by declaring that we were never truly sinful, but by being wounded for them, bruised for them, undergoing the chastisement due to them — consisting in death, wrath, and curse — thus making his soul an offering for sin. 'He bore our sins' — that is, say some, he declared that we have an eternal righteousness in God because of his eternal purpose to do us good. But is this to interpret Scripture, or to corrupt the Word of God? Ask the Word what it means by Christ's bearing of sins, and it will tell you: his being smitten for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:8), his being cut off for our sins (Daniel 9:26). Nor has the expression 'bearing sins' any other meaning in Scripture. Leviticus 5:1: 'He that hears swearing and does not reveal it shall bear his iniquity' — meaning not that he shall declare himself or others to be free from sin, but that he shall undergo the punishment due to sin, as our Savior did in bearing our iniquities. He must be a very cunning player indeed who would cheat a believer out of this foundation.

More arguments or texts on this subject will not be urged or produced here, though the cause itself would compel even the most unskilled to abound in them. I have proceeded as far as the nature of a digression will well bear. Nor shall I undertake at this time to answer objections to the contrary. A full discussion of the whole matter of Christ's satisfaction — which would require searching out, drawing forth, and refuting all objections — is not my present intention. As for the objections raised in that debate which gave occasion to this discourse, I dare not reproduce them here, lest some might conjecture that I deliberately framed such weak objections in order to obtain an easy conquest over a man of straw of my own construction. So weak were they, and of so little force against so fundamental a truth as that which we maintain.

If Christ took our sins upon Himself, and God laid and imposed them on Him, such that He underwent the punishment due to them in our place, then He made satisfaction to God's justice for them so that sinners might go free. But Christ did take and bear our sins, and they were laid upon Him, so that He underwent the punishment due to them — and this in our place. Therefore He made satisfaction to God's justice for them. The conclusion of the argument is clear and was proved earlier. The premise has three parts that must each be confirmed separately: first, that Christ took and bore our sins, God laying them on Him; second, that He bore them in such a way as to undergo the punishment due to them; third, that He did this in our place.

For the first — that He took and bore our sins: 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!' (John 1:29); 'He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross' (1 Peter 2:24); Isaiah 53:11: 'He will bear their iniquities,' and verse 12: 'He Himself bore the sin of many.' That God also laid or imposed our sins on Him is equally clear. Isaiah 53:6: 'The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.' 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf.'

The second part is that in doing so, our Savior underwent the punishment due to the sins He bore and that were laid upon Him. Death and the curse of the law contain the full punishment due to sin. Genesis 3: 'You will surely die' — that was the threat; death was what entered through sin (Romans 5:12), which word in those contexts encompasses all the misery due to our transgression, as also expressed in the curse of the law (Deuteronomy 27:26): 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them' — and that all punishments whatever are included in these is beyond question. Now Jesus Christ, in bearing our sins, underwent both: 'By the grace of God He tasted death' (Hebrews 2:9), delivering from death through death (verse 14); 'He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all' (Romans 8:32). So also the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13): 'He became a curse for us' — made accursed. And this by way of bearing the punishment contained in death and the curse: 'The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief' (Isaiah 53:10); 'He did not spare Him' (Romans 8:32), 'but condemned sin in the flesh' (Romans 8:3). It remains only to show that He did this in our place, and the whole argument is confirmed.

Our Savior Himself makes this plain. Matthew 20:28: 'Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many' (Mark 10:45) — the word always implies a substitution and exchange of one person or thing in the place of another (as in Matthew 2:22). So also 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Peter 3:18: 'Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust.' And Psalm 69:4: 'What I did not steal, I then have to restore' — namely, our debt — so fully that we are thereby discharged (Romans 8:34), where it is stated on this very ground that He died in our place. So the several parts of this first argument are confirmed.

If Jesus Christ paid into His Father's hands a valuable price and ransom for our sins as our surety — thereby discharging the debt we were under so that we might go free — then He bore the punishment due to our sins and made satisfaction to God's justice for them. For to pay such a ransom is to make such satisfaction. But Jesus Christ did pay such a price and ransom as our surety into His Father's hands. Therefore He made satisfaction.

There are four things to be proved in the second proposition: first, that Christ paid such a price and ransom; second, that He paid it into the hands of His Father; third, that He did it as our surety; fourth, that we might go free. All of these will be proved in order.

First: our Savior Himself affirms it. Matthew 20:28: 'Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many' (Mark 10:45), which the apostle describes as 'a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time' (1 Timothy 2:6). Hence we are said to have deliverance through the ransom paid by Christ (Romans 3:24). 'You were bought with a price' (1 Corinthians 6:20), which price was His own blood (Acts 20:28), compared to and shown to be far above silver and gold in this work of redemption (1 Peter 1:18). So this first part is entirely clear and evident.

Second, He paid this price into the hands of His Father. In the case of deliverance from captivity, a price must be paid to the judge or the jailer — that is, to God or the devil; to say the latter would be the height of blasphemy, for Satan was to be conquered, not compensated. As for the former, Scripture is clear: it was God's wrath that was upon us (John 3:36); it was He who had shut us all up under sin (Romans 3); He is the great King to whom the debt is owed (Matthew 18:23-24); He is the only lawgiver who can destroy and save (James 4:12). Indeed, the ways in which this ransom-paying is described in Scripture abundantly confirm that payment was made to the Father. For His death and blood-shedding is called an offering and sacrifice (Ephesians 5:2), and His soul a sacrifice or offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). Certainly offerings and sacrifices are to be directed to God alone.

Third, that He did this as our surety we are assured in Hebrews 7:22 — He was made the guarantor of a better covenant — and in carrying out the duty that rested on Him as such, 'He restored what He did not take away' (Psalm 69:4). All of which could have had no other purpose than that we might go free.

To make atonement for sin and to reconcile God to sinners is in effect to make satisfaction to God's justice for sin — everything we mean by that expression. But Jesus Christ by His death and offering did make atonement for sin and reconcile God to sinners — therefore this cannot be denied.

The first proposition is self-evident; the second is confirmed by Romans 3:24-25: 'Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation' — an atonement, a mercy seat, a covering of iniquity — 'in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness.' Similarly, Hebrews 2:17 says He is a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people — to reconcile God who was offended by the sins of His people — which reconciliation we are said to receive (Romans 5:11). And all this is said to be accomplished through 'one righteous act' or satisfaction of Christ (the original words will not bear the meaning usually rendered as 'by the righteousness of one,' for if that were the meaning, the original would have been expressed differently). Through this we were delivered from what it was otherwise impossible to be delivered from (Romans 8:3).

The exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ while He was on earth — consisting in bearing the punishment due to our sins, making atonement with God by undergoing His wrath, and reconciling Him to sinners upon the satisfaction made to His justice — cannot be rejected or denied without serious error. That this was the exercise of Christ's priestly office is most apparent: first, from all the types and sacrifices that prefigured it, their chief purpose being propitiation and atonement; second, from the very nature of the priestly office appointed for sacrifice, Christ having nothing to offer but His own blood through the eternal Spirit; and third, from various and indeed countless Scriptures affirming the same. One or two passages will serve: Hebrews 9:13-14 — 'For if the blood of goats and bulls... how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God?' — where Christ's death is compared to, shown to be greater than, and in fulfillment answers the atoning sacrifices made by the blood of bulls and goats, and so must spiritually accomplish what they outwardly performed and symbolically foreshadowed — namely, deliverance from the guilt of sin through expiation and atonement. For just as in those sacrifices the life and blood of the animal was accepted in place of the offerer who was to die for breaking the law, so in this the blood of Christ was accepted as atonement and propitiation for us, He Himself being priest, altar, and sacrifice. Hebrews 10:10, 12 states explicitly that He offered up His own body as a sacrifice for sins — replacing all the old insufficient outward sacrifices that could not perfect those who offered them — securing the forgiveness and pardon of sins through that offering of Himself (verse 19).

We also affirm that in doing this, our Savior underwent the wrath of God that was due to us. Since some question this, I will briefly confirm it with the following reasons.

First, the punishment due to sin is the wrath of God (Romans 1:18; 2:5; Ephesians 2:3; John 3:36). Jesus Christ underwent the punishment due to sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24). Therefore He underwent the wrath of God.

Second, the curse of the law is the wrath of God received as punishment (Deuteronomy 29:20-21). But Jesus Christ underwent the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13) — becoming a curse for us, the same curse that falls on those who are outside of Christ and under the works of the law (verse 10). Therefore He underwent the wrath of God.

No doctrine can be true or consistent with the Gospel if it strikes at the root of gospel faith and pulls away the foundation of all the strong comfort God so abundantly desires us to receive. Such is the doctrine that denies the satisfaction made by Christ and His bearing of the Father's wrath. It leaves the poor soul like Noah's dove in distress, finding no place to rest. When a soul is driven out of its self-righteousness and begins to look to heaven and earth for a resting place — perceiving a flood of wrath covering all the world, the wrath of God revealing itself from heaven against all ungodliness, so that it can find no rest, unable to reach heaven by its own effort and unwilling to fall to hell — if the Lord Jesus Christ does not appear as an ark in the midst of the waters, upon whom the floods have fallen and yet who has risen above them all, what shall that soul do? When the flood came, there were many mountains impressive in appearance, far higher than the ark — yet those mountains were all submerged while the ark rode on top of the waters. Many towering hills and mountains of self-righteousness and vague divine mercy at first appear to the soul far grander than Jesus Christ; but when the flood of wrath comes and spreads itself, all those mountains are quickly covered. Only the ark — the Lord Jesus Christ — though the flood falls on Him also, rises entirely above it and gives safety to those who rest upon Him. Let me now ask any of those troubled souls who have ever wandered and been tossed with fear of the wrath to come: did you ever find a resting place until you came to this — that God did not spare His only Son but gave Him up to death for us all; that He made Him to be sin for us; that He placed all the sins of all the elect into that cup Christ was to drink; that the wrath and flood they feared did fall upon Jesus Christ (though now as the ark He is above it, so that those who enter into Him are safe) — the storm having been His and the safety theirs? Just as all the waters that would have fallen on those in the ark fell upon the ark while they remained dry and safe, so all the wrath that should have fallen on them fell on Christ — and this alone causes their souls to dwell in safety. Has not this been your foundation, your resting place? If not — in its substance — I fear you are standing on rotten foundations. What would you say if someone came and pulled this ark out from under you and handed you an old rotting post to cling to in the flood of wrath? It is too late to tell you no wrath is due to you — the Word of truth and your own consciences have told you otherwise: you know the wages of sin is death for all who bear it; whoever it is found in must die. So the soul may well say: deprive me of the satisfaction of Christ and I am undone. If He did not fulfill justice, I must; if He did not endure wrath, I must — and for eternity. Do not rob me of my only treasure. Denying the satisfaction of Christ destroys the foundation of faith and comfort.

Another argument may be drawn from a few particular Scripture passages. First, 2 Corinthians 5:21: 'He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf.' He was made to be sin for us — how could that be? Are not the very next words 'who knew no sin'? Was He not a lamb without spot and blemish? Certainly He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. What then does this mean — God made Him to be sin? It cannot mean that God made Him sinful or a sinner through inherent sin; that is incompatible with God's justice and with the holiness of our Redeemer's person. What then does it mean — He was made to be sin, He who knew no sin? Clearly: by divine appointment and consent, God charged against Him what He was not personally guilty of. God charged upon Him and imputed to Him all the sins of all the elect, and proceeded against Him accordingly. He stood as our surety, fully charged with the entire debt and required to pay every last amount, as a surety must if called upon — even though he neither borrowed the money nor possesses any of what is in the obligation, he must pay all if brought to judgment. The Lord Christ, if I may put it this way, was brought to the full execution of His Father's justice; in response He underwent everything due to sin — which we proved earlier to be death, wrath, and curse. If it is objected that God was always pleased with His Son, as He testified repeatedly from heaven, how then could He pour His wrath on Him?

In answer: it is true He was always well pleased with His Son, yet it pleased Him to bruise Him and to put Him to grief. He was always pleased with the holiness of His Son's person, the excellence and perfection of His righteousness, and the sweetness of His obedience — but He was displeased with the sins that were charged on Him, and therefore it pleased Him to bruise and put to grief the very One with whom He was always pleased. Nor does the other objection carry any more weight — that Christ underwent no more than what the elect lay under, and that the elect do not lie under wrath and the punishment due to sin.

In answer: the claim is completely false, and neither part of it holds. First, Christ underwent not only the wrath (taken as what is endured) that the elect lay under, but also the wrath they would have had to undergo had He not borne it for them — He delivered them from the wrath to come. Second, the elect in their respective lifetimes do lie under all of God's wrath in terms of what they have merited and incurred, though not in terms of what they actually endure — they are guilty of it, though not presently suffering its punishment. So, notwithstanding these objections, it stands firm: He who knew no sin was made to be sin for us.

Isaiah 53:5: 'But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.' Something was said earlier about this passage; a few additional observations will help clarify the meaning of the words. 'The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him' — that is, He was chastened or punished so that we might have peace and go free. Our sins were the cause of His wounding, and our iniquities the cause of His being crushed, all our sins meeting upon Him as verse 6 states. In other words, He bore our sins — as Peter interprets it: 'He Himself bore our sins' (1 Peter 2:24). He bore our sins not, as some suppose, by declaring that we were never truly sinful, but by being wounded for them, crushed for them, undergoing the punishment due to them — consisting of death, wrath, and curse — thus making His soul an offering for sin. 'He bore our sins' — that is, say some, He declared that we have an eternal righteousness before God because of His eternal purpose to do us good. But is this interpreting Scripture, or corrupting the Word of God? Ask the Word what it means by Christ's bearing of sins, and it will answer: His being struck for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:8), His being cut off for our sins (Daniel 9:26). Nor does the expression 'bearing sins' have any other meaning in Scripture. Leviticus 5:1: 'If a person sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, he does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity' — meaning not that he shall declare himself or others to be free from sin, but that he shall undergo the punishment due to sin, as our Savior did in bearing our iniquities. One would have to be a very clever deceiver to rob a believer of this foundation.

No more arguments or texts on this subject will be urged here, though the cause itself would prompt even the least skilled to find an abundance of them. I have gone as far as the nature of a digression reasonably allows. Nor will I undertake at this time to answer objections to the contrary. A full treatment of the whole matter of Christ's satisfaction — which would require searching out, presenting, and refuting all objections — is not my current purpose. As for the objections raised in the debate that gave occasion to this discussion, I will not reproduce them here, lest some think I deliberately constructed weak objections in order to achieve an easy victory over a man of straw of my own making. So weak were they, and so slight was their force against so fundamental a truth as the one we maintain.