Murray Sheard’s letter, June NZ Baptist, must not go unanswered. It alleges that the “substitution theory” of the cross of Christ is “only one attempt to explain how atonement works” and argues that we can do without it.

Furthermore, says the writer, this “theory” “suffers from numerous logical and moral flaws.” It makes little sense today. In fact, it is “blasphemy.”

On the contrary, the “substitution theory” of the atonement is absolutely indispensable to Christian faith. Even if it were only one explanation, it is nevertheless clearly and repeatedly taught in the New Testament and therefore is not simply a theory, but an authoritative element of apostolic truth.

It is not “merely one” explanation among others. In fact, New Testament teaching regarding the atonement forms an integral whole and the “substitution theory” is central to it.

The core of the whole gospel, according to apostolic tradition, is that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). This can only mean that, when he died on the cross, Jesus bore the penalty due to our sin on our behalf and in our place, so that we might be forgiven. In the greatest systematic theological treatise ever written, the Apostle Paul asserts that sin does indeed incur God’s judgment, which is death (Romans 1:32, 5:12, 6:23), but that Christ bore that judgment for us (Romans 4:25, 5:8). In fact, God “gave him up for all of us” (Romans 8:32).

This is the logic of sacrifice. Hebrews tells us repeatedly that Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many (9:28). As Peter says, Christ suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous (1 Peter 3:18).

Nor is this a mere theory. It was central to the intention of Jesus Christ himself in going to the cross. “This is my blood,” he said, the night before he died, “... poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Indeed, it appears clear that Jesus understood his death largely in terms of Isaiah 53, where it is said that he poured out himself to death and thus bore (i.e. took the punishment for) the sin of many (53:12). Since Jesus himself saw it that way, and since God raised him from the dead, I am willing to bet my life that it is a fact!

As for “logical and moral flaws,” I find none. Of course we must appropriate by faith what Christ has done for us. A covenant must be accepted or it is null and void. As to whether or not it is right for God to judge sin, the Bible would argue that if he does not then he is not God (Romans 3:5-6) and sin is not sin. Now that really would be blasphemy!

Rather, it is one of the chief glories of the biblical prophets that they insisted that sin incurs judgment. The Old Testament God proved he is no mere “tribal deity” precisely by judging even his own people in the Babylonian exile. The gospel is not that God passes over sin, but that he has dealt with it at the cross (Romans 3:25-26). God did not inflict our penalty upon a third party, as some imagine. Jesus was and is God the Son. God himself, in his Son, bore our sins.

The cross of Jesus is not merely a shining instance of forgiveness at work. It is the indispensable means by which our sins are forgiven.

It is not merely a splendid but passive act of non-retaliation, it is also a decisive act of divine judgment, and therefore of justification.

It is because he, and only he, has died for us, that Christ is our one and only Saviour.

– Warren Prestidge
Remuera, Auckland