Editor's Comments

Walter J. Chantry


We Christians cherish such biblical phrases as, 'The Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me' (Gal. 2:20). It is all so very personal, so comforting, so assuring that all is well with my soul, as we sing in Philip Bliss's poetic words, 'In my place condemned he stood, Sealed my pardon with his blood.'

As Paul goes on to express in Galatians 3:13, 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.' Having actually endured the curse of the law which our lawbreaking deserved, divine justice has been satisfied for all our sins and can curse us no more. The consequence of Christ's becoming a curse for us is that he redeemed us (that is, he actually released us from bondage by paying the ransom price required by the law). That to which we were in bondage was the law's curse. That curse can no longer threaten us or tyrannize us.

If Jesus' substitutionary death for us is so effective in releasing us from the deserved curse of the law, then we cannot say that Christ loved in the same way and gave himself equally for those of our fellow-men who at this moment and forever suffer the divine wrath pronounced in the curse of the law. In order to say that Christ died for those who perish in their sins, one must eviscerate all the precious and assuring terms for atonement in the Bible. The historic tendency of all systems of thought which attempt to teach a universal atonement along with the reality of Heaven and Hell has been to change the definition of 'atonement'. They move away from all the substitutionary elements of Christ's work, placing ever more emphasis on man's providing for himself the all-important something which actually delivers himself from destruction.

This issue provides food for meditation on the nature of Christ's atoning work, his intent in going to the cross, the extent of our Lord's priestly accomplishments, and practical implications for one's view of these subjects. All are intertwined.

It is not possible to assert one's view of the extent of the atonement without that pronouncement affecting his view of the nature of the atonement and vice versa. Especially valuable are comments within the various articles on how these doctrines ought to impact the preaching of the gospel.


Back to Top