The Battle Of Crowns

Corona Virus our invisible enemy, an enemy that has scaled through the universe. Millions have been left jobless, the greatest economies of the world have come to their knees. It is recorded to be the greatest universal calamity after World War II. Not only have it affected us economically, families have been robbed of their beloved ones, with over 80 000 people dead and over 1.5 million people infected with the virus  world wide.

A Virus That Wears A Crown

                                             
Our social habits have been forced to change so as to accommodate the mitigating measures to reduce the spread of the virus. With most governments implementing nationwide lockdown, Social distance and restricted movement has become the order of the day. Those who depended on the socialization of the community for a living have been doomed as business have been put on halt.

Individuals have been asked to stay at home, which has been argued by the United Kingdom National Health Services and other Medical Practitioners as the most effective way to curb the spread of this high infectious disease that knows no boundaries, race, age, nor royalty. It has been as seen the greatest equalizer of humanity.


Its origins have sparked controversies ranging from biochemical man made weaponry, the 5G network radiation, to the Western Trade Tariffs equaliser. Not withstanding the Chinese dietary conspiracy, as result of the huge Chinese appetite of the wild life the Chinese wild life market has given room to its customers to come into contact with such animal like Bats and Pangolins which scientist are alluding that they might be the right carriers of the Covid19 Virus.

Religiously, more than 80 million people have failed to meet in churches, to fellowship and have prayers. The church has also added its voice to the Covid19 conspiracies pointing the world to the Doctrine of Eschatology which is the study of the end times.

 Advocating that the end has come and that the antichrist is setting up to introduce the new world order. Which will be the creation of one world order with a digital currency embedded in a chip as the mark of the beast.

Having looked at the great impact of Covid19 in the world it is almost impossible to come with all forms of fears, anger, confusion, hopelessness, and ways to create hope and security for the people. Hence, we have all these ideologies and beliefs. Remember people are always reinforced by ideas that inspire hope and define purpose and destine of something or someone. Leaders must inspire such hope thus why probably we could have such ideologies that hopes to bring hope.

In light of all these ideologies and beliefs, my personal thoughts and the things I have learned about the coronavirus (Covid19). Thoughts that should also inspire hope and direct us to move away from fear to faith. I will spend my time on the microscopic image of the anatomy of the Covid19 that is its image and representation.

As we look at the image, it surely looks like a crown, a virus that is crowned. Furthermore the term corona would mean according an anatomic definition: a part of the body resembling or likened to a crown.Anything that wears a crown means something in the world of power, dominance and in Kingdoms. In simply terms the anatomy picture of the virus shows and represents a virus that is wearing a crown. What does that mean to us, does it have a meaning?

A crown generally is a Royal headset that is usually made up of Gold or precious jewels. It represents Royalty, Authority and Power. A King or a Queen is seen wearing a crown. When we then observe the Covid19 anatomy picture showing us a virus that is wearing a crown. It therefore would loosely mean that the virus is in some sense considered to be a King, Authority and Power. Can it be really considered to be a King, Power or Authority simply because it wears a crown or because it represents a Crown?

If we think of all that we hold as Powerful, it has been challenged, confronted and ambushed by the seemly emerging King. Powerful nations have been questioned and shaken. It seems to me as if it is a battle of crowns.

As it seems this virus happens to be questioning and challenging the authority, and power of the other existing Kings (Kings in the Political, Economic, Religious, Spiritual and Technological. No doubt it has questioned it.

The basic laws of the kingdoms operations is that in any Kingdom there is only one King that is permitted to rule at any given time.
 If there be any King that seeks to rule, he must wage war with the existing king to either defeat or dethrone him through war or show of power and dominance. In the likelihood of this thought the Covid19 has waged war and has so far being trumping through deaths, fear and totally impoverished the whole world, with only in the USA over 10 million people are Jobless.

The target have been to establish authority, power, to disarm and dethrone the crown ruling currently. With the Kingdom of man, money, and health falling to the emerging king. This has made most of people to question what the world will be like.

Doubt has raced through the earth, with some religious kings in terms of the top healing ministers, top evangelist, and top faith preachers also coming to bow in terms of failure to address the issue.

The so called Prophet's have gone silent as if God has no word for the hurting world. In this time the Prophet's ought to prophesy more and the Healing minister ought to challenge this King that seeks to change the world as we see it.

The crowns of influence and power as we know them in the G20, UN, and international institutions like IMF and World Bank have come short of giving up because of the immense pressure that is coming with the existing of this Covid19 coronavirus in the world. This is the part of the world that we in the 3 world and South South regions would look up to. These represents a crown that is being fought to be replaced and dethroned. So where so should we now look to, which crown still stands?

The  King of Kings

Yes there is still one King we can look at, He defeated death and the one who hold the power to death. He penetrated into the Kingdom of darkness and took the keys of hades as he walked in victory of the Devil, Death, Sickness and Sin. He became the only King from humanity to enter the heaven and he is seated at the right hand of God the Father. Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, His Name alone is above everything that has been created or that was made. Just the mention of His name everything with a name will bow down to Him.

We can with confidence look up to Him, His crown is greater than the crown of the coronavirus. He is called the Truth, there is no other truth outside of Him, and He is called the Way and the Life. In Him there is life and life in abundance. He came to restore the world, and He offered his life as the ultimate sacrifice for the redemption of man kind.

Friend in Jesus Christ the world has hope and in Him we have life. The life that can only be given by Him which is in nature the same as that of God. You too can become alive to this Divine life as you believe in Him and the work he did on the cross for you. He died and rose from the dead in Him there is life He is that King no other King can overcome. Jesus the king of kings.


                                                                                                                    | The Wordnocrate | 2020

The 21st Century Church A Replica of the Christendom Era's Church Failures

The Church was instituted in the Christendom Era where the Gospel of Christ thrived. Jesus Christ was the center of the Teaching of the Church, they preached about the coming Kingdom. And indeed the message of Christ was so fresh in the mind of the populous. In the 21st Century the focus of the Church is it still Christ and its message is it about the coming Kingdom?

The word Christendom generally refers to the global community of those who adhere to the Christian faith, with religious practices and dogmas gleaned from the teachings of the Bible. Spread throughout the world, Christendom consists of literally billions of people among many nations and peoples of various ethnicity. Correspondingly, Christendom also refers to those countries where Christianity is the dominating or territorial religion


In the age of Christendom, the church occupied a central and influential place in society and the Western world considered itself both formally and officially Christian. 

So when we speak of post-Christendom, we are making the point that the church no longer occupies this central place of social and cultural hegemony and Western civilization no longer considers itself to be formally or officially Christian. http://www.christianpost.com/news/31585/#upAPO4xTpxqffgKC.99

According to Abraham Kuyper 'When the first contest eventuated in this that the emperor bowed to Jesus, then... the kingship of Christ began to be triumphant in society...The kingship of Christ from this time on stood as a direction-giving power above the imperial power, which, in order to strengthen its influence, tried for an ever increasingly close integration with the kingship of Jesus...

When in the fourth century persecution ceased and the imperial power evinced a readiness to accommodate itself to Jesus, the basic victory became apparent...This principal victory continued on during the entire course of the long period known as the Middle Ages'. http://missionalchurchnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/christendom-murray.pdf

It is evident during this period that the Church obtained a very powerful position in the society. As highlighted by Murray in his article christendom ( page 2).

Christendom meant: ·
The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of city, state or empire, thus the message of Jesus Christ to be central and the pivotal focus of Faith. It was attractive and receptive to all societies and nations.

Furthermore in the Era we witness the imposition of a supposedly 'Christian morality' on the entire population (although normally Old Testament moral standards were applied)
In this Era the defense of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality and schism, and by warfare to protect or extend Christendom.

Indeed the Church as an institution was very powerful and its teachings and life style was the model for the whole communities. From the Government to the Peasants in the land their lives were hinged on the Gospel.

That which brought the downfall of the church as a central power

It with great displeasure to note that Corruption erupted in the church as a result of the favors that the church was receiving from the Empire and the power the Papacy had amused. The church was involved in the Politics of the day. Priests and Bishops would spend much of their time in the Political debates and not in the church teaching and molding the believers to keep moving in the faith.

Church in the 21 Century must bring its members to the place where Christ is back to be the center of their focus. However, we see the almost the same image of the church, Most Nations have even Christianize their Nations and have vowed to live by the principles of the Bible and later on to be molded by the Message of Christ. Some Great Nation have even crafted their national Constitutions with the foundations of the Bible.

The church and the State have been separated technically, but from time to time the two always satisfy each others missions and goals. Directly the Clergy are not running the State and not involved in the day to day Politics. But there do contributes much in the formulation of its Policies and Moral Practices.

In Africa at large one can witness the emerging of new ministries which seeks to milk and suck believers of their resources. Such Corrupt events we witness in the Church, Individuals raising to pursue their self goals at the expense of the Gospel and defrauding man by simply manipulating their faith. Paganism and Christianity has not been separated, the scared and profane is as it were one and the same thing.

This why we can be having a Nation having statics that shows that there are 90% of believers and yet there is again 90% people who are corrupt. Is the Church still relevant in our Time?

The Church is that part of the human community which responds first to God-in-Christ and Christ-in-God. It is the sensitive and responsive part in every society and mankind as a whole. It is that group which hears the Word of God, which sees His judgments, which has the vision of the resurrection.

 In its relations with God it is the pioneer part of society that responds to God on behalf of the whole society, somewhat, we may say, as science is the pioneer in responding to pattern or rationality in experience and as artists are the pioneers in responding to beauty. Niebuhr, H. Richard. "The responsibility of the church for society." The Gospel, the Church, and the World. New York: Harper & Row (1946).

To a great extend the church's message needs to remain making Christ the center of its Message. The Christendom Era and our 21st Century Church, which is under the Modern Era have not  much to offer in terms of transformation and realigning the church's life to the message of Christ.


                 Copyright © Wordnomics [All Rights Reserved.] 

New tech Fuelling Global boom In Child Sex Tourism

Are you spending completely on things that pass away like a vapor–or are you investing significantly in the things of God, which do not?

I’m something of a student of human behavior, and I’ve come to some conclusions about how most people in the world relate to God and his gifts. With regard to those who do make some kind of attempt to serve God, I’ve observed that there are basically three kinds of believers in this world.


They’ve compartmentalized the sphere of all their resources, whether time, talent, or treasure, and haven’t brought these under the Lordship of Christ.

Three Kinds Of  Believers

The 21st Century Church A Replica of the Christendom Era's Church Failures

The Church was instituted in the Christendom Era where the Gospel of Christ thrived. Jesus Christ was the center of the Teaching of the Church, they preached about the coming Kingdom. And indeed the message of Christ was so fresh in the mind of the populous. In the 21st Century the focus of the Church is it still Christ and its message is it about the coming Kingdom?

The word Christendom generally refers to the global community of those who adhere to the Christian faith, with religious practices and dogmas gleaned from the teachings of the Bible. Spread throughout the world, Christendom consists of literally billions of people among many nations and peoples of various ethnicity. Correspondingly, Christendom also refers to those countries where Christianity is the dominating or territorial religion


In the age of Christendom, the church occupied a central and influential place in society and the Western world considered itself both formally and officially Christian. 

So when we speak of post-Christendom, we are making the point that the church no longer occupies this central place of social and cultural hegemony and Western civilization no longer considers itself to be formally or officially Christian. http://www.christianpost.com/news/31585/#upAPO4xTpxqffgKC.99

According to Abraham Kuyper 'When the first contest eventuated in this that the emperor bowed to Jesus, then... the kingship of Christ began to be triumphant in society...The kingship of Christ from this time on stood as a direction-giving power above the imperial power, which, in order to strengthen its influence, tried for an ever increasingly close integration with the kingship of Jesus...

When in the fourth century persecution ceased and the imperial power evinced a readiness to accommodate itself to Jesus, the basic victory became apparent...This principle victory continued on during the entire course of the long period known as the Middle Ages'. http://missionalchurchnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/christendom-murray.pdf

It is evident during this period that the Church obtained a very powerful position in the society. As highlighted by Murray in his article christendom ( page 2).

Christendom meant: ·
The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of city, state or empire, thus the message of Jesus Christ to be central and the pivotal focus of Faith. It was attractive and receptive to all societies and nations.

Furthermore in the Era we witness the imposition of a supposedly 'Christian morality' on the entire population (although normally Old Testament moral standards were applied)
In this Era the defense of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality and schism, and by warfare to protect or extend Christendom.

 Probably you are not sure anymore, under pressure you can not handle? Life, marriage and work is breaking in your face. Truly there is no peace in your Life. Learn that God has already given you His Peace appreciate and maximize His Peace in your life.

His Peace Is Precious

This doctrine [justification by faith] is the head and the cornerstone. It alone begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and defends the church of God; and without it the church of God cannot exist for one hour…. For no one who does not hold this article – or, to use Paul's expression, this 'sound doctrine' (Titus 2:1) – is able to teach aright in the church or successfully to resist any adversary . . . this is the heel of the Seed that opposes the old serpent and crushes its head. That is why Satan, in turn, cannot but persecute it."

"Whoever departs from the article of justification does not know God and is an idolater . . . For when this article has been taken away, nothing remains but error, hypocrisy, godlessness, and idolatry, although it may seem to be the height of truth, worship of God, holiness, etc."

"If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time. And all the people in the world who do not hold to this justification are either Jews or Turks or papists or heretics; for there is no middle ground between these two righteousness: the active one of the Law and the passive one which comes from Christ. Therefore the man who strays from Christian righteousness must relapse into the active one, that is, since he has lost Christ, he must put his confidence in his own works."

"When the article of justification has fallen, everything has fallen. Therefore it is necessary constantly to inculcate and impress it, as Moses says of his Law (Deut. 6:7); for it cannot be inculcated and urged enough or too much. Indeed, even though we learn it well and hold to it, yet there is no one who apprehends it perfectly or believes it with a full affection and heart. So very trickish is our flesh, fighting as it does against the obedience of the spirit."

"The article of justification and of grace is the most delightful, and it alone makes a person a theologian and makes of a theologian a judge of the earth and of all affairs. Few there are, however, who have thought it through well and who teach it aright."

"Of this article [justification] nothing may be yielded or conceded, though heaven and earth and whatever will not abide, fall to ruin; for 'there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,' says St. Peter (Acts 4:12); 'and with His stripes we are healed' (Is. 53:5). And on this article all that we teach and practice is based, against the pope, the devil, and the world. That is why we must be very certain of this doctrine and not doubt; otherwise all is lost, and the pope and the devil and all things gain the victory over us and are adjudged right."

THE priestly work of Christ, or at least that part of it in which He offered Himself up as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God, is commonly called the atonement, and the doctrine which sets it forth is commonly called the doctrine of the atonement. That doctrine is at the very heart of what is taught in the Word of God.

Before we present that doctrine, we ought to observe that the term by which it is ordinarily designated is not altogether free from objection.

When I say that the term ‘atonement’ is open to objection, I am not referring to the fact that it occurs only once in the King James Version of the New Testament, and is therefore, so far as New Testament usage is concerned, not a common Biblical term. A good many other terms which are rare in the Bible are nevertheless admirable terms when one comes to summarise Biblical teaching. As a matter of fact this term is rather common in the Old Testament (though it occurs only that once in the New Testament), but that fact would not be necessary to commend it if it were satisfactory in other ways. Even if it were not common in either Testament it still might be exactly the term for us to use to designate by one word what the Bible teaches in a number of words.

The real objection to it is of an entirely different kind. It is a twofold objection. The word atonement in the first place, is ambiguous, and in the second place, it is not broad enough.

The one place where the word occurs in the King James Version of the New Testament is Romans 5:11, where Paul says:


And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Here the word is used to translate a Greek word meaning ‘reconciliation.’ This usage seems to be very close to the etymological meaning of the word, for it does seem to be true that the English word ‘atonement’ means ‘atonement.’ It is, therefore, according to its derivation, a natural word to designate the state of reconciliation between two parties formerly at variance.

In the Old Testament, on the other hand, where the word occurs in the King James Version not once, but forty or fifty times, it has a different meaning; it has the meaning of ‘propitiation.’ Thus we read in Leviticus 1:4, regarding a man who brings a bullock to be killed as a burnt offering:


And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

So also the word occurs some eight times in the King James Version in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, where the provisions of the law are set forth regarding the great day of atonement. Take, for example, the following verses in that chapter:


And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house (Lev. 16:6).

Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat:

And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness (Lev. 16:15f.).

In these passages the meaning of the word is clear. God has been offended because of the sins of the people or of individuals among His people. The priest kills the animal which is brought as a sacrifice. God is thereby propitiated, and those who have offended God are forgiven.

I am not now asking whether those Old Testament sacrifices brought forgiveness in themselves, or merely as prophecies of a greater sacrifice to come; I am not now considering the significant limitations which the Old Testament law attributes to their efficacy. We shall try to deal with those matters in some subsequent talk. All that I am here interested in is the use of the word ‘atonement’ in the English Bible. All that I am saying is that that word in the Old Testament clearly conveys the notion of something that is done to satisfy God in order that the sins of men may be forgiven and their communion with God restored.

Somewhat akin to this Old Testament use of the word ‘atonement’ is the use of it in our everyday parlance where religion is not at all in view. Thus we often say that someone in his youth was guilty of a grievous fault but has fully ‘atoned’ for it or made full ‘atonement’ for it by a long and useful life. We mean by that that the person in question has — if we may use a colloquial phrase — ‘made up for’ his youthful indiscretion by his subsequent life of usefulness and rectitude. Mind you, I am not at all saying that a man can really ‘make up for’ or ‘atone for’ a youthful sin by a subsequent life of usefulness and rectitude; but I am just saying that that indicates the way in which the English word is used. In our ordinary usage the word certainly conveys the idea of something like compensation for some wrong that has been done.

It certainly conveys that notion also in those Old Testament passages. Of course that is not the only notion that it conveys in those passages. There the use of the word is very much more specific. The compensation which is indicated by the word is a compensation rendered to God, and it is a compensation that has become necessary because of an offence committed against God. Still, the notion of compensation or satisfaction is clearly in the word. God is offended because of sin; satisfaction is made to Him in some way by the sacrifice; and so His favour is restored.

Thus in the English Bible the word ‘atonement’ is used in two rather distinct senses. In its one occurrence in the New Testament it designates the particular means by which such reconciliation is effected — namely, the sacrifice which God is pleased to accept in order that man may again be received into favour.

Now of these two uses of the word it is unquestionably the Old Testament use which is followed when we speak of the ‘doctrine of the atonement.’ We mean by the word, when we thus use it in theology, not the reconciliation between God and man, not the ‘at-onement’ between God and man, but specifically the means by which that reconciliation is effected — namely, the death of Christ as something that was necessary in order that sinful man might be received into communion with God.

I do not see any great objection to the use of the word in that way — provided only that we are perfectly clear that we are using it in that way. Certainly it has acquired too firm a place in Christian theology and has gathered around it too many precious associations for us to think, now, of trying to dislodge it.

However, there is another word which would in itself have been much better, and it is really a great pity that it has not come into more general use in this connection. That is the word ‘satisfaction.’ If we only had acquired the habit of saying that Christ made full satisfaction to God for man that would have conveyed a more adequate account of Christ’s priestly work as our Redeemer than the word ‘atonement’ can convey. It designates what the word ‘atonement’ — rightly understood — designates, and it also designates something more. We shall see what that something more is in a subsequent talk.

But it is time now for us to enter definitely into our great subject. Men were estranged from God by sin; Christ as their great high priest has brought them back into communion with God. How has He done so? That is the question with which we shall be dealing in a number of the talks that now follow.

This afternoon all that I can do is to try to state the Scripture doctrine in bare summary (or begin to state it), leaving it to subsequent talks to show how that Scripture doctrine is actually taught in the Scriptures, to defend it against objections, and to distinguish it clearly from various unscriptural theories.

What then in bare outline does the Bible teach about the ‘atonement’? What does it teach — to use a better term — about the satisfaction which Christ presented to God in order that sinful man might be received into God’s favour?

I cannot possibly answer this question even in bare summary unless I call your attention to the Biblical doctrine of sin with which we dealt last winter. You cannot possibly understand what the Bible says about salvation unless you understand what the Bible says about the thing from which we are saved.

If then we ask what is the Biblical doctrine of sin, we observe, in the first place, that according to the Bible all men are sinners.

Well, then, that being so, it becomes important to ask what this sin is which has affected all mankind. Is it just an excusable imperfection; is it something that can be transcended as a man can transcend the immaturity of his youthful years? Or, supposing it to be more than imperfection, supposing it to be something like a definite stain, is it a stain that can easily be removed as writing is erased from a slate?

The Bible leaves us in no doubt as to the answer to these questions. Sin, it tells us, is disobedience to the law of God, and the law of God is entirely irrevocable.

The Doctrine Of Atonement

Why is the law of God irrevocable? The Bible makes that plain. Because it is rooted in the nature of God! God is righteous and that is the reason why His law is righteous. Can He then revoke His law or allow it to be disregarded? Well, there is of course no external compulsion upon Him to prevent Him from doing these things. There is none who can say to Him, ‘What doest thou?’ In that sense He can do all things. But the point is, He cannot revoke His law and still remain God. He cannot, without Himself becoming unrighteous, make His law either forbid righteousness or condone unrighteousness. When the law of God says, ‘The soul that sinneth it shall die,’ that awful penalty of death is, indeed, imposed by God’s will; but God’s will is determined by God’s nature, and God’s nature being unchangeably holy the penalty must run its course. God would be untrue to Himself, in other words, if sin were not punished; and that God should be untrue to Himself is the most impossible thing that can possibly be conceived.

Under that majestic law of God man was placed in the estate wherein he was created. Man was placed in a probation, which theologians call the covenant of works. If he obeyed the law during a certain limited period, his probation was to be over; he would be given eternal life without any further possibility of loss. If, on the other hand, he disobeyed the law, he would have death — physical death and eternal death in hell.

Man entered into that probation with every advantage. He was created in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. He was created not merely neutral with respect to goodness; he was created positively good. Yet he fell. He failed to make his goodness an assured and eternal goodness; he failed to progress from the goodness of innocency to the confirmed goodness which would have been the reward for standing the test. He transgressed the commandment of God, and so came under the awful curse of the law.

Under that curse came all mankind. That covenant of works had been made with the first man, Adam, not only for himself but for his posterity. He had stood, in that probation, in a representative capacity; he had stood — to use a better terminology — as the federal head of the race, having been made the federal head of the race by divine appointment. If he had successfully met the test, all mankind descended from him would have been born in a state of confirmed righteousness and blessedness, without any possibility of falling into sin or of losing eternal life. But as a matter of fact Adam did not successfully meet the test. He transgressed the commandment of God, and since he was the federal head, the divinely appointed representative of the race, all mankind sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression.

Thus all mankind, descended from Adam by ordinary generation, are themselves under the dreadful penalty of the law of God. They are under that penalty at birth, before they have done anything either good or bad. Part of that penalty is the want of the righteousness with which man was created, and a dreadful corruption which is called original sin. Proceeding from that corruption when men grow to years of discretion come individual acts of transgression.

Can the penalty of sin resting upon all mankind be remitted? Plainly not, if God is to remain God. That penalty of sin was ordained in the law of God, and the law of God was no mere arbitrary and changeable arrangement but an expression of the nature of God Himself. If the penalty of sin were remitted, God would become unrighteous, and that God will not become unrighteous is the most certain thing that can possibly be conceived.

How then can sinful men be saved? In one way only. Only if a substitute is provided who shall pay for them the just penalty of God’s law.

The Bible teaches that such a substitute has as a matter of fact been provided. The substitute is Jesus Christ. The law’s demands of penalty must be satisfied. There is no escaping that. But Jesus Christ satisfied those demands for us when He died instead of us on the cross.

I have used the word ‘satisfied’ advisedly. It is very important for us to observe that when Jesus died upon the cross He made a full satisfaction for our sins; He paid the penalty which the law pronounces upon our sin, not in part but in full.

In saying that, there are several misunderstandings which need to be guarded against in the most careful possible way. Only by distinguishing the Scripture doctrine carefully from several distortions of it can we understand clearly what the Scripture doctrine is. I want to point out, therefore, several things that we do not mean when we say that Christ paid the penalty of our sin by dying instead of us on the cross.

In the first place, we do not mean that when Christ took our place He became Himself a sinner. Of course He did not become a sinner. Never was His glorious righteousness and goodness more wonderfully seen than when He bore the curse of God’s law upon the cross. He was not deserving of that curse. Far from it! He was deserving of all praise.

What we mean, therefore, when we say that Christ bore our guilt is not that He became guilty, but that He paid the penalty that we so richly deserved.

In the second place, we do not mean that Christ’s sufferings were the same as the sufferings that we should have endured if we had paid the penalty of our own sins. Obviously they were not the same. Part of the sufferings that we should have endured would have been the dreadful suffering of remorse. Christ did not endure that suffering, for He had done no wrong. Moreover, our sufferings would have endured to all eternity, whereas Christ’s sufferings on the cross endured but a few hours. Plainly then His sufferings were not the same as ours would have been.

In the third place, however, an opposite error must also be warded off. If Christ’s sufferings were not the same as ours, it is also quite untrue to say that He paid only a part of the penalty that was due to us because of our sin. Some theologians have fallen into that error. When man incurred the penalty of the law, they have said, God was pleased to take some other and lesser thing — namely, the sufferings of Christ on the cross — instead of exacting the full penalty. Thus, according to these theologians, the demands of the law were not really satisfied by the death of Christ, but God was simply pleased, in arbitrary fashion, to accept something less than full satisfaction.

That is a very serious error indeed. Instead of falling into it we shall, if we are true to the Scriptures, insist that Christ on the cross paid the full and just penalty for our sin.

The error arose because of a confusion between the payment of a debt and the payment of a penalty. In the case of a debt it does not make any difference who pays; all that is essential is that the creditor shall receive what is owed him. What is essential is that just the same thing shall be paid as that which stood in the bond.

But in the case of the payment of a penalty it does make a difference who pays. The law demanded that we should suffer eternal death because of our sin. Christ paid the penalty of the law in our stead. But for Him to suffer was not the same as for us to suffer. He is God, and not merely man. Therefore if He had suffered to all eternity as we should have suffered, that would not have been to pay the just penalty of the sin, but it would have been an unjust exaction of vastly more. In other words, we must get rid of merely quantitative notions in thinking of the sufferings of Christ. What He suffered on the cross was what the law of God truly demanded not of any person but of such a person as Himself when He became our substitute in paying the penalty of sin. He did therefore make full and not merely partial satisfaction for the claims of the law against us.

Finally, it is very important to observe that the Bible’s teaching about the cross of Christ does not mean that God waited for someone else to pay the penalty of sin before He would forgive the sinner. So unbelievers constantly represent it, but that representation is radically wrong. No, God Himself paid the penalty of sin — God Himself in the Person of God the Son, who loved us and gave Himself for us, God Himself in the person of God the Father who so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, God the Holy Spirit who applies to us the benefits of Christ’s death. God’s the cost and ours the marvellous gain! Who shall measure the depths of the love of God which was extended to us sinners when the Lord Jesus took our place and died in our stead upon the accursed tree?