Pohill:

3. Christ suffered this punishment in our stead, he died huper emon, for us, (Rom. v. 8), and which is more emphatical, anti pollon, instead of many, (Matt. xx. 28), the particle, huper doth sometimes in scripture signify only the utility or benefit of another, but anti properly imports a subrogation or substitution of one in the room of another; and so Christ, as our surety, died in our room or stead. Hence the apostle argues thus: If one died for all, ara hoi pantes apethanon, then all died, (2 Cor. v. 15), all died in the death of one, in as much as that one died as the surety of all. Hence our sins were condemned in his flesh, (Rom. viii. 3), and so condemned there, that upon gospel terms they are remitted to us. But unless he had stood in our room, divine justice could neither have adjudged him to punishment, nor yet have admitted us to an absolution from sin.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 154.

Humfrey:

To come up closer then to this person, and speak exactly, if I can. The death of Christ, as it is Redemptory, Propitiatory, or Satisfactory for sin, hath this fruit I speak of, Pardon. It is this is the direct immediate and proper fruit of it; I think I may say too, the only (such) fruit of it, for, Pardon for all sin of Omission and Commission, and consequently a disobligation from all punishment, of Loss and Suffering, is (passively taken) no less than a right to Impunity and Life, and this is held forth upon condition of Faith and Repentance to all the World: But the Condition it self (performed by some) is not the fruit of Christ’s death, as a Propitiation, though by way of Redundancy it comes by it. If you ask me what Redundancy? or How? I will tell you (though I can’t Peremptorily,) as thus. In all things whatsoever we pray for, suppose it to be for fair weather (as we have Collects for such Occasions), we ask it in Christ’s name, for his sake, or through his merits, when yet it would be a strange speech to say Christ dyed that we may have fair weather: And nevertheless there is some sense in which there is a Truth in this; for if Christ had not atoned God by his satisfaction for sin, there is no blessing could be obtained for, or by, any. Now, when there is some distinction must be made here, so that, mediately, indirectly, or some way, by way of Redundancy, such blessings, even as these, are the benefits of Christ’s Redemption to such and such particular persons, let that distinction be formed right, and in such a sense will the condition we speak of be a fruit hereof to the Elect, even by its redundant merit and value.

The purchase of Christ made, was a purchase for us, and for himself. His purchase for us was, that we should be pardoned upon Condition: He purchased for himself, a power to give us that condition, that our pardon may be complete. All power is committed to me in Heaven and Earth, says Christ, after he was risen. There is accordingly a Redemption by price (our Divines say), and by power. Pardon upon condition is the fruit of his Redemption by price: But the Condition is the Effect of his Redemption by power. When by his Death (I say) he had paid the price of a pardon for All upon Condition; by his Resurrection he receives power to confer the condition to whom he pleases, that is the Elect, which when they perform, they are justified, or have absolute right in it. And that may be a good resolution as to the sense of that Text, He was delivered for our sins, and raised again for our justification. To make the matter though more plain, we have that Text in Acts. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. Repentance we see (and so faith) comes from this power, the power of Christ as a King, rather than as a Priest; and if as a Priest both, ’tis by virtue of his Intercession as he is at Gods right hand, rather than of his Oblation. Now Christ intercedes for nothing but according to Gods will; His will is his Decree, and it is from the decree, his decree of Election, that our faith and repentance does come. It is not from Christ’s purchase by price; it is not from the power of our free will; but it is from Election (which belongs to God not as Rector, but as Lord of his own gifts) working the same effectually in us. It is out of this Treasury Christ gives it; And not by virtue of a right to any from his death, but by the power of an endless life. Not as Testator, but as the Executor or Dispenser of his Fathers Election.

In fine, Christ by his death did merit, or procure this power, that he hath at Gods right hand: By this power he gives us Repentance and Faith. Faith and Repentance then is not the fruit of Christ’s death any otherwise than mediately or indirectly, as being derived from this power, which he obtained by it.

God (I again say) for the merit of Christ’s life and death exalts him to the power mentioned. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him. By this power, or as exalted, Christ gives his Spirit to work Faith and Repentance in whom he chooses, or hath chosen. By this work they are regenerated, and that Article in the Agreement (or Covenant as some call it) between Father and Son [When though shalt make his Soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed], is made good to him. In this way about then, and no other, does Faith and Repentance come to the Elect by his death, when the direct and immediate fruit of it is Universal. That is, Faith and Repentance (the Condition) is the fruit of Christ’s death as all other Blessings are, which are asked of God for Christ’s merits sake, or which he, as Prince and Savior, bestows on his people.

John Humfrey, Peace at Pinners-Hall Wish’d and Attempted in a Pacifick Paper Touching The Universality of Redemption, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, and our Freedom from the Law of Works (London, Printed and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor near Amen-Corner, 1692), 4–7. [Some reformatting; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony for the find.

[comments below]

Cunningham:

The most important question, however, connected with this department of the subject, is not whether what Christ suffered was a punishment, or properly penal, but whether it was the penalty which the law had denounced against sin, and to which sinners, therefore, are justly exposed. Now, upon this point, there are three different modes of statement which have been adopted and defended by different classes of divines, who all concur in maintaining the doctrine of the atonement against the Socinians. Some contend that the only accurate and exact way of expressing and embodying the doctrine of Scripture upon the subject, is to say, that Christ suffered the very penalty the same thing viewed legally and judicially which the law had denounced against sin, and which we had incurred by transgression. Others think that the full import of the Scripture doctrine is expressed, and that the general scope and spirit of its statements upon this subject are more accurately conveyed, by maintaining that Christ did not suffer the very penalty, the same penalty which sinners had incurred, but that he suffered what was a full equivalent, or an adequate compensation for it, that His suffering was virtually as much as men deserved, though not the same. While others, again, object to both these statements, and think that the whole of what Scripture teaches upon this point is embodied in the position, that what Christ suffered was a substitute for the penalty which we had incurred.

Dr Owen zealously contends for the first of these positions, and attaches much importance to the distinction between Christ having suffered or paid the same penalty as we had incurred, and His having suffered or paid only an equivalent, or as much as we had deserved; or, as he expresses it, between His suffering or paying the idem and the tantundem. He lays down the doctrine which he maintained upon this point against Grotius and Baxter in this way: “That the punishment which our Savior underwent was the same that the law required of us; God relaxing His law as to the persons suffering, but not as to the penalty suffered.”¹ There are, however, divines of the strictest orthodoxy, and of the highest eminence, who have not attached the same importance to the distinction between the idem and the tantundem, and who have thought that the true import of the Scripture doctrine upon the subject is most correctly brought out by saying, that what Christ suffered was a full equivalent, or an adequate compensation, for the penalty men had incurred. Mastricht, for instance, whose system of theology is eminently distinguished for its ability, clearness, and accuracy, formally argues against the death of Christ being solutio “proprie sic dicta, qua id praieise prsestatur, quod est in obligatione”² and contends that “reatus tollitur satisfactione, qua non idem precise, quod est in obligatione, creditori pnustatur; sed tantundem, seu equivalens.” And Turretine³ seems, upon the whole, to agree with him, or rather, to conjoin the two ideas together, as being both true, though in somewhat different respects, and as not essentially differing from each other. He has not, indeed, so far as I remember, formally discussed the precise question about the idem and the tantundem, on which Owen and Maastricht have taken opposite sides; but in discussing the Socinian argument, that Christ did not make a true and real satisfaction for our sins, because lie did not in fact pay what was due to God by us, and especially because lie suffered only temporal, while we had incurred eternal, death, he meets the major proposition by asserting that there might be a true and proper satisfaction, though the same thing was not paid which was due, provided it was a full equivalent in weight and value, “etsi non idem, modo tantundem habeatur, sufficit;” while lie meets also the minor proposition of the Socinian argument, by asserting that Christ did pay what was due by us; the same, not of course in its adjuncts and circumstances, but in its substance,–His suffering, though temporary in duration, being, because of the infinite dignity of His person, properly infinite in weight or value as a penal infliction, and thus substantially identical, in the eye of justice and law, with the eternal punishment which sinners had deserved.

Read the rest of this entry »

Chambers:

Hebrews 12:2

aphorontes eis tes pisteos archegon kai teleioten Iesoun

Owen’s third clear scripture is a reference to “Jesus as the ‘author and finisher of our faith.’” It is not exactly clear how Owen sees this as supporting his case, as he does not enlarge upon the verse. By its placement here we must assume that Owen interprets “author” to mean the one who causally originates faith in believers, and who does so directly by his death on the cross. The correctness of this assumption receives support from Owen’s exegesis of this verse in his later commentary on Hebrews. Here we read that Jesus is proposed as the object of our attentive gaze, a ‘looking’ which Owen says “denotes an act of faith or trust, with hope and expectation,”³² “by his office or work.” Jesus can be said to be ‘author and finisher of our faith’ on account of “procurement and real efficiency.”

He by his obedience and death procured this grace for us. It is “given unto us on his account,” Phil. 1: 29. … And he works it in us, or bestows it on us, by his Spirit, in the beginning and all the increases of it from first to last… So he is the “author” or beginner of our faith, in the efficacious working of it in our hearts by his Spirit; and lithe finisher” of it in all its effects, in liberty, peace, and joy, and all the fruits of it in obedience; for “without him we can do nothing.”³³

Owen mentions three other senses in which Christ as ‘author and finisher of our faith’ may be considered as the object of our ‘looking,’ as the revelation of the object of our faith, as the example of the obedience of our faith, and as the guide, helper and director of our faith, but he concludes his discussion of the phrase by emphasizing that it has primary reference to Jesus as the efficient worker of our faith.

It is true, that in all these senses our faith from first to last is from Jesus Christ. But that (mentioned) in the first place is the proper meaning of the words; for they both of them express an efficiency, a real power and efficacy, with respect unto our faith. Nor is it faith objectively that the apostle treats of, the faith that is revealed, but that which is in the hearts of believers.³⁴

Thus for Owen the primary sense of archegos is that of efficacious worker of faith in our hearts. Is this correct?

The Context: The author is seeking to encourage his readers to persevere in faith even in the face of hardship, alluded to as a past reality (10:32-34) and a present possibility (12 :4-11). He has expressed his conviction that they are those who do not shrink back but have faith (10: 39) and presented them with the example of the Old Testament saints who persevered in faith. In the light of their example they too are to ‘run with patience the race that is set before’ them. As a further resource for this perseverance they must keep on looking to Jesus who faithfully persevered in doing the Father’s will and through the hardship thus experienced triumphed. They must consider Him that they might not grow weary. Jesus is thus being presented as ton tes pisteos archegon kai teleioten as an encouragement to faith, whose triumphant example of faith they must heed.

“Our faith” or “faith”? The personal possessive pronoun ‘our’ is absent from the Greek text. Many translations have introduced ‘our,’³⁵ but is this either necessary or desirable? Ellingworth, who supports this translation, writes

writes no stress can be laid on the use of the article as such, but pistis is usually anarthrous in Hebrews, and where the article is used (4:2, 13:7) it refers to the faith of specified groups.³⁶

Thus he finds here a reference to the faith of the author and his readers, and indirectly to that of Old Testament believers. Ellingworth is correct in his first two observations but his suggestion that the article “refers to the faith of specified groups” is an unhappy turn of phrase. Robertson, considering the article under the heading “As the equivalent of a possessive pronoun,” states “the article does not indeed mean possession. The nature of the case makes it plain that the word in question belongs to the person mentioned.”³⁷ It is the context of each individual reference which determines whether the specificity that the article gives is best translated by an English possessive pronoun or otherwise, and three occurrences of the article with pistis are insufficient to claim to establish a pattern of use, especially where alternate explanations for the use of the article in those contexts is available.³⁸ In Heb. 4: 2 whose faith is being spoken of is indicated by the participle ten pistin, and the article is more likely to be present as a generic article, emphasising that the word met with no faith at all. In Heb. 13: 7 English legitimately translates ten pistin as ‘their faith’ not because the article refers to a group of people but because the definiteness imparted to ‘faith’ makes it plain that it could be the faith of no others but ‘your leaders.’ It is this definiteness that also accounts for the use of the possessive in the English translation of 11:39, not mentioned by Ellingworth. How then to consider the use of the article in 12:2? While it may be a generic use, faith abstractly considered, it is better with Peterson to see an anaphoric sense, picking up on the presentation of ‘faith’ in the preceding chapter.³⁹ Understood in this way

the ‘faith’ of which the Apostle speaks is faith in its absolute type, of which he has traced the action under the Old Covenant.

Westcott continues, in the light of his whole understanding of the passage, to reject the idea that it is our subjective believing that is in view here:

The particular interpretations, by which it is referred to the faith of each individual Christian, as finding its beginning and final development in Christ; or to the substance of the Christian Creed; are foreign to the whole scope of the passage, which is to shew that in Jesus Christ Himself we have the perfect example – perfect in realisation and effect – of that faith which we are to imitate, trusting in Him.⁴⁰

The sense of archegon kai teleioten: archegos appears in the New Testament at Acts 3: 15, 5:31 and Hebrews 2:10 and 12:2. According to Bauer it is capable of a number of somewhat overlapping senses – leader, ruler, prince; one who begins; or originator, founder.⁴¹ Because of what Coenen calls the ” relatively unambiguous use” of archegos in the LXX for ‘leader’ this sense has been argued by a number of commentators for its use in Heb. 2: 10 and 12: 2. Thus Peterson, having found that the primary sense of archegos in 2:10 was that of leader or pathfinder, sees that emphasis also in 12: 2, as the intent of the passage concerns the comparison of Jesus’ experience with that of believers. “Christ is ‘forerunner’ and ‘example’ for his people in the life of faith.”⁴² However, Jesus is not just an example of a greater faith than the Old Testament saints. While judging

those commentators correct who see the primary reference here to the exercise of faith by Christ himself, . . . the preceding emphasis on the uniqueness of his personal achievement is not forgotten. Indeed, because Christ has given faith ‘a perfect basis by his high-priestly work,’ his faith, and what it achieved both for himself and for others, becomes a greater incentive for faith on our part than the faith of OT saints. His faith is thus ‘qualitatively’ and not just ‘quantitatively’ greater than theirs.⁴³

Even where the sense of ‘beginner’ is preferred because of its contrast with teleiotes the emphasis continues to be on the example of Jesus, the one who starts and completes the road we all must run, and in doing so makes our following possible.⁴⁴ Teleiotes, found only here in the New Testament and related to the significant perfection terminology of Hebrews, heightens this emphasis on Christ as our example, presenting him as the One in whom “faith has reached its perfection.”⁴⁵

Thus we see that in the eyes of many modern commentators neither context, syntax nor semantics support Owen’s contention that the primary reference of the phrase is to Christ as the efficacious worker of faith in our hearts, and their arguments seem convincing. Owen’s ‘purchase of faith’ still awaits a text….

Chambers, N.A. “A Critical Examination of John Owen’s Argument for Limited Atonement in the Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” (Th.M. thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 1998), 211-217. [Some reformatting; old style title emphasis converted to italics; italics original; underlining for side-headers original; and inline underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »