CHAPTER 7

THE PROBLEM OF THE ATONEMENT

THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST

The Latin type of the atonement understands the death of Christ legalistically. This legalistic misunderstanding of
the death of Christ has its origin in the penitential system which was introduced into Christian theology by
Tertullian (160?-230? A.D.). He had introduced the whole legalistic scheme of salvation with its idea of merit in
reference to penance or repentance. God cannot disregard good deeds, he said.
"God, we may be sure, will not sanction the reprobation of good deeds,
for they are His. Since He initiates and preserves them,
so also must He needs approve them;
since He approves them, so also must He reward them...
A good deed has God as its debtor and a bad deed, also,
because every judge settles a case on its merits.
Now since God presides as judge in order to exact
and safeguard justice, something so precious in His sight,
and since it is for this
that He establishes every single precept of His moral law,
can it be doubted that, just as in all our actions,
so, too, in the case of repentance justice must be rendered to God?" [1]

Although Tertullian teaches that God helps man perform good deeds, [2] in the strictest sense of the word man has
to merit salvation. [3]
"Faith is established in the Rule.
There it has its law and it wins salvation by keeping the law." [4]

Associated with the idea of merit was the idea of satisfaction.

"What folly it is, what perversity,
to practice an imperfect penitence and then to expect a pardon for sin!
This is to stretch forth one's hand for merchandise and not pay for the price.
And the price which the Lord has set on the purchase of pardon is this --
He offers impunity to be bought in exchange for penitence.
If, then, merchants first examine a coin,
which they have stipulated as their price,
to see that it be not dipped or plated or counterfeit,
do we not believe that the Lord,
also, pre-examines our penitence,
seeing that He is going to give us so great a reward,
to wit, life everlasting." [5]

Penance is satisfaction, the payment of a temporal penalty to escape eternal loss. It is a compensatory work of
satisfaction which propitiates God.
"Herein [in some external act] we confess our sin to the Lord,
not as though He were ignorant of it,
but because satisfaction receives its proper determination through confession,
confession gives birth to penitence and by penitence God is appeased." [6]

Tertullian did not apply this term to the death of Christ, but after he had introduced the legalistic vocabulary and
concepts into Christian theology, the way was prepared for their application to the death of Christ. Cyprian
(200/210?-258 A.D.), bishop of Carthage, in the third century was the first Christian writer to interpret Christ's
death as a satisfaction. [7] He also began to apply the idea of merit to the work of Christ. Tertullian had already
introduced the idea of merit; that is, associated with the performance of that which is commanded, the observance
of the law, there was merit. Each man by his good works earns merit which may counterbalance the demerits of
his evil or bad deeds. For most men this is all that is necessary. But some exceptional individuals may earn more
merit than is necessary to balance the demerits of their evil acts. This overplus of merit may be earned by acts that
are supererogatoria, that is, go beyond what is strictly obligatory. Tertullian considered such acts as fasting,
voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc. as going beyond what was required and thus earning for the doers of them an
excess of merit. Cyprian introduced the principle that this superfluous merit may be transferred from one person to
another, and he began to apply this principle to the overplus of merit earned by the work of Christ as well as the
saints and martyrs. Thus the way was prepared for the Anselmic theory of the atonement and the reformation
theory of justification as the imputation of Christ's righteousness or merits earned by His active obedience to the
believer's account.
Anselm (1033-1109 A.D.) in the eleventh century A.D. gave classic expression to the satisfaction theory of
Christ's death. In his famous work Cur Deus Homo? [Why did God become man?] Anselm interpreted the death
of Christ as that by which the obligation of the broken law, the debt man owed, was paid. Anselm defines sin as
failing to render to God His due. The law sets forth these obligations.
"He who does not render this honor which is due to God,
robs God of his own and dishonors him, and this is sin...
it will not suffice merely to restore what has been taken away,
but considering the contempt offered,
he ought to restore more than he took away." [8]

Anselm argues that man cannot make satisfaction for his own sins. For he already owes God complete obedience,
and he has nothing left over to pay God for his sins. [9] Also man cannot make satisfaction for his own sins
because sin against an infinite God requires an infinite satisfaction. To the suggestion that human repentance can
make satisfaction for sin against an infinite God, Anselm replies with those famous words, "You have not as yet
estimated the great burden of sin." [10] So Anselm sees the problem of the atonement.
"Man as a sinner owes God for his sin what he is unable to pay,
and cannot be saved without payment." [11]
Satisfaction can only be paid by God because the price paid to God for the sin of man is "something greater than
all the universe besides God." [12] And since "it is necessary that he who can give God anything of his own...
must be greater than all else but God himself," none but God can make this satisfaction. [13] But yet man must
make the satisfaction for he is the one who has committed the sin and ought make the satisfaction. "No one but
God can make the satisfaction, but no one but man should make it, since it is man who sinned." [14] Thus if man
is to be saved, satisfaction must be made and it must be made by a God-man, one who is perfect God and perfect
man.
"For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay;
and man will not do it, because he cannot.
Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this,
it is necessary that the same being should be perfect God and perfect man,
in order to make this atonement." [15]

Anselm then proceeds to explain that the one who is to make satisfaction must be born of Adam, since it is Adam's
race who has sinned. [16] The Son, through his voluntary death, obtained execss merit, requiring a reward from
God.
"No man except this one ever gave to God
what he was not obliged to lose,
or paid a debt he did not owe.
But he freely offered to the Father
what there was no need of his ever losing,
and paid for sinners what he owed not for himself." [17]

This gift freely given by the Son deserves a reward from God. But since all things belongs to the Father were his,
the Son having need of nothing, the reward can not be directily paid to the Son. Thus the reward is given in the
form of salvation to those for whose sake the Son became man and suffered death. [18]
"What is more proper than that,
when he beholds so many of them weighed down by so heavy a debt,...
he should remit the debt incurred by their sin,
and give them what their transgression had forfeited." [19]

In the incarnation and the death of the Son the mercy as well as the justice of God is shown. [20]
Anselm's theory of the death of Christ is clearly built on legalistic presuppositions; his whole theological structure
is built on the penitential system. The key term in Anselm's concept of Christ's death is "satisfaction." [21]
According to Anselm, the problem of the atonement is either satisfaction or punishment. A third alternative of God
putting away sins by compassion alone, without payment or punishment, is unfitting and improper for God.
"To remit sin in this manner is nothing else than not to punish;
and since it is not right to cancel sin without compensation or punishment,
if it be not punished, then is it passed by undischarged...
It is not fitting for God to pass over anything in his kingdom undischarged...
It is, therefore, not proper for God thus to pass over sin unpunished." [22]

To freely forgive without satisfaction or punishment is from the legalistic point of view impossible.
"Everyone knows that justice to man is regulated by law,
so that, according to the requirements of law,
the measure of award is bestowed by God...
But if sin is neither paid for nor punished,
it is subject to no law...
In justice, therefore, if it is canceled by compassion alone,
is more free than justice, which seems very inconsistent." [23]

Justice demands that God's honor be upheld.

"If there is nothing greater or better than God,
there is nothing more just than supreme justice,
which maintains God's honor in the arrangement of things,
and which is nothing else but God himself...
Therefore God maintains nothing with more justice
than the honor of his own dignity." [24]

Therefore, sin which dishonors God must either receive satisfaction or be punished.
"Does it seem to you that he wholly preserve it,
if he allows himself to be defrauded of it
as that he should neither receive satisfaction
nor punish the one defrauding him...
Therefore the honor taken away must be repaid,
or punishment must follow; otherwise,
either God will not be just to himself,
or he will be weak in respect to both parties;
and this is impious to think of." [25]

The free forgiveness of sins cannot be allowed, and the order of law and justice must not be broken by such an
infringement. Moreover, if God freely forgave sins without satisfaction or punishment, it would mean that sin is
not treated seriously and so would amount to moral laxity. Hence the payment of satisfaction is required as a
safeguard of moral earnestness.
But no sooner had Anselm completed the formulation of the satisfaction theory of the atonement than it was
criticized by his younger contemporary, Abelard (1079-1142 A.D.). Abelard in formulating the moral influence
theory of the atonement in criticism of satisfaction theory began a controversy which has continued ever since.
According to Abelard's moral influence theory the saving death of Christ is directed toward influencing man to
turn away from his sin by the example of God's love for sinful man in Christ. Anselm's theory made little
reference to the love of God as the reason of Christ's death and man's love of God as the response to it. Abelard
wanted to correct this ommission. And in his formulation of his theory, Abelard attacked the basis of the
satisfaction theory. He rejected the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, denying that all men are guilty of Adam's
sin, and asserting that man has a tendency for good as well as for sin. Abelard also rejected Anselm's view of God
that justice required a satisfaction of God's honor before sin could be forgiven. There was nothing in the nature of
God that hindered the free exercise of forgiveness and the only obstacle to it was in man, not in God. [26]
Abelard raised a number of objections to Anselm's theory. But he never objected to legalistic basis of the theory
and scheme of merit. In fact he treated the love awakened in men by God's love in Christ as meritorious. Also he
saw the merits of Christ as completing the merits of man by virtue of Christ's intercession for them. [27]
The main objection to the moral influence theory is to its purely subjective interpretation of Christ's death. If the
death of Christ is regarded only as a demonstration of God's love and as doing nothing objectively about man's
sin, then this theory fails to answer the question of the "must", the necessity for Christ's death. It does not tell why
it was necessary for Christ to suffer and die such an awful death, why it had to be. If Christ did not have to die,
then could not God have demostrated His love some other way? Why does the death of Christ demonstrate the
love of God? Also the theory seems to ignore the great body of scriptural teaching concerning Christ's death as a
redemption and propitiation. It truly emphasizes the subjective effect of Christ's death but at the expense of the
objective work accomplished.
John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.) and Reformed theology modified this Anselmic satisfaction theory of the
atonement. They said that God's justice, not his honor, needs to be satisfied by Christ's death. This view is called
the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement. Christ's death paid the penalty of the sins of mankind and thus
satisfied the justice of God. This view of the atonement is also called the penal substitutionary theory of the
atonement because Christ died in the place and in the stead of man, the sinner. Calvin says,
"Thus we perceive Christ representing the character of a sinner and a criminal,
while, at the same time, his innocence shines forth,
and it becomes manifest that he suffers for another's
and not for his own crime." [28]

Christ is punished instead of the sinner. This is a theory of the satisfaction of God's justice through vicarious
punishment. It differs at this point from the Anselmic theory which sees the atoning act as the payment of a debt
rather than a penalty.
The penal satisfaction theory is clearly legalistic. It assumes that the order of law and justice is absolute; free
forgiveness would be a violation of this absolute order; God's love must be carefully limited lest it infringe on the
demands of justice. Sin is a crime against God and the penalty must be paid before forgiveness can become
available. According to this view God's love is conditioned and limited by his justice; that is, God cannot exercise
His love to save man until His righteousness (justice) is satisfied. Since God's justice requires that sin be punished,
God's love cannot save man until the penalty of sin has been paid, satisfying His justice. God's love is set in
opposition to His righteousness, creating a tension and problem in God. How can God in His love save man from
sin when His righteousness demands the punishment of sin? This is the problem that the death of Christ is
supposed to solve. According to this legalistic theology, this is why Christ needed to die; he died to pay the
penalty of man's sin and to satisfy the justice of God. The necessity of the atonement is the necessity of satisfying
the justice of God; this necessity is in God rather than in man. And since this necessity is in God, it is an absolute
necessity. If God is to save man, God must satisfy His justice before He can in love save man.
It is not surprising that in the popular mind this abstract problem of the seeming contradiction between love and
justice in God is reduced to a concrete opposition between God the Father who wants to punish sin and God the
Son who wants to forgive sin. That this is not true is clear from Scripture: "For God so loved the world that He
gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16). But this is the way the popular mind has seen this abstract problem.

ENDNOTES FOR "THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST"

[1] Tertullian, "On Pentence," 2; William P. LeSaint,
Tertullian, Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity,
in Johannes Quasten and Walter J. Burhardt, eds.
Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation
(Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press and
London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1959), pp. 16-17.
[2] William P. LeSaint, Tertullian, footnote 29, p. 142.
[3] Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson
(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969), p. 348.
[4] Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics in
Library of Christian Classics, Vol. 5,
Early Latin Theology, ed. S. L. Greenslade
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 40.
[5] William P. LeSaint, Tertullian, p. 24.
[6] Ibid., 9, p. 31.
[7] Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p. 82.
See also J. S. Whale, The Protestant Tradition
(Cambridge: The University Press, 1959), pp. 59-61.
[8] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, I, 11, in S. N. Deane,
Saint Anselm: Basic Writings
(LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962) p. 202.
[9] Ibid., I, 11, p. 203.
[10] Ibid., I, 21, p. 228.
[11] Ibid., I, 25, p. 239.
[12] Ibid., II, 6, p. 244.
[13] Ibid., II, 6, pp. 244-245.
[14] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 84.
[15] Anslem, Cur Deus Homo, II, 7, p. 246.
[16] Ibid., II, 8, p. 247-248.
[17] Ibid., II, 18b, p. 280.
[18] Ibid., II, 19, p. 283-284.
[19] Ibid., II, 19, p. 285.
[20] Ibid., II, 20, p. 286.
[21] Aulen, Christus Victor, p. 86, and
Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 86.
[22] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II, 12, in
S. N. Deane, Saint Anselm: Basic Writings
(LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962) p. 203.
[23] Ibid., II, 12, p. 204.
[24] Ibid., II, 13, p. 206.
[25] Ibid., II, 13, pp. 206-7.
[26] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), p. 88.
[27] Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), p.96.
[28] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), II, xvi, 5.
 WHY CHRIST DIED
Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that Christ died to pay the penalty of man's sin and satisfy God's justice. Not
in the three passages (Rom. 3:25-26; II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13) usually cited to support this doctrine does it say
explicitly that Christ paid the penalty of sin or satisfied the justice of God. In the Rom. 3:25-26 passage,
propitiation is not the satisfaction of God's justice; and redemption is not paying penalty of sin.
In the II Cor. 5:21 and Gal. 3:13 passages, neither does "made to be sin" or "a curse" mean paying the penalty of
sin.
In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul writes,
"He who knew no sin was made to be sin for us,
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (II Cor. 5:21 ERS)

Historically, there has been three interpretations of the phrase "made to be sin" in II Cor. 5:21:
1. When Christ in His incarnation took on human nature, which is "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom.
8:3), God made Him to be sin.
2. Christ in becoming a sacrifice for sin was made to be sin, the word "sin" (harmartia) meaning a "sacrifice
for sin" (Augustine and the NIV margin "be a sin offering").
3. Christ is treated as if He were a sinner, and as such Christ became the object of God's wrath and bore the
penalty and the guilt of sin (the traditional Protestant interpretation).
In the first interpretation, it is assumed that Christ's death is a participation. on the behalf of and for the sakes of
sinful humanity.
And in the second interpretation, the basic concept is sacrifice, which is probably the correct interpretation, but the
sacrifice has been usually assumed to be a substitution, not as a participation.
In the last interpretation, it is assumed that Christ's death is a vicarious act, a substitution in the stead of sinful
humanity.
But this substitution interpretation must here be rejected because it is contrary to the explicit statement in the verse
that he was made sin for us, that is, "on our behalf" (huper hemos, NAS; see verses 14-15, and 20). And this
substitution interpretation just assumes a legalistic interpretation of Christ's death as a paying the penalty of sin.
The Greek preposition huper does not mean "instead of" but "on the behalf of" or "for the sake of". In the
following passages the Greek preposition huper cannot mean "instead of".
"For it has been granted to you that for the sake of [huper] Christ
you should not only believe in him
but also suffer for his sake [huper autou, on the behalf of him]"
(Phil. 1:29)

"It is right for me to think this about all of you [huper pantan humon],
because I have you in my heart,
since both in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel
you all are partakers of grace with me." (Phil. 1:7 ERS)

"5 On the behalf of [huper tou toitotou] such a man I will boast,
but on behalf of myself [huper emautou] I will not boast,
except of my weaknesses.
6 For if I wish to boast, I shall not be foolish,
for I shall be speaking the truth;
but I refrain from this lest anyone reckon to me
above what [huper ho] he sees in me or hears from me,
7and by the surpassing greatness [huperbole] of the revelations.
Wherefore, in order that I should not be exalted [huperairomai]
there was given me a thorn in the flesh,
a messenger of Satan to harass me,
in order that I should not be exalted [huperairomai].
8About this [huper touton]
I besought the Lord that it should leave me;
9 and He said to me,
'My grace is sufficient for you,
 for my power is perfected in weakness.'
Most gladly therefore I will boast in my weaknesses,
that the power of Christ may rest on me." (II Cor. 12:5-9 ERS).

Thus the Greek preposition huper does not mean "instead of" but "on the behalf of" or "for the sake of".
And thus Chirst died on the behalf of all men, not instead of them;
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge,
that one died for all [huper panton, on the behalf of all],
therefore all have died," (II Cor. 5:14)

that is, in Christ who represents all.

"And he died for all [huper panton, on the behalf of all],
that those who live might live no longer for themselves
but for him who for their sake [huper auton, on the behalf of them]
died and was raised." (II Cor. 5:15).

Christ was made to be a sin-sacrifice for us to save us from sin, to take away our sin (John 1:29). And Christ was
made a sin sacrifice to take away our sin "in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." That
is, that we might be set right with God in the risen Christ. As we have already seen, the righteousness of God is
the activity of God to set us right with God; that is, to save us from sin (trust in false god) to righteousness (trust
in the true God). Christ participated in our spiritual death to save us from sin (trust in a false god), so that we
could participate in the risen Christ, being saved from death to life and hence being saved from sin to
righteousness (trust in the true God). The substitution interpretation of Christ's sacrifice does not understand this
participation and just assumes a legalistic substitution interpretation of Christ's death as a paying the penalty of sin
for us.
And when Apostle Paul writes to the Galatians,
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,
having become a curse for us--for it is written,
'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'" (Gal. 3:13),

he does not mean that Christ paid the penalty of sin as our substitute, but that Christ's death was to deliver us
("redeemed") from our sins and to save us from the wrath of God ("the curse of the Law", see Gal. 3:10). And
Christ being made a curse for us, does not mean that Christ died as a substitute, in our place, paying the penalty of
our sins, but that Christ's death was "for us", on our behalf (huper hemos), The Scripture that Paul here quotes
(Deut. 21:23) does not mean that being made a curse was for another's sins but because he was being hung on a
tree for his own sins (Deut. 21:22). And since Christ was hanging on the tree (the cross) was not because of His
own sins (He was without sin - II Cor. 5:21) but it was on our behalf to redeem us from our sins and from God's
wrath against our sins (Rom. 1:18). Paul does not say that Christ took our curse but that He became a curse for us
to redeem us from the curse of the law. Christ's death sets us free from the law and from its curse.
The introduction of these concepts into the interpretation of these passages has obscured their meaning and
interpretation. Apart from the clear and explicit statement of Scripture, it cannot be assumed that this is what these
verses mean. Since this legalism is contrary to the clear and explicit statements of Scripture, any interpretation
employing these legalistic concepts is suspect. In fact the Scripture explicitly rejects the principle of vicarious
penal sacrifice upon which this interpretation depends.
"The person who sins will die.
The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity,
nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity;
the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself,
and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
(Ezekiel 18:20 NAS; see also Deut. 24:16; Jer. 31:30).

If Christ did not die to pay the penalty for man's sin and to satisfy God's justice, then why did Christ have to die to
save man? Why then do men need to be saved? An examination of Scripture (John 10:10; Eph. 2:4-5; Heb. 2:14-
15; I John 4:9; etc. - see Chapter 3) clearly shows that the answer to this question is that man needs to be saved
because he is dead. Man is separated and alienated from God (Eph. 4:8). He does not know God personally, and
because he does not know the true God, he turns to false gods -- to those things which are not God -- and makes
those into his gods (Gal. 4:8). The basic sin is idolatry (Ex. 20:2; Rom. 1:25), and man sins (chooses these false
gods) because he is spiritually dead -- separated from the true God.
All men have sinned because they are spiritually dead. This is what the Apostle Paul says in the last clause of
Romans 5:12: "because of which [death] all sinned." Spiritual death which "spread to all men" along with physical
death is not the result of each man's own personal sins. On the contrary, a man sins as a result of spiritual death.
He received death from Adam, from his first parents. The historical origin of sin is the fall of Adam -- the sin of
the first man. Adam's sin brought death -- spiritual and physical -- on all his descendants (Rom. 5:12, 15, 17). This
death inherited from Adam is the personal, contemporary origin of each man's sin. Because he is spiritually dead,
not knowing God personally, he chooses something other than the true God as his God; he thus sins.
This is why a man needs to be saved. He is dead spiritually and dying physically. Man needs life -- he needs to be
made alive -- to be raised from the dead. And if he receives life, if he is made alive to God, death which leads to
sin is removed. And if death which leads to sin is removed, then man will be saved from sin. Thus salvation must
be understood to be primarily from death to life and secondarily from sin to righteousness. And since God's wrath
-- God's "no" or opposition to sin -- is caused by sin (Rom. 1:18), the removal of sin brings with it also the
removal of wrath. Salvation is then thirdly from wrath to peace with God (Rom. 5:1, 9).
This salvation (from death, sin and wrath) is exactly what God accomplished through the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ, His Son. This is why Christ died, that he might be raised from the dead. Jesus entered into our
spiritual death in order that as he was raised from the dead, we might be made alive in and with Him (Eph. 2:5).
And by saving us from spiritual death, Christ saves us from sin. It is by taking away the spiritual death which
leads to our sin that God takes away our sin. Jesus died for our sins -- literally -- to take them away (John 1:29).
What the Old Testament sacrifices could not do (Heb. 10:1-4) the death of Christ has done. The blood of Jesus
(His death) cleanses us from our sins (I John 1:7). We are delivered from sin itself. We were saved from our trust
in false gods when we put our trust in Jesus Christ and the true God who sent Him. We "turned from idols to serve
the living and true God" (I Thess. 1:9). When we were spiritually dead we trusted in and served those things that
are not God -- money, power, sex, education, popularity, pleasure, etc. But when we turned to the risen Christ, we
entered into life, leaving behind those false gods. The risen Jesus Christ is now our Lord and our God (John
20:28).
The death and resurrection of Jesus was the means by which God removed death -- the barrier to knowing God
personally and knowing His love. In the preaching of the Gospel, God reveals Himself to us making us spiritually
alive to Himself when we receive Jesus Christ who is the life (John 14:6; I John 5:12). To be spiritually alive is to
know God personally, and to know God personally is to trust Him. For God is love (I John 4:8, 16) and love
begets trust. The trust that God's love invokes in us is righteousness (Rom. 4:5, 9); it relates us rightly to God.
Thus by making us alive to Himself, God sets us right with Himself through faith. Life produces righteousness
just as death produces sin.
This is what the law cannot do; it cannot make men alive. As Paul says in Gal. 3:21 "...for if there had been a law
given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been by the law." And since the law cannot make
alive, salvation cannot be by the law. The righteousness of the law, the merits earned by keeping the law, is a false
righteousness, dirty filthy rags (Isa. 64:6; Phil. 3:7-9; Rom. 10:3-4). Just as trust in a false god is sin, so trust in the
true God is righteousness (Rom. 4:3-5). And just as sin flows from death, so righteousness flows from life. The
law cannot give life. And because the law cannot remove death, it also cannot remove sin. And since it cannot
make alive, it cannot produce real righteousness.
What the law could not do, God has done through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Son. God has
made us alive to Himself in the resurrection of Jesus and set us free from the slavery of sin. Since the basic sin is
idolatry (trust in a false god) and sin is a slavery to a slave master (John 8:34), the false god is the slave master.
We were all slaves of sin, serving our false gods when we were spiritually dead, alienated and separated from the
true God, not knowing him personally. But we have been set free from this slavery of sin through the death of
Christ. Jesus entered into our spiritual death and died our death. His death is our death. Now when a slave dies, he
is no longer in slavery; death frees him from slavery. So we likewise have been set free from the slavery of sin
having died with Christ. We have died to sin with Christ (Rom. 6:1-7). But now Christ is alive, having been raised
from the dead, and we have been made alive to God together with Him in His resurrection. His resurrection is our
resurrection. We are no longer slaves of sin but have become slaves of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Now
that we are alive to God in Him, we have become slaves of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18). For just as death
produces sin, so life produces righteousness. Since we have passed from death to life, we have been saved from
sin to righteousness (I Peter 2:24).