‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’—Gal. iii. 13.

In tracing the doctrine of redemption through the types and illustrative narratives of the Old Testament, we found that redemption always includes two ideas—deliverance and ransom—and that in some cases, as e.g., in the redemption from Egypt, the deliverance is the more prominent of the two. I cannot help thinking that in this respect there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New. In the New, as well as the Old, the two ideas are always found, and the deliverance is always included; but the writers of the New Testament appear to have had their minds so full of the marvellous love that was shown on the cross of Christ, that the ransom, and the ransom price, appear in many passages to have been the prominent subjects of their thoughts. Hence it follows that in a great many religious books, and even in our Church Catechism, redemption is confounded with the atonement, and people lose sight of the fact that it includes the consequences of the atonement as well as the atonement itself, the release of the captive as well as the payment of the ransom; the actual salvation of the chosen people of God, as well as the satisfaction of the law by the substitution of the Son of God for man. In order, therefore, to get a clear view of the whole subject, we must consider the two parts separately; first, the ransom, satisfaction, or atonement, and after that the deliverance that follows. May it please God in His mercy to give us the sacred teaching of the Holy Spirit, and to lead us into the full realisation of the marvellous wonders of His redeeming love!

We must clearly begin with the great subject of the satisfaction for sin, and the deliverance from the curse, which was the immediate and first result of it. For this purpose we cannot have a finer passage than the text. It leads us straight to the root of the matter, and will suggest four most important subjects—the Redeemer Himself, the curse from which He has redeemed us, the act by which He redeemed us, and the persons whom He has redeemed. These, if God permit, we must consider in order.

I. The Redeemer Himself.

It is perfectly clear that unless we know Him, we shall never understand His work. If there is confusion respecting Him, there will be confusion respecting all that He has done; so if we wish to enjoy the salvation, we must begin with the Saviour.

Now in this passage He is described as ‘Christ.’ This is the name continually given Him throughout this Epistle. I know of only one instance in the whole Epistle in which the name ‘Jesus’ occurs, without having either ‘Christ,’ or ‘The Christ,’ attached to it. The reason most probably was, that St. Paul was writing to Jewish believers, and so made use of the name by which the expected Redeemer was predicted in Jewish prophecy. There are, therefore, certain great lessons to be gathered from the name.(1.) He was the predicted Redeemer. It was by this name that Daniel foretold His advent and death; for in Dan. ix. 25, 26, He is predicted as ‘Messiah the Prince;’ and it was under this name that the believing Jews were expecting Him, for Andrew said to his brother, John, i. 41, ‘We have found the Messias, which is being interpreted the Christ.’

(2.) Then again He was the anointed Redeemer. The meaning of the word Messias, or Christ, is anointed, so that the title, ‘The Christ,’ means ‘The Anointed One;’ and the words of the text might be rendered, ‘The anointed One has redeemed us.’ Now consider for one moment what was involved in this title. It conveys the assurance of the eternal purpose of God, and of His divine appointment of the Lord Jesus to the office. We all know that the anointing was the act of consecration to the sacred offices of Prophet, Priest, and King; and we can see at a glance why Christ was anointed, when set apart to fill an office which comprehended all the three—the prophetic, the priestly, and the royal. His great redeeming act, therefore, was not merely the result of His own mind and His own benevolence, but it was the sacred work unto which He was anointed by the Father. It was accepted by Himself, and laid upon Him by God. In undertaking it He had the support of divine authority, and before He undertook the office He was solemnly set apart to it by God.

(3.) But there are still further lessons taught us by this title ‘Christ,’ for we are taught in the Old Testament the Anointed One was in all respects qualified for the redeeming work, inasmuch as He was one of us, and at the same time was God. Turn to one passage, viz. Ps. xlv. 7. There we learn that He was a kinsman, and therefore qualified according to the law to redeem, for the words are, ‘Thy God hath anointed thee above thy fellows;’ while at the same time the sixth verse teaches that the Anointed One is no other than God Himself, for He is addressed in the words, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’

Such, then, is our Redeemer. He was predicted from the first day of man’s fall; foretold by the whole line of prophets; expected by the whole line of believers; set apart to His work in God’s eternal purpose; anointed by God; and so, before men and angels, solemnly consecrated to the sacred work which He was willing in the Father’s name to undertake; and besides all that, he is perfect both in manhood and Godhead, so that in His own double nature He is one with us as a kinsman, while He is one with the Father in the omnipotence of Jehovah. Such is our Redeemer—can He fail? Such is our Saviour—can there be disappointment in trusting Him? Such is the Lord’s Anointed One, and whatever be the deep wants of our fallen hearts, can we believe for one moment that He is insufficient to meet the need? Can there be any doubt respecting the statement of the Psalmist, ‘With the Lord there is mercy, and with Him is plenteous redemption?’ (Ps. cxxx. 7.)

II. We may proceed, then, to consider the curse from which He has redeemed us. According to the text it is the curse of the law, the curse described in verse 10, where we read, ‘As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’ It is most important to bear this well in mind, for the word ‘curse’ is so connected in common conversation with that which is vindictive and merciless that there is danger of our losing sight of the fact that the curse of God is the calm, deliberate, and even merciful result of the just judgment of a merciful God. There is no cruelty in the maintenance of a righteous law, for the maintenance of law is essential to the happiness of a people. Thus the strict execution of law is consistent with the most true and tender affection.. David, as the king, was compelled, in the maintenance of law, to banish Absalom after the murder of Ammon; but all the while David loved him, and his ‘soul longed to go forth unto Absalom.’ So we have heard of judges moved to tears of tender pity while passing sentence on some unhappy criminal whom the law compelled them to condemn. In such a case there was no cruelty in the law, nor any want of mercy in the judge. The sentence on the sinner was the necessary and righteous condemnation of the sin. Parliament was not cruel when it passed the law; the jury was not cruel when it found the culprit guilty; the judge was not cruel when he condemned the criminal to death; and the Queen was not cruel when she signed the warrant for the execution. Whatever was done by any one of the parties concerned was done simply because the maintenance of law is essential to the preservation of life and order throughout the land. Just so it is with the curse of the law in the government of God. There is no cruelty in God’s law, or God’s execution of its sentence. The law—it is holy, just, and good; a perfect law, without a fault. And the Judge—He is holy, just, pure, spotless, and merciful. He willeth not the death of a sinner, and has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth; and the curse is not the result of anything vindictive or unmerciful in Him. It is just like David’s sentence on Absalom, rendered necessary by the claims of a righteous government, and the necessity of maintaining law.

But, though the sentence is passed in what I may term ‘loving righteousness,’ there is something inexpressibly awful in it. Indeed it is all the more awful when regarded as the righteous sentence of a God who loves us. The fact that the sentence is passed, notwithstanding such love, is itself a proof of its awful importance, and the clearest possible evidence that a righteous God cannot clear the guilty, and cannot set aside the law which He has given to His people. We must conclude, therefore, that the curse is certain, and that it cannot be set aside by anything that we can do. We have no power to deliver ourselves from the awful curse of the law of God. It is a judgment far more certain, and far more awful, than that of the wretched criminal in the condemned cell waiting for execution. It is more awful, for it cuts us off from God Himself. It hides His countenance; it separates from His love, and it reaches right away into eternity. Such is the curse of the law, the curse that foolish sinners trifle with, the curse that ungodly men bandy about in foul oaths. It is a just curse—a curse inflicted according to law; a curse pronounced by one who loves the culprit; a curse that could not be set aside unless the Lawgiver were to neutralise His law, and the righteous King abandon the holy principles of His kingdom.

III. So we now turn to the third point,—the redemption price, or the great act by which He has redeemed us. Now, you will observe that with reference to this great subject there are no illustrations employed in the text. There is nothing said about a ransom, or an offering, or any other illustration; but we are brought at once to the great fact of the substitution of the Redeemer for the redeemed: ‘He hath redeemed us from the curse, being made a curse for us.’ I know of no way of explaining that passage, except by the doctrine of substitution. The passage is exactly like those other words of the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. v. 21: ‘He hath made him who knew no sin to be sin for us.’ In the one passage the Lord Jesus is said to be made a curse, and in the other to be made sin; and in both it is said to have been done ‘for us’ (?pe? ???), i.e. on our behalf, or in our stead. Now do not suppose that I do not recognise the depth of mystery involved in this most wonderful truth. I can sympathise with those that scarcely know how to grasp it. I know there is a depth about it beyond the limits of human thought; but there are two considerations that have always satisfied my own mind.

(1.) It is not likely that the limited mind of a short-sighted man should be able to fathom the eternal counsels of God, and reduce the divine purpose within the compass of his own intellect. If we once admit that the plan of salvation is divine, we must be prepared to meet with many things far beyond all human thought. So it is in this instance. The substitution of the spotless Redeemer for the guilty sinner has in it a breadth, and length, and depth, and height, that is utterly beyond all human capacity, and to the very last will pass all knowledge.

(2.) We can see the fact throughout the history. Is there any other way of explaining either the agony in the garden, or the cry on the cross? Again and again do we see happy believers stepping down into the valley of the shadow of death in perfect peace, with a holy joy filling their hearts, and a holy calm lighting up their countenance; but the Lord Jesus, when He looked forward to it, was in agony. He sweat, as it were, great drops of blood, and He cried, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’ I confess I know no way of explaining the difference, except by the principle of substitution, as laid down in this passage, ‘Being made a curse for us.’

So, again, I never met with any other explanation of that most marvellous cry which He uttered on the cross, when He exclaimed, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ How can that cry be explained except by the doctrine of substitution? Contrast the dying prayer of Stephen with the dying cry of the Lord Jesus Christ. Stephen said, as I trust you and I may be able to say, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,’ and so in perfect peace he fell asleep. But the Lord Jesus was forsaken of God, and so uttered that bitter cry. How can we explain the difference? How can we understand the marvellous contrast? I never could see any explanation but one, and that is, in the doctrine of substitution. The Lord Jesus was made a curse in the place of Stephen, so Stephen was free. The sin of Stephen was imputed to the Son of God, and the righteousness of the Son of God was imputed to Stephen; so the Lord Jesus cried under the burden of the curse, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ and Stephen prayed in the peaceful enjoyment of full reconciliation, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ The burden of the curse was too awful for us to bear, and too righteous for God to set aside. So the Lord, in boundless mercy, and with His own full consent, laid it on Him. There was a transfer of the imputation of guilt, and thus by God’s marvellous grace, blessed be God, in Christ Jesus we are free.

Now all this is done, and done for ever. Nothing can add to it, and nothing can take from it. We have nothing to do with any fresh sacrifice for sin. We want no masses for either the living or the dead, and we know we cannot make up any fresh sacrifice by penance or self-denial. In all such matters the one question is, Is the one redemption by the one substitute sufficient, or is it not? If it is, we want no further sacrifice, for the work is done. If it is not, we may give up in despair, for it must be obvious to any man that if the substitution of the Son of God fall short of the requirements of the law, nothing that we can add can ever supply the deficiency. But, thanks be to God, there is no room for discussion. As we are taught in our Communion Service, ‘He made there (by His one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.’ He was Himself the Anointed One of God, even the Son of God. In His death He fulfilled the covenant of God. In His resurrection He was accepted as having completed the work of God; in His ascension He entered into the holy place, by one offering having perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

And now what is the result? What is the consequence of this completed act of substitution? Surely nothing short of this, that every soul found in Him is legally free. Of course I am not speaking of those who reject that substitution or live without Him. They must bear their own burden; and an awful burden, I fear, they will find it. I am speaking of those who accept Him as their representative, and are one with Him as their substitute. Now to any one of them the great act of substitution has brought a full, complete, legal release. They are as free from the curse of the law as if they had never sinned. The law has no more power to condemn them than if it had never been issued, or if they had never broken it. They are washed white as snow in the blood of the Lamb, and there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus. So there we may rest in calm, happy, peaceful trust, for the law is satisfied, and the curse is removed. In His agony we see our peace, in His death our life, and in His bitter cry on the cross our full, perfect, and everlasting reconciliation to God.