Solus Christus

Question 1

The Reformation is often summarized with five Latin phrases, yet Luther himself said that the article of justification stands or falls with the Person of Christ. If someone asked you, “Why does it matter who Jesus is, as long as He is a good moral teacher?” how would you respond? What is at stake in the identity of Christ that is not at stake in His ethical teachings alone?

Question 2

We have studied Scripture as the authority, grace as the source, and faith as the instrument. In each case, Christ was already present in the background. Where did you notice Christ most clearly in the previous three sessions? What happens to Sola Scriptura if the Scriptures do not testify to Christ? What happens to Sola Gratia if grace is not given “for Christ’s sake”?

Question 3

Peter declares that the healing occurred “by the name (onoma) of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” In biblical theology, a “name” signifies the authority, presence, and power of the person named. The Sanhedrin asked, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” (v. 7). How does Peter’s answer turn the court’s interrogation into a proclamation of the Gospel? What does it mean that salvation is located in a name rather than in a system, a method, or a moral program?

Question 4

Verse 12 uses the Greek word dei (“it is necessary”), indicating divine necessity: “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” The exclusivity is not arbitrary; it follows from the nature of the remedy. Only one Person has lived the perfectly righteous life, borne the penalty for sin, and conquered death. If there is only one cure, exclusivity is not narrow-mindedness; it is the nature of the disease. In a culture that prizes religious pluralism and regards exclusive truth claims as arrogant, how do we confess this truth with both courage and compassion?

Question 5

Peter quotes Psalm 118:22: “The stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.” The religious leaders who fancied themselves the master builders of Israel discarded the very stone on which everything rests. How does the image of the rejected cornerstone function as a summary of Solus Christus? What happens to any structure that removes its cornerstone? What does this say about any theological system that removes Christ from the center?

Question 6

Paul calls Jesus the “one mediator” (mesitēs), an arbitrator standing between two estranged parties. The Mediator must perfectly represent both sides. Why does Paul then immediately specify “the man Christ Jesus” (anthrōpos)? What would be lost if the Mediator were only God? What would be lost if He were only man? How does the two-nature Christology of the Augsburg Confession (Article III) make mediation possible?

Question 7

The ransom price is described with the intensified Greek word antilytron, which translates the Hebrew kofer (כֹפֶר): the exact substitutionary price paid on the principle of “life for life” (Exodus 21:23). Jesus did not mediate by offering counsel or moral example; He mediated by surrendering His own life. What does the specificity of the ransom language tell us about the nature of salvation? Why is moral influence or good teaching insufficient as a ransom?

Question 8

Hebrews draws a contrast using the Greek particles men and de (“on the one hand” / “on the other hand”): “on the one hand” there were many priests who kept dying; “on the other hand” there is He who holds His priesthood permanently (aparabaton). What does it mean for the assurance of the believer that Christ’s priesthood can never be interrupted, that He has no deputies, assistants, or successors?

Question 9

Verse 25 says Christ is “able to save to the uttermost” (eis to panteles), a phrase that means both “completely” and “for all time.” There is no sin too deep for His blood to cover and no expiration date on His priesthood. He saves those who “draw near” (proserchomenous), a term that in the Septuagint was used for priests approaching God in the sanctuary. How does Solus Christus grant every believer the right to approach the heavenly throne that only priests could once approach? What does this mean for how you pray?

Question 10

The author declares that Jesus offered Himself ephapax (“once for all”), using the compound Greek verb heauton anenēgkas (“by offering up himself”), the only place in the entire Greek Bible where the sacrificial verb anapherō refers to the offering of a person. The Priest becomes the Sacrifice. Any system that attempts repeatedly to sacrifice Christ, or suggests that our works must supplement His cross, denies the word ephapax. How does this shape the Lutheran understanding of what happens in the Lord’s Supper: is it a re-sacrifice, or the distribution of a finished sacrifice?

Question 11

Hebrews says Christ “always lives to make intercession” (entugchanein) for those who draw near through Him. If Christ’s intercession is permanent and complete, what need remains for any other intercessor? The Reformers did not deny that Christians can pray for one another; they denied that departed saints function as mediators whose intercession supplements Christ’s. The Augsburg Confession, Article XXI, declares: “Scripture sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator.” What is the practical difference between asking a living brother or sister to pray for you and directing prayers to departed saints as intercessors before God?

Question 12

Paul calls Christ the “firstborn of all creation” (prōtotokos). The Arians (and modern Jehovah’s Witnesses) have seized this phrase to argue that Christ is the first creature God made. Yet grammatically and culturally, prōtotokos is a title of supreme rank, not biological origin (cf. Psalm 89:27, where the Davidic king is called “firstborn” to denote supremacy). Why is it essential for Solus Christus that Christ is the Lord of creation and not part of creation? What happens to the sufficiency of His sacrifice if He is merely a creature?

Question 13

Paul uses three prepositions in verse 16 to describe Christ’s relationship to creation: en autō (“in Him,” the sphere), di’ autou (“through Him,” the agent), and eis auton (“for Him,” the goal). The Colossian heretics were worshiping invisible angelic beings (“thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities”). How does Paul’s argument that Jesus manufactured those very angels destroy any basis for venerating them alongside Christ?

Question 14

Verse 19 declares that “all the fullness” (plērōma) of God was pleased to dwell in Christ. The proto-Gnostics taught that divine fullness was scattered among a hierarchy of spirit-beings and that worshipers had to climb a spiritual ladder to reach God. Paul destroys this by locating one hundred percent of the divine essence in the incarnate Jesus. Where do Christians today seek spiritual “fullness” in something or someone other than Christ? How does the plērōma declaration speak to every form of “Christ plus” theology?

Question 15

Verse 20 brings the cosmic scope down to the cross: reconciliation is accomplished “by the blood of his cross.” The majestic Christology of the hymn meets the grit of the crucifixion. The Christ who sustains the atomic structure of wood and nails (synestēken, v. 17) is the Christ who bleeds on the wood and nails. How does this intersection of cosmic supremacy and cruciform humiliation deepen our understanding of what the cross accomplished? Why must the blood shed on Calvary be the blood of the God-man for it to reconcile “all things, whether on earth or in heaven”?

Question 16

Jesus’ statement begins with egō eimi (“I AM”), one of the seven “I AM” declarations in John’s Gospel. This phrase directly evokes the divine name Yahweh revealed to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). How does the divine authority of the Speaker determine the weight of the exclusive claim? If a mere prophet said “No one comes to the Father except through me,” it would be presumption. When the eternal egō eimi says it, what is it?

Question 17

Jesus uses the definite article (hē) before each noun: the Way, the Truth, the Life. He does not claim to be one way among many, one truth among several, one source of life alongside others. He identifies Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. What difference does this identification make? If Christ is not merely a teacher who shows the way but the Way itself, what does this mean for the claim that all religions lead to the same God?

Question 18

John 14:6 connects Solus Christus to the previous three solas with elegant precision. The Way to the Father is through Christ, not through human effort (therefore Sola Gratia). The Way is received by coming to Christ, which is what faith does (therefore Sola Fide). The Truth about the Way is revealed in Scripture, which testifies to Christ (therefore Sola Scriptura). How does Christ function as the hub from which every spoke of the Reformation confession extends?

Question 19

The Confession distinguishes between Jesus as genitus (begotten of the Father from eternity) and natus (born of the Virgin Mary in time). The Formula of Concord affirms: “Christ is and remains to all eternity God and man in one undivided person. Next to the Holy Trinity, this is the highest mystery, upon which our only consolation, life, and salvation depends.” Why does the Formula place this mystery so high? What would collapse in the doctrine of salvation if either nature were denied?

Question 20

The communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatum) teaches that what is true of either nature is rightly said of the whole Person. The Son of God truly suffered; the son of Mary truly upholds the universe. Why does this matter for the Lord’s Supper? Consider: the body given “for you” is the body of the Person who is also God. The blood shed “for the forgiveness of sins” is the blood of the eternal Son. How does the union of the two natures determine the value of what is given in the Sacrament?

Question 21

Luther described the atonement as the commercium admirabile (“joyous exchange”): on the cross, Christ took our sin, death, and condemnation and gave us His righteousness, life, and freedom. The Apology links this to the Hebrew ’asham (“guilt offering”) of Isaiah 53:10, declaring that God does not want our own righteousness but the merits of another to reconcile Him to us. How does the image of the “joyous exchange” reframe the cross: is it primarily something done to Jesus or something done for us? How does this distinction comfort the conscience?

Question 22

Luther’s explanation is intensely personal: “my Lord” who has redeemed “me, a lost and condemned person.” The doctrine of Solus Christus can remain an abstract theological principle until it becomes a first-person confession. What is the distance between saying “Christ is the Savior” and “Christ is my Savior”? In the language of Week 3, this is the distance between assensus (intellectual agreement) and fiducia (personal trust). How would you help someone in your congregation cross that distance?

Question 23

The explanation names three enemies from which Christ redeems: “all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil.” The ransom price is specified: “not with gold or silver but with his holy, precious blood.” In light of the Greek antilytron (1 Timothy 2:6) and the Hebrew kofer (Exodus 21:23), why does Luther insist that the ransom was paid with blood and not with any other currency? What does the costliness of the price reveal about the depth of our bondage?

Question 24

The Formula of Concord insists on both the active and the passive obedience of Christ as the ground of justification: “the entire obedience of Christ’s entire person” (FC SD III, §54–63). The passive obedience is His suffering and death, bearing the penalty for sin. The active obedience is His perfect fulfillment of the Law, earning the positive righteousness credited to believers. In your own words, what would be lost if we affirmed only the passive obedience without the active? The sinner’s debt would be cancelled, yet what positive righteousness would stand to his or her credit? What would be lost if we affirmed only the active without the passive? The Law would be fulfilled, yet who would have paid the penalty?

Question 25

We have traced Solus Christus from the exclusive claim (Acts 4), through the sole mediatorship (1 Timothy 2), the cosmic supremacy (Colossians 1), the permanent priesthood (Hebrews 7), the threefold self-identification (John 14), the Confessional articulation of the two natures (AC III), and the personal confession of redemption (Small Catechism). As we prepare for Reformation Sunday next week and Soli Deo Gloria, consider: if Christ alone is the ground of justification, the sole Mediator, and the exclusive Way to the Father, then to whom does the glory belong? How does Solus Christus lead inevitably to Soli Deo Gloria?