Against Heresies: April 2009

Monday, April 27, 2009

Is Hell separation from God's presence?

Tim Challies posted a powerful quote from Ligon Duncan, though I think originally from R. A. Finlayson:

Hell is eternity in the presence of God without a mediator.

Heaven is eternity in the presence of God, with a mediator.

The following article of mine was originally published in the Evangelical Magazine

Ask an evangelical Christian to define Hell and they may well say “Hell is separation from God.” What they may mean is that Hell is a place where God is not present. Ask them if Jesus was separated from his Father in the dark hours in which he suffered on the cross and they will say that he was separated from God, that his Father abandoned him and turned his face away from him. Hell means separation from God, and the cross, for Christ, meant separation from God.

However, ask them if Hell is a place, a part of creation, and they will agree that it is. Ask them if God is omnipresent, present in and to the whole creation, and they will want to affirm that too. So if Hell is a place, a part of creation, then God must be present in Hell. If he is present in Hell then how can we speak of Hell as separation from God? If we imagined Hell to be an isolated dumping ground, a far off corner of the universe where God is absent, where people have chosen to exist without him and been given over to those desires, then we are no longer thinking clearly of God as omnipresent.

The reason why we think of Hell as separation from God is, I suspect, because Jesus readily uses that language to describe the misery of eternal punishment. After all will he not say “I never knew you, depart from me, you workers of lawlessness,”? (Matt. 7:21-23). Will he not on the last day, as the enthroned King, say to those on his left “depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire” (Matt. 25:41). Are we not right to think of Hell as exclusion from God's presence, and therefore as a state of separation from him? Before giving a fuller answer to that question we ought to consider some of the strands that make up the biblical teaching about the presence of God.

God is omnipresent

The Bible affirms the omnipresence of God. God is infinite. With regard to space he is immense, having no “no-go” areas from which he is excluded. He is not contained in his creation, or limited by its dimensions in any way. Heaven and earth cannot contain him. This is what Solomon acknowledges at the dedication of the temple “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! (1 Kings 8:27). God testifies to this same truth through Jeremiah, saying “Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD.Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD (Jer. 23:23-24). Psalm 139:7-10 is also relevant here:

Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

Amos makes the same point in the context of those seeking to escape God's judgment (Amos 9:1-4). Paul told even the idolatrous Athenians that God was not far from them, and that in him they lived, moved and had their being (Acts 17:24-28).

Sinners are said to depart from God's presence

Even though God's omnipresence is affirmed the Bible freely uses language about people departing from, or being sent away from God's presence. This is Cain's fear, as God's face will then be hidden from him (Gen. 4:14). Two verses later we are told that Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and lived in the land of Nod. It was to be Israel's experience to be sent away from God's presence for persistent disobedience and idolatry (Jer. 7:15; 15:1; 23:39). Jeremiah announces the climatic judgment against Jerusalem in this way (52:3-4):

It was because of the LORD's anger that all this happened to Jerusalem and Judah, and in the end he thrust them from his presence...So in the ninth year of Zedekiah's reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. They camped outside the city and built siege works all around it.

Judah and Jerusalem suffer the same consequences as Israel previously had known. As 2 Kings 17:18-23 says, “the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence...he afflicted them and gave them into the hands of plunderers, until he thrust them from his presence...the Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them until the LORD removed them from his presence.”

Conversely there are numerous references that speak of God's presence, many of them bound up with the tabernacle and temple, that speak of God's presence in distinctly local ways. It ought to be remembered that heaven is specifically God's dwelling place, and that he is especially said to be present there.

In addition to the language of being removed from God's presence we can add that of separation. Here we are confronted with Isaiah's famous words (Isa. 59:2), “but your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.”

Given these distinct ways of speaking about God's presence in Scripture we should not make the mistake of playing them off against each other as if they were in conflict in any way. Furthermore, we ought to be careful about how we receive this language and not slip into wrong thinking because of certain connotations implied by the language of departing from God's presence, or being separated and sent away. In one sense God was as much present to Cain in Nod as he was to Adam in the Garden and as he is now to you as you read this. None of the exiles saw a sign that read “Welcome to Babylon, God ain't here!” I suspect that it is simply carelessness and imprecision of thought that leads us to think of Hell as separation from God in spatial terms.

Understanding God's spatial and relational presence

So how should we understand the language of departing from God's presence? Not in spatial, but in relational terms. Or, to put it another way, it is a spiritual separation that we experience because of our sin, not a strictly local separation. Although the church in its infancy did experience God's presence in connection with holy places this experience is abrogated by the coming of Christ (John 4:20-24. That is not to deny the present dwelling of the covenant God among his people by the Spirit, but it is to say that this dwelling is not associated with geographic places. Even so this was well understood by Solomon, who knew full well that event though God would dwell in the temple even the highest heavens could not contain him (1 Kings 8:27; cf. Isa. 66:1-2, Acts 7:47-50). So the language of drawing near and departing from God's presence isn't a matter of physical distance but of his relationship to us. Our sin creates an ethical distance not a geographical one. We know in a limited way from our own experience that we can be in the same room as someone physically, but if we have fallen out with them it is like we are a million miles apart. So Isaiah says that on account of Israel's sins God had hidden his face from them (Isa. 59:2; cf. Num. 6:25).

God's presence in relation to Hell and the atonement

Is God present in Hell? We have to say that he is. Firstly, because Scripture affirms that he is. In Hell there is torment day and night in the presence of the holy angels and the in the presence of the Lamb (Rev. 14:9-11). Secondly, to deny that he is present in all of his creation is to deny that God is infinite and immense. Was God present at the cross when Christ was forsaken? He was spatially as present in Jerusalem then as he is today. Nevertheless in a way that we cannot comprehend but which is the cause of all our hope in time and eternity, we believe that the Son of God knew all the torments of a condemned sinner, and all the relational distance that guilty sinners will receive. His experience of being forsaken was not imagined (Mark 15:33-34). In that cry of dereliction he knew abandonment, as Christ the only true and perfect covenant keeper, bore the full weight of the covenant curses in the place of his people (Gal. 3:10-14).

When we turn to the Westminster Larger Catechism question 29, which deals with the subject of God's relationship to those who will experience future judgement in Hell, we find a precision of thought on these matters that is often lacking today:

Q. 29. What are the punishments of sin in the world to come?

A. The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire forever. (emphasis added)

Hell is not spatial separation from God, it cannot be because God is omnipresent. No, Hell is separation from the comfortable presence of God. It is the unshielded experience of the presence of God in his holiness and just wrath, and the absence of his mercy and grace.

Hell: Separation from God's presence?

R. A. Finlayson wrote:

Hell is eternity in the presence of God without a mediator.

Heaven is eternity in the presence of God, with a mediator.

The following article of mine was originally published in the Evangelical Magazine

Ask an evangelical Christian to define Hell and they may well say “Hell is separation from God.” What they may mean is that Hell is a place where God is not present. Ask them if Jesus was separated from his Father in the dark hours in which he suffered on the cross and they will say that he was separated from God, that his Father abandoned him and turned his face away from him. Hell means separation from God, and the cross, for Christ, meant separation from God.

God is omnipresent

Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

Sinners are said to depart from God's presence

It was because of the LORD's anger that all this happened to Jerusalem and Judah, and in the end he thrust them from his presence...So in the ninth year of Zedekiah's reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. They camped outside the city and built siege works all around it.

Understanding God's spatial and relational presence

God's presence in relation to Hell and the atonement

Q. 29. What are the punishments of sin in the world to come?

A. The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire forever. (emphasis added)

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Death, our conquered enemy

Please take time to read this post by Tom Ascol on the death of his friend pastor Brian Hammrick. And do pray for his family.

You will never find Jesus so precious as when the world is one vast howling wilderness. Then He is like a rose blooming in the midst of the desolation,
--a rock rising above the storm.

Robert Murray M'Cheyne

Friday, April 24, 2009

Atonement: Theory or Doctrine?

I'm currently reading through a short book on the atonement in the bible and church history. The author believes in penal substitution, and that it is one of many metaphors to explain the cross. The publishers' blurb on the back cover begins with this sentence:

The Penal Substitutionary theory of the atonement says that Jesus suffered the divine punishment for our sins at Calvary.

Early in the book Calvin is credited with being the first to give a "full-blown penal substitutionary account of the atonement" and "the first full statement of penal substitution," and again "the first complete statement of a penal substitutionary theory of the atonement" (emphasis mine).

In describing penal substitution the author at times designates it as a metaphor, at times as a doctrine, and at other times as a theory. Significantly, in commenting on Isaiah 53, the author says that this chapter "comes as close as anything in the Bible to teaching penal substitutionary atonement. Still, there is not a fully worked out theory here."

This line of thought culminates in the following statement at the conclusion of the chapter on the New Testament teaching on the cross:

...what of penal substitution? Is it taught in the New Testament? We need to be careful here. There is, as far as I can see, no clearly worked out doctrine of atonement in the New Testament. Instead there is only the raw material out of which we may and must attempt to construct such a doctrine. And this shouldn't surprise us: most of the central beliefs of Christianity are built on the foundations of the Scriptures, rather than read straight out of them.

There are two issues before us here:

1. The relationship between the "raw material" of Scripture and the doctrinal formulations that we construct out of that raw material.

2. The relationship between explicit statements and implicit, equally authoritative, teaching in Scripture

On the second of these points the author says that the language about the atonement in the New Testament "could be understood in penal substitutionary terms if we had good reason to do so, but equally could be understood in other terms." This caution safeguards us from attempting to read the whole doctrine out of every text. With that I am in some sympathy. If creedal statements are a concise synthesis of what the whole Bible teaches about a particular doctrine, the danger, if we begin with the creedal definition, is that we then read that back into every text.

A further danger is that we subtly expect Scripture to state the same truth for us in exactly the same way as a creed or confession does. We can surely say that the Bible teaches that "Jesus bore the penalty for our sins" without insisting that the Bible must set down that truth in exactly that form of words. If the Bible does not state the truth in precisely those words are we to allege that it clearly doesn't teach that truth? Or that it doesn't teach it clearly?

This brings us to point 1). Is our doctrine part of the "raw material"? And what does that mean? Is it present in Scripture so that it ought to be believed, confessed and taught? Or are the constituent parts present in such a way that the doctrine or theory can be assembled, but until it has been no one is obligated to receive it? Could the "raw material" be constructed into a different theory? Does the ascription of "raw material" apply to all biblical teaching on every doctrine? Is there an apostolic doctrine of the cross? Does this doctrine include penal substitution?

In light of Galatians 3:13 and Isaiah 53 I cannot avoid the conclusion that Christ's death was in the place of sinners, and that in their place he bore their punishment. In Packer's words:

The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory. To affirm penal substitution is to say that believers are in debt to Christ specifically for this, and that this is the mainspring of all their joy, peace and praise both now and for eternity.

It seems to me that if we hold that Scripture contains only the raw material but that it is left to us to attempt to construct a doctrine out of it, we do the teaching of Scripture a great disservice, and perhaps even in seeking to uphold this truth we inevitably destabilize its status. Consider the following from Herman Bavinck:

All these different appraisals of the death of Christ are frequently labeled "theories" that have been constructed by human thought in an attempt to explain the facts. The picture presented is that Scripture does not contain a clear, authoritative, and decisive doctrine of the suffering and death of Christ...it gives us the facts but not the theory, the matter of all Christian doctrine, but no finished doctrine or doctrines of the whole of Christianity. (Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 2, p. 382)

Packer's words in the conclusion to What did the cross achieve? The logic of penal substitution are also apropos:

...full weight must also be given to the fact that all who down the centuries have espoused this model of penal substitution have done so because they thought the Bible taught it, and scholars who for whatever reason take a different view repeatedly acknowledge that there are Bible passages which would most naturally be taken in a penal substitutionary sense. Such passages include Isaiah 53 (where Whale, as we saw, [n. 36] finds penal substitution mentioned twelve times), Galatians 3:13, 2 Corinthians 5:15, I Peter 3:18; and there are many analogous to these

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Conferences are a great opportunity to sin

"Conferences are a great opportunity to sin." So says my good friend Steve Casey. And he is right. They are an opportunity to let sins grow in the dark. Cynicism, pride, jealousy, ingratitude, grumbling, and hard heartedness all have occasion to grow in the solitude of our own reflections.

Then there are sins that germinate and flourish out in the open. Some will be the maturing of those private sins that were never repented of. Unkind words, harsh criticisms of other, the bearing of false witness, and so on.

Thankfully conferences are a great opportunity to know that God is able to make all grace abound to us, and to rejoice in the riches of his grace and kindness expressed to us in Christ. They are also an opportunity to speak kind words to build others up, as good stewards of God's varied grace, and with the strength that God supplies.

These are weighty matters to ponder before setting off to a conference.

Pray for the Banner of Truth Ministers Conference to be held in Leicester next week.

Pray that the Lord will meet with us through his Word and that we will be good hearers, like this:

Q. 160. What is required of those that hear the word preached?

A. It is required of those that hear the word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer; examine what they hear by the Scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God; meditate, and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.

Pray that we will have a fresh realisation that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ.

Pray that men will seek to be encouraged in the Lord whose work they have been called to.

Pray that men will return to their work refreshed by the gospel, with a renewed sense of the gravity and urgency of preaching Christ crucified.

Pray that we will not lose sight of Christ in the ministry.

Christ the Mediator

"He does not stand between two parties: he is those two parties in his own person."

Herman Bavinck

The Atonement: August 3rd 2009

Hugh Martin's classic work is being republished by Reformed Academic Press. Pre-order here.

Sinclair Ferguson:
THE ATONEMENT is the work of an exceptional mind characterized by deep thought and a striking originality set within the compass of a biblical orthodoxy.... I enthusiastically commend Martin s works not only for their immediate value, but because they have the capacity to challenge readers to think much of Christ as they read the Scriptures....

Martin on the Atonement as this work has often been simply known, is therefore a work to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. It will re-focus you on Christ; it will make you think long and hard, because it is probably different from any book on the work of Christ you have ever read.
Donald Macleod:

“Martin's doctrine of the atonement is built on two foundations: Covenant and Priesthood. He was, by deep conviction, a Federal theologian, but never was the convenant concept handled with such a lightness of touch or applied so effectively to modern challenges.

He does not endorse the idea of a Covenant of Redemption distinct from the Covenant of Grace, but it is clearly upon an external agreement between the Father and the Son that everything hinges. Christ came into the world by arrangement; and that arrangement laid down the work He was to do, the outcome He was to accomplish and the constituency who were to benefit. The keynote of the covenant, according to Martin, is that very principle that lay at the heart of the theology of Calvin: union with Christ."

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Banner Ministers 09

Next week is the Banner of Truth Ministers' Conference in Leicester. I'm really looking forward to it, not least because I will get to sit under God's Word. It will also be great to catch up with friends in the ministry. If you are a minister in the UK, and you haven't booked yet, why not see if they still have space?

As much as I want to say come along because, among others, Sinclair Ferguson, Derek Thomas and Garry Williams are speaking, I fear that this would appeal to that Corinthian spirit in us all. So instead come along because this conference is prayerful, and you will drink deeply from the wells of God's sovereign grace in the gospel, in conversion, and in the Christian life.

Oh, and if you are under forty (or have Alistair Begg's genes and so pass for under 40) you can come along to the after hours interview that I'll be doing with Sinclair Ferguson and Derek Thomas.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Geoff Thomas on the work of the ministry

Here are seven really helpful points from Geoff Thomas:

1) The work of the ministry will only be achieved by unfeigned belief in truthfulness of the Bible.

2) The work of the ministry will only be achieved by enduring tough times.

3) The work of the ministry will only be achieved by toil.

4) The work of the ministry will only be achieved by dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

5) The work of the ministry can only be achieved in the defence of the gospel.

6) The work of the ministry will only be achieved by discriminatory preaching.

7) The work of the ministry will only be achieved by applicatory preaching.

(HT: Gary Brady)

Pactum salutis: Penal substitution and the counsel of the Triune God

I have recently been reading Bavinck's chapter on Christ's humiliation in the second volume of his Reformed Dogmatics. I intend to post a fair bit from him in the coming week.

His insights on this matter are remarkable, his handling of the debates judicious, and his tone warm and evangelical in the best sense of those terms. Here we see a great mind and heart at work, expressing the truth with depth, clarity and power. Or, to state the matter in a different way, we have the very best theology precisely because the intellect, affection and will have been moulded, mastered, and put in service to the truth.

One comes away from reading his comments on penal substitution, and witnessing his grasp on all the relevant literature and arguments, with a real sense that here is voice to be listened to.

We are all caught up in our reading by the tyranny of the present. Reading the magisterial work of this great theologian is not only a tonic but also breath of fresh air:

Vicarious satisfaction has its foundation in the counsel of the Triune God, in the life of supreme, perfect and eternal love, in the unshakable covenant of redemption. Based on the ordinances of that covenant, Christ takes the place of his own and exchanges their sin for his righteousness, their death for his life.

RD, Vol. 2: Sin and Salvation in Christ, p. 406

Friday, April 17, 2009

He was numbered with the transgressors: Luther on penal substitution

Justin Taylor draws our attention to Martin Luther:

488 years ago, April 17-18, Martin Luther stood trial at the Diet of Worms [a small town on the river Rhine in present-day Germany).

On the 17th Luther was asked whether certain writings were his and if he would revoke them as heretical. He asked for time to compose his answer--he prayed for long hours and consulted with friends, and returned the next day to give his famous answer.

The following extracts from Luther's writings are in Packer's footnotes to his Tyndale lecture What did the cross achieve? The logic of penal substitution. I often refer to the last one when preaching on the atonement. Christ remained innocent, in himself, he never was personally guitly of sin. But he bore our sins in his body on the tree. Indeed it was as if he himself was personally guilty of them:

‘This is that mystery which is rich in divine grace to sinners: wherein by a wonderful exchange our sins are no longer ours but Christ’s: and the righteousness of Christ not Christ’s but ours. He has emptied himself of his righteousness that he might clothe us with it, and fill us with it: and he has taken our evils upon himself that he might deliver us from them . . . in the same manner as he grieved and suffered in our sins, and was confounded, in the same manner we rejoice and glory in his righteousness’

‘Learn Christ and him crucified. Learn to pray to him and, despairing of yourself, say: “Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am thy sin. Thou hast taken upon thyself what is mine and hast given to me what is thine. Thou hast taken upon thyself what thou wast not and hast given to me what I was not”’

‘All the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, blasphemer, etc., that ever was . . . for he being made a sacrifice, for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins . . . our most merciful Father . . . sent his only Son into the world and laid upon him the sins of all men, saying:

Be thou Peter that denier; Paul that persecutor, blasphemer and cruel oppressor; David that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged upon the cross; and, briefly, be thou the person which hath committed the sins of all men; see therefore that thou pay and satisfy for them. Here now cometh the law and saith: I find him a sinner . . . therefore let him die upon the cross . . .’

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Worthy is the scape-goat: John Owen on Christ's sin-bearing death

The paining is by Holman Hunt and is exhibited in the Lady Lever Art Gallery (just thirty minutes from our home). Two texts are inscribed on the frame. They are:

'Surely he hath borne our Griefs, and carried our Sorrows. Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of GOD, and afflicted.' (Isaiah LIII, 4)

'And the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a Land not inhabited.' (Leviticus XVI, 22)

This inter-canonical connection would no doubt have pleased John Owen.

The following is from John Owen's Vindicae Evangelicae:

For a man to "bear his iniquity," is, constantly, for him to answer for the guilt and undergo the punishment due to it. (455)

He set us an example in his obedience but he was not punished for an example (442)

As the high priest confessed all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the people, and laid them on the head of the scape-goat, which he bare, undergoing the utmost punishment he was capable of, and that punishment which, in the general kind and nature, is the punishment due to sin,--an evil and violent death; so did God lay all the sins, all the punishment due to them, really upon one that was fit, able, and appointed to bear it, which he suffered under to the utmost that the justice of God required on that account.

He took a view of all our sins and iniquities. He knew what was past and what was to come, knowing all our thoughts afar off. Not the least error of our minds, darkness of our understandings, perverseness of our wills, carnality of our affections, sin of our natures or lives, escaped him. (447-8)

Christ looked on the church [MD: in the OT] through the window of the promise and the lattice of the Levitical ceremonies. (450)

And the "surety" of the covenant is he also...such a surety as paid that which he never took, made satisfaction for those sins which he never did...being made liable to them, he was punished for them. (449)

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

This is love: Penal substitution and divine love

It is ten years since I read Packer's What did the cross achieve? The logic of penal substitution, and I have returned to it many times. This truth continues to be the cause of my joy, peace and praise:

The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory. To affirm penal substitution is to say that believers are in debt to Christ specifically for this, and that this is the mainspring of all their joy, peace and praise both now and for eternity.

Packer has this to say about "Substitution and divine love":

The penal substitution model has been criticised for depicting a kind Son placating a fierce Father in order to make him love man, which he did not do before. The criticism is, however, inept, for penal substitution is a Trinitarian model, for which the motivational unity of Father and Son is axiomatic.

The New Testament presents God’s gift of his Son to die as the supreme expression of his love to men. ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son’ (John 3:16). ‘God is love, . . . Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4:8-10). ‘God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ (Rom. 5:8).

Similarly, the New Testament presents the Son’s voluntary acceptance of death as the supreme expression of his love to men. ‘He loved me, and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20). ‘Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends . . .’ (John 15:13f.) And the two loves, the love of Father and Son, are one: a point which the penal substitution model, as used, firmly grasps.

Furthermore, if the true measure of love is how low it stoops to help, and how much in its humility it is ready to do and bear, then it may fairly be claimed that the penal substitutionary model embodies a richer witness to divine love than any other model of atonement, for it sees the Son at his Father’s will going lower than any other view ventures to suggest.

That death on the cross was a criminal’s death, physically as painful as, if not more painful than, any mode of judicial execution that the world has seen; and that Jesus endured it in full consciousness of being innocent before God and man, and yet of being despised and rejected, whether in malicious conceit or in sheer fecklessness, by persons he had loved and tried to save — this is ground common to all views, and tells us already that the love of Jesus, which took him to the cross, brought him appallingly low.

But the penal substitution model adds to all this a further dimension of truly unimaginable distress, compared with which everything mentioned so far pales into insignificance. This is the dimension indicated by Denney — ‘that in that dark hour He had to realise to the full the divine reaction against sin in the race.’

Owen stated this formally, abstractly and non-psychologically. Christ, he said, satisfied God’s justice:

for all the sins of all those for whom he made satisfaction, by undergoing that same punishment which, by reason of the obligation that was upon them, they were bound to undergo. When I say the same I mean essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all accidents of duration and the like . . .

Jonathan Edwards expressed the thought with tender and noble empathy:

God dealt with him as if he had been exceedingly angry with him, and as though he had been the object of his dreadful wrath. This made all the sufferings of Christ the more terrible to him, because they were from the hand of his Father, whom he infinitely loved, and whose infinite love he had had eternal experience of. Besides, it was an effect of God’s wrath that he forsook Christ.

This caused Christ to cry out . . . “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This was infinitely terrible to Christ. Christ’s knowledge of the glory of the Father, and his love to the Father, and the sense and experience he had had of the worth of his Father’s love to him, made the withholding the pleasant ideas and manifestations of his Father’s love as terrible to him, as the sense and knowledge of his hatred is to the damned, that have no knowledge of God’s excellency, no love to him, nor any experience of the infinite sweetness of his love.

And the legendary ‘Rabbi’ Duncan concentrated it all into a single unforgettable sentence, in a famous outburst to one of his classes: ‘D’ye know what Calvary was? what? what? what?’ Then, with tears on his face — ‘It was damnation; and he took it lovingly.’

It is precisely this love that, in the last analysis, penal substitution is all about, and that explains its power in the lives of those who acknowledge it.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Why Jesus died: Penal substitution and the biblical narrative

I read with interest Tony Jones' online article Why Jesus died (there are some criticisms of the article here and here). The article ends with a negative, and unelaborated, comment about penal substitution:

Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God's wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.

Jones has qualified this comment in some later posts (here and here) by affirming his agreement with penal substitution. However, in the original post no particular reasons were given as to why this explanation of the cross is not compelling. I'm also struggling to figure out why he would want to say that he doesn't find penal substitution mentally and spiritually compelling and yet still want to affirm it. Why say that you don't find this "version of atonement theory...in keeping with the biblical narrative" and then say that it is Pauline?

Personally I cannot make sense of the cross without viewing it through the lens of a "transaction" between the Father and the Son, the benefits of which are applied, personally, by the Holy Spirit. I do not buy into the reasoning that would divorce the personal, or relational, from the legal (covenant theology combines both), and so cannot relate to the objections that penal substitution is mechanical, impersonal, cold, logical, mathematical (well you choose the appropriate pejorative term). I should add, to avoid confusion, that Tony Jones does not use any of those terms in his article. He simply states, but leaves unexplained, his conclusions.

That there was a divine agreement involving different roles for the Father and the Son seems to lie on the very surface of the words of Jesus in John 18:11, "shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?"

This is the cup that caused Jesus such anguish in the garden. Antecedent Scripture tells us why this is so. Consider the Old Testament background:

Isaiah 51:22 Thus says your Lord, the LORD, your God who pleads the cause of his people: "Behold, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering;the bowl of my wrath you shall drink no more."
Jeremiah 25:15-16, "Thus the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them."
Psalm 75:8 For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup with foaming wine, well mixed, and he pours out from it, and all the wicked of the earth shall drain it down to the dregs.

The doctrine of penal substitution is not dependent on a few isolated proof-texts. It is indelibly woven into the very fabric of the account of the crucifixion, as recorded in the gospels, with numerous threads drawn from the Old Testament.

As a young Christian I instinctively looked to the gospels to provide the facts about the crucifixion of Jesus, and to the letters to supply the meaning of those facts. Of course there were exceptional verses (Mark 10:45), but on the whole I did not really think that the gospels gave the same kind of theological explanation of the cross that I found in Romans, Galatians, or 1 John. This was a mistake.

The factual details of the crucifixion of Jesus speak to us about the nature of his death. They are much more than a bare description of the events, merely "bare" facts that are open to different interpretations. Once we look below the surface, and in terms of the Old Testament background, we will see that the details of the narrative in Mark 15 testify that Jesus is dying under the wrath of God, and that he is doing so as a substitute for sinners.

Mark shows us six signs that Jesus dies under God's judgement.

1. He is handed over to the Gentiles

Six times in Mark 15 we are told that Jesus is the King of the Jews (2, 9, 12, 18, 26, and King of Israel in 32). This King of the Jews has been handed over to the Gentiles. At one level this is the fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen. Consider his words in Mark 10:33-34:

"See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise."

At another level being delivered over to the Gentiles is a traumatic sign of being under God's judgement. Psalm 106:40-41 speaks of God's people being handed over to the nations as a consequence of being under judgement:

Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people,
and he abhorred his heritage;
he gave them into the hand of the nations,
so that those who hated them ruled over them.

The same idea is expressed by Ezra as he acknowledges the guilt of the people of God that led to the exile (the ultimate OT expression of judgement). Ezra 9:7b reads:

And for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been given into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as it is today.

In the OT being handed over to the nations was a sign of God's anger. This is happening to Jesus in Mark 15.

2. He is silent before his accusers

We know that the charges brought against Jesus by the Jewish leaders were both unjust and incoherent (Mark 14:55-61). Before Pilate, as again Jesus is falsely accused, he remains silent. Why does Jesus not speak up in his own defense? Why does he not silence the lies of his enemies? Pilate is amazed at this (Mark 15:3-4). But the silence of Jesus is spoken of in the words of Isaiah 53:7:

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.

The silence of Jesus before his accusers is a confirmatory sign that he is the suffering servant who will bear the penal consequences of the sins of others by substitutionary atonement (Isa. 53:4-6, 10).

3. He is hung on a tree

The very instrument of execution, the cross, spoke of the nature of Christ's death. In the words of Deuteronomy 21:22-23:

If a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God.

Jesus was not personally guilty of any crime that could issue in his death. His death therefore was as a substitute for clearly it was a death that showed him to have been "cursed by God" (this point is drawn out in Gal. 3:10-13).

4. He is mocked by his enemies

When Hollywood wants to draw attention to the death of Jesus it does so by focussing our attention on the physical details of his sufferings. The graphic nature of his beating and execution is brought to the forefront. Mark, however, places that in the background. Mark's directorship places minimal attention on the act of crucifixion; he simply says "and they crucified him" (15:24).

Mark draws our attention not to the wounds of Jesus but to the words of his enemies. He goes into great detail to record the taunts and verbal abuse that Jesus suffered (15:29-32, 35). Why does he do this? Why do we need to know about this mockery of Christ? Because this too is a sign that Jesus is dying under God's judgement. Consider Psalm 89:38-42 (in context this is about God's king from David's line):

You have cast off and rejected;
you are full of wrath against your anointed.
You have renounced the covenant with your servant;
you have defiled his crown in the dust.
You have breached all his walls;
you have laid his strongholds in ruins.
All who pass by plunder him;
he has become the scorn of his neighbors.
You have exalted the right hand of his foes;
you have made all his enemies rejoice.

In Psalm 89 being scorned by his enemies was a sign that God's king was under God's judgement for his sins. And here in Mark 15? King Jesus is scorned by his enemies. The King of the Jews is bearing God's judgement as a substitute for sinners. Carefully compare Mark 15:29 with Lamentations 2:15.

5. He dies in the darkness

We are surely meant to recall the darkness that fell upon Egypt during the plagues as we see Jesus plunged into the darkness in Mark 15:33. This too was what God threatened Israel with in Deut. 28:29 "and you shall grope at noonday, as the blind grope in darkness." Amos also warned of this sign of judgement (Amos 8:9):

And on that day," declares the Lord GOD,
"I will make the sun go down at noon
and darken the earth in broad daylight."

As Jesus dies even the very elements speak of the presence of God's judgement at the cross.

6. He says that he has been forsaken

Here we come to the words that Jesus speaks in Mark 15:34:

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

This is not separation from God that can be measured in space, rather it is the separation felt by the Son as he endures the curse that should be borne by sinners. There is no voice from heaven to confirm that this is the Son of God's love (Mark 1:11; 9:7).

What is happening to Jesus on the cross? He is bearing sin, its full penalty, in the place of his people. Here is penal substitution. Here is hope for sinners, for here is a refuge from condemnation and free acceptance with God in Christ.

Sing psalms

I'm in recovery on this. My church background never insisted on it but my Bible does.

Kevin DeYoung touches a raw nerve on the neglect of psalm singing. You can read the full post, and here are some highlights:

Is there a command of Scripture we disobey more frequently, and with so little shame, as the injunction to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)? I mean, seriously, it’s right there in black and white. We are supposed to sing psalms.

As far as I can tell, the exegetical debate is not about whether these three terms refer to something other than biblical psalms, but whether they might all refer to different kinds of biblical psalms. Either way, God wants us to sing psalms does he not?

Jesus sang the Psalms (Matt. 26:30). The early church sang the Psalms. The Reformers, especially in the tradition of Calvin, loved to sing the Psalms and labored mightily to restore them to the church. The Bay Psalm Book was the first book printed in America.

The Psalms—150 God-breathed songs—have been the staple of Protestant (and especially Reformed) worship for 500 years. And yet how many of our churches sing a Psalm even once a month? I know there are exceptions, but by and large the evangelical church is bereft of Psalm singing. We might unknowingly stumble into one every now and again through Isaac Watts, but for the most part we don’t think about singing Psalms; we don’t plan to sing Psalms; and we don’t sing Psalms.

Assuming we haven’t started an irreversible trend, I imagine future generations will be puzzled by our avoidance of the Psalms. “Why did they give up on the Psalms?” they may ask. “Didn’t they know God wrote them? I suppose they were worried that no one would like singing Psalms. I guess they assumed young people wouldn’t stomach it.

But why didn’t they try? Why didn’t they come up with new music for the Psalms? Why didn’t they teach their people about the emotional depth and Christological richness and the gritty honesty of the Psalms? And if they couldn’t think of any other reasons to sing the Psalms, why didn’t they just do it because the Bible told them to?”

The Reformation and penal substitution

Pure gold from Herman Bavinck:

Inasmuch as the Reformation had learned to know sin primarily as guilt, atonement became central in the work of Christ. Sin was of such a nature that it aroused God's wrath. Needed above all to still that wrath, to satisfy God's justice, was the satisfaction accomplished by the "God-man."

He achieved it by putting himself in our place as the guarantor of the covenant, taking upon himself the full guilt and punishment of sin, and submitting to the total demand of the law of God. Hence the work of Christ consists not so much in his humility, nor only in his death, but in his total--active as well as passive--obedience.

He accomplished this work in his threefold office, not only as prophet by teaching us and giving us an example and exhorting us to love but also as priest and king.

The objective and subjective sides of reconciliation, accordingly, are clearly distinguished. Christ accomplished everything. All the benefits are objectively contained in his person. Since by his sacrifice Christ met the requirements of God's justice, he objectively changed the relation between God and humankind and, consequently, all other relations between humankind to sin, death, Satan, and the world as well.

The primary benefit, therefore, is the forgiveness of sins and consequently also deliverance from pollution, death, law, and Satan. Christ is the only mediator between God and humankind, the all-sufficient Saviour, the highest prophet, the only priest, the true king.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, p. 345

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Against Penal Substitution: Warfield & Machen

The fact is, the views men take of the atonement are largely determined by their fundamental feelings of need - by what men most long to be saved from

B.B. Warfield

“They (the liberal preachers) speak with disgust of those who believe 'that the blood of our Lord, shed in substitutionary death, placates an alienated deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner'. Against the doctrine of the cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling on human hearts.”

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p.120

In his address 'Modern Theories of the Atonement,' given in 1902, B. B. Warfield observed the revolt against penal substitution that gained momentum in the late nineteenth century. He noted that this revolt prompted an immediate and equally powerful defence. However, 'this defense only stemmed the tide, it did not succeed in rolling it back.' He wrote:

The ultimate result has been that the revolt from the conceptions of satisfaction, propitiation, expiation, sacrifice, reinforced continually by tendencies adverse to evangelical doctrine peculiar to our times, has grown steadily more and more widespread, and in some quarters more and more extreme, until it has issued in an immense confusion on this central doctrine of the gospel. (p. 286)

Whenever there is a revolt against the particular theological conception of a doctrine, in this case of the cross as a penal substitutionary atonement, one can usually find a concomitant tone of rhetoric that casts that doctrine in as unfavourable a light as possible. And of course one ought to expect to find the promotion of an alternative doctrinal framework also.

Warfield made the following judicious statement on the status of penal substitution at the dawn of the twentieth century that is remarkably apropros for today's evangelical scene:

Probably the majority of those who hold the public ear, whether as academical or as popular religious guides, have definitely broken with it, and are commending to their audiences something other and, as they no doubt believe, something very much better. A tone of speech has even grown up regarding it which is not only scornful but positively abusive. There are no epithets too harsh to be applied to it, no invectives too intense to be poured out on it. (p. 287)

As insulting, inappropriate, and offensive as a phrase such as 'cosmic child abuse' may be, the impulse to verbally deprecate penal substitution is, at least, not a contemporary phenomenon. Nor for that matter are 21st century alternatives to penal substitution anything other than older forms of atonement theology repackaged for a contemporary audience. Again we find that little has changed since Warfield's assessment of 'modern theories of the atonement':

Perhaps at no other period was Christ so frequently or so passionately set forth as merely a social Saviour. Certainly at no other period has his work been so prevalently summed up in mere revelation. (p. 284)

The reason for this is surely obvious. The is a direct relationship between our grasp of human need and our understanding of the work that Christ undertook to meet that need. If we conceive of our deepest need as one of being in state of error, or ignorance, a state exacerbated by our wayward living, then we will see Christ largely, if not exclusively, as a teacher and example. Warfield neatly summarizes this tendency as follows:

The fact is, the views men take of the atonement are largely determined by their fundamental feelings of need - by what men most long to be saved from. (p. 283)

This straightforward insight tells us something very significant about the present status and future of penal substitution. Even though, in the last fifty years, we have had many able defenders of penal substitution (from Leon Morris, Roger Nicole, Jim Packer, John Stott, down to the recent volume Pierced For Our Transgressions) we are warranted in repeating Warfield's conclusion for our own day, 'this defense only stemmed the tide, it did not succeed in rolling it back.' The doctrine of penal substitution has not been lacking the most able of academic and popular defenders, but this defense has yet to win the day.

The preservation and future success of penal substitution is a supernatural work. Only God can uncover the appalling need we stand in for a Saviour to give his life in place of ours; only God can so convict of sin and guilt that we will flee to Christ for refuge; only God can give faith to turn from ourselves and to look to Christ crucified in our place according to the testimony of the Scriptures.

The outcome of the 21st century revolt against penal substitution will not bypass the need for solid exegetical and theological books on the subject, but it will require more than this. It will require the kind of experiential grasp of sin and salvation, produced by the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts through the Word, that Warfield described so powerfully:

If we have not much sin to be saved from, why, certainly, a very little atonement will suffice for our needs. It is, after all, only the sinner who requires a Saviour. But if we are sinners, and in proportion as we know ourselves to be sinners, we will cry out for that Saviour who only after he was perfected by suffering could become the Author of eternal salvation. (p. 297)

[All quotations are from 'Modern Theories of the Atonement,' in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Volume IX, Studies in Theology.]

Saturday, April 11, 2009

He paid back what he had not stolen

Kim Riddlebarger posted the following extract from the Belgic Confession (Article 21) on his blog yesterday. I was so glad to read it:

We believe that Jesus Christ is that consummate High Priest, established in eternity with an oath according to the Melchizedekian order, and that He presented His very self in our name in the presence of the Father for the placation of His wrath with full satisfaction, placing His very self upon the altar of the cross and pouring out His blood for the purgation of our sins, just as the Prophets had predicted it would happen.

For it is written, “the castigation of our peace was placed on the Son of God,” and “we are healed by his wounds.” Again, “He Himself was led to death as a lamb,” and He was “numbered among sinners” and condemned as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, even though he had previously declared Him innocent.

Therefore, He paid, “for what He had not stolen,” and the just suffered for the unjust, both in His soul and body, so while sensing the awe-striking debt for our sins, He sweated blood and water and He even finally cried out, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” And He endured all these things for the remission of our sins.

For this reason, we rightly say with blessed Paul “we know nothing whatsoever, except Jesus Christ and Him crucified,” in fact, “we consider all things as excrement on account of the excellence of the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, ” so that he who is in His wounds finds every kind of consolation.

And so nothing is necessary lest we would hope for or think up for ourselves any other reckonings with which we can be reconciled to God besides this one and only complete oblation, by which all believers, who are sanctified, are consecrated and perfected unto eternity. And moreover this is the reason why He Himself was called by the Angel, “Jesus,” that is, “Savior, because He is going to save His people from their sins.”

Friday, April 10, 2009

The agony of the Cross

What else could have filled Christ with such dread in the garden than the knowledge that in his suffering he would endure, in the place of sinners, the wrath of God? This is what the "cup" that he spoke of stood for.

I read the following from Jonathan Edwards a few years back and found it helped me tremendously to reflect on the atonement:

The strength of Christ's love more especially appears in this, that when he had such a full view of the dreadfulness of the cup that he was to drink, that so amazed him, he would notwithstanding even then take it up, and drink it.

Then seems to have been the greatest and most peculiar trial of the strength of the love of Christ, when God set down the bitter portion before him, and let him see what he had to drink, if he persisted in his love to sinners; and brought him to the mouth of the furnace that he might see its fierceness, and have a full view of it, and have time then to consider whether he would go in and suffer the flames of this furnace for such unworthy creatures, or not.

This was as it were proposing it to Christ's last consideration what he would do; as much as if it had then been said to him, 'Here is the cup that you are to drink, unless you will give up your undertaking for sinners, and even leave them to perish as they deserve.

Will you take this cup, and drink it for them, or not? There is the furnace into which you are to be cast, if they are to be saved; either they must perish, or you must endure this for them. There you see how terrible the heat of the furnace is; you see what pain and anguish you must endure on the morrow, unless you give up the cause of sinners. What will you do? is your love such that you will go on? Will you cast yourself into this dreadful furnace of wrath?'

Christ's soul was overwhelmed with the thought; his feeble human nature shrunk at the dismal sight. It put him into this dreadful agony which you have heard described; but his love to sinners held out.

Christ would not undergo these sufferings needlessly, if sinners could be saved without. If there was not an absolute necessity of his suffering them in order to their salvation, he desired that the cup might pass from him. But if sinners, on whom he had set his love, could not, agreeably to the will of God, be saved without his drinking it, he chose that the will of God should be done. He chose to go on and endure the suffering, awful as it appeared to him.

And this was his final conclusion, after the dismal conflict of his poor feeble human nature, after he had had the cup in view, and for at least the space of one hour, had seen how amazing it was. Still he finally resolved that he would bear it, rather than those poor sinners whom he had loved from all eternity should perish.

When the dreadful cup was before him, he did not say within himself, why should I, who am so great and glorious a person, infinitely more honourable than all the angels of heaven.

Why should I go to plunge myself into such dreadful, amazing torments for worthless wretched worms that cannot be profitable to God, or me, and that deserve to be hated by me, and not to be loved?

Why should I, who have been living from all eternity in the enjoyment of the Father's love, go to cast myself into such a furnace for them that never can requite me for it?

Why should I yield myself to be thus crushed by the weight of divine wrath, for them who have no love to me, and are my enemies? they do not deserve any union with me, and never did, and never will do, any thing to recommend themselves to me.

What shall I be the richer for having saved a number of miserable haters of God and me, who deserve to have divine justice glorified in their destruction?

Such, however, was not the language of Christ's heart, in these circumstances; but on the contrary, his love held out, and he resolved even then, in the midst of his agony, to yield himself up to the will of God, and to take the cup and drink it."

From Jonathan Edwards sermon on Christ's Agony (Luke 22)

Why did you allow your Son to die?

In a few hours I will be speaking at Christ Church Deeside on "God, why did you allow your Son to die?"

Geoffrey Grogan's commentary on 2 Corinthians has this helpful section:

Matthew and Mark has both preserved for us the terrible question asked by Christ on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is surely the deepest question ever asked and it came from the lips of no ordinary human being, but was asked by the Son of God.

It received no answer from heaven, as Christ was bearing the punishment for our sins. Perhaps though the nearest answer is given here (2 Cor. 5:21), under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is why Jesus was forsaken.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Reading, Preaching and Biblical Theology: Why Johnny Can't Preach

T. David Gordon has written an astute book with the title Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media have shaped the Messengers. Scott Clark has been reviewing it and his latest installment (number six no less) is here. Dave Bish has also recently posted on it here.

The book makes some telling points about what we ought to read for, and how we should go about it. In particular Gordon trains his cross-hairs on the besetting predilection we have for reading for information. We read for content and ignore form. Gordon's observations ring true and need to be carefully weighed. Concerning the reading habits of ministers he says:

...they read the Bible the same way they read everything else: virtually speed-reading, scanning it for its most overt content. What is this passage about? they ask as they read, but they don't raise questions about how the passage is constructed. It's almost as though a version of Microsoft Word were built into their brains that causes them to see some of the words in a biblical paragraph in boldface, as the theologically, spiritually, or morally important words stand out in bold from the rest of the paragraph. (p. 46)

Although the provenance of the book is in the author's own experience of listening to preaching in conservative evangelical and Reformed churches in North America, his perception about the way in which texts are wrongly preached (because they have not been read well as texts) rings true for the UK.

The following is an apt description of a good percentage of the Reformed preaching that I have listened to:

But those not accustomed to reading texts closely just look for what they judge to be the important words, and the concepts to which they ostensibly point, and then they give a lecture on that concept--ordinarily without making any effort to explain the passage as a whole, to demonstrate how each clause contributes to some basic overall unity. (p. 48)

My only query is the extent to which, at least here in the UK, this is more representative of an older generation and less so among younger preachers. Not that it is exclusively a generational divide. It is also attributable to the kind of preaching that we value and use as a template for how we think it ought to be done.

There is certainly an approach to preaching that gravitates toward doctrinal exposition at the expense of biblical theology and careful attention to the form and structure of the text. This can lead to a flattening of the contours of revelation, and to the distinctive contribution to that revelation that particular texts make.

A good example of this is Luke's account of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. The account if framed by the question of sonship. Not only are we reminded that Adam was the son of God but also that Israel (whose experience Jesus is recapitulating) was also God's son. The way that antecedent Scripture resonates here will be lost if we do not read the text carefully. It is all too easy to read Luke 3-4 as a template for our own resistance to temptation, instead of seeing it as the fulfilment of deeply embedded typological themes and as a point in the experience of Jesus where his work as our representative and substitute shines brightly. Luke is striking the note, not of "here is your example to follow," but of "here is the obedient Son obeying for you." [Take a look at David Gibson's briefing paper on preaching Luke 3-4, Three Sons and the Devil. HT: Dave Bish]

Sensitivity to the location of a text within in its immediate context, book, genre, and redemptive horizon has become a valued feature in British conservative evangelical preaching. I think that this is one of the blessings of serving God in this generation.