Afraid of orthodoxy

Commenting on Jeroboam's fear of orthodoxy (represented by the house of David and the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, in 1 Kings 12), "that is, orthodoxy focused on a royal person and on an atoning place" Dale Ralph Davis has this stellar footnote:

We rightly trace this person-place scheme straight into New Testament orthodoxy. David's dynasty reaches its crescendo in that rascal Rehoboam's premier descendant, Jesus the Messiah (hence Christology is at the heart of orthodoxy); and Yahweh's temple, where, as Jeroboam stated, they 'make sacrifices', was therefore the place where atonement was made and reaches its fulfilment in the cross.

Orthodoxy revolves around person and place, around Christ and the cross, or, as we might put it, around the person and work of Christ.  It is this area of belief that false religion invariably skews.

Is there a 'Problem of Forgiveness'? Dissonant voices

Four voices.  Only one of them resembles the tone and accent of the Master.

Faustus Socinus (1578)

As we saw elsewhere Paul likewise instructs us to be imitators of God: just as he forgave our sins through Christ, we should forgive each other, but if God so forgave our sins through Christ, that he yet demanded the punishment of them from Christ itself, what prevents us from seeking satisfaction for ourselves for the offenses of our neighbours?

Brian McLaren (2006)

The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.

Steve Chalke (2004)

Is it not strange for Jesus (God incarnate) on the one hand to say ‘do not return evil for evil’ while still looking for retribution himself? Similarly wouldn’t it be inconsistent for God to warn us not to be angry with each other and yet burn with wrath himself, or tell us to ‘love our enemies’ when he obviously couldn’t quite bring himself to do the same without demanding massive appeasement? If these things are true, what does it mean to ‘be perfect…as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matt 5:48)? If it is true that Jesus is ‘the Word of God’ then how can his message be inconsistent with his nature? If the cross has anything to do with penal substitution then Jesus teaching becomes a divine case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. I, for one, believe that God practices what he preaches!

John Stott (1986)

'Why should our forgiveness depend on Christ's death?'...'Why does God not simply forgive us, without the necessity of the cross?'...'After all', the objector may continue, 'if we sin against another, we are required to forgive one another.  We are even warned of dire consequences if we refuse.  Why can't God practise what he preaches and be equally generous?  Nobody's death is necessary before we forgive each other.  Why then does God make such a fuss about forgiving us and even declare it impossible without his Son's "sacrifice for sin"?' 

For us to argue, 'We forgive each other unconditionally, let God do the same to us', betrays not sophistication but shallowness, since it overlooks the elementary fact that we are not God.  We are private individuals, and other people's misdemeanours are personal injuries.  God is not a private individual, however, nor is sin just a personal injury.  On the contrary, God himself is the maker of the laws we break, and sin is rebellion against him. 

The reason why many people give the wrong answers to questions about the cross, and even ask the wrong questions, is that they have carefully considered neither the seriousness of sin nor the majesty of God.

The Meaning of the Cross

According to the SCM's (the Student Christian Movement) 1919 "Aim and Basis" this is what the cross means:

It is only as we see on Calvary the price of suffering paid day by day by God himself for all human sin, that we can enter into the experience of true penitence and forgiveness, which sets us free to embark upon a wholly new way of life...This is the meaning of the Atonement.

Reading these words afresh it struck me that this statement resonates with several, shall we call them 'Emergentesque' for want of a better word, affirmations of the cross.

This is hardly surprising since the SCM statement is the impulse of a certain caste of heart and mind, and it rests on specific presuppositions concerning God and man, and concerning the breakdown in divine-human relations and how they are to be restored.  If those presuppositions are shared we should expect contemporary authors to assemble, using Biblical vocabulary, a message about the meaning of the cross akin to that of the non-Evangelical SCM.

John Stott offered the following observations on this statement in the preface to his book The Cross of Christ:

But we have respectfully to respond that the meaning of the atonement is not to be found in our penitence evoked by the sight of Calvary, but rather in what God did when in Christ on the cross he took our place and bore our sin. 

This distinction between an 'objective' and 'subjective' understanding of the atonement needs to be made clear in every generation.

Whilst I agree with what he wrote back in 1986, we should be able to see that the SCM statement has an objective element ("the price of suffering paid day by day by God himself") as well as a subjective one ("we can enter into the experience of true penitence and forgiveness, which sets us free to embark upon a wholly new way of life").  In fact we can say that the SCM statement acknowledges that the objective act of God precedes the subjective response on our part.

The crux of the matter is not the distinction between the objective and the subjective aspects of the atonement but the nature of the objective understanding of the atonement, the meaning of what God did at the cross, why he did it, and why it was necessary for him to do it in the first place.

On this point the SCM position and that of the classical Evangelicalism with its roots in the Reformation really represent two different religions both using the same stock of language.  Look at what they are saying about God and his nature, man and his fall, sin and its effects, and you begin to see that no amount of verbal similarity can compensate for the fact that they represent diametrically opposed theologies.

It's the Exegesis Stupid: Heresy and the Interpretation of Scripture

"When it is said that Christ died for our sins, 

it means that He bore their punishment."

George Smeaton

If we are to think clearly about heresies we must come to terms with that fact that although some movements explicitly place a rival locus of authority alongside or above Scripture (e.g. Tradition, The Book of Mormon, reason, mystical experiences and revelations) many heresies simply involve the incorrect handling of Scripture. 

In doing so these rival authorities may well arbitrate on what Scripture can and cannot teach.  The interpretation of Scripture is thereby harmonized with Tradition (written or unwritten), reason, the teaching of The Book of Mormon, or with new revelations from God.

Rather than arising from a true interpretation of Scripture, many heresies impose upon the text of Scripture artificial and unwarranted explanations.  At times this problem is exacerbated by the presence of translations that exclude historic orthodox doctrines on dogmatic grounds (e.g. the New World Translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses). 

This kind of sleight of hand by translators is, however, a minority report in the story of heresies.  It is far more common for the words of Scripture to be given novel interpretations that radically diverge from their actual meaning. 

This use of sound words to support unsound ideas is not an exclusively post-canonical phenomenon.  One encounters this semantic confusion in 2 Timothy 2:17-18 where Hymenaeus and Alexander believe, teach and confess the doctrine of the resurrection, but not the same resurrection that the Apostle Paul believes, teaches and confesses.  The same holds true in the Johannine letters where faith in the real Christ (God incarnate, man divine) is insisted upon by John, and where the false Christs, who retain the right title but not the reality, are exposed and rejected.

The stable nature of the text of Scripture and its individual units (e.g. God, Christ, the Spirit, sin, justification and so on) do not need to be deleted by heretics and other false teachers in order to legitimise their claims.  The verses and words of Scripture become carriers of doctrines imposed upon them. 

This is why the conflict between truth and error will primarily focus on the exegesis and interpretation of Scripture, dealing with the individual words of Scripture and their location within the units of thought where they are found, the books that they are a part of, the type of literature that they belong to, wider matters of their canonical place, and finally of their harmony with the whole counsel of God.  It's the exegesis stupid.

As an example of this it is a plain fact of history that the seventeenth century Socinians who violently denied the penal substitutionary atoning work of Christ did not argue on textual grounds that the phrase 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures' in 1 Cor. 15:3 was an interpolation (n.b. in the debates between gender egalitarians and complementarians one of the key texts, 1 Corinthians 15:34-35, is not considered to be part of the original by NT scholar Gordon Fee ). 

The Socinians ascribed to this verse a meaning totally at odds with the interpretation that understands its plain meaning to be that as a substitute, the sinless Christ bore the penalty due to his sinful people.  In place of this explanation the Socinians claimed that the preposition used by Paul denoted the final and not the meritorious cause of Christ's death.  That is to say, 'Christ died for our sins' means that Christ died to remove future sin.  The aim of his death was to abolish our future sins, and not to suffer vicariously the punishment for the guilt of our sins.

The Socinian and evangelical interpretations of this text are so widely different as to put before us radically incompatible explanations of the nature of Christ's death, and perceptions of the relationship between his death and our sin.  When we think of what it means for Christ to be the Saviour from sin we are no longer on the same page. 

Not only do we have divergent and incompatible views of Christ's work but we also have markedly differing views of what it means to have faith in Christ crucified.  You cannot alter the doctrine of his cross work without at the same time changing the nature of the subjective response on our part to him.

The Socinians denied the deity of Christ as well as his atoning work.  Even if they had affirmed it, as some do who also deny penal substitution, there would still be such a difference between the two conceptions of the saving work of Christ that they would be as alike as night and day.

Driving this Socinian exegesis, as the nineteenth century NT scholar George Smeaton noted, was not an impartial handling of Greek prepositions but a hermeneutic that was fundamentally unwilling to accept that any text in Scripture taught the satisfaction doctrine of the atonement:

To show, however, that it is not simply a matter of interpretation with them, but a forgone conclusion, it may be mentioned that Socinus explicity declared, that were the doctrine of vicarious sin-bearing, and the punishment of one for the sins of another, mentioned not once, but many times in Scripture, he would not believe it; because it could not be.

The open declaration is candid at least; but it is an appeal to reason, not to revelation, and an admission that Scripture is not made the ultimate judge, but only to be interpreted as seems best suited to confirm or dress out a preconceived hypothesis.

The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 208

The real absence of Jesus from the pages of the Old Testament

Now I want to remind you, although you fully knew it, 

that Jesus, 

who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, 

afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Jude 5 (ESV)

Most contemporary evangelicals adopt an approach to the doctrine of God in the Old Testament that is functionally modalist, or unitarian.  God is regarded as a person, with only a vague inkling, insufficient for its time, that within the Godhead there is a plurality of three distinct divine persons.

The Word of God and the Wisdom of God are taken to be personifications rather than persons, and the descriptions of the Spirit in personal terms (being grieved, instructing, and giving rest, see Neh. 9:20; Isa. 63:10, 14) are not given sufficient attention, even though they are every bit as important in establishing the personal nature and agency of the Spirit as the Pauline texts in 1 Cor. 2:13 and Eph. 4:30.  It is surely undeniable that in the Old Testament the work of the Spirit is the work of a divine person.

In the great Isaianic prophecies concerning the Messiah, who is he anointed with (11:1-3)?  Who sends the Messiah and the Spirit (42:1; 48:16; 61:1)?  Can we afford to think of this Spirit anointing in vague or impersonal terms when Isaiah also tells us that the Spirit give the people rest and that they grieved him in the wilderness (63:10-14)?

Is it not that case that Messianic Servant is described in terms reserved for deity ("high and lifted up" 52:13, see the use of this phrase in 6:1 and 57:15) whilst at the same time Isaiah tells us of his true and lowly humanity (49:1-7; 52:12-14; 53:2, 5, 9, 11 etc.)?

It may be more helpful to think of these great Isaianic prophecies as movie trailers for the gospels, giving us glimpses ahead of the release date, of the words and works of the principal actors in the drama of redemption.  The prophets were not telling a cryptic tale about the denouement of God's dealings with Israel, they were looking for the Christ, anointed with the Spirit and sent by God.  They had the privilege of projecting onto the screen the snapshots of revelation that foresignified Christ to come.

On the subject of Christ in the Old Testament here, again, is Irenaeus in Against Heresies:

For he who has brought in the end [of the law] has himself also brought in the beginning; and it is he who does himself say to Moses, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them;" it being customary from the beginning with the Word of God to ascend and descend for the purpose of saving those who were in afflication. (4.12.4)

But when he terms the disciples "the friends of God," he plainly declares himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion, because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became "the friend of God" [Jas. 2:23].  But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though he stood in need of it, for he was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," he says, "I am"), but that he in his goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it." (4.13.4)

In this manner, therefore, did they also see the Son of God as a man conversant with men, while they prophesied what was to happen, saying that he who was not come as yet was present, proclaiming also the impassible as subject to suffering, and declaring that he who was then in heaven had descended into the dust of death. (4.20.8)

And the Word spake to Moses, appearing before him "just as one might speak to his friend." (4.20.9)

However, it was not by means of visions alone which were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works, that he was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them he might prefigure and and show forth future events beforehand. (4.20.12)

The Gospel Coalition and Irenaeus on Christ in the OT (1)

Over at the Gospel Coalition site there is an essential starter kit for preaching Christ from the OT made up of resources by contemporary and modern authors.  It is worthwhile to turn back the clock to the second century and to look at Irenaeus of Lyon's essential starter kit for knowing Christ in the OT as he wrestled with the Gnostic heretics.

Throughout the following extracts from Irenaeus two foundational points are being made.

1.  With regard to revelation, it is impossible to know God aright unless he is revealed to us in and by the Son.  This foundational truth is not something that holds true from the time of the incarnation.

2.  The Son appears personally in the OT to reveal God, to reveal the gospel beforehand through the prophets, to be the object of faith, and to rescue his people.

As far as Irenaeus was concerned the OT patriarchs could not have penned a volume with the title The Jesus We Never Knew.

Here are some extracts from his magisterial work Against Heresies (from whence this blog derives its title):

Here [Psalm 110:1] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; he who gave him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to his all his enemies.  Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.

And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven" [Gen. 19:24].  For it here points out that the Son, who had been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness.

And this does declare the same truth [Psalm 45:6-7]...For the Spirit designates both of them by the name of God--both him who is anointed as Son, and him who does anoint, that is, the Father. (Book 3: Ch. 6: Sect. 1)

And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, "I am come down to deliver this people" [Ex. 3:14].  For it is he who descended and ascended for the salvation of men.  Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in himself. (3:6:2)

On John the Baptist's relationship to Christ and the OT prophets he wrote:

For all the other prophets preached the advent of the paternal Light, and desired to be worthy of seeing him whom they preached; but John did both announce [the advent] beforehand, in a like manner as did the others, and actually saw him when he came, and pointed him out, and persuaded many to believe on him, so that he did himself hold the place of both prophet and apostle. (3:11:3)

On the personal appearance of Christ in the OT Irenaeus says the following:

And the Word of God himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with his divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. (3:11:8)

Christ himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. (4:5:2)

[Abraham]...followed the Word of God, walking as a pilgrim with the Word, that he might [afterwards] have his abode with the Word. (4:5:2)

Since, therefore, Abraham was a prophet, and saw in the Spirit the day of the Lord's coming, and the dispensation of his suffering, through whom both he himself and all who, following the example of his faith, trust in God, should be saved, he rejoiced exceedingly.  The Lord, therefore, was not unknown to Abraham, whose day he desired to see; nor again was the Lord's Father, for he had learned from the Word of the Lord, and believed him. (4:5:5)

"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor the Father, save the Son, and those to whom the Son shall reveal him" [Matt. 11:27]. For "shall reveal" was not said with reference to the future alone, as if then [only] the Word had begun to manifest the Father when he was born of Mary, but it applies indifferently throughout all time. (4:6:7)

With reference to John 8:56 he wrote:

For not alone upon Abraham's account did he say these things, but also that he might point out how all who have known God from the beginning, and have foretold the advent of Christ, have received the revelation from the Son himself; who also in the last times was made visible and passible... (4:7:2)

And here are some more extracts:

Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving the Word, by imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying "I have surely seen the affliction of my people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them" [Exodus 3:7-8]. (4:7:4)

"For if you had believed Moses, you would also have believed me; for he wrote of me" [John 5:39-40] [saying this] no doubt, because the Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah, giving him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another, inquiring after Adam; at another, bringing down judgement upon the Sodomites; and again, when he became visible, and directs Jacob on his journey, and speaks with Moses from the bush.  And it would be endless to recount [the occasions] upon which the Son of God is shown forth by Moses. [4:10:1]

Atonement and the Justice of God

The following is a guest post by Rev. Dr. Paul Blackham.  Paul was the Associate Minister for Theology at All Souls, Langham Place and did his doctorate on the Puritan Thomas Goodwin.

It is said that in ancient Rome a murderer was punished by having their victim’s body strapped to their back until it had rotted away.  More relevantly, the Bible views us as already dead, already decaying into the darkness due to our rejection of the One who is our Light and Life.  

 Our offences – our selfishness and sin - are like death clinging to us and this kind of death never just falls away with the passage of time.  We might wish these things would go away.  We might regret them with every fibre of our being.  We might weep away our sleepless nights aware of what we have done, of who we are.  Yet, none of these regrets or tears can ever cut that body of death away from us.  Or else we might laugh it off, filling our hearts and minds with the sights and sounds of work, friends, family and entertainment.  When the stench of that body of death clinging to us gets too strong, we may simply turn up the volume on our work and entertainment.  Yet, it never goes away.

Nothing we can ever do, nothing we can ever feel or resolve, no therapy or drug, no holiday or mid-life crisis or personal trainer or year out can ever take the corruption away.  From the very beginning we were warned that sin means death, and we can never change that equation.

Clinging to us, rotting on us, polluting us at every point is our own moral and spiritual corruption.  When, sooner or later, this corruption is also manifested in our physical flesh, then the process is complete: our sin has paid its wage and dragged us down to the eternal, burning rubbish tip in the outer darkness, far from the eternal home of righteousness, goodness and life.

We need to begin with these stark images because we cannot understand the Bible’s presentation of atonement as long as we see it in the superficial psychological terms that we are so used to.  So many of the discussions of forgiveness or atonement in our modern culture are so self-centred and merely therapeutic – as if the purpose of forgiveness is a selfish thing, setting ourselves free from hatred or bitterness.

There is some truth in that.  If we refuse to forgive, if we show no mercy, then we will be shown no mercy on the Day of Judgement.  If we carry our hatred and bitterness around with us then the evils done to us carry on and grow with each passing day.  Yes, all that has deep truth, but it is not taking us into the heart of atonement.

There are three aspects of justice or righteousness that we will focus on: two of them involve us and one of them completely excludes us. 

First, the justice of God means that He is ready to forgive us, so we are to forgive those who do wrong to us.  We share in God’s justice when we forgive and restore those who have sinned against us, when we forgive as we have been forgiven.

Isaiah 30:18 – “The LORD longs to be gracious to you; He rises to show you compassion.  For the LORD is a God of justice.”
Psalm 33:5 – “The LORD loves justice: the earth is full of His unfailing love.”

Second, the justice of God means that He helps those who cry out to Him in need, so the local church is to be a haven for the widows and the orphans, the hungry and the broken, the sick and the imprisoned.  Righteousness and justice flow out when the victims of sin are shown practical love and mercy. 

Isaiah 1:17 – “Seek justice.  Encourage the oppressed.  Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”
Zechariah 7:9 - This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.  Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor.  In your hearts do not think evil of each other."

Yet, the third level of justice belongs to the LORD God alone. 

Micah 5:15 – “I will take vengeance in anger and wrath upon the nations that have not obeyed me.”

Nahum 1:2 – “The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies.”

Romans 12:19 – “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”

1 Samuel 24:12 – “May the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you.”

The LORD God alone can bring the destroying and final vengeance on evil.  Jesus, as the Judge of the World, alone punishes sin and brings His terrible judgement on humanity.  Yes, we might say that through governments and rulers He allows a small measure of this punishment to be meted out even in this present age, but He reserves to Himself the true Day of Justice when all our offences, all our corruption, the body of death that clings to us, is condemned and punished for all eternity.

The LORD’s justice cares for the needy and He longs to bring repentance and forgiveness to those who do evil… but there will finally be a day when He will bring vengeance against the wicked.  Within the Bible itself the focus of atonement is on that third category of justice.

The terrible crisis that faces the world, far more than all the troubles we have with each other, is that we are sinners in the hands of an angry and Living God.  As Jesus said, we do not need to fear those who can harm us only in this passing life, but our greatest fear needs to be of the One whose angry judgement can throw us into the eternal punishment of Hell.  The most urgent need for the world is to find peace with the Most Holy God who we are at war with.

When atonement is made, when God’s own blood has taken away our offensive sin, then we forgive as we have been forgiven and the love of God in our hearts bubbles over into very practical compassion and justice for those in need.

A script written in eternity

This is my entry for Friday 16th July at the M'Cheyne Daily Readings Blog over at Reformation 21

Matthew 26 is a chapter full of drama.

It contains the dark betrayal of Christ by Judas Iscariot, the insidious evil plotting of the chief priests and elders, and the agonising act of denial committed by the loyalty swearing Peter.

These dramatic moments are far from haphazard intrusions that divert the course of the narrative from its otherwise intended outcome. Each event, the plot, the betrayal, the denial, is woven indelibly into the very fabric of the gospel by the hand and counsel of God (26:24). Jesus himself knows that this is his Father's will (24:42).

Far from being at the mercy of the actions of others the chapter is filled with references by Jesus to his coming death. He says that he “after two days the Passover is coming” and that he, the Son of Man, will be “delivered up to be crucified” (26:2). What is astonishing about these words is not merely their Old Testament background, Daniel's vision of the heavenly Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days, and coming with the clouds of heaven – the very insignia of deity – but also the fact that vision of the Son of Man seated as King and Judge on the last day has just been impressed on the minds of the Twelve (25:31).

The anointing of the Lord with the expensive jar of perfume has been done, says Jesus, to “prepare him for burial” (26:12). We already know that this will be an imminent event, but the words are accompanied by this symbolic act, the sweet perfume intended to mask the smell of death.

The meal that Jesus celebrates with his disciples marks out the death of Jesus as the covenant in his blood, poured out for the forgiveness of sins (26:27-28). The effective application of the benefits of his death to his people, providing for them free and full forgiveness and cleansing, has come at the terrible cost of his own violent death. Indeed the death he will die will be an accursed one, for he will stand in the place of sinners and drink down the cup of wrath that they should drink (26:39; Psalm 75:8; Isa. 51:17; Jer. 25:15-16).

In addition to the words of Jesus about the certainty of his death, the certainty of Judas' betrayal, and the certainty of Peter's denial, we are confronted with the decree of God that these things must take place. Indeed, there are several occasions in the chapter where, breaking through the surface of the text, is the underlying bedrock of Old Testament predictive prophecy.

Jesus is the good shepherd of Zechariah's prophecy sold for thirty pieces of silver. In Zechariah 11 the good shepherd has not only been opposed by worthless shepherds, he has also been despised and rejected by the flock (Zech. 11:7-13).

There is worse to come. The very falling away of the disciples will be in direct fulfilment of the decree of God in Zechariah 13:7. “It is written” that God will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered. We are confronted here not only with the certainty of the crucifixion, but also with the stark reality of its origin. God will strike the shepherd. The one spoken of by God in Zechariah 13:7 as “my shepherd” and “the man who stands next to me.” Why will God do this? How can it be right? Why is it necessary? The only cogent answer is that Jesus the sinless one will become the penalty bearing substitute, and although he is loved as a Son, he will be condemned as a sin-bearer.

Quite simply, the script for the betrayal, arrest, trial, sentencing, flogging, crucifixion and death of Jesus has not been penned by a renegade disciple, an acquiescent Roman governor and sin-hardened high priests, it has been written by the Triune God in the counsels of eternity.

In a chapter full of drama, rich with Old Testament quotations and allusions, and where the note of events unfolding according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God is sounded again and again, we should not miss the reference to the Passover in verse two. The only fitting response now is to cry “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth...Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Rev. 5:9-10, 12), as it will be world without end.

The magnificent idea of grace

Pure gold from Geerhardus Vos:

Only when the believer understands how he has to receive and has received everything from the Mediator and how God in no way whatever deals with him except through Christ, only then does a picture of the glorious work that God wrought through Christ emerge in his consciousness and the magnificent idea of grace begin to dominate and form in his life.

For the Reformed, therefore, the entire ordo salutis, beginning with regeneration as its first stage, is bound to the mystical union with Christ. There is no gift that has not been earned by him. Neither is there a gift that is not bestowed by him and does not elevate God's glory through his bestowal.

Now the basis for this order lies in none other than in the covenant of salvation with Christ. In this covenant those chosen by the Father are given to Christ. In it he became the guarantor so that they would be planted into his body in the thought-world of grace through faith.

As the application of salvation by Christ and by Christ's initiative is a fundamental principle of Reformed theology, this theology has correctly viewed this application as a covenantal requirement which fell to the Mediator and for the fulfilling of which he became the guarantor.

He will shepherd us to glory

The grace of God in Jesus Christ is simply astonishing. Such is his grace that the Father sent the Son to redeem his people. The Son came from the depths of eternity that he might live, die, and rise again to save his people from their sins.

By his Word and Spirit they are drawn to him, believe on and into him, are received by him, will be kept by him, and on the last day will be raised by him to everlasting resurrection life.

These truths are beautifully expressed in Heidelberg Catechism 54:

What do you believe concerning the “holy catholic Church?”

That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends, and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion

How amazing to think that through all the trials of this life, shielded by God's power through faith, the Son of God is shepherding his people to glory. Where would we be if he were not defending and preserving us, watching over and guarding us, and at his Father's right hand continually interceding for us?

This is what the Father sent him to do, this is why he laid down his life, this is the way that he expresses his obedience to his Father's will. He will shepherd us to glory.

Upon this great truth you and I may rest our confidence, for it can never give way, and from this truth we may perpetually draw our comfort, and we will find its strength giving power will never fail.

Even if we may at times find ourselves hanging on by our fingernails, we should remember that "They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved" (WCF 17:I).

Something of the wonder and glory of this was so helpfully put into words by Louis Berkhof:

It is a consoling thought that Christ is praying for us, even when we are negligent in our prayer life; that He is presenting to the Father those spiritual needs which were not present to our minds and which we often neglect to include in our prayers; and that He prays for our protection against the dangers of which we are not even conscious, and against the enemies which threaten us, though we do not notice it. He is praying that our faith may not cease, and that we may come out victoriously in the end.

Perhaps this is a dimension of Christ's priestly work that we think of too little. And yet to know that he loves us so much and cares for us so well is simply beyond comprehension, and words seem so inadequate to express our thankfulness for such a great Saviour.

The Belgic Confession, Article 26, captures something of the wonder of the Christian heart as it contemplates the intercession of Christ:

We believe that we have no access to God except through the one and only Mediator and Intercessor: Jesus Christ the Righteous.

He therefore was made man, uniting together the divine and human natures, so that we human beings might have access to the divine Majesty. Otherwise we would have no access.

But this Mediator, whom the Father has appointed between himself and us, ought not terrify us by his greatness, so that we have to look for another one, according to our fancy. For neither in heaven nor among the creatures on earth is there anyone who loves us more than Jesus Christ does.

When he ascended on high

I'm back...

Praise God for the ascension and heavenly session of Christ!

The Heidelberg Catechism

Lord’s Day 18

46. What do you understand by the words “He ascended into heaven?”

That Christ, in the sight of His disciples, was taken up from the earth into heaven,¹ and continues there in our behalf ² until He shall come again to judge the living and the dead.³

¹ Mt 26:64; Lk 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11; ² Rom 8:34; Eph 4:10; Heb 4:14, 7:23-25, 9:11, 24; ³ Mt 24:30; Acts 1:11, 3:20-21

47. But is not Christ with us even unto the end of the world,¹ as He has promised?

Christ is true man and true God. According to His human nature He is now not on earth,² but according to His Godhead, majesty, grace, and Spirit, He is at no time absent from us.³

¹ Mt 28:20; ² Mt 26:11; Jn 16:28, 17:11; Acts 3:19-21; Heb 8:4; ³ Mt 28:18-20; Jn 14:16-19, 16:13; Eph 4:8; Heb 8:4

48. But are not, in this way, the two natures in Christ separated from one another, if the manhood is not wherever the Godhead is?

Not at all, for since the Godhead is incomprehensible and everywhere present,¹ it must follow that it is indeed beyond the bounds of the manhood which it has assumed, but is yet nonetheless in the same also, and remains personally united to it.²

¹ Jer 23:23-24; Acts 7:48-49; ² Mt 28:6; Jn 1:14, 48, 3:13, 11:15; Col 2:9

49. What benefit do we receive from Christ’s ascension into heaven?

First, that He is our Advocate in the presence of His Father in heaven.¹ Second, that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge, that He as the Head, will also take us, His members, up to Himself.² Third, that He sends us His Spirit as an earnest,³ by whose power we seek those things which are above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God, and not things on the earth.⁴

¹ Rom 8:34; 1 Jn 2:1; ² Jn 14:2, 17:24, 20:17; Eph 2:4-6; ³ Jn 14:16; Acts 2:33; 2 Cor 1:21-22, 5:5; ⁴ Jn 14:3; Col 3:1-4; Heb 9:24

The Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 53. How was Christ exalted in his ascension?

A. Christ was exalted in his ascension, in that having after his resurrection often appeared unto and conversed with his apostles, speaking to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and giving them commission to preach the gospel to all nations, forty days after his resurrection, he, in our nature, and as our head, triumphing over enemies, visibly went up into the highest heavens, there to receive gifts for men, to raise up our affections thither, and to prepare a place for us, where himself is, and shall continue till his second coming at the end of the world.

Q. 54. How is Christ exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God?

A. Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favor with God the Father, with all fullness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth; and doth gather and defend his church, and subdue their enemies; furnisheth his ministers and people with gifts and graces, and maketh intercession for them.

Q. 55. How doth Christ make intercession?

A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.

Q. 56. How is Christ to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world?

A. Christ is to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world, in that he, who was unjustly judged and condemned by wicked men, shall come again at the last day in great power, and in the full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father's, with all his holy angels, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, to judge the world in righteousness.

The Atonement: Theory or Doctrine?

Here is a post from the Against Heresies archives:

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

Death and resurrection in John's Gospel

My friend Nick Batzig has a helpful post on the death and resurrection of Jesus in John 10 & 11. You can read it here

The doctrine of the atonement

I'm delighted to see that George Smeaton's two volumes on the doctrine of atonement are back in print. Many thanks to the Banner of Truth Trust for doing this.

Check out Christ's Doctrine of the Atonement and the Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement

Here are some gems:

Jesus was visited with penal suffering because he appeared before God only in the guise of our accumulated sin; not therefore as a private individual, but as a representative; sinless in himself, but sin covered; loved as a Son, but condemned as a sin-bearer, in virtue of that federal union between him and his people, which lay at the foundation of the whole. Thus God condemned sin in the flesh, and in consequence of this there is no condemnation to us.

Were the atonement not the principal matter of the gospel, and the highest exhibition of the united wisdom, love and faithfulness of God,--in a word, the greatest act of God in the universe,--that terrible anathema on its subverters would seem to us something inexplicable, if not intolerable. But the doom is justified by the nature of Christ's death, and by the great fact of the atonement.

The One and the many

"He stood where no one but Adam ever stood,

acting as one for many;
offering a ransom as one for many (Matt. 20:28);
shedding his blood as one for many (Matt. 26:28)."

George Smeaton
Christ's Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 53

In my opinion every minister of the gospel should read Smeaton's two volumes on the atonement which were first published in the early 1870s and have been republished by the Banner of Truth.

You don't need to get much beyond the first fifty pages of Christ's doctrine of the atonement to realise that the twenty-first century "evangelical" alternatives to penal substitution, and the related reworking of the attributes of God as the lens through which we view the atonement, were well known in the Victorian era, were well weighed by this judicious Scottish theologian, and were well refuted by his able pen.

Beyond the polemic value of the work, which is considerable, lies its worth as a example of the marriage of the best exegetical theology and the warmth of genuine Christian piety.

If you want to get a better grasp of the biblical categories, terminology, and texts about the atonement, and if you want that survey to present the truth about Christ in such a way as to magnify him as the Saviour you need, you can do no better than to pick up and read the volumes of George Smeaton.

The personal presence of the Lord of Glory

More from Meredith Kline on Zechariah 1 (The Rider of the Red Horse):

When the apostle John received his apocalyptic vision on Patmos, the opening revelation confronted him with the figure of the Son of Man in the transfigured brilliance of heaven's glory (Rev. 1:13-16).

Similarly, Zechariah in his opening vision beheld the commanding presence of a man riding a red horse, a man who was the Angel of the Lord, the pre-incarnate revelation of the coming Christ.

That this man and the messianic Angel are in fact one and the same individual is brought out clearly by the pointed identification of the "the Angel of Yahweh" in verse 11 as "the one stationed among the myrtles," the phrase already used twice to describe the man-figure (vv. 8 and 10). Moreover, like this man, the Angel is the one with immediate authority over the other horsemen.

A second angel appears in this and subsequent visions, repeatedly described by Zechariah as "the angel who was talking with me" (1:9,13,14, etc.). Such an interpreting angel was also sent to other recipients of apocalyptic visions (cf., e.g., Dan. 8:16ff.; Rev. 22:8ff.).

But the Angel of the Lord is unique among the angels. He is the Lord of angels. In the course of Zechariah's visions we find the same evidence of this Angel's divine attributes and prerogatives that appears elsewhere in the Scriptures and has led to the general recognition of this figure as a form of theophany; more specifically, as a manifestation of the second person of the Trinity. One such indication of the divine identity of the Angel of Yahweh in the present context is the reference to him in verse 13 as simply "Yahweh".

In this man-Angel the coming Messiah-Lord was revealing at the very outset of these visions his immediate presence with his people. He was there with them in their historical struggle, exercising his sovereign power in their behalf (cf. Isa. 63:9 and 43:2).

That personal presence of the Lord of Glory in the midst of the covenant community on earth was the all-important reality. To make known the meaning of the presence and mission of this messianic Angel is what Zechariah's visions are all about. They are an unveiling of the secret of the covenant, an apocalypse of the mystery of the divine Presence.

The passionate love of the Saviour-Shepherd

Such helpful words from Meredith Kline about Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in Zechariah 1:12 (taken from article on "The Rider of the Red Horse"):

Whether answering or asking the "how long?" of eschatological hope, the messianic Angel could not but have in view those new covenant developments that would be set in motion by his own entrance into history as the Messiah, the son of David.

When he cries "how long?" he is expressing the eagerness of the Son for the arrival of the hour when the Father will send him to earth on his covenanted mission to make an atonement for his people, to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to anoint the eternal temple.

His cry of longing reveals the passionate love of the savior-shepherd for the flock he hastens in spirit to seek and find and bring home.

He goes on to this summary statement:

D. Christ—Judge and Advocate: In the opening night vision of Zechariah the messianic Angel is cast in the dual role of judge of the nations and advocate of the Israel of God.

Remarkably, this portraiture of Christ in his royal-priestly office is found again at each main juncture in the structure of Zechariah: in the central, fourth member (3:1-10) of the seven night visions; in the central hinge section (6:9-15) of the overall diptych form of the book; and in the central unit (11:1-17) of the burdens that comprise the second half of the prophecy.

Most like the first vision is Zechariah 3, where the Angel of the Lord is again present, presiding as judge, yet simultaneously advocating the cause of Joshua the high priest, Satan-accused but chosen of God.

The Christian readily recognizes his savior-shepherd as the subject of this priest-king portrait. Jesus is the Angel of the Lord, now come in the flesh. To him all authority in heaven and earth has been given and in the day of his parousia he will judge all the nations in righteousness.

Until that day he intercedes in the court of heaven for his afflicted flock in the wilderness. His claim before the ancient of days is that the "seventy years" curse of divine wrath has been fully accomplished for his redeemed. That eternal wrath of God against them was compressed into the hours of his once-for-all sufferings on the Cross.

Hence, the accuser of the brethren is rebuked (cf. Zech. 3:2). They overcome him because of the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 12:11). Beyond his passive obedience in his enduring of the "seventy years," our advocate at the right hand of the Father presents in our behalf the claim of his active obedience, the fulfillment of the covenant probation, and that merit imputed to us is the ground of our inheritance of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The advocacy of our ever-living heavenly priest is not in vain. It prevails to bring the longed for response of favor and blessing from the Lord of hosts (cf. Zech. 1:13-17). He is the true Servant of the Lord, able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him (Isa. 53:12; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:28).

Christus Victor and Penal Substitution

The first question of the Heidelberg Catechism views the atoning work of Christ as dealing with the satisfaction made for all our sins (penal substitution) and his redeeming us from all the power of the devil (Christus Victor).

What is your only comfort in life and in death?

That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.

Thus the Catechism holds together what ought never to be separated. Here we have the Godward dimension of the atonement (satisfaction) and the polemic dimension (conquest). The latter, however, is dependent on the former.

When Scripture explicates how Christ conquers the devil, the reality of which is anticipated in the proto-evangelium (Gen. 3:15), it views the power of the devil as the power of deception and accusation. Our legal position before God, in view of Adam's breaking of the covenant of works (Gen. 2:15-17), and our own sins, has rendered us guilty, cursed, and under the sentence of death (Rom. 6:23).

How does Christ redeem us from the power of the devil?

By dying for us (1 Peter 3:18). By taking our curse and punishment (Gal. 3:13). By enduring the wrath of God (Rom. 3:25-26). By taking the full penalty of the law (Gal. 3:10).

The legal accusations of Satan are silenced by the blood of the Lamb that has brought us forgiveness for all our sins (Col. 2:13-15; Eph. 1:7; Rev. 12:10-11; Rom. 8:1, 33-34!).

How has Christ conquered Satan?

By his active and passive obedience, by making atonement and justification. And now without God's law to condemn us, Satan has no power to accuse us (1 Cor. 15:56). What truth then will he seek to overthrow with all his might? The truth that the blood of the Lamb saves, the doctrine of penal substitution.

The Lamb slain saves us. The Lamb slain silences Satan's accusations. It is seeing this connection that will stop the pendulum from swinging from penal substitution to Christus Victor. As Henri Blocher argued, in a much neglected essay, these doctrines are seen in the biblical proportions and glory together. It is really Agnus Victor, not what is commonly understood as Christus Victor, that best explains the conquering of Satan.

The Condemned King: Mark 15 and the doctrine of penal substitution

My article "The Condemned King: Mark 15 and the doctrine of penal substitution" is currently posted at Ref 21 and at The Gospel Coalition site. Here's opening paragraph:

In order to establish the doctrine of penal substitution we are not dependent on a few isolated proof-texts here and there in Scripture. The doctrine is woven indelibly into the very fabric of the account of the crucifixion, with numerous threads drawn from the Old Testament. Rather than instinctively looking to the gospels to provide the facts about the crucifixion, and to the letters to supply the meaning of those facts, we must turn to the Old Testament as the vantage point from which we are to survey the cross. Antecedent Scripture provides us with all the categories we need to understand the cross.

You can read the rest here

Loved as a Son, condemned as a sin-bearer

At the cross we see ourselves at our worst and God at his best.

We are powerless, sinners, ungodly, and God's enemies. God demonstrates his great love toward us by giving his Son, and by the Son assuming responsibility for our sins, and bearing their punishment. If Christ were not God then the cross would not be the demonstration of his love but a great act of compassion by a third party. The reality is that the cross is the self-giving of God; of the Father not sparing his own Son, of the Son giving himself for our sins, laying down his life for his sheep. We measure his love for us not by looking at our present experience, not by looking inwardly, not by looking at our circumstances, but by taking our eyes off of ourselves and gazing upon Christ crucified. As I said, at the cross we see ourselves at our worst and God at his best.

Here are words to meditate upon again and again from George Smeaton (1814-1889):

Jesus was visited with penal suffering because he appeared before God only in the guise of our accumulated sin; not therefore as a private individual, but as a representative; sinless in himself, but sin covered; loved as a Son, but condemned as a sin-bearer, in virtue of that federal union between him and his people, which lay at the foundation of the whole. Thus God condemned sin in the flesh, and in consequence of this there is no condemnation to us.